(cache) Police reports from the riot, scooped here!

As I make my way through I have to stop and write - Common sense and basic safety says keep hands off police officers. I've not read everything yet but in one of the OPD reports an officer says they could feel people grab at their uniform jacket.

Grab towards their bodies, and you are grabbing possibly near their guns = not a good situation.

Okay, I'll return to reading now. :)

More: These are upsetting to me to read. I'm impressed that no one was further hurt. People were drunk and riling each other up. The Thurston County Sheriff's report says that they had their guns grabbed and pulled from behind by rioters. And all three agencies reported glass bottles and other debris being thrown.

The way I see it, even if I really disagree with something, I'm not going to try to grab a law enforcement's gun, nor am I going to throw anything, nor am I going to spit on anyone. All actions are ineffective and potentially really dangerous for all involved.

Sounds scary

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 4:24pm.

After reading the accounts, it hard not to have a lot of sympathy for officers caught in the middle of that. It looks like there was a core of concert-goers who were intent on increasing the level of violence regardless of the outcome. I hope they can be singled out. Just inexcusable and sad. I can’t really see how law enforcement could have responded differently, given all the attempts to calm and placate the crowd. We need to find a way to address the incredible rancor that fueled this.

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.! --John Maynard Keynes

I agree

Submitted by Sarah on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 4:33pm.

I hope the violent ones can be busted.

I also hope that everyone else caught up in the riot learns from their experience. One thing to learn is to not be swayed by people who are encouraging escalating the violence.

It's hard for me not to be skeptical

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 5:15pm.

I don't envy them their job, it's true, but I have looked at some of the OPD reports, and it's hard for me not to feel that they are making a case to justify their actions. It makes me a little suspicious that one of the officers says he sprayed OC-10 on several people, then he mentions that he warned them first. Was he really relating events out of chronological order, or was he perhaps lying, covering his butt as an afterthought? Eyewitnesses report that OPD sprayed without warning. Given the interests of LE, I think it's important to read these reports with a strong sense that they are not objective, but that the people who write them need to justify their actions in order to prevent being sued and in order to keep their jobs.

It is concerning.

Submitted by wildleaf on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 4:35pm.

I agree this puts the students back on the hotseat again. I do notice that one OPD officer seems particularly aggressive in his response compared to the other OPD people. The Thurston County deputies seem to keep their cool. There also seems to be some inconsistencies in timing details, and general inconsistencies overall. Any comments on those?

The Black Car Project http://autovoid.blogspot.com

When I look at the overall

Submitted by NWarty on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 4:52pm.

When I look at the overall picture from reading accounts of both TCSO and OPD, generally the reports from the various LE personnel involved, match up pretty well. That's just how I'm reading it. I have some more thoughts but not enough time to put em down.

Very interesting reading btw.

Nice scoop, Wildleaf!

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 5:17pm.

Way to go!

Good job WL!

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 6:19pm.

I'm amazed there were no major injuries, or even deaths. Hopefully a lesson is learned all around, and the tape turns out to bring some convictions.

Analyze this stuff, it doesn't ring perfectly for the police.

Submitted by wildleaf on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 6:32pm.

I think that I am finding some inconsistencies. I am analyzing the reports in comparison to the video, the student eyewitness accounts and the Operating procedures for the OPD and I don't think that it is looking that good for the OPD. Of course reactionaries read into things as always. ANALYZE! Do you all want the truth or not?

The Black Car Project http://autovoid.blogspot.com

I've seen the video, and read all of the reports now

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 12:17am.

I don't see a whole lot of inconsistencies, certainly not as many as the eye witnesses that have been quoted on this site and the Olympian. It was a fairly tense situation I'm sure, and people are going to remember different aspects of the same situation, and not remember others. High adrenaline makes global awareness go down a few notches. I have little doubt that officers warned people numerous times. Did they warn them before every baton strike, and every pepper spray? I wasn't there. I have no reason to doubt their word though, and every reason to doubt the word of the rioters.

When I first started on Olyblog I had a big issue (right after a port protest) with people saying, "The police sprayed us without ANY warning!", when I knew, because I was down there, and within earshot, that they received multiple warnings, on multiple occasions. There were rocks and bottles being thrown down there as well, some people either didn't see it, given the commotion, or forgot about it. I saw it happen more than once. People get wound up during these things.

