Four people avoid felony convictions for Evergreen College violence

Navigation

User login

Online users

The Fire Inside

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

bobschwenkler
talltrees
Toni Holm
wehrland
reggie.ventura

Four people avoid felony convictions for Evergreen College violence

Submitted by JT on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 1:04pm.

tesc

OLYMPIA — Four people charged with felonies for violence at a February concert at The Evergreen State College have been accepted into a diversion program.
Charges will be reduced to misdemeanors if they complete the program and pay $45,000 for destroying a patrol car.
Thurston County court papers say criminal charges against a fifth person who hid a seat stolen from the car will be dropped if he completes the diversion program and pays $541.

Read the story here.

JT's blog
Login or register to post comments

Well good.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 1:31pm.

Looks like a whole lot of community service is in their futures. B&R could use some laborers for a big landscaping project at out Hospitality House.

Fine with me, especially

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 2:18pm.

Fine with me, especially when concerning first-timers.

So by taking the diversion program they are pleading guilty

Submitted by Norm on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 2:36pm.

to the misdemeanors? Is the program ONLY to lessen the charges? Why is the lower columbia all over this, and the daily O isn't?

Yes, they will plead guilty to misdemeanors.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 2:48pm.

But they must complete the diversion program, or else. Diversion has proven to be a very successful way to reduce recidivism in young offenders. Reduced charges improve their chances later in life. No prison time saves us a lot of money...as do the fines and the compensation requirements. Community service is a good way to teach people how they can improve their community by contributing something other than a damaged police cruiser. The News Tribune reported this on the 5th. Perhaps the Olympian is preoccupied with the Tony Overman Police Riot.

Splat!

Submitted by rainy gray on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 8:28pm.

I was innocently swallowing some beer when I read about the "Tony Overman Police Riot" and now I consider myself lucky to be alive. Very funny, Gugliemlo!

It was in

Submitted by security_six on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 8:31pm.

The Olympian on the 5th as well.

"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."

Yipes

Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 2:56pm.

That's over $11K each one of these 4 is going to have to come up with to reimburse TESC for what it cost them for the car? If they don't make restitution, does that negate the diverson?

Or maybe ...

Submitted by Christian_Hill on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 3:05pm.

.. you could have read the front page of the June 5 edition of The Olympian. It's there. The wire service picks up its stories on a regular basis and often member newspapers run them several days later. The News-Tribune ran The Olympian story.

Link

Submitted by jlw on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 3:23pm.

Here's the story in the O.

Thanks

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 3:35pm.

Yes, the Tribune story was from the Olympian.

Oops

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 7:38pm.

I must have missed it. I guess I need to glance at the Olympian page more often or buy more than just the Sunday edition. I'm a baaad customer.

Diversion

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 06/09/2008 - 3:09pm.

I think it's a year long program, most likely you have to have a payment or community service plan set up, and yes if you default it negates the Diversion.

costly prank

Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:01pm.

reap what you sow

If you are stupid enough to flip a cruiser then you deserve what you get =)

They are lucky to be able to work the fine off this way-

It wasn't just a prank

Submitted by rainy gray on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:37pm.

I don't think it was a smart thing to do, and it was certainly a costly act, but I do believe that the crowd of young people were genuinely angry about perceived racism. To them, it was about social justice, and to dismiss what occurred as a "prank" is to avoid acknowledging that there are a lot of very angry young adults out there. And, like all young adults, they use bad judgment.

no, it isn't avoidance at all...

Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:50pm.

...#1 it is my opinion, and #2, it is a wake-up-call for folks of all ages to realize that violence is not acceptable.

I also don't "buy" into your take that all "young adults" make bad decisions...

...I was a student in residence at TESC during the 90-91 (the 1st Gulf War), and we were all really upset with the war, but we didn't flip any cars...

You may think that it was about "social justice", but that is an assumption, so I appreciate your opinion, I just don't agree-

-I don't assume to understand anything about a group that would flip a cop car...to me it is stupid, stupid, stupid.

