Cops
Sep 19, 2023 at 9:00 am
As Long as This Union Has a Say in Accountability, Bad Cops Won’t See Consequences
Politically speaking, Seattle Police Officers Guild Mike Solan is wiping the floor with Mayor Bruce Harrell. As long as his union has a say, bad cops won't get fired.
SCREENSHOT TAKEN BY CHAVI HOHM
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.
More In Cops
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
we support unions but not when they protect workers from getting fired for laughing also we oppose punishment of any kind for breaking laws but people should be fired for violating the unwritten rule of not laughing at certain times deemed inappropriate by us
Until there are consequences, they'll just keep doing it again.
The police union will always have some level of involvement in investigations since Weingarten rights apply to public employees in this state. You can't only be pro-union when it's convenient.
7: Thanks for bringing that up; as much as some would love to strip union representation from police officers, I think if such an effort picked up any steam, other public employee unions could become a target. Think how much some on the right would love to get rid of teacher unions, for example.
@1 oh boohoohoo. Cry all you want because somebody was critical of a widdle police officer.
If it's too traumatic to get criticized for being a sociopath then one shouldn't be a sociopath, huh? And if some sociopath is a cop, people in the cop's community aren't going to like it and think he shouldn't be a cop. Time to put on your adult pants and deal with it.
recognizing one's projections
is the First Step to good
brain Health.
well done.
On one side of the coin, you have a dept of people who, for the most part likely tolerate their existence by minimizing the humanity of others, it's a theme IMO because many wouldn't survive the job in the first place. they hire and seek out people like this. I could never fathom working that job, not for any amount of money. They pick chodes like this for a reason, because its cheaper to pay the settlement than any amount of necessary training and vetting. its cheaper because of the lack of accountability, because of the way police unions are not held accountable. On the other side, you have a person who just committed vehicular homicide and not only will likely get away with it, but also has had other heinous actions excused internally. When you place someone in custody, you are responsible for their wellbeing. In what other case can someone take custody of someone and not be held liable, generally ever. this is a huge double standard. in what other situations of employment could I commit these actions upon others, and likely not be held accountable, continue to keep my job or transfer to another dept where they will accept my record. law enforcement historically picks and chooses their standards internally, with little control from the public whom they work for.
As for this most recent occurance of negligence, when we as the public have basically no control over removing someone from a position of power whom is inadequate for the job, this is a flawed system. it's inexcusable. it is failed. it's why i will never trust a police officer. When i called the police on my parrents for a domestic violence dispute at the ripe age of 8 years old and they showed up two hours later and told me that it was a crime to call the police if it was not an emergency, to nowadays, helping split up a domestic dispute on LQA while an officer stood by eating a burger from dicks. the dehumanization of the public by these people may be a shitty coping mechanism, but it's completely unacceptable. To excuse these actions is akin to excusing a guy for raping someone because they were drunk. And historically when nothing has been done internally or externally for decades, I don't really blame those of marginalized communities to be pretty upset, let alone anyone else who wants to join in. Many in law enforcement are not helping solve the problem, they are doing a seldom great job of dealing with the problem much after the fact it happened, which is a much greater set of issues to be addressed.
Whether it be defund and make alternative safety net systems, or appropriate funding elsewhere to create these alternative systems, we will not see success from a lack of accountability. and that's what we have been shown, for decades. a huge lack of accountability.
Raindrop, you are a stain of a human
SPOG has been a cancer for decades (I lost count how many unhinged opinion pieces The Guardian ran the past few decades). And though I support unions through and through, the rank and file own the responsibility to elect leadership that can and will engage with the people of the city in a productive and professional manner.
As for how to fundamentally transform SPD, start a program to train young Seattle residents to enter the force - and then incentivize the hiring of officers from within city limits (something that would be legally defensible). I would also recommend an incentive program to subsidize housing to keep officers linked to the community they grew up in - that too would help with the us vs them attitude too prevalent in today’s relationship between SPD and the residents of the city.
We can’t transform SPD overnight but we can start the work sooner than later (without taking the path of abolition).
Best article in TS on policing in Seattle in ten years.
There are three technical (as opposed to psychological) issues that work together to undermine efforts to hold police accountable in this country. One is the issue addressed by Ms. Nerbovig - the inexplicably broad power given to police unions. Two is the qualified immunity doctrine. And three is an issue I rarely see addressed - the failure of the criminal defense bar to hold police accountable.
The "criminal" justice system in this country relies on the defense side of the equation to hold police to account. However:
1. Nationwide, the public defense system is and has forever been massively underfunded.
2. The number of wealthy criminal defendants charged with street level crimes is nowhere near a number that would give cops pause about whether they might have to answer for their actions in court.
3. Rich or poor defendant, the number of cases that go to trial is nowhere near a number that would give cops pause about whether they might have to answer for their actions in court.
4. Even were the public defense system adequately funded, and even were wealthy defendants numerous enough and their attorneys and investigators skilled enough to frequently take cases to trial, those attorneys and investigators, not to mention judges and juries, are overwhelmingly white. 5.5% of judges in the U.S. are African American. 5% of attorneys in the U.S. are African American. There are no reliable numbers available for criminal defense investigators, but that number is certainly vanishingly small. Many (many) criminal defense investigator are, yup, former cops. 3.9% of juries in the U.S. are African American. The bias inherent in such a state of affairs would have to be addressed before there could be any meaningful police accountability.
The SPD thug culture might change significantly if cops were required to reside in the city rather than in the boonies of MAGAville. But to make that work the City would have to actually do something substantively effective about housing affordability, so we're back where we started. And Harrell? Harrell's a placeholder with a paycheck attached. And the Council is a bunch of squawking mynahbirds. This is one bad soap opera.
I'm much more concerned about the cop who (if I understand correctly) was driving at a high speed with no lights/siren than I am about some cop who made an inappropriate comment. His comment is, to my ears, a cynical, but ultimately accurate description of how claims are handled.
rockyboy dear, that's not possible. I'm pretty sure this was the result of a lawsuit in the early 70's that found residency requirements unconstitutional
"CW 41.12.075
Residency as condition of employment—Discrimination because of lack of residency—Prohibited.
"No city, town, or municipality shall require any person applying for or holding an office, place, position, or employment under the provisions of this chapter or under any local charter or other regulations described in RCW 41.12.010 to reside within the limits of such municipal corporation as a condition of employment or to discriminate in any manner against any such person because of his or her residence outside of the limits of such city, town, or municipality."
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=41.12.075
absolute Power
corrupts Ab-
soLutely
why would a
Uniform make
any Difference?
When this happens in red states, outside public opinion holds “they’re a bunch of rednecks with redneck cops” and local film production lose investors, corporate relocations are instead reconsidered, conventions planned for Atlanta/Nashville/Houston are moved elsewhere, etc., and boycotts do get traction. For Seattle the national opinion is “they’re progressives with redneck cops. Weird but nobody can do anything about it.” Almost every Southerner has had a moment when they truly felt ashamed to be a Southerner, and couldn’t rationalize it away or hide behind that ancient chip on their shoulder. Now that Seattle has shown its ass to the entire world, and especially to the Indian subcontinent, do you really want to keep compartmentalizing?