Read on Twitter
Three reports on @SeattlePD's use of force against protests are in—115 pages of deep scrutiny. I read them all. While their recommendation that 'less-lethal' weapons be allowed in some situations makes the headline, reporting by @stimesmcarter here omits some major points. (1/12) https://twitter.com/DBeekman/status/1294487462736064512
The reports identify numerous deficiencies in @SeattlePD policies and express concerns about SPD’s conduct. To start: Neither OPA nor CPC reverse their earlier support of a ban on tear gas used for crowd control. OIG suggests a limited authorization. (2/12) https://seattlecpc.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/accountability-mass-demonstration-memorandum-060520.pdf
CPC goes the furthest, pointing to SPD’s flaunting of the city ban on tear gas and their choice to use such a harmful, indiscriminate substance without “any strategic need” as evidence that a broad-brush prohibition on crowd control weapons remains necessary. (3/12)
OPA & OIG admonish SPD for failing to clearly issue dispersal orders to protestors, and ask for “better communication” using a mobile PA, sound truck, or visual display board. I can vouch for this being a frequent problem. (4/12) https://twitter.com/sydbrownstone/status/1268420907480969216
CPC raises concerns over Mayor Durkan’s late-breaking curfew order, signed <15 mins before going into effect. It was left in place for days for unclear reasons, “effectively [making]... demonstrations illegal during key hours of a mass movement.” (5/12) https://twitter.com/cruickshank/status/1266892872873197568
OPA & OIG highlight failures by SPD leadership, finding that incident commanders sometimes deployed officers “with no clear strategy or plan” using tactics that contributed to a “toxic cycle of escalation” and “served no clear law enforcement purpose.” (6/12)
OPA, CPC, & OIG all note that SPD has shown up for a disproportionate fraction of recent BLM protests. CPC says their mass presence in riot gear was “perceived by community as an intimidation tactic.” Uneven policing remains on display in Seattle. (7/12) https://twitter.com/richsssmith/status/1293049224196526080
OIG cautions that SPD “reduces crowd status to two conditions: lawful & unlawful," suggesting a detailed matrix to classify crowd status. OPA & OIG ask that individual officers limit use of less-lethals only to protect themselves or others, not to prevent property damage. (8/12)
OIG describes “inadequate transparency and accountability” for other agencies responding to protests (e.g. KC Sheriff, WA State Patrol, Nat’l Guard), who do not follow SPD policies and have not yet submitted use-of-force reports (!) requested by SPD. (9/12) https://twitter.com/UrbanistOrg/status/1278750265689149441
Lastly, CPC points out that SPD has ignored many past recommendations regarding crowd control policies and tactics, which undermines the credibility of Seattle’s police accountability system. Without real accountability, it is fair to say the system is broken. (10/12)
The reports from the three watchdog groups can be found here, thanks to @sccinsight. (11/12)
OPA: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7036761-OPA-Response-to-Council-CCW-Ordinance-08152020.html
CPC: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7036759-CPC-Recommendatinos-on-Crowd-Control-Weapons-Ban.html
OIG: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7036760-OIG-Review-of-the-SPD-Crowd-Dispersal-Policy-and.html
OPA: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7036761-OPA-Response-to-Council-CCW-Ordinance-08152020.html
CPC: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7036759-CPC-Recommendatinos-on-Crowd-Control-Weapons-Ban.html
OIG: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7036760-OIG-Review-of-the-SPD-Crowd-Dispersal-Policy-and.html
Dear Seattle media: Hope this is useful. Please include these details in your reporting on the OPA/CPC/OIG reports. @stimesmcarter, @lewiskamb, @sydbrownstone, @DBeekman, @KromanDavid, @gramsofgnats, @ericacbarnett, @faruq_kiefer, @jseattle, @UrbanistOrg, @spekulation (12/12)
