On January 28, 2019, I read a story in The Seattle Times (linked from The Suburban Times) that proves once again that a citizen acting out with enough poor judgment and bad behavior can create an opportunity for their family that adds meaning to the phrase, “Non-Compliance Is Worth Millions.”
For story details in The Seattle Times click the link Lakewood to pay $500,000 after police killed unarmed Native American man / The Seattle Times.
While I am sincerely saddened by the family’s loss, this is another case of misguided emotion and greed triggering the opportunity for family members, not involved in the incident to scam big money from the City of Lakewood, Lakewood Police Department, and Lakewood taxpayers.
In this incident, The Seattle Times report suggests all witnesses agree Mr. Covarrubias pointed a cell phone towards the police. The uninformed conclude that because it was a cell phone, the label “UNARMED” should mandate that the police must have shot him because of some racial bias goal. The headline reinforces the racial bias idea by including the descriptor, “unarmed Native American.”
You will never see a truthful and factual headline, “Man Is Shot Because He Acted In A Threatening Manner And Failed To Comply.”
What the uninformed fail to understand is the fact that a suspect can possess a cell phone that is designed and manufactured or modified as a multi-shot handgun. Yes, it looks like a cell phone, but there is no talking or texting. Just shooting and killing the police.
When a police officer gives a lawful order such as, “Don’t move or I will shoot. Put the phone down, or I will shoot.” and the subject fails to comply, and instead acts like he has a gun he is about to use, shooting the suspect is very likely the only option.
Mr. Covarrubias pointed the cell phone like it was a gun. It is easy to understand that if he acts like he has a weapon, anything can look like a gun in a split second available for analysis. And in fact, cops understand that a cell phone might be a gun. That means if the officers recognized in a split second that the object in the suspect’s hands looked like a cell phone, the officers would still need to shoot based on the suspect’s behavior and the known fact that a gun can look like a cell phone.
Why would anyone pretend a cell phone was a gun other than trying to goad the police into helping them with suicide. When will the public serving on jury duty ever figure this out?
Once again there is no discussion regarding Mr. Covarrubias’s failure to COMPLY with lawful police orders. Had he COMPLIED, he could still be alive today. Had he COMPLIED, there would not have been any shots fired by police. The same factor applies to our recent $15 million dollar loss in another infamous “fail to comply case.”
The next thing reported is Mr. Covarrubias had methamphetamine and other drugs in his system. With dope on board plus the possibility of mental illness, it is easy to understand that “suicide by cop” may become an appealing option for a way out of personal stress and pain. In the old days, he might have been safely locked up in Western State Mental Hospital where he could get treatment to break his drug habit and resolve any mental illness he might suffer from. Today our tight-fisted politicians have set us up to push the mentally ill into the streets of mainstream society even if the subjects suffer from problems that can create a threat to themselves and others.
While I understand Lakewood’s decision to settle for the $500,000 payment and see that as a smart money and time management decision, the payment is a clear demonstration of how broken our court system can be. Had I been on the jury, the award would have been zero dollars.
The payment is an intelligent move on Lakewood’s part to mitigate the financial loss of time and money. The payment is not, as suggested in the article, evidence of guilt or wrongdoing on the part of Lakewood Police.
If anyone deserves $500,000, it would be the police officers who Covarrubias forced into a situation where they had to use lethal force thereby creating the distinct potential for PTSD. Police officers must make deadly force decisions for us to keep everyone safe, but anytime that happens, there are two victims; the deceased suspect and the police officer.
This matter is not about wrongdoing or bias on the police officers part. It is about abusing our court system and greed for the family and the lawyer.
During almost 2 1/2 decades as a police officer, I have never observed or heard a single Washington State police officer treat anyone inappropriately because of racial bias. I have seen police acting in a racially biased manner in Mississippi, but Lakewood is a long way from Mississippi.
Families and lawyers connected to the suspect, who was solely responsible for the incident, are seen frequently capitalizing on what can be considered an easy money windfall.
