And from today’s Coeur d’Alene Press story headlined No recording of Arfee shooting, we learn that the Coeur d’Alene police officer who shot and killed Arfee the dog inside a lawfully parked van on July 9 had not activated his body-worn camera when he handled a suspicious vehicle call in downtown Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.
The skewspaper article said, “Coeur d’Alene Police Sgt. Christie Wood confirmed that the camera worn by the officer was not recording at the time. […] ‘I really can’t (comment) because that would go right to the heart of the personnel matter,’ Wood said.”
So contrary to the earlier and repeated assurances from Mayor Steve Widmyer and acting Police Chief Ron Clark that the results of the investigation would be released only after review by the City and by an impartial third party, we now have the police department’s public information officer giving out information from inside the investigation.
We have long suspected that the City would try to manipulate the news about the Arfee shooting. We had little doubt that the Coeur d’Alene Press would be a willing participant in the City’s effort to control the public’s perception of this incident. It appears to us that we were correct.
We hope the public will not, however, be led down the garden path into believing that the culpability for the Arfee shooting and the pretty obvious mishandling of the subsequent investigation rests solely on the shoulders of the police officer who fired the lethal shot. The officer’s field supervisor, the watch commander, the public information officer, the training officer, lieutenants and captains all have fingerprints on this monumental demonstration of municipal incompetence.
Releasing information from inside the investigation in dribs and drabs is highly prejudicial and certainly dishonest. But that’s not surprising coming from Mayor Steve Widmyer whose resignation from the North Idaho College Board of Trustees reportedly included this explanation: “To be a public official, it takes a certain type of individual and I’m not one of those types.”
My grandpa taught me a great lesson that carries over here. In my early teens, he caught me smoking out in back of a shed and asked, “Why are you hiding?” Before I could answer he did it for me, “Because you know its wrong.”
CDA PD and the Mayor are doing the same thing; hiding because they know they are at fault. Hiding behind a drawn-out timeline, hiding behind a facade of “personnel policy” so they aren’t required to disclose facts through normal channels (but will disclose bits and pieces dribs and drabs despite a publicly made promise that they wouldn’t), and inevitable will hide behind a 300 or so page Report that will be nothing more than justification to a foregone conclusion that the “spirit” of law and procedure were followed, it was just a dog, promise we won’t do it again.
The very fact that the PD released (to the Spokesman) that the Report is 300-pages is manipulation–they want the average Joe to believe that number of pages equals detail and detail equals the whole truth; A plus B equals C.
Comment by Old Dog — August 15, 2014 @ 11:16 am
Old Dog,
I completely agree.
There was spin even in today’s S-R article. Notice how the City is framing this as a “use of force investigation,” and a review by “an independent use of force expert.”
Translation: The 300-page report is going to focus on the conduct of the officer who fired the shot. It seems to me the City needs to be equally interested in the misleading press release issued hours after the incident on July 9 and attributed to police SGT Jeff Walther:
Who authorized that press release?
And who made the decision to remove the deceased dog (and anything else) from inside the van before the owner had been contacted? If it wasn’t a crime scene, what was their authority to do anything with the van once they determined the dog was deceased? If the police had no authority to act, then they have acted under color of law to deprive Arfee’s owner, Craig Jones, of his property.
According to the S-R article, “The city’s use-of-force investigation has been slowed by a delay in gaining access to the van, an uncooperative eyewitness and city employee vacation schedules.” I agree that the city’s investigation has been slowed, but it’s because the Coeur d’Alene police department failed to do its job timely and thoroughly while it still had some measure of control over the incident scene. The police had access to the van on July 9 and gave it up. The eyewitness might have been more cooperative if s/he had been interviewed and executed a signed sworn statement on July 9. That would, by the way, have locked the eyewitness into his or her story. With the passage of time and with the selective leaks by the City Hall Sieve, it would not be at all surprising to find that the eyewitness’s story will have changed. That’s quite common and more a function of human cognition and expression than intentional deception. And yes, we wouldn’t want our badly underpaid City employees to miss any vacation time for some pesky investigation.
Your last sentence sums it up beautifully. In fact, it reminds me of a supervisor I once had whose estimation of the quality of a report was directly proportional to the weight of the report.
Comment by Bill — August 15, 2014 @ 11:55 am
Really makes me start to wonder if these new bits of information spread out between multiple media outlets are a deliberate tactic. Yesterday there were over 100 comments posted in a Press article. Today there are already over 100 comments between the Press and the SR – and it’s only 1:p.m. No doubt at least two TV stations will have bits on the shooting tonight at 5:00. Coincidence that the trend for initiating this type of controversy more likely comes on a Friday rather than a Monday?
All these people (including me) shouting at their computer in the isolation behind a closed door. The City is prepping, taming, the citizens for disapproval that is about to come. They are watching every comment awaiting a change in attitude, a change of heart, diminished interest, and most importantly a change in the perception by which the whole incident is being reviewed.
