Spokane7
65°
September 29, 2010 in City
WSP names officer in shooting that wounded woman
Chief decries speculation in case
The chief of Washington State Patrol said Tuesday he has no reason to believe last week’s shooting of an unarmed pregnant woman in Spokane was accidental.
“I don’t have anything to lead me to believe that,” Chief John Batiste said Tuesday during an interview with The Spokesman-Review editorial board.
The possibility that the Friday shooting by WSP Sgt. Lee Slemp during a drug raid in Spokane was accidental was reported by Spokane television station KXLY this week, which cited unnamed sources in raising the possibility.
Batiste was dubious of the claim.
“I think the best thing to do is wait for the facts to come out and not speculate,” he said. “I want an answer just as everyone else wants an answer.”
Slemp, a detective sergeant now on paid leave while the shooting is investigated by the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office, is a 25-year veteran of the WSP.
The woman injured in the shooting, whom authorities still have not publicly identified, is a suspect in a crack cocaine investigation in the Moscow-Pullman area, said Whitman County Sheriff Brett Myers.
Slemp, 54, and other members of the Quad City Drug Task Force, along with members of the Spokane gang task force, searched the woman’s apartment at 1405 N. Lincoln St., which she shares with her mother.
Witnesses said Friday that they heard no commands to drop weapons or to comply before the woman, who was 39 weeks pregnant, was shot.
Investigators recovered crack cocaine, marijuana and prescription medication but no weapons.
Myers declined to discuss the shooting but said the woman, whom he would not identify, remains a suspect in the case.
“We believe that the people we are focused on, and we still believe that those are the people involved, were the source or suppliers of crack cocaine as well as powder cocaine” in the Pullman-Moscow area, Myers said. “We had a valid warrant, and we had a reason to be there. We wouldn’t be there unless we had a good, solid reason.”
The woman’s family told a local TV station that labor was induced over the weekend and that she gave birth to a boy.
Human trafficking suspects released 
bszottlinger on September 29 at 7:13 a.m.
I would still be interested to know whether or not the Trooper provided a voluntary statement or not regarding the criminal investigation. I’m sure that is a question that the editorial board asked, but apparently didn’t get an answer to.
If this was an unintentional discharge, with liability attached to several different law enforcement deep pockets, it will be interesting to compare the information flow to the media in this matter with the information flow in the Creach case.
It will also be interesting to see if the law enforcement authorities adhere to the precedent they set in the Creach case and provide this young person and her family with a complete copy of the investigative file, or whether they now realize that may have been a big mistake.
Scoutster on September 29 at 7:13 a.m.
1. Was a drug test taken of the officer involved? Why not?
2. Did they wait two days to question everybody, since that was what they said was the best way to proceed at the fatality in SV?
Why not? Which process was flawed, then?
3. How much did this little escapade cost taxpayers? Not just the dress-up and play SWAT on a pregnant woman and her mom, but the the whole investigation to lead us to this pathetic Quad City Task Force situation? Is this a good use of your tax dollars? Follow the money, not the drugs, to find out why these things happen.
4. Has anyone gone back and looked at the intelligence they were using? (Sounds like W’s WMDs to me.)
5. Who leaked that this might have been accidental? My guess is the union to see if the trial balloon would fly in the court of public opinion. If it does, they will go with that. It won’t.
bszottlinger on September 29 at 7:15 a.m.
There you go again!
Sadbuttrue on September 29 at 8:01 a.m.
I think they are quickly changing their version of events as each trial balloon raises even more public outrage. Everyone knows that cops have a rather flexible relationship to the truth, and the truth is extremely malleable to them, depending on the shifting requirements of the moment.
This incident demonstrates the necessity of calculated depraved deception as a legitimate tactic in the war that the police have openly declared against the citizenry. Should the public ever get a full understanding of the training and mindset that would create a situation where it becomes acceptable to deliberately shoot a pregnant woman; Watch Out! You cannot possibly imagine that such a scenario is legitimate, unless you have convinced yourself that she is an enemy combatant, and you are rightfully a hostile enemy occupation force privileged to use any force necessary to subdue and conquer.
We are finally seeing the outlines of what the police have become. At first, I thought the wingnut who overtly advocated the police using military tactics in the wake of the Lakewood murders was engaging in reckless hyperbole. Now that we have experienced a couple of months of this strategy, it turns out he is a prophet.
dana091 on September 29 at 8:37 a.m.
I’m going to get alot of flack on this, but I don’t care. I realize this lady was unarmed and pregnant. She was trying to escape from be arrested or detained for drugs in a home that was busted for drugs. I think the trooper did what needed to be done. He did not know if she had a gun or was going to get one. He didn’t kill her, just wounded her to keep her from fleeing and possibly warning others in this situation to hide their drugs. We are becoming too lenient towards drug abuser. We need to take a stronger stand on this. Plus what pregnant women in their right mind would be in a home with illegal drugs. This puts her baby’s life in jeporady. Maybe this will be a wake up call for her and will get her life back on track.
idahocity on September 29 at 9:08 a.m.
if we don’t decriminalize drugs we’re going to end up like mexico. the war on drugs is a a war targeted at people. do we need to shoot a pregnant woman for being an alleged drug user? the war on drugs has been the excuse to destroy the 4th amendment and turn police into rambo privateers.
i guess it’s the new american way to continue failing forward.
