The vibe was festive, like a tea party. A gun-loving tea party.

I'm having a very hard time matching this last sentence with the pictures and not reading it as a snide jab at the rally itself.

The tea parties I've seen are characterized by their anger, not festive atmosphere. If the pictures are an accurate reflection of the rally, it was festive, but sure as hell not like a tea party. The use of "tea party" on a website like Slog which is decidedly left-wing, sounds like an insult.

As for it being "gun loving", I see no 2nd ammendment signs, and no firearms. If you mean to imply they are supportive of the men and women with guns and uniforms, it sure is a strange way of putting it. By calling it a "gun loving tea party" it sounds more like they are militant. The people in the photos look like the kind of neighbors you would love to have, not "gun loving tea partiers".

Overall the post seems to be itching to find fault with the rally. They aren't from the city. They don't have to deal with the SPD themselves etc. I can see where there could be legitimate criticisms, but frankly if you're going to criticize the rally, do it openly.

oh lynx, i think the criticism is perfectly clear.

Did they have a permit?

What a refreshing display from our real citizens to dilute the leftist anarchist depravity that has so infested Seattle. God bless them!

Why don't they lobby their husbands to vote out Rich O'Neil as guild president? Would solve half of the officers' PR issues.

"It's unfair to judge a thousand men and women on the actions of just a few"

Great, so we all agree that Rich O'Neil's actions are deplorable, so why is he still the guild president?

It's the self-publicizing goofball dumbshits in action again. 1300 sworn officers, and maybe twenty of them make a point of writing infamous shit in the union newsletter. Now here twenty of their loved ones figure, ooh, let's do a media event and see how many fools cover it. Blech.

Did you invent those quotes or are the officers' wives really that dim-witted? I almost feel a little bit sorry for Seattle cops now, but not for the reasons that these ladies are promoting.

@9: Wow. What's eating you? Why be so against a bunch of cop wives, ditzy as they may be, who want to point out that there a lot of good apples in the barrel?

What if I can't sleep at night because I'm worried a Seattle cop is going to jump out of his car and shoot me? Or some other kid's dad.

@11

Are they good apples if they place group loyalty over what's right? Where are all the condemnations from these good apples when injustices are committed by the few bad apples?

Something inside me thinks that these women were duped into thinking it was a rally for soldiers in Iraq.

A loyalty rally? Really?

And crying that there's no press of the good things cops do, even though cops don't join the force for personal glory or fame?

This is just a mindless attempt at making Seattle feel bad for questioning the wrongdoings of the police force. Who knows what we'll question if we question the Birks of the world? Maybe next we'll go after abuses of DUI laws? Or perhaps call foul on unreasonable ticketing of cyclists? Or maybe the unfair attack on the LGBT community in the East Precinct?

Shame on us, Seattle.

Go to your rooms.

@14: You're talking about applesauce now, and that's another kettle of fish.

For me it's as simple as Diaz and Oneill have to be gone before I gain any respect for the SPD. Until then, I'll happily flip off your 10 year old holding a pro-cop sign.

Oneill embodies everything I hate about cops -- and they elected him their guild president. I hope to run into him one day so I can tell him he's a shitberg pig to his face.

@5: You did read that most of them weren't Seattle citizens, right? Is that what makes them real?

Yes, until I hear that these folks are talking to the officers they are supporting about addressing the issues many Seattle residents have with SPD (our flawed accountability process, Rich O'Neill's continued tenure as guild president, the state law which basically exempts the criminal liability of officers in the use of deadly force from any real repercussions since we can't reach into their minds and
"prove" malice beyond some impossible standard of reasonable doubt, etc.), I could care less about what they have to say. In particular, folks who don't live in the city. They benefit, while Seattle residents suffers the consequences of the actions of both individual officers committing offenses/crimes against the community, and the institutional fuckitude of SPD and city government in addressing these issues in any substantial way.

Really, this smacks of desperation, and fairly late-in-the-game desperation at that. Where were these folks a year ago, before John T. Williams was killed by Officer Ian Birk?