I think the police get wound up too.

Submitted by wildleaf on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 12:27am.

I'm highly concerned about the first OPD officer. He stands out as using the most violence compared to the others. I think the TCSO acted to a high standard of professionalism. This lone officer put a lot of people in danger including his fellow officers. He needs to be held responsible for his role in this.

The Black Car Project http://autovoid.blogspot.com

I didn't get that part

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 12:32am.

In fact after reading the OPD reports I couldn't even figure out which officer you were talking about. Which one seemed more violent than the others?

I would agree with you, officers do get wound up. If I was surrounded by a mob and was fearing for my safety I would be awfully wound up as well. They have a duty to perform though, and as citizens, we should try our best to accomadate that, as opposed to making it harder on them.

I didn't see the OPD officers surrounded by a mob.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 2:23am.

I saw them force themselves into a crowd with chemical weapons and giant batons, thereby creating an angry mob.

We went over this during the

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 2:31am.

We went over this during the port protesting, but OC-10 a chemical weapon? I know you sat in a room full of it, too. We're talking about a substance that is like a bad bong hit, not one which is going to kill you.

I'd love to hear the radio transmission from between the first call about the assault to the Evergreen officer asking for assistance to deputies at the scene asking for assistance from the Olympia Police Department. I have no doubt that it's public information and I'm sure someone reading would be more than happy to fill out the necessary paperwork to obtain and publish it - in its whole.

And just to make clear, I say all of this as an agent of the federal government working for a branch which is essentially Uncle Sam's "world police." I'm not completely neutral to the topic but when it comes to matters of law enforcement I don't think many people are.

It's a chemical, it's used as a weapon? It's not a donut.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 2:35am.

I'd like to hear those radio calls also.

Per the Police Department General Orders

Submitted by Mike on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 9:12am.

OC is not a chemical weapon. See the policies on force for the details.

Pepper spray is banned for

Submitted by ashley on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 10:27am.

Pepper spray is banned for use in warfare by the Chemical Weapons Convention (1997). Unfortunately, that classification doesn't keep it from being used on internal populations. Honestly, if it's international banned as as a chemical weapon, I don't care how OPD designates it.

word

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 10:42am.

And to be quite honest, OPD

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 10:46am.

And to be quite honest, OPD doesn't care that you don't care. Not being an ass, just pointing out that it's not much help to tell authority you don't care.

Just an FYI, cause I don't want to argue with anyone

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 6:34pm.

Although pepper spray is banned in that convention, you will notice that it is available to adult civilians in most states in this country. Anything other than FMJ bullets are also illegal during warfare, yet police use hollow-point ammunition, and would be silly to use anything other than that, also civilian legal in most states. Just information for anyone interested.

Curious...

Submitted by security_six on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 9:04pm.

I was not aware of any US jurisdiction banning hollowpoint ammo. BTW, I hate the word "civilian" I'm not a civilian, I'm a Citizen. There is a huge difference.

"Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can be against safety."--Unknown

New Jersey if I'm not

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 10:17pm.

New Jersey if I'm not mistaken. That's for another thread though :)

I'm not a civilian, I'm a

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 02/28/2008 - 12:01am.

I'm not a civilian, I'm a Citizen.

Hijacking the thread, so maybe this is for another day, but a couple of sergeants and I were talking about this today (being a citizen versus civilian).

Do you have to experience a loss in rights to be a citizen (as cheesy of a movie as it was, think "Starship Troopers")?

Do you have to serve in the Armed Forces to be considered a citizen? It's one of the few organizations to which you can surrender your constitutional rights and - once you're in - you have very little protection outside of the UCMJ.

People say they're fighting to maintain certain rights all the time, but how do they know if they've never experienced that loss first-hand?

Just throwing all of this out there. I really haven't taken a defintive position. I think people should serve but I'm not quite sure whether those who haven't are any less of a citizen.

That's an odd claim

Submitted by Jurjen S. on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 5:33pm.

