Spokane7
50°
June 23, 2011 in City
Deputy cleared in Creach shooting
Hirzel observed departmental policies, sheriff says
Alan Creach packs out a box of reports from the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office Training Center in Spokane Valley on Wednesday after a meeting with Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich about the investigation into the fatal shooting of his father, Scott Creach. Also in the two-hour meeting were Creach’s brother, Ernie, right, and their mother, Imogene.
(Full-size photo)(All photos)
The Spokane County sheriff’s deputy who shot a 74-year-old Spokane Valley pastor last year will face no disciplinary action over the fatal encounter.
Deputy Brian Hirzel followed all departmental policies and procedures during the Aug. 25 encounter with Wayne Scott Creach, Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said Wednesday in announcing the results of his internal investigation. He met with members of the Creach family earlier in the day to advise them of the findings.
“This was a very tragic situation. I’m saddened for the community. I’m saddened for the Creach family. I’m saddened for law enforcement,” Knezovich said. “But it came down to a matter of choices. For Deputy Hirzel, when (Creach) reached for that weapon, he was faced with a deadly threat.”
The decision disappointed Creach’s relatives, who have long argued that the shooting could have been avoided if Hirzel had not parked an unmarked patrol car unannounced on private property. Alan Creach, the pastor’s son, said that he asked Knezovich if he would be willing to change those practices and that the sheriff refused.
Knezovich “says he’s trying to work with us, but he’s unwilling to do anything to accommodate us,” Alan Creach said. “If you are not willing to do any changes, you will always get the same result. If it was a failure before, it will fail again.”
The internal probe officially concluded the matter after sheriff’s officials reached the same conclusions as the Spokane County prosecutor’s office and the sheriff’s 12-member Citizen Advisory Board.
Knezovich said Hirzel, who has been working desk duty helping detectives, is now free to rejoin his patrol duties anytime between today and September.
The sheriff said he gave Hirzel his choice on when to resume his patrol duties to give him “some normalcy in his life.”
While Hirzel was cleared in the shooting, the internal investigation found two minor violations: The deputy was carrying his badge from his former job in Kootenai County, and he used his department computer to complete his itinerary for a vacation to Las Vegas.
Public outcry over that vacation, which delayed his interview with detectives for more than a week after the shooting, prompted Knezovich to make the only changes that he would recommend following the fatal encounter.
Knezovich pointed out that Hirzel asked to give a formal interview on the night of the shooting but was told that department practice called for a 72-hour delay.
“It should be up to the deputy … not some artificial number when to do an interview,” Knezovich said.
Police officials initially said Hirzel did not provide an interview, then later revealed that Hirzel was allowed to go on vacation days after the shooting. Knezovich said that he learned about the vacation after it had been approved and that Hirzel did give what’s called a tactical interview, which revealed where he was standing when he fired the shot that killed Creach.
The second change the sheriff wants to see: a speedier process by which information about such incidents is given to the public.
“That conversation is vital,” Knezovich said of the quick release of certain details. “My philosophy is that we give as much information as possible without tainting the investigation.”
The shooting occurred after Scott Creach noticed a car next to merchandise in the parking lot of The Plant Farm, 14208 E. Fourth Ave.
Creach, who lived alongside the nursery, armed himself with a .45-caliber pistol – as he previously had done several times during suspicious circumstances on his property – and approached the vehicle.
Hirzel told investigators that he repeatedly ordered the shirtless Creach to drop the gun, but investigators could not find any witnesses who heard any of that exchange.
Only Creach’s wife, Imogene, reported hearing what sounded like her husband yelling out in fear before the shot was fired.
Hirzel said when Creach approached the car, the older man said he didn’t have to drop his gun and mentioned that he had had problems with theft in the past. However, Creach eventually placed the gun in the back waistband of his pants.
Hirzel then ordered Creach onto the ground, but Creach refused. Hirzel told investigators he then struck Creach on the outside of the left knee with a police baton, although the autopsy examination found no corresponding bruising on Creach’s leg.
Creach buckled but did not go down. It was then, Hirzel said, Creach reached for his gun.
“When, when I saw his hand go behind his back and come out with a gun, or the grip of the gun that I saw, there wasn’t a doubt in my mind that he was going to shoot me,” Hirzel told investigators, according to transcripts.
Alan Creach said the family has hired an attorney who is coordinating an investigation. He did not predict what the family would do next or when.
“The community has to ask: Are we satisfied with the end result? Is this how we want law enforcement to be done in Spokane Valley?” he said.
