by Goldy, 04/30/2008, 10:14 AM

State Rep. Geoff Simpson (D-47) was arrested over the weekend on a domestic violence charge. He’s just issued the following public statement:

This is an unfortunate situation for everyone involved. The end of a marriage is an emotional and trying time for any family, and mine is no exception.

As a firefighter and first responder, I have witnessed the reality of domestic violence and provided care for many victims.

As a state legislator, I remain strongly in support of erring on the side of protecting potential victims with our laws and their enforcement – even when, in situations like mine, it can result in unwarranted charges. I am confident that once the facts come to light I will be exonerated.

I believe in our justice system and will continue to cooperate fully as this situation is resolved.

The details are sketchy, and I’m told neither Simpson or his ex-wife are talking publicly on the advice of their lawyers, but as I understand it, the arrest came after police were called to the ex-wife’s house while the two were having an argument. No actual physical violence was alleged or observed, but state law apparently provides police officers little discretion under these circumstances, even when all parties involved do not want the arrest to happen.

Or so I’m told.

The acrimonious nature of Simpson’s divorce is no secret, which makes this situation doubly difficult for Simpson even if he were to be completely exonerated. An outspoken progressive representing a swing district, Simpson’s reelection was never expected to be a cakewalk; his arrest will certainly make him one of the state GOP’s primary targets… assuming he continues to run for reelection.

And should he not be exonerated… well, domestic violence is inexcusable behavior, regardless of party affiliation or ideology.

When it comes to jumping into the world of campaign management, our friend Will certainly can pick ‘em. But then, who doesn’t like a challenge.

41 Responses to “Rep. Geoff Simpson arrested on domestic violence charge”

1. YLB spews:

There silly wingnuts – he talked about it.

Pre-empted your silly barking of orders.

Losers.

2. Daddy Love spews:

Don’t get drunk and argue. Good marriage advice.

3. Goldy spews:

YLB @1,

I didn’t just write about the story, I believe I broke the story.

4. Mark1 spews:

@1: Still unemployed?

5. "Hannah" spews:

FINALLY!!! A politician who faces the people and is OPEN about the accusations against him, rather than hiding behind lawyers! Good for him!

6. Politically Incorrect spews:

Whenever there is some sort of domestic viloence situation, the cops have to arrest somebody, and usually that somebody is the guy, no matter what the gal did. I think there is discrimination against men with this domestic violence shit. Women can say whatever they feel like and get their husbands and boyfriends thrown in the klink. I think it’s time for these bithces to really suffer for their dishonesty.

7. Goldy spews:

Incorrect @6,

On the other hand, would you want to be the cop who leaves without making an arrest, only to be called back an hour later to a murder scene?

But yes, the police nearly always arrest one party in these circumstances, and it is almost always the man, so Simpson’s arrest is not necessarily incriminating in itself. But even if he’s guilty of nothing more than getting into a screaming match with his ex, the political consequences could be severe, even if the legal ones ultimately are not.

8. It's sad spews:

We don’t know what happened in this case, but I’ve had a similar thing happen. A drunk (and hallucinating) not-soon-enough-to-be-ex called the cops. Soon after she did that, she snapped out of it and made nice. We both told the cops what happened and were told that they were _required_ to hall someone off. One of the cops said they almost always hall off the guy because it’s a lot less work for them as no one would ask questions. he said that if they took the woman _everyone_ would ask why and they’d have to justify why they took the woman, so it’s just easier for them to take the guy.

9. Michael spews:

A couple years ago, I got in an argument with a female roommate who was way behind on her rent (the rest of us were eating it so we wouldn’t be on bad terms with the landlord). In the middle of the shouting match, she picked up the phone and called 911 (her mommy was traveling overseas). At first, I thought it was a joke. But the two KC Sheriffs Deputies who showed up at the door weren’t kidding around.

Despite the fact I never even crossed through the door, or got within 5 feet of this roommate, I came within a hair of being arrested (the only thing that saved me was another more serious call over the radio)

This woman simply told the cops she “felt” threatened. I’ve never laid a hand on a human being (or pet) in my life, and almost got hauled away because of somebody who knew how to manipulate the system. At this point, I realized the pendulum had swung back way too far after years of law enforcement looking the other way.

I don’t know the details in this case, but I do know there doesn’t have to be any violence involved to be arrested for domestic violence.

10. Mr. Cynical spews:

“5. “Hannah” spews:
FINALLY!!! A politician who faces the people and is OPEN about the accusations against him, rather than hiding behind lawyers! Good for him!”

Uhhhhh Hannah, how is Simpson being “open”??
He only says the charges are unwarranted.

will….are you the “other man”??
Like Ex-NJ Gov. Grevey’s new “soul-mate”??

11. Michael spews:

Politically Incorrect needs to get over his fear of women.

12. Montana spews:

Mandatory arrest policies? Are you joking? This is an obvious violation of all due process and protections against unreasonable seizure as well as violation of progressives standards about justice.

