🎶 Where have all the drug stores gone? 🎶 CHARLES MUDEDE

Comments

1

On the contrary, being anti-choice is easy. It's simplistic and binary, perfect for people blinded by the certainty of monotheistic faith - life starts at conception. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

The circumstances of conception are irrelevant. All the complexities and hazards that can and do occur on the path to birth are irrelevant. The science of fetal development and pregnancy is irrelevant.

That an IVF zygote isn't even implanted in a uterus yet is irrelevant - destroying it is killing a child, and can be prosecuted as such in Alabama. I mean, it has a soul already, and that's just an objective fact.

2

Sweet Home Talibama.

3

'I increasingly feel
like the only or at least
the most important story
is how private equity is hollowing out
and destroying every aspect of our existence."

--yet another
Homeless, drug-
addicted/addled
LOSER who bought
the Bigscreen TeeVee
instead of Hoarding Every
Last Penny for the Rent. LOSER!

--or maybe Someone
whose nearest Hospital's
been shut down as Unprofitable
and has to Drive 200 Miles to get
a fucking Flu Shot. 'pharmacy'? What
Pharmacy!? they're just Not Profitable

see: Private
Equity.

4

if Soulless
Corporations
are People Too
why not Zygotes?

if women get Pregnant
don't Blame the Menfolk
for their wanton Sex Drives
[the Former, fool, NEVER the latter]

handmaids
galore and not
a Feminist about:

it's a "Republican"
fucking Utopia
Friendo!

5

Boatgeek, et. al.,

Officer Officer Dave won't be convicted of negligent driving in the 2nd Degree.

State law authorizes emergency vehicles to speed when responding to an emergency call. So how many miles per hour over the speed limit is criminally negligent? Any determination, absent a definition in state law, would be subjective and arbitrary. Criminal law doesn't allow that.

He won't be cited for a traffic infraction. It's been more than 5 days since the event, so no citation is permitted in Washington.

He won't be disciplined by SPD, under the Police Department Manual which says:

"Officers Use Emergency Lights for Emergency Response

Officers will use audible signals when necessary to warn others
of the emergency nature of the situation (See RCW 46.61.035)."

Seattle Police Manual 13.030(4)

Note the missing word, "continuously" before "use". It further states, "when necessary," indicating they won't be used all the time, but only when necessary. When did it become necessary? When the victim of this tragedy, according to the video, ran into the lane of travel in front of Officer Dave's vehicle. By then it was too late.

He won't be disciplined for speed under their policy. The Chief disciplined two officers on Monday for not speeding to a Priority 1 call. If he disciplines Dave for speeding to a Priority 1 call, an arbitrator will overturn him for contradicting his own precedent.

The Stranger rightly rails against fascism. Fascism is when rule of law is abandoned in favor of the subjective whim of the dictator, an on-line commenting mob, the latest poll, or other government. Convicting, citing, or disciplining Dave requires abandoning rule of law.

That leaves civil court for the victim's family. There they can likely meet the civil legal standard of negligence.

Tragic.

6

“Rite Aide acquired Seattle's Bartell Drugs chain back in 2020. Now, more than 20 Bartells have closed in Seattle.”

All together, now: Bartell’s started closing downtown stores in 2019, a full year before the merger, due to assaults upon their employees in those stores.

And thanks for the Magic heist story! Anything that reminds me of Seattle in the ‘90s is a good thing, and it’s hard to get much more Seattle in the ‘90s* than fooling with Magic cards.

*Without strapping on a guitar and dying of a heroin overdose, natch’.

7

Never believe national chains excuses for shutting down store locations.

Ever.

8

@2 - LMAO @ Sweet Home Talibama! It seems they are bucking to be the new capital of the United Christian States of Trumpghanistan. I feel like Floriduh won't let this stand for long though!

@kristofarian - Spot on as always my friend!

9

Recent news is that a school district imposes limits on a kid's hair-do? We had these arguments in the 1970s. What next? Outlaw Nehru jackets? On the other hand, we already have a crooked (ex-)president claiming to be Not A Crook, so maybe Time is in a loop and we have not yet noticed.

10

Oh, and a lot of the sanctions against Russia are actually against Chinese or Indian or other firms that are supplying them with materials.

Yes, these will be actioned with extreme prejudice.

No, you don't get a say in the matter.

11

@11: Time is a flat circle. We’re all in the Night Country now.

12

Nothing racist about requiring students or employees to adhere to a dress and hair code. People of white can grow locs just as well as people of black.

13

This Alabama bullshit is what happens when people vote for the Taliban. If you’re a Republican and you voted for these assholes, it’s your fault. And if you are a Democrat or at least someone who can read (and knows the Earth is more than 6000 years old), but didn’t bother to vote, you voted for them too. A majority of Alabama chose these Bible-thumping motherfuckers either through action or lazy-ass inaction, and now they’re living with it.

