Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« O They Will Know We Are (Copti... | And the Commission Goes To »

Thursday, February 28, 2008

“There’s a Lot of Blood Over Here”

posted by on February 28 at 10:00 AM


Two weeks ago, a jury found Mark Hays guilty of assaulting an officer in the University District last November.

Police say Hays tackled an officer during the November incident which began when Hays and another man jaywalked in front of an unmarked police SUV.

This is the video of Hays’ violent arrest.

RSS icon Comments


It's time to start testing SPD for steroids, especially the undercover "anti-crime" units. Buncha thugs.

Posted by DOUG. | February 28, 2008 10:05 AM

I think I'm gonna be sick.

Posted by chicago | February 28, 2008 10:07 AM

Is it o.k. to want to beat cops to ***** with wooden bats? And, you know, laugh while you're doing it? Maybe take some pictures some Toxic Avenger masturbation in the sauna with them? That's normal, right?

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 28, 2008 10:09 AM

where is the update in this post?
am I missing something?

Posted by First Time Caller Long Time Listener | February 28, 2008 10:21 AM

Looks like they found someone to take their small dick out on.

Posted by catnextdoor | February 28, 2008 10:22 AM

Wow. So you get beat up for jaywalking in Seattle. Pretty much got your city crossed off my list of places to visit.

Posted by MGD | February 28, 2008 10:27 AM

I don't think I'm alone in fearing cops more than criminals. And I'm not even in a group that's specifically targeted by cops.

Where is the accountability? It's long past time to separate the power to discipline cops from the prosecutor's office that they're aligned with. There needs to be an independent citizens' board to which victims can bring grievances.

Posted by oljb | February 28, 2008 10:31 AM

(waiting for comment by police apologist bellevue ave)

Posted by cochise. | February 28, 2008 10:31 AM

wtf with that cop in the white sweatshirt staring the other "criminal" down around 2:25?

thugs is right.

Posted by erik | February 28, 2008 10:40 AM



Posted by NaFun | February 28, 2008 10:52 AM

Seattle Police Officers should be boiled and force-fed to their owners.

Posted by Judah | February 28, 2008 10:59 AM

Like how they conviently blocked the copcam with the backpacks. Man, they seem to get off on it.. I remember walking thru cal anderson park a few years ago and hearing this little voice," help me, help me". Kinda like from the Fly when he gets caught in the spiderweb? And it is this hippie guy getting the living crap beaten out of him by a cop. My first instinct was to call the police, but.....

Posted by orangekrush | February 28, 2008 11:13 AM

I'm glad my work computer rarely loads the streaming video on Slog, because just reading this story pissed me off enough.

I was harassed after jaywalking by some asshole motorcycle cop a couple years ago. He lost his shit on me for "having no respect for his authority". You're fucking right I have no respect for a bunch thugs who pull shit like this over something that can barely be considered a "crime". Looking back I guess I was lucky not to get my head kicked in, but will this cause me to keep my mouth shut next time it happens? Fuck No.

Posted by Queen_of_Sleaze | February 28, 2008 11:13 AM

Clearly he was just laying there, limp, not resisting at all.

Posted by w7ngman | February 28, 2008 11:15 AM

umm... Maybe I'm missing something since I don't live in WA, but isn't there the possibility the cops were right? At the beginning of the video, when the backup car arrives, the cops were clearly yelling for him to put his hands behind his back, so he very well could have been resisting. Following the story on slog only gives the arrested man's side.
Yes jaywalking is minor, blah blah, blah, but doing it right in front of a cop car is like giving them the finger. Of COURSE they'll ask you what's going on. Then you run? Wasn't the allegation that he then tried to fight them off? Who knows what the circumstances were, but it certainly appears that he MIGHT have been resisting, in which case, the cops have to worry about their own safety.
Apologies if I've got it all wrong, but there appears to be a lot of cop-hate going on here with no understanding of what happened in the case.
All I'm saying is that the police do have situations that require the use of force, so not every circumstance requires the boards to light up bleating, "Rodney King"

Posted by MR. Language Person | February 28, 2008 11:30 AM

@15: It's hard to put your hands behind your back when you're getting your head smashed into the pavement and your ribs pummeled. Believe it or not, your first instinct is to protect your body, no matter if your assailant is a cop or a robber, and you will instinctively resist at least a little. Good cops recognize this and will restrain themselves. Bad cops put the beat-down on.

Posted by DOUG. | February 28, 2008 11:43 AM

I want 5280's opinion on this.

Posted by cubra | February 28, 2008 11:48 AM

Remember the Guardian Angels? NYC, early 80s, an explicit grassroots response by citizens sick of cops who were waging war on the citizenry rather than protecting them as per their de jure job descriptions?

THAT's what Seattle needs right now.

Just sayin'...

Posted by Ice T | February 28, 2008 11:50 AM

My first reaction is to speculate that the cops absolutely knew what they were doing to obscure their own mandated cameras when they place the backpack on the hood.

This is what a police state looks like.

Posted by Colin | February 28, 2008 11:55 AM

oops, "unmarked police SUV."
and @16, I suppose that may be true, having (thankfully) avoided such an experience, I wouldn't know. However, I have seen quiet, well-behaved people flip out on cops when drunk and get (probably deservedly) arrested (although not as violently). If this guy tried to tackle a cop... I dunno.
They very well may have overreacted, but they sure look calm and ready to pose for "Police Officer's Quarterly" after they pick him up, don't they?

I've got lots of parentheses in this post. Maybe I need to change my handle.

Posted by MR. Language Person | February 28, 2008 11:56 AM

...and what's with the talk of the backpacks? Isn't the "action" all done by that point? They certainly are surrounded by witnesses at that point...

I don't believe I'm naiive...

Posted by MR. Language Person | February 28, 2008 11:58 AM


That's not what the Guardian Angels were about. In spite of being, essentially, vigilantes, the Angels were extremely pro-cop, and nothing in their agenda or their training program was aimed at policing the cops.

Now, something that was useful for keeping an eye on cops, once upon a time, was an organization called Copwatch, which I believe still exists in LA.

Posted by Judah | February 28, 2008 12:02 PM

@18 "Remember the Guardian Angels? NYC, early 80s"

If you know your Seattle history you would also remember the Guardian Angels and Q-Patrol from the Capitol Hill/Broadway area.

Posted by stinkbug | February 28, 2008 12:03 PM


fyi, the cop car in this incident was UNMARKED and the cops, as you can maybe see in the video, were UNDERCOVER. that's how fucked up Seattle cops are, and why, yes, some (lots) of us Seattleites are more afraid of the cops than we are of the criminals.

welcome to the erstwhile America's Most Livable City!

Posted by Roland Gift | February 28, 2008 12:03 PM

Wait, being an undercover cop is a crime? Am I missing something, or how is being undercover such a huge deal?

Ya know, I can understand people being vehemently opposed to bad cops, but why are we all angry at cops in general? Not all cops use excessive force for the hell of it, if that is what these cops are doing. And they deal in incredibly stressful situations... all that's between them and a potentially crazy situation is their best judgement. And sometimes their judgement is wrong, but that makes them human. We don't know the full story... we don't have any pictures of what the cops looked like after the fight. Did the other guy get beat up as well, or was it just Mark Hays? Additionally, a jury found Mark guilty.... if we don't trust cops, do we also not trust our peers? Have we lost complete faith in the power of jury that we, who are the outside, assume we know all instead of the more plausible explination that all the facts were presented in court, and we here at Slog didn't get the full memo.

Posted by Marty | February 28, 2008 12:34 PM

Maybe he was stealing from the independent bookstore on the corner.

Posted by Jason Josephes | February 28, 2008 12:50 PM


There was no "fight", at least according to all those witnesses that you see in the background who were interviewed by Jonah, all the blood you see is the victim's... and this isn't the first time these undercover "Anti-Crime Team" officers have been involved with brutal assaults for minor infractions. (A few months earlier they were accused of beating up a man and woman from Canada for jaywalking as well).

Posted by Packratt | February 28, 2008 12:51 PM

What is it with SPD and jaywalking? It's insane. I've never been anywhere and seen a police force so obsessed with it as SPD is. Enforced by officers in an unmarked patrol car, to boot?

Posted by Dougsf | February 28, 2008 1:52 PM

There are plenty of actual hoodlums committing actual crimes in the U District. (In fact, yesterday evening was the first time I ever felt nervous on the Ave, I guess the good weather brought out the losers.) And yet, these undercover cops decided jaywalking merited any intervention at all, let alone a beatdown?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 28, 2008 1:53 PM

Jonah, thank you so much for continuing to shine a bright light on the activities of the SPD. I can't think of another Seattle reporter that does so, other than the mighty Rick Anderson.

Keep up the good work. It is appreciated.

Posted by kerri harrop | February 28, 2008 4:00 PM

True gripe: I've lived in Seattle (and always close to downtown) almost twenty years now. I've been busted for jaywalking by Napoleon Komplex Keystone Kops five times so far during that time. But never, never, NEVER have I ever witnessed a cop bust a motorist for nearly running down me, or any other pedestrian, in the crosswalk when the ped had the right of way. The latter--which is, yes, perfectly illegal--happens all the fucking time in Seattle.

SPD? Hello? Anybody home?

Posted by Whither Norman Stamper | February 28, 2008 4:01 PM

M. Language Person wrote:

[jaywalking] right in front of a cop car is like giving [him] the finger. Of COURSE [he'll] ask you what's going on. Then you run?

To which Roland Gift responded:

the cop car in this incident was UNMARKED and the cops, as you can maybe see in the video, were UNDERCOVER.

(Meaning, we are left to assume, that when the man allegedly jaywalked, he must not have known that he was doing so in front of an officer.)

Marty responded:

being an undercover cop is a crime?

No. Being an undercover cop who beats the shit out of someone because he runs from you after you jump out of your unmarked car and run your unmarked ass towards him is a really fucking shitty thing to do and ought to result in that officer finding a new line of work.

Marty went on:

I can understand people being vehemently opposed to bad cops, but why are we all angry at cops in general?

Because around here at least, when bad cops' actions are exposed, all cops circle their wagons, implicitly condoning those actions. Their union is presently refusing tens of thousands of dollars' raise in pay per cop because they do not want to accept public oversight or to be held accountable for their actions.

Posted by Phil M | February 28, 2008 4:34 PM


I second that, Jonah's dedication to following a story through and exposing these kinds of stories when nobody else will is admirable and should be rewarded.

Thank you Jonah...I'll buy you a round of drinks anytime.

(just remind me that I said that since my memory isn't too good these days)

Posted by Packratt | February 28, 2008 5:07 PM

How many people commenting on this thread sat through all of the trial in this case? I'm guessing none. Perhaps if you didn't do that, you might want to ask yourself if you've got all the facts in this case. I suspect you don't.

Posted by Bax | February 28, 2008 6:51 PM

Wow... it amazes me how many people on here just vomit opinions full of misinformation.

First of all NONE of you were there when this happened, the uniformed officer that responded with the camera showed up AFTER the initial incident, BEFORE the suspect(s) were taken into custody. When a suspect runs from an officer and another suspect tackles an officer no one knows the intentions of that suspect, except for THE SUSPECT. The officer doesn't know if the suspect has a weapon or not and because of that, for the officers' safety, passerby's safety and safety of the suspect, the suspect needs to be taken into custody. When you put up a fight and resist the only thing you are going to get is an ass whoopin, which is rightfully deserved. If the suspect(s) 1. hadn't mouthed off 2. hadn't run in the first place 3. hadn't tackled the officer or 4. hadn't resisted none of this wouldn't happen.

Hays is lucky that the car full of people he had choice words with weren't gang bangers because had they been this story would have been about a dead guy on the Ave shot and killed by gang violence which is "running rampant in the city" oh but wait you'd all have something to say about that too, like the police should have prevented all that... sorry they don't issue crystal balls with their uniforms.

Second of all to Packratt, you claim you are going to take down your silly little website if the SPOG agrees to the 29 accountability requests... read up on contract negotiations and you'll learn a little. If it were up to me blogspot would have canned your blog a long time ago... oh and sorry but all "undercover officers" as you so kindly lump them together as, aren't all Anti-Crime teams like the one in this video demonstrates, you might need to brush up on your units with SPD, Anti-Crime officers aren't the only ones to be undercover.

FYI the "Canada incident" was at SAFECO as stated in the paper which would have been someone else other than those who work in the U District!

Posted by Tired of whiners | February 28, 2008 9:45 PM

Tired... Yes, we're all tired of whiners, especially ones that wear uniforms and complain about poor pay then turn pay raises down because they would rather be corrupt and poor than professional and well-off.

First, both were anti-crime teams, perhaps not the same individuals, but the same premise... overly-aggressive cops who use stand-alone "obstruction" charges to cover for their baseless assaults on citizens.

Second, if it's so silly, why did you guys try to take it down when I published that cartoon the SPOG drew? You know, that one the Stranger published too, the one showing how you guys hate things like Miranda?

Third, again, none of the witnesses that Jonah interviewed would corroborate the ACT officer's assertions that Hays had tackled one of them. The reason the trial succeeded in convicting Hays is that it appears none of those same witnesses were willing to testify... Perhaps they were lying to Jonah, or perhaps they were intimidated by the police.

We'll never know... but because the SPD and SPOG utterly refuse to accept accountability reforms, and in the face of SO many accusations of wrong-doing, we are only left to find the testimony of an officer always in doubt.

See, accepting accountability reforms helps you guys too.

Posted by packratt | February 29, 2008 1:13 AM

Tired of whiners wrote:

If the suspect(s) 1. hadn't mouthed off 2. hadn't run in the first place 3. hadn't tackled the officer or 4. hadn't resisted none of this wouldn't happen.
  1. "Mouthing off" is not a crime and is not something that makes one deserving of a beating.
  2. Who did they run from? The plainclothesed thugs who were undoubtedly acting aggressively? I'd run from them, too.
  3. Who did he tackle? If the plainclothesed officer, good for him. If flight isn't going to work, fight. If the uniformed officer, then where is the video evidence?
  4. We've already covered this. When you're laying face-down and someone is kicking you in the ribs, it is almost impossible to loosen up and put your hands behind your back. These cops were clearly taking out their aggression on the man. Want him to stop resisting? STOP KICKING THE SHIT OUT OF HIM. Resisting being beaten is not necessarily the same as resisting arrest.
Hays is lucky that the car full of people he had choice words with weren't gang bangers because had they been this story would have been about [him being killed by them]

Instead, they were undercover police with bad tempers, and he was severely beaten. Great -- glad to have you on our side, assholes. I have to wonder how bad it would have been if this guy crossed paths with these hyper-aggressive motherfuckers in a dark alley instead of in front of multiple witnesses.

If it were up to me blogspot would have canned [Packratt's] blog a long time ago

Can you provide any reasons for that desire? Does he report on things that you would rather keep under wraps?

Seattle Police officers: You're paid up to 1.5 times the local median income to do a difficult and stressful job. (Or you will be if your union would stop refusing to allow public oversight of your actions.) You are entrusted with the authority to intervene in cases of danger to the public. To those of you who cannot keep your cool in those stressful situations: Stop whining and go find a more suitable career somewhere outside our city, assholes.

Posted by Phil M | February 29, 2008 8:13 AM


Everyone keeps talking about "UNDERCOVER" police officers, but what I saw in the video were a couple of guys wearing large vests with the word POLICE in huge letters on the back and large letters on the front.

If they are "undercover" it's only to people unacquainted with the word POLICE.

Posted by bob | March 2, 2008 4:52 PM

Bob, you're not seeing the whole thing. The part you're missing -- that about which those of us who are already familiar with the story are aware -- happened before the squad car and uniformed officers arrived.

The The Stranger story Jonah cited in this post stated (emphasis added):

According to the police report, Michael Lujan, 26, and Mark Hays, 36, crossed out into traffic on 45th Street, right in front of an unmarked police SUV. When Lujan approached the vehicle, the driver—Sergeant Shane Anderson—instructed the men that they were "committing the crime of pedestrian interference." According to the report, Lujan and Hays walked away making "disparaging remarks" about the police. Officers—all members of one of the SPD's elite Anti-Crime Teams—ordered the men to halt. Lujan and Hays ran, but one officer was able to grab Lujan. Moments later, the officer was tackled by Hays and all three men tumbled to the ground. While the report notes Hays's alleged assault on the officer, no mention is made of the force used to subdue Hays—the "head bashing" described by several witnesses—and only states that officers repeatedly ordered Hays to "stop resisting." However, a number of witnesses at the scene say the cops used excessive force.

One witness, who asked not to be named, says he was standing across the street from Hays and Lujan as the police SUV pulled in front of them. The witness says he saw the police hop out and chase the men, but he doesn't recall hearing anyone order the men to stop. "They just started chasing the guys and tackled them," the witness says. When officers tackled Hays to the ground, the witness says he saw one cop sitting on Hays's head, another straddling his legs, and a third officer repeatedly punching the man. "There was one guy [in the crowd] I heard yelling 'stop hitting him, stop hitting him.' Everybody was basically in shock."

Search the Web for "Seattle anti-crime team for more about SPD's excessive-force-prone "Anti-Crime Teams".

Posted by Phil M | March 2, 2008 6:49 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).