Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, August 3, 2012

Seattle Cop Appears to Punch Man in the Face

Posted by on Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

As I mentioned earlier, a Seattle cop has been relieved of duty after his fellow officers reported that he used excessive force last night.

Well, news intern Mike Gore seems to have found the video on YouTube. You can see the whole verbal altercation that escalates into the officer initiating violence at the 50 second mark:

Thank Christ for cell phones with video cameras... And while I praised cops earlier for reporting this, it looks less proactive now. The impetus for taking him off duty wasn't just conscientious policing (the officer right next to the offending cop seems unfazed). It looks more like the officers knew a crowd was there, recording, and this was going to be exposed quickly. It looks like reactive PR damage control.

 

Comments (77) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
seatackled 1
It looks like a headbutt and then a punch with his elbow around the 50 second mark. But around the 4 second mark, the cop pushes the guy, which is something that they're required to report--I think they called it first degree or level 1 use of force.
Posted by seatackled on August 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM · Report this
2
It looks like the guy spit at the cop first
Posted by j2patter on August 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM · Report this
3
The (non)reaction of the cop on the right when officer powder keg blew makes it pretty clear that this is everyday behavior for SPD.
Posted by Phil M http://twitter.com/pmocek on August 3, 2012 at 6:30 PM · Report this
4
fuck the police that's how i treat em
Posted by Swearengen on August 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM · Report this
5
So how can we convince all the people whose reaction is that they would probably react similarly to this cop that people whose job includes enforcing policy at gunpoint like these high-paid public servants (most Seattle cops clear $100,000/year) are held to a bit higher standard?
Posted by Phil M http://twitter.com/pmocek on August 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM · Report this
seatackled 6
@2

Yes, the Seattle Times link from earlier this afternoon says that the guy appeared to spit at the cop. What's your point? SPD is suspending the cop because he allowed himself to be baited into what he did, so if you're trying to say that the guy asked for it, SPD doesn't agree with you.
Posted by seatackled on August 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM · Report this
7
Or rather, that it's reasonable to hold them to a higher standard.
Posted by Phil M http://twitter.com/pmocek on August 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM · Report this
Kinison 8
As much as I dont appreciate cops acting that way, it helps to not act like an asshole and bait the cops by spitting in their face.
Posted by Kinison http://www.holgatehawks.com on August 3, 2012 at 6:45 PM · Report this
NaFun 9
You let someone get in your face and push your buttons? Go work a desk job. Telecommute and take your aggression out on the Seattle Times comments section. You're not cut out to work as a public safety officer.
Posted by NaFun http://www.dancesafe.org on August 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 10
Looks like the Cop lost his cool and should not have puffed himself up and gone the halfway to meet the kid face-to-face, but I'd hardly call a shove like that excessive at all, the kid spit in his face, he's lucky he didn't get jacked up.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on August 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 11
This would be 1000% worse if it were White cop on Black man. Thank goodness it's Black on Black. And of course the young Black man was doing NOTHING to have all those police cars show up, NOTHING! The cops just showed up because you know, they do that. And then the mean mean meany cops hit that Black man for doing NOTHING. God I'm so UN-PC it's gunna be a fashion.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on August 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM · Report this
Eric Arrr 12
The cop put himself nose-to-nose with that guy to scream in his face. Who was baiting whom?
Posted by Eric Arrr on August 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM · Report this
13
Now he can sue for damages, right? He's got evidence.
Posted by floater on August 3, 2012 at 7:23 PM · Report this
15
You can't figure the distance between the two from the camera angle or get a sense of how fast the assailant was moving (you can't see the feet either).

The cops on the side lack of reaction seems to suggest this is some sort of police training move, not an irate out of nowhere assault as some are claiming. The accoster could have been coming at the officer with a knife or shiv...very common these days in Seattle, hence the officer used the least and appropriate amount of force.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on August 3, 2012 at 8:06 PM · Report this
16
@5

Once again, Phil M attempts an argument that only works if nobody knows how to use a search engine.
Posted by robotslave on August 3, 2012 at 8:18 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 17
I think if the kid did spit in the cops face then the cop gets to give a free punch to the face. I would fuck somebody up too.
Posted by Lew Siffer on August 3, 2012 at 8:18 PM · Report this
18
@5

Once again, Phil M attempts a line of argument that only works if nobody knows how to use a search engine:

http://www.seattle.gov/police/jobs/benef…

Hey Phil, where's the actual data that backs up your claim that most SPD officers earn more than $100K a year?

