User login

Who's online

There are currently 4 users and 20 guests online.

Online users

  • Julie
  • JstPlnOnry
  • stevenl
  • dr

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

  • alwayssharethejoy
  • olympianwatch
  • mpeper
  • BalletArtsOlymp...
  • gail

    Creative Commons License
 
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 06/08/2008 - 9:23am.

I see that the Olympian isn't as quick to their usual rush to judgment when one of their own -- an award-winning photographer -- is accused of assaulting a police officer. I hope this incident serves as an eye-opener for some people.

»

I'll wait for the police report

nt

»

For what? The objective perspective?

nt
»

Yes

I don't know Tony, or the officer involved. I will wait until I get both sides of the story. If you read Olyblog it seems that Olympian reporters have a habit of lying (Who was really pepper-sprayed at the protests that day, hmm?) and given the level of sensationalism in our society I can easily see a reporter puffing up his/her story to sound a little more important....or a little more innocent. I don't take the daily O's word for gospel.
»

I saw Tony pepper-sprayed with my own eyes...

if that's what you're alluding to. I don't think the officers singled him out, they were just spraying the crowd and Tony was in the middle of. But he got a direct blast.

Edit: Later, the Olympian published an editorial that minimized what happened to better fit their editorial position. That is, the police acted correctly at all times.

»

You and a dozen other people

And I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't blow smoke up my skirt. So why would Tony still work for the daily O if they print lies about his journalistic experience down at the port? Maybe he has no problem lying about something to cover things up. I trust reporters almost as much as I trust lawyers.
»

Norm, if you ever wear a skirt

I promise to blow smoke up it. Can't say why Tony stays with the Olympian. But I do know the story evolved. Tony and the Olympian later said that he wasn't directly assulted by the officers and that what happened is just part of doing business..."it wasn't the first time for Tony," the editor said. Some of that is true. There were times when the officers weren't directly assulting anyone...they were just pepper spraying groups of people. Tony was one of those people. And he got a good one. As for "it wasn't the first time." I spoke with Tony as was first trying to get over the effects of the pray. He told me it was a new experience.
»

OK....there are a few things I don't want to see

Norm in a skirt is one and Gug blowing smoke up it is another.

Smoking is only allowed on the patio at the Broho, right?

Enough scotch and you never know.  On to the subject -

I'd guess that Tony stays with The Olympian for M-O-N-E-Y.  Since print media is taking it in the shorts and graduation photos are sort of seasonal, photo journalists must compromise themselves as we all do for the almighty dollar.

I'm sitting in the cheap seats watching this one take shape.  My guess is that it will be "settled" in a week, to never be spoken about again.  There are two organizations that need each other - the police and the local newspaper.

Watch for the silent handshake.

»

Oh, come on now Larry

You'd definatly watch out of the corner of one eye. You remember watching horror movies when you were a kid (you know, when it cost 5 cents). You'd cover your eyes, but couldn't resist peaking through the cracks between your fingers. It'll be like that.
»

Horror

Well put, Gug
»

Please explain how this

Please explain how this would be an eye-opener for some of us.  Given your rep for bashing The Olympian I see it as nothing more than your usual assiduous behavior toward our local paper.

»

Assiduous?

Main Entry: as·sid·u·ous  Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsij-wəs, -ˈsi-jə-\ Function: adjective Etymology: Latin assiduus, from assidēre Date: 1622 : marked by careful unremitting attention or persistent application synonyms see busy

Your usage is a little off.

»

Thanks, but I'm quite sure,

Thanks, but I'm quite sure, when you look at all the possible applications of the word, that it is used correctly.  But, if that's all you've got, instead of an answer, well...

Try this one - constant; unremitting.  I digress.

»

Wrong again.

Although my attitude toward the Olympian is unapologetically acerbic, my behavior toward the rag is hardly assiduous, constant OR unremitting. If that were the case, I could never have let this joke of an editorial pass without comment. (Who would Jesus bomb? The port protesters!) Personally, I hope Jesus stays in his grave, but Strunk and White return to earth and wreak havoc on people who use pretentious words incorrectly.

