18 ms·

Sheriff Fires Cop Who Threatened to Arrest Me for Taking Photos of Cops

280 points by r0h1n 13y ago

netcan 13y ago
"Your ill-advised actions also play to some of the most basic fears among some citizens, which is that a police officer may indiscriminately exercise his or her power in violation of their rights," Urquharts discipline letter continues. He explains people fear that "in the event of a complaint, the officer will just deny the allegations and 'circle the wagons' with his or her fellow officers with the expectation they will take care of their own. In a matter of minutes, your actions violated the trust that we, as a department, spend years trying to build and maintain." Heartening.
- gizmo 13y ago
  Heartening? I wish: > Saulet has long history of misconduct, with approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct (more than any other officer in the department). It isn't exactly progress if the worst officer in de the department is fired after sustained abusive behavior. And the union immediately attempted to overturn the dismissal as well. This is pretty much as bad as it gets. So I see no reason for optimism, given the circumstances. There are no signs of structural improvement. Not so heartening.
  - krisdol 13y ago
    No one said he was the worst in the department.
    - awda 13y ago
      Yes, they did: """Saulet has long history of misconduct, with approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct (more than any other officer in the department). The sheriff's letter says that Saulet repeatedly was told to improve interactions with the public, and provided with remarkable investments of coaching and counseling. Saulet underwent three performance-improvement plans, two training sessions, and two multi-visit sessions with a social psychologist, coaching sessions with supervisors, and 80 hours of time off without pay."""
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - antjanus 13y ago
      >more than any other officer in the department It's in the writing.
  - netcan 13y ago
    The reason for optimism IMO is the tone and content of the dismissal letter & statement.
    - gizmo 13y ago
      There have always been individual police officers and sheriffs who take a stand against the abuse. The US such is a big country, how could it be otherwise? You can probably find a thousand similar examples if you look hard enough. I think it's already pretty comical that "Officer gets fired after long history of abuse" is news in the first place. Optimism is only warranted when we have reason to believe things are getting better. One anecdote doesn't do much.
    - polymatter 13y ago
      I will caution optimism based on tone. The reporter also filed a complaint on the officer in charge of this very incident. The SPD review concluded that "The officer took a normal contact with a member of the public and turned it into a confrontation and escalated it to a point where he was acting in a completely unprofessional and inappropriate manner". The punishment for completely unprofessional behavior by the officer in charge was "one unpaid day off of work" which was "an appropriate measure" in the "middle of the range of possible disciplinary actions". That doesn't strike me as taking it seriously. The sounds to me like a slap on the wrist for being unlucky and causing a PR issue for the police by doing this to a real journalist.
      - Avenger42 13y ago
        > The reporter also filed a complaint on the officer in charge of this very incident. Note that these are two different officers with two different groups. Seattle PD disciplined Officer Marion with an unpaid day off. The King County Sheriff's Department fired Sgt. Saulet.
  - ChrisBland 13y ago
    I am not a fan of public unions either, but this is a cheap shot at them and it hurts the ability to have a discussion about unions. Unions have what is called 'duty of fair representation' - which requires them to defend their members. If the union failed to defend him here he could sue the union claiming it has failed to fulfill its statutory duty to represent the employee in that dispute. If they got to pick which cases to defend, the whole point of having union reps/arbitration/mediation would go out the window. More reading: http://www.flra.gov/Guidance_duty%20of%20fair%20representation http://www.flra.gov/Guidance_duty%20of%20fair%20representati...
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      Do they have to defend someone who is outside of the union's stated rules/expectations for a member? For instance if the Officer's Union stated that if a member was doing something illegal or grossly incompetent that they would not defend the actions? Not saying that this union does have that sort of stipulation, but curious as to where the line is drawn. It does seem that the officer had a history of 'bad behavior' and was quite obviously in the wrong here. Do they have to defend 'hopeless cases' is really the question I have. I would be much happier if the union stood back, and decided to let him try to bring suit, then shut him down in court for his own behavior... Rather than just trying to get someone who obviously has issues reinstated because "reasons".
      - ggchappell 13y ago
