Seattle PD's "Problem Child"

oneeyeross said:

"AGGRESSIVE SOCIOPATHS derive strong, yet nonperverse gratification from harming others. They like to hurt, frighten, tyrannize, bully, and manipulate. They do it for a sense of power and control, and will often only drop subtle hints about what they are up to. They polish their aggressive, domineering manner in such a way to disguise any intimidation others might feel. They seek out positions of power, such as parent, teacher, bureaucrat, supervisor, or police officer. Their style is one of passive aggression as they systematically go about sabotaging the ideas of others to get their ideas in place. In their spare time, they like to hunt or occasionally do sadistic things like find stray dogs and cut them up. They are usually effective at getting their way, and are especially vindictive if resisted or crossed. They don't follow the social norm of reciprocity like others do."

http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/antisocial_sociopath_psychopath.html

I found this to be an interesting statement..."They seek out positions of power, such as...police officer." Not surprising, really. What is troubling is that it takes so long to get rid of one, and only after such great damage to the department and its reputation. Why do the rest of the policemen put up with it? Oh...wait....there's a union. I keep forgetting.

Click to expand...

A union of the type you just described nonetheless. :banghead:

"...We spoke with union President Rich O'Neill earlier this week about the tape and the Department of Justice investigation.

During that interview he said, "It is embarrassing to the city of Seattle. We have to deal with the perception, but we don't have a problem."

http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=116092414&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10212

Deal with the perception! What a knee slapper! The perception is the reality!

Well of course they are more worried about "perception" than the reality. They want to be perceived as superheros.

sudden valley gunner said:

I spent a morning last weekend reading some officer forums. There were good voices in there but a large number of the posts and how they felt about civilians (especially) OCers made me sick.

Click to expand...

Kind of similiar to some of the members here wouldn't you say? The sword cuts both ways.

ie. I spent a morning last weekend reading some OPENCARRY forums. There were good voices in there but a large number of the posts and how they felt about POLICE OFFICERS made me sick.

I,m with you on this one Trigger Dr. I will give any police officer the respect due his uniform untill I find out that he dosen't deserve to wear it.

True, that. There were a few instances in the last month or so where the SPD or other local depts were involved in shooting a suspect, and for the most part we said "thank you" without raising an eyebrow. Those are the majority of the cases. There are, however, a few occasions where we just scratch our heads and say "WTF? over" and over what the officer was thinking...if he was thinking. And then to get caught on camera doing silly stuff over and over again just bets for someone to make remarks.

You'd think the Guild would be chomping at the bit to get rid of a guy like that, so that the rest of them could be left in peace.

Trigger Dr said:

Kind of similiar to some of the members here wouldn't you say? The sword cuts both ways.

ie. I spent a morning last weekend reading some OPENCARRY forums. There were good voices in there but a large number of the posts and how they felt about POLICE OFFICERS made me sick.

Click to expand...

Well one major difference, I am not obligated to LEO's in any way. OC'ers are just common folk engaging in their inalienable rights. One many officers think should be infringed. The facts of the matter is that they are supposed to be obligated to us. But the attitude of "authority" ( they have no authority unless someone is breaking a law), the demanding respect, the cry of how unsupportive people are of them and they are "just doing their job". The continued propaganda how tough their job is (it isn't), how poor they are ( they aren't). And why oh why does the government keep tying our hands. Pardon me, I think, you mean that pesky little thing called the constitution?

The only officers I see that get sick of some of us here on OCDO, is because they don't understand our refusal to go along to get along in their infringement of our rights.

No the sword don't cut both ways, we are not to be treated differently than any other "civilian". And they are hired to do a job that's it. We as civilians are obligated to watch, keep in check, and bitch about the wrong doing of our public employees from the top down or from the bottom up. If you can't handle it don't take the job.

Trigger Dr said:

Kind of similiar to some of the members here wouldn't you say? The sword cuts both ways.

ie. I spent a morning last weekend reading some OPENCARRY forums. There were good voices in there but a large number of the posts and how they felt about POLICE OFFICERS made me sick.

Click to expand...

Well, except for the fact that *some* LEOs in Seattle are *almost* indiscriminately shooting people, bashing heads and hurling racial insults on video.

No OCers have engaged in that sort of behavior. In fact, on any given new day you're more likely to hear about a police officer breaking the law, than someone who OCs or CCWs.

Also, people who open carry 1) do not get paid to uphold the law and 2) have taken no oath to uphold the Constitution and obey & enforce the law.

Huge difference, which makes for a higher standard for LEO behavior.

The sword does cut both ways, but... the sword cuts easier, and deeper the other way imho.

oneeyeross said:

True, that. There were a few instances in the last month or so where the SPD or other local depts were involved in shooting a suspect, and for the most part we said "thank you" without raising an eyebrow. Those are the majority of the cases. There are, however, a few occasions where we just scratch our heads and say "WTF? over" and over what the officer was thinking...if he was thinking. And then to get caught on camera doing silly stuff over and over again just bets for someone to make remarks.

You'd think the Guild would be chomping at the bit to get rid of a guy like that, so that the rest of them could be left in peace.

Click to expand...

You are correct in you observation that the majority of the cases where SPD officers are involved in a shooting we see the incident as warranted. The core issue in this thread is how SPD tends to move their troublesome officers around hoping to keep them in a low visibility mode to avoid bad publicity. It is puzzling how long it takes for the department to get around to dealing with them. In the words of a department spokesperson, speaking to the TV station, "this case is still under investigation". This is months after the incident and as a result, the officer merely goes about demonstrating how he's a bad fit for the job.

Ian Birk and Troy Meade are still employed by SPD and Everett PD respectively. It's been 6 months for Birk's shooting, and well over a year for Meade's. Why so long when public opinion and department image/integrity are on the line?

Again I mention the famous words spoken here on this Forum "Bad Officers don't last long!". Wonder which department the "speaker" was referring to because it sure doesn't seem to happen locally.

Police Departments are starting show a similarity to the Catholic Church. Moving officers to low visibility tasks of posts to keep them from public attention rather than firing them. Just like the Church moved their pedophile priests.

Just My 2 Cents

IMHO it's very important that these things not be rushed. It's critical that all apropriate steps be taken before the officer is either charged with a crime or administratively dismissed from the force (fired). Failure to do so might leave the department in an even more precarious legal position and cost the taxpayers even more money when the dismissed employee sues the city.

Based on the evidence released to the public, I want both of these "officers" in a cell. Unfortunately, the legislature has made that extremely difficult, if not impossible. IIRC the prosecution has to be able to prove "malice aforethought" which is well nigh impossible.

Troy Meade hs beat the rap. I'm waiting out the Ian Burke case. I don't think he'll be quite as lucky.

Bookman said:

IMHO it's very important that these things not be rushed. It's critical that all apropriate steps be taken before the officer is either charged with a crime or administratively dismissed from the force (fired). Failure to do so might leave the department in an even more precarious legal position and cost the taxpayers even more money when the dismissed employee sues the city.

Based on the evidence released to the public, I want both of these "officers" in a cell. Unfortunately, the legislature has made that extremely difficult, if not impossible. IIRC the prosecution has to be able to prove "malice aforethought" which is well nigh impossible.

Troy Meade hs beat the rap. I'm waiting out the Ian Burke case. I don't think he'll be quite as lucky.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with that if "civilians" were given the same consideration. At the same time though a public employee by constitutional and legal restraints have a higher standard than the everyday civilian, sadly the exact opposite is true.

sudden valley gunner said:

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with that if "civilians" were given the same consideration. At the same time though a public employee by constitutional and legal restraints have a higher standard than the everyday civilian, sadly the exact opposite is true.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. In the latest SPD to make the news, where there was a fight in the Ballard bar and the off duty cop was filmed stepping on someones neck, I don't understand the timeline on charges being filed.

There was a fight between 4 people, which wasn't viewed by the uniformed officers that arrived at the scene. 3 of these combatants were immediately handcuffed and prone'd when uniformed officers arrived. The only 1 of the 4 that didn't get this treatment was the one that flashed a badge. The 3 "civilians" were charged fairly quickly with assault, based on someones word. The off duty cop is on video assaulting one of the cuffed people, it takes months to decide whether charges will be filed. Very inconsistent treatment in my opinion. Leaves me with the impression that they are looking for ways to NOT charge the off duty cop, not the other way around.

Guys, let us remember that police officers are civilians. They enforce civil authority and are, under the rules of land warfare, not combatants, ergo "civilian."

oneeyeross said:

Guys, let us remember that police officers are civilians. They enforce civil authority and are, under the rules of land warfare, not combatants, ergo "civilian."

Click to expand...

Yes that is why I put "civilian" in quotation marks. Tho many Cops don't think of themselves as civilian, anything but a civilian law enforcement is unconstitutional.

Here is some good reasons why they should not be militarized or consider themselves anything but civilian.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-17.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

Bookman said:

IMHO it's very important that these things not be rushed.

Click to expand...

Define rushed? Is 6 months rushing? What about a year?

I think most people feel that an investigation into a police officers actions should be just as expedited as a similar investigation into a citizen's actions. All the evidence is there and can be collected in a fairly short period of time. Why then sit on it while the "report" is passed from desk to desk, looking for someone to make a decision?

If police agencies are going to retain any credibility when it comes to investigating their own, then they need to go about it with a little more vigor and make decisions in a more timely manner. You'd think an honest officer would prefer being cleared or canned in a timely manner so he can get on with his life.

In the Everett case it looks like the Department is waiting for the Civil Trial to make the decision for them. All the "evidence" that will be presented at that trial is known to the Chief and his minions. He probably doesn't want to fire Meade and give the attorneys for the family more ammunition for the trial. In the meantime the City will just be adding the officer's salary and benefit costs to the amount the jury is sure to award. I'm guessing it will be in the millions.

You're right, things like this shouldn't be rushed. So far there's been no risk of that.

Bookman said:

IMHO it's very important that these things not be rushed.

Click to expand...

From what I've seen across the country, when a citizen criminally assaults an LEO, that's not even a MINIMAL consideration. On the other hand it's ROUTINE for a cop who criminally assaults a citizen to charge the VICTIM with assault. That happened recently in the case of a group of Hamilton County, Ohio Sheriff's deputies who savagely beat a motorist suffering from diabetic shock.

What these "investigations" do is create an appearance (and often the reality) of impropriety and favoritism. Look how LONG it took for the Chicago PD to fire the morbidly obese coward who tried to kick the barmaid to death, then intimidate the victim and witnesses after the fact. And that's entirely aside from the multitude of OTHER displays of preferential treatment shown him, from allowing him to hide out for days in "rehab" to not handcuffing him when he finally was arrested.

If the police were TRYING to create the impression that they consider themselves a class above the citizen at large, they couldn't do a better job than they're doing now. In places like Chicago, the public has drawn the appropriate conclusions and treat the police accordingly... as a hostile army of occupation. If that's what the police WANT, then they should carry on on the same course, full speed ahead.

Bookman said:

Failure to do so might leave the department in an even more precarious legal position and cost the taxpayers even more money when the dismissed employee sues the city.

Click to expand...

Really?

You mean if the department fires an employee who has a pattern of violent abusive behavior (kicking handcuffed suspects in the head), and treated minorities in a overtly racist manner (i.e. "kick the Mexican piss out of you")...

They can win money if they get fired?

1) Thanks Union, for protecting your own at our expense.
2) This is proof our country is in the toilet.

Dave_pro2a said:

2) This is proof our country is in the toilet.

Click to expand...

Here's a prototype for our new "Capitol Building"

Bookman said:

IMHO it's very important that these things not be rushed. It's critical that all apropriate steps be taken before the officer is either charged with a crime or administratively dismissed from the force (fired). Failure to do so might leave the department in an even more precarious legal position and cost the taxpayers even more money when the dismissed employee sues the city.

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying there, but so long as the employer follows their own internal policies in firing an individual, and does not trip over the implied contract exceptions, covenant of good faith and fair dealing exceptions (aka. "Implied-in-law" Contracts), or statutory exceptions (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or The National Labor Relations Act section about joining a union), they should be able to fire any employee with or without a reason.

EXCEPT that the union contracts and "civil service" rules put in place by the city may tie their hands. If so, the employer is the cause of their own problems in not being able to fire an employee, even with cause. ("Cause" in some cases might be as little as "bringing negative attention to the employer" which was actually in the union contract at the company I worked at for 25 years.)

Thing is, I quite honestly do NOT see an actual desire by the departments to rid themselves of "bad apples" as they are retained LONG after their "Fire By" date...

Tomas said:

Thing is, I quite honestly do NOT see an actual desire by the departments to rid themselves of "bad apples" as they are retained LONG after their "Fire By" date...

Click to expand...

The distasteful truth is that if you visit police oriented discussion forums and newspaper comments sections, you will almost invariably find FAR more animus on the part of LEOs and their supporters for the VICTIMS of police criminality (even of the most blatant and shocking sort) than for the perpetrators. Over and over, I saw not just defenses of Officer Anthony Abbate of the Chicago PD (who savagely beat barmaid Karolyna Obrycka), but outright assertions by his defenders that she DESERVED to be beaten because she "touched" him and because she is an "illegal alien" (ALWAYS without proof).

I'm also one of those who saw the contemptible lie about how "bad cops don't last long". As we all know, there's NO proof of this and several mountains of proof to the contrary, some of which I provided.