By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
An outrageous statement, if proven to be true, was made by embattled Pierce County Washington Prosecutor Mark Lindquist following the assassination of four Lakewood Police Officers in 2009.
These four officers were murdered while at a local coffee shop in Parkland. Their deaths were marked by great mourning in the law enforcement community and among Washington State’s citizens.
Showing almost sociopathic indifference, Prosecutor Mark Lindquist was quoted by his former Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor Mary Robnett (who is now an Assistant Attorney General) as saying he,
“was going to have to run for re-election and would get $100K of free publicity from the murders.”
Of course, publically he was right there to show his great “remorse” for the officers and their families. His statement was confirmed by other witnesses.
A synopsis of the officers’ deaths comes from the Officer Down Memorial Page:
Officer Tina Griswold, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Greg Richards, and Officer Ronald Owens were shot and killed in an ambush style attack while sitting inside a coffee shop in Parkland.
All four officers had just finished a call and went to the coffee shop to complete paperwork. Sergeant Renninger, Officer Owens and Officer Griswald were seated at a table, and Officer Richards was in line waiting to order coffee. The suspect entered the shop, walked directly over to the table where the three officers were sitting, drew a 9 mm handgun and shot Officer Griswald, killing her. The suspect then shot Sergeant Renninger, killing him.
After shooting the two officers, the suspect’s weapon jammed and he became involved in a physical fight with Officer Owens. During the struggle, the suspect drew a second weapon, a .38 caliber revolver and shot and killed Officer Owens. Officer Richards, hearing the shots, moved toward the suspect and became involved in physical fight with him. During the struggle, Officer Richards was able to shoot the suspect once in the torso, before the suspect was able to gain control of his weapon. The suspect then shot Officer Richards, killing him.
These officers suffered a horrible ordeal that ended their lives, and no officer deserves to go through this.
The shocking revelation surfaced as the result of an investigation into a whistleblower complaint launched against Prosecutor Lindquist by members of his staff. The report shows some disturbing allegations of political sleaze, retaliatory actions, sexual favoritism in hiring practices, and botching several high profile cases, one of which garnered a strong rebuke from the Washington Supreme court that ordered a retrial for a murder convict after making sensational and highly prejudicial presentations during closing arguments.
In January we featured an article on the murder case reversal HERE.
Having seen first hand the grief that the community faced after the killings, the walls of flowers left at the street corner where Lakewood PD is situated, and having visited the department during the aftermath of the shooting with a friend who worked there, I can say that Prosecutor Lindquist’s statement of pleasure in seeing political advantage and campaign capital following the deaths of four police officers in his community is a paramount disgrace even for a politician.
In all the years I worked in the profession we have endured politicians both praise or assail LEOs in order to gain political advantage. Most of it at worse is an insult due to the nature of politics and as I have said before, it is somewhat a part of the job. But among the banter I have never heard of a Washington State politician make such an inflammatory statement as Prosecutor Lindquist did here. Even if they believed such an advantage to be true in a twisted sense of self-centered logic, they would have the decorum to not say such a statement to others, at least being decent to the families of the deceased.
If you have seen the death of one of your fellow deputies, and experiencing all that you and your department went through afterward, the thought of witnessing the aftermath of four of your brothers and sisters murdered is something I hope nobody will ever suffer. And it frankly angers me to hear a politician, especially a prosecutor, selfishly revel in our deaths as if he won the lottery. It is as if the killing of four of us meant nothing to him but an opportunity to gain money and political advantage for his own selfish, and ill-gotten benefit.
Mr. Lindquist has other problems, as the complaint so vividly describes, but to me his indifference is especially upsetting as it will certainly be to everyone else who worked in the profession and had coworkers and friends die in the line of duty. But when it comes from someone supposedly on your side of the criminal justice system, it is unconscionable.
Mark Lindquist should drive down to the Law Enforcement Memorial in Olympia and apologize to Officers Griswold, Richards, Owens and Sgt. Renninger and every other officer memorialized on the monument. Then, walk into the Supreme Court’s Temple of Justice and publically announce is resignation. If he had any shred of Honor or humility he would recognize that he has demonstrated his moral unsuitability to be a prosecuting attorney in our state.
I suppose however we will have to be pragmatic and recognize that a person who would utter such an affront would unlikely be willing to go gracefully.
As described in a previous article, Prosecutor Lindquist is facing a recall petition after a judge found cause to go forward, a constitutional requirement for recalling elected officials.
In the end, it might come down to this recall effort. I would venture to say his depraved statement is worth 100k in free publicity–to the recall campaign that is–and deservedly so.
