It's Saturday night and the RantWoman department of unconventional policy analyses is working overtime. RantWoman is not under the influence of anything wilder than ice water and homemade whole wheat peanut butter cookies; RantWoman humbly offers these comments for readers' consideration.
Publicola article about firing
Publicola article about subpoena issue
RantWoman has absolutely no argument with Chief Diaz decision. As a visually impaired person though, RantWoman is happy to observe another angle about why husband and wife officers Everett should not be police officers. Being a police officer is unquestionably one of those "drivers' license required" jobs. If as officers Everett claim in the excerpt below, they could not see or hear the mayhem going on around them from the location where they were proven to be. they simply do not have the vision needed to legally operate a motor vehicle and should have their drivers' licenses suspended promptly. Next they should immediately be referred to both an eye doctor and an audiologist for further evaluation.
Consider this extract from Chief Diaz's Disciplinary Action Report about one of the officers, virtually identical to the report about the second officer.:
"...On January 6,2021, you were one of thousands of people who gathered on the Capital grounds in Washington, D.C. as members of Congress counted electoral votes and certified the 2020 Presidential election. A group of demonstrators breached the outermost barriers at the west entrance of the Capitol grounds, pushing past and actively assaulting law enforcement officers. United States Capitol Police (USCP) officers in riot gear worked .... The demonstration was declared "effectively a riot" shortly before 2:00 p,m. Crowds clashed violently with police, breached the barricades, broke down a door, smashed the windows, and gained access to the Capital Building itself. You estimated that you arrived on the Capital grounds by approximately 2:30 p.m., after the incident was deemed a riot and the building had been breached. Still photographs provided by the FBI show you standing directly next to the side of the Capital Building. Nearby, and within your line of vision, numerous people were scaling a stone wall to the Capital steps, climbing the scaffolding, and crowds were surrounding the building. Employee Response During your interview with OPA, you claimed that you stayed on the grass around 30-50 yards away from the building and never saw any signs of a disturbance. You stated that the people in your vicinity were simply talking, waving flags, and standing in the grass, You declined to attend your Loudermill, but your representative provided a statement on your behalf. In it, you stated that you condemned the actions of those who engaged in violent acts. You stated that you had no idea that the event had turned violent, that nothing in your view indicated ongoing violence, and that you left as soon as practical after getting the Mayor's emergency message announcing a curfew. Policies at Issue: Department Policy 5.001-POL-2 requires that employees adhere to laws, City policy, and Department policy. You admitted trespassing on January 6. You asserted that you did not know that you had done so until after the fact and described your actions as observing peaceful occurrences at the Capitol. You said that you saw no sign that you were in a prohibited location and were therefore not culpable for trespassing. This assertion is not credible. There was an active insurrection ongoing at the same time that you were in the immediate vicinity of the Capitol Building. This included rioters assaulting law enforcement officers and making forced entries into the building. There were numerous restrictions in place, from visible "No Trespassing" signs to fence lines staffed by clearly marked officers. These restrictions made clear that being in the location you were in was impermissible. Fufther, the video stills show you standing in the immediate vicinity of the Capital Building and contradict your claim that you were unaware that you were trespassing or that this was anything other than a peaceful protest. The still footage from the video makes it abundantly clear that you were in direct view of rioters lining the steps and climbing the walls. There were multiple indications that being in this area was impermissible and that the conduct of the crowd had moved past any potential peaceful protest stage into illegal acts of many kinds. You are a police officer who has worked in demonstration management. It defies belief that you could think this situation was "peaceful" or that you were not on notice that you were trespassing. Your actions violated DC Code D.C. Code 5 22-3301(unlawful entry), which makes it a crime to, without lawful authority, enter or attempt to enter, any public building, or other property, or part of such building, or other property, against the will of the lawful occupant or of the person lawfully in charge thereof or his or her agent, or being therein or. Even had you been unaware that you were trespassing, ignorance of the law is not a defense...."
Besides the need for officers Everett to get their eyes tested, they probably need to have their hearing and sense of spatial orientation tested as well. The only direction where one could be half a football field away from the Capitol and be standing on grass is the west side of the building. RantWoman at a distance of 30-50 yards, a third to half a football field definitely would not be able to see detail about what was happening. However, anyone with even a little ability to see contrast would be able to tell there might be sometime wrong about dark figures climbing on a lighter-colored building.
Moving on to hearing, January 6 was not some demure concert in the park. Every video RantWoman has permitted herself to look at indicates the events were extremely noisy. Hence RantWoman's recommendation that now former officers get both vision and hearing evaluations.
RantWoman, not being an attorney is still going to permit herself to go one step further: if RantWoman were a defense attorney she would now consider whether Officers Everetts' claims of sensory gaps were severe enough to call into question any conviction based on these officers' testimony about seeing or hearing something incriminating. Fortunately (?) wandering down that alley is more than RantWoman wants to take on.
Instead RantWoman suddenly had a "wait just a #$#@* minute" reaction about the Stop the Steal rally: RantWoman recalls the former occupant of the White House ordering police to dump tear gas all over peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters in Lafayette Park. This of course would not be the only example of an outrageous double standard compared to the former White House occupant enthusiastically goading attendees at the supposedly peaceful first amendment protected Stop the Steal rally to head toward the Capitol.
Just say'in, 'specially if one is going to think about any of the officers what travelled to DC specifically for the rally ever being assigned any demonstration staffing obligation ever again.
And what about cellphones. Were the officers who travelled to DC using personal or department issued cellphones? Should everything on department issue phones be archivable if not automatically public record?
Should police officers be expected to sign some kind of an agreement about automated archiving of activities on departmental phones equivalent to the consent for breathalyzer testing one signs to get a drivers' license?
In any case RantWoman reads the request from Black Lives Matter of WA to fire all 6 officers who flew to Washington DC for the January 6 uprising. RantWoman has no independent information about whether the other officers hold white nationalist views. RantWoman is certainly not crazy about police officers holding White Nationalist views. However, police officers, like everyone else have a right to peacefully protest. Unless there is strong evidence that the 3 cleared officers should not be cleared of wrongdoing, going through what likely would be a long drawn out process to fire them is not a hill RantWoman is prepared to die on.
For the fourth officer, for whom there is evidence neither to clear or accuse him of anything, RantWoman would advise that officer to come forward voluntarily if there is still anything in the ocean of investigative material that might relate to that officer.
Even taking into account first amendment considerations though, considering the circumstances of travel to DC at a time when there was abundant material in social media about the planning of something, RantWoman does not think any of these officers should count on a bright future career in the Seattle Police Deparment; RantWoman especially credits the candor of the officer referenced in one of the Publicola articles who acknowledges that he will have trouble trusting and being able to work with these offices going forward.
There. More than enough for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment