Perhaps the demonstrations were ""(almost entirely peaceful)" because of the police presence. Almost entirely???

Seems to me sending 10 cops for every protestor might be part of why it's expensive...

This is, in part, how protest becomes effective.

@1



Don't be silly. The protests were almost entirely peaceful because the CIA tortures its prisoner.

If this happens every year then why don't they hire enough cops to cover the workload they have instead of pretending it's always an "emergency"?

Well maybe those City Council pantywaists should start taking a stronger hand in insuring SPD accountability for screwing over black folks so those demonstrations wouldn't be necessary.

Want to end the protests? Stop beating & killing people already in custody.

And where are all the Chamber of Commerce jack-offs complaining about how the Police Union is bankrupting the city with their overreactions to citizens reacting to their unconstitutional use of force? The SPD created this problem, not the citizens, and they are profiting from their lawlessness.

@7 while the SPD certainly could improve itself and its relationships in communities, it has no power over police in Missouri or New York. These protests would have happened regardless of the SPD's actions. Even if this department did everything right, it wouldn't fix the world.

@8



The SPD does, however, have power over police in Seattle, and look what's happened under its watch.

My heart bleeds.



Here's a money saving idea: Disband the SPD.

Red Square Saturday 11am

rally for everyone

march to downtown for those who choose!!!

Start a rally at noon at SCC and march downtown. Another group will be in downtown already.
Spread em thin #shutshitdown

It seems like the only way applying for permits could save a significant amount of money is if some of the protests didn't happen because of permits being denied (wiping out the rights of the protesters)

They should apply for permits to:

Assure the 1st Amendment rights of speech and assembly of others who want to use the public square for whatever speech and assembly they choose. People will know ahead of time there is going to be a march or rally and can plan accordingly to move to assemble with who they choose for whatever subject (speech) they choose.

If they give the respect to the speech and assembly of others that they are demanding for themselves, they won't alienate the very voters and businesses they need to win to their cause to be successful.

Police won't over-staff and over-spend if they know roughly how many are coming.

March organizers then have the right to tell people who don't want to follow their groups rules to leave. They temporarily "rent" (even though permit fees are waived for 1st Amendment marches) the portions of the route or space they occupy and can tell those that would co-opt or hijack their event to leave, and have the police make them leave, if they don't.

Read other local news sites. There is a growing backlash against those who protest violently, block intersections unlawfully, block other people's rights to gather (assemble) and talk (speak), etc. Not the way to build a coalition.

From what they've posted on their Facebook page, it seems as though those seven "Anarchists in the Pacific Northwest" were absolutely delighted to have dozens of cops babysitting them all night.

Telling those seven people (and the other few dozen who didn't want to get their balaclavas wet) that unpermitted protests cost the city a lot of money is doing nothing but congratulating them for what they see as a job well done. They'd never consider applying for a permit to begin with, on purely ideological grounds: a permit from the city does nothing in their eyes other than legitimize the power of The State to issue permits. And, like, smash The State, you know?

The idea that it might be immoral to take the streets away from the rest of society, rather than peaceably assembling in plazas and parks (and scrupulously using the sidewalk), will never enter their overheated thoughts.

@14: People need to get pissed off, and then realize that this shit can't be swept under the rug. We won't cause change until those with power are uncomfortable.

@16, What about those fellow citizens with the same power, or lack thereof, as the protesters, who are being alienated and feeling just as victimized by the protesters as they are by those in power? Seems like you want them on your side, not driving them to those in power.

SPD complaining about the cost of protests?!! WE PAY for their services?!! WTF? And gee, maybe stop murdering unarmed people, period and there won't be "additional costs" in the streets?!! Hey, I don't recall any police asking me about the inconvenient and "additional costs" of footing the cool $1million in false overtime billing?!!! Fascists are costing us lives, who gives a fuck about the "overtime", this doesn't come out of their back pockets?!!! They aren't doing the city any favors here! And quit giving them ms media channels, they aren't worthy of the fine print!!! The "anarchist" crutch is so 2011!! Anarchists aren't responsible for the deaths of Mike Brown or Eric Garner's.

Hmmm Clever. Way to grab for a revenue stream. Fees for application for permits to protest. Fees for insurance companies because well a protest is no different than a parade and proof of insurance is required for parades and festivals. Plus extra revenue for those arrested for not having a protest permit chit in their pocket proving that they are part of the approved protest group.



Hmmm what could be the problem here? Could it be that a big part of what set off this whole mess is the disproportionate use of petty fines and court costs on the poor and disenfranchised to fund the police and courts?



My other question is why does Seattle send bike cops into demonstrations/protests? Don't you people have a mounted police division? A well trained rider and horse yeah they can do crowd control. A cop on a bike in a crowd is just a guy carrying around a bike in a crowd.

@17: they need a harsh dose of "wake the duck up". People are getting killed and beaten by the cops. You being stuck in traffic doesn't even come fucking close.

@20. The argument you make, is exactly what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect against. This group's right to speech and gather needs to be suppressed in favor of the other group's speaking and gathering because the topics and reasons for each groups speech and gathering are not morally equivalent. Who decides that? The majority? If it is the latter, then the 1st Amendment is dead. You have tyranny of majority. If it is the small group that is the loudest, most militant, most violent, then the 1st Amendment is dead. Civil war and might makes right are not far away. The better way, is to let everyone have equal access to speech and assembly in the public square, when they choose, where they choose, around whatever topic they choose, unimpeded by others, whether the others act by electing a government to repress the rights of others or whether the others hijack the public square from others in the form of a mob.