Slog Comments

 

Comments (22) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Will in Seattle 1
WTF?

In what world?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM · Report this
2
It's like a script straight out of the Wire!
Posted by mitten on March 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM · Report this
3
In a he said/he said case like this, I tend to take the side of whichever guy is hotter. The problem is that Baijot-Clary and Haynes are both eminently fuckable.
Posted by Joe Glibmoron on March 20, 2012 at 4:45 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 4
With or without the leather jacket, @3?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM · Report this
5
And that, ladies and gentleman, is how one justifies anything. Like, say, concentration camps.
Posted by Daily in LA on March 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM · Report this
seatackled 6
It's a rather lengthy post, and O'Neill usually seems like an asshole, but this seems to be taken out of context. If the claim is that the officer would have been justified in shooting the subdued and cuffed suspect in addition to or in place of kicking him in the head, then that is as horrifying as the headline suggests. But from what I can tell from skimming the transcript, O"Neill was saying that during the actual fight, as the cop was in a showdown with three guys calling him the n-word, deadly force would have been justified. I don't know that I agree with that--I forget if the officer identified himself as such--but it's certainly a different circumstance than what is implied.
Posted by seatackled on March 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM · Report this
7
Woah, is it true that as an officer, you are required to be armed within city limits, whether on or off duty? This seems crazy to me, especially because he was at a bar.
Posted by eweb on March 20, 2012 at 5:05 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 8
So "racial overtones" are part of the consideration, here? He seems to contend that being called the n-word helps to justify lethal force.
Posted by Free Lunch on March 20, 2012 at 5:43 PM · Report this
in-frequent 9
What Person who committed a crime wouldn't want to take back that last bit where they were caught committing the crime? Is that the standard for all of is now? Or just police officers?

Also I agree: the headline is misleading/lame. The story is good enought without that exaggeration.
Posted by in-frequent on March 20, 2012 at 6:06 PM · Report this
meanie 10
At what point are social norms so strong that people forget that one of the things we fight police on so often is they are not above the law. The questions that need to be asked during the trial are, what would a average citizen be obliged to do in the same situation. No one would would ever grant pass to some dude at a bar with a CWP who decided to play secret lawman and got goaded into a fight.

This trial, and the defendant totally fail this test.

The kick to the head excuses are just icing on the cake. I am positive that SPD puts as much wild conjecture in about the innocent motivation of suspects while writing police reports.

Why is the guild president allowed to add his anecdata to this conversation in the first place? When I get a traffic ticket next time (much less, beat on someone after a fight) can I ask the mayor to come testify on what a great guy I am otherwise?
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on March 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM · Report this
11
drunk cops with guns in bars and chips on their shoulders all over Seattle. Oy Va Voyli
Posted by soggydan on March 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM · Report this
Eric Arrr 12
Wait, what?

If a Seattle cop wants to knock back a few drinks in Seattle, he has to be armed to do it?
Posted by Eric Arrr on March 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM · Report this
Fnarf 13
Sgt. O'Neill: reasonable, moderate people in Seattle want you gone. Get out of my city, please. Leave the force and go join a commune with Mark Fuhrman in Idaho or something.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on March 20, 2012 at 9:08 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 14

#13

Reasonable Moderate people left the city 3 years ago.

Now its an open air sanitarium for the mentally ill, present company included.

The police have been unjustifiably burdened with doing a job above and beyond because 75 years of ignorant liberal politics have left the inmates in charge of the asylum.

At this point, I would simply build a concrete wall and an elevated highway with no exits over the pit in the hopes that the barbarians can still be contained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMH3yKfj6…

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com on March 20, 2012 at 10:36 PM · Report this
Donolectic 15
@13 - Keep telling yourself that, but it doesn't make your statement true, no matter how many times or different ways you repeat it.
Posted by Donolectic on March 21, 2012 at 4:21 AM · Report this
Donolectic 16
Er, that shouldve been @14.
Posted by Donolectic on March 21, 2012 at 4:22 AM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 17
Wait, O'neill testified that cops are REQUIRED to be armed off duty? Is this perjury...?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/201…

But there are no circumstances where off-duty officers are required to carry a firearm, department spokesman Jeff Kappel said. Officers can carry their firearm at their discretion.


Posted by Joe Szilagyi on March 21, 2012 at 5:31 AM · Report this
18
@17: Joe: Maybe this is worthy of an OPA complaint.
Posted by Phil M http://https://twitter.com/pmocek on March 21, 2012 at 7:05 AM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 19
@18 I would do it, but what's the point? Katheryn Olson's office doesn't actually do anything, per the DOJ report. If I submitted the complaint, the OPA staff, Diaz, and Richie would probably have a good chuckle over lunch.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi on March 21, 2012 at 8:46 AM · Report this
20
I second @7-- can the Stranger fact-check this? SPD officers are actually required to carry guns at all times, on and off duty? Even when they're drinking?

If so-- jesus fucking christ.
Posted by rca on March 21, 2012 at 8:54 AM · Report this
21
Oh, right, thank you @17, I was too upset to read to the end of the thread.

And "discretion"--wouldn't that mean leaving the gun at home when going drinking? I imagine there's some policy about this?
Posted by rca on March 21, 2012 at 8:58 AM · Report this
22
A Seattle cop is a good friend of ours, and he once told me that he chooses to carry his gun because there's always the concern that he'll run into someone he has arrested. This is also why he and his family don't live in Seattle, where he works. But I did not fact-check this "rule" with him. We tend to not talk about work too often.
Posted by mitten on March 21, 2012 at 9:02 AM · Report this

Add a comment