KING COUNTY, WA – The King County Police Officers Guild announced a campaign to oppose anti-law enforcement amendments that would derail the King County Sheriff’s Office.
The Save Our Sheriff campaign was launched this week in an attempt to stop amendments to the county’s charter from passing.
The Save Our Sheriff press release sent out this week explains what amendments five and six are in King County:
“Charter Amendment 5 would take away the right of voters to elect the King County Sheriff.
“Amendment 6 would allow the County Council to achieve their stated objective of dismantling and defunding the Sheriff’s Office by allowing the Council to define the duties of the Sheriff by ordinance rather than state law like every other County Sheriff in the state.”
The position of County Sheriff hasn’t always been elected in King County, but it has been for the past 20 years when it was voted to be so rather than by appointment. It’s generally seen as an effective way for the position to be filled in the area.
The decision to alter the county’s charter will be voted on by King County residents this November. The marks the first time citizens will be able to vote on issues relating to defunding law enforcement.
Background: “Dozens of King County prosecutors want office to ignore some burglary, drug and assault cases”https://t.co/tk0MFhlcE4
— Washington State GOP (@WAGOP) August 27, 2020
One law enforcement officer who recognizes the danger of giving so much power to a city council is Captain Stan Seo, a spokesman for the Save Our Sheriff campaign.
In the press release, Captain Seo recognized the importance of these amendments saying:
“The eyes of the country are on Seattle and King County right now and as law enforcement professionals we will take this campaign as an opportunity to show voters that police are worth defending, not defunding.”
Durkan seems to have forgotten that rioters in CHOP/CHAZ terrorized residents, demanded tribute from business owners, and generated frequent shootings. (6/)https://t.co/sHpNXYeiMl
— Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) August 28, 2020
He’s right about that: The eyes of this nation are plastered to many big (and Democratic-run) cities, including Seattle. The lawlessness that was allowed to reign for weeks in the CHAZ/CHOP zone was a display that many agencies and city leaders used as a measuring stick for their own areas.
For example, recently, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said:
“I am not letting any group set up a Seattle zone of lawlessness here in the city of Detroit.
“That’s non-negotiable.”
A large BLM mob has gathered outside the home of Seattle police union president, @realmikesolan. #SeattleRiots #antifa pic.twitter.com/o4JZxq5XvD
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 28, 2020
Now, they will continue to watch as King County possibly sets a precedent for other areas with these amendments, particularly amendment six regarding the defunding of the department.
In an interview with Law Enforcement Today, Captain Seo expressed confidence in the voters of King County:
“I think voters within King County are really intelligent people. I think they’re going to recognize that this is an attempt at a power grab by the council in order to control law enforcement in King County.
“We’ve had an elected chair for over 20 years and have had very positive results.”
Murderous ANTIFA-BLM Terrorists Attempt to Barricade Officers Inside Burning Precinct#AmericasKeepers #SeattleRiots https://t.co/0BSJ8ZYQKz
— America’s Keepers (@AmericasKeepers) August 26, 2020
A petition circulated a few weeks ago from the Seattle Police Officers Guild to show Seattle City Council that residents didn’t want their police department defunded. The petition garnered 100,000 signatures within about a week, and is now sitting at over 170,000.
The SPOG also has started a website, StopDefunding.com, to keep residents (and concerned citizens around the state who fear the trickle-down politics) apprised of where the campaign stands.
The petition is still active, and as of this writing the Seattle Council has voted to defund 39% of the police budget, effectively cutting 100 police positions and several other programs.
@MayorJenny here’s more for you @maddow #seattlepolice #SeattleRiots https://t.co/kLk3pZ1WRW
— justneedthis 🇺🇸 (@justneedthis3) August 28, 2020
The petition, along with polling from both Democrats and Republicans, shows that a vast and overwhelming majority of residents do not want their police department to be defunded, and even less so dismantled completely.
The Seattle Council has expressed a desire to cut the police budget by 50% in 2021, which is part of what prompted Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best to abandon her post, stating she can’t effectively police with such little funding.
