no dibs
SPD shocked the weapon was left at the scene.... then didn't do anything. Go figure.
Good god. No wonder the cops hate people. I'm not sure who's more awful. People, if you are going to hit someone with your car finish the job.
She deserved it. Unless she was holding it for a disabled person or some such thing, you don't get to "save" a spot with your body. That's not how parking etiquette works.
The driver will be found, if not already.
@4, Maybe holding a space is bad parking etiquette, but vehicular assault is bad human etiquette. C'mon.
I don't drive, and I've never owned a car, but I am fully on the driver's side with this one. Get your ass out of the street, it isn't your spot to save. Next logical step is fucking Uber for parking spaces where you pay someone to go stand in the street to save a spot for you. No thanks.
The first car to the spot, gets the spot. We all know that's how it works, and it anyone who "saves" a spot by standing in it is an entitled asshole.
Why didn't they do anything to find the driver? Like look up their name? So they could find them right away?

Because to me, anybody who is road raging this badly is not in a normal state. If they did things like this all the time, they'd have gone to jail years ago. They are seriously in crisis today. Probably having a mental breakdown or high as a kite. Which would mean when they come back and get in the car they are likely to do something just as crazy.

Which is enough to make it worth the effort of typing the plate of the car into the computer and pulling up the owner's name and picture, showing it to the witness, and then seeing if they are at the listed address. Also: boot or tow the car. Don't leave it there for them to come back and drive away in.

But no, the SPD doesn't do any of that. We pay these cops to diddle around thousands of man hours a year doing nothing but handing out business cards and occasionally shooting somebody for dubious reasons. We could spend that money on so many useful things instead of cop theater to make paranoid old white people think they're safer.
If she had put a parking cone or two to save the spot momentarily nobody would have said anything so the parking etiquette bull is rather funny. As for that person who shoves people out of the way with her car, she needs serious mental help. It's rather odd how the one standing there is the one that is said to be entitled.
@9: How do you know that SPD didn't track the driver down or tow the car?

These are cartoons, not news articles. We never know the final outcomes. Callan needs to be drawing the next cartoon and not on hold waiting to talk to a sergeant at the Capitol Hill precinct.
@10 - Don't use parking cones - that's even more obnoxious.
While I certainly don't condone "bumping" a human with a 3,000 pound vehicle (unquestioningly a case of Vehicular Assault), the person "saving" the spot was most definitely in the wrong, as per…"> RCW 46.61.570 "It shall be unlawful for any person to reserve or attempt to reserve any portion of a highway (which includes designated street parking spaces) for the purpose of stopping, standing, or parking to the exclusion of any other like person, nor shall any person be granted such right."
@13 there is the law and there is common sense if you need the spot to move furniture or whatever else that I don't need to know about.

Unless there's an authorized SDOT notification attached, just putting a cone or other object in the stall doesn't mean squat, and the driver would still have been within their rights to park there.

"Common sense" isn't a recognized exemption for violating the law, which is quite unambiguous on the point. If you want space for a moving van then you need to go to SDOT and get the proper permits and notifications, just like everyone else; otherwise, it's first vehicle gets the spot, period.
If the driver is found (the car's plate will allow the owner to be found, but it can't be used to determine who was driving) they could be charged with assault. I suppose the dim bulb holding the spot could also be ticketed; it is against the law to attempt to hold an empty public parking space without city approval.

Either way - I liked the cops response in the 'toon. I hope it's verbatim.

Yeah, lack of evidence of an impact: some physical damage to either the alleged victim or the vehicle itself, might have been a determining factor. Otherwise, it would have been the pedestrian's word versus the driver's, and the officer would have already known by the pedestrian's own admission that they had violated the RCW.
@17 You may not know about common sense but it's widely practiced around Seattle based on my 30+ years living here. Of course, it will change as Seattle becomes more urban, in the meantime, morons who get uptight at being denied a parking spot should take public transit.