Closing Geiger: Wise or worrisome? 
ChefGus/ John Olsen on June 23 at 5:48 a.m.
Remind me again what the lame excuse is for posting the same article twice… with the second posting not having all of the comments on the previous posting? It would seem fairly simple to move the blog string into the second copy of the article.
The Link to the original string of comments is:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jun/22/creach/#c312757
Gus
ericdx on June 23 at 7:03 a.m.
The excuse is that the SR is playing censor to the comments of the previous article. Stay Classy, SR…
Byrdie714 on June 23 at 7:21 a.m.
Maybe SR is playing ‘devil’s advocate’ and want to get the community in a more of an uproar?
Orphan on June 23 at 8:03 a.m.
It only makes sense if you believe every word Hirzel said, I for one do not.
Ron_the_Cop on June 23 at 10:12 a.m.
Ericdx,
As one with experience of having posts scrubbed and alert for less than ethical practices of the S-R, I have to say this is purely a software issue related to the print/web versions of the S-R.
Now S-R how about doing a little investigative work on RCW 46.08.065 and RCW 46.61.024 in conjunction with State vs. Ritts and State vs. Arguleto. Is the Sheriff correct in his interpretation of these sections in justifying the use of unmarked police units for regular patrol and traffic enforcement? If Sheriff says that Dep. Hirzel because of the nature of his prowl call that night was engaged in uncover/surveillance I will call FOUL.
In my opinion the Sheriff’s interpretation is incorrect. The RCW sections, case law, WA legislative intent, the normal definition of these terms within the law enforcement nationwide is more limited. In WA police chiefs and sheriffs may have assumed incorrectly that they do have this authority. This disconnect needs to be resolved by the courts and or the legislature, one way or another, as a matter of public policy regarding the public safety issues of using unmarked police vehicles. See my blog post as I’m not at all adverse to using REAL unmarked vehicles for GENUINE undercover/surveillance purposes.
I suspect this has more to do with traffic fine revenue. I personally don’t think the minimal tactical advantage of their use for routine patrol and traffic enforcement is worth the risk when the issues of public safety are considered e.g., enabling police imposters and rare events such as the Creach case. Do read the humorous but absolute scary case of mis ID below between LAPD and LASO that was stopped short of turning tragic.
I believe the use of an unmarked police unit in this case was one of a series of cascading events that led to a tragic outcome. The Sheriff’s IA review instead of saying there were no issues of policy, procedure and training should have recognized these issues. The shooting of the business owner on his own property is not an acceptable outcome. At the very least there should be an educational program by local law enforcement of how to act when armed and contacted by a law enforcement officer. It’s not uncommon for citizens to be legally armed in our community. I’m of the opinion based on my research that there was little time for any exchange between the two and or commands by Dep. Hirzel.
Thanks ChefGus for linking back to the other thread. On important stories we readers can take the initative and cross link these threads as ChefGus did.
I just linked to this thread from the older version with this post that is relevant here too:
DickAdams on June 23 at 10:30 a.m.
I agree with Ron the cop, totally. I`ve pursed his attachments and find his investigations very thorough. If I ever need a LE officer, I would hope its someone with the honesty and integrity as Ron.
Bullshapitsca on June 23 at 7:49 p.m.
Good work Ron.
lewis8457 on June 23 at 9:16 p.m.
yes thank you SR for the constant reminder our police can kill with no accountability thanks to our wonderful Washington State legislators.
Now Hirzel can go out and be a hard ass to some other unsuspecting folks to make himself feel tough.
Thanks Ozzie for nothing as usual, can you say two face?
PlanB on June 24 at 12:59 a.m.
Hirzel is not worthy of being trusted to enforce public safety, and he should be in jail. He murdered Wayne Creach. The only parts of his own testimony that are believable incriminate him.
Ron_the_Cop on June 24 at 10:41 p.m.
Here’s some additional information after my meeting with Sheriff Knezovich this afternoon that I just posted in the other thread in response to Dep. Gregory:
Deputy Gregory,
Thanks for your reasoned response. I appreciate your points and willingness to reasonably debate instead of fiery rhetoric that borders on inciting violence. I am always open to new information that I didn’t previously have access to. I don’t profess to have inside information other than I have reviewed all of the materials, documents and other information that was provided to the County Prosecutor to review. I also obtained other reports afterwords but did not have access to what was done by the SCSO in its IA review/investigation unit since. I also secured certain computer forensic time stamps from the various computer systems that recorded this event.
