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.
Thanks, I saw that along with the U.S. Census websites information. BTW, my response to ralph should have been: So there are! A tip of the hat
“Of course you realize there’s no expectation of privacy from being observed whenever you leave the house. ”
Even federal judges have based decisions on the difference between observing someone and tracking their every move 24 hours a day for so long as the government chooses.
The ability to use video to monitor much of he public space in an entire city is a very new development that has taken place in many major cities with little or no public discussion.
I would argue that this is a change that has the potential to greatly alter the relation of citizens and government. That change ought to be discussed openly and carefully.
Further I think the only reasonable argument against my position is not that the cameras are legal but rather that they are inconsequential. And, I don’t think that there is a reasonable argument that video surveillance of most or all of a city is inconsequential.
ralph: So there is! I think they could eliminate the national debt if they ever wanted to start enforcing them.
T Hall
The Census Bureau emphasizes that all questions must be answered. The ACS envelope arrives with a warning that a response is required by law. The form threatens a $100 US Dollar (USD) fine for every question that goes unanswered, and a $500 USD fine for every question answered untruthfully.
Although, I don’t know if they have ever actually prosecuted anyone, but this is the verbiage that comes with the long form. Some of the census workers can be quite threatening and persistent.
” The ACS envelope arrives with a warning that a response is required by law.”
I happen to like the ACS and hope congress will continue to fund it fully.
But there is a difference between the ACS and the census. While ACS is conducted by the Census Department it is not the census require in the constitution:
“The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey that provides vital information on a yearly basis about our nation and its people. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year.”
I would be interested if anyone can clarify the legal responsibility to answer questions on the census and the ACS.
BFM,
Of course you realize there’s no expectation of privacy from being observed whenever you leave the house. I don’t like video surveillance, but that doesn’t make it unlawful.
Ignorance, saving of was in response to Dusty.
THall. I think you are mistaken. I think there are penalties for not complying with the census.
Ralphie – here are the Census penalties
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2010/03/count_me_out.html
God save us from such ignorance.
DBQ,
You are entirely mistaken, the U.S Census is voluntary. There’s a constitutional requirement.
to conduct the census, but individuals are not compelled to participate.
Also, you are not required to answer any question in order to receive medical care beyond the basic identifying information and method of payment.
I do agree that the less information you reveal is often good policy. There was a certain woman from Kentucky that used to comment here, and very well, too, but she stopped and requested that every one of her several hundred comments be deleted because a fellow commenter was digging into her personal life. It was a disgraceful and distressing chapter in the history of this blog, and it illustrates the importance of maintaining privacy.
Answering census questions is mandatory: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jan/09/us-census-bureau/americans-must-answer-us-census-bureau-survey-law-/
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d-61b.pdf
The only things you need to fill out are the number of people in the residence. The rest is not authorized under the Constitution.
Anybody interested in learning how many Americans have access to clean water and sewage plants? How about internet access? Anybody remember when many Texans didn’t have electric service? Who counted those people?
I’m quite sure that some of those things are of interest to the central planners and helpful to know…….HOWEVER. the US Census is not authorized to get this information under threat of fines and jail time. They are only allowed to enumerate. Period.
The US Census is not allowed, under the Constitution, to ask when I go to work, what do I do at work, whether I have internet, etc etc etc. None of their business.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-acs-american-community-survey.htm
Not their business.
Anybody interested in learning how many Americans have access to clean water and sewage plants? How about internet access? Anybody remember when many Texans didn’t have electric service? Who counted those people?
As so often quoted here: Pound sand. Not in MY America. Nope. No way. And BTW, Obama is too damn divisive.
Short sighted fools.
We could always just hire an ‘observer’ to accurately report any situation.
“We could always just hire an ‘observer’ to accurately report any situation.”
Why bother. We already have video cameras.
The last I heard there were nearly 8,000 video cameras in the District of Columbia. Now some nay sayers might point out that many of those cameras do not belong to the government.
But that observation would overlook the fact that most of those business have allowed their camera feed to be wired into a DC Government command center for use during an emergency.
I am not sure what constitutes an emergency. But there you have it. DC government can access videos from nearly 8,000 cameras all across the city anytime they choose to throw the switch.
Whether that is good or bad probably depends on the situation. But that intrusion has been wired into place with little public awareness or discussion.
Ralphie – I have been a Census taker before. There are methods for handing people who are never home, people who refuse to answer, etc. The long form is for every 10th house. It can be a pain for everyone, including the Census taker. However, if someone refuses to take it, the next house becomes the 10th house. Close enough for government work.
Why of course. Who needs the ability to do any planning for the economy, social needs, health concerns, education?
Best to work in ignorance.
I see Dusty already answered my query.
Morons Lube Rule.
It would be interesting to learn what the “saboteurs of surveys” think about the census. I’m betting they delight in screwing that, too.