My take: you want justice, hire a lawyer and sue-

Take the arrest peacefully, and then turn around and sue for violation of rights (or whatever)...

...I'm no lawyer, so I'm not sure what the best course of action would be, but I don't support violence in my community.

Sure seems like avoidance to

Submitted by rainy gray on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:51pm.

Sure seems like avoidance to me.

you say avoidance...

Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:35pm.

...I say accountability.

Regardless of the motivation, at least we can agree that being able to pay-off the fine with community service is better than rotting in jail =)

I think you missed my point.

Submitted by rainy gray on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 3:22pm.

I think you missed my point. Angry young people are angry for a reason, and dismissing their destructive acts as pranks is a lot easier than acknowledging the truth. Maybe one of the things they're angry about is the lack of accountability in the adult world.

The Truth is that they're

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 3:54pm.

The Truth is that they're "angry" just for the sake of being angry. Their griefs are nothing but bull and an excuse for them to act out. They've been raised to believe they are entitled to whatever they want and that a loud enough tantrum will get them their way.

The Truth?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 4:02pm.

I've never been that confident.

There's a lot of assumptions being made on this thread, and maybe even some projection too.

That's not the turth, it's an opinion

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 4:07pm.

I think we all agree to one truth...they are angry. The reason for that anger is a matter of speculation...and not particularly objective speculation at that. Everyone has a right to their own opinion here, but not their own truth.

Yes, all those White College

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 4:10pm.

Yes, all those White College Students have lived a life of Oppression from The Man - never able to get a fair shake in life due to Societal Racism. Their frustration at being held down for so long finally boiled over

That's what the fight was supposed to be about, wasn't it?

I'm trying to understand,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 4:22pm.

Why it has to be one or the other.

It seems like what you're saying is either they're privileged spoiled brats (which some of them are I'm sure) or they've suffered through lifelong oppression (again, which some of them probably have). Not some combination of both, or neither.

I can't tell lately how high up on the sarcasm meter your comments are, but if you're serious, I think you're making a pretty O'Reillyian argument, it just doesn't leave much room for a conversation.

That's all for me, good day sir.

I don't know why they are angry.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 4:31pm.

I just know they are.

Maybe the pepper spraying, baton use

Submitted by Mike on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 6:52am.

and all that stuff at the Port in November continues to simmer and power a sense that the police have switched from enforcing the law sensibly and respecting civil rights to delivering punishment to folks whose politics are to the left of the politics of the police force?

They felt they were

Submitted by rainy gray on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 5:48pm.

They felt they were witnessing racial discrimination by the cops. I don't doubt that they believed they were striking back against injustice -- although I do believe their means were ineffective, and they were fueled by anger and alcohol, with a striking absence of common sense. To dismiss it as a prank is a very superficial and erroneous analysis. As for hiring a lawyer instead of overturning a police car -- the sad truth is that both methods are probably equally ineffective. I don't know if you've noticed, but Republican presidents have been busily appointing judges for the past few decades, and there's not much social justice happening in the justice system these days.

About that racial discrimination thing

Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 6:45pm.

Those who initially escalated the situation were wrong about that, but then again, to quote Bart Simpson: "Sorry Mom, the Mob has spoken."

Were they wrong?

Submitted by rainy gray on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 6:57pm.

What's your source?

Are you implying the white woman who detained

Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 7:16pm.

a suspect is a racist?

That was quite a flight

Submitted by rainy gray on Wed, 06/11/2008 - 7:13am.

From my asking your source to your asking if I'm implying someone was a racist.

You didn't answer my question. And to answer yours: No, I am certainly not implying that, although I am not assuming her actions were without racial bias, either. I am not a bit interested in debating whether racism actually occurred or not, but I do think the perception of racism has a great deal of bearing on this incident.

Racial Bias vs Racism?

Submitted by Laurian on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 9:43am.

Care to explain the difference?

