|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 11 users and 36 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Jessica on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 8:26am.
Sep 28 2006 - 5:15pm Sep 28 2006 - 8:00pm "Keeping Focused to make Good Things Happen" This is from the city's website- more info can be found here http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/citygovernment/council/ Downtown is one of four topics of discussion 5:15 Doors Open
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Do we really need habeas corpus?
Submitted by Mike on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 9:06am.I think free speech is great in principle, but doesn't it make sense for the riff-raff to just shut their mouths and listen when the decent folks speak?
Isn't that one of thos "quaint" notions.
Submitted by Rick on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 9:11am.We really have to move into the bright, new future with more modern ideas.
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow
We are virtually free as
Submitted by Mike on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 9:21am.Hey Kingsbury..
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 1:34pm.The difference being that
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 2:01pm.Only *TIME* will tell, Norm...
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 3:19pm.I still got that fiver....
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 3:21pm.Forgive me if I choose not
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 3:39pm.I could say the same for cheap gas...
Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 3:49pm.Report back - "Somewhere to be, somewhere to pee."
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 09/28/2006 - 11:32pm.Now, to be fair one should probably understand that the proponents of the controversial measures do not couch the debate in this way; Steve Hall, the City Manager, said: "It's not about the status of homeless, it's about certain (antisocial) behaviors." Doug Mah said 'It's a small segment of the downtown population which is disrespectful - not those of you who came here, you folks care - but making a person step around you or over you, is disrespectful.' I wasn't in the discussion group with Jeff Kingsbury, so I can't report on what he might have said.
So what is it that we said we need?
1) Somewhere to be - not to shop, but to just BE... to hang out, to loiter, to speak or not speak, and do so without owing anyone for the "privilege."
2) Somewhere to pee - a place that is open 24 hours, where people have a realistic alternative to peeing in the alleys. (Oh, and this problem is one which comes from the patrons of the bars, not from the homeless as such.)
3) Somewhere for our stuff to be (Public lockers). There is a need to avoid having our stuff out in public view, insecure unless we're watching it - and thus blocking more sidewalk than simply our butts. This is not a need simply for those without housing, but a need also for those who ride busses and need library books to be held over for a later trip home, while we wrestle that cactus we bought on impulse at the DNA Street fair.
4) Hygiene Center - more than a place to pee, a place to do the three "s" - Sheit, Shower and Shave. Possibly wash clothes, as well. This is a need of all people, but not one currently served well for those who are houseless. Such a facility would have to blend the need for safety with the need for privacy. Too much privacy can be used for ill (heroin, rape) and too little can lead to other problems (urinary infections from holding on too long, constipation or load bearing pants on the bus).
5) Carless streets downtown / walking mall. The idea was floated of closing the 4th and 5th area to traffic on every weekend, or permanently, or having a street fair regularly. Another variation was to have a single lane, or lane and a half in the middle of a much wider sidewalk area, to accomodate the smokers, who now block the sidewalks as they attempt to inhale nicotene in public. Maybe we could emulate the Evergreen Parkway and have an integrated, but curbed and separate, bike lane as well. Cars are far more dangerous than homeless people - cars killed several people in Olympia, homeless people rarely kill Olympians.
6) Apply the laws equally - if aggressive panhandling is to be forbidden, also ban billboards, Bus ads, and agressive bank advertisements and ATM fees in the downtown area as well. If I can't ask a person for money, why can a corporation ask me for money? If we're concerned about assault and battery, why do we tolerate armed, racist police officers who repeatedly get into physical fights with their arrests at a far higher rate than their peers?
7) Reduce or eliminate impact fees for preserving existing housing; it will cost a friend of mine thousands of dollars to move an existing building, now used for commercial purposes, to a new location for use as housing. Impact fees should either not apply, or be waived for cases such as this.
That's all I have time for tonight, and dammit - it feels like I'm catching the crud again.
Exactly right, Drew.
