Today's Seattle Times "Son of King County Council member sues Seattle police"
The 25-year-old son of King County Councilman Larry Gossett has sued the city and two Seattle Police officers, saying he was roughed up when he was mistaken for a car prowler.The insinuation of police racism is less than entirely convincing in this situation -- Both officers are black and were cleared by an internal affairs investigation. And Gossett's claim that he lives in a "low income neighborhood" also appears to be a bit of an exaggeration. As far as I can tell, the neighborhood is solidly middle class, with a median income matching Seattle as a whole, and with above-norm home ownership rates and home prices --
...
Larry Gossett said he supports his son's lawsuit, but wasn't home at the time. Police are often too quick to rough up young black men in low income neighborhoods, he said.
According to the latest (2000) figures of the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income for Seattle was $45,736 [p. 132]. The Gossett home at 303 27th Ave, Seattle is in Census Tract 88, where 45.7% of households had incomes above $50,000, as compared with all of Seattle, where 46.0% of households had incomes above $50,000.
Gossett's neighborhood had a slightly higher percentage of households below the poverty line, 13.4% vs. 10.7% for Seattle as a whole, but this is attributable to a number of poor elderly renters in the neighborhood. The rate of poor non-elderly households was identical to Seattle as a whole, about 8.8%.
In Gossett's neighborhood as of 2000, 58% of the homes were owner-occupied, as opposed to 48% for all of Seattle. Gossett's zip code, 98122, is roughly in the upper third of Seattle zip codes for recent median home sale prices. His immediate neighborhood appears to be comprised almost entirely of single family dwellings whose estimated prices are in line with reported medians.
One distinctive thing about Gossett's neighborhood is that it is 50% African-American, while Seattle is 8.4% African American.
So if Gossett lives in an objectively middle-class neighborhood, why is he claiming it's a "low income" neighborhood? Is he cynically playing the race and poverty cards to protect his son and/or to promote his political agenda? Or, has he bought the racial stereotypes and mistakenly concluded that he must be living in a poor neighborhood simply because many of his neighbors happen to be black?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 04, 2006 11:26 AM | Email ThisFortunately, it's accepted at fewer and fewer outlets as the years go by and people figure out that playing to color is racism no matter which side you are on.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 4, 2006 12:21 PMWhich explains why Bill Clinton is consistently hailed as America's first black president!
Madness.
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on April 4, 2006 01:26 PMGossett has gone into captivity only because of his own thoughts and mind. Fortunately, that could end today, if he'd only face the truth of his own success.
Posted by: Misty on April 4, 2006 01:56 PMGood sound research. Gossett is probably doing all you sugguest he is, but I would recommend if you have not already, speak with Larry. He is good man. A liberal, yes. Still a very good man who has done more than most to make Seattle and King County a good place to live. He is from another generation. Respect that he is set in his ways. He more than most on Sound Politics has earned the right to be wrong and mistaken.
Respectfully,
Once At City
Or perhaps they think that middle class is $200,000/year and a Rolls Royce in the garage next to your Lexus.
Posted by: H Moul on April 4, 2006 04:38 PMGossett cannot have it both ways! If he really lived in a poor/high crime area - he would expect the police to be "efficient" in their pursuit of criminals in his neighborhood. He would probably complain if they didn't question someone who fit the description in a crime committed on HIS property! He'd probably play the race card with that too! He would insist that because he lives in a poor black neigborhood - the police just look the other way.....
He fit the description of the suspect to a "T". He must have been less than cooperative with the officers if they had to do "anything" to him. That the officers were both black - means absolutely nothing - except that Gossett is an idiot for suggesting "race" had anything to do with his treatment!
This is just as foolish as the McKinney complaint!
Posted by: Deborah on April 4, 2006 07:33 PMNobody has a "right" to be wrong and mistaken. Being wrong happens. Nobody is entitled to a pass if they decide to stay there...especially politicians.
Posted by: South County on April 4, 2006 08:39 PMYour data is misleading if you are using it to accuse someone of playing the race card and/or playing into stereotypes. I looked at data for census tract 88 broken down by income level and race. There are 612 households identifying as White alone and 745 households identifying as Black alone. Together, a total of 608 households have reported incomes of $50,000 or higher for a 45% rate (similar to your 45.7%).
However, looking at the census data broken down by race, 66% of the White alone households had incomes greater than $50,000 (405 households) while only 27% of Black alone households had incomes greater than $50,000 (203 households).
Also, do you think Larry hasn't drilled into his son that he's oppressed and it's the "pigs" fault.
And what the hell is wrong with people....when the police say stop you stop. If you do what they are asking then you will be OK. If you don't then you will get roughed up. With the amount of wacko's in the world today, police need to be diligent and protect themselves.
Does this give them the right to be @ssh0les? No, but that ususally isn't the case.
Posted by: Dengle on April 5, 2006 09:37 AM"This case has nothing to do with race, but the guy does have a valid claim. There was no probable cause in this case. Not even close."
don, "Probable Cause" is only needed for arrest. An officer only needs reasonable suspicion to detain someone while investigating an incident. An officer can even search and handcuff someone without making an arrest (a common miss-conception), if the officer believes safety is an issue.
================
Any time an individual resists an officer's lawful instructions, while said officer is lawfully performing his/her duty, that officer is justified in employing reasonable and necessary force to OVERCOME any resistance an individual may offer. Note that I said overcome any resistance, not match any resistance.
Many people do not understand police training, and this is how misconceptions and/or perceptions of excessive force may occur. Officers are taught to maintain control of the situation; otherwise, the danger factor may rapidly escalate. Maintaining control means employing necessary force to OVERCOME any resistance to lawful instructions issued by a police officer in the lawful performance of his/her duty.
You cannot maintain control of an individual in a situation by applying equal force; you must use force that overpowers the resisting individual. This requires on many occasions use of wristlocks, etc., to maintain physical control over an individual, and restrain that individual (handcuffs, back of car) and thereby maintain control of the situation until things are straightened out. This is sometimes called “securing the scene”.
Once an individual offers resistance, they have crossed a line, and they will almost always be overpowered and handcuffed, until it's clear the "resisting" individual is not the suspect and/or poses no immediate threat to officer or public safety.
Those officers, if the article in the Seattle Times is accurate, acted in good faith based on the information they had at the time. Suspect description, and area the suspect was seen in, matched Gossett location and description. Should the officers have ignored Gossett? If so, why?
I suggest that people go on a "ride-along" with police officers and see what the police face day in and day out, before passing judgment on officers lawfully performing their duty.
Sure, there are instances of mistreatment of individuals and suspects by police officers, but I believe these are the exception and not the norm. Most police officers are out there to serve the public, and are committed to justice and doing the right thing.
Police officers are constantly blamed when criminals get away with crime, yet they are also blamed when they try to do their (dangerous-life-threatening-on-a-daily-basis) jobs as best they can, which many times requires the use of force.
Posted by: MB (former Police Officer) on April 5, 2006 01:07 PM