If they'd really been thoughtful about this, this rally would have been an expression for compassion for the Seattle community, as well as support for SPD. But that's just a little too complicated of a message, eh?

""It's unfair to judge a thousand men and women on the actions of just a few. It hurts their feelings. And you know what? That affects their job performance. " ~

So in other words, if we aren't nice to the cops, they will continue to kill innocent civilians?

http://ohpamphleteers.blogspot.com/2011/…

@19: I did read that. Whether they're citizens of Seattle or Kent, they show real courage standing up for their husbands in such an antagonistic atmosphere.

fascinating that there is only one person of color represented among these supporters of SPD--and that they make the puzzling comparison to China's totalitarian state, and are not even a resident of Seattle!
people of color, working class/poor people, people who circumvent gender normativity, etc, are the people who are most adversely affected by cops, and i see few of those folks represented here, expressing faith in SPD or in policing, whatsoever.
it's disappointing (but not surprising) that spouses of SPD are failing at objectivity. i know, it's hard to be objective when your position of privilege depends upon your partner thwarting the position of others, but it's still disgusting.
i really wish that _Our Enemies in Blue_ were required reading for anyone talking about the police in America, pretty much EVER.

Piggybacking off my previous post @21: The messaging of this crowd seems intent on not just supporting the good apples, but to diminish the severity of some of the offenses committed by the few bad apples they claim to oppose. Without addressing the fact that these unjustified detentions, injuries and death have happened in the past year because of the actions of these few bad apples, and saying that the choice is support the police because the alternative is chaos and danger, these folks are basically making the same statement as "support the troops" folks did in the years after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars started up. They are meant to shut down ANY discussion of the complexity of how to have a police force that is also ethical and accountable to the community they police.

@1, I wasn't making a snide reference to the Tea Party. Tea parties existed long before the Tea Party, and that was the vibe I got--mothers talking, children running around, it felt like the tea parties my grandmother took me to as a kid. Only this social gathering was to show unwavering loyalty in response to police violence that has eroded trust in officers citywide (hence the gun-loving tea party).

You can read it any way you want but that was where I was coming from.

Why is it so hard for many commenters to put themselves in these women's shoes and imagine their partners doing dangerous work only to perceive very little gratitude and, at times, vitriol? These women are supporting their husbands and that is sweet.

I don't agree with some of what they said. Obviously some of them underestimate the terrifying effect of the incidents these past couple years, or they discount just how bad they were. They should be educated on that, not called "ditzes" and "gun-lovers".

27 hits the nail on the head.

I just wish my fellow liberals saw more opportunities to educate people instead of make them our enemies.

What is wrong with supporting police officers? You make it sound like only right-wing nutjobs would support their hard work.

My brother-in-law is a Seattle cop who works very hard, and is a good man. I'm as critical as anyone about the wave of shocking incidents in the last few years, and I've talked it over with him, and listened to what he has to say. And I'll tell you what - when four snarky bloggers are shot to death in a cafe for no reason other than the fact that they are snarky bloggers, then we'll see how you respond.

Excessive force must be criticized and stopped, but attacking police officers en masse is polarizing and simplistic, not to mention in extremely poor taste.

@29 except policing ISN'T that dangerous of work. Statistically, agricultural and other industrial work is more dangerous. Where are our monuments to fallen mill laborers? Support rallies? Laws exempting them from murdering citizens in cold blood?

@32 they're removing labor murals in state buildings in Maine because they're too pro-labor.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

What an unsurprisingly white crowd.

@24. I bet you're pumping one out thinking about that, aren't ya?

I personally don't have that much of a problem with the police I just wish they'd stop shooting people for no real reason.

@38- He could have been Hitler, Officer Birk still had no reason to shoot.

Never said that.

I support the SPD. I also think they need to be held accountable much more often than they are- not charging Birk with manslaughter was basically giving them license to shoot whoever they wanted.

The SPD is just a misunderstood puppy!