The only thing the Census is entitled to know is how many people live in the areas for tax apportionment and House of Representative seats. That is all. And only every 10 years. Period.
It would be interesting to learn what the “saboteurs of surveys” think about the census. I’m betting they delight in screwing that, too.
Short-sighted fools.
Ralphie – always answer the Census correctly. Never do the long form.
If there is a question that I don’t wish to answer, my view is that the only honorable reply is to decline to answer the question.
Some “surveys” are not optional. You are forced to participate. The US Census is one. The doctor’s office forces us to answer mental health type surveys and as about things that are not medical, like the presence of guns in the house.
The US Census is not entitled to know. Such as
the invasion into a family’s privacy by the questions, including:
Does this house, apartment, or mobile home have COMPLETE plumbing facilities; that is, 1) hot and cold piped water, 2) a flush toilet, and 3) a bathtub or shower?
At any time DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS, did anyone in this household receive food stamps? If so, how much?
Do you have a mortgage and if so, how much is it?
Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following: learning, dressing, bathing or getting around?
Has this person given birth in the last year?
What time did this person go to work?
How much did this person make in salaries? Interest? Retirement?
The purpose of the census was to “enumerate” the population for the purposes of. the sole and express purpose of the Census, as stated in the Constitution, is for apportioning direct taxes and representatives among the several States,
It isn’t their business what kind of bathroom I have, or if I have a mortgage, or how depressed or happy I might be. So….I just answered how many people were in the household and left it at that.
If the doctor’s office or the school district sends home a questionnaire about things that I don’t think they need to know I will either not answer or if forced to fill in all the blanks I WILL LIE because it isn’t their business and I am not going to divulge information to petty bureaucrats that can cause me harm.
The survey could be a valuable source of information, why people would purposefully lie to skew the results doesn’t reflect well on them. It’s like the NRA objecting to the study on gun violence, why would they do such a thing? Perhaps it’s because they are afraid of what the study, poll, or survey would show? It’s really too bad that people do this, as others have said, just decline to participate in the entire survey if you cannot see the value of it.
Well BFM,
We’re just going to have to differ on this one.
I was raised to believe that when you undertake to do something, you have a moral, not a legal, obligation to do so honestly. If there is a question that I don’t wish to answer, my view is that the only honorable reply is to decline to answer the question.
Oaths are different; violating an oath subjects someone to penalties. Deceiving an interviewer after agreeing to answer questions says something about the substance of a person. Deceptively answering survey questions, AKA lying, is a failure of character in my view, a moral failure; such a person will likely feel no compunction against any manner of deception. If you can’t trust someone when no one is looking, can they really be trusted at all?
Finally, concealing information is not the same as providing misleading information. Often, surveys are instruments of commerce. By misconstruing results, false responses can be seen as a form of vandalism
Hall – let’s look at this survey thing as a commercial enterprise, shall we?
Now, if the survey pays me for the information (cash or reward) then I do feel obligated to tell them the truth. However, I am sure you have heard the expression, “Never look a gift horse in the mouth!” If they are expecting the information for free, then it depends on how devilish I am feeling at the time. 😉
You may or may not be aware that the personality test the Minnesota Multiphasic gives you the same question twice (but worded slightly differently) to test the validity of your answers. And some computerized surveys have a trick question to prove you are not a computer answering the computer.
And let’s talk about tests. Have you ever guessed an answer on a test? Of course you have. We all have. Still, it really was a lie. You really did not know the answer. Or how about the one you thought you knew, but it was wrong. Lie?
And how about coloring our hair? Hillary clearly colors her hair. Lie? And face-lifts? The morality of this just goes on and on. Where does one draw the line? 😉
Perhaps the difference is not as great as misleading a nation into war, but the two are not the same.
Telling a hostess you enjoyed her party is a social convention, provided you’re not effusive. The need to spare a hostesses feelings surpasses any need to give honest feedback; you are not obligated to help her improve her hospitality skills.
But consenting to take part in a survey is to undertake a responsibility to do so honestly. The other choice is to not participate, to abstain.
What Fleming was boasting about is tantamount to sabotage, not civil disobedience.
Hall – they usually ask “Are you willing to take a survey?” They DON’T ask “Are you willing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God!”
“But consenting to take part in a survey is to undertake a responsibility to do so honestly. The other choice is to not participate, to abstain.”
That is the key point of disagreement, isn’t it.
There are some surveys where the responder might have a legal obligation to answer truthfully.
But few surveys are based on legal obligation.
Many surveys, perhaps most that citizens encounter, have a commercial purpose.
Why should anyone feel obligated to answer those surveys truthfully. That question is particularly relevant when the questions relate personal matters such as job, age, location and other sensitive matters.
I think it is clear that in regard to many surveys and many questions, responders have an obligation to conceal information to protect themselves and their families. Further, if it needs to be stated, concealing information is not limited to declining to answer and specifically includes providing information that does not describe the responder.