Funny how defenders of the constitution fail to do so when the facts present political realities they don’t like.

13. "Hannah" spews:

Having been involved in an abusive relationship in my past (never to happen again) the whole someone going to jail thing is a joke! I agree with removing someone from the “fight” as people tend to calm down once out of the situation…cops arrest mostly men, because “they are required by law” to. Yet, take a restraining order for example,..THATS the problem with DV. It’s a freakin’ piece of paper and the cops I dealt with back in the day just said, well you have enough friends around, he won’t do anything. Yeah ok….taking someone to jail over a verbal disagreement is ridiculous, they need to use some common sense when determining whether it is a psycho manipulative woman ( as Michael dealt with) or a true physical threat!

14. Daddy Love spews:

I read though as much of the Seattle Muni Code as I could find and nowhere does it say that police have to arrest one party on a DV call. It may be police procedure. It may be how cops interpret their job or that they have decided that this course is the most expedient (which happens).

I saw an example of this on CNN today, where some cops took a pissed-off youth into custody for trying to steal two copies of GTA IV. The kid was kicking the aluminum bars in the cruiser back seat and spat at a video photog who was trying to shoot him. The cop leaned in the window of the cruiser and said to the kid “Do you want to get Tased?” I just about shit, because the Taser to my knowledge is not approved in any jurisdiction to be used for the purpose of “punishing anyone who pisses off a cop.” But there you go. Cops intepret their rules AND the law, and when called to account, authorities and juries almost always side with the cop. Note NYC.

So at least, Montana, I guess I don’t recommend getting into a spirited conversation about your constitutional rights with the cop who wants to arrest you. Or do you want to get Tased?

15. Roger Rabbit spews:

@6 I’ve seen no evidence of gender discrimination by the police. Some years ago, I read a story in the local papers about police being called to a domestic dispute in Burien. After they arrived, the man smacked the woman and she smacked him back, so they hauled both of them to the clink.

16. Roger Rabbit spews:

Since when is arguing “domestic violence”? Doesn’t there have to be a physical hitting, pushing, or at least touching before the police can arrest in these cases? They can’t jail people for verbal spats, can they? That would be news to me.

As for Simpson, he’s entitled to his day in court, and shouldn’t be considered a domestic abuser unless the facts establish that he did get physical with her. If and when that is proved, then he should resign from the legislature.

17. Roger Rabbit spews:

@11 PC probably has reason to fear women. No doubt his mother smacked him quite around a bit when he was growing up. Unfortunately, it didn’t do him any good.

18. Familiar spews:

This is a man who threw a chair in the Covington City council Chambers after a meeting that did not go his way. His anger management program is not working. I have no doubt that he hit his wife and that this is not the first time. Also the City of Kent knows that he has a temper and did nothing. They are afraid of him. I feel sorry for his wife and his kids that have witnessed this.

19. GBS spews:

@ 18:

You have “no doubt” he hit his wife??

Or, you speculating he hit his wife?

See, that’s the difference between knowing something and therefore having no doubt.

Or speculating you have no doubt, but you could be wrong and therefore cast a reasonable shadow of doubt.

So which is it, you know or you’re speculating?

20. Marvin Stamn spews:

Hey, someone is forging Goldy’s name on this thread. Some right-wing-nutcase posted a thread about a democrat doing something wrong.

21. GBS spews:

@ 20:

Weird, huh?

I mean, as a conservative you’re not accustomed to honest accountability and critique.

Welcome to the left where we are not perfect, but at least we’re honest.

22. Nindid spews:

Are the conservative trolls projecting again? How sad….

23. ArtFart spews:

21 Amen!

To turn an overused Christian slogan around, lefties aren’t perfect, just forgiving.

24. ArtFart spews:

Ask any cop, or read any one of a number of books about police work (Norm Stamper’s Breaking Rank is a good start) and you’ll find that there’s nothing officers loathe worse than a domestic violence call. You never know what you’re walking into, but most of the time you’re dealing with at least two individuals who are angry beyond any semblance of reason, one or both is likely to be dosed with alchohol or some other substance, and there may or may not be weapons involved–flying crockery, if nothing else. Furthermore, the only tool you have at your disposal is to separate the two warring parties, and the only legal means to do that is to put someone in custody.

25. What'sittoya spews:

The radio report on AM630 said he “interfered with a domestic violence report”. Whatever that means.

26. I try my best to be just like I am spews:

@ 14 Check out RCW 10.99.030, espicially (5),(6)

27. Roger Rabbit spews:

@25 He tore up and ate the citation the cops gave him?