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 5:02am.I understand that any particular business might decide that being the "public bathroom" in the downtown area is not going to be good for business, but it does raise the question - where are people supposed to pee?
Columbia Center, Library, Percival Landing, Water Street, I guess.
Having trouble focusing on this problem because of the national votes for warrantless surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus, torture. I think that is the crud that I am catching.
#5 and #7
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 6:26am.And, number 7 just makes sense.
As someone who frequently
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 7:59am.Am, too!
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 11:26am.But of course you mean I'm not 'objective.'
Objectivity is for those who want to hide their agendas. Humans are not objective, facts are. But which facts you report - that decision is subjective. So I don't hide my politics behind a screen of pretend 'objectivity' which only functions to repeat the words of orthodoxy, authority, and capital. Most of what you'd call 'reporting' these days is actually stenography.
Someone said at the TownHall last night that we have only "one newspaper in town" and my heart swelled, because I am in the Works in Progress editorial collective. Then my heart sank as she related that the "one newspaper" tells lies about the situation downtown. That's no newspaper - that's a corporate fishwrapper! There's little actual reporting in it. Just check out the story on the Lacey PD officer accused of rape: Olympian Article
What's my problem with the story? Well, lets ask some pertinent questions:
The Olympian could not contact the victim on one day, yet they report the denials by the police. This begs a question which goes unanswered in the story: how does the Olympian know whom to ask?
Well, probably because they have the name of the victim. How could they have that name? Lacey PD might have published it. But the story clearly says the Olympian reporters don't know the name of the new officer who was accused, because it was redacted from the report. HUH? How or why would the Lacey PD redact the officers' name, but not the accuser's name? And why would the report, and then the Olympian, discuss in print her mental health history (hearsay evidence of said history, at that) when this has nothing to do with the allegation? Mentally troubled women can be raped - and often are targeted by predators, due to their credibility issues.
The timing issue is of great concern, too - the Officer essentially gets 'off' because a woman who was admittedly intoxicated could not estimate the time of her rapist's arrival accurately. Yet the report admits that he 1) called her at 3:44 AM from his department issued cell phone and 2) had "consensual" oral sex from her at 8AM the same morning. He met her the night prior, while he was on duty and she was distraught over her marital issues.
Yet the newspaper buries these facts without directly commmenting or questioning the moral integrity of an officer who would have sex with a woman he recently met who is married, intoxicated, and distraught. He might not be guilty of rape, but in my opinion he's one to be closely watched as an opportunist with some very questionable judgement.
Oh, and all told the City of Olympia pays about $1 million out to various projects for services to the poor. They spend $3 million just on police payroll per year. If we're going to be concerned about violence downtown, shouldn't we start with the people who use violence while on our payroll? Especially when that violence is demonstrably used against people for being poor and black? I'm just applying a little gander sauce here.
The Olympian article is
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 11:44am.The Olympian article is disturbing, I'll give you that. So, since we are SO into citing our referrences here lately I'd love to see your referrences on racism of Olympia police officers. Yes, there is a lot of money going into the police department, probably the fire dept too, that's because they are trained professionals doing a job that most aren't suitable for and many couldn't hack. I've had talked with a recruitment officer from WSP and KCSO in the last week, I've never noticed police officers to be "excited" about recruiting. Both expressed how hard it was getting to hire folks inside the state that have no criminal record, or past drug abuse history, or past domestic violence. Police work, like the fire dept, and healthcare, is starting to become a white-collar payed position. It's hard to find qualified applicants.
I eagerly await your points on racism in Oly PD btw, I'll be checking back on the thread frequently, or PM them to me if you wish.
Oh, and here is another one...
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 11:50am."...retired city police Officer Lee William Giles Jr., 61, and his girlfriend, Maureen Elizabeth Wear, 46, with copies of child pornography that investigators reported finding in Giles' home."
(...)
