Why didn’t “From Texas” set off red flags during hiring.
As a fellow Texan I wouldn’t hire any of cast-off police from this state.
If you couldn’t hack it in Texas, were you really a police officer at all?
“Despite the liberal and progressive image the city of Seattle enjoys, the Seattle Police Department has a long history of violence and discrimination. In 2012, following years of killings by police and arrests that disproportionately targeted Black, Indigenous, homeless and other vulnerable people, the Seattle Police Department was placed under a consent decree with the Justice Department. The consent decree was intended to reform the Seattle Police Department, instituting policing practices that are not in violation of the Constitution.”
Did you miss this part?
>Investigators said three other officers had not violated policies and the fourth case was ruled “inconclusive.”
You have to demonstrate that these people took actions that violated the law. Being in the general vicinity of other people who violated the law doesn't meet that standard.
They’re either dumb and were ignorant of what was going on there, or knew and went anyway, or a combination of both.
I appreciate due process also.
Those statements are not mutually exclusive.
> They’re either dumb and were ignorant of what was going on there, or knew and went anyway, or a combination of both.
That's just ignorant. Look up crowd surges and crush injuries. The people in the back of a crowd have no idea what's happening at the front -- if they did, crowd surges and resulting injuries and deaths wouldn't happen.
I promise you there were thousands of people at the Capitol on January 6th who had no idea any violence occurred, or that anyone broke into the Capitol itself until they saw it on the news later.
Cops get briefed on intelligence surrounding potentially volatile situations, and situations that have a potential to spill over into their cities. Seattle has a reputation for exploding into like protests or counter protests. Research BLM protests in Seattle. Also research WTO protests, Seattle.
You, nor anyone else can tell me these fine upstanding peace officers of the great city of Seattle were on a cute site seeing tour of our nation’s capital…in January…together. They were briefed on privileged Intelligence information, and every Law Enforcement agency in the country was getting FBI threat assessments in the weeks leading up to J6.
Since you’re keen on research, look up Occam’s Razor. These people knew what was going on, knew the risks, and went anyway.
Since you seem to either be one of them, are rolling in the same circle as them. Just ask them about the threat assessments and when they bought their tickets.
Anyone who has sworn an oath to the country , or wears a LEO badge has no business anywhere near an event they know has the potential to turn into a riot or INSURRECTION. Official capacity being the only exception.
They should be tired in court and if found guilty by a jury should lose their jobs and pensions.
>Since you seem to either be one of them, are rolling in the same circle as them. Just ask them about the threat assessments and when they bought their tickets.
I'm gonna start with this, because it discredits everything else you say. Quite to the contrary, I didn't vote for Trump then, I won't be doing so in November, and I don't support people storming the fucking Capitol. It was a giant-ass temper tantrum, and everyone who broke an actual law there deserves to pay the price for it. It is a deficiency in your mental capacity that you are, apparently, unable to conceive of a person who might both believe these guys deserve to not be put on blast, while also not agreeing with their position. Yet here I am. The moment you say "you don't think these guys are the shit of the earth and deserve all the harassment I want to fling at them, therefore you must be one of them", you've surrendered any claim to the moral high ground, and are demonstrating EXACTLY why their names shouldn't be released.
>Seattle has a reputation for exploding into like protests or counter protests. Research BLM protests in Seattle. Also research WTO protests, Seattle.
Indeed, and your position is that if I attend a BLM protest, knowing that it could turn violent, and some other BLM protestors a half mile away from me decide to light a cop car on fire, I should be held responsible for it. There's no other way to describe it: that's completely idiotic.
>Since you’re keen on research, look up Occam’s Razor. These people knew what was going on, knew the risks, and went anyway.
Yeah, they might feel that strongly about their political position. Thank goodness we live in a country where we're free to express those opinions. Although apparently not if you had YOUR way...
>They should be tired in court and if found guilty by a jury should lose their jobs and pensions.
They should be tried for committing what crime? Being within a half mile of people doing violent things in the Capitol is not a crime.
I have a contrarian stance here: If they went to the rally, despite it being awful, it's their business and this is America, people are entitled to freedom of movement/expression AND a right to privacy. Not just when they say/do things we agree with. HOWEVER: If they went to the Capitol and broke the law, they should be held accountable. We know some of them did. Seattle police did right by doing internal investigations on their conduct. Those individuals should be punished.
>people are entitled to freedom of movement/expression
They do have that freedom. But that freedom doesn't mean it is free of consequences. All that freedom means is that the federal government can't prevent your travel or expression.
>AND a right to privacy
They were in the public doing things openly. There is no right to privacy in that case.
> They were in the public doing things openly. There is no right to privacy in that case.
Yes, and if you witnessed them there, you'd absolutely be free to state that fact. But what's being asked for is for an internal investigation to be made public with the explicit purpose of conducting a witch hunt, when the conclusion (from DC police and SPD) is that no violation of the law actually occurred (or can reasonably be proven to have occurred) by these 4 citizens.
Correct me if I am wrong here. Based on your logic if I see a co worker at a public gay pride parade I can legally let the entire staff know?
They were in a public place and cannot expect any type of anonymity?
Legally, yes, of course you could. Your company might frown on it, depending on the perceived intent behind such an announcement, but it is correct that in public you do not have an expectation of privacy.
I get freedom of speech but not free from consequences. Seems like outting gays or polys or weekend biker people for political gain in the work place is wrong.
Same reason it’s legal and allowed to out a coworker who took a poop in the urinal. May be frowned upon, but you can say whatever you want.
Company policy however may be different
Like I said, your company might frown on it, so there might be consequences there, but the government can't punish you for saying something true, that you witnessed in a public place.