Mob would not allow me to do my job today when trying to videotape KC Jail in Seattle. I tried to leave but they surrounded my car put items on windows & continued to terrorize me. One man threaten to break my vehicle windows & come to my home. We are just trying to do our jobs pic.twitter.com/Ek3JRkG12c
— KIRO 7 Jussero (@JJusseroKIRO7) August 20, 2020
Her job, she said, had become impossible, and will be even more so when the budget is cut even further:
“It completely fails to defund the police by 50%, as six of the eight council members had promised to support and carries out a major austerity program on behalf of big business.”
Captain Seo went on to explain that the decision to suddenly push the amendments on the ballot in King County is not well thought out:
“I think it’s more of a knee jerk reaction and political, but I think that because of that they’re looking to seize upon public opinion in order to gain control and provide less transparency and accountability.
“By seizing control of law enforcement services in King County, the secondary result is going to be a lack of control by taking voters’ rights away and a lack of accountability by having closed door decision making polices that the Sheriff’s Office provides.”
VIDEO: Police precincts vandalized during Seattle protests https://t.co/kNH0XlX5f6
— Joyce S O’Malley (@JoyceSOMalley2) August 28, 2020
When asked what the Save Our Sheriff campaign is doing to fight against these amendments, Captain Seo told Law Enforcement Today that the campaign has been speaking to other law enforcement agencies in cities within King County, as well as fire departments.
Activists — and their enablers — routinely say they’re peaceful and don’t show up for a fight. They claim cops are the instigators… as the criminal agitators bring weapons and quick dry cement to their “peaceful protests.” https://t.co/NXfkmV4BOE
— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) August 25, 2020
The campaign is also actively working with law enforcement organizations to garner support against the amendments.
To follow Save Our Sheriff’s fight and show your support follow their Facebook and Twitter pages, and check back on Law Enforcement Today for more updates.
Here’s more on King County and their search for “social justice” by way of eliminating police.
King County was named after former vice-president and slave owner, Democrat William R. King, who served in the year 1853.
In 1986, the King County Council voted to rededicate the county to Martin Luther King Jr. to create a nobler image for the county. In 2005, it was made official.
Now, the logo for the county is a stylized portrait of Martin Luther King jr. That logo decorates the letterhead of the county’s prosecuting attorney, Daniel T. Satterberg, who is seeking re-election this year.
Satterberg is the same prosecutor who recommended commuting the life sentence of Stonney Rivers in 2017. One of the reasons Satterberg gave for granting early release to Rivers was:
“His extreme sentence was given out to a highly disproportionate percentage of young African-American men, around 80%.”
Within months of release, Rivers committed murder in a drug deal.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the reason Rivers was serving a life sentence had nothing to do with the number of young African-American men in prison.
Now, on Satterberg’s letterhead, the King County DPAA Equity and Justice Workgroup has circulated proposals designed to improve something they describe as “racial justice.”
Justice is supposed to be blind. If there is justice at all, it would apply equally to members of all races, making the term “racial justice” redundant.
Not for this workgroup.
The workgroup clearly believes that justice is not equal and must be balanced, presumably with some or all of their proposals. The letter is reminiscent of an action taken recently by California representative Maxine Waters (D) who interfered with a traffic stop because she perceived the possibility that the police officer had stopped “a brother” with racist intent.
Her empirical basis for this belief was that the person stopped by the officer was black and the officer was, well, an officer.
In both cases, the presumption is that racism is present and must be curtailed by interfering with law enforcement.
The letter from the workgroup is earnest in its yearning for racial equity.
They write:
“Each of us joined this office not because we wanted to emulate our predecessors in the American justice system, but because we recognized the power implicit in the role of prosecutor, we saw opportunities for real change, and we sought to wield that power in a more ethical, holistic, and compassionate way.”
[Editor’s note: Interesting, then, that they took no such action prior to extreme civil unrest following the death of George Floyd.]
Implicit in this statement is an assumption that prosecutorial power in King County is not at present wielded in a manner that is ethical, holistic, or compassionate enough. The letter does not attempt to establish that any of these assumptions are true. No examples are provided.
