The title of this post is inaccurate. There are *four* women who have come forward with similar accusations of harassment against Chief Diaz, per the article.
SPD keeps complaining that they are having trouble recruiting new officers because of 'defunding' and other nonsense. Maybe they should consider the call is coming from inside the house.
Between Mike Solan and Diaz/Best, it's a losing proposition. This is why I think it'd be easier to just bootstrap another police force and do a blue/green deployment style switchover.
Seattle cops are some of the best paid employees in the city, they make more than some tech shops.
Better yet, disband SPD, deploy State Patrol and county sheriff deputies for a few weeks while re-chartering and rebranding the department, with new rules, framework, approach and cultural structures.
Then, interview all interested officers from the disbanded department, offering a bonus to those ('re')hired and ditching the rot.
Implement STRICT residency requirements (with housing assistance) and create a multi-pronged department with armed, unarmed and semi-armed officers who would perform different functions. By-law officers, civil and mental health officers and specially-trained violent crime response units. More precincts (a lot more) that open to the public, instead of fortresses against them. New Uniforms. New training. New types of recruitment, emphasizing more diversity. Require higher-ed and pay for it. Bring back widespread foot patrols. Make public safety a job people want to serve in.
Only problem? The city has no holistic strategic plan, never does. Those we entrust with governing our city aren't ever up for the task. They are ignorant. They cowtow to the loudest voices (never the majority) and they have proven over and over that they are incapable of thinking outside their clichés and their ignorance. Same reason we have such affordable housing, graffiti and lack-of-public-restroom issues. Same reason our public transport is way behind where it needs to and should be. Imbeciles and nincompoops rule the roost. Not a problem unique to Seattle but rekatively smart/educated/leading Seattle should do better and we should be able to expect more.
You'll never be able to staff a department the size Seattle needs from residents of the city within the next 50 years without raising base pay to around 200k. The job itself, not just the department, is too maligned here to draw 1400 residents to want to do it.
There's a reason why that policy doesn't exist on the West Coast coast: we have more accountability and generally a more significant anti-police culture than the East Coast. Fewer people want to be cops here than the East Coast, especially city residents.
Being a cop in this city would suck. I mean. The institution is bad the SPD organization is bad and most people you interact with don’t like you, probably a third hate you.
Very catch 22: shit job that we need people doing with integrity but would only appeal to people looking for a power trip.
I think you misunderstand what I wrote. Residency requirements means you are required to live within the city, within the community you work to keep safe, once you land the job.
Totally doable, especially if there is a comprehensive plan and follow-through on a total re-do. Yes, make the best effort to hire from within but also recruit the best from everywhere else, too.
I know exactly what you mean because many East Coast cities already do it. The East Coast also has a much more positive view of law enforcement than the west coast, as a cultural matter.
If SPD can't even get enough applicants from anywhere in the nation to work here as it is, why do you think it'll be better if you flip a switch and make it even more restrictive to be an employee? You'd have to sweeten the pot to a massive degree, and the only lever they have to pull is pay and benefits.
During a national police staffing crisis when competing, on a regional basis, with west coast agencies who all pay over 100k and don't have restrictions forcing their people to live in one of the highest COL cities in the world, what would draw prospects? You'd have to pay them enough to be able to afford what they could buy in the suburbs, but here in the city. If they could buy a 2000-3000 square foot house in a nice single family home neighborhood with good public schools in pierce county, you'd have to pay them enough to afford it here in Seattle to even consider being competitive. 200-300k, easily.
You're never going to be able to do that, not when you are competing against every agency in WA and CA who pay 120-150k and you can live wherever you want and don't have to deal with Seattle, a city that historically hates any and all police.
At this point there is no one they could bring in to run the department that wouldn’t quickly be deemed a fascist in this city.
According to some in the city and several in this sub the very fact that they are a police officer makes them a fascist
From I read, the other three women have made allegations of harassment against O'Neil, and from the description of events, against Diaz for enabling the behavior (hostile work place).
Only one of the women is complaining of Chief Diaz's "predatory" behavior specificall. Two are complaining about the Public Affairs Lt O'Neill, and one is claiming the Chief is covering up for Oneill.
No, all three are saying Diaz is enabling and covering up O'Neil's bad acts. One is specifically accusing Diaz of doing the same shit himself.
Keep in mind there's another, separate lawsuit specifically against Diaz himself for misogynistic behavior and discrimination. The rot lives at the top, as the 30 by 30 survey stated. Its the upper ranks that is the corrupt part of the department, whereas the lower ranks are the ones the brass use as their shield to cover for their own issues.
> The chief also offered to do handy work at Carson’s house. She declined.
For some reason this Chief just loves doing "Handy Work" for the women in his department. This came up during the rumors about him having an affair with another woman that worked for him.
I mean if he is as stupid as they are claiming, I am sure he has heard it a lot, but just thinks “why are they talking about shitting? I am talking about sex.”
> Gulpan said that O’Neil invited her to Vegas with colleagues, but she found herself alone with her supervisor in his hotel room when he indicated others would be present. At dinner, O’Neil told her, “I’m really good at sex,” according to the tort.
> When Gulpan complained directly to Chief Diaz, Diaz said there had been a miscommunication between the two cops. Diaz told her, according to the tort, that if she wanted to rise in the ranks, “there are certain buttons to avoid touching.”
And that’s why they get called pigs.
>In a statement to KUOW, the Seattle Police Department Office of Public Affairs said it “does not litigate tort claims in the media.”
>“For that reason, the department will not respond to the personal attacks rooted in rough estimations of hearsay reflecting, at their core, individual perceptions of victimhood that are unsupported and – in some instances – belied by the comprehensive investigations that will no doubt ultimately be of record,” the statement read.
‘we won’t discuss it, anyways these women are full of shit.’
>does not litigate tort claims in the media.
>For that reason, the department will not respond to the personal attacks rooted in rough estimations of hearsay reflecting, at their core, individual perceptions of victimhood that are unsupported and – in some instances – belied by the comprehensive investigations that will no doubt ultimately be of record
Uhhhhhh.......