First and foremost is the public must have confidence in the process of the investigation/review of OIS/OIDs. With that said there were issues with the SPD’s criminal investigation from my perspective that in twenty-twenty hindsight could have been done better. Unfortunately we only have three witnesses, Dep. Hirzel, Scott Creach and Mrs. Creach. Hopefully this incident will serve as a learning experience for future events. Unfortunately it’s tragic incidents like this one that bring about change in police policy, procedure and training.
I met with Sheriff Knezovich this afternoon with Det. Gere and SPD Ombudsman Tim Burns for three hours. Sheriff Knezovich presented me with the information provided to the Creach family. I appreciate the time that Sheriff Knezovich took to review the IA review with me. I will post an update with the new information I received today in the next day or so after I have time to process it.
On a positive note Sheriff Knezovich is open to suggestions I have regarding policy, procedure and training that will minimize future such events and or aid in their investigation. One issue/suggestion we can both agree on as I recommended in my report was to equip each officer with in field recording devices e.g., similar to airplane audio recorders. Had such a recorder been available many of the issues in debate would have been resolved very quickly. The cost alone in personnel time devoted to this investigation would have gone a long way to pay for this equipment. I will stand with the Sheriff in support to request that the Board of Commissioners supply this equipment ASAP.
At this point I would encourage all to keep an open mind in the search for the truth in this tragic event for all involved. Those that advocate violent action against the police do no one any good. I’ve called out some in these threads for doing this. These things have there own way of sorting themselves out. If there are bad apples they too will sort themselves out too. There are many fine men and women and doing a very difficult job day in day out. The truth eventually will out itself. As President Reagan is fond of saying, “Trust by verify.” This is a two way street for in the end we are the police and the police are us. We need each other.
Kivaari on June 26 at 4:22 p.m.
Ron, In the end the sheriff must have been satisfied by Hirzel. Hirzel must have been able to explain his confusion over why and how he used his baton. After reading most of what is commonly available, I am still left scratching my head about the timing of events and that damn baton.
I know in some departments the baton is treated as an art form and is so ingrained into their departments culture that the use is just on auto -pilot. Coming from departments that did not have that culture I just can’t grasp what went on. I do know that if I was facing an unknown person with a gun, the last weapon I would use is a baton. When I trained officers under similar conditions, ambush drills, I tried to make them understand that two hands on the gun are better then one. That normally there is enough ambient light that going into contortions to aim a light and a gun was a waste of time.
It still bothers me, confuses me, that Hirzel had a baton on his person in the ring while seated in the car (usually an awkward combination), getting out with a gun in hand, then drawing the stick, hitting once, and re-ringing while taking a shot. I know I wasn’t skilled enough to do that is a smooth manner.
In the end I am left thinking Creach surprised Hirzel, and Hirzel let things go to hell real quick. I suspect, most cops can understand how this went south so fast. In the end, it is still a “justified shooting” with a real doubt factor floating about the room.
Ron_the_Cop on June 26 at 11:26 p.m.
Kivaari,
You have that same gut feeling I did when I first read the interviews. I’m working on my update as I promised in the other thread to Dep. Gregory after meeting with Sheriff Knezovich last Friday. Actually they did did follow up on my recommendations. I’m not sure if they did all of them as we ran out of time. I believe the Sheriff is willing to make some changes to minimize future incidents like these and also aid their investigation. The Sheriff has already changed the policy of interviewing his deputies after an OIS/OID to avoid the confusion that was encountered in this case. I don’t think there will be issues of going on vacation again during the immediate aftermath of one of these critical incidents.
SPD perhaps could have cleared up some of these nagging details during it’s criminal investigation. The Sheriff’s IA review/investigation in some cases as it had to rely on the work product of SPD e.g., things become stale and stories become pat. This all water under the bridge now. We may never really know with any certainty what happened that night. We only have three witnesses. One’s dead and Mrs. Creach was some distance away and couldn’t see much. Dep. Hirzel’s account is plausible albeit poor tactical use of the baton. But poor tactics do not make this a criminal case. As I said the truth has a tendency of eventually coming out.
This is why I will support the Sheriff in asking for funds to equip his deputies with audio/video recording devices. Had at least audio been available the uncertainty would have been resolved very quickly. The money spent in investigation time for nine months by the agencies involved could have paid a good portion of the cost of this equipment and potential litigation costs.
Ron_the_Cop on June 27 at 11:31 a.m.
