Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-Covington) was arrested over the weekend on domestic violence charges, specifically for "Assault, Fourth Degree" and "Interfering w/Reporting of Domestic Violence"
A copy of the police report is here (the names were redacted, but descriptions clearly match Simpson and his ex-wife).
Of course, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Simpson is a colorful character. In 2002 he was fined by the PDC for illegal use of public facilities in his election campaign. Last year, he was outed as the person who was posting obnoxious pseudonymous comments on this blog from his work computer at the Kent Fire Dept. Later last year some of his campaign workers were prosecuted for stealing his opponent's campaign signs.
The guy's a jerk. And anybody who's had to deal with him - on either side of the aisle - can attest to it.
Posted by: jimg on April 30, 2008 05:21 PMEvery news article I've seen about the arrest mentions his party affiliation. Guess that makes you a liar.
Posted by: Stan on April 30, 2008 05:51 PMI have a buddy whose son had a crazy b*tch living with him. One night she went off and started throwing stuff and yelling crazy sh*t. She dialed 911 and had the cops come, claiming "domestic violence." Well, this buddy's son thought the cops were sure to take her down to the slammer, since she was the one being violent, but they took him "downtown" instead. You can imagine his surprise when he got slapped in cuffs when he was the victim.
In this type of situation, the cops really enjoy arresting the guy, too: they have an adolescent mentality when it comes to that sh*t. Makes 'em feel powerful and important.
The happy news is that no charges were filed and my friend's son has since extricated himself from the siituation. The crazy b*tch can go on to ruin someone else's life 'cause the legal system ain't gonna do sh*t about her.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on April 30, 2008 06:42 PMShe goes to his place- picks a fight, get's physically escorted out of the house and then calls police.
I strongly dislike this guy as a politician and don't have a lot of sympathy for his situation since he parades along with the DV mafia- this is really just desserts.
But I miss your point about the police report. Why does that make it any more heinous than what Goldie reported??
So I guess we can applaud Goldstein for being the first to file an incorrect report, presumably based on nothing more than a statement from Goldstein's friend who is Simpson's campaign manager. Congratulations.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on April 30, 2008 07:03 PMIt's: horsesass.org
Give it a click.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 30, 2008 07:04 PMThere's a trend here- this woman is psycho.
The only thing he did wrong was let that nut case broad into his house. Given her history, he ought to have known better.
Admit it Shark, you're just hacked cuz Goldie beat you to the punch on this one. And he even identified the perp's political affiliation.
Frankly, I'm a little surprized. Usually it's the opposition party that gets the bad news out first. Then the red-faced perp has to play defense. This time, they beat Shark to the punch.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 30, 2008 07:37 PMIdiot!
Posted by: gs on April 30, 2008 08:53 PMNow, hands on or not, if he yelled at her, he committed Assault 4 DV, because that is all it takes in this state, yelling. Of course they arrest the guy, because he is probably one of the manginas that voted for mandatory arrest, even though they can't tell who was who, victim and perp. He musta hung up her phone, though, for him to get the interfering.
Yup, this is great, a guy who probably voted the $2+ Million to the DV divas, supported mandatory arrest, with no proof, no witnesses.
Got his, didn't he.
Oh, and his statement to the press about being vindicated, nope, ain't gonna happen, because the "treatment" providers make too much money, fleecing guys like him, with no objective criteria for "graduation" from "treatment".
I just love it when high profile guys get caught in their own web, which they instituted to get the female vote.
Only trouble is, this sort of static gets in the way of assisting REAL victims, which are, according to a recent report, mostly MEN, yes, you heard me, wimmin' are more violent than men, in a recent study of non-reciprocal partner violence done with "future abusers" (teens and young adults)
Geezer OUT!
www.hatemalepost.blogspot.com
Posted by: The Geezer on April 30, 2008 09:18 PMNow, hands on or not, if he yelled at her, he committed Assault 4 DV, because that is all it takes in this state, yelling. Of course they arrest the guy, because he is probably one of the manginas that voted for mandatory arrest, even though they can't tell who was who, victim and perp. He musta hung up her phone, though, for him to get the interfering.
Yup, this is great, a guy who probably voted the $2+ Million to the DV divas, supported mandatory arrest, with no proof, no witnesses.
Got his, didn't he.
