Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Yes, the Seattle Times link from earlier this afternoon says that the guy appeared to spit at the cop. What's your point? SPD is suspending the cop because he allowed himself to be baited into what he did, so if you're trying to say that the guy asked for it, SPD doesn't agree with you.
The cops on the side lack of reaction seems to suggest this is some sort of police training move, not an irate out of nowhere assault as some are claiming. The accoster could have been coming at the officer with a knife or shiv...very common these days in Seattle, hence the officer used the least and appropriate amount of force.
Once again, Phil M attempts an argument that only works if nobody knows how to use a search engine.
Once again, Phil M attempts a line of argument that only works if nobody knows how to use a search engine:
http://www.seattle.gov/police/jobs/benef…
Hey Phil, where's the actual data that backs up your claim that most SPD officers earn more than $100K a year?
We'll wait here while you chase down one unsubstantiated Occupy press release after another trying to find the source for that confident statement of yours.
As they should be.
If you turn the volume up, it becomes clear that the kid is not spitting, but answering the "I don't give a fuck!" with a "Fuck you!"
Just for the record.
Police officers should have access to more resources for dealing with unruly crowds and confrontational citizens. They should be trained on how to prevent incidents from escalating into physical altercations.
I see a man who was either spit on or insulted who then lost his temper. I see a man who will now be paraded around the city as an example of bad policing while the people really responsible for this level of aggressiveness between the police and the citizens of Seattle pretend they've done nothing wrong.
I wish he wouldn't have lost his temper, but I certainly understand why he did, spit or no. I wish he were given more options than the few he felt he had. I also wish the kid in the video felt like he could question authority in more productive ways than spitting or saying fuck you to a man who was probably trying to do his job the best he could.
But instead we'll try a veteran cop of 19 years as if he alone is responsible for poor training, poor staffing, poor public education, poor role-modeling, and generally poor accountability in the place where the police department fails the most: its leadership.
And don't forget for a second that the first cop publicly punished for finding himself over his head in a situation he wasn't equipped to handle will not be white.
Thanks for the bike lanes, McGinn.
So, I want to get this straight. If citizen spits on a cop, the cop gets to punch him. What if a cop punches a citizen? Should they be able to kick them in the balls? Well, anyway, they won't, because it would be a felony assault of a police officer.
Come on, cops attacking people to masturbate their egos is massively cowardly because the police are protected by special rules against assault, and they carry guns, and as here have a group with guns. This is just thug behavior.
People who support beat downs for spitting are supporting thuggery and don't believe in law or order.
If they had a reason to arrest the guy at the beginning, they would have done it. Pretty clear here who is provoking who.
I'm more angry at all of this cop's fellow policemen, who didn't step into that situation when it was clear he wasn't in a position to interact with this guy without yelling back at him. But, of course, I don't know what was going on at that scene at all...just a bunch of cops, and a bunch of yelling.
Sounds like, despite nearly 20 years on the force, he's really not a very good LEO...
@18 Perhaps a bit dated, but still relevant. We can search too.
"Spitting on someone is considered an assault. It is perfectly reasonable for a cop to beat someone up who assaults him/her."
No it is not.
The cop should arrest the person.
Once the cop starts screaming or punching/kicking then the cop has lost control of the situation.
Yes, police do get paid overtime when they work overtime.
Now go find me some actual data supporting Phil's claim that most SPD officers make more than $100k a year, or wake up to the fact that for people like Phil M, the kind of truth supported by evidence can be discarded in favor of the kind of truth derived from one's preexisting political beliefs.
The cop should arrest the person.
Presumably this should be accomplished using that Spell of Arresting they learn at Police Wizard School, instead of any physical means, right?
"Presumably this should be accomplished using that Spell of Arresting they learn at Police Wizard School, instead of any physical means, right?"
Do you need someone to explain the difference between arresting someone and punching someone?
Really, do you need that difference explained to you?
Oh, yes, this will be fun.
Let's pretend I do need that difference explained.
Could you tell me why physical force is justified when making an arrest, but not otherwise?
Could you tell me which kinds of force are justified in making an arrest, and what criteria we should use to identify them?
Can you tell me whether or not the man who was punched was also arrested?
Yes, some SPD employees make more than $100k.
Now go find data backing up Phil M's assertion that most Seattle cops make more than $100k a year, or admit you and he are rejecting fact in favor of ideology.
"Let's pretend I do need that difference explained."