Dep. Gregory and I have been having a civil and reasoned discussion on issues in the Creach OIS. I would recommend all that are interested in this case go to the previous thread and read our discussions. These discussions are very useful for the citizens of Spokane to understand the nature of these investigations so they can have confidence that LE does take these investigation seriously.
I’m replying here as I said I would in the other thread. Dep. Gregory and I have been discussing the legality of police using unmarked patrol vehicle for regular patrol and traffic enforcement.
The Creach family sought me out to assist in their understanding of the process and whether LE was doing what was required to seek the truth in this investigation. This is further explained in an email in my email to County Prosecutor Steve Tucker ( http://tinyurl.com/4hrat8h ).
I welcome Dep. Gregory’s willingness to openly discuss issues in this case. By having these discussions the public can see first hand that not everything is black and or white. There are areas where reasonable people can interpret statements and facts differently and reach separate conclusions. This is why in some cases these OISs do end up in civil suits. In reality this sometimes this is what drives changes in police policy, procedure and training over time in response to of these unfortunate incidents.
My reasons for becoming involved in the OIS are academic in that I teach college level criminal justice classes and to perhaps increase the level of LE professional in these cases from my own LE experience of other high profile cases. To be fair Spokane LE probably has never before experienced the level of intense public scrutiny in previous OIS/OID (Officer involved shooting and Officer Involved Death). It’s easy being on the inside to wonder how rumors and misinformation get started that leads to the distrust and confidence of the public. It’s incumbent upon LE to be fully transparent in the investigative process so the public can evaluate whether LE is carrying out its duties and responsibilities to the citizens.
While an officer can be criminally justified there can be issues where police policy procedure, tactics and training may be involved e.g., the unmarked patrol vehicle issue. Bad tactics/procedure do not give rise to criminal culpability where proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. Whether these procedural/tactical issues give rise to the level of incurring civil liability is for a jury after considering, weighing, evaluating the facts, available evidence, testimony and cross examination to to decide.
[Continued]
Ron_the_Cop on June 27 at 11:33 a.m.
[Continued from above]
I’ve said the use of the unmarked police unit in this tragic incident may have been a fundamental factor depending on what happened that night. Dep. Gregory asked why there have been no previous court cases where this issue has been challenged that resulted in a court opinion. The answer is simple - the mechanism to enforce RCW 46.08.065 is problematic. It doesn’t lend itself well for individuals with standing to force this issue into a court for an opinion.
On the other hand the felony evading section which required that pursuing police vehicles be distinctively marked (wording since amended in 2003 by legislative action), has a class of defendants with standing as they were being prosecuted for felony violations subject to substantial jail/prison time. The prior evading section was twice reviewed by WA Appellate Courts in State vs. Ritts and State vs. Arguleta. In both cases the pursuing vehicles were unmarked police units and the court threw these cases out as the units were not distinctively marked. The evading section was amended to remove this distinctively marked requirement in 2003.
While the facts and circumstances are entirely different in the Creach case, some argue the felony evading section is now the standard for the use of unmarked vehicles. On the other hand these two RCW sections are now in direct conflict/opposition. There are several ways to resolve this conflict.
1. A new bill is introduced into the Legislature to clearly define what the legislative intent is on behalf of the people of WA to rectify this disconnect one way or another. During the hearing process the public policy issues can be openly discussed and debated.
2. A court case is brought that rises to a court of record where the court makes a determination. This can be either through a traffic citation case where someone with standing raises the legality of citations issued by LE using unmarked patrol vehicles or by civil suit. In this instance the Creach family could argue that RCW 46.08.065 defines using unmarked police units as being unlawful unless within the exception provided. Therefore some civil liability may extend to the County and the Sheriff’s Office depending on how the jury views/weighs the evidence and testimony.
The exception in RCW 46.08.065 says local police and sheriffs can use unmarked police units for undercover and confidential purposes. I am offering the regular use of such units for routine patrol and traffic enforcement purposes exceeds the exception based on the legislative intent of these sections. Mind you in a civil case the burden of proof is by a preponderance of evidence.
3. LE and or County Prosecutors submit this question to the WA Attorney Generals Office for an opinion.
[Continued]
Ron_the_Cop on June 27 at 11:34 a.m.
[Continued from above]
I would offer the minimal tactical advantage of using these unmarked police vehicles for routine patrol and traffic enforcement are outweighed/exceeded by the greater issues of public safety e.g., enabling police imposters and in the rare event of the Creach case.
I’m not at all saying there isn’t a legitimate need for LE to use REAL undercover police units but there are issues of how to minimize the risk. Consider risk probability is additive over time and eventually the dice will come up craps. Scan above for the humorous event between LAPD and LASO that could have turned very deadly by two very professional LE entities.
And of course from the aspect of international terrorism, it is a very common practice to use stolen or look-a-like military/police uniforms and vehicles in terrorist attacks. Or using these tactic using similar looking fire response and or ambulances vehicles to deliver secondary explosive devices to kill and or maim the first-responders who have responded to the first event.
I made a commitment to Sheriff Knezovich to provide the additional information from their IA investigation I now have that I didn’t have before. Sometimes the media doesn’t have the space and or time to cover these events in great detail that would aid the public in their understanding if LE is truly being accountable and transparent in these OIS/OID investigations. This is crucial to securing the trust and confidence of the police. As I said in the other thread we are the police and the police our us. We do need each other.
I applaud the S-R editors for allowing this venue for this important discussion to take place.
I will post this new information as quickly as I can.
Ron_the_Cop on June 28 at 10:53 a.m.
For those still reading and have an interest in this case, here are the key items of new information and a clarification of the time line of this event from my meeting with Sheriff Knezovich last Friday. I haven’t yet read SCSO Det. Gere’s summary report but SCSO DID DO AND OR considered many of my recommendations. I can’t say SCSO did them all yet but they did do many of the main ones.
I gave the Sheriff a report on this OIS investigation that included issues in need of clarification or further work, made recommendations for further investigation and recommendation to consider for police policy, procedure, tactics and training.
Procedurally it would have been better if the County Prosecutor’s Office had simply returned this case to SPD for further investigation to resolve these issues before rendering its opinion. This is NOT to say a similar finding of criminally justified would have been reached but some of these investigative recommendations were better handled during the criminal investigative phase of this incident.
As I’ve said before the SPD’s investigation definitely could have been better and perhaps was rushed for political purposes. Hence my statement above that the Prosecutor should have returned this case to SPD for further investigation. In my read of the interview I wasn’t so quick to accept Dep. Hirzel’s account of what happened that night and would have been open to other possible scenarios. I would have clarified my concerns before I handed of this investigation for criminal review. This in some cases limited the SCSO’s own IA investigation/review as to what happened that night.
I can be a very critical judge of the work of others however accepting reasoned critical review does make the finished work product much better. Also in accepting the critique of other professionals, it lessons potential of tunnel vision that we all suffer if you’re the lead case agent on a critical incident. Also the work product is more defensible in later civil cases. At this point we may never know what exactly happened that night.
On a positive note the Sheriff is willing to consider possible policy, procedure, tactics and training issues changes without laying individual blame that can be done to prevent or at least minimize future such tragic events from occurring and also aid in future such investigations. This is what any good IA self-evaluation process after an event should do both for LE and any other organizations. I will post some of these in a later comment.
[Continued]
Ron_the_Cop on June 28 at 10:55 a.m.
[Continued from above]
Key new information:
During the SCSO Dep. Hirzel walked through this incident many times. If I recall correctly this entire series of events, with commands and the baton strike, was approx 35 seconds from Dep. Hirzel first seeing Creach and firing the shot.
A blood spatter expert examined the crime scene photos and concluded that the body was not moved. There was indication that it was moved. As an aside it is plausible that Creach spun, stumbled and then fell after being shot. I haven’t read the expert’s report.
There has been much discussion regarding the advisability of the Dep. Hirzel’s baton strike to gain compliance of Creach who according to Dep. Hirzel was failing to comply with his commands. Sheriff Knezovich says such a tactic, gun in one hand - baton in the other, is NOT something they train. I should add I went to the same police academy that Dep. Hirzel did and trained with the same long wooden baton. Not that it wouldn’t occur in the heat of the moment, but if your going to use your baton you should first holster your weapon.
Det. Gere did say in the later walk throughs, Dep. Hirzel always indexed his finger outside of the trigger guard. There was a possibility that this was an unintended discharge if Dep. Hirzel’s trigger finger was on the trigger when he delivered the baton strike.
SCSO did obtain the cell phone records of Dep. Hirzel during his duty time that day. There were a couple of calls to relatives but nothing of significance e.g., to other deputies.