I've checked the Annex on Chemicals, pursuant to the CWC, and Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) is not listed in any of the three schedules of controlled chemical agents. Rather troublingly, in the glossary at the bottom of the page "Basic Facts on Chemical Disarmament", the only mention of pepper spray is under CS Propanedinitrile [(2-chlorophenyl) methylene], "also known as tear gas or pepper spray." Speaking as someone who's been exposed to both, I can tell you that CS and OC are not the same thing, so that suggests that OPCW is using,or has at some point in the past, used the term "pepper spray" to mean something other than OC.

Not listed, but banned.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 6:09pm.

Here.

Once again

Submitted by Jurjen S. on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 6:42am.

I reiterate that the glossary on the OPCW "Basic Facts about Chemical Disarmament" page lists "pepper spray" as another name for CS. CS ≠ OC.

quoting from a manual, sorry

Submitted by ashley on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 2:35am.

quoting from a manual, sorry about all caps.

from the official website of the marine corps. emphasis mine.

(1) GENERAL. OC SPRAY IS CONSIDERED A RIOT CONTROL AGENT (RCA) AND ITS USE IN WAR IS SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION. THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES ARE PROHIBITED FROM USING ANY RCA'S...IN WAR UNLESS SUCH USE IS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT IN ADVANCE. ALL USES OF FORCE INCLUDING THE USE OF RCA'S, WHETHER IN WAR OR OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR, MUST BE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT OR USE OF FORCE POLICY APPLICABLE TO THAT OPERATION. THE USE OF RCA'S OUTSIDE A WAR ZONE IS AUTHORIZED AS PRESCRIBED FOR PEACETIME.

Uh-huh

Submitted by Jurjen S. on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 12:47pm.

And I've heard of Marine sniper instructors telling their students that the use of .50 BMG (12.7x99mm NATO) rounds against personnel was banned by the Geneva Conventions. Wrong on two counts: first, restrictions on munitions permissible to use against personnel are regulated under the Declaration (IV, 3) pursuant to the The Hague Convention of 1899; and second, under said treaty, the caliber is irrelevant, only the nature of the ordnance in question (it's illegal to use expanding or explosive ammunition directly against personnel, no matter the caliber, and quite legal to use "ball" rounds, no matter the caliber). Frankly, that excerpt from the USMC manual sounds like legal ass-covering to me, prompted by ambiguous, non-existent or otherwise vague definitions in the treaty and its annexes. Does OC even meet the CWC's definition of a "chemical" (if there is one)? Unlike CS and CN--let alone lethal chemical weapons such as nerve agents, blistering agents, asphyxiating agents et al.--the active ingredient in OC (capsaicinoids) isn't synthesized; it's extracted from chili peppers, in which it occurs naturally. The only part of OC sprays/foggers that needs to be synthesized is the delivery agent. Other RCA's (explicitly mentioned in CWC-related documents), such as CN and CS, have certain toxic chemical properties that give cause for concern. These are not present with OC; in cases in which subjects have suffered death as a result of exposure to OC, OC has been an indirect cause. Direct cause of death was asphyxiation due to inflammation of the airways (caused by the OC) in combination with other factors (asthma, drug use, seating position). But even if I'm mistaken, and OC is formally recognized under the terms of the CWC as technically being a chemical weapon, I would nevertheless contend that Rob's initial use of the term in this thread was intended to evoke associations with sulfur mustard, nerve agents, and the like; since OC doesn't come anywhere close to the nastiness of such agents, this was needlessly inflammatory.

I was attempting to clarify.

Submitted by ashley on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 1:04pm.

I was attempting to clarify. You are correct in stating that it is not classified as a chemical weapon. I am correct in asserting that its use is prohibited in warfare-- as a riot control agent, not due to chemical weapon classification.

However, I assume that Rob's reference of the CWC was not intended to be inflammatory- it's easy (as I did) to think that because it's banned by the CWC, it must have some sort of chemical weapons status. If you look at my other comment below, I linked to the exact language used in the CWC regulating the use of RCAs in war zones. I'm glad that you challenged that and that I now have more accurate information.

No need to accuse anyone of ignorance or inflammatory words. Cheers.

unambiguously

Submitted by ashley on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 2:42am.

Also, it's listed as a "Riot Control Agent":

Chemical Weapons Convention

# 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

Your ignorance is showing

Submitted by Jurjen S. on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 5:45pm.

