They were not required, or even authorized, to fight this fire.

I guarantee that not one of those firefighters was happy about standing and watching the fire burn. Fire departments are a lot like police departments in that they are very hierarchical. In a situation such as this, where no lives are in danger, you do not break the chain of command or go around an order from your officer.

If you don’t like what happened it is because of the city and county policies and taxes, but it is unfair to criticize the individual firefighters….and this is coming from someone who generally doesn’t like firefighters ;) after all…

"God made police so firemen could have heroes"

Yes I am enjoying the vacation, in the mornings I enjoy reading the news while the family sleeps and eats breakfast. But you are right I need to go show them more scenery, I was able to see most of the area back when I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Central America but it's all new to them. I'll answer your questions but first two things, what does it mean that you are "following me", where are we going lol?? Second I do want to apologize my comments were not aimed at peace keeping, I let my emotions get the best of me. I just find your comments too abrasive, I'm sure you realize that when writing them.

Okay, first therapy was not court ordered, I started back when I was in college and my mother passed away unexpectedly. I really found it fulfilling and have continued as often as possible ever since.

I consider myself a good person who tries his best to do his job. And yes I would and have stopped an officer from abusing his wife; responded to a DV call and there were signs of an assault with him as the primary aggressor so he had to go.

No I will not see you at the "Police Protest" lol, I do not work for SPD and have no plans to protest. I am a police officer not a politician.

I have heard of all the shootings in the PNW as well as the accidental tazer deaths. My heart dropped reading those, especially the tazer deaths. No one wanted that to happen. I cannot comment as I have no details of most of the situations. But will say I am obviously going to give the benefit of the doubt to the officer, you have to understand that. Obviously I don't blindly and stubbornly defend officers in the wrong.

Also, I clicked your profile and saw why you have that pic, and must say it made me laugh. Now when I see your little picture I smile a little bit.

Just wanted to address your questions since you took time to ask. And again I do apologize for making the argument personal...I shouldn't have done that. The first post RE Therapy was in good faith, but the last line I added was out of line.

You are ridiculous. So apparently it is just a personality defect you have and not a legitimate reason for being anti-police. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

"And be very careful how you respond to me officer because I will absolutely report you for harassing me online. Your computer address IS traceable. Are you on the clock using a police computer to attack opinions you don't like? "

That was my favorite part of your post. Trace my IP address and see I am in Belize on vacation but like to follow the news at home so I know what has been happening. Hey maybe thats why I finally got sucked into responding to your post, I missed my therapy session to go on vacation with the family :)

And therapy really works wonders. I still recommend it for anyone who has stress in their lives (most everyone). It's an opportunity to have your emotions validated by a professional, and learn ways to cope with seeing the worst side of humanity on a near daily basis.

Have a good weekend and try and relax, looks like the weather in the Beautiful Pacific North West should be somewhat decent.

Did something happen to you that caused you to feel the way you do? You may need therapy AndyBlue. Your posts are so hateful. Therapy helps; as a Police Officer myself I have been going to therapy twice a month for years (mainly to vent about citizens like yourself that make my job so rewarding).

So get therapy or grow up, I am sick of seeing your ignorant comments on EVERY story about LEO's.

Proofread, KOMO. Instead of using stumbling quotations that are difficult to read paraphrase.

This was a tragic situation. SFD showed great responsibility and accountability by conducting such a quick and thorough investigation that produced actual and conclusive results.

You are correct. For me this is a very interesting area of the law. Stop and talk is not being detained or arrested, but legally it does not take much for it to become a situation where the individual is not free to leave. Reasonable Suspicion is what the law says the officer must have. Basically that questions if a reasonable person with the same training as the officer would find it reasonable to believe that a crime was being or had been committed. While that sounds very subjective its not too bad. Facts must be articulable and the officer must defend his suspicion.

Then, if the individual does not cooperate it becomes obstruction of justice which IS an arrest-able offense. That can lead to resisting etc.

And having said all that I should point out that I still haven't confirmed what the actual status of the case was, and the point is most likely moot. If in fact it listed her status as deferred it means that she had not finished the probation period the judge ordered,so, this little incident should remove that deferred disposition and the case would proceed to sentencing.

Have a good weekend Pete!

I didn't mention anything about a deferred adjudication...but I'll respond to your post anyways. There are different types of what are referred to as deferred judgements in the court system. Generally it means the judge found you guilty but instead of sentencing he places defers your judgment. If you stay out of trouble for how ever long the judge orders, voila, charges are dropped/case dismissed.

So yes you are correct they are not the same thing; however, essentially the result is the same.

Whoopi Goldberg once did a special about this word. Bottom line, if you don't feel right saying it then you shouldn't because you clearly have negative connotations associated with it. Despite having my closest friends use this word to me constantly (they are African Americans, I am not) I have never once felt the need to add it to my vocabulary. I don't see why anyone would feel they are missing out by not being "allowed" to say it.

"Obstructing" Simply means she prevented or delayed the officer from performing his duties.

Once the officer decides to arrest her for obstructing and she struggles and resists it becomes the crime known as resisting arrest. I am not sure how WA has it in the statute, but often times there are levels of obstructing and resisting (such as with or without violence).

Generally prosecutors will not "stack charges" meaning if a suspect was obstructing, then resisting and then assaulting the officer they will only charge the individual with the higher crime. That gives room to plea bargain down to say resisting arrest, to avoid the cost of a trial.

Hope that helps! Laws are complicated enough to understand alone, then combine that with the way prosecutors actually charge suspects it can be almost impossible!