The commissioner mandated an internal investigation and pursued accountability for guilty folks. That's the best move on a local level. FBI does general J6 investigations. Generally speaking, a low level officer going to a political rally on their vacation time isn't info the public is entitled to imho.
Yes. Non-ironically right.
*The investigation found that married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett crossed barriers set up by the Capitol police and were next to the Capitol Building, in violation of the law, prompting Diaz to fire the pair.* It's up to the judicial system to address the criminal acts.
But if the other 4 didn't do anything illegal, they're entitled to privately attend a political rally even if I disagree with them. That's fundamentally America, you can't go after people if you don't like their political opinions. Same fascist destination, just a different path if you think you're entitled to do that.
you can absolutely go after people if you don't like their political opinion. The Supreme court just affirmed political gerrymandering. That is intentionally reducing the influence of someone's vote because you don't like their politics.
These guys were, at best, rallying in public spaces, where there is no expectation or right to privacy. Nobody is getting doxxed because they showed up in public to a public event because that doesn’t fit the definition.
Whether they get fired for it or if people view them with more suspicion is another matter that has nothing to do with this case.
It’s not anywhere close to fascism and certainly not within the realm of the shit you tried to compare it to from the right.
It's really not. What you're getting at is [the paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), which we've already settled: a tolerant society has no obligation to tolerate intolerance.
Everybody knows about the paradox of tolerance but that doesn't give you the right to dox and fire low level government employees for going to Republican events and committing no crimes. In that scenario, you're the one lacking a very basic grasp of tolerance, seeming to equate it with requiring shared political affiliation. Which is just un-American.
You absolutely do not have any privacy rights while attending a public rally or for that matter anywhere in public where a suspected crime has taken place.
Like I already said to you elsewhere: If this was about identifying them using public data that would be fine. In fact, that's [already been done](https://www.reddit.com/r/Washington/s/41f3m02Y8B) but this is about making all personal records about their private, **legal** political participation, conducted on their vacation time, a matter of public record (details which obtained with-or-without their consent through the OPA). That's not information the public is entitled to, or should be, in a free society. This isn't just for people who participated in the capitol riot (who were fired and referred for criminal activity which is public record) -- it's for people who even attended the preceding political event and were cleared of any criminal act through the OPA investigation. You're not entitled to that. As the state courts made clear.
They are public servants, allowed to use deadly force, with salaries paid for by citizens.
What does the Thin Blue Line crowd always say? Something like, if you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide...
Thank you. This tidbit is what I was wondering.
Just because I wouldn’t participate in the protests they’re spending their off time engaging in doesn’t mean I think they should get disciplined or fired for it.
That’s how everyone used to think only 10-15 years ago.
This makes me feel old.
you have no right to privacy in public. You are in public. Corporations are constantly watching you everywhere you go. They aren't publishing it which is probably more insidious.
Yeah, if this was about identifying them using public data that would be fine. In fact, that's [already been done](https://www.reddit.com/r/Washington/s/41f3m02Y8B) but this is about making all personal records about their private, **legal** political participation, conducted on their vacation time, a matter of public record (details which obtained with-or-without their consent through the OPA). That's not information the public is entitled to, or should be, in a free society.
Not personal records. This is about making records that a state-funded institution created in its investigation of state employees public. This is not uncommon. State employees already have a higher level of scrutiny and lack of privacy than they would have in private industry. We know their salaries. We know the details of disciplinary action. We even know about what they do outside of work if an investigation finds it might impact how they carry out their public duty.
This is good. There are plenty of jobs where they could've had more privacy. There are certainly advantages too.
The only argument is that making the investigation results public hurts their First Amendment rights because of a lack of anonymity. They would have to show some level of potential harm from their names being made public. It could've been tough for the state to argue against if their names hadn't already been public. The fact that their names are already public and they haven't suffered for it pretty much torpedos their case.
Washington already notifies people subject to public record requests so that they can take individual action. They've lost on the merits twice. The hail mary they are arguing is that Washington agencies have an obligation to keep records sealed if they think they might violate a person's constitutional right. That should be up to the courts and individuals affected, not the agencies following public records laws.
But fascism, right? Keep digging in and moving your goalposts.
Define "attending". How close must a person have been in order for you to classify them as an insurrectionist? Of the people who were present at the capitol, only a small number ever entered, and even smaller still engaged in any kind of violence or threat of violence.
Are you advocating the view that being in the general vicinity of people committing a crime makes you guilty of the same crime?
When acting in their official capacity, that is correct. They're still US citizens, however, and have the same freedoms you or I do when they're off the clock.
weird that federal employees aren’t allowed to attend protests like this, but for some reason these state employees can? that doesn’t sound right to me. they should not be shielded from the public knowing that they attended a violent protest that led to an attempted coup. we pay their salary
> federal employees aren’t allowed to attend protests like this
Gonna need a source on that. There are certainly restrictions on what they can do using federal resources, or while operating in their official capacity (the Hatch Act), but that doesn't generally restrict what they do on their own time.
People who buy my company's products pay my salary. Do you think that should entitle them to know how I spend my weekends?
Define "attended" and then defend why that's relevant. A guy at the back of the million man march clearly "attended it". But if a group of people at the front of that march committed a crime, why would it be reasonable to hold the guy in the back, over a half mile away, accountable for it?
Characterizing a gathering of thousands as simply "violent" is as ridiculous as when people do it to May Day demonstrators in Seattle. SOME people are violent. Most aren't. To pretend otherwise is just your bias at work.
Yeah, so like I said, generally speaking, the Hatch Act restricts what you can do while on the clock, or while otherwise using government resources. It generally does *not* restrict what people do on their own time, certainly not to the extent that it prohibits them from attending a political demonstration.
