Seattle Police Officer Resigns Rather Than Face Firing Over Romantic Texts


@1 he violated policy by asking her out. When asked about it he lied under oath. He also violated policy by not activating his in-car video for the original call.
Then, after being caught lying, he fails to show up for his discipline hearing and retires - thus preserving his pension.

Yes, but it nominally upholds the illusion that SPD is going after "bad apples" - while letting the truly violent, racist ones off the hook. Because lying about sending a "will you go out with me?" text is SOOOO much worse than beating the Mexican Piss out of innocent citizens.
maybe a warning would have been sufficient?
Why couldn't the poor, honest policeman who puts his life on the line every day for ungrateful citizens have remembered to threaten to kick the ethnic piss out of her and gotten a talking to instead?
Sorry excuse for a corrupt cop.
Thank you accountability activist Michael O'Dell and Ansel for bringing this situation to public light. I agree with @1 that this is nothing compared to letting all the truly violent, racist cops that are let off the hook. It's also a far cry King County Sheriff John Urquhart's decision to let Officer Christopher John Harris while away his days on the force for years after slamming an innocent bystander into a wall in Belltown, causing catastrophic brain injury that lead to the victim's death six years later. If ever there were a case for disciplinary action leading to termination, that would be it. Allowing monsters to remain on the force makes a mockery of Urquhart's responsibility to protect and serve the public.
The problem with prosecuting the real SPD criminals is that state law protects them by requiring proof that they had the actual INTENTION to beat/shoot/kill their victims. The state law needs to be changed.
@7 it's not Officer Christopher Harris, Harris is the one who died. Matt Paul is the deputy who shoved him into the wall. And Sheriff Urquhart became Sheriff in 2012, well after that event occurred in 2009. He has made no decision "letting" Paul remain on the force. You can't retroactively go back and punish someone for something they did when a past administration refused to take action. It's called due process.

Dan Satterberg could still make a charging decision, however...remains to be seen if that will ever happen.
So the police brass & union are okay with this officer losing his job for asking someone out while on the job and lying about it, but not okay with officers getting fired for beating, shooting, killing unarmed citizens then lie and fabricate evidence?

What is wrong with this picture?
@10: The police union and brass are probably ok with an embarrassment to the force resigning.

Why and how could they block his chosen path of resignation?
yeah, this does not win points with me. it's not a very clear case of a violation of public trust (or even lying based on the excepts above), and the cases we are mad about don't get action. this makes those seeking reform look bad, and i don't like that one bit. and if it's "throwing us a bone" then it's the least free-of-meat bone they could have thrown.
that other case was a clear case of a violation of public trust:…
I had to sue Seattle Police Department in order to persuade them to hand over squad cars' location data. This information is public record. Soon, anyone will be able to sift through those GPS track logs and find cars of on-duty peace officers that are regularly parked under bridges for hours on end.

SPD management could audit these records themselves and find indication of staff like Mark Henry sleeping on the job. Apparently, they are not interested in identifying such waste of public resources.
I wonder if anything will be done about the fact that Officer Walt Hayden, the SPOG representative in this case, was clearly biased against the complainant. When you come right out and say, "I’m assuming that’s why she filed this complaint, because she’s vindictive," you are clearly making an effort to impede this type of investigation.

Also, what kind of shitbag says "from what I know, [she was] fired from there for being dishonest" and then immediately follows that up with, "whether that’s true or not, I don’t know." If you don't know, why the fuck are you bringing it up, and prefacing it with "from what I know"? Asshole.

SPOG should be held accountable for this kind of bullshit cover for cop misconduct. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no consequence to them lying their asses off to protect a cop at all costs.
SPOG: Undermining respect for the police at every opportunity.