• 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?

  • Seattle’s Anti-Second Amendment City Government: Once again, the ends justify the means and Seattle’s commitment to government transparency is a joke.

    Yet another example of the left’s lack of government transparency and ends-justify-the-means tactics has oozed out of the liberal cauldron of the farcical but hazardous to liberty Seattle city government. An article, “Seattle Gun Tax Fails to Generate Projected Revenue, Succeeds in Burdening Rights,” (NRA-ILA, March 24, 2017), published by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action provides further evidence that, in 2015, Seattle city government proposed a targeted tax on Seattle’s few remaining gun dealerships. Proposed as a so-called “sin tax” because, as Councilman Tim Burgess put it, “It’s time for the gun industry to help defray” the costs of criminal gun violence. What it was, was a poorly veiled attempt to eradicate gun shops in Seattle.

    At least, if the council members admitted that eliminating gun shops within the city limits was their objective, one could respect the political honesty. However, honesty and the left rarely mix. 

    In 2016, I wrote a blog about Seattle gun shop owner Sergey Solyanik. He implored Seattle’s city council members not to enact a tax that would ruin his livelihood and possibly cause him to move his business out of the city (he did relocate from the city). He said, “the data that has been submitted by the proponents [of the tax] is completely fake.”

    The Council didn’t care. After all, Solyanik doesn’t think like they do. That doesn’t make him a political opponent; it doesn’t even make him wrong. It makes him evil. So, he should suffer. The Seattle City Council which voted unanimously for the tax had an end to achieve and this illegal tax was their means.

    Poor Mr. Solyanik was in their way—and, he dared to assert his rights. So, it was necessary that he be crushed under the Council’s jackboots—or Birkenstocks. I mean, why not? Even if the courts eventually declare the tax illegal, which, if you read the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, Washington State Constitution’s Article I § 24, and the state’s preemption statutes, they must, the Council will have achieved its goal: No gun shops in Seattle (I’ll say it again: drug dealers, addicts, and gangsters get more respect in Seattle than law-abiding gun owners and gun dealers do).

    In promoting this anti-gun tax, City Councilman Tim Burgess endorsed ludicrous revenue projections of between $300,000 and $500,000 per year [i.e. “fake data”], which would go to “anti-gun” research at Harborview Medical Center.

    Now, let’s peek at the City’s alleged commitment to government transparency: The City refuses to release the total tax collected. Despite record national and state gun sales, “Burgess confessed, ‘tax payments received by the City were less than $200,000.” Seattle won’t disclose the amount, citing a nonsensical notion of protecting taxpayer confidentiality. By releasing the total amount of tax collected? They must believe Seattleites are stupid. More likely, Seattle’s lefty liberal population doesn’t care when the City Council abridges other people’s rights, provided the government does not violate “their” rights. So, why should the Council worry about government transparency?

    So, revenues fell far short of that projected half-million dollars. In fact, it was less than $200,000. Talk about vague, less than 200K could be anywhere from $199,999 to one cent. I’ll concede it’s probably more than a penny, but how much less than two hundred grand?

    Whatever the results of future court rulings, liberal Seattle government accomplished its goal. It’s unlikely the court decisions will make any injured party (gun dealers) whole. Only by suffering a financial sanction will liberal cities such as Seattle ever cease their destructive drive to turn their citizens and business owners into game pieces on their own social-justice, utopian Monopoly Board. The only way that would occur, and the only way to prevent the City from attempting such nonsense again, is for Solyanik and other victims to sue Seattle’s socialistic ass off. I hope they can. I hope they do! 

  • For Radical Leftists, Anti-racist = Anti-police

    The Left is adept at Orwellian manipulation of language. For example, they’ll tell you they are not “anti-police.” Then they’ll use euphemisms: “anti-police abuse,” “anti-excessive force,” etc.

    Well, in a rare act of honesty and a rage against the adage, “it’s better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to speak (write) and remove all doubt,” the title of this article proclaims a true belief: Defunding Police—How Antiracist Organizers got Seattle to Listen (Unlike leftists, I’m not going to throw a tantrum or a riot in an un-American attempt to keep you from hearing a message with which I disagree. Please, read it—no, really; you have got to read this crap). It’s important to remain aware of their destructive social message and how radical leftist politicians aid in their successes to the detriment of a free society.

    Antiracist? Not anti-police? Using “anti-police” would have been more honest.

    So, in the radical left’s world, Anti-racist = Anti-police.

    The only thing surprising about this equation is the lack of obfuscation—which is almost refreshing. Like Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, at least this publication, almost, says what it means: being against the police is the same as being against racists because the police are racist. I suppose I could be accused of putting words in their mouths, but how could anyone arrive at contrary conclusion? 

    Police equating to racist, of course, is insulting to cops, but the Left doesn’t like the police. Remember, they aren’t simply opponents who are fed up and have finally gotten up off the couch to protest tyranny; they are the enemies of a civil society. They just hate cops. That seems clear. They fight for policies that put police officers at higher risk because they have no respect for what cops do. They don’t care about police officers most of whom are among the finest citizens of any community. The cop-hater’s warped equation also insults people who think critically rather than ideologically. People who come to conclusions based on empirical facts rather than selecting “facts” that conform to a predetermined, ideological narrative.

    Still, I hesitate to bring attention to such ignorance. But, the sad thing is, political leaders, such as the leftist collective running (ruining) Seattle gives racialist groups such as BLM and BTB (Block the Bunker) far more clout than their destructive ideas deserve. The radical left may riot to shut down their opponent’s right speak, but we truly need to listen to what the Left says, so we can oppose their ideas more effectively. Oppose their collectivist, Utopian myth whenever possible.   

  • Illegal Immigrants: All Lawbreakers Reluctant to Cooperate with Police

    My head hurts—again!

    On a recent news analysis program, a local politician, I think from upstate New York (doesn’t matter; it’s a cookie-cutter, leftist trope), repeated the threadbare, Democrat talking point that illegal immigrants won’t report crimes to police if they’re afraid of being deported. That may be true, but the issue deserves critical thinking to better understand it.

    This politician cited there are “many examples of illegals not reporting crime due to fear of deportation” but listed none. He also said where jurisdictions have a policy of not assisting the federal government with enforcing immigration law, crime goes down. REALLY? WHERE? Certainly, not in sanctuary city Chicago. Again, he mentioned no examples—not one.

    Is he arguing, where the law goes unenforced, crime goes down? Well, having completed a career in law enforcement, I must ask, why do we have any laws? By his logic, get rid of all the laws, and there will be no crime. You know, when I think about it, there is a sick logic here. If murder is not illegal, police won’t be arresting any murderers. This could extend to all crimes, right? Legalize EVERYTHING!  

    As much as I scoff at this notion, mostly because it’s so scoff-worthy, there is merit to the argument that people in the country illegally will resist reporting crime. However, this is a waste of fear for illegals. Otherwise law-abiding, border trespassers have no idea just how safe they are from their local constabulary. Forget the municipal edicts, such as in Seattle, where cops are prohibited from even asking a person about their immigration status. When cops take reports from crime victims, they are interested in the crime, the criminal, and the apprehending of that criminal for that crime.

    In my over two decades on the streets I can’t recall even once asking a victim, or a suspect for that matter, about their immigration status. It never came up. In fact, to those who exhibit, through words or actions, obvious anxiety about their immigration status, cops are much more likely to say, “Don’t worry; we’re not here for that.” Then officers investigate the crime as they investigate any other reported crime.

