October 8, 2010 in City

Prosecuter receives Creach autopsy

Tags:Alan CreachBrian HamondBrian Hirzelofficer shootingOzzie KnezovichSpokane County Sheriff’s OfficeSpokane Police DepartmentSpokane Valley Police Departmentsteve tuckerWayne Scott Creach

75 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

misjustice on October 08 at 6:50 a.m.
“The autopsy also showed that the bullet struck the 74-year-old man at the top of the sternum just below the neck…the bullet went downward…”
Hmmmmmmmm….
Did the bullet go downward because of the angle/trajectory, or did it hit bone sending it downward????
I think we all know what Tucker will determine; no charges against Hirzel.
And since Hirzel is back at work, guess the nondisclosure of his x-rated adult business is okey dokey with Ozzie, also.
hawken on October 08 at 7:18 a.m.
-Creach had legal authority to have a gun in this hand on his own property, investigating what he thought was a burglar, thief or other person with criminal intent.
-It was late at night.
-Hirtzel was parked on Creach property, late at night, in an un-marked patrol car.
-Creach sees the un-marked car with gun in hand.
-Hirtzel ordered Creach to put the gun down.
-Creach secured the weapon in his back waist band.
-Creach was ordered by Hirtzel to get on the ground.
-Creach refused. Hirtzel struck Creach on the leg with his baton.
-Hirtzel says he saw the “butt of the gun coming out.” - from the back waistband of Creach.
-Hirtzel does not say that Creach drew his gun or that Creach pointed his gun at him.
-Autopsy fails to corroborate Hirtzel ‘s claim that he struck Creach with his baton.
-Autopsy establishes that Hirtzel’s bullet traveled downward from the front, lower part of the neck at the sternum into the heart and lungs. Bullets can do strange things, at high velocity, once they enter the human body. Nothing more, based upon the information we have, can be read into the travel of the bullet.
-Autopsy fails to say whether or not there was gun powder residue in the front neck area from Hirtzel’s weapon. Gun powder residue would indicate close proximity between Hirtzel and Creach when the shooting occurred.
-Prosecuting Attorney, Steve Tucker thinks Creach was wrong to have a gun in his hand.
-Hirtzel chocked a man to death when previously employed by a California Police Department.
My conclusions/opinions Based Upon Information To Date:
1- The fatal shooting could have and should have been avoided. Both Hirtzel and Creach displayed deadly, poor judgment which resulted in the fatal shooting.
2- Hirtzel is dangerous in my opinion based upon the information we have in this case.
3- Hirtzel is dangerous, having previously used excessive force ending in a previous fatality.
4- Creach should have gotten down on the ground when ordered… assuming that he did not, based upon the statements of Hirtzel, which is all we have.
5- Tucker would not get a conviction if Creach were prosecuted for these reasons.
A. Creach could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon my experience.
B. Tucker is predisposed not to prosecute because he thinks Creach was wrong.
C. Police officers involved in a questionable, fatal shootings will always get the benefit of the doubt when a citizen has a weapon in their possession, legal or not.
This incident is a real tragedy having resulted in the loss of life.
Whether or not Creach actually, fully complied with Hirtzel’s commands will never been known, unless other witnesses come forward, since Hertzel is the only surviving witness. Therefore, the best evidence we have is that Creach did not fully comply with Hertzel’s commands. Given this, Creach could probably survived the incident had he fully complied with Hertzel’s commands. This too we will never know.
As many of you do know, I am demonstrably NOT one who automatically supports police behavior. And, in this case, Hertzel’s police behavior and judgment is highly questionable to say the least.
However, unless and until, new information or additional witnesses surface, Hirtzel should NOT be prosecuted at this point.
If I were the Sherriff, I would assign Hertzel to an admin position for a year removing him from the streets. Assuming there is no specific, union contract clause that clearly would prohibit me from doing so. Police administrators must comply with union contracts. Unless, they are willing to dispute them in court at department expense. Only the Sheriff can make that call.
hawken on October 08 at 7:52 a.m.
Sorry…. typo correction:
A. Creach could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon my experience.
Should read “Hirtzel” could not be proven…..
hawken on October 08 at 7:53 a.m.
Another typo…. it’s early…
Tucker would not get a conviction if Creach were prosecuted for these reasons.
Creach should read Hirtzel…
misjustice on October 08 at 8:06 a.m.
It’s Hirzel, not Hirtzel…
MrNatural on October 08 at 9:03 a.m.
Wow! hawken…you most certainly were a police officer in a former life…
…I’m just reminded of the saying “guns don’t kill people people do”. Not to agree with it but to ponder the effect firearms have on people when people have firearms in their possession. Hindsight in this tragedy is not worth much to the Creach family but I cannot help to think that if the Reverend wasn’t so quick to always brandish a firearm he would be alive today…you know like live by the sword die by the sword…I have friends who cannot live without their pistols at hand. And I think wow this almost compels them or even obligates them in their own minds to use the firearm in situations that for the most part would resolve better without the gun being available (like road rage, or any argument or confrontation)
I do not personally own a gun and somehow I actually feel safer for it.