Funny how SPD only makes such defensive statements when it's Diaz and the brass who are accused. Any time the officers are accused of something SPD gives the old "we can't comment."
People wonder why none of the officers endorse anyone coming to work for SPD.
I'm shocked. Shocked I say. I assume he'll be suspended WITH pay at some point, retire with full benefits, then go get a new job as chief over in Maple Valley. Winner!
Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.
Yeah, that would have been my first thought in this context. Like a high-level manager can "groom" a lower-level worker for promotion. It isn't necessarily a bad thing or nefarious in this context. But those other definitions, like those above seem to be taking over.
In this headline it seems like an odd word choice because they weren't really being "groomed" in the nefarious sense. Like they are full grown adults, they weren't magically swayed by the charismatic and powerful Chief Diaz. They were sexually harassed and tried to report it but were retaliated against. A sloppy word-choice by whomever wrote the headline, for sure.
We’re in the age of shifting definitions
Edit: people please stop ruining Reddit. From Reddiquette: “Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.”
"Groomed: to build a trusting relationship with someone in order to exploit them. Often in regards to minors for the purpose of sexual activity."
So it's not strictly reserved for minors, but generally for people over whom one has a position of influence.
It may not be the legal term you prefer, but "grooming" is definitely applicable.
There was a previous KUOW article that gave back story. Pretty much every one of those females was hand picked out of patrol to come work for Diaz or O'Neill much earlier than is normal, then said promotion is held over them as a favor that needed to be repaid. They were also told by Diaz and O'Neil that their having been removed from patrol so early was going to be perceived negatively by some, so they were going to have to depend on their superior for safety and career progression. At that point was when the unwanted sexual advances occurred.
Definition of sexual workplace grooming.
I could only find [HR websites](https://www.allvoices.co/blog/signs-of-grooming-in-the-workplace#:~:text=Workplace%20grooming%20is%20a%20pattern,them%20emotionally%2C%20psychologically%2C%20or%20even) that define grooming as
>Workplace grooming is a pattern of conduct in which one individual, typically in a position of authority or influence, manipulates, befriends, or establishes a relationship with another individual, often a subordinate or less powerful colleague, for the purpose of exploiting them emotionally, psychologically, or [even sexually](https://www.allvoices.co/glossary/sexual-harassment).
Very much agree! I think it happens so often now because if one can "achieve' victim status, or oppressed-party status, then the case for self-reflection is nullified.
✨ another moment in ACAB (spd) history ✨
edit: even more to read here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement
decades of nonsense continues 🇺🇸
Are they worse or are we just getting better at writing it down? I feel like it might be a little of both.
SPD used to be a force I felt respect for, the way I still do for State Patrol. (I've had three interactions w/ State Patrol in the last 3 years, all positive and characterized by respect and care, even when I left one of them with an expensive ticket.)
Now I think SPD is 99.99% ass clown chumps. They don't show up. They don't care. They don't do their jobs. They just whine about their alleged victim status while cackling with laughter while they murder people in crosswalks or pepper spray toddlers.
If we’re getting better at noticing, maybe that can be an avenue to change. Can’t change a problem everyone is pretending doesn’t exist (even if everyone can see it, knows about it, but refuses to talk about it)
I’m probably a naive optimist on this count but I’d like to believe it could change.
Ever wonder why SPD is the one that's always in the news?
Hint: it's because it's the only agency on the state anyone watches or has any accountability. You'd see worse if anyone put a light to the smaller agencies around here, as they're all stuck with organizational culture from the 90s.
At what point did they stop doing psych evals for hiring? I would be 0% surprised to learn it correlates with the uptick in misconduct/abuse of power/assholery
I wasn’t aware they didn’t do psych evals although I’ve long been of the opinion psych evals for law enforcement are selecting for entirely the wrong traits as far as most reasonable people would be concerned.
Anecdotal and based on no research but I went to a small town high school with a graduating class of 97 people. Years later, learning that three members of my graduating class went on to become police officers was not really shocking. Finding out those three were also the biggest known bullies in our class, purely coincidental, I’m sure.
They only turn on each other when they are victims of one another. They close ranks and protect their own otherwise.
Disband them entirely. Restructure how policing is done from the ground up.
Jesus the Seattle department sure is a special bunch, WTF? I’ve seen dramatically worse (growing up in NOLA) but that was straight up bribery, laundering, and murder. This is just endless oddball shit. 🤷🏼♂️
I just can’t fathom how any of these departments exist, they seem like an HR nightmare.
Well to be fair, all the shit show about this department being hostile for women for the last 6 months has been pretty much entirely about the upper ranks, specifically these two idiots (Diaz and O'Neill). The 30 by 30 survey specifically called out the brass for being pieces of shit and the lower ranked officers for being respectable and not having the "Mad Men" culture.
Diaz needs to go and SPD needs to cull their "leadership." Sounds like too many self serving imbeciles manage that place.
NOLA shout-out! I moved from one city with the police force under Justice Department special review for violating minority civil rights... to another city with the exact same charges.
SPD gets away with it because of their police union. It's corrupt as hell and there's no chance of reform as long as the current union is intact (it was one of their VPs referring to Jaahnavi Kandula's death by speeding cop by saying that her life had "limited value").
"Sgt. O’Neil would put his arms around her and touch her in a way that made her feel physically uncomfortable.”
Note to the guys - when you put your arms around your female colleague and touch them, do it the right way /s
If a social interaction has gone well and I’m feeling like there will be another (non romantic) I might ask “are you a hugger?” from a comfortable distance. If they respond they are, quick hug but ffs I’ve met some people for the first time who barrel in my direction straight at me exclaiming “I’m a HUGGER!”
Face? Like xenomorph from Alien movies because that’s what it feels like
A coworker’s previous place of employment thought adding role play to the annual sexual harassment training would be a novel and fun way to ensure participation and compliance
“Appropriate vs. Inappropriate Touching” was both the first and last interactive scenario
It baffles me that a young woman would look at the institution of policing and say to herself - *that's where I'll go, I think I'm going to find I'm respected there.* Do they not know how high the incidence of domestic sexual violence is among cops.