28. topdog spews:

Lets get the facts straight.
1. you wont find this charge in the seattle municipal court rules or laws, it is a state RCW
2. Read the definition of Domestic Violence, there HAD to be either an ALLEGATION of physical harm or indications of physical harm. If cops arrive and both sides say “nope just arguing” and the FACTS (such as no broken lamp, person eye isnt swelling shut, no scratches ect)then there is NO DUTY to arrest and officers dont arrest
3. it is not the cops who put this law into play. get your facts straight it was enacted by the democratically controlled legislators of our state, cops simply ENFORCE what our lawmakers decide on…dont like it talk to your law maker.
4. interfering with the reporting of a DV means there was EVIDENCE to lead a resonable person to conclude that this subject tried to cover up the incident..such as yanking the phone off the wall while the 911 call was in progress, forcing the caller to hang up or disconnect the call to 911, telling others to lie about what occured

I just love to read people who dont know the law nor how to apply the law

29. Johnny Pneumonic spews:

Yep, another tantrum throwing Progressive, at it again. Whether it’s City Council members or state legislatures, they’re all batshit drunk with anger.

No surprise there.

30. palamedes spews:

A real shame.

I talked with him four years ago about whether he might have any interest in running for Congress in the 8th CD. Back then, he told me that he’d prefer to have more time in as a fireman beforehand, and that it would be too much to deal with for his wife and then-young children.

I hope he and his family can get through this hard time and find some semblance of peace.

31. Richard Pope spews:

I have read the police report that Stefan posted on this matter:

http://soundpolitics.com/SimpsonArrestRecord.pdf

I can see that it would be possible for a jury to acquit Geoff Simpson, even if his recent-ex-wife (dissolution decree entered 04/24/2008) testifies against him. This certainly is not a clear-cut case either, and most definitely is not clear-cut against Geoff Simpson.

32. Richard Pope spews:

I have read the police report that Stefan posted on this matter:

I can see that it would be possible for a jury to acquit Geoff Simpson, even if his recent-ex-wife (dissolution decree entered 04/24/2008) testifies against him. This certainly is not a clear-cut case either, and most definitely is not clear-cut against Geoff Simpson.

33. Richard Pope spews:

soundpolitics.com/SimpsonArrestRecord.pdf

34. Geoff*beats*women*with*glee spews:

This is just tooo rich… just a few weeks ago under the post about Will propping up the bastard I called Simson a bastard wife-beater and you THUNG PRICKS deleteed the post.

Simpson is a vile, evil, ugly bastard wife beater and thinking of that fat bastard in cuffs MAKES MY DAY. Now, liberals when are you going to call for the fat bastard pricks resignation?

35. GBS spews:

@ 33:

Just as soon as a jury convicts him in a court of law.

Until then, he’s PRESUMED innocent. At least in the America founded by Liberals and not the vision of today’s conservatives who try to erode our liberties.

36. Mr. Cynical spews:

Goldy–
Please change will’s bio in your ABOUT Section to add:
“will has questionable timing about career changes and questionable ability in judging political campaigns to run”.
Thanks for doing that update!

37. concerne spews:

I want to comment on the line number 33 good going. Definitely the fat bastard has everything coming to him, he’s clearly a wife beater you should definitely be taken out of office for the good for us people. Sincerely concerne

38. "Hannah" spews:

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/Sheriff%20Report.pdf

Here is the sheriffs report, note there was a witness….and he/she backs the ex-wife’s claim.

39. seeker of truth spews:

Yes, Hannah, there was a witness. It was the ex-wife’s STEP-FATHER who had gone to “help” her collect her belongings… don’t you suppose he might be biased when emotions are running high in this sad situation?

And you (Geoff*beats*women*with*glee) piece of TRASH, sick, perverse right wing ASS, calling someone a fat bastard because you disagree with his political views? It’s too bad you can’t pull your head out of the fat ass that you apparently carry yourself, if only to look up to see if in 23 years of marriage this guy has EVER had any prior issues with domestic violence!

It’s too bad more people aren’t as committed and involved as Geoff has been in the political arena- he fights for the rights of people who are not in a position to defend themselves, for good education, for all the right reasons! What are you doing in support of your community or country?

Oh! And I’m sure his kids would be totally stoked to read all the shit you guys are involving yourselves in writing about their parents… people act concerned, then vomits all over their family crisis. How nice. I mean, BASTARD?! I’m sure his 18 year old, eldest son is reading all of this- and probably sick at it all.

40. "Hannah" spews:

@39 – well no where in the report did it state the witness was related. So excuse me! And I love the statement from Geoff that says “he MIGHT have dialed 911 when she wouldn’t leave”…do you NOT know when you dial 911??? And if HE dialed 911, why was SHE the one who actually had any conversation with the 911 dispatcher?

41. realitycheck spews:

Wake the fuck up. Look at all the questionable shit this guy does, pdc fines, sign theft, using public computers to respond to blogs and add the “he is an ass” reputation he has with both Dems and Rs in Olympia.

He is a bully. That is a trait that transcends political lines. At the very least he pushes women around physically and (I believe) that crosses a moral line.

In his public statement he lied. There are allegations of physical abuse, and there is a witness.

He is a wife beating sack of shit. No politics, just an asshole.