Orphan on October 08 at 9:54 a.m.
Mr Natural
Please cite something anything that supports that armed people are compled or obligated to act just because they are armed. Of the millions and millions of armed people that roam our streets daily how many pull a gun durring an argument or roadrage situation. The weapon that is used in road rage incidents are cars why are you not trying to outlaw cars, just asking.
What does Creaches past have to do with his actions at the time he was shot by Hirzel. In a court of law only the actions taken at the time are relivent and that applys to Hirzel as well as Creach.
I personaly own firearms and feel safer because of it, of course you do not have to own firearms and I fully support your right to not own firearms just dont try to take away my right to own and carry firearms.
hawken on October 08 at 10:07 a.m.
Owning, possessing, carrying concealed with permit, a firearm comes with responsibility. I fully support our right to own, possess and carrying concealed a firearm with permit. As I do.
Police Departments by and large and most police officers do not like it all. If the majority of Police Chief’s and Sheriffs had there way, citizens would have the full benefit of their 2nd Amendment rights.
To think that criminals would not have guns if law abiding citizens were deprived of there 2nd Amendment rights is foolishness.
Our gun rights must be defended every day… or we will loose them.
misjustice on October 08 at 10:40 a.m.
Or we could LOSE them.
Loose
Loose is an adjective, the opposite of tight or contained.
Lose
Lose is a verb that means to suffer the loss of, to miss.
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/looselose.html
hawken on October 08 at 10:40 a.m.
misjustice is correct this time….”Hirzel”…. major point… I stand corrected.
MrNatural on October 08 at 10:48 a.m.
…hey I’m not aiming at anyone’s right to arm bears…as I said I have friends who can’t live without a firearm…I do not wish to take away anyone’s right to carry a deadly weapon. I’m sure the world would be a much better place if everyone had the ability to kill on an instant when they feel the fear.
But what I am alluding to is in the absence of firearms no one gets shot…I know this is too simple an idea in a world of contradiction
hawken on October 08 at 10:48 a.m.
You all have to keep in mind that misjustice could not possibly, publicly, agree with me on anything of substance…. otherwise, she might put at risk her self-proclaimed “card carrying member of the ACLU.”
Therefore, she needs to focus on my typos in many cases… to be critical, even if secretly, she does agree with the substance of my arguments… if that is possible.
I’m not submitting a Ph.D. dissertation here… and frankly,,,, I think most intelligent people can work through the typos we all make in conversational give and take, in written form.
MrNatural on October 08 at 11:23 a.m.
hey ya hawen
I shall most certainly keep it in mind that misjustice could not publicly, or even secretly for that matter agree with you when it comes to anything you consider substance…Why take a chance to loose face over an opinion to a PhD when you rely on such lose assertion. :)
God I love Friday’s…
Orphan on October 08 at 11:23 a.m.
Mr Natural
I have to disagree with the world being a safer place if everyone could kill the moment they feel fear, hopefully that was a tounge in cheek comment.
The world would be a much safer place if there were no weapons at all I have to agree with you there. The problem lies in getting the weapons away from everyone, you cant that is the problem.
Hawkins post at 10:07 is spot on except I would add open carry. Why sould you need a permit to carry arms? We dont require a permit to exercise our right to free speach, the right to privacy or the right to remain silent etc.
RobertHLocksley on October 08 at 11:29 a.m.
Haken,
So what’s your explanation for the sharp downward angle on the bullet track coupled with the “evidence he had spent some time on his knees” according to Dr. Sally Aiken? If Hirzel shot him when he was on his knees I see huge issues. The minimum scenario is another ND, others are sickening to contemplate.
MrNatural on October 08 at 11:36 a.m.
Orphan…no argument
Of course one (I) would disagree regarding the ability to kill…and it was total tongue in cheek…and I acknowledge that we cannot disarm this world as it is the nature of the beast…and honestly I am not out to take away anyone’s right to have a firearm.
To stay on story (or at least what we are being told) Mr. Creach had a history of brandishing his pistol. I think this tendency carries with it a risk. Most people I know would have called the police if they saw something suspicious in their yard. Mr. Creach walked out that door to confront with the means to kill or be killed…and came up short
bszottlinger on October 08 at 11:39 a.m.
Well I guess we don’t have to worry about this case any more, it’s been solved.
Gosh,
Aside from all the issues regarding trespass, gun ownership, property protection rights;
I wonder if we will ever know whether or not body fluid samples from Officer Hirzel were taken and tested.
I wonder if we will ever find out if an actual baton blow demonstration was conducted in the first interview prior to press leaks and whether or not that demonstration would have any bearing on Officer Hirzel’s credibility if the post findings were inconsistent with the demonstration.
Was the wound a contact wound?
Was there in fact stippling on Pastor Creach’s body? If so was it photographed, measured, and analyzed. If so, what was the established distance barrel to entry, and was it consistent?
Was the bullet trajectory consistent with Officers Hirzel’s statements and or demonstrations?
Was there blow back on Officer Hirzel’s weapon, or uniform?
Was the vehicle properly processed to determine if any forensic evidence was available?
What is the relevancy of the flashlight carried by Creach, what was its distance from, and relationship to the body at scene?
Was the body position consistent with Officer Hirzel’s initial statements?
Was Creach’s weapon printed, was it moved, was it photographed in place, or did someone pick it up and move it. What was the distance from the body?
Are there any issues in Officer Hirzel’s background that would attest to his credibility, or lack there of.
What did his weapon training records from the three departments reflect?
Is there any way to rule out an unintentional discharge, and subsequent false statements to conceal that fact?
Do we have to rely solely on Officer Hirzel’s statement that he gave specific commands to Pastor Creach or would Mrs. Creach’s lack of hearing those commands be affected by five sense obstructions in some way?
Does Mr. Tuckers statement to the press on Sept. 18, prior to receiving the case, regarding Creach dropping the gun (“even in the old west”) indicate he was predisposed to entirely believe the Officer?
I think I’ll hold off before I draw any conclusions.
Brad Szottlinger
hawken on October 08 at 11:46 a.m.
RobertHLocksley:
You ask a good question….and present legitimate possibilities.
I have no scientific explanation, nor any kind of absolute physics to answer your question. Nor does the crime lab.
As I said, based upon my experience, bullets do strange things when they enter the human body.
Therefore, while you present legitimate possibilities… your possibilities simply do not meet the standard of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have nothing but contempt for rogue, excessive force police officers. At the same time, as I have previously stated, police officers do not forfeit their personal rights concerning guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and due process…. even as much as I am troubled by this case.
hawken on October 08 at 11:53 a.m.
My oversight Orphan…. absolutely open carry.
Personally, I prefer concealed carry only because so many people absolutely freak out at the sight of a firearm…. unless it’s on the hip of a police officer… which is understandable.
Ed Byrnes on October 08 at 12:25 p.m.
The power to decide about how to address the status of a two time murderer, especially one who did so under cover of law, should not rest with one person. I doubt justice will be done by Mr. Tucker and assert that a citizen review panel would at least make our streets safer by permanently removing Mr. Hirzel from the ranks of law enforcement.
Do I use strong words in expressing myself? Yes, I am tired of my brothers and sisters being murdered under the cover of law. Am I a cop hater? No, and criticizing the actions of bad officers is not equal to hate - I wish that it were fellow officers and deputies taking a stand against the bad ones.
hawken on October 08 at 12:26 p.m.
Robert:
I would make one other point relating to your good question and the legitimate possibilities you raise… and with no intent to sound condescending or tell you something you already know…. which I am sure that you do know.
But for the record. Our laws are written and over-weighted to protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution… and rightly so.
The downside to that is that many, guilty criminals go free whom should have been convicted. But, because of our rules of evidence, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard, innocent until proven guilty standard and due process…. the guilty do go free.
I am not suggesting in any way that we should change our legal standards.
I would rather have a guilty man go free than an innocent man convicted.
We’ll get the guilty man sooner or later…. Again unfortunately, the cost to society by the guilty going free and then repeating his crime again, before he is caught and prosecuted, is one of the costs we bear as a society, to insure with our best effort, that an innocent man is not wrongly convicted.
zelda on October 08 at 12:33 p.m.
Brad — Seems like the answers to several of your questions should have been in the ME’s report (stippling, position of the body, etc.). Is it public record? From what I saw on KREM last night, Marissa Bagg has a copy of the report.
I’m not so sure that electing a different prosecutor Nov. 2 is going to make any difference with this case. It’s in the Sargasso Sea, becalmed and immovable.
The only way the public is going to find out more is via a wrongful death civil suit.
misjustice on October 08 at 12:37 p.m.
Brad; Does Tucker even have to consider any of the valid questions that you have raised? Isn’t his scope much more narrow?
bszottlinger on October 08 at 12:38 p.m.
RobertHLocksley:
On point. Since you were the one to initialy bring up the UD/ND issue, which in my mind is an excellent point, I have tried to determine from the very limited public record we have available whether or not proper indexing was covered in any of the interviews, however I can’t find any questions in that regard. I know you are aware that there are a number of factors with respect to establishing trajectory that come into play including type of round, load, whether or not the round was recovered and where,and its condition, location and type of entry/exit etc.I also know you understand how an established trajectory, correlated with the other findings at autopsy, and witness statements can be very important in providing a picture as to what transpired.
I am very compelled by the possibility you raise, however I’m afraid we may never know. If that is the case, it wouldn’t be the first the scenario you suggest took place and out of fear a story was concocted.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 12:52 p.m.
Zelda:
I’m not so sure either, if the system isn’t prepared to change, and the citizens aren’t prepared to demand the change, then it is what it is.
The ME report as far as I know is not public record. If however the family received a copy there is nothing to prohibit them from disseminating it. I suppose the authorities could also make it public if they wanted to.