And in my 30+ years of living here, I've noticed that "common sense", when exercised in violation of legal statute doesn't mean squat. That's why locals tend not to jaywalk, for example, because even if there are no cars for blocks in either direction, you'll still get a ticket from SPD if they catch you in the act.
@22/23 = lamest troll ever.
@21 Listening to you one would think that nobody ever stops or parks in alleys, for example, whereas it is common practice.
A car waiting to park isn't going fast enough to cause more than a small bruise. If the pedestrian saw the driver was really going to take the space, she had ample opportunity to get out of the way. The pedestrian probably also takes a spoon to a knife fight.

(louis ck on everyone becoming the biggest asshole they can be whilst driving.)
These are cartoons, not news articles.

If it's a cartoon then why doesn't it say "by Ansel Herz"? If the police report said they did anything more than hand out one of their fucking business cards, Callan would have said so. He knows his job.

And the cop had more important work to do.

Yeah, those business cards ain't going to hand themselves out.
Driver should've just sat there blocking the spot and laying on the horn until either the spot saver gave up, or the cops came to (hopefully) warn the spot saver. Oh wait, Seattleites don't honk.
@1@2@3@4@5@6@7@8@9@10@11@12@13@14@15@16@17@18@19@20@21@22@23@24@25@26@27@28@29@30 If We don't stop fighting then @Callan Berry will stop making Police Reports and that is not what I for one would want!! In Washington State both parties are in the right there is no need to argue!…

It's also illegal, unless there's a designated area, such as a loading zone, and the parked vehicle is authorized to use it, so Parking Enforcement would probably have no problem ticketing any non-authorized vehicle they encountered in your scenario; and I would venture to guess they probably do on a frequent basis. Also, it seems belaboring the point, but surely you must be aware that "other people do it all the time" really isn't going to work as a defensible position when you're sitting in front of a magistrate trying to get a citation for a parking infraction dismissed.

Are you kidding? The arguing - and accompanying page hits - is what keeps Berry in business.

Also, your link is broken.
This exact same thing happened to me. Maybe it was the same nut.
@32 instead of making up stuff about what I said to a judge, why don't you concede that not all codes are very strictly enforced because doing so would be absurd and because they are designed mostly for systemic violators or when the situation is critical.
Get the fuck out the road.

Why do you assuming I was speaking specifically about you? The use of "you" and it's variants is a fairly standard literary device and simply refers to anyone who may find themselves in the given circumstances.

And the degree to which a particular law is enforced irrelevant. Name one law - any law - that is enforced in every single instance where it's violated. Laws can only be enforced when a designated authority encounters a violation; but just because someone isn't caught, for whatever reason, doesn't mean they're not doing something illegal. It has nothing to do with systemic violations or critical situations: if a LEO sees a violation they're duty-bound (perhaps barring some extremely extenuating circumstances) to cite the infraction. Or do you think Traffic Enforcement checks first to see how many parking tickets one has before deciding whether another is warranted? THAT would truly be absurd. If they find you (again, this is the rhetorical "you") parked illegally they'll write you up, regardless of whether it's your 1st or 50th offense.
i'm taking bets on whether the spot-saver was a Californian or not
Every single one of those people needs to be bitten HARD on the ASS.

Even the cop.

Especially the cop.

Fucking elitists -- all of 'em.

Trying to save a spot on the street, in Capitol Hill? That woman was taking her life into her hands.

@28: That was a good addition. Thank you.
The driver was in the wrong. They left a witness alive.
Still not *quite* so bad here...…
@ 3 Funny; I laughed out loud
@21 yeah, I don't think that's why locals don't jaywalk

And how long have YOU been observing local pedestrian behavior?

FWIW, I've seen people attempt this in other cities: Portland, Phoenix, and L.A. come most immediately to mind, so perhaps it's more of a West Coast thing.
Respectfully, the allegation by the spot holder, without corroborating evidence, would not be sufficient, anywhere, in the U.S., for the police to take punitive action.