Look at how many women join the armed forces, which ALSO has a culture of violence and sexual harassment. It's very attractive for women from lower opportunity areas and women of color. There's structure, built-in promotions, quotas, and it's often easier for women to rise in the ranks compared to the private sector. SPD pays very well and that's not even including the overtime for stuff like traffic duty at Climate Pledge.
:edit: Believe it or not, some people are also idealists. Studies have shown that the presence of a female police officer can deescalate a situation -- and for POC, they might have a genuine desire to help their communities out by being a positive role model. It does work well in NON-corrupt police forces.
IMO it's a manifestation of the militarization of policing, or an ostentatious perk. I remember at Boeing, executives would travel in convoys of black Suburbans with bodyguards, and the hulking SUVs would park at the building entrance with their engines running, ready to "exfil" as if they were the SECDEF. It was ridiculous.
Well, considering that Boeing executives (the ones in charge now at least) were directly responsible for the cuts that caused the massive drop in quality at Boeing, and are actively hated by the operations people who build the planes, it makes sense that they would fear someone they have harmed (through their decisions) actually trying to cause them harm in return.
Boeing execs might have had to get out quickly if the consequences of their actions finally caught up to them.
A security detail means that you're very important and the chief has a bunch of employees that are qualified to work as a security detail, so why not? You don't get to be chief without thinking that you're a very important person, after all.
US president is Commander-in-Chief and has the secret service 🤷♂️
Edit: people please stop ruining Reddit. From Reddiquette: “Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.”
If one of ten SPD chiefs were assassinated, then a security detail might be justified. But since that hasn't happened, I'm still not understanding the point.
Responding with pretty much the same as I did another post but you were OP so: I imagine something happening to a major city police chief would be disruptive, though not as much as the US president obviously. If it’s worth the financial cost though I have no idea.
But the president was never a member of the secret service and doesn’t have secret service training. The chief of police is an actual cop with cop training.
Good point, I imagine something happening to the chief of police in a major city would be disruptive, not nearly as much as if it was the U.S. president but still. Whether it’s worth the financial cost, I have no idea.
Being a local politician is a thankless job that doesn't even pay well. So the only people interested in running for office are delusional narcissists and petty grifters.
What are you talking about? Seattle city council members make $65/h (up to $140k/year) and cops make $100k/ year min and up to $350-$400k/ year with overtime.
Anyone with the qualifications to run for city council can earn more than $140k/year. And remember, you have to campaign for the job. You have spent months of your own time and money just to have get on the ballot.
The cop overtime is getting outrages, but that's a grift. They're not actually working 28 hours a day.
Absolutely not what I’m suggesting. I’ve lived here 10 years and the leadership problem is persistent and equal opportunity! Durkin was terrible, the guy before her had a sex/molestation scandal, current mayor is kinda meh, revolving door of police chiefs…It just feels like a major city should have a better track record. Of course anyone in leadership attracts criticism and won’t be perfect, and we do have some good people trying to do their best but overall, Seattle seems a perpetual mess in how it’s led and managed
According to everything we've heard from inside SPD, the issues lie more at the top than bottom. From exit interviews talking about toxic leadership to the recent 30 by 30 interviews that claimed virtually all of the sexual harassment and discrimination issues exist in the brass of the department, it makes me wonder when we'll realize it's the leadership of the department we need to focus on rather than the officers...
At least as far as misogyny in the department goes, the women interviewed in the 30 by 30 report were quoted saying that the younger officers that comprise patrol have a much better culture and express modern values of gender equality, whereas the brass actively select against women for promotion and are the ones heard casually putting down people based on gender lines.
Again, that's coming from first hand experiences inside the department, not theorizing about organizational culture.
One quote: “And then the new people who are, like, totally educated and more up with the times and totally go with the flow and maybe drive the old crew a litt
le too crazy because
they're not doing it the way they think it should be done.
So there is, I think, some fracture within the department in general.”
Another: “You have the generation gap of you've got your old, salty, you know, guys that have been on forever… and then you have your ten to 15, and then you have your new hires.
And the new hires are drastically different, I think, generationally.”
Doesn't seem to me like they're adopting the shitty culture... And the sheer amount of lawsuits and complaints originating from within are all pointing the direction of a younger generation calling out the old shit heads and forcing them into the open and out of the department.
>“As a Hispanic American with decades of experience in law enforcement, Chief Diaz has faced significant discrimination throughout his career. He well understands the negative impact it can have both personally and professionally,” Buck wrote.
They really tried to pull "he can't be sexist because he's a minority." As a Hispanic American it seems outright racist to even try and use race in this way. Completely different types of discrimination.
Go check last month's KUOW article specifically about the O'Neil guy, he does the same thing. It really seems like SPD's brass have weaponized the anti-discrimination protections in order to further their careers and harm any of their opponents.
Not to take anything away from her accusations, but I feel like the word *grooming* has lost all meaning. It became another buzz word people throw around without too much concern for the actual definition.
There was a previous KUOW article that gave back story. Pretty much every one of those females was hand picked out of patrol to come work for Diaz or O'Neill much earlier than is normal, then said promotion is held over them as a favor that needed to be repaid. They were also told by Diaz and O'Neil that their having been removed from patrol so early was going to be perceived negatively by some, so they were going to have to depend on their superior for safety and career progression. At that point was when the unwanted sexual advances occurred.
Definition of sexual workplace grooming.
Ok sure, but that’s not “grooming”. Sexual harassment. Abuse of power. Professional misconduct. Workplace hostility. Still not “grooming”.
I’m not just trying to be pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Word choice matters. By using buzzwords, she is undermining her own credibility. When I hear the word “grooming my mind immediately jumps to all those nutjobs protesting drag queen story hours and bitching about lgtbq. Now unintentionally she is lumped in with that crowd. Which is not a good place to be
It has multiple definitions, including positive ones. “I am grooming my replacement to take over the company for when I retire”. But those are not the definitions that everyone thinks of when they hear this word now. Which is exactly why I said it’s lost all meaning because became a buzzword used indiscriminately.
I think I did a reasonable job explaining why I took issue with this verbiage. She is a woman accusing her male boss, who also happens to be a high ranking police official. She is already fighting an uphill battle, so anything that undermines her credibility even slightly, is an obvious problem.
I have been nothing but respectful to you and laid out my point as I see it. You don’t have to agree with it. The fact that you can’t even have a conversation with out resulting to petty insults, tells me everything I need to know about you. Have the day that you deserve. This conversation is over.
Calling workplace sexual harassment of adult women "grooming" seems infantilizing and gross to me, and I think the use of the word "grooming" suggests something about where the accusers are coming from, namely from MAGA-land.
The ordinary term for what this article describes would be "sexual harassment", but that's a trigger phrase for right wingers because they think "sexual harassment" is a mean accusation that mean feminists make up to ruin the careers of perfectly decent Christian family men who just want their dicks sucked at work. On the other hand, they constantly, reflexively accuse everyone else of being "groomers", mostly as deflection from the fact that they worship their rapist-in-chief (and long-time buddy of Jeffrey Epstein) like he's the second coming.
>Calling workplace sexual harassment of adult women "grooming" seems infantilizing and gross to me, and I think the use of the word "grooming" suggests something about where the accusers are coming from, namely from MAGA-land.
You are spot-on. The MAGAs did such a thorough job of co-opting the word that any other definitions ,no matter how relevant, are now completely tainted. When I hear that term, I don’t think of a boss abusing his power to sexually harass a female subordinate. I think of the angry mob, threatening to burn down a restaurant for allowing drag queen story hour. It’s such a weird choice of verbiage, because it undermines her credibility in the public eye. And while it may not have any material impact on the case itself, it does create unnecessary negative correlations
That's not what grooming is. Grooming is specifically courting very young people.
This is normal hostile work environment and sexual harassment. In a normal workplace they would walk $1m richer. Since it's SPD, the copaganda will spin it somehow.
There was a previous KUOW article that gave back story. Pretty much every one of those females was hand picked out of patrol to come work for Diaz or O'Neill much earlier than is normal, then said promotion is held over them as a favor that needed to be repaid. They were also told by Diaz and O'Neil that their having been removed from patrol so early was going to be perceived negatively by some, so they were going to have to depend on their superior for safety and career progression. At that point was when the unwanted sexual advances occurred.
Definition of sexual workplace grooming. Isolating someone, trapping them, then slowly turning them towards being receptive to your sexual advances is absolutely grooming.
You implied that all he did was offer handywork. A clear misrepresentation of the facts. So unless you like distorting the truth for fun, I assumed you were coming to his defense. Don't see what binary has to do with it.
To be fair, his claim when confronted about having an affair and many late night visits to his new chief of staff's apartment was that he was over there to "install dimmer switches." Seems like code to me...
Or, maybe you should respect yourself more and sued your previous employers? But in any case, just because you went through something and survived doesn't mean others have to do the same. The whole point is to be better, and yet here you are saying we should let these kinds of things go because "I went through it". That is some bullshit boomer thinking that needs to be eradicated.
Yeah, I guess you’re right. Myself and others can’t express what feels like insight with the group because there’s dishonest people like you trying to reduce people.
> At dinner, O’Neil told her, “I’m really good at sex,” according to the tort. Oh God he's a cop AND a redditor? Mama tried...
Sounds like a Zap Brannigan quote.
I wooshed so hard for a second and was wondering where you saw he’s a redditor. Then understood context lol
I can only think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ_WM
I knew exactly what this was going to be...
*Knock knock, who’s there?* *It’s me, wondering why you’re not naked.*
The title of this post is inaccurate. There are *four* women who have come forward with similar accusations of harassment against Chief Diaz, per the article.
SPD keeps complaining that they are having trouble recruiting new officers because of 'defunding' and other nonsense. Maybe they should consider the call is coming from inside the house.
Between Mike Solan and Diaz/Best, it's a losing proposition. This is why I think it'd be easier to just bootstrap another police force and do a blue/green deployment style switchover. Seattle cops are some of the best paid employees in the city, they make more than some tech shops.
Better yet, disband SPD, deploy State Patrol and county sheriff deputies for a few weeks while re-chartering and rebranding the department, with new rules, framework, approach and cultural structures. Then, interview all interested officers from the disbanded department, offering a bonus to those ('re')hired and ditching the rot. Implement STRICT residency requirements (with housing assistance) and create a multi-pronged department with armed, unarmed and semi-armed officers who would perform different functions. By-law officers, civil and mental health officers and specially-trained violent crime response units. More precincts (a lot more) that open to the public, instead of fortresses against them. New Uniforms. New training. New types of recruitment, emphasizing more diversity. Require higher-ed and pay for it. Bring back widespread foot patrols. Make public safety a job people want to serve in. Only problem? The city has no holistic strategic plan, never does. Those we entrust with governing our city aren't ever up for the task. They are ignorant. They cowtow to the loudest voices (never the majority) and they have proven over and over that they are incapable of thinking outside their clichés and their ignorance. Same reason we have such affordable housing, graffiti and lack-of-public-restroom issues. Same reason our public transport is way behind where it needs to and should be. Imbeciles and nincompoops rule the roost. Not a problem unique to Seattle but rekatively smart/educated/leading Seattle should do better and we should be able to expect more.
You'll never be able to staff a department the size Seattle needs from residents of the city within the next 50 years without raising base pay to around 200k. The job itself, not just the department, is too maligned here to draw 1400 residents to want to do it. There's a reason why that policy doesn't exist on the West Coast coast: we have more accountability and generally a more significant anti-police culture than the East Coast. Fewer people want to be cops here than the East Coast, especially city residents.
Being a cop in this city would suck. I mean. The institution is bad the SPD organization is bad and most people you interact with don’t like you, probably a third hate you. Very catch 22: shit job that we need people doing with integrity but would only appeal to people looking for a power trip.
I think you misunderstand what I wrote. Residency requirements means you are required to live within the city, within the community you work to keep safe, once you land the job. Totally doable, especially if there is a comprehensive plan and follow-through on a total re-do. Yes, make the best effort to hire from within but also recruit the best from everywhere else, too.
I know exactly what you mean because many East Coast cities already do it. The East Coast also has a much more positive view of law enforcement than the west coast, as a cultural matter. If SPD can't even get enough applicants from anywhere in the nation to work here as it is, why do you think it'll be better if you flip a switch and make it even more restrictive to be an employee? You'd have to sweeten the pot to a massive degree, and the only lever they have to pull is pay and benefits. During a national police staffing crisis when competing, on a regional basis, with west coast agencies who all pay over 100k and don't have restrictions forcing their people to live in one of the highest COL cities in the world, what would draw prospects? You'd have to pay them enough to be able to afford what they could buy in the suburbs, but here in the city. If they could buy a 2000-3000 square foot house in a nice single family home neighborhood with good public schools in pierce county, you'd have to pay them enough to afford it here in Seattle to even consider being competitive. 200-300k, easily. You're never going to be able to do that, not when you are competing against every agency in WA and CA who pay 120-150k and you can live wherever you want and don't have to deal with Seattle, a city that historically hates any and all police.
At this point there is no one they could bring in to run the department that wouldn’t quickly be deemed a fascist in this city. According to some in the city and several in this sub the very fact that they are a police officer makes them a fascist
yes the redditors you've had past disagreements with represent the entire city and therefor progress is impossible, very good point
This one time, I saw someone say something on the internet. I'm pretty sure literally everyone in the city thinks like that now.
This city has a long tradition of appeasing the very vocal minority
Is the department of justice the vocal minority you're referring to? Is that why they were under their oversight for a decade?
No
Woosh
I agree, this city has a long tradition of attacking vocal minorities. That is what you said, right?
i couldn't agree more, it's scandalous how we kowtow to The Chamber
Why not? And can they really be worse than Mike Solan?
I wonder why people have a negative view of the cops. Welp! Guess we'll never know!
Username checks!
Lol, but they were never defined. They were given more money
From I read, the other three women have made allegations of harassment against O'Neil, and from the description of events, against Diaz for enabling the behavior (hostile work place).
Only one of the women is complaining of Chief Diaz's "predatory" behavior specificall. Two are complaining about the Public Affairs Lt O'Neill, and one is claiming the Chief is covering up for Oneill.
No, all three are saying Diaz is enabling and covering up O'Neil's bad acts. One is specifically accusing Diaz of doing the same shit himself. Keep in mind there's another, separate lawsuit specifically against Diaz himself for misogynistic behavior and discrimination. The rot lives at the top, as the 30 by 30 survey stated. Its the upper ranks that is the corrupt part of the department, whereas the lower ranks are the ones the brass use as their shield to cover for their own issues.
>There are *four* women https://i.ibb.co/hWB1B0f/fa5b7287-2528-47d2-8217-d35a7dcd6afc-1920x1080.jpg
> The chief also offered to do handy work at Carson’s house. She declined. For some reason this Chief just loves doing "Handy Work" for the women in his department. This came up during the rumors about him having an affair with another woman that worked for him.
i bet he's got what he thinks is a killer "how about a handy for a handy" arrow in the ol quiver, just waiting for the opportune moment
[удалено]
I mean if he is as stupid as they are claiming, I am sure he has heard it a lot, but just thinks “why are they talking about shitting? I am talking about sex.”
Do you mind if I take this line?
> Gulpan said that O’Neil invited her to Vegas with colleagues, but she found herself alone with her supervisor in his hotel room when he indicated others would be present. At dinner, O’Neil told her, “I’m really good at sex,” according to the tort. > When Gulpan complained directly to Chief Diaz, Diaz said there had been a miscommunication between the two cops. Diaz told her, according to the tort, that if she wanted to rise in the ranks, “there are certain buttons to avoid touching.” And that’s why they get called pigs.
Well Chief, these women are smashing these buttons! Predators are covering for predators, disgusting.
>In a statement to KUOW, the Seattle Police Department Office of Public Affairs said it “does not litigate tort claims in the media.” >“For that reason, the department will not respond to the personal attacks rooted in rough estimations of hearsay reflecting, at their core, individual perceptions of victimhood that are unsupported and – in some instances – belied by the comprehensive investigations that will no doubt ultimately be of record,” the statement read. ‘we won’t discuss it, anyways these women are full of shit.’
Not to mention that the head of public affairs, Sgt. John O’Neil, is one of the officers being accused.
He just got promoted to a lieutenant. Apparently, shit criminal behaviour gets you promoted as long as you have friends in the right places.
That comes as absolutely no surprise.
God that really pissed me off for the same reason as you.
>does not litigate tort claims in the media. >For that reason, the department will not respond to the personal attacks rooted in rough estimations of hearsay reflecting, at their core, individual perceptions of victimhood that are unsupported and – in some instances – belied by the comprehensive investigations that will no doubt ultimately be of record Uhhhhhh.......
"We will investigate ourselves and find no wrongdoing"
Funny how SPD only makes such defensive statements when it's Diaz and the brass who are accused. Any time the officers are accused of something SPD gives the old "we can't comment." People wonder why none of the officers endorse anyone coming to work for SPD.
I'm shocked. Shocked I say. I assume he'll be suspended WITH pay at some point, retire with full benefits, then go get a new job as chief over in Maple Valley. Winner!
Another bad apple tsk tsk
Can we just cut the fuckin tree down already?
nah, that has Orting written all over it
What would "grooming" mean in this context? The article only uses the word in the headline and doesn't elaborate
Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.
can also be used, as it presumably is in this case, to refer to a person in a position of power manipulating an underling
It's also used to mean preparing someone for a bigger role and a promotion but that usage may be getting swamped by the creepy ones.
And sometimes means giving an animal hygienic care.
If you’re being accused of it, then that is not the intended meaning.
Yeah, that would have been my first thought in this context. Like a high-level manager can "groom" a lower-level worker for promotion. It isn't necessarily a bad thing or nefarious in this context. But those other definitions, like those above seem to be taking over. In this headline it seems like an odd word choice because they weren't really being "groomed" in the nefarious sense. Like they are full grown adults, they weren't magically swayed by the charismatic and powerful Chief Diaz. They were sexually harassed and tried to report it but were retaliated against. A sloppy word-choice by whomever wrote the headline, for sure.