The Sheriff wanted me to clarify my statements of the angle of entry of the bullet as there as been much debate on this issue. Dr. Howard prepared a diagram of the entry angle as he examined the body during the autopsy. I used a protractor and measured the angle at approx 50 degrees from the horizontal. There have been other reports that this angle was as much as 63 degrees. This is not supported by this diagram and Dr. Howard’s dissection narrative of the wound tract. The bullet entered the middle chest and traveled downward to where it was recovered under the skin above the right hip. There is no mention of any deflection of the bullet by the sternum and or rib at entry. Dr . Howard noted a comminuted fracture of the 11th lower rib.
SCSO did recontact Dr. Howard who has since clarified that his diagram was only a simple one, not to scale reference and shouldn’t be used to establish an angle of entry.
I will say I did look at the autopsy photo where Dr. Howard had inserted a trajectory rod into the body following the wound track. This angle is rather acute of perhaps some 45 degrees from the horizontal. There is some discussion that Dr. Howard did not replace the chest plate with precision and used a 22 cal rod instead of a 45 cal one. This could limit the accuracy of the trajectory rod placement.
This area requires considerable professional expertise and is subject to interpretation of many factors including potential body position at the time the shot was fired by pathological/forensic experts. Ultimately it will be a civil jury after hearing testimony and evidence that will have to decide this issue.
The Sheriff regarding the then recent officer ambush training said there were four training scenarios. One of these the officer was sitting in the patrol vehicle when ambushed. I haven’t reread this scenario yet but the Sheriff said this was an active shooter situation. In other words the officer was immediately taking fire and could return fire immediately. This was not a more static situation with an armed subject suddenly appearing at the driver’s door like in the Creach incident.
[Continued]
Ron_the_Cop on June 28 at 10:58 a.m.
[Continued from above]
And lastly I recreated a time line from the forensic time stamps of several computer systems that captured information of this incident. All are free to read my latest update after reading SPD Det. Hamond’s final supplemental report ( http://tinyurl.com/4ohxhd9 ) that includes my time line. These computer systems were all in sync to the second that night. They are further sync to Universal Mean Time (UMT) at frequent intervals from a time server.
The time of the shot can be placed to within about 5 seconds +/-. The timing of Dep. Hirzel pulling up his first document and his last, the traffic ticket, from his laptop can be established to the second. The variables that require some estimation are the time that Dep. Hirzel first parked his unit in The Plant Farm parking lot. This is subjective. Did he parked and then quickly pull documents from his computer to fix his traffic ticket narrative? Did Dep. Hirzel park substantially earlier perhaps assessing the area first for the substance and nature of the prowl call before pulling up these documents?
The other variable is when did Creach stir and leave his residence to check the suspicious vehicle in his parking lot. The timing of Creach to leave his bedroom, get his gun, walk through the residence, cross the grounds/parking lot from the residence to the rear of the police unit is approx. ninety seconds as documented by Ernie Creach in walking this route with Steve Tucker. There is also some downtown at the front end. Allowing for time for Creach to stir from his sleep, go to the window and put on his pants before leaving the residence.
I was remiss in that I didn’t include in my S-R posts, that Mrs. Creach when asked that night when she became aware her husband was up and not in the bedroom. Mrs. Creach said she looked at the clock and it was 11:06PM Hrs. Also that night Mrs. Creach earlier told another investigator it was 11:04 PM Hrs.
For the record I did have Ernie Creach try to establish the accuracy of the digital bedroom clock. Ernie says the clock was running fast by about 1 min 30 secs. Of course this being a digital clock doesn’t account for the seconds as the minute showing e.g., 11:06PM Hrs can be as little as 11:06:01 to as much as 11:06:59 PM Hrs.
So in essence depending on these variables, Dep. Hirzel’s account is plausible considering his account of his actions transpired within 35 secs. and still be consistent with the forensic time line. On the other hand going the other way, there is not enough time for all of what Dep. Hirzel said to occur.
Other information may answer this question. Mrs. Hirzel heard only several excited words interrupted by the gunshot. Granted there are a number of statements attributed to Mrs. Hirzel who was re-interviewed several times in an attempt to get an accurate account. To be honest Mrs. Creach just witnessed as did Dep. Hirzel experienced a very tragic and emotional event and both should be afforded some flexibility in their statements.
There were neighbors across the street that were awake with their windows open that heard no commands being given by Dep. Hirzel. They only heard the gunshot.
This is the kind of testimony and evidence that a jury will decide/conclude what the facts are based on testimony, evidence and assigning credibility and weight to the evidence as presented in trial subject to cross examination by the plaintiffs and respondents counsel in a civil trial.