Imagine if she had made an unfounded allegation against any of us, and we were hit with a summons, or worse ? We had a neighbor that was always doing this kind of stuff, usually imaginary drug deals, and she would demand the cops arrest the "transgressor" on her say-so. Eventually, the cops threatened to arrest her, for abusing the 911 system.
LOL, of course a whole gaggle of people would be in here wringing their hands about "assault with a 3000 pound vehicle." A car is creeping into a spot and you are intentionally trying to block it with your body. It's not going to hurt you, but you are going to get pushed out of the way. If you happen to fall down and they actually drive over you, you have a beef. If you get nudged and you're upset about it and want to overblow it into "assault", you are a fucking ninny and should have gotten out of the goddamn way.
@ 48 facts2supportURpoint , thanks for your reply. Kindly review the court transcripts and/or police reports. The arresting officer had to have something else; typically the suspect is told that there is a witness, and if they admit the deed, the court will grant them better treatment. Once they admit the crime, the corroborating evidence has been provided. Failing to obtain an admission, the officer may falsify his report, claim the admission, and let the prosecution fall apart, at a later date, in order to get the perp off the street, for a while. No habeas corpus, otherwise.

An admission of guilt is airtight for conviction, or a falsified report may be withdrawn, by the prosecutor, and the cop gets a measure of street justice.


It's a crime to reach out with your pinky finger and try to force a person to move out of your way, even if they have no legal right to block your way. Attempting to do the same thing with your car is a much more serious crime.

And for what.? For a parking space. If driving is a privilege, and not a right, then certainly street parking is most definite a privilege, not a right. A person who would risk even the slightest injury to another person for the sake of a parking space is a serous threat to others. That's the whole reason we have jails.

And cops. We have cops to actually protect us from this shit. Not show up after it all goes to hell and clean up the bodies and hand out fucking business cards. The fact that they don't prevent jack shit is why we don't need fucking cops.

Had the driver peacefully left, and made a complaint against the person creating the danger by blocking the space, they'd have had a valid case. Escalating it yourself? Nope, now you go to jail.

In this case the "rights versus privileges" argument is irrelevant. The law is very clear that in this particular situation pedestrians may not interfere with vehicles, so the stall-holder was indisputably in the wrong. That does not in any way absolve the driver if they did in fact make contact (a good example of the aphorism "two wrongs don't make a right"), but as has been stated elsewhere, without some kind of evidence (and sorry @48, but a single person's say-so without other physical proof or a corroborating witness isn't enough to meet the threshold for "preponderance of evidence" - that is more evidence for than against a crime having been or being committed -required to invoke probable cause), the police aren't in any position to make an arrest. That's probably why the pedestrian wasn't themselves cited for "pedestrian interference", because the officer didn't have any evidence such interference actually occurred.
@51: "It's a crime to reach out with your pinky finger and try to force a person to move out of your way, even if they have no legal right to block your way."

Ah yes, "assault with pinky finger" seems like the mark of someone who would never overstate a grave threat to their person. I applaud your dedication to victimhood.

If I ever encounter one of these space-saving assholes, I will ask my passenger to get out and sit on the trunk of my car with their pinky finger sticking out, and I will slowly back up, pushing the dipshit out of the way with said pinky finger. And then I will wait for the police to come arrest me for vehicular pinkyssault.

@4 I haven't read all the other replies, so maybe you walked this back somewhere above, but did you really mean to say that bad parking etiquette makes assault with a deadly weapon OK?
A lot of people here are a tad confused about how the law works. At the point that the victim says the assault happened and there is no contrary evidence, there's not just a "preponderance" of the evidence, but undisputed evidence. And "preponderance of the evidence" is not a relevant standard. For arrest, it's probable cause. For conviction, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. For "maybe I should run the plate or wait around for the person to return to this car," it's not much of anything. An officer who is told that a person has been the victim of an assault with a deadly weapon is 100% within his or her rights to investigate and, if they find the attacker, to ask that person some questions.

Many of the comments here are dealing with the imaginary situation that the victim has her story and the attacker contradicts that story. Remarkably often, that just doesn't happen. Many (most?) people in this sort of situation essentially say "yeah I shoved her with my car because she was being a huge asshole" as many here have said. But, two wrongs indeed don't make a right and citizens are not allowed to enforce traffic infractions with deadly force. That driver belongs in prison or at least a court-ordered course of treatment for his or her mental illness.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.