We'll wait here while you chase down one unsubstantiated Occupy press release after another trying to find the source for that confident statement of yours.
Posted by robotslave on August 3, 2012 at 8:28 PM · Report this
Westlake, son! 19
You know someone, somewhere on the SPD behaves like this *every day* right? Look how cool they all acted, they've seen it a hundred times before.
Posted by Westlake, son! on August 3, 2012 at 8:39 PM · Report this
Westlake, son! 20
LOL @9.
Posted by Westlake, son! on August 3, 2012 at 8:41 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 21
I'm not sure what I saw was a punch to the face, but what I DIDN'T see was the slightest attempt at de-escalation. The shove at the beginning is far more damning in that regard than the violent response to the spitter.
Posted by Free Lunch on August 3, 2012 at 8:46 PM · Report this
22
Go watch the British cop shows to see what restraint looks like. I can't fathom the amount of patience they have to let so much abuse slide. The British hooligans would get throttled out here. Whether or not we should be asking that of our police force is something else. I don't really have a problem with the cop's actions in this video.
Posted by sanotehu on August 3, 2012 at 9:11 PM · Report this
23
Who's gonna be the new federal monitor? Is it Kofi Annan?
Posted by madcap on August 3, 2012 at 10:45 PM · Report this
25
@2, @6, @8, @17, @21:

If you turn the volume up, it becomes clear that the kid is not spitting, but answering the "I don't give a fuck!" with a "Fuck you!"

Just for the record.
Posted by d.p. on August 3, 2012 at 11:04 PM · Report this
26
@25 -- does it make a difference? will your opinion change if it turns out you're wrong?
Posted by six shooter on August 3, 2012 at 11:22 PM · Report this
27
Words differ from actions.
Posted by d.p. on August 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM · Report this
doloresdaphne 28
It would be handy if someone could use video editing software to lighten the shade levels and slow the footage down @ 0:50 for closer examination.
Posted by doloresdaphne on August 4, 2012 at 12:18 AM · Report this
29
Doesn't make a difference to me. Cop shouldn't have lost his temper. His partners shouldn't have let him get so personally involved during the incident.

Police officers should have access to more resources for dealing with unruly crowds and confrontational citizens. They should be trained on how to prevent incidents from escalating into physical altercations.

I see a man who was either spit on or insulted who then lost his temper. I see a man who will now be paraded around the city as an example of bad policing while the people really responsible for this level of aggressiveness between the police and the citizens of Seattle pretend they've done nothing wrong.

I wish he wouldn't have lost his temper, but I certainly understand why he did, spit or no. I wish he were given more options than the few he felt he had. I also wish the kid in the video felt like he could question authority in more productive ways than spitting or saying fuck you to a man who was probably trying to do his job the best he could.

But instead we'll try a veteran cop of 19 years as if he alone is responsible for poor training, poor staffing, poor public education, poor role-modeling, and generally poor accountability in the place where the police department fails the most: its leadership.

And don't forget for a second that the first cop publicly punished for finding himself over his head in a situation he wasn't equipped to handle will not be white.

Thanks for the bike lanes, McGinn.
Posted by six shooter on August 4, 2012 at 12:29 AM · Report this
vooodooo84 30
@18, that doesn't include overtime which is routinely quite hefty
Posted by vooodooo84 on August 4, 2012 at 12:53 AM · Report this
31

So, I want to get this straight. If citizen spits on a cop, the cop gets to punch him. What if a cop punches a citizen? Should they be able to kick them in the balls? Well, anyway, they won't, because it would be a felony assault of a police officer.

Come on, cops attacking people to masturbate their egos is massively cowardly because the police are protected by special rules against assault, and they carry guns, and as here have a group with guns. This is just thug behavior.

People who support beat downs for spitting are supporting thuggery and don't believe in law or order.
Posted by cracked on August 4, 2012 at 1:00 AM · Report this
32
And, I didn't see the spitting. When did that happen? Before the first shove?
Posted by cracked on August 4, 2012 at 1:01 AM · Report this
33
P.S. Saying "fuck you" to a cop is a right in the Constitution of the United States of America. Those of you who think it justifies an attack by a police officer do not believe in the foundational values of this country.

If they had a reason to arrest the guy at the beginning, they would have done it. Pretty clear here who is provoking who.
Posted by cracked on August 4, 2012 at 1:06 AM · Report this
34
@22 British cop shows aren't a bit like British cops these days, any more than US cops are like CHiPs. Look up Ian Tomlinson. Look up the response to the student tuition protests or how they dealt with the Critical Mass ride during the Olympics opening ceremony where a disabled person on a tricycle got peppersprayed. Just like cops in the US, the Met very often deal with bad situations with the utmost in patience and restraint, but they have plenty of issues with overreacting and inappropriate violence, and the same systemic self-protection which keeps these as issues for internal investigation instead of civil or criminal prosecution.
Posted by chorizo on August 4, 2012 at 3:04 AM · Report this
Pithy Name 35
@29 For the win.

I'm more angry at all of this cop's fellow policemen, who didn't step into that situation when it was clear he wasn't in a position to interact with this guy without yelling back at him. But, of course, I don't know what was going on at that scene at all...just a bunch of cops, and a bunch of yelling.
Posted by Pithy Name on August 4, 2012 at 6:45 AM · Report this
36
@31 Come on, people attacking cops to masturbate their egos is massively cowardly because the people are protected by special rules that restrain cops from responding in kind. This is just thug behavior.
Posted by Charlie Mas on August 4, 2012 at 6:54 AM · Report this
37
Somebody left a comment in response to the Times story with a link to what appears to be another video of this officer, who the commenter identified as "Officer Powell" (which would be 5776 Clayton S. Powell of the South Precinct, hired 1993-04-05, and paid $113,416.26 in 2009): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8r1qehj…
Posted by Phil M http://twitter.com/pmocek on August 4, 2012 at 7:48 AM · Report this
JonnoN 38
http://socialistworker.org/2011/01/27/fo…


A November article by Officer Clayton Powell, discusses his "communication skills" in dealing with the public. Referring to "mother f**ker," which, he argues, is a "commonly used street term showing endearment to something or someone," he elaborates on other terms that he finds are appropriate in communicating with the public such as "bitch" and "n***a." (Asterisks are his.)

"If I can communicate with someone in their primary language...it makes me a more effective officer," writes Powell. "Learn to accept and appreciate the direct method of in-your-face communication."
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on August 4, 2012 at 9:55 AM · Report this
COMTE 39
Officer Powell was dispatched to take a report on my hit-and-run several years ago. Not only did he incorrectly write down the license number of the vehicle that hit me (I managed to snap a photo with my phone while discussing "insurance coverage" with the driver), even after I noted his mistake, but he also never returned several subsequent phone calls I made after discovering the vehicle parked several blocks away from the scene a few days later.

Sounds like, despite nearly 20 years on the force, he's really not a very good LEO...
Posted by COMTE on August 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM · Report this
tomas 40
@31: Spitting on someone is considered an assault. It is perfectly reasonable for a cop to beat someone up who assaults him/her. Cops can be jerks and thugs, but I dont think you should assault them and not expect to get beaten up.
Posted by tomas on August 4, 2012 at 10:25 AM · Report this
prompt 41
@40 It's not a fucking bar brawl. He's a police officer. If the kid spits in your face, arrest him and hood him. Don't start throwing punches like some bouncer.

@18 Perhaps a bit dated, but still relevant. We can search too.
Posted by prompt on August 4, 2012 at 10:38 AM · Report this
42
@40
"Spitting on someone is considered an assault. It is perfectly reasonable for a cop to beat someone up who assaults him/her."

No it is not.
The cop should arrest the person.
Once the cop starts screaming or punching/kicking then the cop has lost control of the situation.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on August 4, 2012 at 10:43 AM · Report this
43
@30

Yes, police do get paid overtime when they work overtime.

Now go find me some actual data supporting Phil's claim that most SPD officers make more than $100k a year, or wake up to the fact that for people like Phil M, the kind of truth supported by evidence can be discarded in favor of the kind of truth derived from one's preexisting political beliefs.
Posted by robotslave on August 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM · Report this
44
The dude who got punched was absolutely asking for it and got what he deserved. The cop, however, should have known better. Same goes for his partners.
Posted by Amanda on August 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM · Report this
45
@42

The cop should arrest the person.

Presumably this should be accomplished using that Spell of Arresting they learn at Police Wizard School, instead of any physical means, right?

Posted by robotslave on August 4, 2012 at 11:11 AM · Report this
46
@42
"Presumably this should be accomplished using that Spell of Arresting they learn at Police Wizard School, instead of any physical means, right?"

Do you need someone to explain the difference between arresting someone and punching someone?
Really, do you need that difference explained to you?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on August 4, 2012 at 11:25 AM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 47
@29 for the win.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on August 4, 2012 at 11:25 AM · Report this
48
@46

Oh, yes, this will be fun.

Let's pretend I do need that difference explained.

Could you tell me why physical force is justified when making an arrest, but not otherwise?

Could you tell me which kinds of force are justified in making an arrest, and what criteria we should use to identify them?

Can you tell me whether or not the man who was punched was also arrested?

Posted by robotslave on August 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM · Report this
49
@41

Yes, some SPD employees make more than $100k.

Now go find data backing up Phil M's assertion that most Seattle cops make more than $100k a year, or admit you and he are rejecting fact in favor of ideology.
Posted by robotslave on August 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM · Report this
50
@48
"Let's pretend I do need that difference explained."

At this point I don't think there is a need to "pretend".
You seriously do not know the difference between punching someone and arresting someone.

"Could you tell me why physical force is justified when making an arrest, but not otherwise?"

I could but that wasn't the point.
The point was that someone spitting on a cop justifies arresting.
Spitting on a cop does not justify punching.
You are not able to distinguish between "arrest" and "punch".
Maybe you should go spend some quality time with a dictionary before you try to include yourself in adult conversations.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on August 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM · Report this
51
@50

Oh darn, I was hoping I'd get an answer to those questions.

They're kind of hard questions, and they tend to reveal an awful lot about your personal politics when they're answered.

I guess you don't want to show your cards; we get a lot of that around here.

Here's mine: I do think that cop ought to be fired, but I do not believe All Cops Are Bastards, and I think society would be much worse off without a formal police system, let alone without any policing at all.
Posted by robotslave on August 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM · Report this
52
@51
"Oh darn, I was hoping I'd get an answer to those questions."

I kind of doubt that.
As I've stated before, rhetorical questions tend to indicate a lack of research.

"Here's mine: I do think that cop ought to be fired, but I do not believe All Cops Are Bastards, and I think society would be much worse off without a formal police system, let alone without any policing at all."

Yeah.
Nice jump from one-bad-cop all the way to I-don't-think-all-cops-are-bad.
And you did it in one jump.
Without any intermediary steps.

The point is that spitting on a cop does not justify punching.
Spitting on a cop justifies arresting.
But you cannot understand that so you jump to I-don't-think-all-cops-are-bad.

Again, maybe you should go spend some quality time with a dictionary before you try to include yourself in adult conversations.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on August 4, 2012 at 1:03 PM · Report this
53
@52

No worries, I get it. You'd rather play that pathetic argumentum-ad-dictionary game than reveal anything about your own underlying beliefs.

It's the internet, we're used to that sort of thing. Particularly here in a forum where we've got a number of participants who are politically committed to delegitimizing The Cops*, and a few who are not above attempting to do so while carefully avoiding any admission of their underlying ideological motivation.



* and policing generally, as a necessary first step in the delegitimization of The State.
Posted by robotslave on August 4, 2012 at 3:40 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 54
Here's what I see: A whole lot of cops milling around, a crowd watching, a cop and a kid yelling at each other like a couple drunks having a beef after closing time.

The crowd of non-cops can't intervene, who know what the belligerent, armed cop with all his gang around would do.

The cops could intervene, but they seem to not want to call into question the authority of Officer Screamsatpeople by trying to talk him down in front of the crowd. They've got their sense of control from intimidation rather than moral authority.

Which is a great failure of policing today, not just in Seattle but all around the country. Officers ride around in cars instead of walking. They commute in from the 'burbs rather than being part of the community. They get trained to control situations by escalating them to the point they can deploy their many weapons. It's not good for democracy.

Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on August 4, 2012 at 3:44 PM · Report this
55
@33 -- Yeah, not so much. The freedom of speech protected by the first amendment does not protect "fighting words" or utterances that present a "clear and present danger."

I'm sorry the Bill of Rights doesn't work the way you think it does.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008…
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/sd-supreme-co…
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf…
Posted by six shooter on August 4, 2012 at 3:55 PM · Report this
56
@Phil M--

The SPD is almost always hiring. Step up and earn your $100k. If you're as savvy on right versus wrong as you present, I, as a taxpayer, would be happy to pay you a living wage and to compensate you fairly for your overtime.
Posted by six shooter on August 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM · Report this
58
@56

My discussions with Phil M lead me to think that he believes the existence of any police force at all is Wrong. I have not seen a single sentence from him to suggest that he believes policing is a legitimate component of any Good society.

I appreciate the snark you're dealing out there, but Phil isn't avoiding serving on the force because he's afraid or incapable; he's got bigger fish to fry.
Posted by robotslave on August 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM · Report this
59
@53
"You'd rather play that pathetic argumentum-ad-dictionary game than reveal anything about your own underlying beliefs."

We are not dating.
We you confused about our dating situation as well as "arrest" and "punch"?

"Particularly here in a forum where we've got a number of participants who are politically committed to delegitimizing The Cops*, and a few who are not above attempting to do so while carefully avoiding any admission of their underlying ideological motivation."

And, as with your confusion over the fact that we are not dating, I think that the majority of the background for that statement happened solely in your head.

The original point is that spitting on a cop does not justify punching.
Spitting on a cop justifies arresting.
Since you cannot win on that, you are posting your internal monologues and demanding that others defend them.
No.
And you and I are not dating.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on August 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM · Report this
60
@59

You could clear it up with a simple yes or no:

Do you believe that a police force can be a legitimate component of the sort of society you'd prefer to live in?

I get it that you want to focus only on delegitimizing The Cops, and very much not on why you're interested in doing so, but it's sort of too late.

You started dating me when you offered to explain the difference between a punch and an arrest.
Posted by robotslave on August 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM · Report this
61
@60
"You started dating me when you offered to explain the difference between a punch and an arrest."

o.O

What was that I had posted?
Since you cannot win on that, you are posting your internal monologues and demanding that others defend them.

Seems that that is not limited to your confusion regarding "punch" and "arrest".
You are delusional.
You and I are not dating.
You are simply delusional.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on August 4, 2012 at 5:22 PM · Report this
62
@60

What you posted, dearest, was a talking point from the Unofficial Guide To Deligitimizing The Cops. You suggested that The Cops should "just" arrest a man, rather than using force.

But of course an arrest is always an application of force, actual or implied. When you try to separate the two, and say that the police should "just" arrest this or that person, you are pretending that arrests are things that can magically happen without the use or threat of force.

Those who seek to delegitimize The Cops know this, of course; they hope that if we accept that Bad (i.e. physical or violent) arrests are wrong, then we will eventually come to the inescapable conclusion that all arrests are Bad, and thus that the police are illegitimate (and by extension the State, in Max Weber's formulation, is also illegitimate).

I've shown you my cards; I think the cop should be fired. But you're being remarkably coy over there in your corner, lover.
Posted by robotslave on August 4, 2012 at 5:36 PM · Report this
Posted by venomlash on August 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM · Report this
64
@62
"What you posted, dearest, was a talking point from the Unofficial Guide To Deligitimizing The Cops."

What I posted was:
The point was that someone spitting on a cop justifies arresting.
Spitting on a cop does not justify punching.

Now you can claim that those sentiments are shared by whomever you want to.
I don't care.
Since you cannot win on there being a difference between "arrest" and "punch", you are posting your internal monologues and demanding that others defend them.

"You started dating me when you offered to explain the difference between a punch and an arrest."

You're delusional.
And you don't know the difference between "arrest" and "punch".
And now you're claiming something about an unofficial "guide".
You are delusional.
You are simply delusional.

"But you're being remarkably coy over there in your corner, lover."

You are delusional.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on August 4, 2012 at 6:22 PM · Report this
65
@58 -- Got it.

@gray panthor -- Ian Birk will never be a cop again. He was not "allowed to resign." He was found to be without cause in shooting John Williams. His career in law enforcement is over. Rightfully so, in almost everyone's opinion.

As to your OPA case and retaliation: if you're telling the whole truth, you should have no trouble at all hiring a lawyer to stop the harassment. I think James Egan would work for you for free.

This advice in no way means I believe your story for one New York Minute.
Posted by six shooter on August 4, 2012 at 7:04 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 66
@63- That knife fight is from the original Robotech series! I remember watching that on WXXA back before it was a Fox station because there was no Fox.

Ah, memories.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on August 4, 2012 at 7:15 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 67
Dammit no one every responds to my posts....I hate you all.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on August 4, 2012 at 7:26 PM · Report this
68
@67 -- You're a moron who can't tell the difference between an asshole and some other kind of hole.

Happy now?
Posted by six shooter on August 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM · Report this
69
Hey, guys. I don't think the cop would've been relieved of duty if he was white.

Just throwing that in there.
Posted by eptified on August 4, 2012 at 8:20 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 70
@Sargon Bighorn, I read your comments and I want to keep reading what you've got to say.
Posted by Dominic Holden on August 4, 2012 at 8:45 PM · Report this
NaFun 71
Robotslave @62 and earlier: this could get hairy in a couple ways dpending on your definitions of "cop" and how they differ from something like "public safety officer" or "law enforcement officers."