But to your question. If you go back and read the accounts of the incident that sparked the Stupidity any racsim was on the part of the security staff that sponcered the event. There was some dope smoking. The security made a ham handed intervention and when the TESC officer arrived they pointed out the Black Guy. The officer acted on the limited and wrong information given her. So if there was any racial element it was on the part of the event organizers, not the police.

In retrospect I admit you are right about there being a racial bias, just wrong about who displayed that bias.

Earth to Laurian

Submitted by rainy gray on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 11:01am.

You're trying to argue with me about things I never stated an opinion on. My point was that some of the participants in the "riot" believed that racism (or racial bias -- I am not making fine distinctions here) occurred. Whether it actually did or not is a bigger question than I want to examine at the moment. I believe I was clear about this.

Even when you "admit [I am] right about there being a racial bias," you are wrong, because I never asserted that there was racial bias. My assertion, plain and simple, is that the mob believed that the cops were behaving in a racist manner at the time their behavior got out of hand. I don't believe they were just engaging in a "prank," as Chad said.

You're reading way more into what I'm saying than is there. Perhaps you're a little manic?

n/t

Submitted by Laurian on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 6:24pm.

n/t

OK, seriously...

Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 6:23pm.

...you are implying that I'm not comprehending something or not acknowledging "the truth", but just because I'm not vocalizing that position or agreeing with you does not mean that I'm unable to discern, comprehend, or acknowledge the ever so elusive value we call truth.

While I'm certain I could agree with you about some abstract definition of truth, I'm not following your line-of-thought at all-

-seems to me that you are portraying "young people" as either being so foolish or short-sighted so as to flip cop cars or "angry for a reason" over "accountability": I disagree with both assumptions / characterizations.

>I'm confused, but that is OK<

Please don't assume I missed your point, that implies I'm ignorant...

I just don't agree with you =)

it'll always be impossible for me to understand someone

Submitted by DSnyder on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 3:00pm.

who, in the context of a war that destroys an entire country, would call an overturned cop car an act of violence.

So, based on what you're

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 3:56pm.

So, based on what you're saying, if someone's mugged downtown it's not violent when put in the context of the war?

Violence is violence - and just because there's a bigger BOOM elsewhere doesn't mean a violent act has not bearing.

clearly that's not what i was saying.

Submitted by DSnyder on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 4:10pm.

chad's comment said, in effect, that he and his classmates were upset about the first Iraq war, but never would have considered overturning a cop car in response because it would be a violent act.

i wasn't talking about the dead prez flipping.

that's the context i'm talking about -- i'm not trying to put all acts of violence in some hierarchy.

I don't think it really

Submitted by wilson on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 4:26pm.

I don't think it really matters if they are angry, oppressed, good kids, bad kids. Car was flipped....suspects arrested.....suspects charged.....punishment doled out. Who cares about the reasons or what kind of people they are. It just doesn't matter.

Understanding the reasons for certain behavior

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 4:37pm.

is a very effective way to prevent or mitigate it. It matters quite a bit to people who aren't only interested in the law and order ballance sheet. For instance there are very effective programs for young offenders that directly address the destructive family and social relationships of the offender. Unless someone wondered "why" such a program would never have been developed and we'd just be buying more prison space.

I understand what you are

Submitted by wilson on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 7:02pm.

I understand what you are saying. What I am trying to say is the act was committed, under the law people are being punished, it doesn't matter what the motivation was or is at this point. If it did matter every criminal case would end up in endless debate.

Lemme stir up the pot

Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 4:52pm.

Violence is physical, emotional or verbal abuse inflicted on another human. By my admittedly incomplete definition flipping over a cop car is not violence. It is property destruction, not violence.

I suppose property damage that denies a person food or shelter or is intended to intimidate should be defined as violence as well but destroying a cop car or a bank window doesn't fit my definition.

Like S6, I'm interested in getting feedback on my opinion. Play Ball!

where do you draw the line really?

Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 6:38pm.

In the future, what happens when you destroy my robot? No biggie?

What matter has "rights" to exist when it comes to destruction & ruin? Only life forms?

I disagree that flipping a cop car is not a violent act, but I'd agree to call it a violent act of property destruction.