Sadbuttrue on September 29 at 9:24 a.m.
“Plus what pregnant women in their right mind would be in a home with illegal drugs. This puts her baby’s life in jeporady.”
Shooting at the baby’s mother would seem to be a fairly huge escalation of the baby’s danger.
RobertHLocksley on September 29 at 10:54 a.m.
dana101:
You deserve a lot of flack for that statement. You really advocate for the shooting of an unarmed person? Forget the fact it was a pregnant woman, you think that because “He did not know if she had a gun or was going to get one” that is justification for lethal force?? God help us all if that becomes the standard. Next time you are stopped by a trooper then I guess you better glue your hands to the steering wheel when he asks for your registration. How does he know you won’t be going for a gun? And again I will say that neither he, nor any officer shoots to wound, to magically and mercifully stop someone with a bullet. They shoot for center mass of whatever is available.
I was a lot happier when I thought this was a damnable mistake, a finger on the trigger when it shouldn’t have been crime of negligence. To imagine that this was intentional is chilling.
Wake up people. When the Bill of Rights is trodden underfoot it harms all of us; it erodes all of our rights. Principles like “innocent till proven guilty” are integral to protecting our rights. You can be damn sure the officers involved in these past several incidents are having their rights carefully protected, and rightly so, but the same applies to everyone. All are equal remember?
bdr on September 29 at 11:20 a.m.
This little crack head lady…….owns us now!
I wonder how she’ll run the SPD now after she tells Verner to move over. (I own you).
thanks a bunch cowboy Sgt. Lee Slemp
Your fabulous artillery action just busted an already dismal county budget.
lawyers are flocking like seagulls over squid already.
Sadbuttrue on September 29 at 11:23 a.m.
The cop supporters essentially argue that shooting a pregnant woman during the execution of a search warrant is justifiable and acceptable collateral damage resulting from the War on Drugs. And Wars, ipso facto, require military force and tactics.
This clearly was not a “mistake.” It is the price that we pay for unleashing the cops to carry out this war. This kind of thing happens everyday across the country during high intensity warrant executions. Almost always, these nighttime raids are conducted by extremely militarized police units. When flash bang grenades, automatic weapons, combat BDUs, knocking doors off the hinges, outright commando tactics and armor are used in such a commonplace manner, contrasting civilian police versus the military becomes an exercise in finessing distinctions without a difference.
The latest from the WSP is that this was not an unintentional discharge. The gloves are off. The glistening fangs of a fascist gestapo are bared in the daylight for all to see.
bszottlinger on September 29 at 12:44 p.m.
“I don’t have anything to lead me to believe that,” Chief John Batiste said Tuesday during an interview with The Spokesman-Review editorial board.
This only means he hasn’t read the report as of yet and is simply a way to duck the question and say let us wait and see.
Ron_the_Cop on September 29 at 5:54 p.m.
Just noticed there was a new thread. I posted this comment at the end of the last one:
I’ve been on hundreds of search warrants in my career either serving my own or assisting other detectives. I don’t know what the whole circumstances are yet. With that said without any other factors I would not fire at a pregnant woman that was intent on going out a window as we were clearing the house. Except if she was armed and presented an imminent threat to the safety of the officers and others.
I might try to restrain her from leaving the window which brings up the issue of an accidental/unintended discharge. Did the Sgt. attempt to restrain the woman without securing his weapon? Seems likely at this point. Was this reckless within the meaning of an attempted manslaughter? We don’t know yet without having additional information. Was he wearing a gun belt or just clip on gun holster?
We always wore our patrol/uniform gun belts either leather/nylon BDU type. It’s easier to secure your weapon instead of fumbling with a clip on holster. Besides we had cuffs, radio and other gear immediately available on our gun belts. We all wore bullet vests with raid jackets and ball caps that plainly said POLICE and that displayed large cloth badges/agency shoulder patches.
Was this bad procedure? Maybe. We still need to know the facts yet. WSP with the exception of the degree fraud have impressed me as being a more little ship shape in these areas than local police.
andjusticeforall on September 29 at 8:27 p.m.
facebook profile: spokane police shoot now questions later
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Spokane-Police-Shoot-now-questions-later
BitofBacon on September 30 at 8:28 p.m.
Hey bdr, Sgt. Slemp doesn’t work for the county or the city so Verner doesn’t have to worry about anything. WSP is an acronym for the Washington State Patrol. Spokane PD has nothing to do all with this shooting. Got it?