By Steve Pomper
Seattle Police Department West Precinct Photo: (Adbar, CC 3.0 Wiki Media)
You really must want to believe the worst in all police officers to do what the radical left cop-haters have done to now, former, Seattle Police Officer and Police Guild Vice President Dan Auderer. The city is worse without him.
First, the anti-coppers glommed onto out-of-context, sarcastic quips Ofc. Auderer made during one half of a two-minute conversation and spread the fake news locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. The media seemed happy to believe the worst about this fine officer, printing stories that filled in blanks [lack of context] with personal bias and vitriol.
In the first part of this follow-up, Seattle Interim Chief of Police Sue Rahr has placed the “impact” of the maliciously reported controversy on society over the officer’s actual intent when making the comments. Even after the Guild provided the context, the cop-haters thwarted their efforts, preferring their manufactured false narrative. It appears I/C Rahr also opted for the false narrative and fired Ofc. Auderer.
Rahr posted on X, “I expect that many of you [SPD officers] will disagree with my decision and perhaps be angry.”
Perhaps?
“At the root of this case lies an extremely difficult judgment call of how to fairly balance ‘intent versus impact.’”
Not if the intent was the truth and the impact based on lies.
For the second portion of the follow-up, that former officer is suing the city for wrongful termination and is making other claims the public hasn’t heard about. More on that later.
Most media reported this incident, which I originally wrote about at NPA in September 2023, out of context. Worse, the discipline seems to have been decided the same way—relying on out-of-context comments—by the single person who mattered most, the police chief.
As I originally wrote, “I was saddened to learn that Dan, Officer Auderer, was the officer involved in the recorded comments. I worked with him at the SPD East Precinct for years (I think he rode with me as a student officer when I filled in for his FTO). I’ve always known him to be an excellent officer and person, intelligent, friendly, compassionate, and professional.”
As reported, Ofc. Auderer had just finished his portion of a fatality collision investigation, in which he conducted a routine post-collision assessment for impairment of a police officer who’d struck a pedestrian during an emergency response to yet another Seattle Fentanyl overdose. Ofc. Auderer did not respond to the collision scene and never saw the victim.
In context, Ofc. Auderer was on the phone updating the Guild president about the incident. During this call, Ofc. Auderer apparently inadvertently activated his body camera, causing the unit to audio (and video) record only his side of the two-minute conversation.
Filling in the context (after the incomplete story had gone worldwide), the president reportedly remarked the lawyers would reduce it to “arguing about the value of a human life… and asked, ‘What crazy argument can a lawyer make in something like this?” (Remember, the public didn’t initially hear what prompted his comment).
Mocking the lawyers, Ofc. Auderer answered they might say “She’s 26 years old, what value is there, who cares?” People heard this comment but not the question he was responding to. Regardless, the extremists whipped up this fake fire storm, putting the poor victim’s family through all this unnecessary additional pain after they’d already suffered enough. But their pain doesn’t matter to the radical cop-haters, right?
Without the context of the other party’s side of the conversation, even as Ofc. Auderer admitted, his comments sound horrendous. Still, I/C Rahr, for whom I had respect and thought positively about her appointment, said his (out-of-context) comments were a big part of why she decided to fire him.
As reported by KTTH talk show host Jason Rantz, posting on X:
“BREAKING: After mocking the way Seattle lawyers would dismiss the life of a victim in order to pay out less in a lawsuit, Officer Dan Auderer has apparently been fired by interim chief Sue Rahr. Rahr made the announcement in an internal memo to officers since he is ‘beloved’ by colleagues — an understatement — and knows this will cause internal strife. Officers are LIVID.”
Yes, they are.
I’ve heard from several officers who said this was the last straw for them regarding any remaining loyalty to the SPD and the city. And they’ve been battered and bruised far for a very long time. A higher-ranking officer said it might be time to leave. These aren’t officers standing up for a “bad apple.” These are officers standing behind an excellent officer they know, respect, and admire as a damn good cop and elected vice president of their union.
However, when placed in context, learning about what kind of officer/person Ofc. Auderer is, it hurts even more that his firing is based on something he didn’t do. All the evidence shows that the out-of-context comment is not something that Ofc. Auderer would say to or about anyone, never mind while talking to the guild president. I’m sure I/C Rahr knows this. But the pressure on her comes from another sector of society—one that hates cops.
I/C Rahr wrote, “At the root of this case lies an extremely difficult judgment call of how to fairly balance ‘intent versus impact.’” But where’s the fairness when the intent was benign while the anti-police factions manufactured the impact by exploiting the lack of context to create a preferred narrative?
She, admittedly, placed the impact on the community caused by the out-of-context false representation of Ofc. Auderer’s comments above his intent, which is the truth about the comments. And, though she mentions it, she seems to have given little weight to how well respected this officer is by his peers and supervisors. After all, they elected him to the second highest office in their union. He’s earned the benefit of the doubt—the anti-cop extremists who hijacked his words have not.
