SHONTO PETE AND POLICE COMMISSION

 

 Shonto Pete has now been rebuffed in his attempt to hold the city of Spokane legally responsible for the fact he was shot by Jay Olsen.  A federal judge did the rebuffing.  It seems like an open and shut case.  If a city-employed plumber helped me with some water line work during his time off and I suffered damage because of his incompetence, I can not believe I would think of suing the city.  Hold it a minute.  I might allow the thought to cross my mind only because the city has much more money.  And this seems to have been the ultimate rationale behind Pete's case against the city.  As to Pete's pressing legal and medical bills: If I had the money I would pay them myself in the interest of justice.   Perhaps there are like minded individuals in Spokane who do have the wealth and the desire to at least partially right a wrong.  Note though that there are hundreds of cases each year where judgments are made in civil actions but the aggrieved party never collects.  I've had it happen to me.

This whole incident opens the door to a consideration of a wider issue:  the setting of policy for the Spokane Police Department.  For starters, let's keep one foot in the ore body and look at off-duty drinking of alcohol and taking of drugs, including prescription pain killers.  Just what the policy should be, other than not what is now, I am not sure.  But I do not believe the mayor or chief should set the policy by themselves.   An independent board of citizens, properly selected, should act as a primary advisor.  This would not be a "sounding board" group or an "oversight" committee.  It would be, to start with,  similar to what Eugene, Oregon has.  And I would hope it would evolve into something at least as strong as  the Park Board. 

CRITIQUE OF PJALS

The Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane is on the extreme edge of Spokane's political thought.   Of course, the name is in their favor.  Who can be against peace and justice?   

I see that now they are stepping up their effort to abolish Israel by boycott, divestiture, and sanctions.   They are denying Israel's right to exist through damnation of the two state solution, a solution  accepted, I believe,  in one form or another by nearly all moderates.  Of course, this is the public face of PJALS.  Who knows what the few hundred paid-up members say?   Attempts to stamp out Israel are certainly not going to lead to peace.  Though I do admit, the current Israel government needs to be thrown out on its ear and a more progressive one installed.  And I condemn all truly unjust acts by Israel just as I condemn suicide bombings and other terrorist attack by the Palestinians

Another example of PJALS meddling in a manner with a formula overladen with venom and under dosed with reason is what they call "police accountability."  One evidence of this is the way they trot out the name of Shonto Pete.  Pete suffered an injustice at the hands of the County Prosecutor or a jury.  The drunken off-duty policeman who shot him was very much in the wrong, but how the department may have been culpable is never addressed by PJALS.  I believe the department needs to be overseen - if only indirectly -  by an independent citizen group.  This in addition to the Ombudsman.  This body could strongly recommend a department policy as to alcohol and the police.  But if an Ombudsman with independent investigatory powers - as proposed by PJALS -  had been in place when Pete was shot, I fail to see where that would have led to anything more than criminal charges being brought against the drunkard policeman.  That was done and still no one is happy.   And finally, there is  the matter of partnering with The Center for Justice on this issue.  They have a civil suit going against a Spokane Policeman in the Zehm case.  They have a money stake in this. 

And so on it goes in knee jerk fashion.  Someone yells foul and PJALS is off on another crusade with its parade of true believers.