Jay Olsen’s case closed?

67 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  terrymr on May 08 at 8:46 p.m.

  Olson got a self defense verdict from the Jury which means the state is reimbursing his legal costs.

  I think the Chief’s decision not to file additional charges is ridiculous - any of the rest of us would be arrested on the spot for trying to talk our way into the judges chambers especially if we pulled a phony police badge.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 09 at 4:06 a.m.

  Dave,

  I guess at this point the real question becomes; will we residents of Spokane remember this ‘past as prologue’ when the next instance of police misconduct occurs? Assuming there is a next instance. (The optimist in me still wants to believe in the system.)

  I know I’ve castigated Lewis because I simply don’t believe the ‘firebrand, absolutely polarized, torches and pitchforks’ revolution that I think he advocates will accomplish anything constructive or - more importantly - lasting.

  I still believe that.

  But I’m also enough of a realist to know that you can only sweep so much under the rug before you inevitably start tripping over the big lump of filth concealed underneath.

  I don’t advocate bloody revolution.

  But this can’t go on any longer.

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on May 09 at 8:00 a.m.

  Jeff, with respect… the system here in Spokane has been broken for years.. ( i grew up here).. Anyone who had admitted to carrying a loaded weapon into a Gay Bar , getting drunk, and then firing that weapon at some one who was RUNNING AWAY from them would likely have been charged with a crime. The glaring fact here is that the Shooter was a Spokane Police Officer… how can that be?? john

• 

  JimF on May 09 at 9:09 a.m.

  Gus,
  Olsen was charged with a crime, went to trial and was found not guilty. If you want to rehash it time and time again on these forums go ahead but it’s not going to change the outcome. I don’t know anyone down there that ever condoned what Jay did but to say the system is broken because of the actions of a few officers is ridiculous. The people I work with down there go to work every day, giving their hearts and minds to the victims we deal with. Yesterday I put in a 14 hour day, the majority of it dealing with a sexual assault victim. I resent the broad brush that you and others paint us with.

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on May 09 at 9:38 a.m.

  Jim thanks for weighing in…. I don’t think ( at least I hope) i have not painted any Broad Brush here or elswhere about our hard working police force…

  I do get the difference between a real trial, during which the officer was found not guilty by the jury… and the Internal Investigation/ reprimand… my arguments have to do with the timing of the Internal Investigation, and mostly about the Prosecution.

  I KNOW that the preponderance of officers are hard working and take risks that most citizens would not even think of doing.. it is always of interest to take a look at the police logs for ONE day.. and see the number of D.V. cases you all deal with.. and any one of those cases can get real hot real quick….

  SO i do sincerely apologize if you feel i’ve painted a broad brush… I’ve done my best to point out specific cases, with specific instances that could/should? have been done better… and that is not in my view a broad brush… I do hear every day however stories from the folks i serve.. the homeless, the drunks, the drug addicted, the glbt, the disabled/mentally ill… and the NUMBER of sad stories I hear… from crossing in cross walks against the law with four “regular citizens” and being singled out for a ticket “Because you are the ones we are after”… and letting the citizens in suits with briefcases move on down the line with no similar treatment….ect are replete. Gay kids called nasty names and pushed around emotionally because of who they ARE rather than what the do…etc… literally hundreds of stories over my four years in the trenches here…

  There feels to be a climate of “over policing” for minimal infractions/rules… perhaps all with good intent. but the perception is the opposite… it feels more like standard procedure ….. four squad cars at a street bust of an unarmed non combative street guy? why two to three cars??

  I do applaud the officers I know and have information about… your self included… but there is a P.R. problem and it is not helped by a Chief that does not come before the public as often as one might….

  How is the progress towards the selection of the Ombudsman going in your view..?? and is it going to be worth all the time and effort and give some comfort to the officers?? Help me understand that one? best regards Detective Jim.. john

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on May 09 at 10:36 a.m.

  Det. Jim, you might want to comment on the article itself with regards the seeming special treatment again of Officer Olsen by the now completely predictable Chief of Police.. use the link provided by Dave. john

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 09 at 11:11 a.m.

  Chef Gus,

  You know I’m very supportive of police in general esp the line officers. Police adm is a different story. As you know I have an issue with the Co Prosecutor and how the Olsen case was prosecuted. I’m concerned with the testimony of the dispatcher and the missing dispatch tape. Things seem to go missing at SPD.

  As for disparate treatment of officers there may be an inkling of truth here but was concerns me the most is that there is a certain family in town that appears to be above the law that our local law enforcement community seems to turn a blind eye to.

  For those interested in my opinion please read:

  ‘Fraud: Scam Capital of America’ vs. an ‘Army of Davids’

  http://friendsofmarkfuhrman.org/blog/?p=138

• 

  spokelooneh on May 09 at 5:21 p.m.

  The Gypsy curse continues.

  My guess is both Olsen and the City will get a substantial judgement against them (or pay a BIG settlement) in Pete’s civil lawsuit, they’re playing CYA of course at this time. Cashed in a few chips at the Prosecutor’s office, who are complicit for arguably, malfeasance, certainly misfeasance.

  Enforcement/punishment of abusive LEO actions towards the citizenry is slightly better, but needs much more vigorous before it can shown that the tide has turned. This latest non-action is once again, galling. A good investigator/prosecutor should have been able to rip Tucker, his story, and his reputation (admitted poor job performance) to shreds on cross. The corroboration was almost pure hearsay. There is no discernible reason whatsoever for Olsen to be chasing Pete in the first place, a previous trial of fact already established that.

  Prosecutor didn’t even stand behind, and know how to handle, and yes, coach, (if you don’t think doesn’t go on in every single trial, you’re ignorant) the Peaceful Valley couple who were eye-witnesses, and there’s plenty of people who are wary about the police in this town, and for good reason, yet that doesn’t mean they’re going to lie on the stand about a material fact, a serious charge, and if Dispatch really did have on tape what Tucker claimed was said, those two would be toast. And they, and any good lawyer, would have EXPECTED that conservation to be taped, and if they lied about it, they’d be found out.

  Even Dave has doubts as to whether or not Pete stole the truck, I don’t, that’s been determined in Court, and there is NO evidence, NO motive given, NO clear opportunity for commission of the crime, NO history of Pete being a car thief. This is key to this issue, and so is we taxpayers having to pay for Olsen’s defense costs, a fact you were wrong about.
  
  The taxpayers aren’t done paying for with this yet, not by a long shot, to the back of the head.

• 

  lewis8457 on May 10 at 12:02 a.m.

  How is it Olsen can carry a gun into a bar and not be charged with that crime? His lawyer admitted to it in court. According to Mr. Apple carrying a concealed loaded weapon into a bar is a federal offense how is it the feds are not filing charges? Also in the trial Olsen admitted getting drunk and driving his truck while in pursuit of Pete how is it he is not at the very least being charged with a DUI?

  This whole episode stinks to high heaven. From the peeping tom sheriff to the shoot em in the head drunk cop when will this end? My guess, NEVER.

  JimF we all know there are many fine officers working with you at the safety building but you need to look at the issue from the civilians point of view. If a cop breaks a law that he is supposed to be enforcing and nothing happens to him, but a civilian breaks the same law. How is it OK for the civilian to go to jail but the cop never does? What does they say? Police have more rights then those they are to protect? Over the last 3 years we have seen many episodes where this came to pass. If you don’t like the broad strokes some of us paint then maybe you should talk to your chief and see if she wants to play fair. If not get used to it, we have to.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 10 at 3:47 a.m.

  Lewis,

  “If a cop breaks a law that he is supposed to be enforcing and nothing happens to him, but a civilian breaks the same law. How is it OK for the civilian to go to jail but the cop never does? What does they say? Police have more rights then those they are to protect?”

  I just wanted to chime in on a purely personal note and say that when you present your arguments in this reasonable, level-headed, ‘these are the facts’ style, you are far more persuasive.
  As I see it, your words go to the very heart of the matter in a well-stated nutshell.

  For this community to once again have faith in our police and our elected officials, we must consistently demand and they must consistently demonstrate that the standard for those who enforce the law is a *greater* duty to obey and uphold the laws they are enforcing. Not some lesser, ‘I’ve got power so I can get away with it’ lack of standards.

  More importantly - far more importantly - it’s time that we voters remembered our own duties in this. It’s time we remembered that in our democratic system, there is no power but that which we give. What we make in the voting booth, we can unmake in the voting booth. If the people we elect don’t serve our needs, then we replace them. Not with torches and pitchforks and revolution in the streets. Rather, with cool reason and the calculated choices we’re supposed to be making when we face the awesome responsibility of casting our vote.

  And if our choices are thwarted by the king-makers and the power-brokers behind the scenes who are too interested in advancing their own agenda and their own power…

  Well, we can unmake them too by consistently refusing the candidates they put forward. A discredited king-maker who can’t put a pretender on the throne is nothing but frustrated ambition.

  Unless and until we realize this and do what needs to be done in our own best interests, this problem of already crisis proportions is only going to get worse. And in the end, the fault for our predicament will be on nobody but us.

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on May 10 at 5:12 a.m.

  Jeff, you are absolutely right about the method to fix this.. at the ballot box… We did do it last fall with the ouster of Bush/Cheney et al.. and there is no credible reason why we are not able run someone else against this apparently ineffective Tucker.

  I am not a conspiracy person… but one must wonder why no one of any merit ran against him last time.. what’s up with that? We do in fact get the government we vote for.. as YOU have pointed out before.. and the problem with our Chief may be that she fully understands the complicating factor of the lack of an effective prosecutor… bet she’d not have taken the job if she’d full understood what looks and feels like collusion here.

  No one is REALLY going after Tucker cept the Center for Justice with Breean Beggs and Jim Sheehan.. etc.. Otto’s family may finally be served well by their help. John

• 

  garfnagn on May 10 at 7:05 a.m.

  Oh, I a mso tired of all the cop bashing on this forums! like Det Jimf said, he was found not guilty so stop it. Cops can get drunk off duty in gay bars AND carry their guns becaus the laws are differnt for cops because they hav to protect us and they are “enforcers” of the law not “follwoers of the law” liek the genral public. Steve Tucker knows this! The prosecutrs probably sit around at happy hour at the goodtymes bar on Argonne and laff their heads off at generals public thinking they have to charge cops with crimes too! Are you kidding? Nobody would want to b a cop if they had to follows the law too. Are you serious? no way, who would want to do that job with a high school degree for 75 K a year and a big engind car and guns if you could be charged for breking the laws too. I’m sure. I totaly support our soldiers in blue who keep the streets free of scum and dirtbags who think they can violate with a capital V our rights. Go Team Spokan Police Dept!

• 

  JimF on May 10 at 7:45 a.m.

  John,
  The ombudsman process is plodding along but from what I understand there may be one in place by late summer.

  Lewis-despite what Bob Apple says, to my knowledge there is no law against an officer going into a bar with a loaded weapon, especially no federal law. I’m willing for someone to prove me wrong on that one. And of course we go into bars all the time armed in the course of our duties.

  Police do not have any more rights than the citizens but keep in mind that we do have the same rights, which doesn’t seem to sit well with a certain segment of the public, who seem to think that we are not protected by due process.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 10 at 7:49 a.m.

  Garfnagn and ChefGux

  LOL re Tucker, Garfnagn. My sources tell me on most days you can find Mr. Tucker at the 19th Hole of the Downriver Golf Course or The Globe Bar:-)

  ChefGus, you forgot me re Mr. Tucker. I have major professional and ethical issues with Mr. Tucker. I do agree in this town with a surplus of attorneys we could find someone better than Mr. Tucker to run for County Prosecutor. Why not?

  BREAKING - Criminal complaint filed against Spokane Co Prosecutor Steve Tucker

  http://friendsofmarkfuhrman.org/blog/?p=136

• 

  spokelooneh on May 10 at 10:07 a.m.

  “RCW 9.41.300
  Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.
  

  (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
  a,b,c
  (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age;”

  That’s a bar, and I don’t see any exceptions granted for possessing a firearm in a bar, even if one has a valid Concealed pistol license under RCW 9:41:070.

  Except, of course for law enforcement personnel. However the law seems mute on the issue of law enforcement personnel who are off-duty. Of course, an on-duty officer can bring a gun into a bar.

  So Jim, what is your understanding of the State law on this matter? It appears to me that no person, as a patron (unclear about the proprietor of the bar), can posses a weapon in a bar, even if he/she has a concealed license, except for law enforcement officers in the course of their duty. It would also be illegal for an off-duty officer to be in possession of a firearm in a bar, correct?

  Thanks in advance for your input.

• 

  JimF on May 10 at 10:40 a.m.

  Spokelooneh,
  I know that several years ago I went into a bar in Seattle while I was off-duty and the bouncer saw that I was carrying a fanny pack containing a firearm. He did question me and I showed him my ID and he allowed me to go in. I’m not saying that is the definitive answer but my interpretation of the law enforcement exception is that I would be allowed to carry inside a bar, on duty or not. Of course, now it would be against SPD policy and I would not do it.

• 

  spokelooneh on May 10 at 11:32 a.m.

  Thanks Jim, well it’s only obvious that an ON-DUTY officer can posses a firearm in a bar, pursuant to relevant, duty related activities.

  I read further, and this seems conclusive to state law:

  “(6) Subsection (1) of this section (9.41.300) does not apply to:
  (a)(unrelated)
  (b) Law enforcement personnel, except…(unrelated)”

  No mention of on or off-duty.

  Seems like the SPD policy is a reasonable thing, are you saying that was only recently enacted? As a result of the Olsen case?

• 

  lewis8457 on May 10 at 11:36 a.m.

  So we find out Jim that you carried a gun into a bar while off duty so you figured it was not against the law on that point? I suggest in order to give credence to your arguments you look up the laws before saying there is no such law. It just makes it look like we are to believe you because you are a cop and you know all the rules. As demonstrated you don’t.

  Jeff we have been at odds on this issue for some time. I only believe we need to do something! For some reason we do not seem to get a good candidate to run against Tucker so much of Spokane just keeps voting him into office. Possibly if families of victims that don’t see justice because Tucker refuses to do his duty start to sue Tucker personally maybe that attention in itself will keep Spokane from voting him back into office.