...but don't even get me started on Marxist geography (ala "Mike Davis") on the structural violence inherent in our system =)

In the future, what happens when you destroy my robot?

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Thu, 06/12/2008 - 12:11am.

That made me giggle. Maybe if you're rich you could have an android.

Feedback, served fresh:

Submitted by samdunkirk on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 7:57pm.

Using your reasoning, English-speakers would never discuss violent tornadoes that destroy farmhouses, since they're not people. Historians also couldn't ever have recorded a violent overthrow of a government, and scientists would never witness a violent chemical reaction were they living in Laurian-language-land. Fine to have controversial or even provably wrong opinions--and the notion that busting up some cop cars and smashing bank windows (even if they're not "local" as I have been helpfully informed by the posters all over the vacants on 4th) isn't a form of violence seems to me to be controversial at a minimum and just nonsense as a baseline. The word has been in our lexicon since the mid-thirteenth century, and as you acknowledge your definition to be admittedly incomplete, hard for me to see how your logic can withstand even a cursory glance, let alone a hard look.

Definition for Laurian

Submitted by JT on Tue, 06/10/2008 - 8:06pm.

Violence--behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill.

"A dog is not 'almost human', and I know of no greater insult to the canine race than to describe it as such." - John Holmes

itchyhitch.blogspot.com

If I trashed a cop car

Submitted by hazzardus waste on Thu, 06/12/2008 - 6:54pm.

I would never in my life ever get that cake deal. why can't anyone realize the class-ism in this. eat the rich the poor are skinny

They were first-timers, and

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 1:12am.

They were first-timers, and this by no means is going to be cheap for them.

While I disagree that this is "classism", I agree that these participants definitely weren't any "oppressed minority" which was supposed to have been "justification" for their actions that night.

Where did you get that?

Submitted by rainy gray on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 7:19am.

Who in the world was suggesting these participants were an oppressed minority? You use a lot of quote marks. Where are you quoting from? Who said ANYTHING like that?

Apparently you weren't

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 8:03am.

Apparently you weren't around the online discussions immediately after the event took place. As for my quotes, you know full well I'm using them to express sarcasm or disagreement with others' usage of the terms in regards to the incident.

Actually, I was

Submitted by rainy gray on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 12:01pm.

I remember people saying the black guy who was arrested was being treated unfairly. I remember people saying the police used excessive force. But I don't remember anyone suggesting that the arrested, rioting students were oppressed.

Yup...

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 12:27pm.

Usually oppression comes up because critics toss in a sarcastic "Oh, they're so oppressed" remark. More fuel on the fire I suppose. But I can't remember who said what anymore. It's all a blur.

I'm just saying

Submitted by hazzardus waste on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 3:39pm.

disregarding the generalizations. compared to others rich evergreen students are getting a great deal if their folks can pay the 15000 for out of state tuition then 11ooo each is nothing. AND if I were to trash a cop car without any criminal record, I know I would do some time in probably prison and have a felony record. I'm saying all things the same but the student part. how about if the car campers by the treatment plant were to trash a cop car? there is no equal protection under the law and I still say this is classism and very unfair and really shows how lopsided the system is. eat the rich the poor are skinny

Prove it

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 4:30pm.

What is your evidence that if you trashed a cop car under similar or identical circumstances that you would face different treatment? What firm evidence do you have for this? Please cite.

Prove it?

Submitted by rainy gray on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 4:50pm.

It's obviously an opinion. Why should he/she have to prove it? It's clearly speculation, and what's wrong with that? Quite possibly, his/her belief that he/she wouldn't be treated with leniency prevents him/her from participating in protests. Are you trying to incite violence and property damage here, SS?

Dude.

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 06/14/2008 - 6:04pm.

I can prove that in just two words: "Public Pretender"

It's what poor people get for defense. Meanwhile the rich hire lawyers who mesmerize judges with their little courtroom dances.