The questions I brought forward would likely be asked if there was a civil litigation, that is why it is important that all the bases are covered in cases like this, because in the end it may factor into how much it will cost the citizens.
Justy:
Mr. Tucker can do what ever he wants he is only accountable to the people who elect him.
hawken on October 08 at 12:54 p.m.
Tucker has absolute authority to expand the investigation, re-visit the investigation, call in the FBI as a totally independent investigating agency… or any number of other things he might want to do as the prosecutor. He also has a five year statue of limitations if I am not mistaken.
The Department of Justice has the authority to initiate a violation of civil rights investigation in this case without any invitation from Tucker. Which they have done in past history on many other fatal police shootings.
Nevertheless, Tucker has unlimited authority to pursue additional investigative options as he will, before he labels this case as closed.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 12:57 p.m.
Zelda:
Some of the answers may not be in the ME report. I don’t know how they do it here but in some jurisdictions a forensic scientist attends the autopsy does their thing with the wound evidence and submits a separate report regarding his/her findings.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 1:17 p.m.
The FBI and the DOJ have very strict guidelines they must follow before becoming involved is a case like this. The FBI must first establish jurisdiction, in essence significant cause to believe that someones civil rights were violated. The decision for an initial investigation is made not at the local level but with the FBI’s civil rights division. The decision for a Grand Jury investigation is made at the DOJ civil rights division. One of the big complainants from human rights groups is that the government does not become involved early enough and rely to much on the locals to do the job. I by the way agree to a certain extent. If one was to check they would find that the federal government doesn’t often become involved in cases like this and the community was fortunate they did become involved in the Zehm matter. You would be surprised at some of the very high profile officer involved shootings the government decided not to become involved in.
hawken on October 08 at 1:27 p.m.
Unless the US Dept of Justice intervenes in this case, we should not expect from Tucker, nor anyone else within the local law enforcement system, that all of the issues that have been raised here will be answered, if they can be answered.
Unless the Dept of Justice/FBI puts together a more thorough, independent, case which establishes a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that will lead to a criminal prosecution, this case is going nowhere.
Even if, the Department of Justice were to be able to put together such a case…. they still have Mt. Everest to climb in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The fact remains, that unless significant, additional evidence comes to light or additional witness come forward… whether it is presented by local law enforcement or the Dept of Justice, there is more than sufficient, reasonable doubt in this case.
I don’t like it. But, that’s the reality.
And please keep in mind that I have been pounded by many of you in this string, in the past, on this specific case, as being anti-police in one form or another.
Also, just for the record… I am not suggesting that this case be closed. Only pointing out the reality of the legal standards that must be overcome to get a criminal conviction.
Hopefully, the case will not be closed. But whether it is or not, the best thing you can do at this point in time is to express our concerns with the Sheriff. I emailed to him a lengthy letter, less than a week after the shooting took place, expressing virtually all of the concerns that have been expressed here.
Have you done the same?
Don’t get me wrong. It is profitable to have this public debate as we are having here. However, if your part in this, is only to debate in this forum, then you have fallen short of your civic responsibility.
MrNatural on October 08 at 2:44 p.m.
Well said hawken…sincerely.
It seems there is a pretty unanimous no confidence vote against Mr. Tucker regarding this case.
Did you solicit or receive a reply from the Sheriff?
Would they put officer Hirzel behind a desk with his two fatality history?
hawken on October 08 at 2:55 p.m.
Natural;
I did not ask for, nor would I expect a response. My point was to state my concerns and let the Sheriff deal with them internally.
Please keep in mind that the tendency of law enforcement, when they are under attack, is “to circle the wagons.” Believe me, I know this from personal experience.
MrNatural on October 08 at 3:15 p.m.
Copy that!…hawken…thanks
Do you have any idea if they require an in-depth psychological profile on police officers (Hirzel) after an incident such as this?
Thinking that even though they might circle the wagons they would not want to show support if this person presents further liability.
hawken on October 08 at 3:22 p.m.
Psychological exams have become common place in larger police agencies across the nation. Whether or not the Spokane County Sheriff’s Departments does such exams, I don’t know.
Here’s what I do know, for a fact…. If I were a current day police administrator, I would not hire a man whom chocked a man to death at a previous department.
I am assuming, maybe wrongly, that the Spokane County Sheriff’s Department did a thorough enough background investigation on Herzel to have known this in advance.
I also know this,,,, that when I was with the AZ state police, this would not have gone unknown and he would not have been hired.
hawken on October 08 at 3:36 p.m.
Natural;
Your raise a very good question.
It would be quite revealing to know whether or not the Sheriff’s department in fact did a thorough background investigation…. …if they knew in advance that Herzel had choked a man to death in CA as per the SR reports.
Police agencies, administrators and supervisors do in fact have an incredible degree of inter-agency cooperation when it comes to sharing information. Especially at the local/state level.
Not so much when they are asking information from the Federal level. Federal law enforcement has a superior view of themselves, looking down on local law enforcement in far too many cases. Of course, local law enforcement resents this and rightly so.