By Darren Smith
Sources:
The News Tribune
Officer Down Memorial Page
Picture Credits: Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office, Lakewood Police Department
Recall Mark Lindquist Campaign
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
This is not partisan. I hate Hillary on many levels. But, putting politics and elections aside. I get paid to assess people. Hillary is a lying sociopath. How in the hell could anyone w/ half a brain consider her a “lesser of two evils.”
Schulte:
Thank you for your comment, because it shows the problem with absolutism.
There is a vast difference between telling the hostess of a party that you had a wonderful time when you really didn’t, and deceiving a nation into believing Saddam Hussein was involved in 911 and had obtained WMD’s.
To say that one equals the other, or that first example justifies the other is to lack a moral sense. And I doubt that is your case.
Hall – I see misleading survey takers the same as telling the hostess I had a great time at her party, when I didn’t.
I might also add Second Amendment absolutists no longer pay the need for militias any heed. The situation has devolved to the point where we have people appointing themselves as the arbiters of law, order, and freedom on the notion that was what the Second Amendment stands for.
Consider the Castle Laws in various states, which allow shooters to open fire on persons for merely entering upon the curtilage.
Militias no need to called out with the advent of conceal carry and open carry laws, which encourage people to arm themselves as they move around in public. The danger, as we’ve seen here on this blog, is that private citizens either lose their temper and use firearms to lash out, or lose their perspective and use firearms to enforce the law. Or they shoot someone accidentally.
And far from the need for a well regulated militia, today’s paramilitary wannabes insist that the government has no right to regulate in any form or fashion.
The possession of firearms once empowered a nation of free people to defend themselves rather than foot the cost of a standing army. Now, firearms enables a people to enforce the law as they interpret, whether they actually understand the law or not. For them, might makes right.
Guns have become a public health crisis in this country, and militias have become irrelevant.
BFM.,
“The passage is clear. It is the militia that should be well regulated. The weapons for the militia are held as a natural right by the citizens.
The claim that the militia is moribund rest on the observation that we rarely call out the militia. But whether we deploy the militia, national guard, or regular military unit is a decision made by generals through their choice in the order of battle. Why would anyone suppose that the meaning of the constitution and rights we possess are determined by choices made by unelected generals.”
The admonition for militias was needed because there was no standing army in America at the time and there was a great deal of opposition to forming one. Therefore, the need to rely on the yeoman soldier, who would then bear the cost of supplying arms for national defense.
It’s also worth noting that at the time, in the 18th century, there wasn’t a significant difference between the weapons available to civilians and standing armies, the advantages in strength lay primarily in numbers.
At any rate, the Founders recognized the need for regulation of arms this country. The right to possess firearms was never intended to absolute and unfettered.
KFC: Not sure what the point of your article is supposed to be. People who don’t wish to talk about firearm possession should simply not talk about like DBQ; however to agree to participate in a survey and deliberately give false answers is a moral failing.
To brag about it is like smacking a homeless person and then posting a video of it on social media
T.Hall – you moral equivalence example does not make sense. Tell me to my face that you have never lied. And remember, not telling the truth, or warping the truth (truthiness) is still a lie.
Forgotten: The essence of the Second Amendment sentence is the first part. It describes what is “necessary”, necessary as being the essence the right to bear arms.
SteveG:
Sorry for the delay in responding to your query. It was a beautiful fall day here and we (the family) went out for some Midwestern leaf-peeping.
You raise an interesting question. I’m not sure if I’m prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but if the absolutists continue to on insist on reading the Second Amendment to the exclusion of the rest of the Constitution, then I suppose I would be in favor of repealing it and managing the firearm entitlement through legislation and the democratic process.
Thanks for your question.
She won’t rip up the Iran deal on day one.
Roe v Wade, Ledbetter, minimum wage, voting rights, contraception, science, climate change? Democrats support those issues, Steve. Ask any Republican.
Ralph writes, “She won’t rip up the Iran deal on day one. . . . Roe v Wade, Ledbetter, minimum wage, voting rights, contraception, science, climate change? Democrats support those issues, Steve. Ask any Republican.”
That’s true, but I don’t know that those are more than appearances for vote collection for the majority of the party.
The Democrats support all of these issues so long as there’s pressure from the general public. The shift has been far to the right since 1980. What are Democrats now were moderate Republicans back then.
The Greens also support these policies without setting the rest of us adrift. It goes without saying there’s been not a word from her on the TPP, and it was her husband that voted to repeal that portion of the Glass-Steagall Act leading to the financial services industry that brought this country to its knees eight years later. Don’t be so sure she’s “evolved” on that issue, regardless of her evolution on same-sex marriage.
My guess is that the Iran deal is more about keeping Iran out of the Syrian conflict than it is about nukes. And it’s no deal unless it’s ratified. You won’t hear a word out of Bibi if Hillary’s elected, He certainly won’t be crying to Congress about how our President has failed Israel, and you won’t hear a word out of Hillary about mowing the lawn in Gaza when it happens again.