"It's a chemical, it's used as a weapon," therefore it's a chemical weapon? Please, that kind of reasoning (and I use the word loosely) may be employed at the College of It Stands to Reason, but it doesn't fly in the real world. Water is a chemical (you know, H₂O, aka "dihydrogen monoxide"), and it can be employed as a weapon (e.g. in water cannon, or to deliberately drown someone by forcible submersion), but that doesn't make it a "chemical weapon."

How is your reasoning any better than mine?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 5:49pm.

Yours sucks, mine doesn't

Submitted by Jurjen S. on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 7:15am.

Seriously, what kind of answer were you expecting? If you can find a serious source to support the notion that water is (not just "should be" but is) classed as a chemical weapon, because it's a chemical and can be used as a weapon (not to mention being the crucial component in various torture methods, such as waterboarding), we'll talk.

Again folks, it doesn't matter

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 11:06am.

police forces are not bound by international rules of warfare. If an 18 y/o college student can carry pepper spray and use it to get someone out of his/her face, then I see no reason why the police can't.

Hey, you know what would be really fun?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 11:28am.

If we just agree to disagree and walk away!

Shhhh

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 11:29am.

You're wrong Rob :p

don't do that

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 1:08pm.

How can I be wrong about an opinion?

Hence the ":p" I was playing

Submitted by Norm on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 2:19pm.

oh yeah. sorry.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 4:35pm.

If someone wants to request the tape

Submitted by JT on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 5:04pm.

from dispatch, I believe you can get it through PDR.

No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world ever.Christine Stewart (the real basis for the AGW scare)

We already have it...

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 4:50pm.

We have the CD of stuff from OPD, and Dispatch already if people want me to post it.

Uhh, yes.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 4:59pm.

We already have it...

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 4:50pm.

double post (OOPS!)

A bit slow in loading...

Submitted by security_six on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 8:45pm.

The reports really slow down the loading of this thread on anything but a strong signal, and wi-fi isn't always strong. Maybe I'm the only one with this problem though...

"Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can be against safety."--Unknown

sorry about that

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 7:31am.

Its a bit slow for me and I'm the one who put them up.

Nice to have everything...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 10:48am.

...on one page, though.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

I don't think so...

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 11:02am.

...but my latency is around 200ms. Total transfer was over 500k. Not bad if you have a T1 but generally page loads of this size are frowned upon. I vote for a smaller footprint. I'll discuss other counters that are important in the numbers blog you just posted yesterday.

For example, do you have the avg page load time in ms/sec per page load?

C:\Users\zbeers>ping www.olyblog.net

Pinging www.olyblog.net [209.31.179.236] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.31.179.236: bytes=32 time=204ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.31.179.236: bytes=32 time=184ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.31.179.236: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=48
Reply from 209.31.179.236: bytes=32 time=191ms TTL=48

Ping statistics for 209.31.179.236:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 184ms, Maximum = 204ms, Average = 191ms

C:\Users\zbeers>

I wonder if we can pull up the police reports from the Chicago

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 9:09pm.

police riot back in 68. I bet the 68 reports make it pretty clear that the students in the streets in Chicago provoked the beatings.

How about police reports from the Rodney King beating. I suspect those officers who were waiting for Rodney to twitch a bit before they hit him again with a baton were worried that he was going to lunge and grab for their weapons, that he was pulling at their boots to get up and grab their weapons.

What do you think the police reports from Birmingham say about Sister Rosa's provocation and flaunting of public law as she was arrested for sitting in a bus?

Just how critical of themselves do you expect police to be when they file reports?

Wildleaf is on the right track by analyzing the reports through review of the video.

Skepticism of established authority (and the reports of established authority) is a hallmark of great journalism.

Please, a little critical thinking.

It appears

Submitted by DJW on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 9:25pm.

That you already made up your mind that the police have circled the wagons and the students/concert goers were provoked. Am I wrong? I'm just curious.

I am woefully short on time these days so

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 9:56pm.

I have not watched the 45 minutes of videotape. But I get a sense that wildleaf is giving it a good look and I am trusting WL's read on things.

TESC police chief has no doubt watched the whole video and he came out with the public statement that using batons to move people out of the way is a concern (paraphrase, hope it's accurate) so the TESC police chief seems to have seen something that he did not like.