Oh, and his statement to the press about being vindicated, nope, ain't gonna happen, because the "treatment" providers make too much money, fleecing guys like him, with no objective criteria for "graduation" from "treatment".
I just love it when high profile guys get caught in their own web, which they instituted to get the female vote.
Only trouble is, this sort of statistic gets in the way of assisting REAL victims, which are, according to a recent report, mostly MEN, yes, you heard me, wimmin' are more violent than men, in a recent study of non-reciprocal partner violence done with "future abusers" (teens and young adults)
Geezer OUT!
www.hatemalepost.blogspot.com
Posted by: The Geezer on April 30, 2008 09:18 PMmaybe you'd like to follow up with the Washington Farm Bureau on the 11 new positions created in Olympia this year with money from L&I- to go fine employers who don't give women like this paid vacations because they are "afraid."
If you actually read the report and believe any violence happened- chime back in.
I personally find it hillarious that Simpson is caught up in this web of hell... afterall his party created it and continues to feed it.
In the meantime- if you'd like to meet a couple dozen fathers who were driven into bankruptcy fighting bogus allegations during custody battles -losing their homes, their kids and a $100k in the process- come on down to Thurston and you can get an earful.
We've got detailed files on every crook that's part of the domestic violence mafia.
Posted by: Andy on April 30, 2008 09:19 PMWill the left ever express their faux outrage over HIS hypocrisy?
Those crickets chirping on that issue point out the double standard of his hypocrisy... as opposed to Republicans voting for one thing while acting in a different way.
Here's my prediction: Chopp will do nothing (that is, Chopp won't yank his committee assignments from him) and the d caucus will support his re-election... just like the moronic Republicans who supported Jane Hague's re-election.
Just the tiniest contrast between how the d's will handle this... and how the R's are handling, and have handled, the Dunn situation in SW WA, right?
Amazing how Simpson sounds so much like Larry Craig, ain't it?
Posted by: Hinton on April 30, 2008 09:21 PMThere has been a real change in the culture since republican leaders went to Nixon and told him it was time. The culture is so trashy now that if you haven't been to rehab for something, then you really can't be famous.
If he is found guilty, he needs to go. I am with politically incorrect, though. The full facts need to come out.
Posted by: WVH on April 30, 2008 10:12 PMIf what you say can be corroborated, he defintely needs to go. I understand that the late Crystal Brame's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Judson have a foundation to assist women involved in abusive relationships with officers:
Lane Judson made his daughter Crystal a promiseOffsite Links. List of officer involved domestic violence links. The Crystal Judson Foundation. The Crystal Judson Brame Memorial Scholarship ...
www.lanejudson.com/
This is not a partisan issue, best wishes to your friend.
Re #7 and HA... One of their contributors ( I don't remember who) is/was Simpsons campaign manager or something... I expect he'll be posting articles over there again.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 30, 2008 11:02 PMWhat happened?
A dem get's caught hurting his wife and look how the rats change color real quick. heck their boy can't be like this... He's a Dem/Lib.
Only Rep are the mean guys...
Can you say "Goy-ya"
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 1, 2008 06:26 AMYaknow, folks relate to each other in different ways. Some folks relate that way, and it seems to work for them.
To say she couldn't get away is bogus, because she did. If she didn't want a scene, she could have called the cops to accompany her to pick up her stuff.
She stole HIS phone, and it is NOT unreasonable to recover that property, and turn it off, but he got an interfering charge over it.
Both are abnormal in their relationships. The cops arrested him because she had "fear".
No constitutional rights apply, nor will they when he goes to court. Guilty until proven innocent. But, at least the cops won't have to answer to their superiors. Arresting the woman is always a bitch, because there are lots more questions from your Sgt. about why you didn't arrest the guy.
No love for this guy, but I find it hilarious that he got caught by the misandrous laws that he helped pass. Also interesting that the police report says he was booked, but the jail guys say he wasn't.
Welcome to the Hazard County annex.
the Geez
Posted by: The Geezer on May 1, 2008 07:24 AMThis is what liberal laws have done to all of us.
We can thank the NOW group for this mess.
Remember NOW wanted Bill Clinton to pass a law/that he signed. To protect women. Well that's same law that was used against him.
Shall we say sweet revenge!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 1, 2008 08:04 AM"Simpson is a colorful character."
yes, if you consider him(simpson)beating his wife black and blue and red all over, I guess that's technically true.
