Home › Blogs › Berd's blog

Not Guilty

Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:37am — Berd

At arraignment in City of Olympia municipal court this morning, Scott Yoos (pronounced "Yoh s"—like "mos" in "most"), pleaded not guilty to two charges, one of trespassing and one of obstruction (of justice—I think of justice, but am not sure if that's the actual charge.) Next date is pre-trial 8am on the 1st of August.

Below is a photo of a rally to support Scott prior to the City Council meeting last night. Over thirty people spoke in support of Scott, and to call for changes. Public comment lasted about an hour and a half at the beginning of the meeting.

Great Turn-out for City Council Meeting to Support Scott
It was last week. Around midnight. Scott was on his way home after volunteering at the Olympia Film Society. He stopped to use a publicly accessible dumpster. Almost instantly he was confronted by a police officer. I don't know exactly what ensued. But Scott was roughed up, hauled to jail, and is now being charged with crimes. Apparently the City is actually prosecuting.

I disagree with the use of police resources to guard dumpsters.

Maybe what we need is a pro-dumpster-access ordinance, or initiative.

I think that the police need to focus their resources on enforcing against other stuff—like aggressive driving, speeding, and violent crimes.

Guarding dumpsters should be at the lowest end of the enforcement priority. If on-duty police officers don't have anything better to do, then there ought to be fewer officers on shift.

No one should be tackled for using a dumpster, period. No one should be prosecuted. At a time when there aren't dignified and meaningful jobs for everyone who wants one, it is a misuse of resources to guard dumpsters and prosecute their users!

Those are my thoughts!

Lots of people testified at the City Council Meeting tonight. It was a big turn-out with a lot of supporters for Scott.

Lastly I want to add some thoughts about society, impairment, disability, and justice.

We live in a harmful society. A society that causes impairment. We live in a society where there is the operation of longstanding patterns of privilege and oppression. These patterns cause harm, in ways direct and indirect.

When people can no longer function normally in our society, due to impairment, then they are considered disabled, and 9 times out of 10 further discriminated against. That's why we need disability justice. And that's why we need to put an end to aspects of our society that are prone to causing impairment.

Scott has disabilities. He is mute. He suffers with effects from traumatic brain injury.

And he deserves to be treated well, and gently. Not roughed up when he is frustrated due to lack of ability to communicate.

Anyone who knows Scott knows how harmless he is. I have been friends with Scott for many years, and I have never known him to have a harmful intention.

Comments

Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:20pm — wilson

Berd   Do you have a copy of

Berd

  Do you have a copy of the police report that you could post?

Wed, 06/08/2011 - 6:11pm — ogive

I know Scott and he can be

I know Scott and he can be violent at times. When Scott is violent, he is very capable of causing injury to whomever he is acting out against. Also, Scott's disability does not prevent him from knowing right from wrong.
Sat, 06/11/2011 - 8:36pm — Sandy M

Atten Site Moderators -- Please remove!

I just noticed this thread.  I missed it before because the title didn't give much indication of its subject. 

I am amazed that this incredibly defamatory comment by ogive has remained intact for 3 days now.  How is it OK for someone to anonymously declare that a specific individual in our community is "violent at times" without offering a shred of evidence to support such a statement. 

Scott is very well known in this community and I know a lot of people who know him.  This accusation by this alleged acquaintance is the first I have heard of any violence by Scott.

Please remove ogive's comment! (and my response as well)

Thank you.

Sat, 06/11/2011 - 8:57pm — Sarah

conversation

Click on ogive's handle, that takes you to his profile which gives full name and employment.

I know Scott and he can be violent at times. When Scott is violent, he is very capable of causing injury to whomever he is acting out against. Also, Scott's disability does not prevent him from knowing right from wrong.

Personally I'm fine with ogive/John Tupper posting this. I hear it as part of the conversation, along with other views that say Scott would never harm anyone.

(I'm not a mod but I do help out at times)

 

Sat, 06/11/2011 - 9:43pm — Sandy M

Okay, but to clarify ...

As Thad said to me in a PM, only "authenticated users" can click on ogive's handle and learn that he is John Tupper, an Olympia Police Officer. 

I think it's an important piece of information about his vantage point in this scenario. It's deceptive for him to simply say "I know Scott" right along with others commenting on Scott's character -- as if he knows Scott socially, or through volunteer work at the Co-op or the Film Society, etc.

And I do think his comment is defamatory, but I appreciate your response.

Sat, 06/11/2011 - 10:12pm — Thad Curtz

What else I said

Personally, I don't think we ought to remove this comment. It's polite. It's about a controversial public issue. A lot of people have broadcast their conviction that Scott couldn't have acted out physically with the cops in this situation because they've never known him to be aggressive, but I don't think that's incompatible with someone saying the contrary.

This also isn't exactly the "anonymous" post you accuse it of being (though I'd actually feel the same way if it were anonymous). ogive's identity is publicly available to any authenticated user who clicks on his username on the post and looks at the personal information he posted on his account page - it's John Tupper, who is (or was until recently) the head of the Olympia Police Guild. (So he certainly has a possible reason for saying this, but it also seems perfectly possible that he does have some other personal experience with Scott and that he's telling the truth about that.) 