 

»

Is This Dialog One of

anger issues or having the last word on one's part?  Either way, no reason to respond to my rhetorical question.  EG took the high road.

 

»

There is a remarkable difference in tone

when you compare the Olympian's story about Overman with almost any story about port protests. I imagine some folks might see that difference and take note. But not everyone will. Some folks just aren't so inclined.

Intesting, haven't noticed anyone expressing thier lack of sympathy for Tony's injuries.  Didn't he "get what he deserved?"

»

What a waste of a

What a waste of a conversation.
»

Excellent point perhaps.

But it's lost on me.
»

Yeah, a real eye opener.

Yeah, a real eye opener. Nothing rings of wide spread police corruption like a disagreement between a reporter and an officer.
»

I don't think this is about police corruption.

I think it's about how differently the Olympian reports on such events, depending on thier sympathies. Never one question about the possible excessive use of force during the port protest, but now...
»

The prefered eye opener:

Cops are just like everyone else, which means that some of them are wild jerks.  Some are cool too.

The difference is that cops carry the full power of the State, which is terrifying when put in the hands of a wild jerk. 

The Canaanite's Call

»

Mistakes were made

A cop over stepped his authority. Tony did not have his camera taken away or his pictures destroyed and was released within a half hour. This is not to defend the cop's actions. From what I read is sounds like the cop was in the wrong. Dropping the charges, a training/review of press liberties and an apology seems in order. To err is human and cops are of that species.

Yes I see the Olympian's double standard vis a vis the PMR resistors as well but it is the nature of tribes to defend their own. The folks of the Olympian are humans too.

Pointing out the short comings of the Olympian is like shooting fish in a barrel: Way too easy and not much of a sport.

»

I believe it's necessary, though

Laurian, you may be skeptical of the Olympian, but surely you've noticed that many people allow their opinions to be shaped by the Olympian's skewed reportage of events, even people who should know better. I think it's important to make it a habit of questioning the Olympian's intentions and biases, more as a matter of civic duty than sport.
»

True

but it gets so tiring. Thank God for WIP and the Sitting Duck. And Olyblog.
»

I was tired, too, until I tried....

Vitametavegemin! Vitametavegemin!

 

Now I have the energy to criticize multiple law enforcement agencies, the city council, AND the local media!  Another dose, and I'll be downright assiduous! 

»

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning

Yes, it gets tiring pointing out the biases in the Olympian (like this one: good or bad police behavior is defined by how well the Olympian likes the recipient of the behavior, not by the behavior itself).

Yet, it must be pointed out.  The most crucial audience is those people who pay enough attention to read the Olympian, but not enough to analyze it in depth.

If someone says something enough, and no one challenges it, it becomes the truth.  If we care, we have to challenge it.

Matthew

»

Absofrakinglutely!

As someone mentioned recently, there is a vast swath of America that does not distinguish between Arabs, Pashtuns, or Persians. They're all just "rag heads." Bush uses that willing ignorance when making a case for war. Smilarly, there is a vast swath in Olympia with an apparent innability to distinguish between protesters who practice civil disobediance and protesters who commit violence. They're all just a bunch of anarchists (in the pejorative sense Rob). The Olympian seems happy to cutlivate that ignorance. Eventually, even the Municipal Nihilists will be "just a bunch of anarchists" if the Olympian can get the word out. Tiring, yes.
»

Tony Overman Didn't

impede traffic needlessly, throw rocks through windows, put children in danger, demand a arrested person's release, hold up government supplies and property or physically assault the detective or his property.

It's no wonder The O wrote the story about Overman the way they did vs. the story they wrote about the protest(s). The man was simply doing his job and trying to stand up for respect for the press, a belief he stands firm in. The protesters were simply wreaking havoc and chaos. The O was correct in all it's editorials about the protestors.

