Lt. Chris Lawler,
Per the link here – the Lakewood Police Department’s Press Release found on the city’s website and dated April 22 but as of this date, May 4, not seen in any media publication – “regarding the officer involved shooting (fatal) that occurred on 04-21-15 in the City of Lakewood,” there are indeed “a lot of questions and requests for additional information.”
Readers of this heretofore unseen press release are advised to contact you “for additional information.”
To that end then, some questions and observations.
On June 18, 2013 Patrick O’Meara was shot dead by – once again – two Lakewood Police Officers shortly before midnight in a felony theft arrest attempt. Six days later you, Lt. Chris Lawler, provided for the media a rather substantive account of what happened that night all of six days previous including “a picture of the weapon that O’Meara was armed with” in which you added that “the weapon turned out to be a very realistic looking metal cap gun.”
In contrast, any details on a par of what was provided within six days of June 18, 2013 are being withheld now 13 days, and counting, following the altercation (fatal) between Daniel Covarrubias and Lakewood Police including whether or not Covarrubias was even armed.
In the Tacoma News Tribune this past April 28, you, Police Lt. Chris Lawler, “said that the department will not discuss the April 21 shooting death of 37-year-old Daniel Covarrubias until the involved officers give their statements.”
Now, according to the LPD “Press Release” the public learns that “the timeline of how information will be released” is in fact not dependent upon the officers giving their statements but rather “any details” will not be released “to protect the integrity of the investigation.”
There appeared to be no such concern with the O’Meara incident.
Finally you write that “this process” – investigations by two independent agencies; interviews; collection of evidence; autopsy report; review of all the forgoing; presentation of the facts to the victim’s family and then notification of the public – is “consistent with past practices.”
But the “past practice” as concerned O’Meara does not correlate with the information you are withholding now.