  As for Kirkpatrick I really don’t think much of this is her fault other then her inability to stand up for what she believes in, in the face of the mayors office, prosecutor office and of course the police guild. I am sure she is stuck between a rock and a cliff but if I was her I would keep to my inner convictions and jump off the cliff, and take has many of the corrupted offices with me. I think she could get a lot more support from the community. Sometimes a person has to stand up for what they believe in even if it means they are a island un to themselves.

  The main point I want to believe in is no one is above the law and if they are what is the law? Or is there even a law? Maybe the law is only written for the citizens to follow and if it is only for the citizens to follow someone needs to tell us. Because right now we are to believe the law covers everyone, but that is becoming clearer and clearer that is not the case.

  And sadly some of the laws the police are able to break involve someone dieing, isn’t that the ultimate law not to kill? How am I supposed to respect someone that can kill me or one of my loved ones with no accountability? Like a gangster shoots (tasers) you dead and walk away. HOW?

  garfnagn keep it up your humor tells more of the story then my rants ever can.

• 

  Marie on May 10 at 1:32 p.m.

  Unless and until the jurors from the Jay Olsen case decide to speak about the case it is useless to rehash the verdict and try to blame the Prosecutor’s office for the verdict. We don’t know what they were thinking or what evidence in particular they found convincing. It’s even possible that they didn’t believe Shonto Pete’s testimony about what he was doing that night. A few weeks ago this paper covered the James Turnipseed trial. It was a murder trial and the defendant claimed self defense. Although the prosecutor in that case had forensic evidence that showed the incident could not have happened the way the defendant said it did the jurors still could not reach a verdict. On a tv news story it was reported that in his closing argument the defense attorney asked the jurors who they were going to believe, the scientists or the eyewitnesses. Apparently some jurors chose to believe the eyewitnesses. I might not agree with that choice but it was their choice to make. I don’t think it was the prosecutor’s fault that they weren’t able to reach a verdict. And I also don’t think that Ron the Cop’s complaint is going anywhere either because there isn’t a basis for it.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 10 at 1:38 p.m.

  In CA a “peace officer” qualified under state law to carry a firearm can do so anywhere in the state either on or off duty. This would include a “licensed premises” (AKA bar). This is of course limited to your department policy. While legal under state law you can still be disciplined for violating department policy if this precludes carrying a weapon off duty into a bar.

  In Olsen’s case as I’ve said before he was “felony stupid.” Not so much for carrying his weapon into the bar but apparently getting looped as well. Whether Pete did or did not try to steal his car, as a police officer he demonstrated poor critical thinking ability and police tactics in the way he chased Pete. He put himself in a very bad situation and was shooting at Pete not having the presence of mind what the background was. Apparently the jury held him to the standard of an ordinary citizens re the issues of self-defense. However from a police administrator’s point of view, if the IA investigation confirmed what is in the press accounts, he would be toast administratively in my book. Unfortunately apparently in Spokane for probably union contract reasons if there is a pending criminal charge you can’t be terminated before the trial is completed and/or case is disposed.

  Where I’m from the IA investigators watch the active criminal investigation. Once a decision has been made to file and the DA and/or country prosecutor files charges then the IA can be completed and the person terminated at that point for administrative policy violations. You don’t have to wait for the criminal case to finish. The reason why the IA inv waits until after the criminal investigation is that there are legal issues re statements made to the criminal investigators vs. “coerced” and/or administratively ordered statements to IA investigators. Just like normal citizens you can’t use coerced statements against you in a criminal case however you can be compelled “administratively” to give a statement. It’s the administrative statement that can’t be used in a criminal case.

• 

  JimF on May 10 at 1:44 p.m.

  Lewis,
  Maybe you should try reading what I said instead of running your mouth. I looked at RCW 9.41.300 and it appears to me that law enforcement officers, whether they are on duty or not, are exempt from the prohibition of carrying at firearm into a bar. When I carried my weapon into the Seattle tavern it was several years ago and as we know, laws do change once in awhile.

  I’m still waiting for you to provide some proof that it’s against some federal law to carry a weapon inside a bar-you would have more credence if you could back that claim up instead of just spewing it forth.

  As far as being above the law, we are not. We never have been and I don’t see that changing anytime soon, despite what you might think. And how is there no accountability if we kill someone in the performance of our duties-there is an investigation, a review by the prosecutor’s office, a review by the Dept. of Justice (federal)? Just because it doesn’t sit well with you doesn’t mean there’s no accountability.

  Spokelooneh-I’m not sure when the policy was put into effect but I can look at when I get back to work. As with a lot of policies inside government and out it sometimes takes someone screwing up to make a new one.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 10 at 2:35 p.m.

  Marie,

  I partially agree with you:

  “And I also don’t think that Ron the Cop’s complaint is going anywhere either because there isn’t a basis for it.”

  I give the odds of Gov. Gregoire doing what I requested re my criminal complaint against Mr. Tucker 80/20% - that she does nothing. This of course will be at her own political peril because I’m not going to let this go. In case there is any doubts former Sheriff Bamonte (Pend Oreille Co) and I have laid a paper trial a mile wide and fully intend on bring a federal class action RICO suit against all those with culpability in the Savage death and the RPS bond fraud.

  I’m a seasoned criminal investigator including economic crimes from a large So Cal city with some thirty-five years’ experience. What Mr. Tucker did was criminal and I’m calling him on it professionally. The key point is how he can make a rational filing decision without having a complete and thorough criminal investigation in front of him. If you don’t asked the probative questions of those involved/witnesses, how do you ever expect to get sufficient evidence to make your reasonable doubt standard? Mr. Tucker didn’t do “crap.” This was a cover up. Plain and simple. That’s what people should be concerned about.

  In the meantime neither or I will be parking in the RPS parking garage.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 10 at 2:36 p.m.

  sorry - last line

  neither my wife or I

• 

  lewis8457 on May 10 at 4:05 p.m.

  Really Jim there was a investigation into the Zehm death? What was that when your department was making up its own story for the press? Or was it when one of your officers broke federal law by looking at Ottos employment, and health records to make a case against him?

  i never said I was the one who came up with the 5 year federal rap that came from Mr. Apple and I have sent a email to him requesting any clarification on that law. I will of course look myself but hopefully he knows it right off the top of his head.

  Perception is everything, lately we have had many stories in the press about police and sheriffs getting off on all kinds of cases, that would have sent a normal citizen to jail.

• 

  JimF on May 10 at 4:51 p.m.

  Lewis,
  You may not be the one who came up with it being a federal law but you’re the one that keeps bringing it up-show us the code and I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong. By the way, the RCW that I refer to is 9.41.300.

  We’ve also had many stories in the press, and I use that term loosely when referring to the Spokesman Review, of cops being charged with crimes and brought to trial. You win some and you lose some.

  And just for the record, I won’t comment about Zehm because it’s in pending litigation.

• 

  Marie on May 10 at 5:19 p.m.

  Ron,

  I wasn’t aware that a private individual could bring a RICO suit. How will you do that?

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 10 at 6:06 p.m.

  Marie,

  Civil RICO suits can be brought by private parties. Mind you the burden of proof is by preponderance and not the higher level of reasonable doubt in a criminal action. The section is [18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)]. Also this section provides for treble damages and attorney fees.

  You can read more in the US DOJ’s procedure manual for RICO cases:

  http://friendsofmarkfuhrman.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/rico-manual.pdf

  If you’re interested in my professional vitae you can read more here:

  http://friendsofmarkfuhrman.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/resume-2.pdf

• 

  spokelooneh on May 10 at 7:22 p.m.

  Ron, ignoring the topic of your suit, which is pushing the limits around here, disregarding that, what is it in Spokane that has allowed so many economic crimes to be committed from this area? How SHOULD law enforcement and the prosecutorial function operate against such? Yes, I read the Forbes article.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 10 at 9:21 p.m.

  Spokelooneh,

  I’m speculating that neither the Spokane PD or the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office have much of an economic crimes presence. They probably have their hands full with robberies, burlgaries, gangs, and drug related crimes and don’t have much left to chase white collar crime. That leaves the WA AG’s Office, the FBI and the Secret Svs whose resources are stretched thin with the War on Terror to chase after the cons. The FBI’s white collar crime resources were stripped and shifted to counter terrorism efforts.

• 

  lewis8457 on May 10 at 11:15 p.m.

  Jim according to the Gun Control act of 1968, title 18, United States code, chapter 44 it is illegal for a police officer to carry a concealed weapon while under the influence of alcohol and or drugs. Wasn’t Olsen in a bar getting drunk at the time? while carrying his loaded concealed weapon? Check section C-5.

  § 926B Carrying of concealed firearms
  by qualified law enforcement officers.

  (a) Nothwithstanding any other provision
  of the law of any State or any political
  subdivision thereof, an individual who is a
  qualified law enforcement officer and who
  is carrying the indentification required by
  subsection (d) may carry a concealed
  firearm that has been shipped or transported
  in interstate or foreign commerce,
  subject to subsection (b).
  (b) This section shall not be construed
  to supersede or limit the laws of any State
  that —
  (1) permit private persons or entities
  to prohibit or restrict the possession of
  concealed firearms on their property; or
  (2) prohibit or restrict the possession
  of firearms on any State or local government
  property, installation, building,
  base, or park.
  (c) As used in this section, the term
  “qualified law enforcement officer”
  means an employee of a governmental
  agency who —
  (1) is authorized by law to engage in
  or supervise the prevention, detection,
  investigation, or prosecution of, or the
  incarceration of any person for, any violation
  of law, and has statutory powers
  of arrest;
  (2) is authorized by the agency to
  carry a firearm;
  (3) is not the subject of any disciplinary
  action by the agency;
  (4) meets standards, if any, established
  by the agency which require the
  employee to regularly qualify in the use
  of a firearm;
  (5) is not under the influence of alcohol
  or another intoxicating or hallucinatory
  drug or substance; and
  (6) is not prohibited by Federal law
  from receiving a firearm.
  (d) The identification required by this
  subsection is the photographic identification
  issued by the governmental agency
  for which the individual is employed as a
  law enforcement officer.
  (e) As used in this section, the term
  “firearm” does not include—
  (1) any machinegun (as defined in
  section 5845 of the National Firearms
  Act);
  (2) any firearm silencer (as defined in
  section 921 of this title); and

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 11 at 5:29 a.m.

  If it’s a case of ‘put up or shut up’, I would call that citation ‘putting up’.

  And I have to say, it just seems reasonable - to me at least - that if cops are indeed ‘just people too’ and are therefore subject to the same fallibilities and weakness as all the rest of us, I don’t think it would be a particularly good idea to give them a statutory free pass when it comes to getting drunk while carrying a concealed weapon. (Or is the assertion that an off-duty cop is always in a bar for some other reason than to get a drink? Alternatively, is the assertion that off-duty cops in bars never get drunk so we don’t need to worry about it?)

  In any event, it seems to me that to give a statutory free pass like that would only be asking for something bad to happen.

  Like it recently did around here.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 11 at 5:34 a.m.

  Lewis,

  I think your taken this section (926B) out of context re CCW and police officers. This is generally a states’ right issue. Don’t know what WA laws are re this issue. JimF doesn’t this prohibition exists. Besides Section 926B may no longer exist and has been reworded into another section. I have not had the time to read through the Act as it exist today to find this wording. My guess this section was stricken awhile back. Other can feel free to check at:

  http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 11 at 5:36 a.m.

  Too early sorry

  your = you’re
  doesn’t [think] this

• 

  Dave Laird on May 11 at 5:39 a.m.

  Good morning, everyone…

  I admit a certain morbid fascination each time I open a thread that discusses any aspect of the Spokane Police Department, as the outcome is nearly always so predictable in that all of the various personal agendas just keep falling out of the bandbox on the floor in an electronic muddle of sorts. Although this isn’t really the kinds of conversations I had in mind when I wondered if the Jay Olsen case would ever end, somehow I knew and expected we would allow the conversation to slide with insufferable ease into other areas.

  I should always be grateful to Detective JimF for showing up and standing his own ground, and I am certain there are others within the Department who read everything he writes here, and that perhaps, is as it should be. Nearly a year ago I was naïve enough to be hopeful that we could have a public clearing-house of sorts, a place where people could calmly and rationally discuss policies and procedures of the Spokane Police Department, but as I witnessed back then, it ended up in a general malaise of mud-slinging, contention and several agendas that I found personally reprehensible enough to drop the idea entirely. It seemed back then that most people were more-interested in pointing the fingers of guilt at the police in general rather than trying to establish meaningful dialog, and that is and was unfortunate.

  As Jim noted, it profits no one to discuss the Otto Zehm case, because it is now in the hands of skilled litigators, and it is winding its way through the civil legal system. It was and still is a deplorable instance of a police administration gone awry, a sickening instance of poor judgment used by those who responded to the initial criminal report and all the various other dysfunctional things that took place at higher levels in the department. Bad stuff not only happens to ordinary civilians; it sometimes involves police officers who were not either properly prepared to do their jobs or did not understand how to handle an unclear situation. Thanks in part to Chief Kirkpatrick, perhaps some of those old dysfunctional procedures and policies have been amended and corrected but only time will tell.

  My largely uninformed guess is that is why the Jay Olsen criminal case is closed, certain aspects of it may rise to bite us in our collective backsides in civil court, although that remains to be seen. Without knowing the whole of it, I suspect Chief Kirkpatrick modified some more policies and procedures on the basis of the case.

  The bottom line is, did we learn from our mistakes? I submit that remains to be seen.

  Dave

• 

  lewis8457 on May 11 at 8:59 a.m.

  Once again I find the information I found on a federal government web site is not real, big surprise, what a waste of time.

  I do not feel I took the information out of context I was looking for laws about carrying a concealed weapon. Not being a police officer I really don’t know where to find the information that will be accepted, maybe it does not exist.

  I guess I owe Jim a apology if the information I posted above is no longer in effect I guess it is OK for a police officer to take his loaded weapon in a bar get drunk and go out and have some target practice on some poor citizen.

  So I am sorry Jim for doubting you. But quite frankly since Otto was justifiably murdered I don’t trust any one at the SPD.

  Oh by the way Jim, could you tell the radio guys their GPS fell off my bicycle the duct tape broke.

• 

  lewis8457 on May 11 at 9:09 a.m.

  Dave I think the only ones who learn from mistakes are the citizens they have learned not to trust everything that is told to us from the SPD. Did the SPD learn anything from their mistakes? I don’t think so heck they don’t even think they made a mistake that is our perception not theirs.

  As long as the police guild runs this town the only ones mistaken are the citizens. They were mistaken to think we have a right to expect professional law enforcement in Spokane.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 11 at 10:37 a.m.

  Lewis,

  Your wishes aren’t something that are easily addressed by legislation making police actions illegal for a number of reasons. The real issue is common sense and the fair application of discipline by police management that will empower to check the abuses of police power by a minority of the police profession.

  As I ‘ve said here and many times before, based on the public info available on this police shooting case, Olsen acted way outside the norms of police procedure and tactics. This was very poor judgment that a police officer with his years of experience should have known better. This wasn’t a rookie mistake. If the IA investigation confirmed this info I would have terminated Olsen.

  Until you’ve been a police officer, you don’t understand that there are bad people in the world and those who will kill police officers who maintain order at the drop of a hat. Read my link to sheepdogs:

  http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

  In Olsen’s case he violated the cardinal rule of endangering the flock. I don’t have an issue with cops carrying 24/7 whether on/off duty. Cops oftentimes run into bad people they’ve done business with off duty and sometimes with their family present. Legislation does not do well here. It’s a judgment issue. This is where police management must instill in line officers it will not tolerate “felony stupid” actions on the part of officers acting outside of the acceptable norms.

  And I’ll toot my horn here again that these issues are only symptomatic of the much larger issue of the systemic level co-option/corruption of political/governmental entities in Spokane in deference to the Cowles family. This is why I’m professionally challenging Mr. Tucker for his malfeasance in office re his decision not file any criminal charges in the Savage case. In my professional opinion based on my training, experience and education there was compelling and strong probable cause to file a criminal complaint in this case and let a jury decide whether the evidence warranted a conviction based on the evidence. Mr. Tucker’s action buried this evidence from public view and covered this up in deference to the political will of the Cowles family. For that matter our entire law enforcement community has turned a blind eye to this corruption. Why?

  Check this latest comment out in the Forbes’ article thread:

  Fraud: Scam Capital of America

  “Posted by spokelement | 05/11/09 02:58 AM EDT
  Spokane City government is a big part of the problem. Manipulated public works contracts and no bid contracts have been common for years. Poor or no fiscal oversight is common.

  The regional solid waste system seems to be run for the benefit of a few private sector companies, with competition selectively restricted through a flow-control ordinance. The cost for county-wide municipal collection and disposal costs are on a pace to be more than $4 billion over the next 20 years. One of the highest costing systems in the country and it is projected to lose $9 million this year alone. . .”

  http://rate.forbes.com/comments/CommentServlet?op=cpage&sourcename=story&StoryURI=forbes/2009/0525/106-investment-guide-09-scam-capital-of-america.html

  In short until this endemic corruption is excised from are midst we will continue to be victimized. I for one will not sit idly by and allow myself to be robbed!

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 11 at 12:13 p.m.

  Ron,

  I agree with a lot of what you say. I think one point in particular needs to be highlighted: cops are expected to be cops 24/7. I would therefore stipulate that along with that added responsibility comes at least some added privilege. Specifically: if we expect them to be cops 24/7, we need to allow them to carry the tools they need to do that job 24/7.

  I think if anyone stops and really thinks about that, they’ll see the reasonableness of that.

  But the problem, as I think you recognize, is that those added responsibilities don’t just end with what is expected in terms of actions. They also included what’s expected in terms of behavior and conduct. Look again at that federal statute Lewis cited a while ago. By the way, I’ve taken a look at that statue for myself. As far as I can tell, it’s still on the books. Furthermore, it specifically cites the commerce clause to establish jurisdiction over a police officer’s weapon, thus trumping a claim to state’s rights. Anyway, if I’m reading that statute correctly, it allows an off-duty cop to carry a gun into a bar, no problem. BUT, if that cop then gets drunk - that is to say, if he breaches his responsibility - he loses the exemption with respect to carrying that concealed weapon.

  Seems to me, that’s the way it ought to be.

  Jim has reminded us that cops are just people too, with all the same rights as the rest of us. And that’s undeniably true.

  But cops have more responsibilities than the rest of us. So there’s no getting around it: if you’re a cop 24/7, you have to be better than the rest of us 24/7.

  And if you can’t do that, you can’t be a cop.

  Seems to me, it’s just that simple.

• 

  JimF on May 11 at 12:15 p.m.

  Lewis,
  I would like to refer you to this, commonly known as the LEOSA, which is an amendment to the bill you posted that passed in 2004 regarding the carrying of firearms by law enforcement. It appears to me that we can carry a firearm almost anywhere. It also appears to me that we cannot carry while intoxicated, which seems like common sense to me.

  A case that you might remember where this law came into play was a few years ago when some officers from Seattle were attacked in a bar in Sturgis and one of the officers shot his assailant. The prosecutor charged the officer with some state law concerning concealed weapons until it was pointed out to him that this law existed.

  SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.
  
  (a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:
  
  `Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
  
  `(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
  
  `(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
  
  `(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
  
  `(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
  
  `(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer’ means an employee of a governmental agency who—
  
  `(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
  
  `(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
  
  `(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;
  
  `(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
  
  `(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
  
  `(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

• 

  JimF on May 11 at 12:20 p.m.

  Jeff-I think that most of us recognize that we have to be better because we are held to a higher standard. Believe me, if I were a private citizen I would have handled certain situations in my lifetime much differently than I did being an officer.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 11 at 2:24 p.m.

  Jim,

  I think it is just the nature of the beast that because of the authority and responsibility police officers carry, a failure by one is perceived as a failure by the many. That might not be fair, but life sometimes isn’t fair. And I don’t think that perception is going to change any time soon.

  Now given that a failure of responsibility isn’t a good thing anyway, it would seem to me that all the rest of the cops who *are* doing their jobs and who *are* living up to their responsibilities would be more eager than anyone to get rid of the bad apples most rikki tik, if for no other reason than to ensure that they - the good cops - didn’t get tarred with the same broad brush that’s getting slung around. It would seem to me that good cops would be the most vicious toward and the most unforgiving of a brother (or sister) cop who let them down. That it would quickly result in a very public display of eating their own when the need arose.

  But that’s another perception that I’m just not getting. And I think that’s another part of what’s driving all this.

• 

  JimF on May 11 at 3:26 p.m.

  Well Jeff,
  In general what you’ve said about the good cops wanting to be rid of the bad cops is true but I think there are some finer shades of gray in there. For example, we had a detective that was arrested and tried for a felony related to domestic violence. There were many of us that felt that he probably should not have been tried at all based on the facts as we knew them. The case, of course, brought a lot of negative attention to the SPD and all of his fellow officers. Should we have castigated him because he made us all look bad? I don’t think so.

  In the case of Jay Olsen, no one that I know of thought he was going to keep his job and we were content to let the process take place. He may have had a few friends that tried to support him but I think they would have been very few. I also think as a general rule we are very private and do not express what we believe to the public. Just like we don’t comment on other cases or situations. I know that probably doesn’t clear anything up but maybe it sheds a little light on how our minds work, or at least mine.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 11 at 4:43 p.m.

  Jim, if I may be so bold…

  “I also think as a general rule we are very private and do not express what we believe to the public.”

  In my opinion, if that is in fact the case, I don’t think that’s a luxury you guys have any more.

  At this point, I don’t see how silence and clannish-ness can be perceived as anything other than closing ranks to hide something ugly. Suspicion and mistrust are simply running too high for it to be any other way.

  Now I don’t pretend to know or understand enough about the subtleties here to think that I know how you should go about opening yourselves to the public you serve. I do know it’s *not* a case of throwing your arms wide open and saying, “Here I am with all my warts and flaws. Love me!”

  I also know you’ve probably got one or at most two shots left to get it right. So I realize this is a crucial decision that the department needs to make as a whole after some long and careful consideration. (But don’t consider for too long. Because I promise you guys - the sand IS running out on this. As they say, ‘stuff happens’ even to the best, most honorable, most well-intentioned people. And for better or worse, I for one don’t think this community will tolerate - or frankly can tolerate - much more of the stuff that’s inevitably going to happen as time goes by while you’re trying to work out your course of action.)

  I truly believe it’s come to the point that you folks either become genuinely open and transparent on your own initiative, or this community will (very soon now) get angry enough and frustrated enough to do whatever it takes to *make* you transparent.

  And while I don’t know from experience, I’d be willing to bet that being made transparent must really *hurt*.

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on May 11 at 5:06 p.m.

  Jeff, if you would, i’d like you to comment on your service time as my memory is that it was as an M.P. What was the tenor of the “public” toward you… as a friend and family member, as well as your fellow service men/women?

  My guess is that with your generally genial gestalt that you had/have lots of friends, and likely were a “low impact” M.P. ie you did your job and got the respect to do your job right because of who YOU were… not because of the badge/uniform? what’s your thinking/feeling on this/ j

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 11 at 6:05 p.m.

  Jeff,

  It’s a fine line to walk. I would tend to agree with you re transparency in all things. On the other hand police officers have rights too. And from where I’m from because of abusive police administrative practices CA passed the “Peace Officers Bill of Rights.” This clearly defines the ground rules will be in criminal and administrative IA investigations.

  I’ve served two terms as a police officers’ association president. During the last week of my term we had a very tragic shooting in which all were victims of the circumstances. In short the root cause of this shooting can be laid at the feet of city administration and a vindictive police administration that led to retention problems, training, morale, and lack of experienced officers in the field. We immediately became national media poster children when the city ardministrators and council ran for cover. We were visited by the Rev. Jessie Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Maxine Wattters who were pursuing their own personal agendas on the tragedy that occurred in our community.

  The entire department was the subject of a federal civil rights investigation. The fact that the federal investigation found that there was insufficient cause for filing a federal criminal civil rights complaint was a mere footnote two years later. You can read more here in the US AG’s press release:

  http://rocketsbrain.powerblogs.com/files/USAO_CDCA_Press_Release.pdf

  and here’s a LA Times account:

  http://8.12.42.31/2002/dec/13/local/me-tyisha13

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 11 at 6:13 p.m.

  I wasn’t an MP, Gus. If I’m not mistaken you’re thinking of Lewis.

  I was in security, however - at least as an ancillary duty. (Most folks involved with special weapons were at one time or another.) And in the course of that duty, I did interact both with other service members who weren’t in special weapons and with civilians.

  I’m sitting here, thinking about the question and realizing what a good question it is.

  I don’t really know.

  Umm… In my experience, it starts with the watch or post your standing. The ‘badge and uniform’ if you will. Respect necessarily has to start somewhere and if the person you’re demanding respect from is a stranger to you and has no other basis for respecting you, I suppose that’s where it has to start. (As I’m sure it is with a police officer.)

  Man… I know what you’re asking me, Gus. Or at least I think I do. But I’m not sure I really have an answer that would be relevant in the context that we’re discussing. In the scope of my security duties, there just wasn’t that much interaction on anything more than a, ‘Do you have a right to be here? Prove it’ basis.

  But I can say that there was… hmm… ‘An aloofness’ that came with the responsibility. A watch-stander involved with special weapons really and truly doesn’t have any friends. And if it was a game - that aloofness - we played it very seriously. ‘For keeps’, if you will. (The .45 on my hip and the M-14 slung on my shoulder really were loaded with real bullets and I really would have used them if occassion demanded.)

  And I guess it might be the same for a cop. (Since I’m sure that’s where this is all going.) If the authority is real, and the need for respect is real, then the - well, again that word ‘aloofness’ seems to be the best fit - the aloofness would probably be a natural consequence.

  So in the end, I’m not sure it was about me the person so much as it was about the position of authority - because that position brought with it a forced detachment and impersonality.

  Does that sort of answer your question?

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 11 at 6:24 p.m.

  Ron,

  I realize that what we’re talking about here just doesn’t admit itself to an easy solution.

  That’s why I’m constantly urging for more reason and less passion. As I see it, we’re pretty far out on the knife’s edge at this point. Any slip in any direction is probably going to get pretty bloody, pretty fast.

  And yet we can’t just safely sit here and trust to inertia and ‘business as usual’ either. I’m pretty sure that ‘stuff’ I mentioned is eventually going to happen. The more time that passes, the more inevitable it becomes. And I wasn’t kidding when I said that in my opinion at least, this community is at the breaking point in its tolerance for ‘stuff’.

  So to this extent I share Lewis’ passion when he says, “Something has to be done.” My fear is that if we don’t take matters into our own hands - and that might include some serious soul-searching and perhaps surrendering some precious prerogatives - events will overtake us and the ‘something’ that gets done won’t be of anyone’s choosing or to anyone’s liking.

• 

  Marie on May 11 at 7:22 p.m.

  Ron, Thanks for the RICO information.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 11 at 7:49 p.m.

  Jeff,

  Case in point re Otto Zehm - this is a wrongful death case for training/procedural/policy issues re the mask applied to Otto once he was subdued and no long presented a threat to the officers.

  I have no clue why City Administrators are balking at negotiating a settlement in this case and change policy, training and procedures and move on so it won’t happen again.

  This is where I find issue with City and Police Administrators. They are not acting in the best interests of the citizens of Spokane for just the reasons you are raising. Unfortunately the police line staff see this a them/us issue and I understand their view. I however I see this differently. Their wrath should be directed at the City and Police Administrators that have failed them and put them in this tenuous position.

  And yes where are the feds in their criminal civil rights investigation? I have major beefs with them over dumping the Savage case back in Mr. Tucker’s lap and not with AG Rob McKenna. They knew what they were doing. They knew the Savage case had merit and couldn’t sweep it under the rug. So what did they do but put it right back in this cesspool. In Otto’s case I’m willing to bet that they will find insufficient evidence for a federal criminal civil rights filing.

  And yet the City Council and Myor are debating the finer points of ads on bus benches? Do you see where the priorities of this city are out of whack?

  So what else is new?

• 

  spokelooneh on May 11 at 9:49 p.m.

  I think the best shot we have, and it’s doable, but difficult, would be to get a strong accountability-oriented Ombudsman selected, and then ratchet up his/her authority, by pushing the Council, and getting the police guild/union to back off, clever negotiations needed there.

  Look, the good guys, like Jim here, (I presume) have no fear of a clearing out of the SPD of rogue cops, to whatever extent they exist, and they do. And a revamp of operational policy and officer-related ethical/professional conduct Many Police Departments around the country have needed a “house cleaning” and came out better for just that. It’s commonplace. And now overdue.

• 

  lewis8457 on May 12 at 12:42 a.m.

  Ok so it seems we are agreed that police should for their own safety carry on and off duty I sure don’t have a problem with that. But they cannot carry when they are drunk. That is federal law correct (written in 1968 and 2004)? In the Olsen trial it was brought up that Olsen started drinking at home. Decided to go to the club took his gun and open container with him to the bar. Since he started drinking at home can we assume he was most likely drunk after being at the bar for one hour? At this point he was breaking a federal law. So why has he not been charged? In fact he admitted to being so drunk.

  Gus I was a MP at Fort Dix N.J. for 3 years, I always wanted to be a cop. My plan was to be a WSP. The uniform brought its own respect. And some of guys in my squad broke a few heads to taint that respect. It was common to rough up an unruly drunk. Saw a lot of wife beaters and had to take a few of them in. One of them was a friend. It was a tough job, and sadly not the one for me.

  So I do have respect for the police and what their job entails that is why I am so emotional about what is happening in Spokane, we not only have crimes being committed by some of the cops but they do not have to be accountable, causing many of us to lose the respect we have had for them for so many years.

• 

  George_Sands on May 12 at 3:16 a.m.

  I am wondering if Jay Olsen’s “Posse” (that was present during his trial) are still pumping their arms and high fiving with every travesty of justice that the cretin exudes?

  Re: Otto Zehm, I’m also glad all those “skilled investigators” are still busy as the magicians assistant in getting to the truth and providing the results in a “timely manner” to the appropriate people. Perhaps the civil suit will provide more of a motivation to get to the truth. How will Mayor Verner come up with a couple million dollars when she is fixated on Bus Benches?

  I am also glad to see that the Guild has three votes on the Ombudsman Light search, which received nearly 200 applications of which there are three super secret selectees. A good representative government of 250 people getting more input than the 175,000 citizens of our “Near Perfect” City.

  What about the SPD cop that stalked, published private information on the web, and blatantly bragged and used public city time to access the web for personal reasons?

  Sure glad we have “transparency” in our local government.

• 

  JimF on May 12 at 6:03 a.m.

  George,
  Let me correct one of your statements-the Guild has one person on the selection committee. The Lt.’s and Captains association has one and there are three others. The three nominated to the Mayor will come before the public so you can have a run at them when the time comes.

  As far as your comments about the stalking cop, I have no idea what you’re talking about. If you have a complaint, take it to Internal Affairs. By the way, I’m on my own time here.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on May 12 at 8:29 a.m.

  “I think the best shot we have, and it’s doable, but difficult, would be to get a strong accountability-oriented Ombudsman selected, and then ratchet up his/her authority, by pushing the Council, and getting the police guild/union to back off, clever negotiations needed there.”

  I just wanted to say I agree whole-heartedly with that and think that’s where we need to start.

  A **credible** Ombudsman will go a long way toward diffusing tensions and thus buy *EVERYONE* concerned the time and space required to tackle a very real, crisis-proportions problem in a way that’s likely to produce lasting, positive change. (A not-credible Ombudsman will just heap more fuel on the fire.)

  And please note; ‘where we need to *start*’.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on May 12 at 9:08 a.m.

  Gee the wife’s wants me to get a job. I guess I should have applied but unfortunately I’m not on the Mayor’s most favored list right now:-)

  JimF write me offline sometime.

• 

  lewis8457 on May 12 at 11:01 a.m.

  “I think the best shot we have, and it’s doable, but difficult, would be to get a strong accountability-oriented Ombudsman selected, and then ratchet up his/her authority, by pushing the Council, and getting the police guild/union to back off, clever negotiations needed there.”
  ______________________________________________________
  I think this a long shot. The past history has shown us it took the police guild 13 months just to decide if the people of Spokane deserved an ombudsman then it took another couple months for them to decide the ombudsman would have NO independent investigation power, making the position void of any way to bring transparency to the police department. Basically the position would be a puppet for the guild and mayors office. Since the guild has the mayor and most of the city council members in its hip pocket I see the ombudsman as another useless office we will be paying 80 grand a year for.

  Sure maybe we can push the council to try to improve the position responsibilities but it has already been 2 plus years since the idea of the ombudsman was first brought up. It could easily be another 2 or three years, to get investigation powers. In the mean time there will be no change.

  When we have the brand of ombudsman the police guild wants then we will get to hear about how they are transparent when another problem arises because we have a ombudsman now even though the police guild will be pulling the strings. So i can see the guild throwing that in our faces at every turn.

  I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the mayor and police guild vote for Jay Olsen to be the new ombudsman. That is how much faith I have in the mayor and police guild.

  So my question remains why have we not seen a investigation into Olsen carrying his gun while drunk and charges filed?

• 

  garfnagn on May 12 at 6:56 p.m.

  Ha! JimF my fvorite internet and real life detective schooled you George. Enough with the Oto Zehm crybaby stuff, why don’t you people ever put yourselfs in the shiny black boots of the officer who ran into the store and saw a man who didn’t look very norml who looked like a weirdo and if you dont look like a normal person it’s because you probaby aren not one! and might be dangerous and crazy so the officer did the best thing he was to do, he skulled otto upsicde the head with his baton. Plus what if Otto had the very last with capital L Dr. Pepper 2 liter soda pop and the cop was all like “hey! that’s the soda I always get for frees here from the clerks along with two packs of marlboro lights and this abnomral looking guy has MY pop! no wonder he brained Otto who was probly acting like a typical dirt bag in Spokane and not giving the officer the respect he and all of us should. When a officer runs at you with his baton in the air by golly I’m just thinking you DROP THE OFFICER’S FREE SODA POP AND START whimpering so he knows you aren’t gonna fight him. aND why did so many cops have to crush otto and put a non breahter mask on him and kill him? well maybe because if you are bad enough to get that many cops to come help out the first copwho obviously needed back up cuz Otto did not look like a normal person and was crying very loud maybe after getting his head busted with the baton and if you got that many cops there, specially spokane cops who are badazzes to badguys, then they do what they are trained to do - they crunch you Mr. dirt bag! hello!

  KNOCK
  KNOCK
  argggghhhh
  argggghhhh who?
  argggghhhh, knock on the door next time and not my forehead!

• 

  garfnagn on May 12 at 7:00 p.m.

  Det JimF, I have a queston, who do I call to ask if I ca ngo on a ride along some night with a real city cop? Just put my wheelchair in the trunk and call me Dirty Harry!

  I want to do that so bad. Then I can tell everbdy what awesome hard jobs cops do to keep scums out of spokane!

• 

  keepontruckin on May 13 at 5:54 p.m.

  INTERESTING THAT I MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN SPOKANE AND THE ROLE OUR WONDERFUL SPOKESMAN REVIEW STAFF AND THE MEDIA ADD TO THIS PROBLEM! I SEE MY COMMENT WAS DELETED. TYPICAL. I MADE COMMENTS ABOUT DAVE NOT BEING INFORMED ABOUT TOPICS THAT HE WRITES ABOUT! THAT SHOWED WHEN HE COMMENTED ON JAY OLSEN HAVING TO PAY FOR HIS OWN LEGAL EXPENSES. ITS TOO BAD THE MEDIA DOES NOT GET THE INFORMATION ( ALL OF IT ) AND REPORT WITH ACCURACY. EVEN I KNEW OLSEN’S LEGAL FEES WERE PAID. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE IN SPOKANE AS TRUTH AND ACCURACY IN OUR MEDIA IS A BIG PROBLEM. WONDER IF THIS WILL GET DELETED TOO!!!

• 

  Dave Laird on May 13 at 9:06 p.m.

  Good evening, Netizens…

  Keepontruckin writes:

  INTERESTING THAT I MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN SPOKANE AND THE ROLE OUR WONDERFUL SPOKESMAN REVIEW STAFF AND THE MEDIA ADD TO THIS PROBLEM! I SEE MY COMMENT WAS DELETED. TYPICAL. I MADE COMMENTS ABOUT DAVE NOT BEING INFORMED ABOUT TOPICS THAT HE WRITES ABOUT! THAT SHOWED WHEN HE COMMENTED ON JAY OLSEN HAVING TO PAY FOR HIS OWN LEGAL EXPENSES. ITS TOO BAD THE MEDIA DOES NOT GET THE INFORMATION ( ALL OF IT ) AND REPORT WITH ACCURACY. EVEN I KNEW OLSEN’S LEGAL FEES WERE PAID. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE IN SPOKANE AS TRUTH AND ACCURACY IN OUR MEDIA IS A BIG PROBLEM. WONDER IF THIS WILL GET DELETED TOO!!!

  First, your comment was deleted (and I immediately responded to your e-mail address, which you may or may not have bothered to read) because you descended into calling people names, which is strictly verbotem in these parts. If you call people names you will find your messages deleted. If you persist in that action you will find yourself banned.

  As for Jay Olsen’s legal expenses go, I was speaking about the forthcoming civil litigation being warmed up in the bullpen in a civil lawsuit which would NOT, according to City Authorities, be covered for payment since Olsen was fired. If I failed in some way to convey that Olsen’s legal expenses for civil litigation were not covered, that is an error on my part, and should have been caught and corrected earlier.

  Please turn off your CAPS LOCK key. You’re scaring the mugwumps.

  Dave

• 

  lewis8457 on May 13 at 10:49 p.m.

  I contacted Mr. Apple again he is the only one at city hall that responds. Apparently the reason Olsen is not being charged with carrying a weapon while intoxicated according to the federal law is because he was off duty. Although the spent shells they found at the scene and the one they took out of Pete’s head were Spokane Police Department issue bullets.

  I guess this shows how many shades of gray is written into the law. As read the laws governing concealed weapons it becomes quite clear when the laws were written it was never even considered a police officer would be he one breaking the law, since it gives them almost total access w/a concealed weapon.

  So he cant be charged as a police officer carrying while intoxicated. From what I have read it is flat out illegal for a citizen to carry any sort of weapon into a bar or a place where people under the age of 21 can not go.

  An off duty cop isnt a cop but he isnt a citizen what is he?
  SCOTT FREE

• 

  lewis8457 on May 13 at 11:00 p.m.

  Mr. Truckin I am sorry to inform you of this but media reports what they want to report and sometimes they don’t have all of the story. Or sometimes they report based on their own political views, a person has to take the news now a days with a grain of salt and figure they are only really being told 25% of the story. that is why i have several sources I get my news from even though I enjoy the SR most of because they are the paper i have been reading for the last 52 years.

  When you use your cap lock you are shouting. If there is one thing i have leaned on these blogs no one likes SHOUTING!

• 

  lewis8457 on May 13 at 11:03 p.m.

  gargnagn did Jim ever get hold of you for a ride along?

• 

  garfnagn on May 14 at 6:04 a.m.

  Hi Lewis, no Det JimF my favorit internet and SPD detective did not get hold of me for a ridealong whcich I still would love to do but no offense DetJimF probably not with you or a detctive because my butt is already fat enough from eating too many donuts and sittin in donut shops all morning isn’t my idea of excitment! Just kidding that is police humor in case you didnt know. I wantto go on a ride along with either SWAT units or with street copers who get to rough up scumbags and knock some sense into them, I dont want to do a stakeout becaus cigarete smoke and the smell of coffee and slim jims peperoni sticks wold make me puke after like TEN HOURS straight. I would love to help them chase hobos out of their camps by the rivre and i would love to help them bust drunks driving away from bars and a crackhouse raid would be cool or even respondng to service calls involving not normal looking guys hangin around ATMs trying to get their own money out of their accounts and going suspiciusly into convenence stores to buy soda pop projectiles! Just kidding with a capital K.
  Finaly I would hope part of SPD ridealongs involv getting a canvas bag that says “Spokane Police Department” that I get to get all the swag the officers get for me for free from local businesses, so like if we go to Shari’s the Sharis’ people will say “hey here’s a free chcolate cream pie!” or if we park at rEI and stare at hippies and their Subarus that an REI salesprson will run out and say “Hi officer Smith and his friend would you two like some gel energy bars and ice axes and sleeping bags today?” and officer Smith would say “that’s a 10-4, slick” And maybe we could getlunch at a Zips and I could get a massive wrangler and the officr would say “you know you can get the bucket fo tots too, man, this crap is all free when you keep dirtbags off the street, man”

  A ridealong would be so cool!

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on May 14 at 10:14 a.m.

  Jeff…. thanks for your very fine answer to my query… it was sort of open ended and you responded as i thought you might… I too assumed the mantle of authority as a captain ( at age 23) an it was not at all facade as this one was raised as an alpha male…

  Command Presence is sumthin ya either gots or you don’t gots.. and all the bluster in the world will not back down or make you the alpha in the room… even the quiet alpha will still be in charge cause the rest of the room knows it even if the bully does not…

  rarely is there any kerfuffel in our dining hall that requires more than a walk up from me… and rarely does the offender not ‘get it” …. only three bodily departures in three years.. and all three were drunk as skunks when they came in… ( my “mp’s” took over for me)

  I do appreciate your comments on the other blog we share sometimes with regards torture… and the ethics of being unethical “sometimes”… hold your ground or walk away from the uneducated on the other side… ( you notice not one has stepped up to my “charity” offer”)… be well best regards j

• 

  lewis8457 on May 14 at 11:52 a.m.

  Interesting how there was a major debate on matter of opinion about the effectiveness of torture in interrogations, today in the paper a top official admitted torture does not bring any more useful information then a more pain free approach to interrogation.

• 

  keepontruckin on May 14 at 2:38 p.m.

  WOW unbelievable!!!! I wouldn’t consider that name calling. So sorry if I hurt your feelings.

« Back to Community Comment