• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Seattle Police, Garrity Warnings, Investigations, Accountability, Recomendations!

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Good find Bob.

Officers are public employees working for "government" when performing their job they voluntarily surrender some rights. I find it utter rubbish that they can do criminal acts and then not have to testify about it because they may loose their job. Rule of law means we are not ruled by men who decide law it means our politicians and public employees are ruled by law, yet we can see how even the courts and the politicians use "law" to protect themselves over the public whom they supposedly serve. Our constitution federal and state protect our liberty not government employees liberty.

officers are in the unique position of immediately after using their guns of being asked questions by COPS wherein if they don't answer, they can be held liable for violating dept. rules.

anybody else is free to say "i choose to remain silent".

that's why garrity, etc. was invented, because it recognizes that we are in a unique situation that others are NOT placed in

we thus have specific rules.

every time we get in a shooting we will still be asked basic questions we have to answer 'are there any suspects outstanding' and stuff like that to ensure the scene is safe, and VERY general questions, about what happened.

but since we can be administratively compelled to provide statements (nonLEOs don't have this happen) , we need special protections as to how those statements can and can't be used.

nobody BUT a LEO can be compelled to provide a statement about a shooting, so yes.. we need our rights protected.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
I 100% agree no special protection.

garrity is not special protection. it's a recognition that we have SPECIAL duties that nonleo's do NOT have (such as being administratively compelled to provide statements)

a nonleo cannot be administratively compelled to provide a statement

we CAN

thus, there are special rules about how those statements can be used.

it is unfair to call this a special protection, since it doesn't recognize that we have a special DUTY that nonLEO's don't

i can be compelled to provide a statement. you, as a nonLEO cannot

garrity is thus needed to cover how THOSE statements can be used

note also, in my jurisdiction, ALL police shootings automatically get a inquest. that is not true when NONLEO's shoot and kill. they CAN be used, but almost never are.

that's another special BURDEN, not "privilege".
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
When he breaks the law in "serving" the public he has no rights, he surrendered them when deciding to work for the government.;)

NO I don't want to hold them to the same standards, I want to hold them to higher standards that's part of taking the job, if ya can't handle it don't take the job.;)

A private employer has no duty to respect a persons rights and can fire them at will, you are employed by the public and they should demand you comply even if it incriminates you and be able to fire you at will.

Now off duty you decide to go buy a rock and smoke it in your apartment you have all the rights of non self discrimination as everybody else.

We have to remember rights apply to people not government. So I repeat when you sign up to work for the government your rights as a government employee are constitutionally restricted. Yet the truth of the matter is we see the government and statist lovers rationalizing away and providing more protection for government workers especially their standing armies in the form of Law enforcement agencies and we have seen the courts, politicians, gov. employees, I might as well throw in the unions that represent them working as symbiotic parasites to protect each other as they feed off the hosts they were hired or elected to protect.

What if you decided not arrest me on an illegal detention, I go to the public disclosure department and ask for your report and you decided not to file one because you know that either way you commit a crime? You fill the report honestly and it shows you illegally detained me, committed coercion, and broke several other laws, you decide to lie on the report and break several other laws, perjury being one..the case law set out in Brady vs. Marlyand. Should you have the ability to simply refuse to fill out a report, because doing so incriminates you in a crime?

there are many ways our rights are restricted as cops. i agree. but the idea that cops should be COMPELLED to give statements AND those statements can be used against them in court goes against everything our bill of rights and constitution stands for.

we are cops. we still have rights. i respect EVERYBODY's rights, to include cops and noncops

i have interviewed people after a shooting. i couldn't administratively compel a statement, so these are disanalogous.

i;m not exactly sure what your question is vis a vis brady? it's a bit broad, and i am trying not to read into it

for example, any time i use force, i am NOT required to put details of the force usage into my report. because it COULD be incriminatory. i have the right to be vague in the report. if and when the dept. administratively compels a statement about my force, i give it, but that is not ever admissible in a criminal trial.

the issue here is compelling people to give information that could be incriminatory. cops have the same rights as anybody else here.

in a collision,i can demand name, driver's license # etc. i cannot demand the driver tell me what happened. they can simply say "i don't want to give an account under my 5th amendment rights" and i go "groovy, less paperwork. " and i just get the other driver's account adn/or witnesses

working as a cop does not mean i cede my 5th amendment rights. period. full stop. we ARE citizens, btw. just like noncops
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Until the Court rules that they can't anymore. SPD is trying to hide officers actions behind the exceptions to the Public Disclosure Law. I believe this is being challenged.

it's not really SPD. it is the city of seattle and the city attorney, actually.

regardless, this is the same city that tried to circumvent the state law/constitution vis a vis right to carry, so what do you expect?

the people who run seattle govt. are lawless, liberal , statist idiots.

i hope SPD gets continually slapped with lawsuits etc. note that seattle city officials actually want to lobby the legislature to make video'd traffic stops subject to a new legislatively enforced SPECIAL kind of privacy protection

i think that will run afoul of the 1st amendment IF the WA legislature did it, and i dobut they will

regardless, our govt. is supposed to be open and accountable to the public. the city of seattle are liberal scum who violate that concept.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
we need special protections as to how those statements can and can't be used.

nobody BUT a LEO can be compelled to provide a statement about a shooting, so yes.. we need our rights protected.


The SPD agrees. 100%. They really, REALLY need special rights.

After all, they keep shooting innocent people, driving their heads into cement walls, kicking them in the head when they are spread eagle on the ground, et cetera.

Yes, police need special protections.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
The SPD agrees. 100%. They really, REALLY need special rights.

After all, they keep shooting innocent people, driving their heads into cement walls, kicking them in the head when they are spread eagle on the ground, et cetera.

Yes, police need special protections.

SPD's (specifically the city of seattle actually) blatant violation of the spirt and the letter of open records laws is disgusting

as for the other ridiculous rhetoric spare me.

the birk shooting was awful. other than that, i'm not sure what "shooting innocent people" they keep doing you are referring to.

SPD, btw, uses deadly force (and force in general) far less per capita than the national average. granted, they also work in a relatively low crime city
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
there are many ways our rights are restricted as cops. i agree. but the idea that cops should be COMPELLED to give statements AND those statements can be used against them in court goes against everything our bill of rights and constitution stands for.

we are cops. we still have rights. i respect EVERYBODY's rights, to include cops and noncops

i have interviewed people after a shooting. i couldn't administratively compel a statement, so these are disanalogous.

i;m not exactly sure what your question is vis a vis brady? it's a bit broad, and i am trying not to read into it

for example, any time i use force, i am NOT required to put details of the force usage into my report. because it COULD be incriminatory. i have the right to be vague in the report. if and when the dept. administratively compels a statement about my force, i give it, but that is not ever admissible in a criminal trial.

the issue here is compelling people to give information that could be incriminatory. cops have the same rights as anybody else here.

in a collision,i can demand name, driver's license # etc. i cannot demand the driver tell me what happened. they can simply say "i don't want to give an account under my 5th amendment rights" and i go "groovy, less paperwork. " and i just get the other driver's account adn/or witnesses

working as a cop does not mean i cede my 5th amendment rights. period. full stop. we ARE citizens, btw. just like noncops


Yes you are citizens too but you choose to work for the government if you use force against a citizen you better damn well testify about that even if it incriminates you in a crime and could loose your job otherwise you don't deserve to work for the people and should loose your job. Because constitutionally you do cede some of your rights as a public employee acting in your public duties the constitution limits your powers. Notice I separate your private rights from your public service. Because people have rights, government doesn't. But then to argue that government is made of people so they deserve those rights and even "special protections" is just plain contrary to the protections we as citizens are supposed to have against "police" actions of the government.

I recognize that reality isn't what it should be though.And how the courts have watered down citizens protections while increasing "special protections" for government workers.

You know what is funny (not that you have said this) how so many statists and LEO and pro LEO folks like to use that false argument of "if you got nothing to hide" for individuals who want to invoke their rights of 4th and 5th amendments against government intrusion, yet when the citizens demand the same from them they want to try to hide behind protections they don't have. I can go to your human resource department and ask for your e-mails you have no right to stop me, yet without a warrant you can't get mine.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
SPD's (specifically the city of seattle actually) blatant violation of the spirt and the letter of open records laws is disgusting

as for the other ridiculous rhetoric spare me.

the birk shooting was awful. other than that, i'm not sure what "shooting innocent people" they keep doing you are referring to.

SPD, btw, uses deadly force (and force in general) far less per capita than the national average. granted, they also work in a relatively low crime city

Birk shooting wasn't "awful" it was murder. And if the grand juries haven't become the rubber stamp of prosecutors wishes he would have been tried as a murderer.

Why do you have open records? Is it because as a government agency you don't have the same rights as the public? My records aren't open?
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
as for the other ridiculous rhetoric spare me

Yeah, "ridiculous rhetoric."

charris01.jpg


The fine work of an upstanding officer: King County Sheriff's Deputy Matthew Paul.

BTW the person in that picture is an innocent man. "Ridiculous rhetoric."
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
I will disagree, why should a public employee who breaks the law have to say testify? The 5th amendment applies to all citizens does it not?

I am not defending illegal acts just the right to not self incriminate.

It seams you want to hold them to the same standards as everyone else but deny them the same rights.

The actions of public employees should be public record. As such, imo, a public employee should have to give a truthful account of their actions while on the clock. Not doing so (again, my opinion) is falsifying public records. This is simply a part of being a public servant much like how there are certain rights that are restricted for those of us that are in the military.

Those of us that are in positions of power/public service SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the general population. To not do so and to make it easier for those of power to hide their actions simply breeds corruption/abuse of power.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
The actions of public employees should be public record. As such, imo, a public employee should have to give a truthful account of their actions while on the clock. Not doing so (again, my opinion) is falsifying public records. This is simply a part of being a public servant much like how there are certain rights that are restricted for those of us that are in the military.

Those of us that are in positions of power/public service SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the general population. To not do so and to make it easier for those of power to hide their actions simply breeds corruption/abuse of power.

Agreed.

If you take an oath to both OBEY and ENFORCE the law, then yes -- you should be compelled to truthful statements after you are involved in something potentially illegal (like a shooting), if it happened while on duty.

If that scares you, then don't take the oath.

Seems easy to understand imho.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Is it because as a government agency you don't have the same POWERS as the public?

Our state constitution....

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

So I would argue just like their reports and files have no 4th amendment right, they in acting as government employees have no 5th amendment right if it comes to a conflict of "powers", the civilians right as a private citizen against crimes from government trumps the governments not wanting to incriminate itself, and like it or not a cop in acting as the force of government surrenders those rights when he commits crimes against those he serves and he surrenders rights when he chooses to work for government.

I feel government employees have no right to unionize, or dictate to their masters who can or can't do their job, a "public" job.

The actions of public employees should be public record. As such, imo, a public employee should have to give a truthful account of their actions while on the clock. Not doing so (again, my opinion) is falsifying public records. This is simply a part of being a public servant much like how there are certain rights that are restricted for those of us that are in the military.

Those of us that are in positions of power/public service SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the general population. To not do so and to make it easier for those of power to hide their actions simply breeds corruption/abuse of power.

Well put.
 
Last edited:

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
The actions of public employees should be public record. As such, imo, a public employee should have to give a truthful account of their actions while on the clock. Not doing so (again, my opinion) is falsifying public records. This is simply a part of being a public servant much like how there are certain rights that are restricted for those of us that are in the military.

Those of us that are in positions of power/public service SHOULD be held to a higher standard than the general population. To not do so and to make it easier for those of power to hide their actions simply breeds corruption/abuse of power.

I agree. The reasonable alternative to an honest accounting on the public record should be forfeiture of the public job and assumption of the full rights of an accused citizen.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
I agree. The reasonable alternative to an honest accounting on the public record should be forfeiture of the public job and assumption of the full rights of an accused citizen.

Capital idea Jim. (no sarcasm intended)
 

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
All my contact with the public is recorded, I cannot delete or alter it, audio and video. It's dept. policy.

Your Dept. should be commended for this policy. I my area Detroit/Metro there have been instances of entire fleets of PD vehicles, building cameras being intentionally "disabled" via non use/disabled. When I asked one of my elected officials to inquire they relayed they were told "the majority of the time we don't want the video". Until we have safeguards in place this nonsense will go on; as some in LEO leadership have deemed themselves royalty in my honest opinion. Here's one glaring example of it: that is way too close to my home. He/they were allowed to operate for years without being held accountable - in part due to the "blue wall of silence".
http://www.freep.com/article/201109...-6-others-charged-Romulus-cop-corruption-case

SNIP: A former Romulus police chief, his wife and five police officers were charged Tuesday as part of a three-year State Police investigation that prosecutors said unveiled corruption, including the misuse of drug forfeiture funds and obstruction of justice.

St. Andre and the officers solicited prostitutes, embezzled drug forfeiture money and made false police reports.

The officers are accused of spending $40,000 in forfeiture funds in one year on marijuana, prostitutes and alcohol, Worthy said, adding that St. Andre directly supervised Balzer, Landry, Hopkins, Channells and Droege and had knowledge of their alleged criminal activities.
 
Last edited:
Top