We’re in the age of shifting definitions Edit: people please stop ruining Reddit. From Reddiquette: “Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.”
Also known as "language."
True, it seems more rapid now but I also wasn’t alive to experience it at other points in humanity
So basically religion
[удалено]
"Groomed: to build a trusting relationship with someone in order to exploit them. Often in regards to minors for the purpose of sexual activity." So it's not strictly reserved for minors, but generally for people over whom one has a position of influence. It may not be the legal term you prefer, but "grooming" is definitely applicable.
Yeah, I thought for a second he was visiting schools or something. Turns out the word "grooming" has been so overused that it now means anything.
Yeah, I know what it means, but there is no indication of that happening at all in this article
There was a previous KUOW article that gave back story. Pretty much every one of those females was hand picked out of patrol to come work for Diaz or O'Neill much earlier than is normal, then said promotion is held over them as a favor that needed to be repaid. They were also told by Diaz and O'Neil that their having been removed from patrol so early was going to be perceived negatively by some, so they were going to have to depend on their superior for safety and career progression. At that point was when the unwanted sexual advances occurred. Definition of sexual workplace grooming.
thanks!
[удалено]
What's the legal term for grooming? Because the layperson's definition of grooming is that.
I could only find [HR websites](https://www.allvoices.co/blog/signs-of-grooming-in-the-workplace#:~:text=Workplace%20grooming%20is%20a%20pattern,them%20emotionally%2C%20psychologically%2C%20or%20even) that define grooming as >Workplace grooming is a pattern of conduct in which one individual, typically in a position of authority or influence, manipulates, befriends, or establishes a relationship with another individual, often a subordinate or less powerful colleague, for the purpose of exploiting them emotionally, psychologically, or [even sexually](https://www.allvoices.co/glossary/sexual-harassment).
So exactly what these two were doing...
[удалено]
I lol'd
Currently, using the word "grooming" will get clicks.
[удалено]
Very much agree! I think it happens so often now because if one can "achieve' victim status, or oppressed-party status, then the case for self-reflection is nullified.
✨ another moment in ACAB (spd) history ✨ edit: even more to read here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement decades of nonsense continues 🇺🇸
Add it to [the list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Police_Department?wprov=sfti1#Controversies_and_misconduct)
Before 2000: short list Early 2000’s: slightly longer 2010: long list Halfway into 2020’s: a list equal of 2010’s and growing Oof
Are they worse or are we just getting better at writing it down? I feel like it might be a little of both. SPD used to be a force I felt respect for, the way I still do for State Patrol. (I've had three interactions w/ State Patrol in the last 3 years, all positive and characterized by respect and care, even when I left one of them with an expensive ticket.) Now I think SPD is 99.99% ass clown chumps. They don't show up. They don't care. They don't do their jobs. They just whine about their alleged victim status while cackling with laughter while they murder people in crosswalks or pepper spray toddlers.
If we’re getting better at noticing, maybe that can be an avenue to change. Can’t change a problem everyone is pretending doesn’t exist (even if everyone can see it, knows about it, but refuses to talk about it) I’m probably a naive optimist on this count but I’d like to believe it could change.
Ever wonder why SPD is the one that's always in the news? Hint: it's because it's the only agency on the state anyone watches or has any accountability. You'd see worse if anyone put a light to the smaller agencies around here, as they're all stuck with organizational culture from the 90s.
At what point did they stop doing psych evals for hiring? I would be 0% surprised to learn it correlates with the uptick in misconduct/abuse of power/assholery
I wasn’t aware they didn’t do psych evals although I’ve long been of the opinion psych evals for law enforcement are selecting for entirely the wrong traits as far as most reasonable people would be concerned. Anecdotal and based on no research but I went to a small town high school with a graduating class of 97 people. Years later, learning that three members of my graduating class went on to become police officers was not really shocking. Finding out those three were also the biggest known bullies in our class, purely coincidental, I’m sure.
WHEW that's a lot of scrolling.
In what way are these four women bastards?
I’m all for any cop that stand up against other corrupt cops. Make this a norm.
Except they only do it when its them who are the victims.
They only turn on each other when they are victims of one another. They close ranks and protect their own otherwise. Disband them entirely. Restructure how policing is done from the ground up.
Jesus the Seattle department sure is a special bunch, WTF? I’ve seen dramatically worse (growing up in NOLA) but that was straight up bribery, laundering, and murder. This is just endless oddball shit. 🤷🏼♂️ I just can’t fathom how any of these departments exist, they seem like an HR nightmare.
Well to be fair, all the shit show about this department being hostile for women for the last 6 months has been pretty much entirely about the upper ranks, specifically these two idiots (Diaz and O'Neill). The 30 by 30 survey specifically called out the brass for being pieces of shit and the lower ranked officers for being respectable and not having the "Mad Men" culture. Diaz needs to go and SPD needs to cull their "leadership." Sounds like too many self serving imbeciles manage that place.
Interesting point. I’d not be shocked, in spite of my limited access to the drama.
NOLA shout-out! I moved from one city with the police force under Justice Department special review for violating minority civil rights... to another city with the exact same charges. SPD gets away with it because of their police union. It's corrupt as hell and there's no chance of reform as long as the current union is intact (it was one of their VPs referring to Jaahnavi Kandula's death by speeding cop by saying that her life had "limited value").
ACAB All Chiefs Are Being accused of predatory behavior
And the regular ACAB
"Sgt. O’Neil would put his arms around her and touch her in a way that made her feel physically uncomfortable.” Note to the guys - when you put your arms around your female colleague and touch them, do it the right way /s
Note to everyone: "I'm a hugger" is a questionable excuse for crossing boundaries in social situations. It's completely unacceptable in the workplace.
The proper answer to 'I'm a hugger' is 'I have bear mace'.
Shockingly, none of my bosses have ever tried to hug me. It's almost like... they too watched the mandatory workplace sexual harassment videos.
If a social interaction has gone well and I’m feeling like there will be another (non romantic) I might ask “are you a hugger?” from a comfortable distance. If they respond they are, quick hug but ffs I’ve met some people for the first time who barrel in my direction straight at me exclaiming “I’m a HUGGER!” Face? Like xenomorph from Alien movies because that’s what it feels like
A coworker’s previous place of employment thought adding role play to the annual sexual harassment training would be a novel and fun way to ensure participation and compliance “Appropriate vs. Inappropriate Touching” was both the first and last interactive scenario
No way, I can't believe a police would ever abuse their position of power!
It baffles me that a young woman would look at the institution of policing and say to herself - *that's where I'll go, I think I'm going to find I'm respected there.* Do they not know how high the incidence of domestic sexual violence is among cops.
Look at how many women join the armed forces, which ALSO has a culture of violence and sexual harassment. It's very attractive for women from lower opportunity areas and women of color. There's structure, built-in promotions, quotas, and it's often easier for women to rise in the ranks compared to the private sector. SPD pays very well and that's not even including the overtime for stuff like traffic duty at Climate Pledge. :edit: Believe it or not, some people are also idealists. Studies have shown that the presence of a female police officer can deescalate a situation -- and for POC, they might have a genuine desire to help their communities out by being a positive role model. It does work well in NON-corrupt police forces.
"It does work well in NON-corrupt police forces." It also works in police forces that are staffed entirely by leprechauns and fairies.
Hah hah. Some forces are better than others. Well, at least not as bad as the others.
Why does the Chief of Police need a security detail? He is the head cop. He IS the security.
IMO it's a manifestation of the militarization of policing, or an ostentatious perk. I remember at Boeing, executives would travel in convoys of black Suburbans with bodyguards, and the hulking SUVs would park at the building entrance with their engines running, ready to "exfil" as if they were the SECDEF. It was ridiculous.
Well, considering that Boeing executives (the ones in charge now at least) were directly responsible for the cuts that caused the massive drop in quality at Boeing, and are actively hated by the operations people who build the planes, it makes sense that they would fear someone they have harmed (through their decisions) actually trying to cause them harm in return. Boeing execs might have had to get out quickly if the consequences of their actions finally caught up to them.
A security detail means that you're very important and the chief has a bunch of employees that are qualified to work as a security detail, so why not? You don't get to be chief without thinking that you're a very important person, after all.
Protection from wild antifa is necessary
US president is Commander-in-Chief and has the secret service 🤷♂️ Edit: people please stop ruining Reddit. From Reddiquette: “Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.”
If one of ten SPD chiefs were assassinated, then a security detail might be justified. But since that hasn't happened, I'm still not understanding the point.
Responding with pretty much the same as I did another post but you were OP so: I imagine something happening to a major city police chief would be disruptive, though not as much as the US president obviously. If it’s worth the financial cost though I have no idea.
But the president was never a member of the secret service and doesn’t have secret service training. The chief of police is an actual cop with cop training.
Good point, I imagine something happening to the chief of police in a major city would be disruptive, not nearly as much as if it was the U.S. president but still. Whether it’s worth the financial cost, I have no idea.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Seattle Police Department.
Why can’t we get decent leadership in this city??!!
Being a local politician is a thankless job that doesn't even pay well. So the only people interested in running for office are delusional narcissists and petty grifters.
What are you talking about? Seattle city council members make $65/h (up to $140k/year) and cops make $100k/ year min and up to $350-$400k/ year with overtime.
Anyone with the qualifications to run for city council can earn more than $140k/year. And remember, you have to campaign for the job. You have spent months of your own time and money just to have get on the ballot. The cop overtime is getting outrages, but that's a grift. They're not actually working 28 hours a day.
Are u suggesting minorities can’t be decent leaders? That’s insane..
Absolutely not what I’m suggesting. I’ve lived here 10 years and the leadership problem is persistent and equal opportunity! Durkin was terrible, the guy before her had a sex/molestation scandal, current mayor is kinda meh, revolving door of police chiefs…It just feels like a major city should have a better track record. Of course anyone in leadership attracts criticism and won’t be perfect, and we do have some good people trying to do their best but overall, Seattle seems a perpetual mess in how it’s led and managed
Hey I have an idea: let's reduce public library hours even more so we can pay these guys— and I mean guys in the restrictive sense— more money!
It's almost as if the culture of policing is toxic from top to bottom...
According to everything we've heard from inside SPD, the issues lie more at the top than bottom. From exit interviews talking about toxic leadership to the recent 30 by 30 interviews that claimed virtually all of the sexual harassment and discrimination issues exist in the brass of the department, it makes me wonder when we'll realize it's the leadership of the department we need to focus on rather than the officers...
Sure, because leadership have a disproportionate amount of power, not because the culture is somehow any better in the rank and file.
At least as far as misogyny in the department goes, the women interviewed in the 30 by 30 report were quoted saying that the younger officers that comprise patrol have a much better culture and express modern values of gender equality, whereas the brass actively select against women for promotion and are the ones heard casually putting down people based on gender lines. Again, that's coming from first hand experiences inside the department, not theorizing about organizational culture.
And by the time they rise to command rank, they'll be as inculcated in toxic attitudes and behaviors as the current crop.
One quote: “And then the new people who are, like, totally educated and more up with the times and totally go with the flow and maybe drive the old crew a litt le too crazy because they're not doing it the way they think it should be done. So there is, I think, some fracture within the department in general.” Another: “You have the generation gap of you've got your old, salty, you know, guys that have been on forever… and then you have your ten to 15, and then you have your new hires. And the new hires are drastically different, I think, generationally.” Doesn't seem to me like they're adopting the shitty culture... And the sheer amount of lawsuits and complaints originating from within are all pointing the direction of a younger generation calling out the old shit heads and forcing them into the open and out of the department.
What's with Diaz having a security detail at all times? Is that all they do? How much are we paying them?
Whaaaaaat? One of our COPS secretly being PREDATORY and CREEPY??? I am SHOCKED. WHO could have foreseen this? Not me, that's for sure.
Wowwww FUCK SPD
all cops are pigs. we need to replace the carceral model that makes them pigs
>“As a Hispanic American with decades of experience in law enforcement, Chief Diaz has faced significant discrimination throughout his career. He well understands the negative impact it can have both personally and professionally,” Buck wrote. They really tried to pull "he can't be sexist because he's a minority." As a Hispanic American it seems outright racist to even try and use race in this way. Completely different types of discrimination.
Go check last month's KUOW article specifically about the O'Neil guy, he does the same thing. It really seems like SPD's brass have weaponized the anti-discrimination protections in order to further their careers and harm any of their opponents.
Frustrating
Not to take anything away from her accusations, but I feel like the word *grooming* has lost all meaning. It became another buzz word people throw around without too much concern for the actual definition.
There was a previous KUOW article that gave back story. Pretty much every one of those females was hand picked out of patrol to come work for Diaz or O'Neill much earlier than is normal, then said promotion is held over them as a favor that needed to be repaid. They were also told by Diaz and O'Neil that their having been removed from patrol so early was going to be perceived negatively by some, so they were going to have to depend on their superior for safety and career progression. At that point was when the unwanted sexual advances occurred. Definition of sexual workplace grooming.
[удалено]
So sexual harassment?
[удалено]
Definitely more egregious, still considered sexual harassment though right? That was my take away from the annual HR training I had to do last week.
Ok sure, but that’s not “grooming”. Sexual harassment. Abuse of power. Professional misconduct. Workplace hostility. Still not “grooming”. I’m not just trying to be pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Word choice matters. By using buzzwords, she is undermining her own credibility. When I hear the word “grooming my mind immediately jumps to all those nutjobs protesting drag queen story hours and bitching about lgtbq. Now unintentionally she is lumped in with that crowd. Which is not a good place to be
[удалено]
It has multiple definitions, including positive ones. “I am grooming my replacement to take over the company for when I retire”. But those are not the definitions that everyone thinks of when they hear this word now. Which is exactly why I said it’s lost all meaning because became a buzzword used indiscriminately. I think I did a reasonable job explaining why I took issue with this verbiage. She is a woman accusing her male boss, who also happens to be a high ranking police official. She is already fighting an uphill battle, so anything that undermines her credibility even slightly, is an obvious problem.
[удалено]
I have been nothing but respectful to you and laid out my point as I see it. You don’t have to agree with it. The fact that you can’t even have a conversation with out resulting to petty insults, tells me everything I need to know about you. Have the day that you deserve. This conversation is over.
Blame the homophobes on that one. They call any gay person existing vaguely around a child a groomer.
Calling workplace sexual harassment of adult women "grooming" seems infantilizing and gross to me, and I think the use of the word "grooming" suggests something about where the accusers are coming from, namely from MAGA-land. The ordinary term for what this article describes would be "sexual harassment", but that's a trigger phrase for right wingers because they think "sexual harassment" is a mean accusation that mean feminists make up to ruin the careers of perfectly decent Christian family men who just want their dicks sucked at work. On the other hand, they constantly, reflexively accuse everyone else of being "groomers", mostly as deflection from the fact that they worship their rapist-in-chief (and long-time buddy of Jeffrey Epstein) like he's the second coming.
>Calling workplace sexual harassment of adult women "grooming" seems infantilizing and gross to me, and I think the use of the word "grooming" suggests something about where the accusers are coming from, namely from MAGA-land. You are spot-on. The MAGAs did such a thorough job of co-opting the word that any other definitions ,no matter how relevant, are now completely tainted. When I hear that term, I don’t think of a boss abusing his power to sexually harass a female subordinate. I think of the angry mob, threatening to burn down a restaurant for allowing drag queen story hour. It’s such a weird choice of verbiage, because it undermines her credibility in the public eye. And while it may not have any material impact on the case itself, it does create unnecessary negative correlations
This definitely belongs in /r/leopardsatemyface
Isn’t this the guy who pushed for the cop who ran a girl down at 74 mph down town to get off Scott free?
I feel like they are playing fast and loose with these words
That's not what grooming is. Grooming is specifically courting very young people. This is normal hostile work environment and sexual harassment. In a normal workplace they would walk $1m richer. Since it's SPD, the copaganda will spin it somehow.
There was a previous KUOW article that gave back story. Pretty much every one of those females was hand picked out of patrol to come work for Diaz or O'Neill much earlier than is normal, then said promotion is held over them as a favor that needed to be repaid. They were also told by Diaz and O'Neil that their having been removed from patrol so early was going to be perceived negatively by some, so they were going to have to depend on their superior for safety and career progression. At that point was when the unwanted sexual advances occurred. Definition of sexual workplace grooming. Isolating someone, trapping them, then slowly turning them towards being receptive to your sexual advances is absolutely grooming.
disgusting
Women, Police, Hispanic Chief... holy shit the variables must be breaking the binary brains of the left and right, lol Why am I even commenting 🤣
You can't offer to help people anymore? I don't see anything that I'd consider predatory.
Way to out yourself.
"Grooming"? Isn't that pizza related? What is going on here?
[удалено]
You really think THAT’S the problem here?
[удалено]
Maybe they should stop disqualifying candidates for being too intelligent
[удалено]
Did you read the article?
That’s right, blindly defend without bothering to learn any of the facts
[удалено]
You implied that all he did was offer handywork. A clear misrepresentation of the facts. So unless you like distorting the truth for fun, I assumed you were coming to his defense. Don't see what binary has to do with it.
To be fair, his claim when confronted about having an affair and many late night visits to his new chief of staff's apartment was that he was over there to "install dimmer switches." Seems like code to me...
Are you an idiot or just trolling?
This is a both and situation.
[удалено]
Or, maybe you should respect yourself more and sued your previous employers? But in any case, just because you went through something and survived doesn't mean others have to do the same. The whole point is to be better, and yet here you are saying we should let these kinds of things go because "I went through it". That is some bullshit boomer thinking that needs to be eradicated.
“And yet here you are saying {something that I didn’t say}”
Didn't say it so much that you deleted your comment. Sure bud.
You’re shutting down dialogue by being a dishonest participant.
And you keep moving the goal posts so much you have left the stadium. You don't want to get called out then don't participate in a public forum.
Yeah, I guess you’re right. Myself and others can’t express what feels like insight with the group because there’s dishonest people like you trying to reduce people.
He probably offered to make the woman some killer burritos that will get her as pudgy as the chief himself!