    Again, those who’ve entered the USA illegally might be hesitant to report crime due to their illegal immigration status. Proponents of this argument have a point. I mean, people wanted for other crimes, murder, bank robbery, rape, assault, fraud, and theft aren’t too interested in reporting crime for the same reason. Okay, entering the country illegally is not a felony, not even a misdemeanor, just a civil infraction (which blows my mind, by the way. Just driving a car with an altered temporary trip permit is a gross misdemeanor, but I digress). So, let’s stay within the civil infraction realm: People with outstanding arrest warrants for failure to respond to civil infractions—traffic tickets, etc.—also might not want to report crimes, either. Right?

    And stop with the berating a criminal justice system that would separate a parent who crossed the border illegally (a violation of federal law) from an American-born child. It happens everyday. Do you think crimes are committed only by childless people? Of course not. Many criminals have children and we don’t see marching in the streets because the mother who wrote fraudulent checks is being “separated” from her children, having been sentenced to eighteen months in prison. What about the dad who was convicted of burglary and will be separated from his children for three years. Guess he should have thought about that, eh? Again, it happens all the time.

    I understand there are nuances here because the crime is considered a minor one. But there’s another part of the problem. Can anyone imagine attempting illegally to cross the border of Russia, China, or even Mexico and not believing you’d be in a great deal of trouble if caught? I can’t. Why should our country be any different. Just because everyone wants to come here. Well, no kidding. But what makes our country so attractive will gradually dissipate if our borders are left wide open. Why is this not common sense? How nice would your house be to live in if you allowed anyone who wanted to (because you have a warm and inviting home) to move in? Not very, comes to mind.

    Let’s use common sense and give our cops a break. I can understand the resistance to the federal government inserting itself into local affairs–they do it too often, and often at the request of the left. But, that’s just it; immigration is not a local affair. United States immigration policy and control is primarily a federal responsibility.

  • A Seattle Liberal Attacks City’s Protest Culture

    The other day I read something fascinatingly waggish and oh, so very Seattle in its irony. The source of my amusement came from an opinion piece: “Stop protesting Seattle Asian Art Museum renovation” (Seattle Times, January 13, 2017).

     

    First, a preface: I have affection for the SAAM. The museum is in the precinct I patrolled during my over two-decades-long career. I enjoyed the beautiful building and speaking with many wonderful patrons. I also agree with the writer of the piece, Glenn Nelson, that people should stop protesting SAAM renovations, although I acknowledge (and announce) their right to do so. Renovations are overdue, appropriate, and will enhance Seattle’s cultural resources.  

     

    But where exactly does Mr. Nelson, obviously a liberal/progressive, acquire his moral authority to ask others to stop protesting anything? Has Mr. Nelson forgotten in what city he lives? Seattle has planted, cultivated, and harvested its current protest (crop) culture for many years. Oh, before continuing, I should modify my contention for clarity: Its liberal/progressive protest culture.

     

    Years ago, I remember protesters descending on SPD’s East Precinct to protest…wait for it… the U.S. Navy bombing uninhabited islands for training in… again, wait for it… Puerto Rico!!! I can’t count the number of protests I’ve worked: APEC, WTO, and the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade; Critical Mass, anarchists, and Black Lives Matter, and no such list would be complete (though this one is far from complete) without Occupy Wall Street’s 99%ers. During the last years of my career, leftist demonstrations were a monthly and many times weekly occurrence.

     

    Mr. Nelson, who dutifully introduces himself in his first sentence, “as a person of color,” provides his liberal/progressive bona fides and curriculum vitae throughout the article. He cites his Asian American heritage, green space, the ADA, diversity, inclusion, and Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative.

     

    It seems that his fellow Seattleites’ objections are not worthy of protest because, according to Mr. Nelson, he has determined that “The ‘encroachment’ on green space [and impact on neighborhood traffic] is too negligible to be considered a source for opposition.” Just like so many liberals, Mr. Nelson finds no problem dismissing other people’s concerns when they fail to fall in line with his preferred narrative–his desires. Remember, Mr. Nelson did not simply write that he disagrees with the protesters; he declares they, “stop protesting….”

     

    Now, I do not wish to make light of Mr. Nelson’s heart-felt plea on behalf of himself and people he loves and cares about. He obviously believes his perspective is correct. But it seems there’s a lesson here for Seattle’s liberal/progressive activists with their emerald green penchant for protest: opposing points of view are not always, in every way, and every circumstance wrong, and certainly not racist or otherwise evil just because they’re put forth by the “another side” of an argument. Opposing political perspectives, ideologies, and issues are simply that: positions held by people who simply oppose your view. They are due the same respect you feel you deserve, not slander, libel, and demonization.       

  • “Without Malice and/or in Good Faith” is Necessary when Judging Police Actions

    Setting aside that making life and death decisions in split seconds is one of the most difficult things for any police officer, what’s all this noise about changing Washington law to make it “easier” to prosecute cops for using deadly force?

    People in every profession make mistakes. But in some jobs, mistakes can mean people die. Perhaps mistakes that lead to death should never happen, but in real life, they simply do.

    The way I read the law change proposal, advocates want to remove the “malice” and “good faith,” elements from the prosecutor’s requirements to convict a police officer. Meaning, they have to prove the officer acted maliciously (evil intent) in killing a person or that the officer did not act in good faith—knew his or her actions were wrong.

    This is what is scary for a police officer: If the language were changed, an officer could have acted without malice and in good faith yet still be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.

    Put yourself in the officer’s place:

    Let’s say you’re an officer, it’s dusk—almost dark, on an early winter evening, and a robbery victim flags you down. The victim is pointing to a fleeing man and yelling, “He took my iPhone, and he’s got a gun!” You chase the robbery suspect who runs across the street and then between the houses. You continue to pursue with the suspect in sight. You broadcast the suspect’s description and direction of travel over your radio. Then you lose sight of the suspect as he rounds the corner to the back of a house. You slow as you approach the corner of the building to avoid being ambushed.  

    You slowly round the corner. You see a young man matching the suspect’s description crouched near some shrubbery in a corner of a fenced yard. You pull your gun and command, “Show me your hands!” The man does not comply. Instead he asks you what you’re doing in his yard. You command the man show you his hands several more times, but the suspect still refuses to show his hands. As you tell the man once more to show his hands, he yells that he doesn’t have to and aggressively points an object at you. In the low light and based on the suspect you’re chasing reportedly being armed, the object could be a gun. Would you bet your life that it isn’t a gun? You fire your sidearm, killing the man.

    Later, investigators discovered that the man shot was not the suspect. Evidence shows the real suspect had run through the yard and jumped the fence and continued running. The deceased man actually lived at the house. Investigators don’t know if the man saw the suspect run through his yard. The object the man had pointed at the officer was a garden trowel.

    This is nothing but a pure tragedy. It can’t be described any other way. If you, the officer, were white and the homeowner black, it also would become a political calamity. Now, there are a many elements to consider here, but let’s stay within the realm of changing the “malice” and “good faith” language in the current law.

    Clear thinking people would instantly recognize the nature of the tragedy here and understand you had no choice but to shoot. However, these days we are not dealing with only clear thinking individuals. We are dealing with anti-police hysteria.

    You obviously did not have any malice, as you simply responded to a victim’s call for help—you did your job. You also clearly acted in good faith as you had a valid complaint from a legitimate victim who identified a man he said had a gun and had just robbed him. This is also the ONLY information you had to work with at the time.

    You were chasing an armed robbery suspect. In the shadowy low light of dusk. Alone.

    You had the suspect in sight until the suspect disappeared behind a house. Officer safety dictates you slowed to avoid an ambush. You updated radio with your current location for responding back up officers.

    Using proper officer safety techniques, you rounded the corner and observed a man matching the suspect’s description. He appeared to be hiding in the bushes. You do not know the man lived here, and even if he did, the man could still be the armed robbery suspect.