The Canaanite's Call

REALITY

Submitted by hazzardus waste on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 4:57pm.

the reality of the situation is you know they got a sweet deal. Evidence are you insane? firm evidence? I would say that you should check crime statistics to see what people get for rioting and trashing a cop car. For proving it my self you know thats impossible. I'm sorry that I can't backlog my arguments with reams of data and hard copy from other sources. And in all reality I'm stating my opinion, which I still feel is valid and truthful. If you can't face the reality that we live in an unequal system and that just-us is not blind. You are living in a dream world. Just like movie stars doing 12 hours on a two week sentence for drunk driving or that Kennedy brat getting out of the charge of heroin possession at New York airport and not getting any charges when the laws at the time were giving even up to twenty years to life to inner city folks just for simple possession. these are privileged college students paying big money and unfortunately politics come into play. I think the message the just-us system is promoting is both to firm up the system while also showing the parents that they wont really ruin there kids lives. at the same time what would Olympia do with no Evergreen ? Big money can't really scare off the students now can you? Now as to facts this is my opinion, but in no way does it negate the FACT that they got a cake walk and the system is skewed toward the privileged in our society. And I know you like to argue and be contrary but face reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THEY GOT A CAKE WALK. eat the rich the poor are skinny

I think

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 5:12pm.

They got a very generous break, and I think it was very decent of the Sheriff and prosecutor to give them that break.

Believe it or not, there is a mode of thought that suggests young people under influence of a mob do stupid things they would not otherwise do. Cutting them some slack punishes them for their errors, but ensures their lives are not ruined.

You noticed I'm sure the "diverson" program they were placed into? That is a growing trend to deal with first time offenders who have otherwise clean records and probably won't reoffend.

It's a win win for society.

Income or social level had nothing to do with it.

I have taken on government at several levels and have always prevailed, be it dealing witht the Port of San Diego over their harassment of anchored out boaters, or the City of Olympia and their issues with how I wear my revolver.

And I don't make a lot of money.

It's all in how you carry yourself and how you believe in yourself. Put yourself in the persecuted class, you will be persecuted.

Rise above the mess and the rhetoric and the jingoism that people with no firm ground fall back to and you will stand a better chance than some barefoot stoner mumbling about "the man".

You'll probably get more respect too.

Prove it!

Submitted by rainy gray on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 5:17pm.

"It's all in how you carry yourself and how you believe in yourself. Put yourself in the persecuted class, you will be persecuted." Can you prove that? Where's your hard evidence? Can you cite some statistics? I think it's all in how you carry your wallet to your attorney's office, myself, but that's just an opinion.

+1

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 5:32pm.

n/t

?

Submitted by hazzardus waste on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 5:35pm.

What does +1 and n/t mean? I don't know all the fancy internet code, can some one elucidate me? eat the rich the poor are skinny

S6 keeps track of how many jumbo squid

Submitted by Guglielmo on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 6:14pm.

he spears each evening. The more beers, the more squid!

I believe...

Submitted by chad360 on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 6:21pm.

...that +1 is a d&d joke (I guess), and n/t = "no text"

It means

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 6:36pm.

+1 is in reference to such a good point the person scored a point on me. Generally discouraged on OB IIRC.

n/t means no text, since something has to go into the body of the message.

I'm done arguing with you S6

Submitted by hazzardus waste on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 5:22pm.

And in reality I feel most Olybloggers also fail to see the real issues on a lot of the posts here It's not just you or me that are hindered by our prejudice's and ideology. Also I'm currently wearing shoes. eat the rich the poor are skinny

Never said

Submitted by security_six on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 5:33pm.

You were a barefoot stoner. Threw it out as a stereotype.

Don't go!

Submitted by rainy gray on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 6:26pm.

Please don't leave us, haz, I enjoy reading your posts and hearing a different point of view.

I'm not.

Submitted by hazzardus waste on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 8:00pm.

I will just try to stay out of stupid arguments with bullheaded people. I like what OB is trying to do as a forum for folks, sometimes I get frustrated though. eat the rich the poor are skinny

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media.

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. 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: