Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« It's Ladies Night! | Movin' On »

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

State Trooper Goes Apeshit Over Student Demonstration

posted by on February 26 at 16:09 PM

On February 24th, a small group of University of Washington students gathered on the 45th street overpass above Interstate 5, carrying a 30-foot banner, which read “Education not incarceration.”

After an hour of perfectly legal protesting—you’re allowed to assemble on overpasses, as long as you don’t hang signs from the freeway and aren’t blocking traffic—the students were getting ready to head home when a Washington State Patrol Officer arrived on scene.

“We heard the woop woop [of the siren],” says UW student Jamie Brown, 27. According to Brown, State Trooper Douglas Power told the group to take their sign down and move on. “He wouldn’t or couldn’t tell us what law we were breaking,” Brown says.“He was saying it was a safety issue, that we were threatening people on the freeway.”

Next, Brown says the Trooper grabbed one of the students and pulled the sign down on top of the group. The entire incident was caught on tape.

The State Patrol is pretty candid about the Trooper’s conduct. “When the trooper got there, he thought there was a hazard of the sign possibly blowing into the lanes of I-5,” says State Patrol Spokesman Bill Gardiner. “He probably overreacted.”

According to Gardiner, the demonstration “should have been ok” since nothing was affixed to the overpass, and he blames Power’s behavior on a lack of experience. “[He] may not have developed that skill of defusing things,” Gardiner says. Because of the incident, Power will receive additional training and a record of the incident will be added to his personnel file.

Several of the students say they will be filing complaints with the Washington State Patrol.

RSS icon Comments

1

You know, I think Bukowski said it best:

"The problem with you people is your cities have never been burned and your mothers have never been told to shut up. Good night, here's the next poem."

Posted by Jeff | February 26, 2008 4:20 PM
2

skill of DIFFUSING?

DE-fusing?

Posted by max solomon | February 26, 2008 4:20 PM
3

I think he had Starbucks withdrawal.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 26, 2008 4:21 PM
4

Gotta love the spin they put on this, "He probably overreacted". You mean he got flustered when the college kids peacefully protesting didn't cower to his badge, so he pulled their sign down on them.

Posted by drheavy | February 26, 2008 4:26 PM
5

That cop's over-40 and fat. I'm guessing he's not a rookie.

Posted by DOUG. | February 26, 2008 4:37 PM
6

“Education not incarceration.”

who's education

who's incarceration

wtf over

Posted by maengun | February 26, 2008 4:39 PM
7

As the Plasmatics said - "A pig's a pig - and that's that."

Posted by Punk's Not Dead | February 26, 2008 4:40 PM
8

That word's getting overused by the Right these days..."He probably overreacted." "It was probably a mistake to go to Iraq." Ya THINK?

Posted by prolly | February 26, 2008 4:41 PM
9

does he know that he has a cop-stache?

Posted by ray ray | February 26, 2008 4:46 PM
10

This should be the next sign to hang over I-5: “If a cop is over forty and fat, he is not a rookie.”

Posted by Jim Jones | February 26, 2008 4:47 PM
11

Wow, the WSP actually admitting and doing something constructive about police misconduct?

That easily makes them far, far more competent than the SPD.

Posted by Gomez | February 26, 2008 4:49 PM
12

Way to go guys. Protesters 1 cops 0. Cop looked pathetic. Way over his head.

Posted by poster Girl | February 26, 2008 4:56 PM
13

The WSP is far more professional than the SPD.

Look at the WSP's successful use of stealth, rather than tough guy Dodge Chargers, to combat road rage. Or the SPD's Village People leather clad motorcycle cops on retro Harley's, versus the WSP's 21st century gear and bikes.

Posted by elenchos | February 26, 2008 4:58 PM
14

Jesus, drheavy...what the fuck did you expect them to say? I think Jonah's analysis of "pretty candid," is understating the WSP reaction. In bureaucratic-speak, the statement was seriously harsh on Officer Dumbass considering formal complaints have yet to be filed and no inquiry has been concluded. Compare that to the pussy-footing SPD brass does around officer conduct.

I think it's a huge and well-deserved win by the students. They knew they were engaging in legal, protected speech and they stood their ground. The cop was wrong and the authorities acknowledged it.

Most important, the protesters didn't get roughed up too badly (ask people who were at WTO), and they got way more publicity for their cause. It was like a case-study -- they did everything right, especially capturing it on video.

Chalk one up for the kidz!

Posted by The Kids Are Alright! | February 26, 2008 4:59 PM
15

I love this. I love everything about it. My anti-authority heart is bursting with joy watching that cop make a complete ass of himself. Those kids are my new heroes (I especially love the girl who's like, "we've done our research"...so confident about it).

Good thing they filmed it, though, or they'd be shit out of luck. The cop would've made something up about how the sign was posing a danger to public safety, the protesters were resisting arrest, etc.

Everyone should start filming immediately when cops show up anywhere, because so many of them are rank idiots and power-mad jackasses.

Posted by Matthew | February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
16

The only person going "apeshit" in this video is the whiny girl, whose behavior is deplorable: lying about being hit, getting up in the cop's face about being a taxpayer...give me a break. Take off those sunglasses, woman. You look like a fool.

"Education not incarceration"? Good one, guys. Way to make a statement.

Posted by Seattle Crime Blogger | February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
17

Those kids are idiots. How exactly did they think that was going to go? When the cops tell you to move, you move unless it's going to threaten your life or something. Just pack up the sign, go to another overpass and protest there. Bring a lawyer if you're really worried.

Like it or not the cops are holding all the cards in that situation, and when they've made up their minds what they want to have happen is going to happen. You're not going to get anywhere arguing, especially not like that.