If I was a Spokane County Sheriff’s sergeant or detective, calling a California Police Department to ask about the background of one of their officers, I’m sure that the CA officer/detective/supervisor/administrator with whom I spoke with on the phone, would tell me anything I wanted to know.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 4:22 p.m.
You two might want to read this.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.101.095
MrNatural on October 08 at 4:41 p.m.
Thanks Brad…right to the point
Still this might beg the question if the evaluation was actually done. But assuming it was I wonder how they rationalized the supposed strangulation.
Oh well…I’m sure we can count on Tucker to do what is best…Ow!…my lip.
hawken on October 08 at 4:44 p.m.
Brad:
I read your link… it speaks to the requirement of a psychological and polygraph exam….. which is good.
It does not speak to the issue of an in-depth background investigation, only a national criminal history check.
Huge difference.
If one is not convicted of a crime, he will not show up on a criminal history check in many cases. Herzel was reportedly not charged nor disciplined for choking a man to death.
Data bases do not replace good, personal background investigations and thorough police work. Which is what we have been speaking about as well. Maybe that’s the problem here. Lack of a thorough background investigation.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 5:02 p.m.
Natural:
I don’t know how you can “legally” arbitrarily deny employment to an officer for an incident he was cleared of any wrong doing in. As you are aware from my previous posts my big concern is that the process here is really in need of improvement. They made very minimal strides after the Zehm case, and I just wonder how many more it will take to get things up to speed.
hawken on October 08 at 5:09 p.m.
If one has choked a man to death… that is not arbitrary.
Shylock13 on October 08 at 5:15 p.m.
BSZOTTLINGER raises a number of questions to which we may never know the answers. Others have discussed the case from many angles. I do know eight things. First, Hirzel lied when he said he struck the Pastor with his baton. The Pastor was taking a 325mg aspirin daily. I take the same dose daily. I can get a bruise by hitting my arm lightly! Since he lied then, which he did not have to do, why should anyone believe anything he said about the confrontation? Second, Hirzel said he fired when he saw the butt of the gun. Anyone intending to use a firearm does not point the butt of the gun at a target. Third, if Dr. Sally Aiken is correct—that evidence suggests the Reverend was on his knees—then he was doing what Hirzel told him to do. Fourth, if he was, in fact, on his knees, that explains the trajectory of the bullet. Fifth, any officer who uses any weapon should be immediately tested for drugs/alcohol, primarily to rule out such impairment. Sixth, given his history for violence and his involvement in his sex toy business, Hirzel does not belong on any law enforcement body, nor should he be allowed to own a firearm. Seventh, our county prosecutor will not file any charges—never has, never will, against any law enforcement officer regardless of what has transpired. He simply “Tuckers” them away. Although it may be true that voting him out of office will not affect this case, removing him may prevent further instances where the county prosecutor always supports law enforcement instead of understanding he is to be neutral and follow the law. The prosecutor is supposed to be a representative of the people, not law enforcement. The election is in November. Finally, this incidence only adds to the lack of confidence and support for law enforcement and the legal system.
hawken on October 08 at 5:21 p.m.
The real question is whether or not the Sheriff’s Department knew about the choking to death of a man by Herzel.
If they did not, shame on them.
Moreover, If I am the Sheriff and I have 10 positions to fill… and I have 30 qualified candidates, plus, one of whom I know choked a man to death… I will pick the 10 best qualified according to my standards… and then send a letter to the other 21 thanking them for their application and informing them that have not been selected. One of the 21 would be the officer who choked a man to death. End of story.
This is not rocket science.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 5:26 p.m.
There are several Officers throughout the nation who have utilized a ( I forget the exact term) “Lateral Neck Restraint Technique” that resulted in death. LAPD had people dropping like flys and the feds were continually being asked to step in. The utilization of this technique was highly criticized outside law enforcement and the technique was elevated to a deadly force category. People like cpd805 and others who post here are far more informed than I am as to how that evolved in law enforcement.
I agree an extensive background investigation is very important.
Some time ago Ron_the_Cop, cpd805, and others discussed the issue of what they call “Lateral Transfers”, which Officer Hirzel was, and there were some good points brought up.
hawken on October 08 at 5:34 p.m.
Bear:
There is nothing in your post I can take issue with at all.
Having said that, my point remains. Herzel will not, should not, be charged, prosecuted nor convicted unless new evidence surfaces and new witnesses come forward. As it stands, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not exist in this case as we know it.
Until Tucker secures such evidence, he cannot take a case to trial that fails to meet the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
To argue for or against Tucker is not my purpose here. Personally, I’m not impressed with him as a prosecutor. But, that’s not the point in this case. The point is that without additional evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Tucker can do nothing.
Tucker should not be the scapegoat in this case.. as questionable as it is….
hawken on October 08 at 5:37 p.m.
Even in lateral transfers, which I am quite familiar with, thorough background investigations should not be set aside nor minimized in any way.
PC on October 08 at 5:52 p.m.