[Continued]
Ron_the_Cop on June 28 at 11:01 a.m.
[Continued from above]
Sorry for the length of this post.
And lastly I would encourage all to refrain from stirring the pot on this issue and making extremist statements about killing cops. As I said before the truth has a tendency to reveal itself in these cases. Bad apples tend to take care of themselves. There are appropriate venues where these issues in subject to interpretation and debate can be resolved in a civil manner. After all we need each other - we are the police and the police are us.
More importantly this was a learning experience for all involved. Can things have been handled better? Of course and Sheriff Knezovich is open to considering changes that make sense to prevent/minimize future events and also to aid in their investigation.
Again I wish to thank the S-R editors for allowing my lengthily posts on these complex issues but its important for the community to understand and to have trust/confidence in the process.
Deputy_Gregory on June 29 at 11:50 a.m.
Ron_the_Cop
Thank you for taking the time to meet with Sheriff Knezovich and Det. Gere. I believe you will agree Sheriff Knezovich has consistently tried to insure this investigation was professional, thorough and its findings open for review.
To be clear, this incident has been reviewed criminally, administratively, by our Deadly Force Review Board, our Citizen’s Advisory Board, blood/crime scene reconstruction expert and at Sheriff Knezovich’s request, Donna McKereghan who was appointed to the Washington State Ethics Board by Gov. Locke (12/2004 to 01/2011). All have found Deputy Hirzel’s actions to be justified and or within policy and procedures. I know you are still reviewing parts of this but I’m glad to hear many (if not all) of your recommendations have been addressed by the administrative investigation and (although in your opinion things could have been done differently) you are NOT stating the finding of criminally justified would have changed.
Bullet trajectory: In addition to the information you provided, (summarizing) Dr. Howard also stated additional variances would exist (i.e. breaths, posture, knees bent, uneven surface etc.) outside a sterile/static room.
The timeline shows: Deputy Hirzel’s last computer entry, which he states was very close to the time he noticed a flash of light and Mr. Creach and the timestamp of his radio transmission advising he fired his weapon was about 1 minute 10 seconds. The six timed demonstrations/reenactments ranged from 33 to 38 seconds which is well within the 1 minute 10 second timeline established by the evidence (MDT and STANCIL). To use “variables” to state “On the other hand going the other way, there is not enough time for all of what Dep. Hirzel said to occur” is simply speculation.
I also want to thank you for you renewed stand against “extremist statements”, you willingness to clarify some of the issues and have a civil discussion. It’s not bad to question but as I’ve stated, it is my intention to try and make sure the known factual evidence is separated from the questions posed. We all must continually learn from our experiences in life (good and bad) and communication is part of the learning process.
Deputy Gregory
Ron_the_Cop on June 29 at 2:03 p.m.
Again thank you Dep. Gregory for your comments.
Agreed lacking any further information at this time, short of actual criminal activity engaged in by Dep. Creach when contacted by Mr. Creach, the evidence that is available would not sustain a criminal conviction based on a reasonable doubt standard given the leeway both under Federal and State law as to the state of mind of the officer. I AM NOT SAYING that there is anything to indicate that Dep. Hirzel was engaged in criminal activity e.g., loading plants into his truck. His trunk was searched at the scene and there was NO INDICATION of this.
I have said the actions of both Mr. Creach and Dep. Creach were a cascading series of events that led to a tragic outcome for all involved. The probability is additive - like continuing to roll the dice at some point the dice will come up craps.
Bad tactics do not justify a criminal filing. On the other hand bad tactics and or police policy, procedure and training could incur some potential liability in any subsequent civil action where the burden of proof is only by preponderance e.g., the need for and the manner in which the the baton strike was delivered. In a civil trial many witnesses and experts will be called by both the plaintiff and respondent, the jury in the end will make the final decision after hearing, evaluating, and assigning due weight to all the testimony and if there is any liability that should attach to the plaintiff e.g., statements of Dep. Hirzel, statements of Ms. Creach, scene and forensic evidence - Dr. Howard and forensic time line. Of course this liability could be expressed as a percentage between Mr. Creach’s and Dep. Hirzel’s actions and the County as to police policy, practice, procedure and training.
This is WHERE THIS REVIEW and determination should take place and not in the streets. Police officers have a difficult job as it is without having to discuss the merits of this case or other perceived incidents of police abuse when carrying out their duties. People should RESPECT the authority of the police and save the arguments for later by filing personnel complaints or arguing the merits in court if they feel their rights have been violated and or infringed upon.
