That's what she said, now let's hear what he said.

Claiming to be an abolitionist while making a police report is like claiming to be a vegan while eating a burger. That said I hope she is able to heal from this experience, no thanks (predictably) to the criminal system.

Where is Thumpus to argue that overcoming the defenses provided in law beyond a reasonable doubt is easy and straightforward, and prosecutorial malfeasance is the only reason there is no charge?

@thirteen12 - She articulates it very well "[she] emphasized that she first filed charges “to create accountability by naming the harm, informing my community, and removing this person from a position that allowed them to continue using their power and platform to harm others”. Noble as fuck. If we ever stop wasting our entire budget on cops and stand up some other systems of accountability, then you can judge her. Until then, shut your mouth.

I hope she moves forward with Civil litigation (that should be allowed within her abolitionist world view) - seems like a good way to further accountability for the offender.

@5: Agreed. As a civil trial would have a lower standard of proof than a criminal trial, it would allow her to pursue justice, whilst also recognizing the reality to which the King County Prosecutor's Office admitted: the small chance of securing a conviction to the criminal standard with the evidence they have. It would also further her other stated goals, as quoted @4.

"First, they’d have to demonstrate that Delostrinos was too drunk to consent."

Wow. If you have to go to that lengths to get "justice" better to deal with your alcoholism instead of airing your very dirty laundry in public.

"But she turned to the system anyway, because she believed it was the only way to find some accountability for what happened to her."

Everyone's an abolitionist until they're the ones being assaulted 😝

An accusation is not an indictment.
An indictment is not a conviction.
Acquittals do not prove innocence.
So sorry to all involved in this issue.

@8 "Everyone's an abolitionist until they're the ones being assaulted"

This woman yes, but some of us actually live our values.

@11 in her defense she did state she would not have supported the prosecution - sounds like the issue was she, as the victim, wanted that right / choice / whatnot to decline the prosecution.

@11: some crimes are easier to shrug off than others. Abolitionist talk is cheap, and date rape is a pretty big one.... 😝

As I recall you're actually a bit of rape-denier though, aren't you? 😝 depending on the identity of the perpetrator, of course 😉

@11: Nothing warms my heart more than devout abolitionist living their values by not reporting being a victim of a crime.

Unclear sexual assaults happen all the time. Why is Stranger reporting only on this one?
Oh yeah, it’s a hit piece on Bruce Harrell by association.

He’s not even mayor anymore. Maybe cover the actions of the current mayor, who Stranger was so biased in favor of.

She’s still attending protests and whining for others to change rather than leveraging the very real power she has. Or having to pay a fine for not reporting her parents’ donations to her campaign. Or stopping the cleanup of the Ballard encampment.

This is why I call myself a classic Democrat. Today’s liberals like to look for the worst flaws in others, exaggerate them, then feel oh so good about themselves for not being that and fighting against that. And that prevents us from recognizing that our own actual governance policies are shit.

@15, most sexual assaults go unreported and even fewer are written about in the media but that’s not a valid reason to not write about any of them at all. When public figures are accused of a crime it’s much more likely to be covered by the press than if it’s committed by a random nobody for reasons that should be self-evident.

A "strictly pprofessional" meeting with drinks. Wakes up drunk. Sounds really professional!

@16: Risk of defamation and litigation is a valid reason.

Valid reason for what. You’re allowed to say if someone is being investigated/charged/indicted for a crime. You can’t be sued for reporting the truth.

sounds like he didn't know what he was doing and was inadequate at the task at hand, known as a small fry,,

@19: Yes, the key word here: truth

Yes, it’s the truth that he was accused and investigated for raping someone. What point do you think you’re making.

@22: Why are you quibbling over my validation of your statement?

Exactly @24, but we progressives get our fee-fees hurt when we have to look at our own failures of governance.

Again, there are two mental ways to address this problem:
1. Do the hard work of figuring out why your virtue signaling policies don’t make Seattle safe and change your own views, or
2. Compare yourself to an opposition you despise, exaggerate how bad they are, and exaggerate how much better you must be by contrast.

Today’s liberals take option 2 every time.

And to all the other people saying this is legitimate to report on, it is, kinda. So are all the other gray zone sexual assaults. But you’re being manipulated by only hearing about this one. Because it isn’t about this one. It’s not even about Pedro Gomez. It’s about exaggerating Harrell’s flaws so you folks can feel better about your vote for a shitty mayor TS endorsed. “Sure she didn’t do anything she said she would and crime of up, but at least she’s not a rapist.” That’s how you think you’re winning when your losing. Politics is shit right now.

Was GBH involved in this incident? Did her sexual assault kit include a blood test to see if she'd been doped? But yeah, "he said she said" is a huge problem.

Maybe the issue ALSO is: Prosecutors are always looking for WINS. It looks better on prosecutorial resumes, for those wanting to climb the ladder, to ony have WINS. So the reason they kicked it around for 18 months was trying to decide if they could win it. They should have been thoughtful enough to accept the risk, and at least charge the man and see what happens.

In Spain, the legal standard regarding consent has been changed from “yes means yes “to “no means no. “ of course, this doesn’t change the problem that often it’s one person‘s word against others.