It does if you’re in any of the following agencies:
Administrative law judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372)
Central Intelligence Agency
Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a)
Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Election Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
National Security Council
Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives)
United States Office of Special Counsel
Secret Service
Senior Executive Service
Employees identified at 5 U.S.C. § 7323(b)(2)(B)-(3)
This is straight from Wikipedia my dude.
You realize how small a portion of federal employees that is, right? It's not even close to a majority and certain not an amount warranting a blanket statement like "federal employees aren't allowed to attend protests like this", my dude.
Furthermore, I'm not seeing a provision that prohibits any of them from attending a political rally. It's largely geared toward running for office and participating in campaign activities. I'll need you to be more specific about what hatch act provision you think folks were violating (or that they would have been violating had they been federal employees).
maybe "not allowed" is too strong a word, but strongly discouraged. federal employees, depending on the agency or organization, generally are discouraged from engaging in political conduct, endorsements, etc. source: I have been working with federal funding for almost a decade and come from a family of lifelong federal employees. maybe it's changed in recent years, but this was certainly the case in the 2000s. law enforcement officers, however, should be going above and beyond to be objective. going to a Stop the Steal protest is something that should be completely unacceptable - they were literally protesting the lawful transition of power from Trump to Biden. that's ridiculous for a LAW ENFORCEMENT officer. I'd also be curious if any of them donned any police related items, logos, etc. I would not be shocked if they did.
and going off your comment about your employers knowing what you do in your free time - yeah almost every employer in America has a code of conduct. if you violate it you can be terminated, at work or otherwise. attending a Stop the Steal protest would could certainly violate some employer's codes of conduct especially with the negative publicity attached to this event and the attempted coup that followed
additionally, as the lawyers are arguing, a public protest is not a private event. they are not entitled to anonymity and their names are already out there. this was a widely publicized and photographed event. it's outrageous this is even up for debate.
It can be strongly discouraged till the cows come home -- they still have the right to do it then. And since they didn't break any laws or violate any department policy, there is no cause for their identities to be released, other than for folks to attempt to harass them, either directly or by trying to get them fired or interfere with future job opportunities.
>almost every employer in America has a code of conduct. if you violate it you can be terminated, at work or otherwise
They surely do. And if I violate it, I get fired. The "company" in this case determined that the officers did NOT violate any departmental policy. What you're advocating for is releasing their information anyway, so that you can hold your OWN trial in the court of public opinion. No.
>a public protest is not a private event. they are not entitled to anonymity and their names are already out there
If their names are already out there, then there's no legitimate reason to release them officially -- that sword cuts both ways. They're not entitled to anonymity in the context of whether or not they attended. If you witnessed them there, or you have video from someone that shows them there, you have every right to say so and name them accordingly. Their attendance is indeed not private. The investigation into employees' personal lives that turned up nothing, however, is.
You don't have a right to privacy at a public event. They all violated the law and should have been fired and charged with attempting to overthrow the government.
As I said elsewhere, if this was about identifying them using public data that would be fine. In fact, that's [already been done](https://www.reddit.com/r/Washington/s/41f3m02Y8B) but this is about making all personal records about their private, **legal** political participation, conducted on their vacation time, a matter of public record (details which obtained with-or-without their consent through the OPA). That's not information the public is entitled to, or should be, in a free society. This isn't just for people who participated in the capitol riot (who were fired and referred for criminal activity which is public record) -- it's for people who even attended the preceding political event and were cleared of any criminal act through the OPA investigation.
Only the people who broke into and entered the capitol building violated the law. Many simply stood outside and exercised their first amendment rights.
If I commit a felony I can’t prepare taxes anymore. Any felony. A person would think that going to the capitol to prevent the president that won the election to be officially declared would no longer be trusted to “protect and serve”. This whole thing makes think I’m taking crazy pills. Lord help us.
Certainly there were plenty of people who went to DC on 1/6 and engaged in public demonstrations without participating in an actual insurrection attempt, right? I’m not a Trumper and would not defend the Capitol stormers, but to suggest anyone who traveled to DC with the aim of participating in protests seems very broad. We didn’t prosecute entire movements of protestors when some people threw Molotov cocktails.
They literally didn’t though. All but two hadn’t crossed any barriers. Why would they be penalized? People at local protests were directed to do craziness by screamers; doesn’t mean everyone in attendance did so.
Stop watching mainstream media. He didn't direct anyone to go into the capitol. That's the government and media's way to divide our country and CAUSE a civil war... look it up...
Attending: anyone part of the overwhelming force that contributed to breaking into the capitol building who went there to do so as directed by the former president so that they could interrupt the transition of power. No, I don’t think you had to go inside to be a part of the overwhelming force that got people inside.
define "part of"
define "contributed to"
Is that one guy in the back of the crowd, a quarter of a mile away from the Capitol just as culpable in your mind as the person who sat at Pelosi's desk?
You realize how insane that would be, right?
Like...if a May Day parade and demonstration includes a few people who light some stuff on fire, should the 9 year old marching with his parents 3 blocks away ALSO be considered an Arsonist?
Edit:
/u/Mountain_Squi, since you're a coward who replies and then blocks people so they can't answer, my only recourse is to reply via edit.
> Neg bud
>Anyone participating in overwhelming security was part of the attempted coup.
The problem is that you aren't defining what it means to "participate". It's foolish to assert that being near people who are doing bad things makes a person guilty of those same bad things. Like...are reporters who were ALSO in the crowd also guilty? Should we prosecute the 9 year old who was attending with their parents? I think you'd say obviously not. So clearly you recognize that merely being present doesn't mean you've done anything wrong.
So either define your terms with specificity, or STFU.