I think that after the Port there is a lot of bad feeling between the PDs and significant numbers of activists in the community. When they come together, the batons and the pepper spray come out and create more bad feeling. I believe that police officers enforce their personal biases as often as they enforce the law and their politics of police populations and activist populations are not very close.

I don't like mob violence, but I also don't like police officers who are on our dime and will resort to use of force when negotiation and de-escalation of tensions is smarter.

The folks who want to see the activists treated liberally with lead pills are now clamoring for aggressive prosecution of folks who broke the law and destroyed property, but the smart move for the PD's and the prosecutors is to step back, convene a community approach to fail to see why these events are occurring, to look critically at why we find ourselves in this spot.

Folks on the political right want to see those lead pills flying and can figure out why some parts of the community get mad when "appropriate use of force" is applied. These folks can't fathom the possibility that what they view as appropriate may not in fact be appropriate or lawful.

I think both groups provoked each other and that we have moved into a dangerous and unpredictable time.

What I think is that we, as a community, may be better able to control the behavior of the police agencies than crowds of folks because police agencies have a paycheck, an organization, a set of general orders in place and those elements make the police agencies accountable to the whole community in ways that no crowd will ever be.

Did that answer the question?

I think I'm sufficiently critical

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 11:06am.

What changed my opinion on this was that officers from different agencies painted pretty similar pictures of the aggressiveness of the crowd (or at least certain elements within the crowd). While police within one department might be more likely to collude, I am considerably less inclined to assume collaboration across agencies. I think it's great that people are putting these statements under a microscope, but I’ve seen enough to convince me that the police probably had sufficient reason to fear for their safety and the safety of others. Personally, I think the microscopes should also be trained on the reasons and possible cures for all the ill will demonstrated that night.

Appreciate your comment

Submitted by Ehver Green on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 11:09am.

Appreciate your comment here. I do think wildleaf has a valid point re: OPD's first officer. He wasn't taking guff from anyone. Probably had that in mind long before arrive at TESC on that evening which only made things worse.

I disagree

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 11:19am.

I'm kind of on the fence, but I think there are inconsistencies. A lot of it will be solved by the radio transmissions between the departments. Is anybody working on getting those?

That would great information to post

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 11:26am.

I am fully capable of jumping this fence several times as new accounts dictate.

Rodney King police reports

Submitted by Mike on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 9:39pm.

here.

Video of the King beating here.

Testimony of Officer Powell regarding King: Laurence Powell nervously offered lengthy answers to the questions from his attorney, Michael Stone. He told jurors, "I was completely in fear for my life, scared to death that [if] this guy got back up, he was going to take my gun away from me."

More testimony from the King beating trial:

In a frame-by-frame analysis of the videotape, expert witness Sergeant Charles Duke backed up Koon's contention that only reasonable force was used against King. Duke, a critic of LAPD policy banning use of chokeholds, suggested that the King incident showed the inevitable result of a policy that left the police with few viable options short of deadly force. Duke said it was sometimes necessary "to break a bone" and that every one of the fifty-six baton swings shown on the videotape was justified.

And finally, a little more coverage on the King trial:

Defendant Theodore Briseno turned out to be a better witness for the prosecution than any witness called in their own case. He told jurors that he thought Powell "was out of control" and had "a look I'd never seen before." In Briseno's opinion, the beating was "excessive." He said that he yelled to Powell to "get the hell off" King, but that Powell ignored him. "It was like he moved, they hit him," Briseno testified. "I just didn't understand what was going on out there....It didn't make any sense to me."
The only use of force shown on the videotape involving Briseno was a single stomp on King's shoulders at about the time Powell was reaching for his handcuffs. Briseno testified that the stomp was an effort to get King down so that the other officers would stop their clubbing. He said he stomped on King--rather than put his knee on him, as LAPD policy dictates--because he feared getting accidentally struck by a baton if he lowered himself to his knees.
In his closing argument, Terry White argued that the videotape showed Powell intentionally hitting King in the head and lying twenty-six times in his police report or testimony. King held up Briseno's black boots used to stomp King and told jurors Briseno "just got caught up in the frenzy." Ridiculing Koon's description of the arrest and a "managed and controlled use of force," White called the affair "a managed and controlled cover-up."