Maybe now is a good time for cities to offer training materials and programs which would help citizens be effective in safely partolling their own property while armed. Just telling us not to do it is clearly insufficient.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 6:45 p.m.
Theodore J. Bear:
Almost all of my questions could be answered with a good investigation, and they may well be answered in the investigative file, we just don’t know. The issue of drug testing has not been answered, and I highly suspect it was not done. If it wasn’t, authorities should answer as to why not, whether it is the union contract, or some other reason.
Hawken:
If you were the Sheriff, one of your troops got hooked up with a six five 255’ mass of muscle, was loosing his gun, and utilized a lateral neck restraint technique in order to save his life, as a result the suspect died, then I guess by your standards you would fire him/her on the spot.
hawken on October 08 at 7:41 p.m.
Brad:
You’ve set up a “straw man” argument in an attempt to make yourself look good… and to discredit me…. but you and I have been here before… haven’t we.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
bszottlinger on October 08 at 7:50 p.m.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.
Mark Twain
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain
hawken on October 08 at 8:04 p.m.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version
of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 8:16 p.m.
Thanks for the clarification, I was thinking you were referring to Ray Bolger in The Wizard of Oz.
hawken on October 08 at 8:49 p.m.
Brad: You are more than welcome. Here’s something else that might be of help to you….
“Straw man” is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy.
Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants (A) sets up a man of straw, attacks it, destroys it, then proclaims victory over the real real opponent (B) because he (A) destroyed the straw man, while the real opponent (B) stands by untouched.
This might even be helpful in making our future debates as adversaries more logical and profitable. Just a thought.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 9:05 p.m.
Let me try the definist fallacy:
What is the difference between an officer who causes the death of a person using a lateral neck control technique in one jurisdiction and is cleared of any wrong doing, and an officer in this jurisdiction who causes the death of a person using a lateral neck control technique and is also cleared of any wrong doing?
hawken on October 08 at 9:18 p.m.
OK…. I’ll try to work with you here…. getting back to my original position.
If I am the Sheriff and I have 10 positions to fill…. and I get 30 qualified applicants, plus one whom I know choked a man to death while employed by another agency… I will choose the best 10 applicants, according to my standards, send out thank you letters to the other 21, including the officer whom had choked a man to death,,,, thank them for their applications and simply tell them that they were not selected. I have no obligation to offer any more of an explanation to the 21 whom were not selected.
Why should I as the Sheriff, take the risk of hiring an officer whom has choked someone to death, when I have 10 other, well qualified clients?
Moreover, why can I not, as the Sheriff decide to hire only 9 applicants instead of 10, if the 10th most qualified (by all other standards), was the one whom choked a man to death while employed at a previous department?
I am not obligated to hire him. Why can I not even decide to skip over him to number 11 if I choose to do so…. or, by my standards, just say that any officer that has a prior history of choking a man to death, or shooting a man to death is not as qualified by my standards as those whom have not?
You are still trying to make an issue of something that I simply don’t have to answer or risk as the Sheriff… Even your last question sets up another “Straw Man”…. do you not see?
hawken on October 08 at 9:43 p.m.
Brad:
While you continue to formulate a response…. let me address your “straw man” scenario, which has nothing to do with the original position I have enunciated. Here’s your question:
“What is the difference between an officer who causes the death of a person using a lateral neck control technique in one jurisdiction and is cleared of any wrong doing, and an officer in this jurisdiction who causes the death of a person using a lateral neck control technique and is also cleared of any wrong doing?”
Simple Answer: If the officer is a deputy under my authority, whom chokes a man to death, and is found justifiable in using reasonable force, the deputy will receive no punitive action from me as the Sheriff.
That is not inconsistent with my decision NOT to hire another police officer, from another agency, whom choked a man to death, where I do not have the same, detail facts of the case that I have with my own deputy who killed a man using the same force.
As the Sheriff, I simply do not have to hire another police officer who has caused the death of a person, if I choose not to do so. Please refer back to my original scenario if you need to do so.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 9:48 p.m.
Hire anyone you want. But may I suggest that you don’t mention to anyone that the sole criteria you used to eliminate that individual was his involvement in a death.
“I am not obligated to hire him. Why can I not even decide to skip over him to number 11 if I choose to do so…. or, by my standards, just say that any officer that has a prior history of choking a man to death, or shooting a man to death is not as qualified by my standards as those whom have not?”
Do you also bi-pass the officer on your department who did the same thing on promotional exams?
I happen to know some very good law enforcement officers who have had to kill people on the job and before they came on the job. Would you bi-pass a vet who as the officer did had to kill to stay alive?
bszottlinger on October 08 at 9:54 p.m.
“That is not inconsistent with my decision NOT to hire another police officer, from another agency, whom choked a man to death, where I do not have the same, detail facts of the case that I have with my own deputy who killed a man using the same force.”
Gosh, wouldn’t you do a good background investigation to see if the death was justified?
“If I was a Spokane County Sheriff’s sergeant or detective, calling a California Police Department to ask about the background of one of their officers, I’m sure that the CA officer/detective/supervisor/administrator with whom I spoke with on the phone, would tell me anything I wanted to know.”
hawken on October 08 at 10:01 p.m.
Brad: you’re like a honey bee buzzing from flower to flower, changing the scenario again and again, offering up straw man after straw man.
Let me repeat again, clearly, definitively, YES…. as the Sheriff, I would not hire a police officer whom has killed a person while employed by another department. I would much rather hire a rookie, train him, and watch him grow as a police officer, than a “so-called ” vet from another department.
With this policy, I’m sure that I might miss hiring a very good, veteran officer on occasion. However, good police officers are made, not born. I’ll take the risk of missing out on a good officer from another agency whom has killed someone on duty…. rather than take the risk of hiring a vet that has killed someone on duty…. and then find that I have to deal with him again because he has killed someone again on my watch, with a previous fatal shooting or choking.
I simply would not take a blind risk as you might. As I have said , and as you know,,,, I do have some experience in hiring and firing police officers.
hawken on October 08 at 10:07 p.m.
Brad: Are you even reading what I a writing? Enough! Good night.
bszottlinger on October 08 at 10:13 p.m.
The veterans I was referring to are military combat veterans.
I am assuming because of your conservative views you are in favor of smaller government and if you were President instead of Sheriff, the first government agency to go would be the EEOC.
Good Night.
Scoutster on October 08 at 11:11 p.m.
Where are the cop defenders that usually show up?
Are they starting to smell the stink.
bszottlinger on October 09 at 9:17 a.m.
Scoutster:
When you look at hawken’s perspectives, politics aside, regarding what a police administrator can and will do no matter whether legal and moral issues dictate otherwise, it gives you some insight as to how SOME police administrators view their role. His attitude that he can do what ever the hell he wants regarding hiring and firing and other issues exemplifies what I have found in law enforcement agencies with big problems. A very good example is Chief Nicks in the Zehm case, he got caught, but had not the press done their job, and the civil litigation gone forward, we may never have known. The same is true of Chief Kirkpatrick’s attitude toward the public and her job, primarily, as long as I can get away with it I will. I honestly don’t know how to asses the Sheriff. If you sat down privately with him I think he would have to admit there were blunders in the Creach matter, some he had control over others, he didn’t. He does however appear to be the only one at least making an effort to implement change. Whether or not that is politically motivated or not,I don’t care, as long as it gets done. Can you imagine being in his position and having to deal with the statements made by his PIO, Sgt. Reagan. I frankly don’t know what I would do with Reagan, he is far better than DeRuwe, but he is 0 for 4 in the Creach case. As far as the questionable investigation is concerned, the Sheriff had very limited control over that, and I would suspect he is not happy with it.
It is difficult for me to even begin to understand Mr. Tucker’s office. I know there are some very fine lawyers in that office that would love to be in a position to have more tools available to them. As a matter of fact I am aware that there has been some discussion in that office about using the inquiry judge proceeding, and grand jury process.There are those that want to give it a shot but have very little influence. On the other hand we have had prosecutors from Mr. Tucker’s office post on this blog who take an entirely defensive position regarding some of the actions taken by the office that are clearly indefensible.
I’m not sure what the answer is to fixing the problem, but I do know the first step is for the leadership to admit there is a problem. If the attitude is defend at all costs then I’m not sure sending letters to the leaders as hawken suggests will do much good.
bszottlinger on October 09 at 9:20 a.m.
BTW, Can you guys take over today? I’m not sure how much time I’m going to have. If you noticed, I did soften him up a bit. :)
Elkay on October 09 at 9:39 a.m.
Brad,
That was a well thought-out and written thread, and no question, problems do start at the top.
As a private business owner, I know who in my industry lead or push. Employee turnover is the ‘tattle-tale’.
I know it’s far different in LE, but it still takes ethical and honest leadership to inspire the rank and file — and ultimately avoid long blogs like this one and others.
Elkay
Sadbuttrue on October 09 at 10:35 a.m.
The recent case in Post Falls wherein the babysitter getting charged with First Degree Murder in the death of an infant graphically illustrates the dramatic difference in how cops versus civilians are treated in a homicide.
There is PLENTY of evidence to put Hirzl in the usual no-win legal vice, ruining him financially if he decides to put up a defense, and squeezing him till he screams and pleads guilty to some lesser charge that absolutely destroys the rest of his life, and wherein he spends at least some time in prison. This is what would automatically happen to a civilian under these facts.
Furthermore, by this time, a civilian would have already been in jail for more than a month on a sky-high bail, has become thoroughly demoralized and depressed, their marriage and career and family life thoroughly decimated, and is willing to take any deal that might provide some relief from the everlasting grinding torment.
Lets not forget that a civilian’s prior record, even if acquitted or otherwise exonerated would be used to “enhance” their punishment and squeeze them hard to extract a guilty plea.
