Comments on OPA Actually Sustains Some Complaints In This Month's Report

Isn't 16 the age of consent in this state? If so, what's wrong with an off-duty dispatcher having sex with a 16-year-old? We're missing something here...

@1: there are a few situations where age of consent is 18 in WA, but I don't see how this fits into any of them unless the dispatcher also worked with children as part of his job.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

#1 The legal limit for consuming alcohol is 21 in Washington, not 16. Supplying it to a minor is even worse.

#2 Coercion is not consent.

#3 Dispatchers are still police officers. I'm sure he had a uniform lying around somewhere and gave some "don't go to the police and tell anyone, I am the police!" speech.

And, well, you know, police officers are supposed to be role models and outstanding citizens otherwise they're just thugs with guns. The discipline should be a firing for behavior unbecoming of a law enforcement officer.

wonder why the 16 year old would turn him in?

in my late teens, all I longed for was an older guy to take me home and introduce me in real life too all the stuff I had imagined for years.

then I moved to Seattle about 19 to go to the U of W ... and ... found the parks, peeps, and bars.

and thanks to several older guys, my life and sexual side fell into place and I have never looked back and still have warm feeling about those first crushes and long, so long, passionate weekends....

Jerry, now proud Ferry (love my signs on the waterfront)

Anon @ 3 & 4 believes dispatchers are police officers, is "sure" the dispatcher "had a uniform lying around", and used it to exert "coercion" (like other "thugs with guns").

SPD 911 dispatchers are civilian employees, not sworn officers. (You could look it up.)

The conduct in question was consensual. (You could look it up.)

"He" (the dispatcher) wasn't "apparently" off-duty, she was explicitly off-duty ... and 911 dispatchers don't work at the grocery store anyway, unless it's a second job. (Ditto.)

What we have here is an example of agenda-driven coloration, omission and serial fabrication of the sort that raises skepticism regarding citizen allegations of police misconduct.

Note: 4 of the 5 sustained complaints concern personal conduct off duty - not abuse of public authority - while the fifth is a derivative of an incident proceeding from a stop in which satisfaction of the "reasonable suspicion" standard is ambiguous in retrospect.

The monthly report includes the following item under "Cases Mediated":

The complaint alleged that after being cited for driving infractions, the employee left the area also committing multiple infractions.

Oh, well ... nobody's perfect.