As an aside speaking as a former POA president, for the benefit of Dep. Hirzel I would strongly advise that Dep. Hirzel request his own counsel. At some point perhaps his own interests will differ from those of the County. A single attorney representing both interests may find that they have a conflict.
I also commend again Sheriff Knezovich’s willingness to discuss these issues and to consider making potential changes without finding fault in this incident that would prevent, minimize future events and also aid in their investigations. I provided a list of recommendations earlier this morning of possible changes to Sheriff Knezovich. I will leave it to Sheriff Knezovich to reveal publicly if there are any areas he does want to make changes.
I know he is in agreement with securing funding for equipping field officers with audio/video equipment. I will support him in this effort as the issues in question in this case could have quickly been resolved by simply playing the tape. This would have saved an enormous amount of staff time of both SPD and SCSO in investigating this OIS and perhaps quelled the controversy in this instance at the beginning.
Dep. Gregory please continue to offer information and or corrections where I have misstated the relevant information.
Ron_the_Cop on June 30 at 5:11 p.m.
Deputy Gregory,
From my post in the other thread, from my list of the meeting with Sheriff Knezovich, I should cover one more point. Dep. Hirzel’s patrol unit was released the next day after it had been printed and examined for fingerprints.
In my original email to my forensics students I was trying to stir their critical thinking skills as to what scene forensics might be useful. Based on the statements of Dep. Hirzel I suggested that gunshot residue (GSR) in and around the doorway might be useful in determining if the shot came from inside the unit and or out the driver’s window. I know the expended shell casings was found to the left front of the unit. I know that GSR testing is problematic but it might give an indication one way or another. Since then I’ve learned because of GSR testing being problematic, the WSP forensic lab no longer accepts submissions for testing.
On the other hand after reviewing the statements of Dep. Hirzel had I been the lead investigator the thought would have occurred to me that the outside of the driver’s door might have trace evidence transfers e.g., fibers, marks and or DNA et al. However by this time the unit had already been released. This is water under the bridge as there are mistakes made at all crime scenes that we wish we had the chance to go back and collect potentially overlooked evidence. In the FICTIONAL TV show CSI they do it too. No one’s perfect. I could talk for an hour on how CSI while being a great police drama does NOT represent what happens in real life.
I learned from Sheriff Knezovich that the forensic technician wrote in his/her report that they took photos and examined the side of the unit for fingerprints. What the Sheriff later learned is that the technician did examine the side of the unit for trace evidence but didn’t find any. I don’t know if this included swabs for DNA though. The Sheriff said in the future the forensic techs will document all such examinations whether positive or negative.
I also wouldn’t necessarily say my opinions are speculative but would say they are more inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. A jury upon hearing the evidence and evaluating it will decide how to interpret the evidence including circumstantial and or indirect evidence.
DontCall911 on July 07 at 9:09 a.m.
No cop, nobody at the Sheriff’s office, is above the law. The cops always want to tell us how “officer safety” is their focus, as well as how we must obey them, but being a cop isn’t any more hazardous than being, say, a logger. Nor are cops any more “good” or otherwise worthy of your trust or obedience than anyone else. The fact that the cops are armed, and increasingly so these days — increasingly militarized — does not change the fact that you don’t have to “always obey the cops”.
Scott Creach was 100% within his rights to be armed, upon his own property, as (I assure you) he had done for decades before (and the Sheriff knew about it), and had not killed anyone, and that is more than can be said for Deputy Hirzel, the “professional” cop.
Mr. Creach was correct in telling the deputy that he didn’t have to drop his gun, if indeed he really did tell the deputy that. Scott Creach was a free mind, and he knew his rights and responsibilities. He grew up in a time and in a place — 1940’s Oklahoma — where people were not as stupid, cowardly, and institutionalized as they are now.
(By the way, he wasn’t buried here in Washington, land of the captive and the home of the cowardly. His body was flown to Oklahoma to be buried.)
After hearing about Scott Creach’s death at the hands of Deputy Hirzel, following on the death of Otto Zehm, and more recently the man in Arizona who was shot 60-plus times by the cops in his town (in the living room of his own home), I have concluded—
DON’T CALL 911!
Shooting people is what the cops do. If you don’t want someone like this shouting at you, handcuffing you, kicking you, tazing you, or shooting you, don’t call the cops.