        I doubt there is any sort of line. Consider that someone accused of a crime gets to be represented in court, no matter how bad the accusation is (in the U.S.). The reasoning behind this is (1) they might not be guilty of the crime, and until the court decides they are, they should be treated as if they are not; (2) they need someone to ensure they are treated fairly. I think similar reasoning can be applied here. Thus it would not be unreasonable that a union always defends a member who is accused/disciplined/fired.
        jlgaddis 13y ago
        My mother is (and has been for many years) an officer of the union at her workplace. I know of many cases where employees were accused of either committing crimes or extreme violations of the "workplace rules" and the Union would not represent them before the company. These instances are the exceptions, of course, and the Union does represent the employee the overwhelming majority of the time -- and are, more often than not, successful in at least saving the employee's job. This is not a Police Union, of course, so things may very well be different. It is my understanding that the officers in a Police Union are almost always current or former police officers and I would guess that they would represent an officer accused of wrongdoing in all but perhaps the most extreme cases (and, in those cases, it's probably mostly due to P.R.). In my opinion, an officer accused of wrongdoing is entitled to due process just like anyone else. It does upset me, however, that Police Unions will often do anything they can to save an officer's job regardless of what s/he has done and/or the seriousness of the violation. I realize that that is what they are supposed to do but it ends up reflecting badly on the police department when Officer Smith was found to have done ${whatever} and escapes with little or no consequences.
  - kordless 13y ago
    Given the government so obviously keeps an eye on us, it only stands to reason that we are allowed to keep an eye on them. This is currently a point of contention, but with the current technological advances, I doubt it's one that will be able to stick and stay.
  - baldfat 13y ago
    I am pro-Union BUT this is the type of things that get them in trouble all the time. People who perform poorly at work should be held accountable and not defended by the Union. It really is in the Union's benefit to weed out bad apples themselves and not protect them.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      The Supreme Court disagreed long ago. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178777
      - baldfat 13y ago
        I read it and learned. Did some research. There is wiggle room but I guess everyone is afraid of defining "fair representation" in regards to a firing.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    How can a government agency allow a person to have "21 cases of sustained misconduct" and still be employed much less not in jail?
  - dten 13y ago
    I'm creating an account specifically to reply to this comment. Sheriff Urquhart has only been in office for a year, and this is the third cop he's fired for similar behavior. Details here: http://www.king5.com/news/local/King-Co-Sheriff-fires-deputy-who-threatened-to-arrest-reporter-243391961.html http://www.king5.com/news/local/King-Co-Sheriff-fires-deputy...
  - runamok 13y ago
    The sheriff (Urquhart) has only been on the job for a bit more than 1 year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart_(sheriff) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart_(sheriff)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
teddyuk 13y ago
It is great that in this case the policeman was sacked but I get the impression it was because he lied afterwards. Police in the UK and US continually treat citizens as beneath them and with contempt - he should have been sacked because he was rude and wrong, not because he lied.
- alextingle 13y ago
  If being rude and wrong were a sacking offence, hardly anybody would have a job. This police officer should be fired for abusing his authority.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Being rude and wrong in a position of power is, in this case, an abuse of authority.
- mattmanser 13y ago
  There are bad eggs everywhere, but it doesn't help the conversation when you project the minority onto the whole. By and large the police I have met in the UK are helpful and diligent. And I say that having been arrested, searched and locked in a cell for 3 hours by the police for no good reason, so have felt violated by them before. I don't live in the US, so can't comment, but I imagine it's the same.
  - hga 13y ago
    In the US, at least, I hold that outside of a few small rural departments, there are no good cops, full stop. Because the so-called good cops defend, with silence at minimum, all but the most extreme behavior of the really bad cops.
    - TDL 13y ago
      Agreed. Good cops cease being good as soon as they look the other way and keep quiet when a bad cop does something wrong.
    - 13y ago
VexXtreme 13y ago
Is this possible? Initially I thought this was an Onion article. If this really is true, that's wonderful news. One small step toward reinstating civil liberties. Now how about someone deals with cops who illegally force doctors to do enemas and anal cavity searches on people for having strange posture, or do roadside vaginal cavity searches on women with no probable cause, or shoot people's dogs upon erroneously entering their homes, or shoot unarmed suspects standing still with hands in the air? Also, I find it incredible that the people who swore to serve the citizens and protect the constitution of their country are so quick to completely disrespect the said constitution so often.