Okay, it has some self-defense elements so the civilian only goes to prison for five years, no biggy. Since he is a cop and of course drastically different standards apply, he would probably only serve a year or two in the penitentiary and would be able to work full-time in law enforcement until the date of sentencing.
bszottlinger on October 09 at 10:36 a.m.
Sorry about the length, but it wasn’t all my fault. I had to take care of scoutster and misjustice’s light work for awhile. :)
misjustice on October 09 at 10:41 a.m.
Brad; Well said, and yes you did (soften him up). And your Twain trumped his…
Since he declined scouster’s recommendation to get to know those sitting ‘round the campfire (before dumping a wet log on the fire and smoking everyone else out), he doesn’t know you or your abilities. But he will.
; )
Scoutster on October 09 at 11:37 a.m.
Brad…
Thanks for the synopsis of whatever nugget was there. Sorry I can’t take over, as I just scroll past his name anymore. Life’s too short.
Thanks for helping us lay people have a considered opinion from a legal expert. Your contributions always lend more light than heat.
misjustice on October 09 at 11:47 a.m.
Yeah, I tend to scroll also. The posts are too pompous, too long, and Scoutster’s correct, life is too short.
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting, Brad! ; )
saveyourtatas on October 10 at 5:15 a.m.
We all agree that Tucker has a terrible history of non-action and that he is not well liked or respected. My question is this, how in the heck did he get more votes than Buzbee and Stevens? Name recognition alone? It really baffles me that the least of all 5 candidates (in many opinions, not just mine) got the most votes. Frank Malone got votes based purely on party affiliation, regardless of the fact that he was almost unanimously considered weak and inexperienced. It just makes one wonder if Spokane voters are capable of reading and assimilating information. As it stands now, we have the worst two candidates in the general election, while the top three got filtered out. If Tucker is re-elected, he will be further emboldened to continue his lacking work ethic and the penchant for never charging police with a civil or criminal act.
Tucker reminds me of the rotun guard from “Hogan’s Heroes”
I see nothing!
I hear nothing!
Ballots go out in 3 days or so. I would imagine Tucker, in that time and for political reasons, will do precisely the same thing he has always done.
Nothing.
eagleproducer on October 10 at 9:16 p.m.
brad states: “Justy:
Mr. Tucker can do what ever he wants he is only accountable to the people who elect him.”
Spoken like a true lawyer. The constitution? No. An easily swayed electorate who’d vote for road kill as long as it had an “R” next to its name. Yep.
How can one consider any of Ozzie’s actions as sheriff “politically motivated” when he is running unopposed?
cpd805 on October 11 at 12:36 a.m.
Sad,
Can you give an example of a civilian who has used deadly force, arrested, bled dry from attorney’s fees, etc. etc. and later found to have used the force in self-defense?
You said “This is what would automatically happen to a civilian under these facts.”…..and…..”Okay, it has some self-defense elements so the civilian only goes to prison for five years, no biggy. Since he is a cop and of course drastically different standards apply”
Can you give an example? I can give an example that refutes what you are saying. Remember the very recent case of the guy who shot the security guard who pulled the bb gun? That guy never even got arrested, let alone all the stuff you say would be “automatically” done to a civilian. Also, remember the guy who shot the vehicle prowler a few years ago up on W. Walton? Also remember the guy who shot and killed another guy in a road rage incident up in the Francis/Division area. None of these were even arrested or charged.
Can you give one example where a citizen used deadly force in self defense and was subjected to any of the things you allege?
bszottlinger on October 11 at 7:23 a.m.
Tucky:
I was referring to the case at hand, but you are right Mr. Tucker can not violate an individual’s Constitutional Rights. The violation of CR issues are addressed in the judicial process or occasionally when the federal government gets involved, as in Zehm.
With respect to the Sheriff, I know he is running unopposed this cycle but if I recall correctly another fellow who used to be sheriff was contemplating running against him this time but decided not to. My thinking was he is looking ahead to next time.
Sadbuttrue on October 11 at 11:04 a.m.
Yes. Just recently in Coeur d’ Alene, a prominent young businessman spent 2 months in jail after shooting a couple of guys from Moses Lake who attacked him and would have beat him to death. The Grand Jury FINALLY returned a “No” bill.
Is that good enough?
cpd805 on October 11 at 6:01 p.m.
Sad, Congratulations! You came through! Good example by the way.
I’ll give you another one. Jay Olsen was arrested, jailed, paid ungodly amounts in an attorney’s fees, and given a trial by jury for Assault 1st Degree, not to mention…lost his job. The jury returned a verdict of “not guilty” because they concluded he was acting in self-defense.
Wait a minute….wasn’t he law enforcement? Point is, it goes both ways for those who are law enforcement and those who are not.
P.S. This was in no way to defend Olsen, I think the jury got it wrong. Just my opinion. Also, if I remember correctly, if you are found innocent because you acted in self-defense, you get re-imbursed for your attorney’s fees. Brad, is that correct?
bszottlinger on October 11 at 6:28 p.m.
cpd805:
In Washington State if you are found not guilty, using a self defense-defense you can have your costs reimbursed by the State.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110