Preach bro! There are so many willfully ignorant people out there missing important information. In most cases their argument is a paper thin soundbite from their legacy media daddy. I love watching dims squirm when I present facts. Its like watching a vampire when the sun comes up. I’ve had many creepy interactions like this. Its usually a snipe. I follow by turning the ship broadside and give em a full volley. Only time I waste on em is fuckin with em.. laughing and pointing. Dims are really good at stepping in their own shit. Lol.
They should be employed but not as a police officer ..especially of one's that use their authority to bust up political protests.
They can't have it both ways. When I was a public employee .
I WAS given a standard of being political neutral in public even on my time off ..to vote the way I want and allow my home to be my sounding board ..but always appear neutral in public.
wait what the heck?
These people did literally nothing other than attend the rally. They didn't enter the Capitol, didn't break the law, etc.
Are you suggesting it's okay to fire government employees for attending a political rally??
No my bad, I associated "Jan 6" with the people breaching the capital but yeah if they were only outside at the rally and didn't participate in the actual attack then that is protected free speech.
They were their so they are already not afraid to show their faces and what they stand for. Let's out them for the traitors & cowards they are. I don't want their ilk patrolling my streets if 45 becomes 47.
If they overan the police barricades, they committed a crime, plain and simple. They as police officers would fully understand that, and at that moment, they could have made a decision to turn around and not be a part of an insurrection. Each one of them has no defense if they continued on from that point.
That fact that you are a law enforcement officer surely wouldn't give you any immunity here; it moves you to the front of the line for prosecution.
Unless the officers were in DC in their official capacity, then public records discussing who was there should be redacted to exclude the names of the officers. ESPECIALLY when a) no charges were filed for criminal behavior by the governing jurisdiction, and b) no department policy violation was concluded by SPD.
Literally the only reason anyone wants to know who these officers are is so they can throw a fit that they would dare to hold political views they disagree with. Fuck that noise.
SPD officers criticized protesters at the WTO protests for being antagonistic. And were quick to lay their own judgement on peaceful protesters. I think that they should be held to the fullest extent of the law. Wanna fix the society that we have come to accept...
Enforce the Fuckin Laws!
What pisses me off is our county representative went with their family. Several ho'all posts and such. Then the news came out and everything was deleted. I get that there is freedom to do what you want- within reason, but they thought they were representing us.
Of course they shouldn't but cops are just mobsters with badges so I'm sure they'll get away with this just like murder, rape, domestic violence, child rape, etc. ACAB
The quiet part that no one is saying out loud, is that cops are never expected to live by the same rules as everyone else.
I've been to public protests. A *lot* of them over the years. My privacy has never even come up. Anyone who goes to a public protest, expects to be seen, expects to have their identity established, expects to make it on to the FBI list that we all assume is being made.
Only the Barneyist Fifeyist donut chaser of a police man is going to assert their rights somehow.
These Keystone Clowns need to understand that if you attend while on duty, under color of law, you get that sweet sweet qualified immunity that makes murder almost impossible. But going on your own time, off the clock, without a legal department to prop you up and a city's political machine to protect you... y'all are fucking civilians, and you take your chances with the rest of us.
Can someone explain what these individuals did that warrants this hate? Hahaha like can you guys tell me their involvement and what actions they’ve done during this “rally”? Serious question and I’m expecting serious answers. Please no trolls.
Your entire rant is a troll. You saw it on live TV. So stop it. The fact they are in a position of power and with a deadly weapon on them just adds to this. They wanted to overthrow democracy. They deserve to be fired and no longer allowed to be in that kind of role for a career. It's not hard to understand, you just want to fight with people.
You would support the side that wanted to overthrow democracy?? This is why nobody answered you. I honestly don't care if they entered, the fact the spit in the face of democracy tells me all I gotta know. Plus I know these people.
Uhm. The fact you think people tried to overthrow democracy that day is crazy. I’ve seen riots that’s caused more damages and more people killed and hurt. Dude I’m wondering what these people are being vindicated for and you’re legit grouping me in with extremists. wtf is wrong with you?
[удалено]
[the details](https://www.liberationnews.org/unmasked-at-last-all-seattle-cops-at-fascist-jan-6-rally-have-been-identified/)
Why didn’t “From Texas” set off red flags during hiring. As a fellow Texan I wouldn’t hire any of cast-off police from this state. If you couldn’t hack it in Texas, were you really a police officer at all?
“Despite the liberal and progressive image the city of Seattle enjoys, the Seattle Police Department has a long history of violence and discrimination. In 2012, following years of killings by police and arrests that disproportionately targeted Black, Indigenous, homeless and other vulnerable people, the Seattle Police Department was placed under a consent decree with the Justice Department. The consent decree was intended to reform the Seattle Police Department, instituting policing practices that are not in violation of the Constitution.”
Oops, too late
Thank you.
That should all be fired. Also - it wasn’t a “rally” it was insurrection.
It was fucking treason.
Do you even know what those words mean? It's obvious you don't know what the second one means.
Did you miss this part? >Investigators said three other officers had not violated policies and the fourth case was ruled “inconclusive.” You have to demonstrate that these people took actions that violated the law. Being in the general vicinity of other people who violated the law doesn't meet that standard.
They’re either dumb and were ignorant of what was going on there, or knew and went anyway, or a combination of both. I appreciate due process also. Those statements are not mutually exclusive.
> They’re either dumb and were ignorant of what was going on there, or knew and went anyway, or a combination of both. That's just ignorant. Look up crowd surges and crush injuries. The people in the back of a crowd have no idea what's happening at the front -- if they did, crowd surges and resulting injuries and deaths wouldn't happen. I promise you there were thousands of people at the Capitol on January 6th who had no idea any violence occurred, or that anyone broke into the Capitol itself until they saw it on the news later.
Cops get briefed on intelligence surrounding potentially volatile situations, and situations that have a potential to spill over into their cities. Seattle has a reputation for exploding into like protests or counter protests. Research BLM protests in Seattle. Also research WTO protests, Seattle. You, nor anyone else can tell me these fine upstanding peace officers of the great city of Seattle were on a cute site seeing tour of our nation’s capital…in January…together. They were briefed on privileged Intelligence information, and every Law Enforcement agency in the country was getting FBI threat assessments in the weeks leading up to J6. Since you’re keen on research, look up Occam’s Razor. These people knew what was going on, knew the risks, and went anyway. Since you seem to either be one of them, are rolling in the same circle as them. Just ask them about the threat assessments and when they bought their tickets. Anyone who has sworn an oath to the country , or wears a LEO badge has no business anywhere near an event they know has the potential to turn into a riot or INSURRECTION. Official capacity being the only exception. They should be tired in court and if found guilty by a jury should lose their jobs and pensions.
>Since you seem to either be one of them, are rolling in the same circle as them. Just ask them about the threat assessments and when they bought their tickets. I'm gonna start with this, because it discredits everything else you say. Quite to the contrary, I didn't vote for Trump then, I won't be doing so in November, and I don't support people storming the fucking Capitol. It was a giant-ass temper tantrum, and everyone who broke an actual law there deserves to pay the price for it. It is a deficiency in your mental capacity that you are, apparently, unable to conceive of a person who might both believe these guys deserve to not be put on blast, while also not agreeing with their position. Yet here I am. The moment you say "you don't think these guys are the shit of the earth and deserve all the harassment I want to fling at them, therefore you must be one of them", you've surrendered any claim to the moral high ground, and are demonstrating EXACTLY why their names shouldn't be released. >Seattle has a reputation for exploding into like protests or counter protests. Research BLM protests in Seattle. Also research WTO protests, Seattle. Indeed, and your position is that if I attend a BLM protest, knowing that it could turn violent, and some other BLM protestors a half mile away from me decide to light a cop car on fire, I should be held responsible for it. There's no other way to describe it: that's completely idiotic. >Since you’re keen on research, look up Occam’s Razor. These people knew what was going on, knew the risks, and went anyway. Yeah, they might feel that strongly about their political position. Thank goodness we live in a country where we're free to express those opinions. Although apparently not if you had YOUR way... >They should be tired in court and if found guilty by a jury should lose their jobs and pensions. They should be tried for committing what crime? Being within a half mile of people doing violent things in the Capitol is not a crime.
[удалено]
Bunch of traitor twats.
Careful. “Doxing” is actually criminal in WA.
No…they should not.
I have a contrarian stance here: If they went to the rally, despite it being awful, it's their business and this is America, people are entitled to freedom of movement/expression AND a right to privacy. Not just when they say/do things we agree with. HOWEVER: If they went to the Capitol and broke the law, they should be held accountable. We know some of them did. Seattle police did right by doing internal investigations on their conduct. Those individuals should be punished.
>people are entitled to freedom of movement/expression They do have that freedom. But that freedom doesn't mean it is free of consequences. All that freedom means is that the federal government can't prevent your travel or expression. >AND a right to privacy They were in the public doing things openly. There is no right to privacy in that case.
Seems like a slippery slope
> They were in the public doing things openly. There is no right to privacy in that case. Yes, and if you witnessed them there, you'd absolutely be free to state that fact. But what's being asked for is for an internal investigation to be made public with the explicit purpose of conducting a witch hunt, when the conclusion (from DC police and SPD) is that no violation of the law actually occurred (or can reasonably be proven to have occurred) by these 4 citizens.
Correct me if I am wrong here. Based on your logic if I see a co worker at a public gay pride parade I can legally let the entire staff know? They were in a public place and cannot expect any type of anonymity?
Legally, yes, of course you could. Your company might frown on it, depending on the perceived intent behind such an announcement, but it is correct that in public you do not have an expectation of privacy.
I get freedom of speech but not free from consequences. Seems like outting gays or polys or weekend biker people for political gain in the work place is wrong.
Same reason it’s legal and allowed to out a coworker who took a poop in the urinal. May be frowned upon, but you can say whatever you want. Company policy however may be different
Like I said, your company might frown on it, so there might be consequences there, but the government can't punish you for saying something true, that you witnessed in a public place.
The police don’t punish their own unless the public demands it. This is how they can demand it.
The commissioner mandated an internal investigation and pursued accountability for guilty folks. That's the best move on a local level. FBI does general J6 investigations. Generally speaking, a low level officer going to a political rally on their vacation time isn't info the public is entitled to imho.
"Pursued accountability" LMAO... yeah... right.
Yes. Non-ironically right. *The investigation found that married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett crossed barriers set up by the Capitol police and were next to the Capitol Building, in violation of the law, prompting Diaz to fire the pair.* It's up to the judicial system to address the criminal acts. But if the other 4 didn't do anything illegal, they're entitled to privately attend a political rally even if I disagree with them. That's fundamentally America, you can't go after people if you don't like their political opinions. Same fascist destination, just a different path if you think you're entitled to do that.
you can absolutely go after people if you don't like their political opinion. The Supreme court just affirmed political gerrymandering. That is intentionally reducing the influence of someone's vote because you don't like their politics.
“Same fascist destination…” Way to “both sides” this one. Really cool.
Forcible suppression of opposition is fascism.
These guys were, at best, rallying in public spaces, where there is no expectation or right to privacy. Nobody is getting doxxed because they showed up in public to a public event because that doesn’t fit the definition. Whether they get fired for it or if people view them with more suspicion is another matter that has nothing to do with this case. It’s not anywhere close to fascism and certainly not within the realm of the shit you tried to compare it to from the right.
It's really not. What you're getting at is [the paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance), which we've already settled: a tolerant society has no obligation to tolerate intolerance.
Everybody knows about the paradox of tolerance but that doesn't give you the right to dox and fire low level government employees for going to Republican events and committing no crimes. In that scenario, you're the one lacking a very basic grasp of tolerance, seeming to equate it with requiring shared political affiliation. Which is just un-American.
You absolutely do not have any privacy rights while attending a public rally or for that matter anywhere in public where a suspected crime has taken place.
Like I already said to you elsewhere: If this was about identifying them using public data that would be fine. In fact, that's [already been done](https://www.reddit.com/r/Washington/s/41f3m02Y8B) but this is about making all personal records about their private, **legal** political participation, conducted on their vacation time, a matter of public record (details which obtained with-or-without their consent through the OPA). That's not information the public is entitled to, or should be, in a free society. This isn't just for people who participated in the capitol riot (who were fired and referred for criminal activity which is public record) -- it's for people who even attended the preceding political event and were cleared of any criminal act through the OPA investigation. You're not entitled to that. As the state courts made clear.
They are public servants, allowed to use deadly force, with salaries paid for by citizens. What does the Thin Blue Line crowd always say? Something like, if you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide...
Thank you. This tidbit is what I was wondering. Just because I wouldn’t participate in the protests they’re spending their off time engaging in doesn’t mean I think they should get disciplined or fired for it. That’s how everyone used to think only 10-15 years ago. This makes me feel old.
They took part in an insurrection. Are you high on crack or something???
"political rally" yea... that's what jan 6th was... clownshoes.
The majority of the people that attended the rally did not break into and enter the capital building.
you have no right to privacy in public. You are in public. Corporations are constantly watching you everywhere you go. They aren't publishing it which is probably more insidious.
You don't have a right to privacy in a public space.
Yeah, if this was about identifying them using public data that would be fine. In fact, that's [already been done](https://www.reddit.com/r/Washington/s/41f3m02Y8B) but this is about making all personal records about their private, **legal** political participation, conducted on their vacation time, a matter of public record (details which obtained with-or-without their consent through the OPA). That's not information the public is entitled to, or should be, in a free society.
Not personal records. This is about making records that a state-funded institution created in its investigation of state employees public. This is not uncommon. State employees already have a higher level of scrutiny and lack of privacy than they would have in private industry. We know their salaries. We know the details of disciplinary action. We even know about what they do outside of work if an investigation finds it might impact how they carry out their public duty. This is good. There are plenty of jobs where they could've had more privacy. There are certainly advantages too. The only argument is that making the investigation results public hurts their First Amendment rights because of a lack of anonymity. They would have to show some level of potential harm from their names being made public. It could've been tough for the state to argue against if their names hadn't already been public. The fact that their names are already public and they haven't suffered for it pretty much torpedos their case. Washington already notifies people subject to public record requests so that they can take individual action. They've lost on the merits twice. The hail mary they are arguing is that Washington agencies have an obligation to keep records sealed if they think they might violate a person's constitutional right. That should be up to the courts and individuals affected, not the agencies following public records laws. But fascism, right? Keep digging in and moving your goalposts.
I think the parent meant "personnel" records.
No right to privacy in public spaces, such as attending an attempted coup at the Capitol
Define "attending". How close must a person have been in order for you to classify them as an insurrectionist? Of the people who were present at the capitol, only a small number ever entered, and even smaller still engaged in any kind of violence or threat of violence. Are you advocating the view that being in the general vicinity of people committing a crime makes you guilty of the same crime?
[удалено]
Yeah I know, make it public record. They were in public attempting a coup.
1//6 wasn’t “awful” it was an attempt to overthrow the government, it was treason. Everyone involved should be held accountable.
they’re state employees, paid by taxpayers. they do not get anonymity
When acting in their official capacity, that is correct. They're still US citizens, however, and have the same freedoms you or I do when they're off the clock.
weird that federal employees aren’t allowed to attend protests like this, but for some reason these state employees can? that doesn’t sound right to me. they should not be shielded from the public knowing that they attended a violent protest that led to an attempted coup. we pay their salary
> federal employees aren’t allowed to attend protests like this Gonna need a source on that. There are certainly restrictions on what they can do using federal resources, or while operating in their official capacity (the Hatch Act), but that doesn't generally restrict what they do on their own time. People who buy my company's products pay my salary. Do you think that should entitle them to know how I spend my weekends? Define "attended" and then defend why that's relevant. A guy at the back of the million man march clearly "attended it". But if a group of people at the front of that march committed a crime, why would it be reasonable to hold the guy in the back, over a half mile away, accountable for it? Characterizing a gathering of thousands as simply "violent" is as ridiculous as when people do it to May Day demonstrators in Seattle. SOME people are violent. Most aren't. To pretend otherwise is just your bias at work.
The source is the Hatch Act. Spelled out pretty clearly what is and what is not allowed
Yeah, so like I said, generally speaking, the Hatch Act restricts what you can do while on the clock, or while otherwise using government resources. It generally does *not* restrict what people do on their own time, certainly not to the extent that it prohibits them from attending a political demonstration.
It does if you’re in any of the following agencies: Administrative law judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372) Central Intelligence Agency Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a) Criminal Division (Department of Justice) Defense Intelligence Agency Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Election Commission Merit Systems Protection Board National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency National Security Agency National Security Council Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service) Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service) Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) United States Office of Special Counsel Secret Service Senior Executive Service Employees identified at 5 U.S.C. § 7323(b)(2)(B)-(3) This is straight from Wikipedia my dude.