Both types of civil servants have the capability and extra trust to use a variety of non-lethal and lethal means to perform their jobs.

Punching as the first physical contact in the attempt to arrest a suspect of a crime is generally not in the training program nor in anyone's idea of how police work.

Police have the authority to use the special holds and methods taught in the training program to neutralize the suspects ability to fight back and stay restrained. Punching doesn't accomplish either of those goals, certainly not as effectively as a tackle, an arm bar, or simply a shit ton of cops surrounding the suspect.

But this cop didn't try to arrest anyone as a matter of enforcing the law against assault or protecting his person. No, he hauled off and retaliated and used his extra authority to wield force as a shield and abused his authority, and that is why he was rightfully relieved of duty.
Posted by NaFun http://www.dancesafe.org on August 4, 2012 at 9:53 PM · Report this
72
@69, if the cop was white we'd have the naacp calling for his head and fringe elements trying to instigate riots.
Posted by sanotehu on August 4, 2012 at 10:09 PM · Report this
73
@55 Your links to the S. Dakota case had their State Supreme court agree with me. This kind of speech is protected there based on their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Indiana case is different for a bunch of reasons, including, first, because it is based on an interpretation of the Indiana State Constitution not the Federal Constitution, and two, because it is a very different fact set. If you had read it and/or understood it you would have seen that the Indiana Constitution's analogous constitutional provision, as interpreted by their State Court of Appeals, in fact also protects the kind of speech and situation at issue in the South Dakota case.

Enjoyed reading the cases though, even though they suggest the opposite of the argument you were making.

I suppose we will eventually get to a level of fascism here were our judges interpret Constitutions as only giving rights to special people and not the rest of us.
But we aren't there yet.
Posted by cracked on August 4, 2012 at 10:31 PM · Report this
74
@69 - total BS. Throw it back out.
Posted by Billy Chav on August 5, 2012 at 10:39 AM · Report this
75
You get all up in a cop's face, you get punched. BFD. What a bunch of pussies on this board.
Posted by Billy Chav on August 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
76
That dude deserved worse than he got. I can't believe all you ACLU-tards defend insolent little shitheads like this. When the cops show up you shut the fuck up and be on your way. That's how civilization works. Shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
Posted by Billy Chav on August 5, 2012 at 10:45 AM · Report this
77
@55 -- Thrown out on the Fighting Words, undecided on Inciting a Crowd. Also a state case not heard by the Supreme Court. My bad. I should have spent more than five minutes looking for examples where saying "Fuck You" to a police officer in front of an angry crowd isn't protected speech.

We both know there are plenty of ways to challenge an argument of protected speech in this particular case.

Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that in order for speech to fall within the “fighting words” exception, the words by their very utterance have to “tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” under the circumstances of the case.  Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572, 62 S.Ct. at 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031


I could argue, for instance, that not only did the young man's words "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" but they in fact did incite an immediate breach of the peace.

At least concede your First Amendment argument isn't bullet-proof so I can enjoy the rest of the sunshine without researching case law.
Posted by six shooter on August 5, 2012 at 11:08 AM · Report this
78
@69 -- This is the most troubling fact of this particular incident. He's on paid admin leave, but I have to wonder if his chances are worse because of his skin color.
Posted by six shooter on August 5, 2012 at 11:20 AM · Report this
Eric Arrr 79
Hey robotslave,

I got your data right here:
http://lbloom.net/xsea09.html

That's 2009 data. You can be sure they make even more three years later.

So, yes, dude, many Seattle cops do clear $100k/year by a healthy margin.
Posted by Eric Arrr on August 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
81
@79 -- I may be dumb, but I still don't understand why the police officer's pay scale matters.

C Powell, hired in 4/5/93, earned $113,416.26 base pay and $17,917.54 overtime for FY09. At the time, he was a 16 year veteran.

Median income for King County in FY09 was $65,877. Add a healthy 20% longevity bonus, and the median stretches to $79,052.40.

Powell's income at the time was just about 140% of median income, putting him in the second quarter of earners in King County, assuming a standard div (a poor assumption when it comes to salary).

Do these totals include medical, L&I, pension contributions, and etc? I don't know.

But tell me again why this matters? Are we paying officers too much or too little? Would professionalism go up if we gave them raises? Should he magically have the proper tools, training, and support to do his job because he earns more than the median income?

More importantly, how does Ofc. Powell's income compare with similar cities in similar markets?
Posted by six shooter on August 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy