What happened and when?

11 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  arliacne on September 02 at 7:58 a.m.

  Well, we’ve already said what we’ve said in the earlier posts.

  Many have stated we all wait for the facts. Good advice. Creach left his house with a loaded weapon looking for a confrontation and found one. Kind of stupid on his part. Some have condemned Hirzel because he’s a cop. Kind of stupid on their parts. Looks like Knezovich is already stonewalling. Typical of him.

  Here’s what I do know, had fortunes been reversed and Creach had plugged Hirzel it wouldn’t have mattered if he had cost-prohibitive plane tickets and travel costs, Creach would have been hauled in, questioned and told not to leave the area. I still think (totally without any basis of fact) that Creach looked to Hirzel like the prowler Hirzel was told to look out for, and this prowler was packing.

  We don’t know what we don’t know, and in this case that is just about everything.

• 

  Ron_the_Cop on September 02 at 9:18 a.m.

  Dave,

  I have issues with the hands off for 48 hours protocol I don’t know if this is a WA statute issue or a local protocol adopted by meet/confer agreements with the police unions.

  Sorry but in CA generally the involved officers are immediately removed from the scene. Separated and put on ice. They are required to give an initial statement either written or oral of the basic facts. Subsequent interviews by the investigators doing the criminal investigation must be voluntary because of Miranda issues. I believe this is what Sheriff Knezovich was referring to re “tainting” the criminal investigation.

  Once the criminal investigation is resolved one way or another the IA investigators who have been birddogging the criminal investigation then will order the officer submit to a compelled interview. The officer can refuse but then could be fired for insubordination. The purpose of the IA investigation is to determine whether this was within policy and procedure based on the training and experience of the officer. The policy and procedure may need to be changed and incorporated into ongoing training or if the officer was outside of policy et al is it such that the officer should be disciplined and or fired.

  I think public transparency trumps the officer going on vacation. I would have negotiated to get the first interview before he went on vacation. If he refused to give an initial statement I would have put him off on administrative leave, required him to remain available and canceled his vacation. Of course I would have reimbursed him for his out of pocket expenses.

  Brad and I had a lengthy discussion on this in another thread. Read up and down this thread:

  http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2010/aug/18/primary-over-lessons-learned/#c182527

• 

  MrDavis on September 02 at 10:17 a.m.

  Even if the shooting turns out to be justified, Ozzie’s handling of it is turning into a PR disaster. He’s lucky he has no opponent for re-election this November.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on September 02 at 12:30 p.m.

  I’m *deeply troubled* by this subsequent development as well. I simply can’t imagine *anyone* involved in a homicide (justifiable or not) simply heading out on vacation before an investigation was concluded, much less even begun! As Arli said, if it had been any one of us civilians, in very short and very inevitable order we’d have been in one of interview rooms down in the Public Safety Building either cooperating with the investigating officers or awaiting the arrival of our attorney.

  But heading home to finish packing?!

  In this town, with the recent legitimate questions our community has about the standards of accountability to which our law enforcement officers are held responsible??!!

  I have never been shy about standing up for the many genuinely good cops who protect us on a daily basis. But this…

  Jeeze, how much water are the folks who still have a good word to say about our police going to be expected to carry?

• 

  richard on September 02 at 9:33 p.m.

  It appears that some people have some clouded thinking on the “vacation” issue and how it would have been different had the shooting been reversed.

  First of all, Hirzil is a police officer and there is a presumption –without evidence to the contrary – that he fired his weapon according to “regualtion” and training. He is innocent until proven guilty, he has not been arrested, and he has not committed any crime that we know of. While it may “appear” callous to go on “vacation” after shooting a man to death, without evidence to the contrary, I would guess he proceeded with his pre-planned and paid for leave because he felt he needed to get away for a short period. It will all be ther ewhen he returns.

  It is irrelevant whether some is “deeply troubled” by Hirzil’s leaving town. That has nothing to do with anything, other than making unjustifiable judgments of this officer’s character without any evidence to support that assumption.

  It seems premature and simple grousing that anyone would blame or condemn this man from seeking some refuge away from the headlines and the stares and the prospect of just sitting at home contemplating what just happened. There is nothing he can do right now, and the Sheriff apparently had no reason to prohibit him from taking his vacation he has earned.
  And it is merely an assumption that had it been reversed,

  Creach would have been told “not to leave the area.” In fact, that happens all the time, it is very easy with many judges to allow low bail even for those with a history of violence. Has everyone forgotten the coward who killed those 4 cops in Tacoma? How about that moster who destroyed the N Idaho family and the brutality of the young brother and sister. He had previous convictions and he was again picked up … and he was given low bail. So I find that argument to be based on faulty perception and prsumptions of guilt when a shooting takes place by an officer of the law.

  You can’t compare how the law would treat a private citizen from shooting someone, and an officer who, as I stated above, is allowed the presumption that he fired in self-defense or a perception of some kind of threat. That is the difference between being an officer of the law and a private citizen.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on September 03 at 4:26 a.m.

  – Hirzil is a police officer and there is a presumption – without evidence to the contrary – that he fired his weapon according to “regualtion” and training. –

  Please cite to the relevant city, county or state law that codifies this presumption. If no law, please cite to the relevant court decision(s).

  – He is innocent until proven guilty, he has not been arrested, and he has not committed any crime that we know of. –

  I have never said otherwise. Indeed, I have said, in so many words, EXACTLY that on a prior thread. “Innocent until proved guilty.”

  http://www.spokesman.com/comments/cr/61/55115/#c185099

  But that has NOTHING to do with cooperating with an on-going investigation. Citizens have exactly the same presumption operating in their favor, yet they can be compelled to cooperate with an on-going investigation. Richard, what if you had shot someone in your front yard? When the police showed up if you said, ‘I’d love to stick around and answer your questions about what just went on here, but I’ve got a plane to catch. I’m going on vacation for a week.’ Do you think the cops would just shrug and say, ‘Oh. Okay. Well, see you in a week then,’ and that would be the end of it?

  I promise you it’s as I said above. For any private citizen, the reply would have been, ‘I hope you can get a refund on your plane tickets. You’re coming with us to answer some questions.’ And if you resisted that request, you’d probably be going anyway, just in a pair of handcuffs.

  You’re absolutely right when you say that police officers retain all the same rights as they have by virtue of being citizens. **But they have the same responsibilities, too.** Indeed, because of their increased authority, they have *greater* responsibilities. NOT lesser.

  I’m a big defender of cops, Richard. I always have been. I firmly believe that the great majority of police officers do a difficult, *dangerous* job and for their reward, they get the privilege of dealing with humanity operating at its most base and frustrating level. As a result and up to now, I’ve enthusiastically ‘carried water’ for the debt of respect and support we owe our police.

  But this is the straw that’s breaking this camel’s back. For me, it’s come to the point that I have to recognize there’s something *seriously* wrong in this community.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on September 03 at 7:14 a.m.

  Then there’s today’s (Friday’s) Spokesman…

  So an initial interview *was* conducted at the scene? ‘A situational’ report? (Whatever the hell that is.) What was in this report? If not the details - which I can understand being kept confidential to preserve the integrity of an on-going investigation - what, at least, were the general matters discussed? Do the relevant authorities know at least why Deputy Hirzel thought it was necessary to use deadly force? Do they know what he observed Reverend Creach doing immediately prior to the shooting? What - generally - do they know?

  Has anyone asked Sheriff Knezovich these questions? If so, why haven’t these details been reported? There are too damn many questions floating around. *Too many.* I’m beginning to think some of those questions rest at the feet of local journalism.

  And then there are the letters…

  Mr. Campbell whines, – As I understand it, the cruel, arrogant “lawman” would not even allow Mr. Creach’s family members to go to his side until a long time after his death. –

  Like it or not, Mr. Campbell, Deputy Hirzel is a lawman - no snide quotation marks necessary. As two people at apparently opposite ends of the spectrum - Richard and I - agree, Deputy Hirzel is also innocent until proved guilty. Cruelty and arrogance haven’t been proved. But apparently, Mr. Campbell, *your* arrogant jury of the mind has already returned a verdict.

  Nor is it either arrogant nor cruel for the police to follow procedure that preserves a crime scene. For them to do so may very well result in just one more twist of the knife of tragic circumstance for Reverend Creach’s relatives. But it’s neither arrogant nor cruel. Only necessary and proper.

  – It will take quite some time to concoct a story that will cause the grieving family and the public to swallow. A soon-to-come “story” will picture Mr. Creach as being the “bad guy” responsible for his own death in the parking lot of his own business. –

  Once again, I take it ‘the jury is already in’ on this for Mr. Campbell. Shall we save the taxpayers the money that would otherwise be wasted on investigation and trial and just ship Deputy Hirzel directly to the special segregation block in the state penitentiary? Hell, let’s ship *all* the cops in one mass, efficient movement! Clearly they’re all to be tarred with the same broad brush. They’re all guilty.

  Then there’s Ms. Phillips who asks, – But I wonder if the media would have had such a massive “feeding frenzy” about [Reverend Creach] and his death if the dear soul would have died in his sleep or died in any other way? Is all this really about Mr. Creach or magnifying yet another opportunity to malign some of our county’s best? Just a thought. –

  If it is ‘just a thought’, it strikes me as a *very* strange one! The simple fact of the matter is that Reverend Creach didn’t die in his sleep. He was shot to death. Even given my emerging questions for local journalists regarding some facets of their handling of this matter, when someone is shot to death, *that’s news.*

  And given recent history in this community, when the someone pulling the trigger is a police officer, that’s very appropriately front page news.

• 

  richard on September 03 at 8:23 a.m.

  <<citizens have=”” exactly=”” the=”” same=”” presumption=”” operating=”” in=”” their=”” favor,=”” yet=”” they=”” can=”” be=”” compelled=”” to=”” cooperate=”” with=”” an=”” on-going=”“ investigation=”“>>

  True … but Hirzil was obviously not detained his superiors, the Sheriff or the prosecutor. Therefore, he had the right to take his “vacation”. Which I can only imagine will not be the kind of vacation he had planned on. His superiors certainly had the authority to deny his leave at this time.

  There is absolutely no evidence that this man has failed to cooperate with the investigation. That is simply a false conclusion.

  It is truly unfair to taint this man based on that fact alone - that he was allowed to leave the area right after this horrible tragedy. If there is cause to “taint” anyone over this incident; wait until the investigation and/or the trial has been concluded.

  <<but this=”” is=”” the=”” straw=”” that’s=”” breaking=”” this=”” camel’s=”” back.=”” for=”” me,=”” it’s=”” come=”” to=”” the=”” point=”” that=”” i=”” have=”” to=”” recognize=”” there’s=”” something=”” *seriously*=”” wrong=”” in=”” this=”“ community.=”“>>

  If that is your view, why put all that angst and responsibility onto the back of Hirzil. He is not responsible for what has occurred ov er the past 10 years in this community. Until he demonstrates otherwise, we can only presume he has and will take responsibility for what happened several days ago. Again, the bottom line is the Sheriff or Hirzil’s direct superiors could have ordered him to cancel his leave and to sit at home. That apparently was not the case. I, too would probably want to get out of town after being involved in a tragedy of this magnitude.

• 

  Jeffrey_Grey on September 03 at 8:50 a.m.

  Richard,

  – There is absolutely no evidence that this man has failed to cooperate with the investigation. –

  Prior to reading this morning’s Spokesman, I would have argued that point. Now, I’ll at least grant you that we simply don’t know exactly what happened. As I said in an earlier post, that’s now one more in the list of too many questions.

  – If that is your view, why put all that angst and responsibility onto the back of Hirzil. He is not responsible for what has occurred ov er the past 10 years in this community. –

  If I give the impression I think Deputy Hirzil is the sole bad actor here, then I have done a bad job of making my point. I think after taking a life, the least Deputy Hirzil should have done was to cancel his vacation - no matter what the personal cost - and made himself immediately available for whatever the on-going investigation required of him. (With full deference to his legal rights, of course.) If for no other reason, he should have done this to avoid the appearance of impropriety and police elitism. And yes - *rightly or wrongly* - that is at least in part a function of the recent past history of this community. It isn’t always fair and it isn’t always right. But sometimes circumstance puts a greater burden on us than might otherwise exist. Life’s funny that way.

  In any event, I don’t hold Deputy Hirzil solely responsible. I *seriously* question the decisions of Hirzil’s superiors that allowed him to depart on vacation almost on the heels of an officer-involved shooting. I’ve studied the procedures of several different police departments now with regard to officer-involved shootings. (Denver P.D.’s current protocols and the California D.A.’s Assn. model protocols are readily available on the web.) They all make good, practical sense. They all have well-stated and well-supported reasons for their provisions. And they all uniformly say that when an officer is involved in a shooting, that officer is segregated from other witnesses and he is interviewed in *exhaustive* detail *as soon as possible* after the event. (The Denver protocol calls for the interview ‘as soon as practical’ and in no case less than 24 hours after the event.)

  In reading those protocols, I can’t conceive that allowing the officer to leave town on vacation would even occur to any of the parties responsible for investigating the event.

  But it happens here in Spokane.

  To my way of thinking, that is the *serious* problem.

• 

  arliacne on September 03 at 9:08 a.m.

  -To my way of thinking, that is the *serious* problem.-

  amen to that.

• 

  Sickened on September 04 at 3:06 a.m.

  Following an unrelated incident involving Officer Hirzel one week prior to the shooting of Pastor Creach, sources close to me were told that Hirzel has a history of failure to follow protocol. (On that occasion, a suspect was let go simply because Hirzel failed to run a license plate check - had he done so in the two hours or so that he sat there parked behind the vehicle with the suspect in his car, he’d have found the plates were fake!)

  It came as absolutely NO surprise to us when the name of the officer involved in this shooting was released that it was Officer Hirzel. I doubt very strongly that he bothered to identify himself to the Pastor before firing.

« Back to Community Comment