• Judge Unexpectedly Rules Seattle Police Department in Full Compliance With DOJ Decree

  • The Horror! The Horror! Washington State Department of Licensing Assisting ICE

  • Seven Cops Fired at Armed Man in City Park After Armed Robbery

  • Gun Rights and Pot Shops Equals Strange Bedfellows

  • Easy License and ID for Illegals in Washington State Means Residents, Other States, Pay the Price

  • Beds for Kids-Seattle Police Officers Care.

  • Charlottesville and Durham and Hate… Against Cops!

    Two recent news stories bring up some observations regarding the public’s view of law enforcement. First, the repulsive white supremacists—Nazis and KKK in Charlottesville, VA. and second, the nearly as repugnant radical, leftist agitators in Durham, N.C., including, the radical leftists Workers World Party, Democratic Socialists of America, and ANTIFA (anti-First Amendment… oh, I mean anti-fascists—yeah, right!).

     

    Much derision has been heaped on the cops’ handling (or not handling) of the riots in Charlottesville, which resulted in the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a mob of despicable white nationalists.

     

    Even some conservative commentators are critical of the cops for not intervening in the violence. People need to remember something: it’s not the cops on the riot lines who decide when to act. Those officers were no doubt fighting with every molecule of their beings to tamp down the instinct to act. Police officers at potentially violent scenes like this, planned controversial events, are most often given orders for conduct and rules of engagement before being deployed. If officers are not acting to stop rioters, it’s because politically-driven superiors have ordered them not to act. I know it happens in Seattle, too—a lot. 

     

    In Durham, the cops also “failed” to act when protesters took it upon themselves to destroy public property and tear down a Confederate monument. Now, I have no love lost for the Confederacy that fought to preserve the vile institution of slavery. Think about it. I’m a libertarian! I believe in the sovereignty of every individual human being. In America, just because some piece of property offends you, you don’t get to destroy it.

     

    For example, in Baltimore, authorities removed Confederate statues, but they are being reinstalled at nearby Civil War battlefields. This form of display is in a much better context, anyway. Rather than being publicly displayed in a town common or in front of a public building, which is an implicit act of honoring something or someone, the statues now serve a legitimate historical purpose: to remind us of what can happen when some Americans ignore the rule of law and a nation splits apart.

     

    The Durham incident is also a reminder, once again, of who comprises the left: While watching the coverage of the radicals toppling the statue, I saw signs reading and heard the crowd chanting, “No cops! No KKK! No fascists USA!”

     

    President Trump has suffered from asserting there were good and bad on both sides. Frankly, I’d like to hear more about what he meant by the “good” on the white nationalist side. But President Trump is infamous for words coming out differently than from what he’d intended. However, that anti-cop sign and chant, and the groups’ commitment to ending America as it exists, verifies the “bad” on each side comment. Equating the KKK and fascists with America’s cops is absurd, but some, even in the mainstream left, tolerate or accept, or, even further, endorse this notion. 

     

    There seems to be a noteworthy difference between right and the left. The left attempts to conflate white nationalists with all Republicans, conservatives, and Trump supporters. The problem is all of these right-wing groups routinely condemn Nazis, the KKK, and other white nationalist groups. To the contrary, the left, including the Democratic Party and a Democratic President, respectively, invited the mother of a robbery suspect who assaulted and then tried to take a police officer’s gun to their national convention and radical minority groups like BLM to our White House.    

     

  • A Lucid Lesson in Law Enforcement for the Left, from Chief Kathleen O’Toole.

    Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole wrote a refreshingly candid email yesterday to the Seattle City Council’s reckless socialist, Kshama Sawant. The missive was in response to Sawant’s demands O’Toole answer questions publicly about the Charleena Lyles shooting (Two white Seattle police officers were forced to shoot Lyles, a pregnant, black woman, after she reportedly attacked them with two butcher knives). 

    Well, Kshama, you asked for it: 

    “I write in short response to your [Sawant] earlier email, which reflects a disappointing level of ignorance of SPD policies and clear disdain for the investigatory process and review that SPD is court-mandated to follow,” O’Toole wrote. “Facts matter and pre-judgment of this incident by any of us would be completely irresponsible.” [emphasis mine] 

    O’Toole, a law enforcement hero of the left (until this email, anyway), delivers to Sawant a blunt and necessary lesson in Police Investigations 101. O’Toole explained, “As we are barely over a week into an investigation that typically takes upwards of 90 days, I see absolutely no benefit to airing those private, difficult, and heartfelt conversations in a public, or worse, political forum.”

    How hard is this to understand? Any critically thinking human being should appreciate that investigations with such significant, potential consequences must be done in a sober and objective manner. Sadly, political ideologues avoid critical thinking. Without amped up raw emotions feeding the far left’s narrative, their foolish assertions dissolve.

    They remind me of people who don’t want to hear the truth. They stick their fingers in their ears and jump up and down, yelling, “Woo, woo, woo!” so they can’t hear it.

    Chief O’Toole finished boldly, “I will not, however, join in any process that threatens to exploit this terrible tragedy for another’s personal or political gain.”

  • Seattle’s Leftist Lunatic Luminaries

    I’m wrong because I think laws should be followed? I’m wrong because I believe cops, local, state, and federal, should assist each other? I’m wrong because I recognize the distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration? How did I end up on the “wrong” side? It seems that my point of view is simple common sense: Follow the law or change it. If you enter someone else’ country without permission, you have broken the law. Adhering to this common sense just makes sense. Just ask all the Americans who’ve been injured or died because of an illegal alien’s criminal actions. What’s an even greater question? How has the left been so successful in folding reality inside out? Why do so many of us let them win?

    The City of Seattle is and has been one of the nation’s best examples of this lunacy. I’ll name two local luminaries of the lunatic left: Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant. If a political issue is ludicrous, absurd, hypocritical, or mind-twistingly silly, they’ll likely be found behind it. Mayor Murray, shrouded in a recent controversy, proudly refuses to cooperate with federal immigration law while insane Counsilwoman Sawant is encouraging leftist radicals to block freeways and airports. Why not? According to this “new normal,” we need only follow laws we agree with, right?

    In an article in, Jacobin Magazine, a socialist publication, Sawant encouraged “non-violent civil disobedience,” disrupting infrastructure by taking over freeways and airports. Okay, let’s say we agree these actions are ostensibly “non-violent.” What if we replace non-violent with depraved indifference? How can you claim a “right” that interferes with another persons true rights? In this case, to go to work, school, home to their families, or get to a hospital ER. Think about the people who call the police or fire departments for criminal, fire, rescue, or medical emergencies? Does she care about the person who’s being robbed, whose house is being burglarized, or who’s having a heart attack? Well, the Washington State Patrol does. It has described her comments as, “irresponsible” and “reckless.” I agree.

    Regarding Murray’s municipal resistance movement, retaining sanctuary city status, the mayor said, “Seattle has always been a welcoming city.” (Not for conservatives, Mr. Mayor). According to His Honor, welcoming people who intentionally entered our country illegally, stepping ahead of all those legal immigrants who are doing it the right way, amounts to some sort of warped, northwest hospitality? Does that mean I’m not a welcoming homeowner because I lock my doors and turn on my house alarm? Do you think Mayor Murray locks his house and car doors or sets his alarms? Oh wait, not only does he do that, but he also has a highly trained police officer, bodyguard to protect him. That seems so—what’s the word—unwelcoming.

    We have gotten to where sitting Seattle politicians are routinely disregarding laws, preventing their cops from enforcing certain laws, or are calling for people to break laws the city administration doesn’t like? Remember, these are the people we elect to make the laws. If politicians don’t like the laws, they are empowered to change them, not free to violate or flaunt them. If local politicians refuse to respect state or national laws, then why should any of us follow any law with which we disagree? Laws are only as effective as the civil society that respects them.