With Russia now knocking on the Middle Eastern door, I don’t trust Hillary’s mistake of voting for war in Iraq not to happen again, and there’s a Curtis LeMay born every day ready to persuade her to push the button.
Hillary is a political monster, and she’ll be a foreign-policy nightmare with lots of blood on her hands. But, by golly, vote for the lesser of two evils. Nobody’s perfect.
Annie writes, “I too believe that we may be an Oligarchy, but I don’t foresee an uprising with both the right and the left joining forces to stop it. . . .”
What they’re doing is unsustainable and an adjustment of some degree has to be the result. We’re in a cold war again already, and they can’t keep value in the dollar by strong-arming the world forever. I imagine what will precipitate this adjustment is a CIA blunder or some stooge killing somebody or blowing up something that begins the next big war. Whichever war it is that we don’t end up winning will probably begin the adjustment to a lower standard of living in some harmony with the rest of the world.
Your daughter is to be commended for serving in Afghanistan, and she’s now got what can only be considered a special knowledge that few have. Kudos to her. This isn’t her fault or the fault of any of our servicemembers. She’s the patriot, not the cutthroat cowards who sent her there.
That reminds me of a Dennis Miller story about Bill Clinton. Someone invites him to a moving party, and Bill’s the guy on the back corner of the couch being lifted by everyone else and he’s acting like he’s helping but he’s really not. To me, his ilk are the guys who sent your daughter there, but by golly Bill got rich being a part of it.
Steve,
No, but who knows what the future holds.🤔
Sorry, but I’d rather vote for Hillary than have a Republican president, there are still things rhe Democratic Party stands for. Certain social issues are worth keeping out of Republican hands.
Annie writes, “Sorry, but I’d rather vote for Hillary than have a Republican president, there are still things rhe Democratic Party stands for. Certain social issues are worth keeping out of Republican hands.”
The Democrats have no ideology re social issues. It’s about collecting votes.
Hillary will continue the slaughter in the Middle East, drone strikes, and assassinations. What’s the difference between her and any of the Republicans?
The complaint dept. closes @ 7pm.
The duopoly is the problem w/ this country. I almost always vote 3rd party. We need a “none of the above” option. That will get people out to vote like no candidate could ever get out the vote. THEN, people will get more options. I hope people who say “You’re wasting your vote” choke on those words. Literally, I hope they choke.
Nick – I am a big fan of “None of the above” but like the one where those candidates are not eligible again.
Annie, was that your screen name that was deleted? 🙂
I once had a comment deleted for using the term “Master Debater”.😳
There are sometimes complaints about Chicago politics on this blog and such politics sometimes involve protection. No more so than the protection afforded Nick Spinelli. I have had two comments deleted that carried no offensive language but merely laughed at the idiocy and inappropriate sexual content of a comment at 8:06.
I can’t get a picture of brown shirts and black boots out of my head. Sorta like Donald Sutherland in ‘1900’.
Tom,
Yes, his was a lousy vote.
Here is what he said in offering an explanation:
“I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you’re a senator, traditionally what’s happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I’m the first one to acknowledge it.”
a ‘political’ explanation, of course.
But we have learned a few things since 2008, haven’t we? And certainly the wiser course, the only course in my opinion, is to raise the debt ceiling.
I sure hope you are right that the House will surprise us all and show that they are capable of governing. After all, they haven’t yet been crazy enough to impeach him as much as they would like to in their little black hearts.
My assessment is you folks creaming your jeans on Hillary better breathe deeply. When I saw Obama in the Rose Garden w/ Uncle Joe explaining why he wasn’t running I became suspicious. Notice Joe said it was too late, not that he didn’t want it. He had Obama there supporting him. Joe is magnanimous because maybe he and Obama know the DOJ will indict Hillary, and then the magnanimous Joe comes in for the good of the country. If he is running against her and she’s indicted it looks like an inside job. With him on the sidelines, it looks legit when she’s indicted. This is Chicago politics.
Ralph….it is possible that Congress may vote against raising the debt ceiling….like Sen. Obama did in 2006…but I don’t think it’s likely.
Steve, my daughter did go to Afghanistan. She joined the Navy, when she was an adult and I couldn’t stop her. She didn’t join to serve God, or the corps, I suppose she may have wanted to serve the country. Mostly I think she wanted an adventure. I wish she would’ve stayed in college, but she was a restless spirit. I too believe that we may be an Oligarchy, but I don’t foresee an uprising with both the right and the left joining forces to stop it. I think we may still be able to use the tools the Constitution gave us, besides the 2nd Amendment to bring our country back to a true Representative Democracy. Well I hope so anyway. BTW, my daughter is a liberal progressive.