I've been to events where

Submitted by ashley on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 11:20pm.

I've been to events where police claimed things were thrown in order to justify responding in force, so I was skeptical of whether items were thrown. These reports show officers from three agencies corroborating that the throwing went on for an extensive period of time.

The final OPD narrative makes a characterization that seems strange to me, that the crowd resembled those encountered at the Port of Olympia in November 2007. Perhaps it was just an observation, but it seems strange because the narratives are kept so factual the rest of the time. What is the purpose of that comparison?

The second-to-last OPD narrative recounts an officer's realization that some of the people being hit with batons were unable to move out of the way.

And, as OlyDowntowner observed, repeatedly we see officers state that they used OC spray or batons only after warning people to disperse. The video released by the Geoduck Union looks to me like there was no time to make any warning or announcement-- OPD just wades into the crowd swinging batons. So it does read a bit like a CYA to say "I sprayed the crowd... after they ignored my warnings." This is suggested again by the statement by one of the officers that nobody was really that close to the OC spray, and that it was fairly dispersed. That doesn't make sense to me since officers were apparently blinding one another with it.

Lastly, I was fascinated by an observation by TCSO that "Olympia Officers entered the scene and met with immediate resistance"-- and *then* they deployed pepper spray. Really? That doesn't sound very chronological, and it seems like another odd characterization in the midst of very specific and technical descriptions. What does that mean, that they were met with resistance?

Overall, the statements seem fairly consistent to me, with some of the gaps being accounted for within the narratives-- officers state that they arrived at different times and with different information (usually very little). The statements painted a different picture than my assumptions, but I still want to take them with a grain of salt since, as Mike reminds us, the officers were put in a position of having to make decisions and now will be asked to justify the ones they made. I'd imagine that applies to the participants as well...

Nice analysis, I think it matches up with some of mine

Submitted by wildleaf on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 12:00am.

I read through the police reports. The WSP report is not important to the determination of how the riot began but could be interesting for other reasons. I am focused on the TCSO and OPD report. I notice some differences I want to make clear.

The first OPD officer states that an officer needed rescuing from the middle of the crowd. The second officer states that as well. The third officer says they were just waiting till enough people to arrive before they went in which doesn’t sound like a rescue. The fourth says that they were asked to get the crowd off the vehicle. The fifth says they were to make a perimeter around the car.

The TCSO says that they asked them to move in and assist in moving the crowd back from the vehicle, or remove the vehicle, or move the crowd back. They never mention the need for a rescue.

The first OPD officer says that he struck less than a dozen people in the incident with his flashlight. He says that he shouted as he tried to get through and that he had to literally fight his way through. He says that prior to striking each individual person was given a verbal command, which they all ignored. He mentions stuff being thrown after he fights his way through the crowd.

I know he says he gave a prior verbal command before striking but it seems unlikely that he gave the people in the front time to respond. The people in front obviously weren’t throwing cans although they might have been spitting. Later officers report that the front line was being pushed forward from behind limiting their ability to move out of the way, a later officer decides not to use his baton because of this. When he mentions fighting his way through it would be more accurate to say hitting his way through because no hitting back seems to take place or is mentioned. I feel this officer was a major provoker and acted inappropriately and different then the majority of the officers.

The second one mentions objects being thrown at the police before entering. This seems possible, but I’m not sure if the chronology is correct. I can’t see anything in the video to back him up and only two of the five OPD state that objects were seen thrown first. The TCSO accounts don’t make clear the arrival of the first OPD so their rendition of stuff being thrown at them could be afterwards.

The Thurston County cops say someone tugged at his gun but couldn’t tell whom. This conceivably could have been someone brushing up against the gun because the crowd was tight at this point. I’m not in total doubt about the claim I just don’t see how it is really relevant because no one seriously tried to take his gun and he didn’t find the act important enough to pursue at the time.

One TCSO report backs up my claim that “the crowd began to resist as the officers moved toward us and pepper spray was deployed.” Another deputy states that the OPD “entered the scene and met with immediate resistance. They deployed pepper spray and the crowd became more uncontrollable.” He goes on to say that even after being pepper sprayed, “the crowd was no(t) in full riot mode at this point and I ordered all units to withdraw.” A different officer said that when the OPD “enterered the crowd I heard people screaming and moving away as if pepper spray had been deployed.”

