There are three reports, five pages total. The file names should tell you which is which.

Note that the assertion that the park closed at dusk was untrue - the signs around the park specified a time, not dusk. There are photos of the signs, which have since been changed, but I have not yet posted them here.

Michael Dahl's Report, Page one

Michael Dahl's Report, Page two

Theodore DeHart's Report, Page one

Theodore DeHart's Report, Page two

Gary Day's Report, One Page

I can read all the reports posted and listen to stories and review court decisions but it all leads to the same conclusion. A minor school yard fracus got the little snot nosed guy suspended and three big boys feeling proud and puffed up. All they have to do is speak with one voice and keep their stories straight. Who knows what the facts truthfully reveal?

Perhaps they did correctly infer that the little snot nosed guy had contagious or radioactive boogers, hence they were right to stomp on him. It seems the law says you can stomp on anyone as long as you don't stomp too hard. You can stomp because the person turns around and argues. It is illegal to argue. You can stomp because you SAY they argue. Who knows? The little snot nosed guy might actually have blown them kisses (I seriously doubt that). Who can say?

I use a rediculous example to illustrate a rediculous situation. The really bad part of this is that it was allowed to continue to a rediculous conclusion, which invites more rediculous situations. Near as I can tell, Long Hair David keeps his nose clean. And I've never seen him blow kisses. He frowns some, smiles some, look like he's running into something when he rides his bicycle, talks a lot, argues a little. He's just a human being who got treated like a snot nosed kid and forced to plead to something he did not do. I know he didm't threaten these WSP boys with his burning sage stick. We all know that. We don't threaten people with what we hold dear and sacred. If he brandished it, it was in a righteous gesture, or a wide sweeping cleansing gesture, not a poking or prodding gesture.

They invented a crime to fit a deluded perception. If they had convicted him of being snotty and he was doing community service for being snotty, I wouldn't even be writing. I would be handing him a kleenex and helping him do the service. But this situation is rediculous.

I wish someone had intervened before we gave officers of any sort free reign to team together and push anyone around downtown for reasons demonstrated by mutual agreement and unfounded reports. I wish we had taken the money spent on this proceeding and set up a fund at Starbucks. Here guys. Go have a free cup of coffee when the paranoia or territorial aggression gets too powerful to endure. Be human. Let everyone else be human. And carry kleenex to hand out to snotty guys instead of feeling so driven to write citations. Give the officers pencils with no leads. Force them to chew a point to it before they write a citation.

There is a special kind of dishonesty here called blowing things out of proportion. Let me make my bad day into your two bad years. Let me do it because I can, my friends support me, and hey, you're snotty anyhow. I have a special job that allowed me to get even with snotty people.

Consequently the community does what communities do next and takes sides. We side with those brave souls risking their lives every day on the bad streets, or we side with the snotty little guy who makes the streets a better place with his activism and good soul. Its not a choice any of us should have to make. I deeply resent it.

This was a witch hunt. The court burned David and his beliefs in effigy. Now I just have a couple of questions. Did it feel really good? Did it make an important point? Did it add to our sense of freedom and justice? Did it support human rights? Did it demonstrate, in a small context, what it takes to resolve conflict, solve problems, meet basic needs, and create peace? Did it build community or add to a general sense of well being? Did it promote diversity and eliminate a little bias?

Laws that answer "yes" to the above questions, need to be changed. The system that created the "yes" answers need to be changed. We can't change the people. People make stupid choices all the time. But they don't get smarter when we defend those choices. And none of us are gifted with the divine ability to judge fairness accurately all the time. Our legal systems push for vindication or conviction, absolutes and extremes. Anything requiring something less, needs to be solved first. We have created this huge buerocratic system that extends from a citation to a sentence, with not one iota of wisdom or resolution occuring any step of the way. Legal stupidity guaranteed to ensure that everyone who can lose will lose, injustices continue intact, we divide amongst ourselves on closure, and our tax dollars continue to fund the perpetuation of nonsense. It's a great system, if you're a smurf!

WF, that is bullshit. It was not against any law to ride one's bike in the park after dark in February 2004. The signs in the park which claim it is closed at dusk were not installed until after the incident. At the time, the signs in the park said nothing about being on bikes, which the WSP also uses in the park, and it said that the park closed at 8PM. (I have photos) That's 2 hours after dusk in February.

"He threw down his lit cigarette, 2nd law violation,"

There was no cigarette. Long Hair had a piece of sage in a bundle, which apparently dropped a spark or a cherry - easily mistaken at a distance by the officer, and a reasonable reason to approach. But the officer is responsible for DE-escalation and RE-evaluation. He can't just assume guilt and plow ahead regardless of circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to have another explanation for what he observed.

"littering seems like it would be a 3rd law violation."

No, it would be the same as number two. Which did not happen. The sage cherry would not be littering.

"Where the rub is for me he became aggressive with the cop, advanced on him and challenged the cop to a fight."

Also didn't happen. This was a lie, advanced by a man whose aggressive attitude was heard literally as "I am going to FIGHT you." What the officer writes that he said was "I am going to CITE you." The point is that the armed officer and two of his buddies surrounded David, told him he was committing an offense David did not commit, and then would not re-evaluate the situation and admit they were wrong. When David got off his overloaded bike, it fell over. The officers write he "threw it down." The posture David assumed was hands out, to the sides, down at his sides (like 'OK, what?') and his words were angry (as would you be if you were surrounded and accused falsely). Then the officer kicked him in his chest.

The witnesses both agreed that the officer attacked first. The officer relates that he attacked first, pre-emptively. So the evidence for David's approaching the officer is: the officer's word. And if David did not approach? The officer goes up for Felony Assault. So who has better motive for lying in this situation?

David has apologized to the court for his part of this misunderstanding. Michael Dahl has not. Both had parts in the incident, both were WRONG. Seems that is not good enough for you; the officer has the right to be wrong and the "crook" has the right to an asskicking. Well you're wrong, WF, and if you're a sworn law enforcement officer, I hope you lose your badge. You clearly do not qualify for the job.

I'm sure no one can argue with you Drew.....like I said before, you have it all figured out. You might think a little clearer if you put on an aluminum hat though.