I am proud of our Lakewood Police and ashamed of how our system works. When the police are forced to use lethal force, it is not about race. It is about suspect behavior.
Members of the public cannot change their race, but they can improve their behavior, and they should do so if they desire to enjoy a long life.
In one way, you can’t blame the family because if a relative is shot by the police, our system makes the tragedy like winning the Lotto.
Strangely a family could even hope to have a loved one who acts threateningly and fails to comply with lawful police orders. It is an effective way to make big money for those who are left behind.
Watch for next time. It will happen again. The lawyers are waiting.
In closing, I have a message for our professional Lakewood Police Officers. Ignore the words of the new candidate for Lakewood City Council who told you to subscribe to the concept bring them in alive. Sure if possible that is exactly what you should do, but know this. Improper or inappropriate hesitation and delay on your part will get you killed.
If forced into an officer involve shooting by a subject’s behavior and refusal to comply, shoot first and ask questions later.
Ethical police officers do not act upon a suspect, they react to the suspect’s behavior. If you shoot or don’t shoot, in reality, the final decision is made by the suspect as communicated to you by their behavior.
Shoot first and ask questions later if you want to go home to your family at the end of your shift.
Readers of this column of Boyle’s should be observant of how Boyle responded with no little sarcasm toward the victim and the victim’s family in his comments to the original posting of this tragedy in The Suburban Times link to the report of the incident in other major publications.
Come on Dave – you’re more concerned about some sarcasm than the subject of this string of comments?
Ed kane says
DECEMBER 11, 2012 AT 10:48 AM
I know Mr. Boyle is capable of more effective prose and commentary than is evident in his emotion-laced tirade over the Starbucks graffiti. Commentary over such offensive activities can have either informative, teaching or healing effects, but lashing out with such damaging statements serves no purpose whatsoever, except possibly to please the offenders by rewarding them with exactly what they hoped for – to irritate the community and bring exposure and credit to their work within their own circle of cohorts.
Does he not realize that the best of homes and the most dedicated parents can bear children that may head off along their own twisted path of anti-social behavior? Not everything a youngster does can be laid at the feet of the parents – who, by the way, may already be tortured by the actions of the children. Most of us can be thankful that our offspring stepped off onto a productive path, even if we were not the best of parents. Not all are so fortunate.
Go ahead and comment, but try to demonstrate a level of maturity and understanding and, when possible, offer possible solutions. I’m sure parents would love the insight.
But how does a half-million dollar judgement make sense? Why reward monetarily the family of a criminal killed by law enforcement attempting to protect families.
To be clear, there was no jury involved with this $500,000 settlement, only the threat of a jury. Both sides know that a jury can be, as they say in Vegas, a crap shoot.
If the jury is packed with emotional uninformed bleeding hearts with no common sense, the plaintiff can win millions. In this case, they were asking $13.1 million.
If the jury is packed with citizens who work hard to examine the facts and then apply the law with maximum common sense, the plaintiff faces the possibility of winning zero dollars.
When the suspect, who controls the incident, is the sole cause of the incident and the cops do nothing wrong, any dollars paid to the suspect’s family proves something is wrong with our system of justice.
I agree 100% with the police officer in Houston who said recently that he’s sick and tired of our police officers having a target on their backs because of the low lifes on the loose everywhere. And then to add insult to injury, their equally low life families seeing an opportunity to profit from it. Do they really think we believe that nonsense?
We hire our police officers to protect us from these sorts of people. When an incident occurs, if they don’t respond to officers’ commands, whatever they may be, then I’ll repeat…”Shoot first and ask questions later if you want to go home to your families.”
Perhaps the families of our fallen officers, Mark Renninger, Tina Griswold, Greg Richards, Ron Owens, Daniel McCartney, Kent Mundel and all the others killed while trying to protect law abiding citizens need to start suing the families of their murderers. If these families cared so much for their loved one, why weren’t they taking proper care of them. Their negligent behavior caused innocent people to be murdered. I know the likeliness of this ever happening is slim to none. But wouldn’t it be nice!