In short, I personally think that in this situation the remedy for this speech that you don't like ought to be more speech, not our refusing to let this person disagree politely with Berd's statement that "Anyone who knows Scott knows how harmless he is.".

Rick may disagree, or my fellow moderators may...

Brief further remarks -

Anybody who has an account is an "authenticated user", so it's not a small ingroup with special access to restricted information.

I have no idea what Scott Yoos did or didn't do in this incident, especially since I haven't seen the entire police report and since Scott hasn't given a public account of events.

The statement isn't "defamatory" if it's true (at least not if Sandy means that in the legal sense and not just as a way of saying that it's a unkind remark about Scott Yoos.)

ogive says he knows Scott; as I read Sandy's first post, she knows a lot of people who know him rather than knowing him herself, and her convictions about what Scott might or might not do are based on what they've said about him.

People are complicated; I certainly think that I've done some things at moments in my life that many people who know me would not have thought I'd ever do. (In fact, a few of them were things that the person who knows me best - me - wouldn't have thought I'd ever do until I did them...)

—

Best,
Thad

Sun, 06/12/2011 - 12:45am — Sandy M

Thanks for these comments, Thad.

Apparently my understanding of the degree of anonymity of "ogive"'s post was in error.  You certainly have a much better sense than I do about what percentage of Olyblog readers actually have accounts.

To clarify: I have known Scott Yoos personally for several years and consider him a friend.  The reason I mentioned the many people I know who also know Scott was just a way of pointing out that if he had a history of violence, I would have had ample opportunity to hear about it. 

I do not claim to know exactly what Scott did or didn't do in this incident. I don't have any "convictions" to that effect and never said I did.  I'm not sure any of the people speaking in support of Scott have made that claim, including Berd.  So I don't think that can be offered as a basis for why ogive's comment was okay.

I consider ogive's (Officer Tupper's) statement "defamatory" because he made an extremely serious, unsubstantiated allegation.  Most of the people speaking in support of Scott's character have at least cited the context in which they have known him. 

People are indeed complicated which is why I would never claim to know what any individual is or is not capable of.  But I do think that making a public statement of fact that someone has a history of violence warrants  substantiation and qualification.

In that sense, perhaps Thad is correct in saying that the remedy here is more speech.

Sun, 06/12/2011 - 1:10am — Berd

Specifics.

Thanks for jumping into the fray here, Sandy.

I am deeply disturbed by the behavior of the OPD, which seems to be engaging in selective enforcement and targeting of certain people and groups (one example is bicyclists.)

Without even exploring background on the user name "ogive," who happens to be Officer John Tupper, someone with much history on this blog (Tupper used to post under a different user name, and maybe was banned for personal attacks, or was close to it.) Tupper also was a president of the Police Guild (after demonstrating certain behaviors on this blog.)

All that aside (although it is important information for everyone to consider,) I would like to know specifics about Tupper's interactions with our friend Scott. When, and where, under what circumstances, exactly what behavior is considered "violent."

Also, on a separate but related topic: I would like to know if the person who posts under user name "Wilson" is none other than the OPD police officer Bill Wilson. Is it possible? I have long suspected this might be the case.

—

Sun, 06/12/2011 - 7:52am — Thad Curtz

Ummm...

It seems to me that these comments about Officer Tupper are at least as subject to Sandy's and your objections as the comment that she complained about. "Maybe" he was banned? Or he was "close to it"? He demonstrated "certain behaviors" on the blog?

With all due respect, since you are complaining about a lack of specific evidence in ogive's remarks, it seems to me as if you ought to be following the same standard. And play the ball, not the player.

—

Best,
Thad

Sun, 06/12/2011 - 1:59am — Berd

ogive=jt

Jogging my memory, I recalled that Officer Tupper's former user account is JT http://olyblog.net/blog/jt and before that, OlyCop http://olyblog.net/user/olycop

Based on past activity, it seems that Officer Tupper very well may have a political ideology influenced by heavy doses of FOX "News".

(Aside: I don't like the influence of FOXNews on society, and I don't like the idea that Police Officers are influenced by the very harmful media ideology of FOXNews.)

—

Sun, 06/12/2011 - 7:46am — Thad Curtz

Please Play the Ball, Not the Player

P. S. Many people are politically conservative for the same reasons that you're liberal - conservative political ideas make sense to them because of their personal history, their character structure, their values, etc. (The notion that somebody who doesn't happen to agree with you politically "very well may" be that way because of FOX news doesn't seem to me like a very useful way to try to understand the world...)

—

Best,
Thad

Sun, 06/12/2011 - 10:47am — Rick

I'm entirely with Thad on this...