Comment by Old Dog — August 15, 2014 @ 1:22 pm
Judging from the comments by the Mayor and City Attorney in the S-R article, it appears to finally be registering with them that the Coeur d’Alene Police Department has some serious professional deficiencies in its ranks of Sergeant and above. Maybe it’s finally getting through to them that since not every situation can be covered in the policies and procedures, they need to be hiring and promoting people who can actually think independently and act appropriately even if it’s not covered in the book. It is inexcusable if the field supervisor, likely a sergeant, didn’t recognize the “blow-up-in-our-face” factor at the scene within minutes of this occurring. The same has to be said for everyone in the chain of command whom he notified of the incident. They’re paid to think and, when appropriate, go beyond what the manual of policy and procedures requires. Gridley said this case is unique because officers shooting and killing dogs usually does not result in a full-scale investigation. That’s my point: Supervisors (sergeant and higher) are expected to be able to discern that a case is unique and make appropriate procedural adjustments. That didn’t happen, and Gridley admits it.
In the article, City Attorney Mike Gridley was quoted, ““One of the reasons to look at the van is looking at the angle, the officer is of a certain height, and checking his story that if he shot as he said he did, the angle and where was the dog. And now you’re taking the deceased dog, who was frozen, and lining that dog up with the hole and the height of the officer. It all gets fairly technical.” Please tell me that they didn’t hold Arfee’s frozen corpse up inside the van for the ballistic path examination. The necropsy report would have revealed the entrance wound, any exit wound, and probable bullet path inside the body. From that, a reasonably precise approximation of the bullet path could have been made.
Comment by Bill — August 15, 2014 @ 3:02 pm
Bill,
When reading the sentence literally, regarding the “fairly technical” work, sure reads as if they used Arfee. Considering the other illogical moves of late wouldn’t surprise me but I sincerely hope Gridley was speaking figuratively. What a piece of work, maybe he should stick to negotiating real estate transactions. The more they speak, the more culpable they become.
Comment by Old Dog — August 15, 2014 @ 3:47 pm
Old Dog,
The more I read the S-R article, the more issues it raises.
The article said, “Two officers investigating a report of a suspicious van in the area approached Jones’ vehicle around 11 a.m. to check it out.” Was the second officer not wearing a powered-on body camera with audio? If there were two officers, were they in one car or two? Was neither car equipped with a camera? If there were two officers in one car, was one of them a trainee and the other an FTO?
I also think that SGT Jeff Walther may have a more serious problem than people realize. If he authored the misleading press release and if it is determined that it was intentionally deceptive rather than just incredibly carelessly written, the City Attorney and County Prosecutor have to consider whether his conduct warrants a Brady letter. If the press release was intentionally deceptive, then anyone in the Department who approved the release could be similarly implicated.
Comment by Bill — August 15, 2014 @ 4:28 pm
Bill,
The Police Chief Magazine? Nice to know that a retired guy is still keeping up on aspects of his past professional trade.
But back to the S-R article, what are they thinking releasing all of this prejudicial information? Can’t wait to see the section in the Report that deals with media releases, if there is such a section (Ha Ha!). A graphic of the chain of command would be nice too, but of course the command will make sure the released document will massage involvement of anyone other than the shooter. You know that as well as I. Another way I read the S-R article is that the City (Mayor and legal) are setting the stage to make the shooter fall on the proverbial sword so that the public will see the shooting as an isolated accident, not in any way systemic or a command issue.
Comment by Old Dog — August 15, 2014 @ 5:12 pm
Old Dog,
I don’t know for sure what they’re thinking in releasing the prejudicial information, but I suspect that given CdA’s penchant for putting PR-shaded lipstick on a pig, they’re trying very hard to minimize the public’s comprehension of the gravity of this incident. I hope that for once, both the Coeur d’Alene Press and The Spokesman-Review will each insist that one of their sober reporters actually read, understand, and then report on the sufficiency and deficiencies of the 300-plus page report if and when we ever see it. To say that report ought to be viewed skeptically is a gross understatement. When the acting Chief of Police tries to blame Mr. Jones and witnesses for the CdAPD’s failure to conduct a timely and thorough investigation, we have to conclude that any report of what the CdAPD actually did may be just a bit incomplete.
Mr. Jones will probably file a tort claim against the City. If his claim is even slightly less than you’ve-got-to-be-out-of-your-mind outrageous, our city would be wise to accept it. The S-R reported that Mr. Jones’ is represented by Bellingham attorney Adam Karp. As his website indicates, Mr. Karp specializes in animal law. City Attorney Mike Gridley specializes in bicycle paths and railroad ties.
Comment by Bill — August 16, 2014 @ 7:07 am