What Packratt said. All of it.
"The issue is paramount."
Wow. Is the P-I editorial page ghosting your column, or is turgid writing the new "it?"
@1, thank you.
I too, would be soooo happy to never have to put another entry in my blog: http://injusticeinseattle.blogspot.com about the SPD or KCCF. I too think it's a systemic problem and will never be fixed so long as the city officials are afraid to stand up against the SPOG, who has been wielding a good deal of political might lately.
The Mayor's panel was due to deliver it's final report in November... a little blurb in one of their meetings mentioned an altered delivery date of "sometime early next year."
Sadly, this will continue no matter how many of us show up to OPA/OPARB meetings. But we still have to try.
Jesus Christ, not every thing is black and white. Try getting both sides of the story for a change.
Justy, there comes a time when the sheer number of reports and stories compels even the most skeptical to honestly consider that there might be a problem.
How many more stories do you think it will take for you? Because there will be more, and they will become more frequent the longer the problem is ignored and the longer misconduct is considered permissible.
...and as I, an ex-skeptic, now know all too well; even innocent people can be harmed by police misconduct.
BTW, the press release with the final report date change is here: http://www.seattle.gov/policeaccountabilityreviewpanel/Docs/11-19-07_release_parp_meeting_final.pdf
Josh, is Nickels' panel much different than a blue ribbon panel?
Is there a city that has a workable means for ensuring police accountability? Because the mayor's panel doesn't seem to be working so well.
Isn't it clear that the only solution is to solely hire black cops?
this is both a race issue, and it isn't.
cops are acting inappropriately. they do this to people they believe are guilty, whether they are white or black or anything else.
the race issue comes into play because they tend to believe quite a few black people are guilty before having proof.
firing the chief might send a message, but it will not be what solves this problem.
here are two big changes that will help:
requiring the chief to explain to the board (which should not be the city counsel) the rationale when his decision deviates from theirs. i wouldn't even say this information has to be made public in every case. the board could then review it, and agree or disagree.
don't allow cases to expire. if the time allotted to review or disciple is going to expire, a decision should be made then. if anything, the default should be to follow the review board's decision -- which would force the chief to act.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).