Keep up the good work, Joe. I pray daily for all of our officers, especially as the criminal element continues to thrive.
Excellent comments Joe and Pat. I agree with you. Anderson weeps for the fallen, but not if they’re police officers.
Asinine comment Marty.
You are speaking my mind, Joe. Thank you. I have been wondering for a long time how anybody could want to put themselves in the line of fire for us citizens when there is so little moral support for them these days. When in a life-threatening situation it must be permitted without dispute to defend yourself by equal measures. And who could judge the split-second decision when police are confronted with a weapon even if it turns out later to be a dud? I’m pretty sure none of our Lakewood police officers is keen on killing anybody, and I don’t want to be in the shoes of those who found themselves doing just that. If you are demanded to pay up for defending your life, something is definitely rotten …
I can only say “Excellent Thoughts Joe”
—Today our tight-fisted politicians have set us up to push “the” mentally ill into the streets??
I:d prefer you be far more specific. That “the” is insufficient.
Let’s not risk harming other “low life” miscreants, dopers and, yes, mentally imbalanced individuals. Since they can not be taken off the streets let’s take the cops off the streets!
But seriously, let’s deny any attempts by trolling lawyers and criminal’s families to file law suits unless a special grand jury determines there is a very high likelihood of wrongful or criminal behavior on the part of police. What would you want your loved one to do when an out-of-control person points what seems to be an unidentified object at him or her when there is a serious probability it could be a gun? Given that situation I would clearly take a shot with intent to stop the offender, whether I am a cop or not. Officers have a clear right and obligation to the public, himself and those depending on him/her to take rapid action to stop the offender. Why would anyone want be out there protecting our community without that right? Hesitation in such times can be a critical error for the officer.
Ed Kane, “judgement” yes, “reward” no. And “criminal”? What was the crime Ed?
Mr. Anderson,
I am not Mr. Ed Kane and please forgive me Mr. Kane for giving an answer to Mr. Anderson’s question directed to you.
What Mr Anderson does not get is neither you or I nor the police are mean spirited. We do not want to see anyone hurt or killed.
So why did this tragic death occur? Because there was criminal behavior. Mr. Anderson asks, “What was the crime, Ed?” Mr. Anderson appears to not see any wrongdoing on the suspect’s part.
The suspect’s crimes include, but are not limited to the following:
1) Criminal trespass on private property and a refusal to leave.
2) Malicious mischief by climbing on the victim’s lumber piles which has the potential to damage the owner’s goods, products, and properties.
3) Use of illegal narcotics as confirmed during an autopsy.
4) Obstructing a police officer.
5) Disorderly conduct.
6) Threatening behavior towards the public and police.
7) Failure to comply.
Based on the level of these crimes, would it make sense to solve the problem with a lower level of force? Certainly. Lakewood City Council candidate Chas Ames’ “bring em back alive” solution would be great.
I know police officers agree, Lakewood Police Department agrees, and the City of Lakewood agrees. I agree. Police bring em back alive every day. That is what police always try to do.
The unnecessary death of this suspect is based on what some would call ignorance or stupidity. I am quick to point out that the police were not guilty of ignorance or stupidity. The responsibility for this entire incident rests on the shoulders of the suspect.
The most succinct way to say it is the suspect failed to learn or refused to conform to the concept, COMPLY OR DIE.
It is simple. Had the suspect complied with the lawful police orders, he would have shown his empty hands. He would have laid flat on the wood pile. He would not have jammed his hand into his waist area and come up with a cell phone that he treated like a gun. He would not have pointed his make believe gun at the police and / or public like he was going to shoot. He would not have made a move until directed to do so by police.
The suspect’s chosen behavior probably based on mental illness issues, illegal drug use issues, and / or a desire for suicide by cop, forced the cops into a quick-draw like defense action. Had the police hesitated in order to find out if the suspect’s gun game was a game with a pretend gun or a real 22 caliber cell phone looking device, we might have another police funeral to attend.