Anyway, no one got hurt, nothing was destroyed, what's the big deal?

Posted by Smegmalicious | February 26, 2008 5:08 PM
18

Matthew @15 -- Good points...video documenting is key. And so is picking your battles. A busy highway overpass with lots of witnesses when you're clearly in the right is good. A dark street after the bars have closed when maybe you've had a couple is bad.

The agency matters a lot as well. WSP are generally considered above-the-board professionals (with notable exceptions of course). But I wouldn't get in an argument with a KC deputy. And whatever you do, don't get yourself on the wrong side of the knuckle-draggers at Port of Seattle or City of Sammamish. The KC prosecutor kicks their cases all the time for misconduct. Animals.

Posted by The Kids Are Alright! | February 26, 2008 5:21 PM
19

@17: I'd say the "big deal" is about the preservation of constitutional rights. Cops shouldn't be able to interfere in our lives unless we're doing something illegal, right?

Posted by Lauren | February 26, 2008 5:23 PM
20
Anyway, no one got hurt, nothing was destroyed, what's the big deal?

If you have to ask that question, you're too thick to understand the answer.

Posted by Judah | February 26, 2008 5:23 PM
21

You just have to love the spunk of the student in white glasses. "I'm a taxpayer!" Prior to the Iraq war I organized sign and banner events on freeway overpasses and the fact is their is nothing the police or staters can do up to the moment when you drop something over or block the sidwalk. Even so, staters stopped under us and speekered us that we had to remove ourselves. We pretended that we could not hear and waved for the officer to come up on the bridge which he never did. Then city officers came by but asside from cautioning us about the two don'ts they never stopped us.
The thing that amaizes me about the video is that an officer of his obvious age had no understanding of the law.

Posted by Particle Man | February 26, 2008 5:28 PM
22

If their rights were being infringed, there are better ways to deal with it than trying to be confrontational. The guy wasn't saying they couldn't peaceably assemble, he wasn't saying they couldn't be there, he was saying that their sign was a hazard.

Sure he didn't handle it the best way but he wasn't infringing their constitutional rights in any way. You have to remember that he was trying to protect people on the freeway, not just come stomp on a bunch of hippies.

I think the guy is, personally, an asshole and he handled it badly, but it's not like people are making it out to be.

Posted by Smegmalicious | February 26, 2008 5:30 PM
23

@22: What, exactly, makes them hippies? They're pretty average looking folks... do you have a special scratch-and-sniff video player that allowed you to deduce they were all wearing patchioli?

Or are hippies the only people allowed to demonstrate? I don't get it.

And yes, he did infringe on their rights when he tore down the sign, which wasn't placed illegally.

Posted by Lauren | February 26, 2008 5:40 PM
24

I used the term hippies as a comparison because hippies actually did get their rights infringed on. I was saying that's *not* what he was doing.

And, no, he didn't infringe any constitutional right by taking down the sign that he thought was a threat to people on the freeway. He's empowered to safegaurd people.

It's the classic, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose scenario. He may have been wrong about it, but it's his job to make judgment calls like that and as a practical matter, you get a lot further with people without being confrontational.

At the end of the day, both parties in this video acted like idiots, not just the cop.

Posted by Smegmalicious | February 26, 2008 5:49 PM
25

Whether or not they acted like idiots the non-police officers starring in this video have the right, as citizens, to act like idiots.


The police officer in this video, with the full power of the State behind him, does not have the right to act like an idiot.


The police officer acted like an idiot. Citizen rights infringed.

Posted by umvue | February 26, 2008 6:06 PM
26

THIS KID had a run-in with a cop. this shit with the WSP is nothing.

Posted by some dude | February 26, 2008 6:12 PM
27

@24: No, it's his job to enforce the law. They weren't breaking any. The sign was clearly stable, and it was being held by a few people. They weren't blocking the sidewalk. The sign wasn't hanging from the freeway. From watching the video, I can't see anything dangerous about the situation.

Yes, the officer did mention public safety, once, as a reason. He then said that it was state property. To me, it sounded like he was just rattling off whatever came to mind as a potential reason to have them leave.

Questioning an officer doesn't make you an idiot. If they'd cursed at him, called him a pig, I'd agree with you, that would be pretty idiotic. They didn't do anything of the sort (unless I missed something in my viewing).

Posted by Lauren | February 26, 2008 6:14 PM
28

Smeg, did you grow up in Communist Russia, or what?

Smegalicious wrote:

When the cops tell you to move, you move unless it's going to threaten your life or something.

If a police officer tells you to move and you're confident that your location is one that is lawful (like, say a city sidewalk), you let him write you a ticket (i.e., send you to explain it to a judge) or stay there and let him remove you if he feels he must.

We don't (yet) live in a police state. Police cannot give arbitrary orders.

Posted by Phil M | February 26, 2008 6:34 PM
29

Lauren wrote:

the officer did mention public safety, once, as a reason. He then said that it was state property. To me, it sounded like he was just rattling off whatever came to mind as a potential reason to have them leave.

Eventually, he threatened to ticket them for "obstuction". Can someone please point me to a definition of the crime of obstuction?

Increasingly, I see it used in cases of police misconduct when police want to force someone to do something but do not have any authority to do so. It's like saying, "do what I say or I'll charge you with not doing what I say." It's what peaceful demonstrators are accused of in an effort to get them out of the public eye for the duration of the public's attention.

Posted by Phil M | February 26, 2008 6:42 PM
30

Those kids are lucky the WSP showed up rather than the alternative. The WSP is a professional organization that prides itself on training. On the flip side I am a bit puzzled by the events but note the Trooper showed great restraint in dealing with those punk ass kids. Had SPD arrived there would have been blood shed. And I'm serious about that! That sign is distracting period! It posed a distraction to the drivers on Southbound I-5. People already can't drive in this state. The last thing cell phone using, burger eating and make up applying drivers need is another distraction like this sign. As if there isn't enough accidents on the road now. People need to get off their high horse and wake the fuck up. Because you'll be crying for the WSP when one of those horrible fucking drivers broadside your dumb asses.

Posted by Anonymous | February 26, 2008 6:44 PM
31

Lack of experience? I didn't know WSP hires from the local nursing home. He looked like a complete idiot.
Anonymous sounds like just the type of jack-ass you hope doesn't pull you over.
All that being said...Good thing that tax-payer still has some money left to buy such cool-ass sunglasses...

Posted by Joy | February 26, 2008 7:02 PM
32

-Joy- Get a grip on reality. You don't know what the hell you're talking about and your comment brings nothing to the table other than illogical statements.

Do I agree the sunglasses have got to go though! Love ya

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 7:07 PM
33

pigs

Posted by cochise. | February 26, 2008 7:11 PM
34

Anonymous wrote:

That sign is distracting period! It posed a distraction to the drivers on Southbound I-5.

Probably so. What is your point?

There's no law preventing the distraction of drivers. If there was, we wouldn't have roadside advertising of any sort.

Posted by Phil M | February 26, 2008 7:13 PM
35

"pigs" there's a statement a for you. Good job "cochise" (sarcasm) in case you thought I was actually commending you.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 7:16 PM
36

-Phil M- Those students potentially caused caused risk to drivers on the freeway below. Signs on billboards which most people don't pay attention to are not the same thing as a group of kids TRYING to get the attention of drivers down below on the freeway.

They were directed to disperse and refused. They violated RCW 9A.84.020. Like I said those kids got off "scott free".

Posted by Phil M | February 26, 2008 7:26 PM
37

@29. A friend of mine in college was arrested for resisting arrest. No other crime. She wasn't even being a punk-ass kid, just trying to ask an officer a question during another person's (non-violent) arrest. He just said, get down on the ground, we're arresting you. For what? Resisting arrest. It was totally surreal, since we were both ridiculously law-abiding citizens.

Bottom line -- these kids were not breaking any laws. The officers were out of line. The kids stood their ground. Go kids.

Posted by Julie | February 26, 2008 7:30 PM
38

Every so often we get a thread here at the SLOG where it's clear somebody from rightwingassholes.com has crossposted. This is one such thread.

Kudos to the WSP for admitting this was an overreaction. Kudos to the kids for not doing something dumb that would justify a boot to the head.

Posted by Big Sven | February 26, 2008 7:36 PM
39

First, the second comment by Phil M was not by Phil M. It was by me.
Second, Julie I'm sorry your friend experienced. Unfortunately it is something I here about all the time with law enforcement agencies. Do I think it's right? No. Your friend probably said or meant to say obstruction with an officer's duties. She couldn't be arrested for resisting arrest if she was never arrest in the first place. It would be for obstruction because I'm sure she was told to leave or be quiet at the time her friend was being arrested
As far as the overpass RCW 47.32.130 states in part, "Any such structure, device, or natural or artificial thing considered by the department to be immediately or eminently dangerous to travel upon a state highway may be forthwith removed, and the removal in no event constitutes a breach of the peace or trespass." They were asked to remove it and disperse and failed to do it. WSP or any other agency would not respond to such calls that were not necessary. It affected someone, because someone had to have called 911 to illicit the response.

Posted by Anonymous | February 26, 2008 7:37 PM
40

Phil M @ 36



RCW 9A.84.020
Failure to disperse.

(1) A person is guilty of failure to disperse if:

(a) He congregates with a group of three or more other persons and there are acts of conduct within that group which create a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property; and

(b) He refuses or fails to disperse when ordered to do so by a peace officer or other public servant engaged in enforcing or executing the law.

(2) Failure to disperse is a misdemeanor.

Notice the little "and" between (a) and (b). Can you look at that tape and *honestly* say that their actions "create(d) a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property"

Or are you just a buddy of Officer Hypertension?

Posted by Big Sven | February 26, 2008 7:41 PM
41

And I'm the biggest liberal you will ever meet. I'm half black, half mexican, gay and jewish. I'm like Hitler's wet dream. Yes kudos to the WSP for admitting overreaction but those kids were instructed to remove the sign and failed to do that and therefore they were breaking the law. They obviously did not do enough research before hand.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 7:42 PM
42

-Phil M- Yes I did notice the "and". And I would be able to articulate to a court that the sign could create a substantial risk of injury to people down below due to traffic conditions at the time. But I wouldn't have to because they violated RCW 47.32.130. And no I'm not friends with "Officer Hypertension". Nice try though.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 7:49 PM
43

You wanna see overreacting by police look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc and tell me those students didn't get off easy.

This video made me sick and I sent an e-mail to the Mayor of Baltimore and the Police Commissioner.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 8:00 PM
44

This is the email I sent in response to the video "ir:

I normally do not react to events that do not concern
me or events that are clear across the country.
However, I just saw a story on CNN American Morning
regarding one of your officers by the name of Officer
Rivieri (please forgive the spelling).

As a fellow law enforcement officer from the State of
Washington I am shocked and disgusted by your
officer's actions against a 14 year old child with a
skateboard. I had to go to YouTube.com to see the
entire video.