    Is it any wonder that those on the political right and in the middle shake their heads, bewildered at city officials adopting policies intended to violate duly enacted laws? I was a Seattle cop for over two decades. Think there were any laws, policies, or assignments I didn’t like but still had to enforce, adhere to, or complete as ordered? Of course there were. Several years ago, I was assigned to a protection detail for Governor Christine Gregoire. Not only did she and I disagree on nearly everything political, I believed she obtained the office under well-documented, highly dubious circumstances. Yet, I was polite, respectful, shook her hand, and did my duty. I did not “resist.”

    According to the attitude of today’s left, would I be expected to protect a politician with whom I disagree? I shouldn’t enforce laws I don’t agree with? I should—oh, what’s the leftist term—resist leaders they don’t like (Trump) and laws (immigration) they don’t agree with? How many Secret Service agents who protected President Obama agreed with him politically? I’d venture a tiny percentage. Yet, agents did their jobs. They honored their commitment to duty. They got the president safely through eight years in office—as was right and very American.

    On the subject, how many of you think today’s left would support a Secret Service officer who refused to protect Republican President Trump? Why not? They lauded acting Attorney General Sally Yates for countermanding a presidential order–you know, like happens in third-world dictatorships. As for such an insubordinate, if not treasonous, agent, they’d probably put him or her in charge of the DNC. On the other hand, how many of you think today’s left would have condemned me, and called for my firing, if I’d have refused to protect Democrat Governor Gregoire? Yeah, me too.    

  • Seattle’s Bogus Police Consent Decree will Finally Get an Honest Review.

    Leftist news bias–old news, but so true.

    Attorney General Jeff Session recently commented on the eight-year proliferation of federal investigations into local policing. The local news reporter didn’t mention Seattle’s consent decree was controversial, and the DOJ refused to release its methodology. They only reported the flawed DOJ findings.

    Criminal Justice Professor Matthew J. Hickman

    Inexplicably, in 2012, Seattle ignored Seattle U. Professor Hickman’s more comprehensive study, which prompted him, in the Seattle Times, to write, Seattle should, “Call the DOJ’s bluff and demand an apology.” 

    Law enforcement tactics.

    Leftists against law enforcement believe police tactics are wrong just because they don’t like them. Police tactics don’t look good on TV—imagine that!

    Police critics also deems officers “wrong” even if what they did was “right” when they were taught.

    All officers colored with broad liberal brush.

    With their expanding definition, all officers are racist even in incidents when officers violated no policy and broke no laws. In Ferguson, Officer Darren Wilson acted properly, but, the “broad liberal brush” assures Wilson will likely never be a cop again. Where was his Department of Justice? 

    Jeff Sessions replaces anti-cop zealots.

    An Associated Press (AP) article on Foxnews.com reports, Sessions “…has expressed concerns that lengthy investigations of a police department can malign an entire agency.”

    “Public trust?” What a joke!

    The AP reports, “Both the Baltimore Police Department and Mayor Catherine Pugh said a delay would threaten public trust in the process.” What “public?” BLM, supporters, and other cop-haters? The mayor added, “We believe there are reforms needed.” But, whose “reforms?”

    Political whims guide “reforms.”

    The left continues to talk about police “reforms,” but these are not dictated by law enforcement necessity but by political whim—by people who know nothing about good law enforcement. “Reform” often comes in the form of leftist political indoctrination disguised as police training.

    Holder’s DOJ always finds fault with cops—always.

    Former U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy offered this formulation in a Newsmax.com article titled, “Ex-US Prosecutor: Holder Racially Biased Against Police:” “McCarthy cited a string of federal civil-rights investigations into some 20 police departments, including Ferguson, Missouri’s, which he said the Justice Department has approached with a presumption of racial guilt.”

    The left’s double-standard is standard practice.

    Procedures exist to modify consent decrees such as Seattle’s. But, Jonathan Smith, an Obama administration attorney says, “… most judges would not be sympathetic to amend an agreement for purely political reasons…” That is literally incredible when you consider the Obama administration inflicted its consent decrees for “purely political reasons.”

    Simple Logic.

    Jeff Sessions said, “It is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies.”

    Is that so hard to understand?