From the reporting, you’d swear Officer Auderer was the officer who’d struck and killed the poor young woman and then stood over her body when he made the out-of-context comments. In fact, in my original NPA article on the incident, I wrote, “The coverage has been so warped that when I spoke with one of my sons about it, he thought Officer Auderer was the officer who struck the pedestrian.” Thanks to the biased media coverage.
Every time in your life when you’ve glanced around before saying something, not intending harm or offense but because you didn’t want to upset someone—for whatever reason, you understand the context in which Officer Auderer made his comments. He thought were uttered during a private conversation in response to a question. He wasn’t being callous or “inhuman,” as some have charged or insinuated. The evidence indicates he was being facetious to make a point.
One more time: He wasn’t at the scene, and he never saw the victim. His sarcastic comments were about a person who was an abstraction without emotional attachment because he’d never seen or met the woman. He simply insinuated what he felt lawyers might say in court to avoid a big payout.
Ofc. Auderer explained what he meant by the comments, which the other party corroborated on the phone, and which makes sense—especially if you know or have met Ofc. Auderer. You must actively work not to believe him to arrive at the ludicrous conclusion that he seriously meant to disparage the young woman.
The Chief also brought up Ofc. Auderer’s disciplinary record, which is mild when you consider the minefield officers attempt to operate in these days. It’s not unusual for proactive officers like Ofc. Auderer to attract complaints—especially in blue cities.
It bothers me that I/C Rahr wrote about the comments as if Ofc. Auderer had intended to do harm and as if the comments were not a part of a two-way conversation. Throughout the report, she insisted on deciding the matter by siding with the cop-hater’s version of one-side of a conversation. No wonder his fellow officers who have immense respect for Ofc. Auderer are pissed.
I/C Rahr basically rejected giving Ofc. Auderer the benefit of the doubt that his career, reputation, and service have earned him. Instead, she validated the flawed, incomplete media reporting that went national and international, which she indicates is unforgivable regardless of the officer’s actual guilt regarding his intentions. Intention is everything in this situation, not an impact constructed of lies.
Rahr disregarded so much that she should know describes why cops sometimes seem to act differently in tragic circumstances that they encounter routinely that civilians encounter rarely. She said she was firing him for the good of the department, but was it?
As she alluded to Ofc. Auderer making comments he thought were private. But she neglects the reality that the comments were reported completely out of context. Reporting one side of a two-sided conversation is the definition of out of context.
She may not have intended it, but it seems more likely the termination benefitted the extremists who helped promote the fake impact of Ofc. Auderer’s out-of-context comments. This action will no doubt invigorate the anti-cop factions while forcing many more SPD officers out the door and preventing others from entering that same door.
I/C Rahr’s conclusion is what probably bothered me most. She wrote, “Your comments here were so derogatory, hurtful, and damaging to community trust, that this case is unique, both in terms of the inhumanity of your comments and laughter, and the devastating impact they have had.” Where’s “[t]he inhumanity of [his] comments…,” if he sarcastically ascribed the comments to lawyers and were not the officer’s beliefs?
Once again, there is no proof of Ofc. Auderer’s “intent to be derogatory, hurtful, and damaging to community trust….” His comments were only hurtful when taken out of context, which the radical, cop-hating left, and their media allies were only too happy to do. They shouldn’t be rewarded with yet another cop scalp.
For the final portion of this follow-up, I’m happy that, according to KOMO 4 News, “Former Seattle Police Department officer Daniel Auderer has filed a $20 million claim against the city of Seattle.”
Ofc. Auderer, aside from other items, also “claims the SPD leaked false information concerning ‘wrongfully initiated disciplinary proceedings as well as my personal information, including my home addresses.’ Auderer also claims he was wrongfully terminated by the department, noting the decision was retaliatory due to his union leadership.”
In closing, we can underscore the biased reporting, which KOMO’s above-linked story appropriately demonstrates. Without mentioning any context issues, they reported, “Back in January of 2023, a police officer struck and killed Jaanavi Kandula as she entered a crosswalk in South Lake Union. Auderer, who was responding in another cruiser, was caught laughing on tape and suggesting the city should ‘just write a check’ and that ‘she had limited value anyway.’”
What will a reader who is unaware of the incident take away from that description regarding the officer? Nothing good.
This story is indicative of much of the reporting about this incident at every level of media. The description implies the officer made intentionally, calloused comments while responding to the collision scene. Again, Ofc. Auderer never responded to the scene, did not see the victim, and made the comments later as a part of a private telephone conversation with another officer.
The most disgusting part is the anti-coppers, media reporters, and I/C Rahr are now well aware of the comments’ proper context. And while the extremists and media can be forgiven as they are enemies of the police, I/C Rahr does not have that excuse.