Seventy percent of use of force incidents involve persons who are mentally ill or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Is it possible that the need for force is explained by the person's behavior? We need more information. I say take it to court.

Here's a question: would the special master be empowered to deal with the labor unions and the need to negotiate any changes to working conditions including the accountability system?

The Department of (Social) Justice is corrupt.

Nearly as disturbing as the DOJ's findings is the chorus of Seattle civic leaders who are questioning its validity and diluting its impact.

SPD quickly took vigorous measures when the Port of Seattle was an "Occupy" target recently, as documented by Crosscut and other media. Perhaps Mr. Royer, whose employer's interests were forcefully protected, considers it important to support them in turn.

What would be most welcome is abandonment of the excuse-making and apologetics, and to respond to the DOJ findings on the merits.

As for Mr. Royer's suggestion that federal policies are responsible for grossly unequal rates of arrest and incarceration: thousands of other American cities seem able to adjust suitably in this same policy environment.

This is an opportunity for the Emerald City (or are we merely the White City?) to move forward, making use of some inconvenient truths. So long as it persists, the excuse-making will reflect denial rather than openness and positive adjustment.

A request and a comment

"But this type of review does allow the local jurisdiction to challenge the DOJ’s findings in court."

For the rest of your discourse to make sense, please change the pronoun "this" (in the above quoted sentence) to let us know which of the reviews you have already mentioned you are talking about.

"The elected officials that create and sustain these unfair and destructive policies, like the drug war, expect the problems they create to be solved by the people at the bottom."

That sentence aptly describes the American way, which is inclusive of all the people at the bottom we continue to send off to war and most certainly is not limited to the national electeds, or even the electeds. Our rule of law has much to be desired over protest as the only form of corrective change, but as the centuries are proving, changing troublesome rule of law also takes mainly protest, which gets us right back to your perceptive sentence about expecting problems not created by the people at the bottom to be solved by the people at the bottom.

To my mind, the acquired ability to only pretend to be listening is what enables "unfair and destructive policies" to drag on and on. Having honed this ability for centuries, many of us in the middle (who used to know better) now see the ability as second nature. Hence, it is a Krishnamurti type knot— solvable only by catching one's own self in the act—that the whole of our people face, at the same time the ability's prime aspect is a lack of self-awareness—an inability to tell the difference between pretending to listen, thinking oneself to be listening, and listening. Courts have a great deal of this ability, juries too, but not quite as much, as often.

The War on Drugs failed $1 Trillion ago! This money could have been used for outreach programs to clean up the bad end of drug abuse by providing free HIV testing, free rehab, and clean needles. Harmless drugs like marijuana could be legalized to help boost our damaged economy. Cannabis can provide hemp for countless natural recourses and the tax revenue from sales alone would pull every state in our country out of the red! Vote Teapot, PASS IT, and legalize it. Voice you opinion with the movement and read more on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/01/vote-teapot-2011.html

You can also vote Libertarian if you want to repeal the laws on incarceration of marijuana users.

Sorry, but this smacks a bit too much of the usual Seattle game - circle the wagons when business as usual is threatened, especially by an "outsider" (but I thought DOJ attorney Jenny Durkan had lived here all her life...). It's the old we can take care of our own problems , thank you, but of course if SPD and the city had done so, we wouldn't have needed a DOJ intervention, would we? The sanest comment on all this came a while ago from an erstwhile finalist for the police chief job who said, when asked if SPD problems could be fixed by insiders, answered bluntly - no way. But of course the whole leadership team subsequently picked was composed of decades-long insiders.
As to the the drug wars, of course they need major change (our desperate embrace of laws that do not work is another example of our national political myopia), but let's not turn that into an excuse for SPD transgressions. (Stomping on a suspect cannot be excused simply because the law is problematic) Police behavior and attitudes should be an example to the community, not an embarrassment. That should be the aspiration embraced by Mayor McGinn, the City Council, and SPD leadership - and now. I can't see how a prolonged dispute with DOJ, which seems to be advocated here, advances that goal.

The 'findings' of the DOJ are more accurately and legally an end result of 'allegations' by a prosecutorial body seeking to justify itself. I suggest that no special masters be hired to extend this witch hunt that failed to find widespread systematic SPD failures. The DOJ merits its own outside investigators to probe all of the tragedies of the Ted Stevens botched case, "Fast and Furious", voter intimidation in Philadelphia, and spurious litigation against state immigration laws. Simply put, DOJ lacks credibility when it launches political agendas.

http://bcove.me/7iyfpy5w

if you want a data point to justify Seattle moving as soon as possible to enter into a consent decree with the Department of Justice, follow the above link to Ian Birk's dash board camera
recorded on the day he shot John T. Williams.

Consider the last 23 seconds of Mr. Williams' life. He enters the camera view on August 30, 2010 at 4:12:13 p.m. He is minding his own business, he does not look at the SPD patrol car and exits the camera view about six seconds later. Birk turns on his lights at 4:12:24, exits his car and moves quickly after Mr. Williams. Four seconds later, he shouts "Hey, Hey, Hey" Over the next five seconds, from 4:12:30 to 4:12:35 he shouts "Put the knife down" three times. At 4:12:35 he shoots Mr. Williams four times in the "right side." One of the shots goes through the back of his right arm. One of the shots pierces his lungs and leaves two holes in his heart. It took about one second for the four shots to be fired. Mr. Williams is dead.

I am pretty comfortable with having the SPD operate for awhile under a consent decree that provides for oversight from the DOJ civil rights division. It would be fine with me for the city, and I am happy to chip in as a taxpayer, to pay tens of millions of dollars for this oversight. It would be very sad if the city instead spent one dime to fight the allegations in the DOJ report or delay in any way moving as quickly as possible to build confidence within SPD and the community that our police department does not violate the constitutional rights of our citizens.

The DOJ report describes a terrible condition within the police department. It is clear from the report, however, that the problem is relegated to a small number of officers and the failure of leadership within the department. As I read the report, over 95% of the SPD officers are doing their jobs and doing them well. The problems created by the remaining 5% are not acceptable and unfortunately the SPD command and our political leadership, especially the city council, have been unwilling, unable, or indifferent to addressing the problem.

Mayor McGinn should be applauded for seeking DOJ review and for announcing today his intent to work with DOJ to implement change rather than the pointless and expensive litigation proposed here.

This is basically a defense of the police force, by someone who used to be a part of the administration that managed that police force. The writer's message is "trust first the SPD, not the Department of Justice."

The police department must find it strange to be on the defense. Normally it is criminals and suspects who say, "take my word, not his!" and normally the public, and juries, do, deferring to the police officers over those they have apprehended. But in this case "office on duty" is the feds, and the local police are the suspects. We, the public, are naturally deferring to the bigger policeman on duty, the DOJ.

The DOJ action is important because it tells the SPD that everyone is accountable to a higher standard, even those we normally defer to.