Their conclusion is presented as fact.
[Editor’s note: The only “example” is them saying that “a million examples” could be provided, yet they do not provide even one.]
Some conditions are attached, such as:
- “An Assault 3 LEO case should not be filed at all if the officer was equipped with functioning bodycam but did not turn that bodycam on.
- An Assault 3 LEO case should not require LEO approval for all reductions.
- An Assault 3 LEO case should not be filed at all if the originating police agency does not provide sufficient training on de-escalation and implicit bias to its officers.
- If the Assault 3 meets the updated/heightened FADS, and is non-DV, non-substantial pain, and non-spitting, it should be reviewed for filing by FTU/VECU and then filed into district court either Assault 4 or Attempted Assault 3” (2020)
The reason given for allowing perpetrators to assault officers without fear of being charged is the assumption that officers may have instigated the assault upon themselves through overly aggressive behavior.
[Editor’s note: We all know that LEO “approval” is a term used loosely- as they do what they want when bargaining and giving sweetheart deals to criminals. LEO feelings on the assault be damned.]
On compassionate grounds, it is also argued that mental health and substance abuse may have contributed to the assault, and thus shouldn’t be held against the perpetrator, apparently even if the officer behaved properly and without racial animus.
There is a line in the letter that deserves special attention.
It reads:
“We cringe as we watch officer (sic) demonstrate subtle acts of racial or gender bias, unjust aggression, and the like.”
Everything in that sentence is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.
Whether or not a prosecutor “cringes” is irrelevant.
If racial or gender bias affects a decision in a way that is prejudicial to a suspect, that would be a problem. But by describing bias as “subtle,” the letter writers have transformed something that might be a real problem into something that is more likely an imaginary problem that exists only in the minds of people prejudiced against law enforcement.
Such as, clearly, this workgroup.
“Unjust aggression” sounds bad, but what is “unjust” aggression in a legal context? What is “aggression?” They could have written “assault” or “battery,” terms that have legal definitions and attached penalties.
Does unjust aggression mean “rudeness?” If an officer is perfunctory and direct rather than warm and caring, could he or she be described as exhibiting “unjust aggression?”
The problem with the term is that it appears to create a new class of criminal offense. If the behavior was already a criminal offense, that term should have been used instead.
The image conjured by “unjust aggression” in the context of this letter is of an officer mercilessly beating an African-American suspect without legal cause. That would indeed be a problem, but it isn’t what the letter says.
Throughout the letter, prosecutors in the Equity and Justice workgroup make vague assumptions about law enforcement and then propose methods to correct the vague problems they have identified.
[Editor’s note: Again, no evidence offered whatsoever. In other words, pandering without reason other than to procure support, and, by default, votes.]
The glaring error embedded throughout the letter is that it lacks any evidence that the problems they identify are genuine, but the proposals to fix the problems have serious drawbacks.
For instance, if oversight and punishment of law enforcement officers is made more restrictive and punitive while simultaneously loosening or eliminating penalties for criminals, police morale would likely go down while criminals would find it easier to commit crimes and escape punishment.
That, perhaps not coincidentally, is exactly what happened when Stonney Rivers received compassionate commutation of his sentence on the recommendation of prosecutor Daniel T. Satterberg.
Apparently, the murder Rivers committed almost immediately after release didn’t affect Satterberg’s approach to crime and “racial equity.” He still feels that quotas can be applied to criminal penalties, though quotas are not imposed on the criminals who commit crimes.
If, for instance, people within each racial group managed to ensure that they had the same percentage of criminals in their midst as there were members of their race in the United States, then arrest, prosecution, and punishment quotas would make more sense.
They would be unnecessary if quotas were enforced by the criminals themselves but that does not happen.
Perhaps King County should add a quote from King to their letterhead:
“Each man should be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.”
In this case, the color is blue. If the prosecutor’s office can’t avoid the prejudice against law enforcement evident in the letter from the equity and justice workgroup, then they may as well have left their namesake as it was.
Why put Martin Luther King jr on your letterhead if you violate his most famous principle?
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