"The particular items of evidence that defendant Giles selected for his own sick pleasure demonstrates untrustworthiness and a depravity rarely seen even in a criminal justice system overwhelmed with child sexual abuse cases," Hillman stated in his motion."
"Prosecutors say Giles and Wear created more than 20 videotapes of themselves performing sex acts with children, as well as "actual, marked court exhibits from child rape cases," including footage of a criminal defendant in a 1991 case raping a young girl over a period of years.
Giles was arrested in early August and charged with seven sex crimes after a young man related to Wear told police the retired officer raped him repeatedly in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Under questioning by detectives, Giles admitted abusing the boy, according to court filings." (end)
And people wonder why I'm an opponent of absolute power...
Disturbing, yes, but you are
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 12:03pm.Disturbing, yes, but you are also selecting one out of many, MANY good officers. I think this was the guy who was the voice of pierce co. crimestoppers too. It's a shame that people abuse their power as such but even without power people abuse this. I can surf the net and look at all the retired or active officers and the terrible things they've done...of course I can look at past politicians too, and school teachers/employees, priests, boy scout leaders, babysitters, daycare workers, siblings, parents, foster parents I could go on and on. The world is full of attrocities (sp?) and positions of power, do you really feel that police do more? or that they are just caught more often because of their position? How many cops have you known on a GOOD basis?
Police work draws some folks
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 5:03pm.I think it's true that a relatively small percentage of police officers are truly bad, but with the amount of power that we vest in them, the bar needs to be quite high. A police officer exploiting a distraught or intoxicated woman he meets in the line of duty ought to lose the badge and the gun.
I was sexually assaulted by a cop
Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 5:39pm.When someone does that to you when you're that little and these are the people you are taught to run to for help if you're lost or someone bad is scaring you it messes you up.
I'm sorry that happend to
Submitted by Norm on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 5:45pm.Sounds like Mark Foley
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 4:04pm.Really, now...
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 1:33pm.To answer your question more directly, I have known 10 or 12 police officers on a "good basis." This means that they knew my name, would speak to me, and would share with me their stories. This does not mean that they cannot be, or were not, bad people sometimes. It does not mean that I would hand a single one of them my rifle, and turn around. I trust only three people that well.
By the way, one of the officers I knew on a good basis was someone I met when he tried to get me to sell pot to him. Later on, he shared his rape story with me. He was raped by his co-workers at work.
Any position of authority or supervision over another lends itself to abuse.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
My, what an old post you've
Submitted by Norm on Sat, 10/14/2006 - 1:42pm.Police are not good if policing is not good
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 11:50am.To say that someone is a 'good cop' is to say that they are successful at getting their job done with a minimum of overt violence. If I don't agree that human beings should be herded at all, then why would I lionize someone who does that well?
So no, I do not 'realize' that there is a 'good cop out there' in your terms. Because we do not share fundamental assumptions about what police are for.
You would argue (probably) that police are there to prevent disorder. I argue that they are there to preserve it.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
I find you amusing Drew.
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 12:14pm.Methinks the man would face
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 12:20pm.How to take this?
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 2:39pm.I'm also going to remind you that you did not answer me the last time I asked.
My existential crisis survival skills have already been put to the test most recently, when I lost my role as a husband and provider. Before that, they were tested by the revolutionaries who trained me and before that, they were tested by the activists who taught me about nuclear power and weaponry. Each step was neccessary. I regret none of them.
When I live in a society that no longer needs police, I will be a farmer again. It's the only honorable profession which needs brains that would exist in such a society.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
I'm not sure what question
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 2:57pm.And this is different how?
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 3:41pm.Many murders in the US are already unsolved, to the tune of 30-40% of all murders. It varies by jurisdiction. But when those murders are carried out by people with firearms, and people who control the flow of evidence, the rate of unsolved cases would (in a reasonable mind) climb even higher. We simply have no way to know what the rate of police initiated extrajudicial killings is. We can assume that some, if not most, police officers who do this get away with it. We can also assume that it is rare in comparison to the number of contacts police have with civilians, or in comparison to the number of police who are on duty in a given year. The total murder rate is around 20,000 per year and there are easily 670,000 officers in the US.
If there were no courts, no newspapers, and no chance of any of my journalistic work coming back to haunt these officers, who is to say that they would not forgive and forget? I would be far less a threat outside these systems than I am within them.
By the way, my testimony sent a man to prison once. If he uses google, he has known my address for about 6 years now. Guess what? Not one inkling of a payback yet. It's actually rare that this happens.
For the record, I have yet to be directly harassed or threatened by any Washington State law enforcement other than the Seattle PD at WTO Nov 30 1999, and LEIU June 2, 2003. And in those two cases it was not personal to me - they were shooting at my 'function' within those situations. I did not shoot back.
Surely you don't want to argue that all these officers would be cold murderers if only they thought they could get away with it - after all, that argument fits better in my pocket! Which side are your arguing?
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
My point not only plays into
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 3:45pm.But let's face, we will always have police as long as we have a government and there will always be some guy with a camera trying to make sure they toe the line. I just have to wonder who's better off?
History
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 7:33pm.We already know the answer to that question, because we have natural experiments where police were beholden to no law, and watched by no one. You might want to take a peek at the history of the Black Panther Party (born 40 years ago this coming October 22nd) or the American Indian Movement, or the IWW. All three of these movements had a very serious commitment to directly confronting unchecked police powers. And to answer the second question, we're all better off for it. Especially when I can look at video I shot of a Seattle protest in 2005 where a police officer visibly glances at the camera in mid-lunge, and then restrains himself. I did not even notice it until later while I was reviewing the tape.
The explicit answer is that most lynchings of black men and women went completely unprosecuted, and often because no law enforcement officer would bring forth a complaint (a few of them wore white hoods during the lynchings, but this is not always the case). The brutality with which officers in Los Angeles and Detroit met the black community there in the 1960's is detailed in various reports of the commissions which investigated the Watts riots and the Detroit riots. And the brutality of the Bureau of Indian Affairs against the AIMers is only outstripped by that of the Dick Wilson regime's tribal police - the GOONs (their own name). These histories are not High School material in this country, but they should be.
As for the Centralia Massacre, I hope you've paid enough attention to the posts on the other thread to find some works on that incident.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
I've seen the thread, it
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 9:26pm.Heritage.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Mon, 10/16/2006 - 7:37am.Our freedom as workers is the legacy of the Wobblies, and we not only owe it to them to remember, but we also have a responsibility to remain vigilant, as they did, for our own freedoms. When people say that freedom comes with a cost, they are damn right. In fact they have no idea how right they are. Learn about the IWW and learn what it takes to stay free.
Sadly, I think you are going
Submitted by OperaGirl on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 5:14pm.Sadly, I think you are going to find wretched creeps in any profession. I could find the same types of stories about teachers, fast food workers, librarians, whatever.
"To me, it's a good idea to always carry two sacks of something when you walk around. That way, if anybody says, "Hey, can you give me a hand?" you can say, "Sorry, got these sacks.""
Agreed, but since we give
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 6:55pm.I see what you are saying
Submitted by OperaGirl on Fri, 09/29/2006 - 8:55pm.I see what you are saying and I do agree but I also think when you break it down - in any other profession there are people in power and people who are not. No I am not worried about the fast food worker preying on *me* but what about the creep manager who gets the 16 year old employee alone in the back room and assaults her? Or the friendly librarian guy who just loves to read to the kiddies but behind closed doors he's a molester? The priest who fondles his alter boys, the nurse who abuses her elderly patient. I think with police we can *see* that power and it makes us more aware of it. But I am in complete agreement that we should be careful who is hired into the police force - I just think it goes beyond that as well.