- aric 13y ago
  The trajectory of most parts of US policing and civil freedom is one-thousand steps backward and one step forward. Thankfully, he had evidence. The phone wasn't stolen and its data wasn't deleted by the officer, later or on the spot as in other cases. Heartwarming nevertheless. A favorite comment on the post: "This seems a bit harsh. Doesn't everyone deserve a 122nd chance?"
- noonespecial 13y ago
  The so-called "first rule of policing" has absolutely nothing to do with citizens or the constitution. Its simply "Make sure when your shift is over you go home alive". Believing this reliably turns men who could be (and want to be considered) heroes into cowardly thugs.
- a3n 13y ago
  > Also, I find it incredible that the people who swore to serve the citizens and protect the constitution of their country are so quick to completely disrespect the said constitution so often. I think for a lot of people swearing an oath is just something you have to say before they give you a gun and money.
  - antjanus 13y ago
    It's the same with taking the [Hippocratic Oath](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath) for doctors before they get the cash rolling in for them.
bart42_0 13y ago
In Spain they don't threaten to arrest you for taking photos of cops, they arrest you immediately without any warning.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  But is it actually against Spanish law? If an officer arrests you for breaking a bad law, that's not on the officer, that's on the legislators. The UK it's a grey area. In theory it's fine unless the officer has reason to believe that the photos will be used to aid in an act of terrorism but that wiggle room could potentially be enough for an officer wishing to abuse their power. Interestingly the Met actually have a page on photographers rights in this (and other) regards: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice
  - dandelany 13y ago
    > But is it actually against Spanish law? Not yet. http://rt.com/op-edge/spain-law-protest-violence-621/ http://rt.com/op-edge/spain-law-protest-violence-621/
chilldream 13y ago
Further coverage: http://photographyisnotacrime.com/?s=dominic+holden http://photographyisnotacrime.com/?s=dominic+holden I'm posting that link mostly for the name of the blog, to demonstrate that this kind of incident is common enough in the US to have its own blog. Personally I'm hoping this becomes moot when police officers are required to wear their own cameras while on duty.
- jlgaddis 13y ago
  I recall stumbling across that blog a while back and reading some of the stories -- some of which were frightening. With almost all police cars now equipped with video cameras and officers wearing body microphones, I find it odd that they can be turned on and off by the officer. Although the camera and body mic are (usually, AIUI) activated automatically when the lights/sirens are engaged, I would love for the camera and microphone to be always-on.
leobelle 13y ago
> Saulet underwent three performance-improvement plans, two training sessions, and two multi-visit sessions with a social psychologist, coaching sessions with supervisors, and 80 hours of time off without pay. Saulet was demoted from sergeant to deputy for another incident in August. Like they were probably just waiting for anything to come along to fire this guy. Amazing he lasted so long.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Amazing, but probably not uncommon.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Police work attracts both the good and bad elements of society. Saulet appears to be one of the bad ones. It's a shame it took this long to remove him from the force.
kordless 13y ago
> thereafter, rather than be accountable, you attempted to recast events in a light more favorable to you Rationalizations suck when you're in cognitive dissonance mode.
ck2 13y ago
If they had 120 allegations, imagine how many never got filed. Go to the front desk at a police station and try to file a complaint, just make sure you have bail money on hand.
- umsm 13y ago
  Is this true? Will you really be arrested for filing a complaint at a police station?
  - ck2 13y ago
    Someone went to like a dozen stations and tried to ask for a complaint form and recorded what happened. Has to be on youtube somewhere. You won't be arrested specifically for the complaint of course, they are going to find something else, follow you, etc.
  - lepht 13y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ
joesmo 13y ago
You might not be glad he got fired, but rest assured there are many of us who are. This type of thing happens constantly on every police force in America (and pretty much everywhere) and is oftentimes a lot worse. It's a small win, but someone like this _deserves_ to be made an example out of. I doubt it will change anything, even in Seattle, but at least there's one less police officer arresting people and ruining their lives (arrest records are permanent; they cannot be expunged ever). I personally can relate, having been threatened (along with about a dozen or more other people) by a police officer with death by SUV if I did not leave the public sidewalk. Yes, the officer started rolling into the crowd.

