Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 


 

 

11/11/00                                        Federal Way Police Department

02:56                                                Deputy Supplemental Report

Incident Number:        00-15738        Nature:     Assault 4             Incident Date: 11

OFC DAVIS  /00-15738/ASSAULT   4DV

  1.    REPORTING OFFICER: 

                Davis, 4082

  2.    CASE NUMBER:

                00-15738

  3.    ADDITIONAL OFFICERS INVOLVED:

                Ofc. Rogers Who obtained a victim's statement, assisted as a backing officer and completed a dictated supplemental report which is enclosed.

  4.    CHRONOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION:

                On 111000 at 2154 hrs, Ofc. Rogers and I were dispatched to petitioner/respondents residence in response to a physical domestic. Upon arrival at 2203 hrs. Ofc. Rogers and I contacted the involved parties, Petitioner and Respondent. I spoke to respondent in the bedroom of the residence, while Ofc. Rogers spoke to petitioner in the kitchen area of the residence. 

                · respondent stated that he and petitioner had been involved in an argument after he had unplugged the phone when her boyfriend called the residence. He also advised that both parties lived there and that they had a child in common. He stated petitioner was getting ready to leave and stating that she wanted to take their son with her, however respondent disagreed and wanted him to stay there. I asked respondent if he had threatened to harm petitioner and he stated that he had not made any threats to her. 

I then contacted Ofc. Rogers who stated that petitioner had ·· stated that respondent had pushed her and she had hit a telephone with her chin which caused her pain, although she was not in pain any longer.

Ofc. Rogers and I then re-contacted respondent in the bedroom of the residence and I noted he was lying on the bed with his son. We had respondent step out of the bedroom. I then advised respondent that he was under arrest for assault and placed him in handcuffs. Respondent asked why he was under arrest and I explained to him that ··· petitioner stated he had pushed her while she was on the phone and respondent then stated that he did not push petitioner and wanted petitioner arrested too because after she accused him of hurting her, that she had grabbed his right arm with her hands which caused him pain. I was not able to observe injury on either involved party. ···· I determined petitioner was the primary aggressor because he, although denying that he assaulted petitioner stated that petitioner had assaulted him after she accused him of assaulting her. 

Respondent was then transported to the Federal Way Police station where he provided a post-Miranda written statement and was later transported to the King County Jail.

  5.    INJURIES:

                No injuries were observed on either party.

  6.    SCENE:

                ····· The residence appeared orderly and no evidence of assault in the residence.

               · Davis claims the argument was because the boyfriend/respondent unplugging the phone. Davis does not present the facts clearly either since the respondent never claimed that the petitioners accomplice was her boyfriend. Instead he was quite clear that he and the petitioner were in a relationship. Also Rogers makes the claim in one statement that the respondent is in a relationship and then contradicts herself in the next when she claims the respondent in the ex-boyfriend. 

                ·· Davis report states that Rogers states that the petitioner claimed that the respondent pushed the back of the petitioners head. Then Rogers changes her story again to make it appear more vicious than she originally claimed by stating that the respondent slapped the back of the petitioners head.

                   ··· Davis states that the reason the respondent was chosen to be arrested because the petitioner made an unsubstantiated claim, even though there was no evidence of said claim even be the petitioners respondent. The respondent actually asked Davis why he was chosen since he had not done anything. In fact he was grabbed by the petitioner. Davis stated that since the petitioner claimed it caused her pain it was enough for him. The respondent then stated that when he was grabbed it caused pain so why was the petitioner not being arrested as well. Davis asked if there were any marks and the respondent said there were not since the petitioner did not use fingernails or anything but by Davis's own statement pain is pain no matter how slight or great. Davis then told the respondent that the male was more likely to be the aggressor and that is why he was chosen to be arrested.

                   ···· Davis himself gives the most flimsy, biased, non-professional reasoning for arresting the respondent when he claims that he determined the respondent to be the aggressor because he told them that he was grabbed by the petitioner. What kind of idiotic statement is this?

                   ····· Davis's final line in his report show how incompetent these to officers are. He states that the residence appeared orderly and that there was no evidence of assault in the residence. By Davis's own admission there was no evidence with which to arrest the respondent in the first place. It is quite clear that these two officers are in dire need of additional training when it comes to dealing with the public and the responsibilities they have to uphold the law and not hide behind it.

This Page Created by AAAdvanced Engineering Concepts

Send Questions or Comments to: spolnac@yahoo.com 

Copyright 2003