    You radioed you had the suspect at gunpoint in the backyard and gave the address. You, without malice, using proper police procedures, and acting in good faith, fully believing this is the robbery suspect you’d been chasing. The suspect refused to show you his hands when instructed. The victim had told you the suspect was armed with a gun. As a trained police officer you knew just how fast an armed suspect could point and shoot if he wanted to. Rather than immediately open fire (the safest course for you) you ordered the man—repeatedly—to show you his hands.

    The man would not comply. Instead, he asked you why you’re in “his” yard. You may have wondered if it was the man’s yard, but you could not automatically believe this. You had to proceed as if the man was the suspect. To do otherwise would have been foolish.

    We can’t forget the man is refusing to comply. If the man had simply put the trowel down and shown you his hands, the officer would have had the man lay on the ground and most likely waited for back up officers to assist taking him into custody. After which, his true identity would have been determined.

    But, what should have happened didn’t happen. Sadly, the man contributed to his own tragedy. He refused to obey a police officer’s lawful commands—for whatever reason, and a man who shouldn’t have died, died. But it wasn’t your fault. You did exactly as the police department trained you to do. Shouldn’t that be enough? Yes, but it’s not.

    Now, am I wrong to wonder, with a change in the law, what would happen to you? Without the malice/good faith language, could you be convicted of criminal homicide because somehow, anti-police, Monday-morning quarterbacks decided you “should have known” the man was the resident, not the suspect, and had a garden tool and not a gun. How could you have known? The best you could have done would be to guess. And what if you were wrong? The man did everything but wear a sign saying you should believe he was your suspect. Still, with new legislation, you could be in serious trouble—for doing your job.

    Remember the Cambridge police officers who detained Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. after someone reported Gates as a possible burglar at his home? Even President Obama concluded the officers acted “stupidly.” But how in the world were the officers supposed to know Professor Gates was who he said he was simply by his word? Isn’t that what a criminal would say? They’ve said it to me in similar circumstances. Again, they don’t issue cops crystal balls in the academy. So, if a simple detention is deemed “stupid,” what would they say about an incident where police shot a man?

    Governments at all levels are horrible at teaching the public what police do and why they do it. When a high-profile incident occurs, too many leaders would rather “teach” the public what the cop did “wrong,” even if it was “right” when he or she learned it in training. And if the officer is truly wrong and legally judged to be so, then let the punishment fit the crime. But when officers act as they were properly taught, how about government and law enforcement leaders start teaching the public that, though things turned out wrong, what the officer did was right.

     

     

  • Handcuffed Does Not Mean Harmless

    Suspects handcuffed by police are helpless, right–harmless? Well, let’s see about that. I’ve been assaulted by handcuffed suspects—every cop with some time on has been. Suspects have spit at, scratched, bitten, kicked, head-butted, stolen patrol cars, stabbed, shot, and killed police officers—all while handcuffed.

    Still, police chiefs often discipline or even fire officers for using force against the so-called “helpless” handcuffed prisoners who’d assaulted them. Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole recently fired my friend, Adley Shepherd, from the Seattle Police Department (SPD) despite his force being applied within a split-second of a suspect having kicked him in the head and in spite of SPD’s lead defensive tactics training instructor commenting, “I thought he did it perfectly.” How else can an officer perform and still keep his job if “perfectly” is not good enough. This expert assessment did not come from a liberal city council member, a Black Lives Matter activist, or a police chief appointed by a liberal mayor–it came from the guy who teaches this stuff to cops.

    Of course departments should be concerned about police officers using excessive force and punish it where it truly occurs. But is any force excessive just because the resisting suspect is handcuffed? Simple logic tells us a handcuffed suspect who assaults an officer is, by definition, not harmless.

    We have to ask this question: Was the officer’s response reasonable for the specific circumstances? An officer must bring an uncooperative suspect under control, quickly. I once had a handcuffed suspect kick out the rear passenger window of my patrol car. Just imagine if such a kick were to my head or face? The force of a kick is greater than that of a punch. It’s even worse if the assailant is wearing hard shoes or boots.

    With all the cop ambushes (four more souls taken from us, yesterday), an officer cannot afford distractions. A part of bringing a suspect (handcuffed or not) under control includes gaining physical compliance, either voluntarily or by force. An officer has certain use-of-force options with any combative suspect. Should certain force options be unavailable just because the suspect is handcuffed, regardless of their level of resistance?

    One of the officer’s force options is to strike a combative suspect with an impact (or body) weapon (hand, foot, etc.). If a suspect is not handcuffed and kicks an officer, you would probably think it reasonable that a punch would be one possible force option used. So, if a handcuffed suspect kicks an officer, what’s the difference? It’s not like Officer Shepherd continued to beat the suspect; he only struck her once to prevent her from assaulting him again and to bring her under control. And just try doing that while the combative suspect is leaning against the backseat, hands behind her back, with perfect leverage to kick the officer.

    Another factor is any human being’s reaction to pain. Pain does not distinguish between that inflicted by a handcuffed or non-handcuffed person, kicking a police officer in the head. Within the heat of a human’s response to pain, the initial force used, due to adrenaline and stress, is likely to be higher than intended. Human beings avoid pain and do not wish to have it repeated.

    We also need to remember it is the handcuffed suspect who triggered the officer’s use-of-force. The suspect committed a felony by assaulting a police officer, to which the officer has no choice but to respond.

    Besides the natural reaction to pain, one has to consider a cop’s response to a suspect’s physical resistance. As long as a suspect is not under control, both the suspect and officer remain at a higher risk of injury. A lieutenant once told me that officer safety requires an officer to end any resistance as soon as possible because anything can happen when officers don’t have suspects under control. A distracted officer is a target for anyone in the vicinity who might take offense to a cop using force to facilitate an arrest. Does that sound likely these days?

    What would you do?

    Put yourself in the officers shiny black shoes: You have dedicated your life to serving and protecting your community for almost a decade. You arrive to investigate a domestic violence incident. You have determined the primary aggressor who will go to jail. You handcuff the suspect and while placing her in your patrol car, she leans back against the seat and kicks you in the face—with her boot.

    This stuns you, and you react to the pain and non-compliance by punching the suspect in the face–once–to prevent another assault, deescalate the situation, and bring the combative suspect under control. It works. The suspect’s assault and your reaction occurred within seconds of each other. The department’s head defensive tactics trainer, the person responsible for your training, has determined your use-of-force was, “perfect” (you performed precisely as your training taught you).

    Yet, your police chief, after months of deliberations, has decided she knows better what force was necessary and proper than the officer involved did in that split second and knows better than the person she has in charge of teaching her officers how to overcome combative suspects in myriad dangerous circumstances.

    So, yet another police officer is sacrificed on the altar of left wing political correctness. Seattle’s police chief commented on Shepherd’s case, “Common sense alone was sufficient to determine that the level of force used was not reasonable or necessary.” Sounds more like uncommon nonsense to me.

    It would be interesting to see how Chief O’Toole would have reacted if she had been the arresting officer and that suspect had kicked her in the face (I know, a chief of a large city make an arrest, hah!). Interesting how her “common sense” does not match the common sense of patrol officers who confront these situations daily with only a split-second to respond. And what about her own police defensive tactics instructors who go beyond common sense and teach officers “best practice,” specific, techniques on ways to counter combative suspects?

    How do you think police defensive tactics trainers feel when the police chief fires officers for using techniques they taught in training? Why should officers trust anything they learn in defensive tactics if applying those tactics in the real world gets them fired–or prosecuted? Why should cops trust their leaders at all?

  • Seattle’s Homeless Camp Removal Protocol: If They Refuse to Obey, Let ‘em Stay

    How’s this for a government vagrant removal “protocol?” As I understand it, as explained on a morning radio talk show, the city of Seattle has set into place a system to remove “homeless” encampments from city streets. One of the city’s many homeless hovels is currently blighting 2nd Avenue, Downtown.

    Seattle’s protocol for sidewalk encampment removal requires all agencies involved in the cleanup, police, DSHS, solid waste, etc., be present at the location to complete a removal. All of them for the entire time.

    Since the police had to leave—you know—to do real police work, and some of the lovely “beneficiaries of liberal largess” refused mother city’s request to stop defiling Downtown sidewalks, the “eviction” ended.

    This protocol is insane and is designed to appear as if liberal city leaders are doing something about the vagrancy problem when they are doing the opposite: making it worse.  

     

    Liberal government has been the rule in Seattle forever

    Except for a few respites with a conservative city attorney, liberal government presided over Seattle during my police career. Over more than two decades, the city hasn’t solved the “homeless” problem; they’ve made it worse—much worse.

    This is not a new problem. Several years ago, shortly before I retired, I remember walking on the sidewalk northbound on Broadway between Madison and Union Streets. I was in uniform, on duty. Someone had set up a tent on the sidewalk next to a city telephone pole.

    Even many Seattleites driving by looked at me incredulously, as I did nothing. What could I do? My city had de-policed me. If I had rousted the occupant, the city might accuse me of a civil rights violation. Why would any cop risk that?

    Ironically, it’s illegal to camp in a city park. At least, it used to be.    

    The above lunacy recently led to the death of a 19-year-old street-camper run over by a car at an I-5 off-ramp in the U. District.

     

    Liberal policies have never been and never will be successful—by design

    The liberal’s attempts to solve Seattle’s vagrancy problem has been a disaster and will continue to be. The people living in tents along freeways and on city sidewalks are not the homeless families and mentally ill folks Seattle’s bleating hearts would like you to believe. Not most of them, anyway. Most I’ve dealt with were chronically inebriated criminals who eschewed civil society and reveled in their make-believe, makeshift communities. 

     

    Seattle: no respect for “homeless” as people responsible for their lives

    The situation will not be resolved until Seattle’s liberal, political power seekers begin to respect these people as human beings, not children, by holding them responsible for the state of their lives and for their actions.

    There is nothing wrong with also offering these folks any services available. However, if they are not held accountable for the condition of their lives or their irresponsible actions, why not choose the handouts and false sympathy that keep these folks perpetually contemptuous of civil society and dependent on liberal government?

    It’s an insult to those who have courageously dragged themselves out of the mire of drug and alcohol addiction, crime, and the resulting poverty, to give the sidewalk campers a pass.

  • Drug Dealers Get More Respect Than Gun Dealers in Seattle.

    First victim of Seattle’s gun tax

    According to Richard D. Oxley, MyNorthwest.com, Seattle government has notched its first victim of the city’s new, draconian gun tax. Precise Shooter has stopped selling firearms and ammunition and will soon move its business out of Seattle and King County to Lynnwood in Snohomish County.

    How can a constitutional right have a sin tax?

    The Seattle City Council compared the guns and ammo tax to the added taxes on cigarettes and alcohol—so-called “sin” taxes. Well, a law-abiding person owning a gun isn’t a sin, and, the last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution did not guarantee an American’s right to keep and bear cigarettes and alcohol.

    City getting exactly what it wants

    City Council Member Tim Burgess argues, “… the gun tax money will go toward research and other means to fight gun violence in the city.” Call me a cynic, but I think, by moving out of the city, Precise Shooter is giving the city exactly what it wants. No gun shops in Seattle.

    Not the gun-shop owner’s fault

    I am not criticizing Precise Shooter. In the article, the owner, Sergey Solyanik, explains how his business cannot remain profitable with the tax because his shop focuses primarily on selling guns and ammo. I assume this is unlike other stores where firearms and ammunition are only a part of the business.

    Seattle has more respect for illegal drug dealers than for legal gun dealers

    Well, another job well done by Seattle’s progressive bullies. Mr. Solyanik may as well have been a drug dealer on a Downtown corner—oh, wait. Even illegal drug dealers get more respect from Seattle government than legal gun dealers do.