280 points by r0h1n 13y ago

"Your ill-advised actions also play to some of the most basic fears among some citizens, which is that a police officer may indiscriminately exercise his or her power in violation of their rights," Urquharts discipline letter continues. He explains people fear that "in the event of a complaint, the officer will just deny the allegations and 'circle the wagons' with his or her fellow officers with the expectation they will take care of their own. In a matter of minutes, your actions violated the trust that we, as a department, spend years trying to build and maintain." Heartening.

gizmo 13y ago
Heartening? I wish: > Saulet has long history of misconduct, with approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct (more than any other officer in the department). It isn't exactly progress if the worst officer in de the department is fired after sustained abusive behavior. And the union immediately attempted to overturn the dismissal as well. This is pretty much as bad as it gets. So I see no reason for optimism, given the circumstances. There are no signs of structural improvement. Not so heartening.
- krisdol 13y ago
  No one said he was the worst in the department.
  - awda 13y ago
    Yes, they did: """Saulet has long history of misconduct, with approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct (more than any other officer in the department). The sheriff's letter says that Saulet repeatedly was told to improve interactions with the public, and provided with remarkable investments of coaching and counseling. Saulet underwent three performance-improvement plans, two training sessions, and two multi-visit sessions with a social psychologist, coaching sessions with supervisors, and 80 hours of time off without pay."""
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - antjanus 13y ago
    >more than any other officer in the department It's in the writing.
- netcan 13y ago
  The reason for optimism IMO is the tone and content of the dismissal letter & statement.
  - gizmo 13y ago
    There have always been individual police officers and sheriffs who take a stand against the abuse. The US such is a big country, how could it be otherwise? You can probably find a thousand similar examples if you look hard enough. I think it's already pretty comical that "Officer gets fired after long history of abuse" is news in the first place. Optimism is only warranted when we have reason to believe things are getting better. One anecdote doesn't do much.
  - polymatter 13y ago
    I will caution optimism based on tone. The reporter also filed a complaint on the officer in charge of this very incident. The SPD review concluded that "The officer took a normal contact with a member of the public and turned it into a confrontation and escalated it to a point where he was acting in a completely unprofessional and inappropriate manner". The punishment for completely unprofessional behavior by the officer in charge was "one unpaid day off of work" which was "an appropriate measure" in the "middle of the range of possible disciplinary actions". That doesn't strike me as taking it seriously. The sounds to me like a slap on the wrist for being unlucky and causing a PR issue for the police by doing this to a real journalist.
    - Avenger42 13y ago
      > The reporter also filed a complaint on the officer in charge of this very incident. Note that these are two different officers with two different groups. Seattle PD disciplined Officer Marion with an unpaid day off. The King County Sheriff's Department fired Sgt. Saulet.
- ChrisBland 13y ago
  I am not a fan of public unions either, but this is a cheap shot at them and it hurts the ability to have a discussion about unions. Unions have what is called 'duty of fair representation' - which requires them to defend their members. If the union failed to defend him here he could sue the union claiming it has failed to fulfill its statutory duty to represent the employee in that dispute. If they got to pick which cases to defend, the whole point of having union reps/arbitration/mediation would go out the window. More reading: http://www.flra.gov/Guidance_duty%20of%20fair%20representation http://www.flra.gov/Guidance_duty%20of%20fair%20representati...
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    Do they have to defend someone who is outside of the union's stated rules/expectations for a member? For instance if the Officer's Union stated that if a member was doing something illegal or grossly incompetent that they would not defend the actions? Not saying that this union does have that sort of stipulation, but curious as to where the line is drawn. It does seem that the officer had a history of 'bad behavior' and was quite obviously in the wrong here. Do they have to defend 'hopeless cases' is really the question I have. I would be much happier if the union stood back, and decided to let him try to bring suit, then shut him down in court for his own behavior... Rather than just trying to get someone who obviously has issues reinstated because "reasons".
    - ggchappell 13y ago
      I doubt there is any sort of line. Consider that someone accused of a crime gets to be represented in court, no matter how bad the accusation is (in the U.S.). The reasoning behind this is (1) they might not be guilty of the crime, and until the court decides they are, they should be treated as if they are not; (2) they need someone to ensure they are treated fairly. I think similar reasoning can be applied here. Thus it would not be unreasonable that a union always defends a member who is accused/disciplined/fired.
      - jlgaddis 13y ago
        My mother is (and has been for many years) an officer of the union at her workplace. I know of many cases where employees were accused of either committing crimes or extreme violations of the "workplace rules" and the Union would not represent them before the company. These instances are the exceptions, of course, and the Union does represent the employee the overwhelming majority of the time -- and are, more often than not, successful in at least saving the employee's job. This is not a Police Union, of course, so things may very well be different. It is my understanding that the officers in a Police Union are almost always current or former police officers and I would guess that they would represent an officer accused of wrongdoing in all but perhaps the most extreme cases (and, in those cases, it's probably mostly due to P.R.). In my opinion, an officer accused of wrongdoing is entitled to due process just like anyone else. It does upset me, however, that Police Unions will often do anything they can to save an officer's job regardless of what s/he has done and/or the seriousness of the violation. I realize that that is what they are supposed to do but it ends up reflecting badly on the police department when Officer Smith was found to have done ${whatever} and escapes with little or no consequences.
- kordless 13y ago
  Given the government so obviously keeps an eye on us, it only stands to reason that we are allowed to keep an eye on them. This is currently a point of contention, but with the current technological advances, I doubt it's one that will be able to stick and stay.
- baldfat 13y ago
  I am pro-Union BUT this is the type of things that get them in trouble all the time. People who perform poorly at work should be held accountable and not defended by the Union. It really is in the Union's benefit to weed out bad apples themselves and not protect them.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    The Supreme Court disagreed long ago. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178777
    - baldfat 13y ago
      I read it and learned. Did some research. There is wiggle room but I guess everyone is afraid of defining "fair representation" in regards to a firing.
- protomyth 13y ago
  How can a government agency allow a person to have "21 cases of sustained misconduct" and still be employed much less not in jail?
- dten 13y ago
  I'm creating an account specifically to reply to this comment. Sheriff Urquhart has only been in office for a year, and this is the third cop he's fired for similar behavior. Details here: http://www.king5.com/news/local/King-Co-Sheriff-fires-deputy-who-threatened-to-arrest-reporter-243391961.html http://www.king5.com/news/local/King-Co-Sheriff-fires-deputy...
- runamok 13y ago
  The sheriff (Urquhart) has only been on the job for a bit more than 1 year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart_(sheriff) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart_(sheriff)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

teddyuk 13y ago

It is great that in this case the policeman was sacked but I get the impression it was because he lied afterwards. Police in the UK and US continually treat citizens as beneath them and with contempt - he should have been sacked because he was rude and wrong, not because he lied.

alextingle 13y ago
If being rude and wrong were a sacking offence, hardly anybody would have a job. This police officer should be fired for abusing his authority.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Being rude and wrong in a position of power is, in this case, an abuse of authority.
mattmanser 13y ago
There are bad eggs everywhere, but it doesn't help the conversation when you project the minority onto the whole. By and large the police I have met in the UK are helpful and diligent. And I say that having been arrested, searched and locked in a cell for 3 hours by the police for no good reason, so have felt violated by them before. I don't live in the US, so can't comment, but I imagine it's the same.
- hga 13y ago
  In the US, at least, I hold that outside of a few small rural departments, there are no good cops, full stop. Because the so-called good cops defend, with silence at minimum, all but the most extreme behavior of the really bad cops.
  - TDL 13y ago
    Agreed. Good cops cease being good as soon as they look the other way and keep quiet when a bad cop does something wrong.
  - 13y ago

VexXtreme 13y ago

Is this possible? Initially I thought this was an Onion article. If this really is true, that's wonderful news. One small step toward reinstating civil liberties. Now how about someone deals with cops who illegally force doctors to do enemas and anal cavity searches on people for having strange posture, or do roadside vaginal cavity searches on women with no probable cause, or shoot people's dogs upon erroneously entering their homes, or shoot unarmed suspects standing still with hands in the air? Also, I find it incredible that the people who swore to serve the citizens and protect the constitution of their country are so quick to completely disrespect the said constitution so often.