As law enforcement officers we are held to a higher
standard because of the training and tremendous
responsibility and duty that we have to PROTECT AND
SERVE the public! This officer's behavior towards
this child was not SERVING or PROTECTING.

I do not care if this child was mouthing off to this
officer (which he was not) and I do not care if there
were signs posted every 3 feet stating "no skating".
This is a child that a man put his hands on and God
forbid this was my child, because you would have a
lawsuit on your hands faster than you can finish
reading this e-mail.

Our training makes us stronger and smarter. It builds
THICK skin because that is what you need to do this
job effectively. The badge and gun does not make us
God. For this officer to lose his ability to remain
cool because a child called him "dude" is
unacceptable.

There are speed limit signs and when we pull people
over we do not yell at them for ignoring the posted
speed limit signs. We use the least amount of force
and enforcement to get our point across and that may
mean getting an infraction or verbal warning. We do
not pull them out of their vehicle and put them in a
head lock or take their vehicle for that matter.

The young man I tackled to the ground the other night
after being involved in a vehicle pursuit and a
subsequent foot pursuit got more respect from me than
this officer showed this child. I do not know what
kind of training your agency provides to your officers
but it either did not work for Officer Rivieri or he
needs a refresher. Because to me he is a bully with a
badge and gun with a big chip on his shoulder.

Maybe in my agency we are held to much higher standard
which I am proud of. I would be embarrassed to be a
Baltimore Police Officer after that video made it to
the media and YouTube."

Posted by Anonymous | February 26, 2008 8:02 PM
45

Though the kids did their research (and that is something), it can't excuse their inane protestations. "I'm a taxpayer!" was the worst.

They were totally in the right, but they sound like any other group of idiots with something to say that think that taking it to the streets gets the message across better.

Posted by Hey Wait | February 26, 2008 8:02 PM
46

@42,

You might be able to articulate that but you would still be wrong.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 26, 2008 8:02 PM
47

This is response I received "Thank you for your email to Mayor Dixon. The video clip posted on
YouTube showed a Baltimore City police officer behaving in a way that
is
not acceptable and not consistent with the principles of the Baltimore
Police Department. That officer has been suspended and will face
disciplinary action from the department. He could have and should have
handled the incident in a more professional manner.

Every day, nearly 3,000 men and women put on our uniform and work to
make Baltimore safer. The vast majority do their jobs with integrity,
courtesy, and a high degree of professionalism. When incidents like the
one in the video do occur, we work hard to deal with them quickly, and
the department is making every effort to prevent them through better
training for both new and veteran officers.

The Baltimore Police Department is committed to high standards of
personal and professional conduct, and both Mayor Dixon and Police
Commissioner Fred Bealefeld expect all officers to meet those
standards.

Regards,

Sterling Clifford
Public Affairs Director
Baltimore Police Department"

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 8:04 PM
48

So... if a police officers tells you to do something, you have to do it, no matter what? If I am standing on a sidewalk, not breaking any laws, and a policeman says I have to leave for "safety" reasons, but cannot give a reason why my presence is a safety issue, should I leave? I have the right to be there, so I would say no.

The police officer said that it was a safety issue. I wasn't there, so can't opine on whether this was the case. But, it seems like it was not a safety issue, and the officer was lying.

In this instance, I think the citizens have the right (perhaps even the duty) to try to make their case. To fight injustice, however small.

Posted by Julie | February 26, 2008 8:08 PM
49

I gotta go make dinner for my partner have fun with this! Peace to all! And vote for Obama for christ sakes! LOL!

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 8:23 PM
50

-Julie- If I was arresting someone and a friend of this individual was there interfering with my arrest (job) I would instruct them to back off. They get one warning and that's it. I have a job to do and and a partner and a dog to go home to everyday. I owe that to them. People that you think are the nicest in the world have been some of the worst criminals in history. I'm not going to sit and try and decipher whether or not this one of those people. My job is to take control of the situation and keep the safety of everyone involved in check. To include my own safety. But depending on your friends demeanor she probably would have been cut loose and told for her safety and my safety that is why she was out into handcuffs.

Now I gotta go finish dinner.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 8:34 PM
51

Whatever, I would've arrested those people immediately. What asstard would run up on a cop like that and not get maced?

Posted by Rachael F. | February 26, 2008 8:48 PM
52

Anonymous wrote:

Signs on billboards which most people don't pay attention to are not the same thing as a group of kids TRYING to get the attention of drivers down below on the freeway.

You don't think that billboards, scientifically designed and focus-group tested by marketing experts, are any more effective at getting the attention of people who pass them than is some people holding a sign on an overpass?

They were directed to disperse and refused. They violated RCW 9A.84.020.

No, they were not directed to disperse. They were directed to take down their sign and refused to do so. That is unrelated to RCW 9A.84.020.

Posted by Phil M | February 26, 2008 8:54 PM
53

LOL that's awesome Rachael F.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 8:55 PM
54

Big Sven wrote:

Can you look at that tape and *honestly* say that their actions "create(d) a substantial risk of causing injury to any person, or substantial harm to property"?

No, I cannot. I doubt that a judge would either. I doubt that the officer thought that a judge would think so. I suspect that it was with this knowlege that he chose simply to harass them and then to take matters into his own hands, pulling the sign down and pushing the demonstrators into the street (did anyone else notice that?) in the process. He, like many police officers, probably loses control when some citizen dares to challenge his authority.

Posted by Phil M | February 26, 2008 8:59 PM
55

Phil M-You are barking up the wrong tree. The kids were wrong and the Trooper was wrong. He should have just arrested them for the violations I stated in previous posts. You are trying to interpret the RCW into a way that it fits into your agenda.

Posted by Anonymous | February 26, 2008 9:07 PM
56

Julie wrote:

if a police officers tells you to do something, you have to do it, no matter what?

Of course not -- not in this country.

If you're really interested in dealing with police encounters, I recommend looking at the Flex Your Rights Foundation's Web site. Or go straight to youtube and watch theur video, BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters.

If I am standing on a sidewalk, not breaking any laws, and a policeman says I have to leave for "safety" reasons, but cannot give a reason why my presence is a safety issue, should I leave?

In my opinion, if you think he's right, then you should leave. If you think he's simply harassing you or doesn't like the sign you are holding, then no, you should not give in to his bullying tactics by leaving. Let him accuse you of wrongdoing, and then explain it to a judge.

In this instance, I think the citizens have the right (perhaps even the duty) to try to make their case. To fight injustice, however small.

Well said.

If we don't flex our rights, we will lose them.

Posted by Phil M | February 26, 2008 9:11 PM
57

Rachel F. wrote:

What asstard would run up on a cop like that and not get maced?

Officer anonymous responded:

LOL that's awesome Rachael F.

I just watched it a second time and I don't see any running, only lots of talking. Could each of you please provide the time in the video at which you think use of chemical weaponry (i.e., Mace) by the police officer was warranted?

Posted by Phil M | February 26, 2008 9:25 PM
58

... and make sure you ask for the officer's badge number, too; that not only indicates your willingness to comply with the officer's commands, but also that you watch too much tv.

Posted by mmbb | February 26, 2008 9:25 PM
59

Anonymous wrote:

You are barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not barking up any tree. I'm trying to counteract all this police state propaganda by injecting some facts into this discussion.


mmbb wrote:

make sure you ask for the officer's badge number, too; that not only indicates your willingness to comply with the officer's commands, but also that you watch too much tv.

It indicates that you know they are required to display it, and that you understand that the ability to identify an officer who has done something wrong is so important that identifying him when that seems at all likely is a good policy.

Posted by Phil M | February 26, 2008 9:45 PM
60

Phil M-You sound like this country and society owes you something. Just remember that if you break the law a police officer has the authority to take take away your Constitutional rights! That is a fact! That is a fact that society doesn't like. But oh well. So this holier than thou mentality is ridiculous and old. Just accept the fact that you do not walk on water and your shit does stink

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 9:53 PM
61

And flexyourrights.org is a joke. The propaganda they put out are not facts, it is a website created by people like you to spread your own propaganda issues and are angry that police have more authority than you. It's unfortunate they have to protect pussies like you but that's what we get paid for. But again when you need them you scorn them for not being around to protect you. You are just a typical hypocrite that can't deal with society telling you what to do. Take your ass to bad and you lost.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 10:01 PM
62

mmbb-

... and make sure you ask for the officer's badge number, too; that not only indicates your willingness to comply with the officer's commands, but also that you watch too much tv.


So here's a little story about an Eritrean friend of mine in MN. One day he was riding his bicycle along in Brooklyn Center, when a cop pulls him over on suspicion of being a guy they wanted for questioning. Cuffed him, put him in the back of the squad, waited for like an hour.

My buddy can hear the radio traffic. In the end, they had been looking for a 5'10" black guy. My buddy was 5'4" on a good day. The cop takes the cuffs off, says "get out." My buddy says "you pulled me over just because I'm black." The cop says "what? Get out of the car." My buddy says "Gimme your badge number." The cop says "Fuck you. Out of the car."

And with that, he left. Only my buddy managed to get the squad number. He wrote a blistering note to the chief of police, who noted that officer xyz had never before had any complaints against him, and that the letter would be kept on file for five years, and that if there were any future incidents in that time this incident would be considered. My buddy came away feeling that the system works and that his concerns had been addressed, and that the Brooklyn Park Police Department was not entirely composed of racist thugs.

So the moral is- police and citizens are both better served when citizens know and exercise their rights.

Posted by Big Sven | February 26, 2008 10:07 PM
63

Big Sven-I commend your friend and I would have done the same thing. I have some Eritrean and Ethiopian friends and I hear stories all the time.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 10:13 PM
64

@anonymous....

you seem angry... are you by any chance RELATED to that fat cop in the video?

i dont particularly care whether he was right or wrong, it's his holier then thou, suck-my-dick attitude that shits me. he has a chip on his shoulder and i can picture him being the type of cop that nitpicks what haircut someone has rather then doing his real job which is to arrests murderers rapists and thieves.

*gasp* students protesting oh my GOD lives are at RISK! *scoff*

Posted by annie | February 26, 2008 10:33 PM
65

-Annie- I'm definitely not angry. You seem a bit exercised as Obama would say. I find it hilarious that you think that Trooper overreacted. Go to Phil M's favorite website flexyourrights.org for cops they claim overreacted which are just edited videos that do not show the whole story.

On the flip side I don't think that Trooper reacted strong enough. I think the suck-my-dick attitude is funny because I thought he was soft and not hard like a dick that you obviously need. And what part of me being a gay/black/mexican/jew did you miss? So how I can I be related to a white cop.

People like you are making me sick because you are so upset over a Trooper that pulled down a sign on some college kids give me a break. He fucking saved those kids from a beat down that SPD or UWPD would brought to them.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 10:47 PM
66

We saw that sign from I-5 southbound Sunday afternoon. It looked quite stable and was easy to read. It was not threatening or distracting; except the message, which I had to (try and) explain to my kids. I appreciated it. Thanks, optimistic college kids. No thanks to the officer for not even chatting with the kids about their cause.

Posted by ROAG | February 26, 2008 11:04 PM
67

It is important to note that the demonstrators requested to be written a ticket for anything they had done wrong and the officer refused.
The only safety stipulations on freeway bannering are that the sign cannot be tied to the overpass, nor can it hang over. We see Ron Paul folks at overpasses all the time. What is the difference?
It is easy to sit here with our bon bons and talk shit about what they said. I would love to see the video of any of us in the same position.

Posted by shann | February 26, 2008 11:08 PM
68

Anonymous, I have no doubt that you could articulate to a court that, under some circumstances, it is a matter of an officer's discretion whether certain behaviors "create a substantial risk of causing behavior to any person."

But if I understand the situation -- and I haven't done any research, I'm admittedly relying on the original slog post -- there are already guidelines in place that determine what specific kinds of assemblies on overpasses are deemed legal. Those guidelines, determined to clarify the rights of protestors in situations like this, prohibit blocking traffic or physically hanging signs from the freeway. If people aren't doing that, they're not breaking the law, and they can stay.

According to the original post, this wasn't a situation in which an officer needed to make a judgment call. The law was clear; the people hadn't broken it. The officer didn't have the discretion to determine that specifcally protected speech was suddenly not protected.

Again, I'm relying on the slog for this analysis, but it seems anyone could articulate these facts to a court, as well. This is not about protest, or the arrogance of kids (or the police). This is about the law and an officer's duty to enforce it, not change it. That the statement from the police spokesman called it an "overreaction" seems to corroborate the view that the officer misinterpreted the law. You could say he was putting out fires, but that's speculation without any evidence. The facts at hand seem to indicate otherwise.

Posted by Abridged Freedoms? | February 26, 2008 11:12 PM
69

Shann-It doesn't work like that. You cannot request to be written a ticket. They have three choices:
#1 leave,
#2receive a criminal citation which is a mandatory court appearance and then leave or
#3 go to jail and then receive a criminal citation.

Those are the options.

Posted by Anonymous | February 26, 2008 11:15 PM
70

Abridged Freedoms? This is the same rhetoric that has been used by certain people on this slog.

They violated state statutes aforementioned above. It doesn't matter how you interpret the law that's up to the attorney's you pay for and the judge. For all we know those kids researched municipal code which does not outweigh state statute.

And the WSP admitting that he was overreacting does not mean he misinterpreted the law.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 11:23 PM
71

Hypothetically, let's say you're right about the students relying on a municipal code.

If there's a state law allowing an officer wide discretion in determining what is a "substantial risk" and a municipal code specifically protecting certain forms of speech, it's an officer's job to enforce the municipal code if he can before he chooses to ignore it.

Put simply, there's a decision to be made when people are staging a possibly hazardous protest. Sometimes an officer has to make the decision about what should be permitted, and what should not. The state law you mention gives the officer that ability. Sometimes, however, a community writes a code to specifically address some question, and then it becomes the officer's duty to enforce the code. He cannot choose to rewrite the code or assess events himself and hold that the state law under which he arrested people supercedes the municipal code which he completely disregarded.

It's important that officers not be constrained by ordinances that prevent them from making common sense judgments. But it's equally important that officers follow the law when the law is clear. All you could say about this sign is, drivers would look at it momentarily while they drive. It followed the procedures the code described: it was not fastened to the overpass, ready to fall, and the protestors did not block any traffic.

They weren't even shouting or marching. They seemed to be standing peacefully. Someone wrote a law to decide what they were allowed to do. They obeyed that law. And then a police officer ripped down their sign.

Does that seem like rhetoric, to you?

Posted by Abridged Freedoms? | February 26, 2008 11:52 PM
72

Absolutely, it seems like continued rhetoric. That Trooper has responsibility to enforce laws. He does not nor is he required to take into consideration municipal code. I mean let's get real here.

State law pertained to the situation not municipal code. Who fucking cares if they were shouting or marching it doesn't matter.

Posted by anonymous | February 26, 2008 11:57 PM
73

I'd like to thank the sheep for complying with the officer, rather than insisting on their rights.

You have no rights while I am King.

Sincerely,

His Royal Majesty George W Bush

Posted by Thank You For Complying | February 27, 2008 12:11 AM
74

anonymous @ 60: "if you break the law a police officer has the authority to take take away your Constitutional rights! "

And you are utterly, profoundly ignorant of the basic foundational principles of this country.

If there was any doubt before that your comments are ill-informed garbage, that statement verifies it.

Posted by gnossos | February 27, 2008 12:22 AM
75

I can't wait until that S.O.B. leaves office. He should be sent to The Hague and charged with war crimes.

Posted by anonymous | February 27, 2008 12:22 AM
76

Yes, let's get real.

To say it again: a state trooper who decides to act on state law in *direct violation* of local code is acting on dubious authority. His discretionary powers are at their most limited in that instance. These people saw code written that governs their actions; they followed it; someone else -- a cop -- did not follow it. Your claim is that he simply shouldn't have to, because even though the people of that municipality have made their minds up about what is appropriate, a state trooper can completely contradict them if he wants.

You talked about articulating things before a court. This is just the kind of philosophy that doesn't look great in court, or out of court. You said you'd arrest these people for being a dangerous distraction, but when somebody points out all the distracting things they *weren't* doing, it's "who fucking cares."

Who fucking cares if they followed the rules? Who fucking cares if a cop ignored that and arrests people who, according to their own code, did nothing wrong? Who fucking cares?

Look, if you're a cop, your job is tough. Mine isn't. Trust me. But these people did nothing wrong. You want to see them arrested for it, and when somebody points out they looked up the rules and followed the rules, you want to know who fucking cares.


Posted by Abridged Freedoms? | February 27, 2008 12:23 AM
77

Give my brothers in the SPD $89,250 a year to treat you like this.

Posted by Oink | February 27, 2008 12:45 AM
78

It was fun having this spirited debate with you all and I will have to agree to disagree with most positions. And I'm your feelings are mutual. I have to rest my eyes now and all of you have a good night!

Posted by anonymous | February 27, 2008 12:50 AM
79

whoa, anonymous is a bigger dick than that farva wannabe.

also, the fact you keep repeating that you are a gay/black/mexican/jew & keep pimping the pol-sucking-ice, i'm gonna say you're probably whiter than danny fucking kaye.

if this was worthy of such action, why weren't any of the flag waving, banner hanging "support our troop" fascists ever assaulted/harassed?

Posted by holz | February 27, 2008 1:00 AM
80

Officer Dumbass looks like he just ate four brats with the extra spicy mustard. In fact, he kinda looks like this guy.

Posted by Mahtli69 | February 27, 2008 1:05 AM
81

The police offiver involved should be FIRED. Let this be an example that fascism will not be tolerated in this city. Anti-Americans with guns and badges is never a good idea. The police exist to protect our freedoms, not take them away.

Posted by Dylan | February 27, 2008 4:50 AM
82

THE POLICE EXIST TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUIONAL FREEDOMS -- NOT TAKE THEM AWAY.

Posted by Steve Young | February 27, 2008 4:53 AM
83

RCW 47.32.130 addresses the powers and prerogatives of the Department of Transportation. As far as I'm aware, WSP is not part of the Department of Transportation, so the claim that the students were "violating" RCW 47.32.130, which is essentially a regulatory instrument, is pretty shaky to begin with.

The question of whether the sign posed an actual hazard is obviously open to debate. I believe, looking at its design (small letters on a wire-grid frame, specifically designed not to catch the wind) that a reasonable person would assume that the sign was not dangerous to people on the freeway.

Per someone else's comment about how "your right to wave your fists around ends at the tip of my nose" or somesuch, these students, using a well-designed sign, were nowhere near the tips of anyone's nose.

As to the idea that everyone should do what the police tell them to do all the time: yes, by all means, let's have a giant legal apparatus designed and operated by people with doctorates, and constrained by a various constitutions and charters, be completely subverted by non-elected cops whose job description requires a high school diploma or a GED. Good idea.

Posted by Judah | February 27, 2008 7:28 AM
84

Anonymous wrote:

You sound like this country and society owes you something.

Then you're not listening. This country and society guarantee me a few things.

Just remember that if you break the law a police officer has the authority to take take away your Constitutional rights! That is a fact!

You are sorely mistaken.

[The Flex Your Rights Foundation Web site] is a joke. The propaganda they put out are not facts,

If you really believe that, please provide an example of incorrect information on their site.

You cannot request to be written a ticket. They have three choices:
  1. leave,
  2. receive a criminal citation which is a mandatory court appearance and then leave or
  3. go to jail and then receive a criminal citation.

Are you kidding? First, a "ticket" is precisely what you referred to in #2. Second, someone suspected by an officer of wrongdoing does not have these options. Seriously: Take any of those three and consider whether the suspect may choose either of the others.

Here's specifically how you can make that request: "Sir/Ma'am, I understand that you are doing your job, and that if you believe I have done something wrong, it is your duty to issue me a citation."

They violated state statutes aforementioned above. It doesn't matter how you interpret the law that's up to the attorney's you pay for and the judge.

When it comes to judging guilt in he eyes of the law, it's up only to a judge or jury. If this officer truly believed those people had done wrong, he should have issued them a citation. Apparently, he did not.

Posted by Phil M | February 27, 2008 7:41 AM
85

I'm surprised no one has brought up the fact that there are people holding signs and flags and waving nearly every day on the Bridgeport Way overpass next to Fort Lewis. Can you imagine the shitstorm if WSP told *those* folks that they were a 'distraction' and a 'safety hazard'?

Posted by investigatory journalist | February 27, 2008 8:14 AM
86

Wow, anonymous. I really, truly hope you are a troll. Your attitude seems to be, cops are always in the right no matter what. You have no right to disagree with them, you must do whatever they say at all times (even when you have done your research and know that you are not breaking any laws).

If you try to make your case that you are not doing anything wrong, you should be arrested. Or maced.

Posted by mscanard | February 27, 2008 8:31 AM
87

Question for Anonymous:

IF, as you posit, these kids were in violation of some law or statute, why were they not cited for such?

Surely, if the officer in question had had any serious doubts as to the legality of their actions, that would have been his first obligation when they refused to comply with his demand to take down the sign, right? Yet, no ticket or citation was issued, even after FOUR additional SPD units arrived on the scene.

To say the students were "in violation", when no citation was issued is, simply put, ludicrous on its face; that's not how our legal system works. Furthermore, there's been no admission of guilt by any of the students, there has been no judicial hearing to determine guilt, and no sentencing from a judge to punish anyone for being guilty.

So, under these circumstances, how can any reasonable person come to any other conclusion than, "the students were NOT in violation of any municipal, county, or state ordinance or statute"?

Posted by COMTE | February 27, 2008 9:49 AM
88

@ 30... "That sign is distracting period! It posed a distraction to the drivers on Southbound I-5. People already can't drive in this state. The last thing cell phone using, burger eating and make up applying drivers need is another distraction like this sign."

Wow, good thing there aren't any other distracting signs on the Freeway... oh I don't know like the one's advertising burger joints, gas stations and hotels. Good thing there aren't giant yellow exit signs and big billboards on the side of the highway that say MOTEL 6! CASINO! BUY A CHEVY! to distract us from driving.

Give me a break. That sign is no more distracting than any of the others we see while driving on the freeway on any given day. Just because you (or the cops) don't like what it says doesn't make it a distraction.

Posted by SDizzle | February 27, 2008 9:59 AM
89

...And this is why domestic violence is such a rampant problem in cop families. Disagreement = insubordination = threat.

Posted by Greg | February 27, 2008 10:01 AM
90

The WSP Trooper lost his cool, no doubt. But, it also looks to me like that sign was a flimsy piece of shit; the way it toppled over / got tangled / etc so easily. Imagine that hunk of crap falling on or clipping a car at 60mph. It could easily be justified as a safety issue...but I bet if he had handled himself differently / talked to the students / took his time it would have ended a lot differently.

Posted by Michael | February 28, 2008 4:00 AM
91

Michael, it's made that way for a purpose. That plastic mesh to which the letters are affixed is extremely lightweight and allows wind to pass through the banner instead of pushing against it as if it was a sail. I've built and used a similar one myself. Such banners are far less likely to be blown over the edge and into traffic than would be something that looks more sturdy to you.

They had four people holding it, and even if every one of them lost control and it did fall into traffic, it's mostly transparent, so it would not block the view of drivers the way a solid banner would.

For detailed instructions for making such a banner, see The Backbone Campaign's "freeway bannering" page.

Posted by Phil M | February 28, 2008 7:03 AM
92

I'm not so sure. That didn't look sturdy at all. If I am driving with my family and a bunch of mesh / chicken wire / etc. fall onto my car I'd be a little pissed. Anyone driving who has ever even had a piece of debris hit their windshield will acknowledge for a split second it freaks you out; much less something as large as a piece of signage or mesh. And yes, they did have 4 people holding it...at one point. Once confronted, some thought it more important to argue their point than to safely protect their sign from potentially going over the side. I'd imagine both the protesters and the WSP would then be partially at fault....

Posted by Michael | February 28, 2008 9:42 AM
93

I love the "You should move when the cops tell you to" bullshit. Reflexive deference is the first step to submission. Bitches.

Posted by RuperttheBear | February 29, 2008 3:51 PM
94

The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that you have NO RIGHT to resist a police officer EVEN if the police officer is not acting unlawfully.

Look it up. The case involved a man that fought with an arresting officer when he was arrested for a charge that the courts ruled he did not merit. The highest court in WA ruled that he was, however, guilty of resisting the officer and he went to jail for that! Hahahahahaha!

Posted by You got owned! | March 2, 2008 2:15 AM
95

The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that you have NO RIGHT to resist a police officer EVEN if the police officer is not acting lawfully.

Look it up. The case involved a man that fought with an arresting officer when he was arrested for a charge that the courts ruled he did not merit. The highest court in WA ruled that he was, however, guilty of resisting the officer and he went to jail for that! Hahahahahaha!

Posted by You got owned! | March 2, 2008 2:16 AM
96

"It's funny what people see and don't see. The officer asked several times and even explained that the sign on the overpass could be distracting to those on the freeway. He said they could take the sign and go somewhere else but not over the freeway. He must have asked them at least half a dozen times before he pulled it down.
The other officers showed up to insure things would not go bad. Strength in numbers many times stops things before someone goes beyond stupid to arrested.
It's a logical reason about distacting drivers, so why the problem. Well in this world people think they have every right to do anything. Well in the United states you have more freedom than in other countries, but even we have limits.
If the officer tells you why, you need to listen. But when you follow that by demanding his badge number that's like yelling "I'm gonna tell mom".
Do you know how many times an officer hears that?
He was reasonable in many ways, he asked them to just not do it on the overpass and even offered the sign back. I didn't see him get in anybodies face, nor did he arrest anybody.
Yet it took awhile for the people being asked to move somewhere else to move.
If you don't like what he tells you go file a complaint, but when you stand there and an officer tells you to do something more than once, it can become obstruction and you can be given a citation for not doing what your told.
And most officers I know would not even start something that they know they can't back up with RCW's because of the problems it causes them at some point.
My suggestion is listen next time, but unless you have a copy of said rcw in your hand I wouldn't argue, as the one that stands to loose the most is you.
I had the chance to sit in court and watch a girl that had chained herself to the federal building, get a couple of days in jail and a fine for protesting the cutting of timber in the forests.
There are things that come with breaking the law. She told the judge that she was just protesting the forests being cut. The judge took the time to explain that protesting is a part of the United States history, but it still comes with repercussions when you fail to follow orders to unchain yourself from a door.
It's the price that you may pay if you push it to far.
Next time just move to another place, and your life will remain simple. Don't or argue your position, you may need that phone call that's not listed in the constitution, that people demand." (Someone else's thoughts)

Posted by You got owned! | March 2, 2008 2:18 AM
97

"You got owned" lives in a child's fantasy world.

Really -- asking for a badge number with which to identify an officer who seems to be doing wrong is "like yelling `I'm gonna tell mom'"? Give me a break.

Yeah, next time you're bullied by someone in uniform who doesn't like your message, just shut up and move along. If you have something to say that some highway patroller doesn't like, you don't need to be saying it anyway. Just remember that you're a child and the officer is your parent, and you'll do just fine. He knows what's best, and even if he doesn't, it's his place to tell you what to do.

Posted by Phil M | March 2, 2008 11:51 AM
98

My apologies. I realize that cops are ultimately here for our help and benefit; and that my attitude never reflects that. I am the jerk on this string, and for that I am sorry.

Posted by Phil M | March 4, 2008 12:12 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).