I guess it's off to the Richard McIver 'marriage counseling course' for Mr.Simpson.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 1, 2008 09:31 AMI wouldn't have let her in the house in the first place, but he did and he ended up doing what he does best- bully. BTW, Simpson, one of the last bills you helped pass makes bullying (not like you, but pulling a girl's hair) a crime in the public school system and grounds for dismissal. Why didn't you give the death penalty for your type of violence?
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2008 10:04 AMIt is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is about protecting a victim from both physical and verbal abuse so severe that it results in injury.
So, you cretins, this is what domestic violence is:
Domestic Violence
Also called: Battery, Partner abuse, Spousal abuse
Domestic violence is a type of abuse. It involves injuring someone, usually a spouse or partner, but it can also be a parent, child or other family member.
Domestic violence is a serious problem. It is the most common cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44. Victims may suffer physical injuries such as bruises or broken bones. They may suffer emotionally from depression, anxiety or social isolation.
It is hard to know exactly how common domestic violence is, because people often don't report it. There is no typical victim. It happens among people of all ages. It affects those of all levels of income and education.
Start Here
Domestic Violence: Protecting Yourself and Your Children(American Academy of Family Physicians)
Also available in Spanish
Let's Talk Facts about Domestic Violence(American Psychiatric Association) - Links to PDF
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/domesticviolence.html
But oh how you whine WVH when you feel others have called you names or have "labeled" you.
It's the game liberal children constantly play. "We can do it, but you can't".
Phonies!
you left out a few parts...if you are a man the following acts are considered domestic violence- commit these against an angry woman & you can find yourself on the receiving end of a protection order:
Cutting up maxed out credit cards is domestic violence (how DARE you! you controlling axxhole!!!!)
Raising your voice is domestic violence.
Not saying anything is domestic violence.
Verbally confronting your wife and the man she is cheating with is domestic violence AND harassment (I saw this one on a guys restraining order yesterday)
AND - as Simpson has learned- escorting a trespassing lunatic out of your home is domestic violence.
I'd like to know how many women end up in the hospital for these vile acts of wife beating...because I have seen all of these used as reasons for protection orders.
Do you know why I am so vocal about this stuff? It's because all of the above accusations are flooding our police resources AND end up being used as weapons in custody battles.
If you want wipe a father out in a custody battle - just claim he was abusive. Since the definition of domestic violence is so expansive and their lobby so powerful in the legislature- these accusations are a slam dunk to raise his attorney bill into 6 digits w/in a few months.
Remember- liberals ALWAYS use human shields. Glad to see Simpson getting his share.
Posted by: Andy on May 1, 2008 01:01 PMWeren't you just a few days ago decrying the dual state of affairs for political candidates?
And the laugh is where you inferred justice is blind. If only it were true. Politicos get kid glove treatment. Read that as the Seattle councilman(?) and the hitting of his wife; charges were dropped after she refused to testify.
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2008 01:05 PM1. Bill C,
Did I hurt your precious feelings by calling you a cretin. Gosh, I don't complain when you call me troll, socialist, communist, and liberal. The correct term is independent pragmatist. So, if you can't take it .....
2. Andy
People do things to each other in divorce situations that probably when each is looking back at the situation many years hence, they would admit they were acting crazy. In a particular INDIVIDUAL situation, can there be unfair abuses? Yes. Still domestic violence as defined by the National Institute of Health is a serious sitation which knows no race, class, religion, or ethnicity or POLITICAL BELIEF.
The only way that society can deal with this issue is to report it, investigate it and if necessary adjudicate the facts in a court of law.
It is not a perfect system and if you know a better one, you need to lobby the legislature.
"WVH, your first paragraph is laughable, I am afraid.
Weren't you just a few days ago decrying the dual state of affairs for political candidates?
1. You are going to have to more fully explain how what I said refers to the issue of domestic violence. So, could you provide the quote or phrase you are referring to?
2. Now regarding the Mc Iver case, this is what happened:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
McIver's domestic-violence case dropped
By Natalie Singer and Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporters
JIM BATES / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Richard McIver
Marlaina Kiner-McIver called 911 on Oct. 10.
Related
Archive | Police documents detail events that led to McIver's arrest
Archive | Seattle City Councilman Richard McIver arrested
McIver incident report (PDF)
Faced with the prospect of going to trial today with little evidence and without the cooperation of the alleged victim, King County prosecutors on Tuesday dropped the domestic-violence case against Seattle City Councilmember Richard McIver.