aric 13y ago
The trajectory of most parts of US policing and civil freedom is one-thousand steps backward and one step forward. Thankfully, he had evidence. The phone wasn't stolen and its data wasn't deleted by the officer, later or on the spot as in other cases. Heartwarming nevertheless. A favorite comment on the post: "This seems a bit harsh. Doesn't everyone deserve a 122nd chance?"
noonespecial 13y ago
The so-called "first rule of policing" has absolutely nothing to do with citizens or the constitution. Its simply "Make sure when your shift is over you go home alive". Believing this reliably turns men who could be (and want to be considered) heroes into cowardly thugs.
a3n 13y ago
> Also, I find it incredible that the people who swore to serve the citizens and protect the constitution of their country are so quick to completely disrespect the said constitution so often. I think for a lot of people swearing an oath is just something you have to say before they give you a gun and money.
- antjanus 13y ago
  It's the same with taking the [Hippocratic Oath](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath) for doctors before they get the cash rolling in for them.

bart42_0 13y ago

In Spain they don't threaten to arrest you for taking photos of cops, they arrest you immediately without any warning.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
But is it actually against Spanish law? If an officer arrests you for breaking a bad law, that's not on the officer, that's on the legislators. The UK it's a grey area. In theory it's fine unless the officer has reason to believe that the photos will be used to aid in an act of terrorism but that wiggle room could potentially be enough for an officer wishing to abuse their power. Interestingly the Met actually have a page on photographers rights in this (and other) regards: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice
- dandelany 13y ago
  > But is it actually against Spanish law? Not yet. http://rt.com/op-edge/spain-law-protest-violence-621/ http://rt.com/op-edge/spain-law-protest-violence-621/

chilldream 13y ago

Further coverage: http://photographyisnotacrime.com/?s=dominic+holden http://photographyisnotacrime.com/?s=dominic+holden I'm posting that link mostly for the name of the blog, to demonstrate that this kind of incident is common enough in the US to have its own blog. Personally I'm hoping this becomes moot when police officers are required to wear their own cameras while on duty.

jlgaddis 13y ago
I recall stumbling across that blog a while back and reading some of the stories -- some of which were frightening. With almost all police cars now equipped with video cameras and officers wearing body microphones, I find it odd that they can be turned on and off by the officer. Although the camera and body mic are (usually, AIUI) activated automatically when the lights/sirens are engaged, I would love for the camera and microphone to be always-on.

leobelle 13y ago

> Saulet underwent three performance-improvement plans, two training sessions, and two multi-visit sessions with a social psychologist, coaching sessions with supervisors, and 80 hours of time off without pay. Saulet was demoted from sergeant to deputy for another incident in August. Like they were probably just waiting for anything to come along to fire this guy. Amazing he lasted so long.

Zigurd 13y ago
Amazing, but probably not uncommon.
MartinCron 13y ago
Police work attracts both the good and bad elements of society. Saulet appears to be one of the bad ones. It's a shame it took this long to remove him from the force.

kordless 13y ago

> thereafter, rather than be accountable, you attempted to recast events in a light more favorable to you Rationalizations suck when you're in cognitive dissonance mode.

ck2 13y ago

If they had 120 allegations, imagine how many never got filed. Go to the front desk at a police station and try to file a complaint, just make sure you have bail money on hand.

umsm 13y ago
Is this true? Will you really be arrested for filing a complaint at a police station?
- ck2 13y ago
  Someone went to like a dozen stations and tried to ask for a complaint form and recorded what happened. Has to be on youtube somewhere. You won't be arrested specifically for the complaint of course, they are going to find something else, follow you, etc.
- lepht 13y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ

joesmo 13y ago

You might not be glad he got fired, but rest assured there are many of us who are. This type of thing happens constantly on every police force in America (and pretty much everywhere) and is oftentimes a lot worse. It's a small win, but someone like this _deserves_ to be made an example out of. I doubt it will change anything, even in Seattle, but at least there's one less police officer arresting people and ruining their lives (arrest records are permanent; they cannot be expunged ever). I personally can relate, having been threatened (along with about a dozen or more other people) by a police officer with death by SUV if I did not leave the public sidewalk. Yes, the officer started rolling into the crowd.