Unwarranted hesitation kills cops. An example right here in Pierce County is the Tacoma Police Officer who barked into his radio, “The man with a gun is out of ammunition.”
The officer could still be alive today had he ignored Mr. Ames’ and Mr. Anderson’s approach and barked out a police command of “Drop the gun or I will shoot.”
When the suspect refused to comply then lethal force was called for. In this case, the officer took the Ames and Anderson approach. The suspect played a Russian Roulette-like game with his revolver and when he got past the empty cylinders, the officer was killed.
The suspects actions and inactions took the “bring em back alive” option off the table. When a suspect refuses to comply and then appears to attempt shooting innocent people, all options other than lethal force are off the table.
If police have done nothing wrong, the family should not be rewarded by the actions of their criminal relative.
Comply or die.
“The responsibility for this entire incident rests on the shoulders of the suspect.” Not true. As I-940 makes clear.
I-940 attempts to influence the outcome of confrontations between criminals and citizens who do not know how to behave, but if the criminal acts like he is going to injure the police officer or a civilian nearby, then it makes total sense to Shoot and ask questions later.
The responsibility is on the suspect. Comply or Die. Mr. Anderson, why is it so difficult for you to understand Comply or Die?
Great article Joe. I served on a jury a few decades ago which wasn’t as serious as a shooting and death but times were a little different then. The case involved a party in a community room of an apartment complex. The parties involved became wild and destructive moving from the communal room to the pool. Another occupant of the complex called police. Arrests were made including of the young mother who was very involved. A well known Tacoma attorney had the case for the misfits. It amazed me that after 3 weeks how the jury began evolving into groups. About 3 of us were for complete acquittal of the officers, several were kind of split and their were 3 others who openly didn’t like law enforcement and ended up bringing the 50-50 group to their side with the sob story given by the attorney because the mom was a nursing mom and her baby was taken from her when she was taken to jail in just a swim suit. Nonsensical? Sure was. TPD paid the bill. My argument for not rewarding bad behavior in the first place lost. Like the Union leader in Houston Tx I too am sick and tired of how police are regarded now by the local, state and many of the politicians across the country. Without laws and law enforcement America would be nothing more than anarchy and we seem to be heading in that direction now sadly. My prayers are with police, military and all first responders.
Well done, Joe.
Mr. Anderson, I=940 appears to attempt to make some positive improvements. That being said, if the suspect fails to comply and appears to be a threat to the officer or nearby citizens, then the suspect forces the police officer to Shoot first and ask questions later. It does not matter how much training the officer receives. non-compliance on the part of the suspect is not a good reason to allow the criminal to kill the officer, a nearby citizen and especially a child.
Comply or Die.
I-940 “appears to attempt to make some positive improvements”?
Appears to?
Really Joe?
Ken Thomas, president of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs board, said, “We believe this new deadly-force standard — clarified (I-940) and agreed-upon by HB 1064 — provides a clear and objective standard that can be clearly understood.”
Not “appears.”
Rather “a clear and objective standard” one that will “require police to receive de-escalation and mental health training.”
The fact of the matter is, it is because of what happened to Daniel Covarrubias, and Leonard Thomas, and Renee Davis, and Che Taylor, and Patrick O’Meara, and Charleena Lyles, and Jacqueline Salyers, that over 360,000 people signed their names to De-Escalate Washington’s I-940 which passed.
The fact of the matter is what the Director of Public Safety, Sherwood, Oregon, Ronald C. Ruecker wrote in ‘The Police Chief’:
“‘Our communities cry out when use of force is juxtaposed against the community’s expectation of necessity. They reasonably ask, was there another way that officers could have defused the situation? Was the use of force consistent with the level of threat confronting the officers?
“‘The citizens have the right to expect that the use of force is the option of last resort for law enforcement officers.’
“That’s why the Department of Justice investigation that concluded – December 2013 – that Seattle’s Use of Force Policy was deficient and should be revamped to reflect changes outlining for officers when force is appropriate, how much is necessary, and when it is not.