McIver called the prosecutors' decision "clearly good news," but said he was angry with the judicial system for wrongfully dragging his name through the mud.
He insisted he was innocent and said prosecutors had no right "delving into my private life."
McIver had been charged with fourth-degree domestic violence, a misdemeanor....
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004127722_mciver16m.html
Mrs. Mc Iver refused to testify. The prosecution did not grant special status because of the fact the accused was a politician.
People who have worked with domestic violence victims often find they refuse to testify. This from the Domestic Violence Bench Book:
"....Victims of all types of violent crime may be reluctant to testify against the assailant due to a number of factors. These can include fear of retaliation by the defendant; unwillingness to face the assailant again in the courtroom; a feeling of shame or guilt; belief their behavior in some way caused the attack; and a desire to put the whole incident behind them. Of course, as with any crime, victims also may make accusations they cannot later support under oath. A domestic violence victim's reluctance to testify may be heightened by the fact that defendant may be living with the victim, be familiar with his/her daily routine, and have ongoing access to the victim. In addition, the victim and the defendant may have children together. Since domestic violence may not always be considered by civil courts in determining child visitation and custody, the perpetrator may have continued access to the victim through arrangements for child visitation.
It is important for those working in the criminal justice system to distinguish between victims who are reluctant to testify and those who refuse to testify. Many victims who are initially reluctant to testify will agree to do so if provided with adequate support during the criminal justice process. The court must always remain impartial and must not attempt to coax testimony from a witness who does not wish to provide testimony. On the other hand, when the court has reason to believe that the witness' reluctance to testify arises from fear or coercion, the court may act to protect the administration of justice against improper influences. In those circumstances, the court can decrease the victim's reluctance to testify by protecting the victim through appropriate court orders, providing the victim with support through victim advocacy services, providing accurate information regarding the criminal court process, and otherwise preventing the perpetrator from using further illegal means to continue the pattern of coercive control of the victim. These kinds of protection are authorized under the Victims of Crime Act, ยง31-26-1 et seq.
http://jec.unm.edu/resources/benchbooks/dv/ch_10.htm
This same reluctance is found in all types of victims.
WVH~ I'm going to assume the above sentence by you is in response to my post at #44 because it brings up Democrats commiting Domestic Violence and referenced Richard McIver.
The problem for you and other liberals is that a significant number of Democrats within the political sphere of Seattle/Olympia have been charged with DV among other crimes like DUI offenses (Venus Velasquez and Bobbe Bridges come to mind) in recent times. I know you'd like to whitewash it like you do everything else, but it remains indisputable facts.
I only wish you'd practice the same scrutiny in labeling others here on SP who disagree with you as you've given Mr. Simpson in the court of public opinion.
I suggest you stop your selective reading. This is what I said:
33. This really isn't about partisan politcs. Rep. Simpson is presumed innocent, but if he either pleads guilty or is found guilty, he needs to go.
Domestic Violence is a very serious charge. This should be true of pols of all persuasions and flavors. The mayor of Detroit needs to be gone as well and Senator Craig definitely should be spending more time with his family.
There has been a real change in the culture since republican leaders went to Nixon and told him it was time. The culture is so trashy now that if you haven't been to rehab for something, then you really can't be famous.
If he is found guilty, he needs to go. I am with politically incorrect, though. The full facts need to come out.
Posted by WVH at April 30, 2008 10:12 PM
Now, I believe that anyone, no matter their gender, race, religion, creed, or ethnicity who holds a position of trust should be held accountable for DV.
However, if you read my response to Andy at post #50, this is what I say:
The only way that society can deal with this issue is to report it, investigate it and if necessary adjudicate the facts in a court of law.
It is not a perfect system and if you know a better one, you need to lobby the legislature.
Posted by WVH at May 1, 2008 01:13 PM
I very much believe in our Constitutional system of government and the protection our Constitution provides. A person is innocent until proven guilty. So, if you Rovians not only want a permanent majority government, but to change our Constitutional protections, well no wonder you folks will never win elections. Most Americans believe in our Constitutional system of protection of rights.
Posted by: WVH on May 1, 2008 03:51 PMSince I genuinely like Karl Rove I take it as a compliment.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 04:00 PMI do love the tolerance being displayed.