"To me, it's a good idea to always carry two sacks of something when you walk around. That way, if anybody says, "Hey, can you give me a hand?" you can say, "Sorry, got these sacks.""
Drew,Here's what I don't
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 8:26am.Drew,
Here's what I don't understand: Is law enforcement drawing a disproportionate amount of people involved in "shady" activities in comparison to other professions?
We don't raise our police officers on farms. We draw them from society at large.
Olydowntowner:
I think the police profession attracts predators.
If this were said about, say, the homeless in Olympia ("The IT Station attracts a lot of sex offenders at night during the summer"), every poster on Olyblog would be demanding numbers and proof. Said about law enforcement? Nobody blinks an eye.
And OperaGirl, you're 100% correct about the "creepy manager" who gets the 16-year old girl alone in the storage room. A roommate of mine from two years ago, his girlfriend (at freshman in college) had explicit comments made to her by her manager at a major restaurant chain. Do I think that all restaurant managers prey upon teenage girls or that TGIFriday's or Red Robin "attracts" people who prey on other individuals? No way. I recognize that society and mankind is filled with all sorts of deviants who go into all sorts of professions.
Answers
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 11:59am.Here's what I don't understand: Is law enforcement drawing a disproportionate amount of people involved in "shady" activities in comparison to other professions?
We don't raise our police officers on farms. We draw them from society at large."
Well, yes and no. The problem as I see it is not in the man, or the woman who becomes a police officer. If I believed that, I would not be a public copwatcher. I'd be an assassin.
The problem is that policing itself is a use of power over others for the service of capital. The preservation of disorder, the dissolution of community. Where community is intact, there is no need for people who are paid specifically to herd, to corral, to chastize those who transgress normal social expectations. This is achieved by shunning, witholding affection, and other less formal means. In a dissolving social order, these functions must be undertaken by impartial professionals.
Read Norm Stamper on this - he was a hippie, practically, and when he became an officer he was choking people out within a year. He made phoney cases, he berated his wives (three of them), he beat people for being "long haired pukes." Read his autobiography 'Breaking Rank,' and I think you will turn a different eye on the role police officers play. Norm was the Chief of Seattle PD during the WTO police riot.
Another even better book, but written by a non-police officer, is 'Our Enemies in Blue' by Christian Williams. Maybe Kristian Williams. I forget.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)
You are right TFI. The
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 12:10pm.Drew: I agree with your desire to eliminate policing as a profession. But please do be careful not to let your ideology take you out of reality, and please do remember that there are a lot of really great people who serve in the police profession. You might disagree with their profession (as you might with the military or with politicians), but please be careful to avoid demeaning them as people.
Tsk Tsk.
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 10/15/2006 - 2:53pm.Calling me a "crackpot" or "taken out of reality" is hardly fair given your point, even if you think that I focus on a topic of critique which you don't share. And if you're going to say I demean ANYONE as a person, I would like to be faced with the quote which did that. I've apologized before in this medium and I'll do it again, if you can show me where I demeaned someone.
What might surprise you is the reception I got when I spoke before a class at Saint Martin's for a local police officer who teaches a criminology class there (earlier in 2006). I could not have gotten that gig, much less withstood it, if I demeaned police officers or security people in public.
When I told Norm how many police I knew "on a good basis" I was not exaggerating, I actually counted. It's not a lot, but I have known very few officers with whom I cannot at least be civil. And I treat them exactly as I am treated by them. (I'm not going to be civil with anyone who shoots at me, I might swear at them and show them my sh*tdigger)
Even Jeffrey Dale Jordan and I have spoken without raising voices on two occasions - one of them in the alley behind my home. I disagree with his assessments of his actions, I tell him this, but we do it as members of a community. I don't think your critique is fair. Except that I am quick to smile and a lot of folks think I'm lovable.
"The greatest hoax played on the masses is that their individual voice is nothing amidst the cacophany of world events." - enpen, an Olyblogger (2006)