Moore's had some bad PR moments but at least she'll take a principled stand now and then. On the other hand it's become incredibly clear why every candidate in the D1 race who didn't make it out of the primary, regardless of ideology, endorsed Saka's opponent.

I hope someday a retrospective captures how a once-fun alt-weekly arrived at this:

‘…what a normal person would say, which is: “Why the fuck would you shoot [with non-lethal weapons] someone who is unarmed and exercising their First Amendment right to protest, even if they were about to smash a window or sock a cop? Why would you even suggest that!?”’

That the Stranger now believes a “normal” person would automatically conflate First Amendment activities with property destruction and assault pretty much tells us why the Stranger won’t stop complaining about how unreasonable the Council has become. Even the citizens of Seattle eventually tired of Capitol Hill protests reliably turning into riots, with the Stranger repeatedly justifying the resultant assaults and property damage. Tolerance for all of that has ended, and if stopping another riot means a blast ball for the person who “is about to smash a window or sock a cop,” then so be it.

I’ve got an idea that is just crazy enough to work:
Don’t break the law or do other stupid things that get police involved.
Breaking windows and assaulting police officers would qualify as stupid things.

@2 your added parenthetical changes the whole meaning of the quote. SPD was arguing that, if denied the ability to use blast balls, they'd be forced to shoot, with live ammunition, in other words use deadly force against, protestors who for example might be about to destroy property. That is actually insane as the author rightly points out.

Ok, I’m going to type this slowly.

The police exist to prevent and solve crimes.

If the police see a crime about to be committed, they should use force, if necessary, to stop it.

If the police do not have non-lethal options, then they may use lethal options.

Yes, that was indeed the point being made.

@5 you're saying you think police should shoot and potentially kill people to prevent them commiting minor property crimes? You are a crazy person.

@6: Not crazy at all. The US Constitution protects "life, liberty and property". It does not prioritize or rank these in any way.

Let's not make a conservative supreme court rule to adopt something like Texas law on a national basis.

@7 the Constitution also doesn't say you can't have sex with kids but normal people understand that's fucked up, just like killing someone to stop them breaking a window.

@9: "This is not how I want my Police Officers empowered."

Fine. Hire your own personal cops. But the public has spoken. And it looks like the pendulum is swinging back the other way. Just a bit.

@10 if cops can claim they "feared for their life" to retroactively justify killing people for any reason or none, is it not reasonable for the public to legitimately fear for their life any time they encounter a cop, and would that not then justify regular people using preemptive deadly force against cops? In other words, what possible logic justifies cops being able to claim fear to kill with impunity but not regular people?

@11: "and would that not then justify regular people using preemptive deadly force against cops?"

Try it and see how it goes. If you are hoping for total anarchy, you might be surprised how many civilians will side with and back up the police.