»

QED

...
»

Gug

Too bad you don't like malt whiskey... Fran's chocolates has some new Dark Chocolate Malt Whiskey Truffles that were delicious! I asked, but they don't make any malt scotch ones...
»

Oh, I'm a whisky drinker

but if someone offers to buy me a drink, I'll the the top shelf Scotch please. I'll check out Fran's new sweets. Thanks.
»

Well,

Mr. Overman may not have impeded traffic during his civil disobedience but he did engage in civil disobedience. He blatantly and admittedly disobeyed a cop's order to get across the police line. If we're going to hold everyone to the same standard then he should be criticized just like the street sitting protesters were so vehemently.

You simply can't equate what the peaceful protesters did with what the handful of rock throwers did, one had nothing to do with the other. One group was engaged in non-violent civil disobedience and the other was capitalizing on an opportunity to use violence as a tactic while hiding in the crowd.

The big point is that Overman staged a protest that day and got arrested in the act of disobediently standing up for the rights of the press. I'm not sure how the court case would pan out, we'll probably never know as most likely the charges will be dropped.

image
»

Really? The article I read

Really? The article I read said he immediately went behind the line - and it only said he argued with the cop who then shoved him, unless I missed it (which I'll allow was possible) it didn't say he re-crossed the line.

EDIT: Nope, I just re-read it - says nothing about Tony crossing the line. He was arrested for allegedly assaulting the officer.

»

Unless I'm wrong,

He was inside the line, was told to get on the other side, and before doing that decided to stick up for the press in an officer's face. The way the article read to me was that instead of obeying the officer, Overman approached the officer, in what may have very well appeared to be an aggressive manner to the cop. I just think if this had been a TESC student, the reaction would have been of the "he got what he deserved" variety. I'm really just looking for some equitable criticism from folks on this issue.

I feel like you were one of the folks who came down fairly hardline on the protesters with the opinion that they should obey the cops and move out of the street when told to and if they decide not to then they shouldn't complain about the reaction they get. I don't see how there is a difference here.

Overman himself has made this about him defending his rights and the rights of the press, more likely for legal reasons than for reasons of principal, but he did it anyway. His protest was to stay inside the police line when told to move out of it, he got arrested and probably was handled roughly, but the cops have a job to do that doesn't involve babysitting uppity journalists, right?

image
»

Rob, you are wrong on this one. Check the article

Here, I did it for you.

Overman said that while he was taking photos, an officer put up a police-tape boundary behind him. Overman said that when Lacey detective David Miller told him to move outside the boundary, he complied. The Olympian June 8 2008

 

»

I read the article, I think I just understand it differently.

The sentence immediately after the one you quoted says that "while walking away" Overman turned and approached the officer to confront him about something he said. The article doesn't make it clear whether or not he actually complied with the order to get on the outside of the police line, or if he merely began to comply by turning to walk away. The article does not say where the nose to nose exchange took place, inside or outside of the police line. The way the article is written, it makes me believe the exchange took place inside the police line, if it hadn't, and the entire confrontation happened outside of the police line then the cop would likely be in the wrong, and I imagine that would be stated pretty clearly in the article.

We can only speculate as to what really went down here, but this article really does little to shed light on it. When the police report comes out, hopefully we'll be able to know more, at least then we'll have both sides of the story.

image
»

While walking away

reads to me that Tony was outside the boundary. Either way, Detective Miller was wrong and the Olympian is still hypocritical.
»

With a bit more context...

Overman said that when Lacey detective David Miller told him to move outside the boundary, he complied.

He said that as he walked away, he overheard the detective tell another officer that Overman should be arrested immediately if he crossed the police line.

I'm suprized anyone knows where Tony was standing...other than Lacey...by a house.  Sounds to me like he hadn't stepped out of the line yet.  But rather, he turned in his tracks to ask a question.  But...I don't know jack.

»

The bloggers here will call out another media group

for being hypocritical, but will go out of their way to defend and rationalize their fellow Olybloggers hypocrisy.

"A dog is not 'almost human', and I know of no greater insult to the canine race than to describe it as such." - John Holmes

itchyhitch.blogspot.com

»

nt

nt
»

By your measure everyone is a hypocrit.

Now, how does that change the facts about how the Daily Olympian presents the news? It doesn't. The hypocrite slur is often used against progressives (like how we all secretly find hairy women unattractive, but pretend otherwise). While there probably are hypocrites among us, calling us hypocrites is just a lazy way to slander people who challenge the status quo. "Oh, you want everyone else to drive a small car, but you let Al Gore fly around in his private jet." It is almost comically transparent, but it works in echo chambers like FreeRepublic.
»

Intense Encounter

It sounds like an intense interaction. Sometimes, in situations like these, when tensions run high, there is a rush to blame or place judgement - either one of the parties is wholly accountable for potential misdeed. Most often the case is that both parties in the confrontation bear some amount of responsibility for the escalation of hostilities.

Of course, it would help to have an objective and impartial first-person analysis of the encounter to help understanding of what actually took place.

peace, bert

»

Some new info from

the National Press Photographer Association. Obviously a group with their own agenda, but it has more details about the incident.

If accurate, the article also clarifies where Tony was standing and when.  He was outside the line when the altercation took place.

»

As Arte Johnson From Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In

would always say "veeeeeeeeeeeeery interesting".

Thanks for providing another perspective!

»

Very interesting indeed.

Sounds like they were both in the wrong, I still expect police officers to take the high ground and not escalate, though. The police report will offer us the other side and I look forward to reading it.

image
»

How was Tony in the wrong?

For vigorously defending 1st Amendment rights? For calling a cop on his unprofessional behavior? For speaking truth to power? The cop initiated the confrontation then assaulted Tony. Twice. Pretty clear cut to me. Cop Bad. Tony Good.
»

well,

I haven't read anything that leads me to believe any rights were violated. Overman initiated the confrontation by turning around and approaching the cop. He could have kept walking.

image
»

Nose to nose

So, thanks for posting that link. After reading that, I am wondering whether "eskimo kisses" always qualify as assault, or whether they are only assault when you give them to police officers? And what if you have a bandana over your lower face?
»

Sounds like...

Other officers are going to let this Detective go at this one alone.

The Olympian:

Lacey Officer Robert Wilson wrote in his report ... "Due to my need to assist Intercity Transit with a mentally disabled female, I turned away from Det. Miller and the male."

I may be reading between the lines a little too much, but when someone doesn't see something - again, he may not have. Nobody can say but the officer writing the report - you have to wonder whether it's simply being used as a plausible way to remove oneself from a situation.

»

Copwatch Experience

I've heard this case at least 5 or 6 times now, where the assaulted person is usually a copwatcher or bystander copwatching and gets exactly the same treatment. For some strange reason, this has never happened to me, though - considering my previously 320 pound frame and pink skin this comes less as a surprise... though now that I've dropped 50 pounds I still don't get this treatment.

The main reason it doesn't happen to me is that I never take verbal issue with the unreasonable officer at the moment. Irrational armed anger junkies are unlikely to de-escalate regardless of the argument I might make. Once they have established their dominance I just sit back and let them think they have won. The press always gets the last word anyway, and it's called CopWATCH, not CopSTOP.

Tony has, in my presence, been angry and upset. I know that his reactions can be driven by anger and righteousness, but I also know that using that against someone trained to dominate the conversation and escalate to physical violence when that fails is a losing proposition. My credibility as a Copwatcher depends in part on NOT being the subject of the arrest.

I know that grey areas upset many of those who would prefer right/wrong and good/bad dichotomies, but the simple fact is that "...there are no 'good guys,' there are no 'bad guys,' there's only you and me and we just disagree." Tony was wrong. Detective Miller was much more wrong. But both could have avoided this. Detective could have whispered his order (but did not because it was intended as a threat to Tony) and Tony could have shrugged it off (but didn't because he sensed that it was a threat and decided, stupidly, to argue with an unreasonable man armed with a gun and handcuffs and training and backup). Lacey PD admin is NOT in control of their Agency. Their police guild is. (They literally check with the guild on document releases to Lacey Copwatch). If Detective Miller is part of the guild, no lasting change will happen here.

»

1st Amendment vs Copwatch

1st off let me say I really respect the work of Copwatch.

That said, being a member of the Press is different from Copwatching and so different tactics are appropriate. Due to the 1st Amendment, members of the Press, be they someone who contribute to the Olympian, Works in Progress, or Olyblog, have superior rights to citizens when it comes their role in reportage. Assualting and arresting a member of the Press is very serious because it is an assault on all our civil rights.

Mr. Overman's personal foibles, if they are such, should not matter when it comes to his 1st Amendment rights to report events in our community. I for one appreciate an aggressive approach to reporting. If you let the power structure roll over you they will continue to do so. If nothing else comes out of this incident, the Olympian has the institutional resources to make the LPD think twice about assaulting another reporter.

Injustice in the field happens in an instant. The truth to can be erased in seconds and all the subsequent legal proceedings will not bring it back. Mr. Overman was defending more than his ego, he was defending a critical right to all of us: the right to know what is happening in our community.

Agression in the defense of Liberty is not a vice.

»

I'm placing $5 on nothing happening from all of this.

Nothing of any importance anyway. We can hash this out all day long, but it makes no difference. A reporter was arrested, why? Because he took offense to something a detective shouted. Could the detective have handled it better? Absolutely, but when it all boils down, who cares? NOT THE RIGHT PEOPLE. Hands will be shaked, maybe an apology made, but the detective will keep on working, and the cops will all chuckle about how Mr. Overman is still not allowed behind the tape.

In the future what can be done to prevent this? Reporters should just do what they are told and suck it up. Why? Because the cop isn't going to lose. End of story.

»

Because the cop isn't going to lose. End of story.

No Sir, this is the beginning of the story.
»

I fought the law

 And I won.  :-p  Or at least reached a very cordial understanding on several subjects through the intervention of a good lawyer. 

The cops do not always "win" nor is there always a "winner" or "loser".  Sometimes everyone shakes hands and walks away with certain issued clarified and better defined.  

"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."
»

Six, you are absolutely

Six, you are absolutely right...
»

And incredibly

 Good looking too, don't forget that. And humble, very very humble.  :-p

"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."
»

I think you're all ignoring the point of this story

That is, how is the Olympian covering this story vs. the port protest.
»

Thanks, gug

for coming back to the original point.
»

There's debate concerning

There's debate concerning the speculation of whether or not Tony recrossed the line when confronting Miller. Beyond that, Tony didn't block traffic, refuse to disburse from an illegal blockade, spraypaint anything or toss any bricks. (Or at least nobody hanging around with Tony broke any windows to put the blame on him.) Plus, I'm guessing there aren't many, if any, businesses or members of the tax-paying public disgusted once and for all with the actions of Tony Overman.

That, more than an entity protecting one of its own and preserving their image, is the reason for the differences of coverage.

»

No, that sounds more like a justification to me

...considering your deeply held views about the protesters...you know, those folks who "deserved what they got." Didn't Tony deserve what he got, or did the detective possibly use excessive force after Tony bumped him with his nose/forehead? Hmmm. I wonder if that happened to anybody at the port. The law suits, if not settled, will determine that, but it's interesting that our local paper never concidered the possibility.
»

Where in the article did it

Where in the article did it say Tony bumped him with his nose/forehead? You're deciding that's what happened, even though the article didn't say. Just as Rob decided that Tony must've recrossed the line, even though the article didn't say.

Now, if Tony recrossed the line, he deserved to be arrested. Considering the urgency of the scene Miller wouldn't have been required to play nice and gentle. Also, if Tony, even accidentally, bumped the Officer while approaching it's understandable how that would escalate under the cirumstances.

All we know is that Tony turned around and approached the Officer: it's unknown from the article whether Miller was on the public side of the line, or if they met at the line, or if Tony recrossed the line.

All we know is that they approached each other nose to nose: it's unknown from the article whether Miller approached the approaching Overman, and it's unknown whether one or both made the decision to move in that close.

I doubt any of the Port arrests were misunderstandings. Despite the "Justification" from certain morons there were people blocking streets, impeding traffic, disrupting jobs and commerce - and refused to disburse after numerous warnings.

»

Go back and read what I wrote.

I said I couldn't tell from the article whether Overman complied with the officer's order to get on the other side of the police line. I never said anything about him leaving and coming back in.

image
»

I've read more than that one article

I'm not making anythng up. I'm just putting the pieces together based on Olympian articles, the NPPA piece, and police reports. Right now it looks like

  1. Overman did not recross the line
  2. Miller was on the other side of the line
  3. Either they softly touched noses or Overman bumped Miller in the nose with his forehead
  4. Can't tell if it was accidental or assult
  5. Miller pushed Overman hard enough to knock him down
  6. Overman was injured in the resulting arrest

Unless you are willing to entertain the possibilty of excessive force (whether a law is broken or not) then you're not really addressing the issue raised in this thread.  You simply focus on wether or not Tony deserved to be arrested.  That's not the issue.  The issue is how much force is appropriate given the offense and why is the Olympian only interested in that now but not when people who were just sitting in the street were pepper sprayed?

»

Based on what you just said,

Based on what you just said, it sounds like excessive force was used against Tony.

Spraying a group of people who have refused to disburse from an illegal blockade after numerous warnings does not fall under Excessive Force - rather it falls under Restraint.

»

I think the jury is still out on the use of pepper spray

on non-compliant but passive individuals. The 9th District appeals court ruled that applying pepper spray directly to the eyes of some people participating in a sit in violated their 4th Ammendment rights. I've watched people sprayed within a few inches of their face in Olympia. I'm waiting for law suits to settle that question here.
»

No worries, the Supreme

No worries, the Supreme Court has traditionally been available to reverse any bonehead decisions from the 9th.
»

The reason I think it is

The reason I think it is being treated differently by the paper is because it is different. A concerted effort by a group of people to committ an act of civil disobedience (not debating the merits of it here) compared to a reporter and a detective having a pissing match. It's like comparing the Grand Canyon to a sewer pipe. They are different no matter how you cut it.
»

Could have happened in the back seat of my Chevy...

in 1969:

  1. Either they softly touched noses or Overman bumped Miller in the nose with his forehead
  2. Can't tell if it was accidental or assault
»

Charges Dropped Against Overman

A couple key points from the update in The Olympian:

....during a verbal confrontation as Overman stood behind police tape meant to separate the public from firefighters.

...

Overman said earlier that as he stood outside of the tape, Miller continued to approach him, then "put his face literally half an inch from my face. I didn't move. He instigated the contact. He touched his nose to my nose."

»

He was behind the tape.

He was behind the tape. That is still vague. Was he in a restricted area or not?
»

Within the tape's the

Within the tape's the restricted area. Beyond that it would've depended on Apartment Management asking him to leave.

You can blow out a candle / But you can't blow out a fire / Once the flames begin to catch / The wind will blow it higher

»

Where Overman was standing, however,

had nothing to do with the charges. The charges were dropped because all the witnesses were suddenly struck blind...perhaps by Tony's glossy forehead as it descended towards Detective Miller's delicate schnoz...or not.
»

Perhaps, but usually when

Perhaps, but usually when all the rest of the Cops "didn't see anything" it's when one of their own is accused of doing the assaulting.

You can blow out a candle / But you can't blow out a fire / Once the flames begin to catch / The wind will blow it higher

»

Wink, wink...

ya don't say...
»

I've been on the beneficial

I've been on the beneficial side of Authority suddenly going blind - knocked a bully down who had just been pushing a girl around, three schoolbus drivers didn't see it (two of them didn't see it right in front of their eyes.) - Sometimes it's good.

»

Don't worry Merwyn

You're not going to get pegged as anti-authority because you admit cops sometimes cover their own.
»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at:

Latest Classified Ads

Get Firefox!


More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington"

OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington.
free hit counter