I'd just like to add that if there's something on OlyBlog that you find objectionable or inaccurate, you'll get a lot further (and waste a lot less of everyone's time) if you try to provide what you believe to be a more balanced perspective rather than trying to get us to take it down. Contributing more to the conversation is almost always going to be the better approach. That being said, we will take stuff down according to the comment policy.
—

Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 8:01pm — Sarah

Olympian coverage

Olympia police release report of mute man's arrest

Includes some police report

Thu, 06/09/2011 - 2:58pm — Berd

Police Targeting Activists

Scott was roughed up for attempting to use a dumpster. Hopefully we can find a silver lining in this cloud of violence, hopefully this tragic event will give the greater community an opportunity to enter into a serious discussion of police priorities and police accountability.

No one deserves to be roughed up by police for using a dumpster.

Also, I wish that cops would stop harassing activists.

—

Thu, 06/09/2011 - 4:21pm — Sarah

another possibility

Maybe there is another way to look at this. I wasn't present and I've not read the full police report. My focus is on how we can all teach each other to stay safe when stopped for questioning:

IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
Stay calm. Don't run. Don't argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.

source

Was Scott violating a trespass order by being where he was? Did he keep trying to leave when told not to? Did he make the situation bigger than it needed to be?

My idea is that even in the face of perceived unfairness we all need to know how to conduct ourselves when stopped by the police. 

Thu, 06/09/2011 - 4:40pm — Laurian

I think the trespass order

is the key to this case.

Thu, 06/09/2011 - 4:26pm — Sarah

sometimes cops harass activists....

..... and sometimes activists aren't perfect. I hope we activists don't think we get a pass just because we care about social justice. 

 

Thu, 06/09/2011 - 4:37pm — ogive

Also, FWIW.....if Scott did

Also, FWIW.....if Scott did throw trash in a dumpster of a business, he likely committed the crime of "theft of services". If you don't have permission to use a dumpster and you choose to use it, even with good intentions, you expose yourself to criminal sanctions.
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 11:07am — Phil Owen

Cigarette butts

I regularly use residential and commercial bins to toss my extinguished cigarette butts while I'm out walking.  Maybe this is against the law, but the behavior strikes as more courteous than criminal.  I'd expect an officer to show good judgement in enforcing the law, and I'd expect a lot of people to be really angry if I got thrown to the pavement for showing common courtesy.

—
Bread & Roses
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 11:01am — Phil Owen

Scott was a live-in volunteer

Scott was a live-in volunteer at Bread & Roses in the 1990's.  I've met him a number of times, including an interview with him to gather history for B&R.  While I don't know him well, my impression inclines me to agree with Scott's friends and supporters; I have a hard time imagining him being aggressive or violent.

I am beginning to think that Bread & Roses should officially weigh in on this issue.  If the allegations of Scott's supporters are true, and he was attacked by an officer without provocation and for merely throwing away a napkin, then this represents an affront to Bread & Roses as Scott is one of our own.

I am not unwilling to believe that the opposite is true, however.  As mentioned, I don't know Scott well, and B&R certainly has some colorful characters in our history.  I am missing Scott's contact info, so I haven't asked him personally, and at this point I don't have enough information to take a clear side.

John: Would you be willing to be a little more specific?  You stated that Scott has been violent before.  I don't think you are lying (or that you are likely to be dishonest, generally), but my B.S. meter is spiking here and I have a suspiction that you may have exaggerated or possibly passed along a bit of gossip.  Please offer some details.

—
Bread & Roses
Mon, 06/13/2011 - 10:49am — Thad Curtz

Clarification

As I understand it from the pieces of the police report in The Olympian's summary "he was attacked by an officer without provocation and for merely thropwing away a napkin" is not really in touch with the report's account of events. It says that his attempting to leave three times when the police said he shouldn't (and then stopped him from leaving) was what eventually led to the physical interaction people are upset about.

—

Best,
Thad

Sun, 06/12/2011 - 1:48pm — JstPlnOnry

If He Wasn't Doing Anything Wrong...

Why did he keep trying to run? And why was he so confrontational with the officer(s) from the start? Given the lack of respect some citizen show our law enforcement, it's no wonder it's come to an "every man for himself & may the best man win" mentality. Common sense should have prevailed here & this man should have listened to the law enforcement officers directives instead of being so combative & above the law. As for OGive posting his opinion here, he has as much right to speak on behalf of his fellow officers & profession as the offenders friends do. There should be no deleting of comments.
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 3:10pm — ogive

Not dishonest "generally"?!

Not dishonest "generally"?! Really? A left handed slap that is tantamount to a personal attack, and you want me to engage in conversation now?
Sun, 06/12/2011 - 10:08pm — Sandy M

Video of Scott calmly dealing with physical police contact

Begins at exactly 1.0 on time stamp. Scott is wearing a red shirt, vest, and cap, and has with him his beloved companion, the late Tova de Wagster.  It only lasts for a few seconds.  A police officer keeps his hand on Scott's back, nudging him along for considerable distance without the slightest evidence of attitude or resistance from Scott.

(Sorry -- I can't figure out how to reduce size of video image.)

Mon, 06/13/2011 - 7:14am — Sarah

Yes

In this video I see Scott moving along as directed.
Mon, 06/13/2011 - 9:04am — Sarah

bowing out

I didn't mean to sound insensitive in my comments here, I apologize. I wish Scott and everyone involved well.