At this point I don't think there is a need to "pretend".
You seriously do not know the difference between punching someone and arresting someone.
"Could you tell me why physical force is justified when making an arrest, but not otherwise?"
I could but that wasn't the point.
The point was that someone spitting on a cop justifies arresting.
Spitting on a cop does not justify punching.
You are not able to distinguish between "arrest" and "punch".
Maybe you should go spend some quality time with a dictionary before you try to include yourself in adult conversations.
Oh darn, I was hoping I'd get an answer to those questions.
They're kind of hard questions, and they tend to reveal an awful lot about your personal politics when they're answered.
I guess you don't want to show your cards; we get a lot of that around here.
Here's mine: I do think that cop ought to be fired, but I do not believe All Cops Are Bastards, and I think society would be much worse off without a formal police system, let alone without any policing at all.
"Oh darn, I was hoping I'd get an answer to those questions."
I kind of doubt that.
As I've stated before, rhetorical questions tend to indicate a lack of research.
"Here's mine: I do think that cop ought to be fired, but I do not believe All Cops Are Bastards, and I think society would be much worse off without a formal police system, let alone without any policing at all."
Yeah.
Nice jump from one-bad-cop all the way to I-don't-think-all-cops-are-bad.
And you did it in one jump.
Without any intermediary steps.
The point is that spitting on a cop does not justify punching.
Spitting on a cop justifies arresting.
But you cannot understand that so you jump to I-don't-think-all-cops-are-bad.
Again, maybe you should go spend some quality time with a dictionary before you try to include yourself in adult conversations.
No worries, I get it. You'd rather play that pathetic argumentum-ad-dictionary game than reveal anything about your own underlying beliefs.
It's the internet, we're used to that sort of thing. Particularly here in a forum where we've got a number of participants who are politically committed to delegitimizing The Cops*, and a few who are not above attempting to do so while carefully avoiding any admission of their underlying ideological motivation.
—
* and policing generally, as a necessary first step in the delegitimization of The State.
The crowd of non-cops can't intervene, who know what the belligerent, armed cop with all his gang around would do.
The cops could intervene, but they seem to not want to call into question the authority of Officer Screamsatpeople by trying to talk him down in front of the crowd. They've got their sense of control from intimidation rather than moral authority.
Which is a great failure of policing today, not just in Seattle but all around the country. Officers ride around in cars instead of walking. They commute in from the 'burbs rather than being part of the community. They get trained to control situations by escalating them to the point they can deploy their many weapons. It's not good for democracy.
I'm sorry the Bill of Rights doesn't work the way you think it does.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008…
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/sd-supreme-co…
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf…
The SPD is almost always hiring. Step up and earn your $100k. If you're as savvy on right versus wrong as you present, I, as a taxpayer, would be happy to pay you a living wage and to compensate you fairly for your overtime.
My discussions with Phil M lead me to think that he believes the existence of any police force at all is Wrong. I have not seen a single sentence from him to suggest that he believes policing is a legitimate component of any Good society.
I appreciate the snark you're dealing out there, but Phil isn't avoiding serving on the force because he's afraid or incapable; he's got bigger fish to fry.
"You'd rather play that pathetic argumentum-ad-dictionary game than reveal anything about your own underlying beliefs."
We are not dating.
We you confused about our dating situation as well as "arrest" and "punch"?
"Particularly here in a forum where we've got a number of participants who are politically committed to delegitimizing The Cops*, and a few who are not above attempting to do so while carefully avoiding any admission of their underlying ideological motivation."
And, as with your confusion over the fact that we are not dating, I think that the majority of the background for that statement happened solely in your head.
The original point is that spitting on a cop does not justify punching.
Spitting on a cop justifies arresting.
Since you cannot win on that, you are posting your internal monologues and demanding that others defend them.
No.
And you and I are not dating.
You could clear it up with a simple yes or no:
Do you believe that a police force can be a legitimate component of the sort of society you'd prefer to live in?
I get it that you want to focus only on delegitimizing The Cops, and very much not on why you're interested in doing so, but it's sort of too late.
You started dating me when you offered to explain the difference between a punch and an arrest.
"You started dating me when you offered to explain the difference between a punch and an arrest."
o.O
What was that I had posted?
Since you cannot win on that, you are posting your internal monologues and demanding that others defend them.
Seems that that is not limited to your confusion regarding "punch" and "arrest".
You are delusional.
You and I are not dating.
You are simply delusional.
What you posted, dearest, was a talking point from the Unofficial Guide To Deligitimizing The Cops. You suggested that The Cops should "just" arrest a man, rather than using force.
But of course an arrest is always an application of force, actual or implied. When you try to separate the two, and say that the police should "just" arrest this or that person, you are pretending that arrests are things that can magically happen without the use or threat of force.
Those who seek to delegitimize The Cops know this, of course; they hope that if we accept that Bad (i.e. physical or violent) arrests are wrong, then we will eventually come to the inescapable conclusion that all arrests are Bad, and thus that the police are illegitimate (and by extension the State, in Max Weber's formulation, is also illegitimate).
I've shown you my cards; I think the cop should be fired. But you're being remarkably coy over there in your corner, lover.
"What you posted, dearest, was a talking point from the Unofficial Guide To Deligitimizing The Cops."
What I posted was:
The point was that someone spitting on a cop justifies arresting.
Spitting on a cop does not justify punching.
Now you can claim that those sentiments are shared by whomever you want to.
I don't care.
Since you cannot win on there being a difference between "arrest" and "punch", you are posting your internal monologues and demanding that others defend them.
"You started dating me when you offered to explain the difference between a punch and an arrest."
You're delusional.
And you don't know the difference between "arrest" and "punch".
And now you're claiming something about an unofficial "guide".
You are delusional.
You are simply delusional.
"But you're being remarkably coy over there in your corner, lover."
You are delusional.
@gray panthor -- Ian Birk will never be a cop again. He was not "allowed to resign." He was found to be without cause in shooting John Williams. His career in law enforcement is over. Rightfully so, in almost everyone's opinion.
As to your OPA case and retaliation: if you're telling the whole truth, you should have no trouble at all hiring a lawyer to stop the harassment. I think James Egan would work for you for free.
This advice in no way means I believe your story for one New York Minute.
Ah, memories.
Happy now?
Just throwing that in there.
Both types of civil servants have the capability and extra trust to use a variety of non-lethal and lethal means to perform their jobs.
Punching as the first physical contact in the attempt to arrest a suspect of a crime is generally not in the training program nor in anyone's idea of how police work.
Police have the authority to use the special holds and methods taught in the training program to neutralize the suspects ability to fight back and stay restrained. Punching doesn't accomplish either of those goals, certainly not as effectively as a tackle, an arm bar, or simply a shit ton of cops surrounding the suspect.
But this cop didn't try to arrest anyone as a matter of enforcing the law against assault or protecting his person. No, he hauled off and retaliated and used his extra authority to wield force as a shield and abused his authority, and that is why he was rightfully relieved of duty.
The Indiana case is different for a bunch of reasons, including, first, because it is based on an interpretation of the Indiana State Constitution not the Federal Constitution, and two, because it is a very different fact set. If you had read it and/or understood it you would have seen that the Indiana Constitution's analogous constitutional provision, as interpreted by their State Court of Appeals, in fact also protects the kind of speech and situation at issue in the South Dakota case.
Enjoyed reading the cases though, even though they suggest the opposite of the argument you were making.
I suppose we will eventually get to a level of fascism here were our judges interpret Constitutions as only giving rights to special people and not the rest of us.
But we aren't there yet.
We both know there are plenty of ways to challenge an argument of protected speech in this particular case.
I could argue, for instance, that not only did the young man's words "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" but they in fact did incite an immediate breach of the peace.
At least concede your First Amendment argument isn't bullet-proof so I can enjoy the rest of the sunshine without researching case law.
I got your data right here:
http://lbloom.net/xsea09.html
That's 2009 data. You can be sure they make even more three years later.
So, yes, dude, many Seattle cops do clear $100k/year by a healthy margin.
C Powell, hired in 4/5/93, earned $113,416.26 base pay and $17,917.54 overtime for FY09. At the time, he was a 16 year veteran.
Median income for King County in FY09 was $65,877. Add a healthy 20% longevity bonus, and the median stretches to $79,052.40.
Powell's income at the time was just about 140% of median income, putting him in the second quarter of earners in King County, assuming a standard div (a poor assumption when it comes to salary).
Do these totals include medical, L&I, pension contributions, and etc? I don't know.
But tell me again why this matters? Are we paying officers too much or too little? Would professionalism go up if we gave them raises? Should he magically have the proper tools, training, and support to do his job because he earns more than the median income?
More importantly, how does Ofc. Powell's income compare with similar cities in similar markets?