None of the TCSO used any impact weapon according to their reports.

The Black Car Project http://autovoid.blogspot.com

Skeptics Manual

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 8:35pm.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I am having doubts about the reportedly stolen 2004 laptop computer.
This URL shows that the thing has GPS built in, so my question is why that facility of the machine has not yet been used to track it down (Would kinda defeat the purpose if you could just leave it turned off when you want to steal it...)
http://www.gd-itronix.com/images/Products/Notebooks/GoBookIII_Exploded.jpg

That aside, I do think that the price given was the pre-depreciation price. $4,500 for a September 2004 laptop? I don't think so. The replacement is only $4,100.
http://www.posglobal.com/item/XR1AABAAYAAZZZAABAAB.html

As for Radar guns, I didn't find them on pricewatch.com or Nextag.

There Could Easily Be More Than

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 3:56pm.

$400.00 worth of software on that laptop if not more than $400.00 worth which would easily bring the value up to $4500.00 or more.

"A point of view is only a view from a point..." ~ Unknown

That's silly!

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 7:55am.

The licenses for software don't die with the computer, they certainly are not likely to be used by the thieves (the thing has GPS and a radio built in - whoever turns it on will be visited by the Po Po before they connect with tech support) and the department is not "out" the cost of the software, which they have on backup hard drives / Compact disks anyway. If they're at all like most fleets, they have a standard "ghost" of a drive partition - probably Winblows 95 or 98 - which is just run off onto the new hard drive when an old one dies. The point is, this is probably the cost of the system when it was new, which was at least 2005. Depreciation on a used computer is steep over three years.

Let's be clear though

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 11:49am.

TCSO gets to make the estimates, and the court decides if they are fair. This isn't a public opinion game on how much something actually costs. Considering the legal system we have, I would aim a little high too.

That's not how GPS works

Submitted by Jurjen S. on Tue, 03/04/2008 - 2:44pm.

A GPS ground unit (be it hand-held, vehicle-mounted, or whatnot) is only a receiver; it determines its location by comparing the signals it receives from available satellites that are part of the GPS network, and triangulating its position based on that input. GPS units do not transmit their location back to the satellites. Moreover, GPS signals are readily blocked by solid objects, such as car roofs, buildings, and trees. But what about "GPS cell phones?" I hear you ask. Cell phones equipped with GPS technology incorporate a GPS receiver; they don't transmit their location to a satellite, but rather, to the nearest cell tower--piggy-backed on the regular outgoing telephone signal--when (and only when) a 911 call is made from that particular phone. Note that incorporation of this technology into cell phones only stems from 2005, so after the TSCO laptop was manufactured. If the TCSO laptop had the ability to transmit its GPS location data, it would most likely have to have done so via the patrol car's radio system; in other words, once it was removed from the patrol car (and no longer plugged into the car's radio system), it would no longer have this ability.

Naming Names

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 3:23pm.

This is the order in which I (today) got the TESC incident reports from OPD.
OPD Report One is: Chris Johnstone.
Photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/olycopwatch/2235686035/in/set-72157603837378621/

OPD Report Two is: Jason Watkins.
Photo is not currently up on the Oly Copwatch Photo Page.

OPD Report Three is: Duane Hinrichs, K-9 Handler
Photo at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/olycopwatch/2236476004/in/set-72157603837378621/

OPD Report Four is: Bryan Wyllie.
Photo is not currently up on the Oly Copwatch Photo Page.

OPD Report Five is: Shon Malone.
Photo is not currently up on the Oly Copwatch Photo Page.

We'll be posting photos of the above officers probably Saturday, since today and this evening are hella busy.
We also got the CAPCOM transcript, handy in setting timing issues to rest. Perhaps a little later?

Oh please

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 3:28pm.

would love to see the transcripts if you are willing to share.

Just went up on my personal Blog.

Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 3:31pm.

Maybe a docent can promote it?

Thanks

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 3:34pm.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our Social Contract. You should also look at our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Olyblogger of the Month:

decorabilia

Online users

Comment viewing options