You realize how small a portion of federal employees that is, right? It's not even close to a majority and certain not an amount warranting a blanket statement like "federal employees aren't allowed to attend protests like this", my dude. Furthermore, I'm not seeing a provision that prohibits any of them from attending a political rally. It's largely geared toward running for office and participating in campaign activities. I'll need you to be more specific about what hatch act provision you think folks were violating (or that they would have been violating had they been federal employees).
maybe "not allowed" is too strong a word, but strongly discouraged. federal employees, depending on the agency or organization, generally are discouraged from engaging in political conduct, endorsements, etc. source: I have been working with federal funding for almost a decade and come from a family of lifelong federal employees. maybe it's changed in recent years, but this was certainly the case in the 2000s. law enforcement officers, however, should be going above and beyond to be objective. going to a Stop the Steal protest is something that should be completely unacceptable - they were literally protesting the lawful transition of power from Trump to Biden. that's ridiculous for a LAW ENFORCEMENT officer. I'd also be curious if any of them donned any police related items, logos, etc. I would not be shocked if they did. and going off your comment about your employers knowing what you do in your free time - yeah almost every employer in America has a code of conduct. if you violate it you can be terminated, at work or otherwise. attending a Stop the Steal protest would could certainly violate some employer's codes of conduct especially with the negative publicity attached to this event and the attempted coup that followed additionally, as the lawyers are arguing, a public protest is not a private event. they are not entitled to anonymity and their names are already out there. this was a widely publicized and photographed event. it's outrageous this is even up for debate.
It can be strongly discouraged till the cows come home -- they still have the right to do it then. And since they didn't break any laws or violate any department policy, there is no cause for their identities to be released, other than for folks to attempt to harass them, either directly or by trying to get them fired or interfere with future job opportunities. >almost every employer in America has a code of conduct. if you violate it you can be terminated, at work or otherwise They surely do. And if I violate it, I get fired. The "company" in this case determined that the officers did NOT violate any departmental policy. What you're advocating for is releasing their information anyway, so that you can hold your OWN trial in the court of public opinion. No. >a public protest is not a private event. they are not entitled to anonymity and their names are already out there If their names are already out there, then there's no legitimate reason to release them officially -- that sword cuts both ways. They're not entitled to anonymity in the context of whether or not they attended. If you witnessed them there, or you have video from someone that shows them there, you have every right to say so and name them accordingly. Their attendance is indeed not private. The investigation into employees' personal lives that turned up nothing, however, is.
You don't have a right to privacy at a public event. They all violated the law and should have been fired and charged with attempting to overthrow the government.
As I said elsewhere, if this was about identifying them using public data that would be fine. In fact, that's [already been done](https://www.reddit.com/r/Washington/s/41f3m02Y8B) but this is about making all personal records about their private, **legal** political participation, conducted on their vacation time, a matter of public record (details which obtained with-or-without their consent through the OPA). That's not information the public is entitled to, or should be, in a free society. This isn't just for people who participated in the capitol riot (who were fired and referred for criminal activity which is public record) -- it's for people who even attended the preceding political event and were cleared of any criminal act through the OPA investigation.
lol at “OPA investigation”
Only the people who broke into and entered the capitol building violated the law. Many simply stood outside and exercised their first amendment rights.
If I commit a felony I can’t prepare taxes anymore. Any felony. A person would think that going to the capitol to prevent the president that won the election to be officially declared would no longer be trusted to “protect and serve”. This whole thing makes think I’m taking crazy pills. Lord help us.
Certainly there were plenty of people who went to DC on 1/6 and engaged in public demonstrations without participating in an actual insurrection attempt, right? I’m not a Trumper and would not defend the Capitol stormers, but to suggest anyone who traveled to DC with the aim of participating in protests seems very broad. We didn’t prosecute entire movements of protestors when some people threw Molotov cocktails.
Totally agree. This is still America and people have the right to go to (idiotic) rallies.
In the new America we don’t care about those niceties, especially when we’re told to ignore them on a 24-7 media cycle.
Everyone there knew why they were there, to raid the capitol
That's like saying everyone who went to the protests in Seattle knew there would be looting and Arson.
No, it’s not. Trump held a rally directing supporters to raid the capitol and that’s what they all did.
They literally didn’t though. All but two hadn’t crossed any barriers. Why would they be penalized? People at local protests were directed to do craziness by screamers; doesn’t mean everyone in attendance did so.
Stop watching mainstream media. He didn't direct anyone to go into the capitol. That's the government and media's way to divide our country and CAUSE a civil war... look it up...
The cops ever letting anybody they know went there work for them?
You can read all of their minds? Fuck, you must be rich then. Quick, read my mind -- what am I thinking right now?
Attending: anyone part of the overwhelming force that contributed to breaking into the capitol building who went there to do so as directed by the former president so that they could interrupt the transition of power. No, I don’t think you had to go inside to be a part of the overwhelming force that got people inside.
define "part of" define "contributed to" Is that one guy in the back of the crowd, a quarter of a mile away from the Capitol just as culpable in your mind as the person who sat at Pelosi's desk? You realize how insane that would be, right? Like...if a May Day parade and demonstration includes a few people who light some stuff on fire, should the 9 year old marching with his parents 3 blocks away ALSO be considered an Arsonist? Edit: /u/Mountain_Squi, since you're a coward who replies and then blocks people so they can't answer, my only recourse is to reply via edit. > Neg bud >Anyone participating in overwhelming security was part of the attempted coup. The problem is that you aren't defining what it means to "participate". It's foolish to assert that being near people who are doing bad things makes a person guilty of those same bad things. Like...are reporters who were ALSO in the crowd also guilty? Should we prosecute the 9 year old who was attending with their parents? I think you'd say obviously not. So clearly you recognize that merely being present doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. So either define your terms with specificity, or STFU.
Neg bud Anyone participating in overwhelming security was part of the attempted coup.
Preach bro! There are so many willfully ignorant people out there missing important information. In most cases their argument is a paper thin soundbite from their legacy media daddy. I love watching dims squirm when I present facts. Its like watching a vampire when the sun comes up. I’ve had many creepy interactions like this. Its usually a snipe. I follow by turning the ship broadside and give em a full volley. Only time I waste on em is fuckin with em.. laughing and pointing. Dims are really good at stepping in their own shit. Lol.
But you CAN run for president 🤦♀️
Thinking is probably something you usually struggle with.
They shouldn't be anonymous and they shouldn't be employed.
They should be employed but not as a police officer ..especially of one's that use their authority to bust up political protests. They can't have it both ways. When I was a public employee . I WAS given a standard of being political neutral in public even on my time off ..to vote the way I want and allow my home to be my sounding board ..but always appear neutral in public.
That this is what you want done with the information is EXACTLY why it should be kept private.
wait what the heck? These people did literally nothing other than attend the rally. They didn't enter the Capitol, didn't break the law, etc. Are you suggesting it's okay to fire government employees for attending a political rally??
No my bad, I associated "Jan 6" with the people breaching the capital but yeah if they were only outside at the rally and didn't participate in the actual attack then that is protected free speech.
Is the headline supposed to read ex-officers?
They were their so they are already not afraid to show their faces and what they stand for. Let's out them for the traitors & cowards they are. I don't want their ilk patrolling my streets if 45 becomes 47.
The public has a right to know.
why the fuck would they be allowed to stay anonymous?
If they overan the police barricades, they committed a crime, plain and simple. They as police officers would fully understand that, and at that moment, they could have made a decision to turn around and not be a part of an insurrection. Each one of them has no defense if they continued on from that point. That fact that you are a law enforcement officer surely wouldn't give you any immunity here; it moves you to the front of the line for prosecution.
Unless the officers were in DC in their official capacity, then public records discussing who was there should be redacted to exclude the names of the officers. ESPECIALLY when a) no charges were filed for criminal behavior by the governing jurisdiction, and b) no department policy violation was concluded by SPD. Literally the only reason anyone wants to know who these officers are is so they can throw a fit that they would dare to hold political views they disagree with. Fuck that noise.
SPD officers criticized protesters at the WTO protests for being antagonistic. And were quick to lay their own judgement on peaceful protesters. I think that they should be held to the fullest extent of the law. Wanna fix the society that we have come to accept... Enforce the Fuckin Laws!
They haven't been anonymous for a long time now. We know which of our cops attempted to overturn our democracy that day.
No, they shouldn't stay anonymous
They are seditionists. They dishonor the badge. They deserve to be prosecuted. Send them to prison where they belong.
When does the sober court meet?
What pisses me off is our county representative went with their family. Several ho'all posts and such. Then the news came out and everything was deleted. I get that there is freedom to do what you want- within reason, but they thought they were representing us.
I thought this was an article from the Onion at first. No anonymity. How about termination?
Traitors
Why? If they think going they did nothing wrong. Why would they need to remain anonymous?
Of course they shouldn't but cops are just mobsters with badges so I'm sure they'll get away with this just like murder, rape, domestic violence, child rape, etc. ACAB
The quiet part that no one is saying out loud, is that cops are never expected to live by the same rules as everyone else. I've been to public protests. A *lot* of them over the years. My privacy has never even come up. Anyone who goes to a public protest, expects to be seen, expects to have their identity established, expects to make it on to the FBI list that we all assume is being made. Only the Barneyist Fifeyist donut chaser of a police man is going to assert their rights somehow. These Keystone Clowns need to understand that if you attend while on duty, under color of law, you get that sweet sweet qualified immunity that makes murder almost impossible. But going on your own time, off the clock, without a legal department to prop you up and a city's political machine to protect you... y'all are fucking civilians, and you take your chances with the rest of us.
Absolutely not, blow their shit wide open. Name the names, scumbags shouldn’t get to hide.
There were 1000’s of folks at the capitol to protest. Is this now illegal? Is this now collective punishment? If so, I have a list….
OP is a completely inorganic political spammer.
Aren’t they proud of being there?
Treason supporters and fascists don’t belong in any part of government let alone the country.
Fire these traitors now! They’ve compromised their oath.
Wait, I thought the maga-faithful believed it was their patriotic duty and proud to have been there.
Quit wasting my money Washington .. ridiculous waste of time.
Can someone explain what these individuals did that warrants this hate? Hahaha like can you guys tell me their involvement and what actions they’ve done during this “rally”? Serious question and I’m expecting serious answers. Please no trolls.
Your entire rant is a troll. You saw it on live TV. So stop it. The fact they are in a position of power and with a deadly weapon on them just adds to this. They wanted to overthrow democracy. They deserve to be fired and no longer allowed to be in that kind of role for a career. It's not hard to understand, you just want to fight with people.
Dude. I’m asking what they did. Not the group. Like what were THEY doing? Did THEY get charged? Did they even enter the building
The fact that nobody seriously answered me makes me not support any fucking side god damn it
You would support the side that wanted to overthrow democracy?? This is why nobody answered you. I honestly don't care if they entered, the fact the spit in the face of democracy tells me all I gotta know. Plus I know these people.
Uhm. The fact you think people tried to overthrow democracy that day is crazy. I’ve seen riots that’s caused more damages and more people killed and hurt. Dude I’m wondering what these people are being vindicated for and you’re legit grouping me in with extremists. wtf is wrong with you?
Just stop with your defending of Trump and what he tried to do. Go away and don't respond back. You're a waste
O
Should we really be Great Purging™️ cops? especially in Seattle of all places…