Posted by: jimg on May 1, 2008 04:27 PMYou couldn't be more full of it.
Call 911 and shout DV and see if the guy you name doesn't get arrested. Month's later- see if anything happens when you are PROVEN to be a liar.
Does "battered wife syndrome" include going to your assailants house, starting a shouting match, ripping up documents until finally the homeowner throws you out?
Again LMAO that Simpson's chickens are coming home to roost, however that does not change the fact that these DV laws are total sham on the ol' innocent until proven guilty thingy in our constitution.
hey- you know who else dropped their charges? Kate Favre- you know the one that accused Kobe Bryant of rape...
Posted by: Andy on May 1, 2008 06:18 PMAnd he walks to the bus stop and leaves.
I'm sure doesn't own one of those Co2 belching cars, after the crap legislation he and Chase were supporting in this last 60 day session!
Posted by: GS on May 1, 2008 07:18 PMSo, what is your solution, think that every report of DV is a lie?
The only process we have is that once an allegation is made, in the criminal process, it is investigated. If the investigation supports charges, then there is a decision by the prosecuter whether to charge or file an indictment. The defendant then has a right to a trial. Either a judge or jury will decide guilt or innocence.
The civil process is more problematic in divorce case because it is two parties, not the government, in contention. It depends upon the resources of either party as to what type of investigation is conducted to prove allegations of DV.
Are there witnesses who lie, of course. But that happens in all types of litigation. The only method we have to sort out the truth of the matter is what happened the Mc Iver case and will happen with this representative. There is an allegation, the allegation is investigated, the prosecutor either charges or declines to charge, we have an adjudication. A finding of guilty or not guilty is rendered. In a civil case, the decision is made by the trier of facts as to whether the allegations have been sustained.
If you want to overturn the common law system, knock yourself out. Fact is, after a couple of centuries, this is what we have. I know that people are often not satisfied with the results. In my opinion, this is the best system humanly possible.
Posted by: WVH on May 1, 2008 09:22 PMThere is no perfect system of justice anywhere.
I'll take this system over any other.
With you on this one. Problem is most pols have such gigantic egos, it is all about me. The mayor of Detroit is hanging around, he should be gone, Senator Craig should be gone. Without power these cretins don't have the perks, adulation, and status, so they cling to power. I do hope that the dems nudge this clown toward the door.
Posted by: WVH on May 1, 2008 11:04 PMI have to go Dr. Phil on you bro. We have a representative form of government. Legislators of both parties enacted laws which are designed to control DV and protect victims. This is a majority decision which is never going to make you happy with the result. Because we have a representative democracy, you can:
a. run for office
b. lobby the legislature for change
c. In this state, start an initiative campaign
d. remain bitter
e. get on with your life
Remaining bitter is the least attractive of the options.
Posted by: WVH on May 1, 2008 11:10 PMHe is a real piece of work!
Posted by: GS on May 1, 2008 11:39 PMa. I ran last cycle.
b. I have testified to the legislature.
c. There is a related initiative in the works.
d. Change comes about from aggrieved people.
e. Apathy is false contentment.
f. Supporting things that have been shown to be wrong is, well, wrong.
g. Exposing those people, priceless.
Riposte.
Simple- When allegations are proven to be bogus- prosecute. Even more so- those allegations need to have financial repercussions for what they do in custody battles.
I too am down at the legislature and I quizzed one of the cops who came down to testify on a bill for yet more VAWA cash about what he does when a bogus allegation comes across their desk. He said "if it's bogus, we just forget about it and let it go."
That's BS. Either something happened or it didn't.
and you are totally wrong- why in the hell should guys like Shaydo move on with their life and not fix the system. That would be the most cowardly act ever.
Posted by: Andy on May 2, 2008 08:24 AM1. I may not necessarily agree with your position, but I give kudos to you for your participation. I doubt if you will produce the change that you want in this society because the role of women has changed. In more patriarchial society like Saudi Arabia, even they are changing slowly, very, very, very, very slowly regarding women. If a person, regardless of gender perjures themselves in a court proceeding, then prosecute the perjury. My guess is the gender relationship balance of power is not to your liking.
2. Andy, I agree with you. Those making false allegations should be prosecuted and those lying under oath or filing a false report should be prosecuted. There are too many real cases of abuse and resources should not be taken away from those.
Posted by: WVH on May 2, 2008 11:25 AM