“Among the new requirements that were adopted for Seattle police officers: ‘If circumstances allow, attempt to de-escalate tense situations to reduce the need for force. When using force is unavoidable, the policy cautions officers to use only the force necessary to make the arrest and says that their conduct before force was used may be considered by the department in determining whether force was appropriate.’
“‘The findings of the Justice Department’s investigation echoed concerns that had been raised for years by Police Department auditors, a review board, blue-ribbon commissions and plaintiff’s attorneys, among others, who have complained that officers escalate to force too quickly.”
To border on hilarity at the expense of a victim who was, chances are, certifiably unstable mentally, and impugn at the same time the victim’s family, all while ignoring the pushback of the public on this issue, hardly approaches anywhere near to what could be considered a “mature and understanding” position.
Thankfully you are retired. Can you imagine if officers went out on patrol with attitudes like yours and those of some of your adorning fans who wrote of the folks out there as “low lifes (sic), on the loose everywhere”; “their equally low life families”; “‘low life’ miscreants”; “misfits”.
Or, to use your word: “loser”.
Or, to refer to your view of those responsible for graffiti? How you described them in your December 10, 2012 article published here in The Suburban Times: “cowards, lowlifes, jerks, losers, illiterate, mutants, parental failures, human rejects.”
And, if that were not enough, such a despicable viewpoint led you to your ‘final solution’ for treating those responsible for graffiti – drown ‘em in the river for which you offered to provide the gunny sack.
Irresponsible.
Mr. Anderson,
This has been quite a discussion proving that not everyone agrees with you or me.
I find it fascinating that you feel compelled to dredge up my words from over six years ago and twist my intended meaning to fit your agenda. Keep it up. I do not care. Anyone who knows me understands that I am totally against the taking of human life. Yes, those are my words, but your constant characterization does not fit the real Joe Boyle.
In my opinion you promote conflicted and confusing ideas. You are happy I am retired because you love to think of me as a killer. Yet, if you examine my 24 years as a police officer, I never shot one single person. No officer involved shootings. Through a combination of luck, training, discipline, self control, and careful tactics I never shot anyone. I have had many opportunities to shoot someone both as a civilian and as a police officer, but I have not. In fact my record will show that I dispensed very little professional violence during my 24 years service.
Based on your thought process and comments, you should feel sad that I have retired. It sounds like I am exactly the kind of officer you and I-940 desire.
Sorry, Mr. Anderson. I will not consider returning to work as a police officer because a strong contingent of the public is getting their kicks destroying our country by destroying our dedicated police officers. Bottom line. Not many people want to work for people like you as a public servant. Recruiting is down 66%. That means departments are going to have to lower their hiring standards in order to fill their ranks.
Members of the public, like you, who constantly criticize officers involved in suspect shootings are likely to destroy our police departments which will perpetuate what you state you fear the most; low grade officers with itchy trigger fingers..
Why in the world can you not understand the concept, Comply or Die? You should be promoting this everywhere you go if you are really interested in effectively saving the lives of the people you claim to serve.
You, Mr. Anderson, have the opportunity and ability to save dozens of lives.
You’re grasping, perhaps gasping for air now Boyle.
Yes, those are your words for which you were roundly chastised. They evidently reflect who you are as I do not ever recall a retraction much less an apology for having incited, inflamed and exacerbated not only that issue but which resulted in threats of violence that even exceeded your action plan – threats then that you also did not denounce though others did.
Yes, you do in fact care or you would not continue this diatribe any more than I do also care, or I would not engage you further.
Impugn motives all you want. They are not charges I made. You stand or fall not only on your reputation but how you present yourself on paper.
Three-hundred thiry-six thousand people signed I-940. One-million, eight-hundred thirty-four thousand, five-hundred seventy-nine voted it into law.
I’m not alone.
Perhaps you are the one on the wrong side of history.
I am with you on this. It seems to be a malfunction of the legal system that tax money has to be wasted by dealing with and sometimes paying off unemployed lawyers and their tickets to wealth.