14

The really sad thing for me about Chief Justice Parker’s statement is that a good 60-70% of the people of Alabama will think it’s unquestionably reasonable. I don’t know if we have to wait for these people to just die off or if, in the looming, there’s a new crop of them being raised in poison. If religion is a scam, and I believe it is, and if Phineas T. Barnum’s dictum about suckers being born every minute is true, then how can things ever improve in this regard? What would it take? Sorry again, my sisters.

Used to love Vice News. Fresh coverage of stories the networks wouldn’t bother with. Pretty in depth stuff. But it got hard to find. Time changes. On HBO. Then, Showtime. Then, on the Vice Channel. Then, back on HBO (kinda). Sorry, guys. The dedicated reporting was first-rate. Sorry they mismanaged the administration.

Hurray for high-speed rail, well, anywhere. One note of caution though. $250M sounds like a lot of money (and it is), but if our LA-SF high-speed rail experience is an example of how it works, by the time the lawyers, the study consultants, and the contractors get there hands on it, there’ll be 35-cents left for trains and construction. Please learn from our debacle. And if some state rep from, say, Sedro-Wooley announces that the train needs to stop there, too, or he/she won’t support it, tell them to sit down and shut up. BTW, the Los Angeles-Las Vegas train seems to have a lot more energy and will attached to it. Maybe, if you have to choose HSR planning, perhaps Las Vegas makes more sense (it’s a long, boring 6-hour drive and you better hope you have satellite radio else you’ll have to listen to about 3 hours of Billy Bob the Evangelist or nothing), but since I’m not a huge fan of LV, it would have been so nice to be able to hit SF for dinner in 2-3 hours, maybe a ballgame, stay overnight, and be home the next day before noon.

Pssst, Joe…no one’s gonna hurt Russia economically as long as people are buying its oil. Just sayin’, buddy.

Moon and space exploration and discovery always exciting. It’s maybe a little sad though that Odysseus will only have a week before it looses its power source (the sun) and its innards will enter into eternally unrecoverable frozen stillness. Like me should I ever be forced to watch The Bachelor.

Good weekend, everyone. Won’t be long now before the clover goes green and daffodils bloom.

15

@9- I can’t wait to see the girls having their skirt lengths measured before they’re allowed in.

16

@12 "Nothing racist"

my arm is not long enough for the jerk off motion that is my soul

17

@16: Get someone to help.

18

@1: You're also a MAN, Max. Fuck "God" if women and girls are to be forever seen as baby incubating farm animals forced to give birth just because some dumb book, written by MEN, for MEN says so!
Cruelly misogynist, religiously based horseshit like this is why I'm an atheist, will always be an atheist, and THAT's a fact.
You and your conservative ilk will never experience menstrual periods, breast lumps, water weight gain, pregnancy, childbirth, delivery, or breastfeeding. If you are ever raped (perish the thought) you will never have to worry about carrying someone else's inseminated kid through violence, rape, incest, and forced impregnation. What if pregnancy (i.e.: ectopic) put your health and life at risk? What then? Get a fucking CLUE! Body autonomy in regards to a woman's health and well being is and should always be a WOMAN'S right, not a MAN's, and certainly not for RWNJs in the Divided States Neofascist Extreme Court or elsewhere to decide!
MEN should have NO SAY in women's health issues, and yet, millions of years later, here we are in dystopia all because of the fragile MALE EGO.
Are you aware that in your declaration of being "pro-life" you are willfully defending rapists and sexual predators, Max? I'm surprised you're not a rabid fan of the Orange Turd. DJT is all for a 16-week abortion ban. Are you happy now? If the Orange Turd and its neofascist lackeys illegally reseize control of the White House in November I'll be adding you among those to blame for the apocalyptic end times to follow.

@2 DOUG, @4 kristofarian, and @8 diFrankieFox: Do you guys have any idea what you're saying? Is it because the dire global consequences don't immediately and bodily effect any of you assigned male at birth?

@7 Will in Seattle: +1 Agreed. We both know better, don't we?
I finally had to transfer all my prescriptions from Rite Aid to another pharmacy closer to home on my bus route.
Rite Aid used to have the nicest mom 'n' pop drugstore downtown. The pharmacists there were nice, accommodating, knowledgeable, and knew their customers on a first name basis. Because the building was old, the corporation closed the location, transferring prescriptions of downtown customers to other stores. The current idiots at the remaining bigger stores across town are disorganized jokes. People have to wit in long lines, even if they received phone messages that refills were ready to be picked up. Too many prescription medications are out of stock and on back order. The good pharmacists have all been replaced by rude, smarmy incompetents who, by their actions have proven to be willing to work under poor conditions, long hours, and Draconian cuts in wages and benefits.

19

@18: Max @1 was being delightfully sarcastic and you fell for it -- hook, line, and sinker.

20

@ 18 - Hi, Auntie, I think Max was being tongue-in-cheek.

21

I miss Morty. With all the current SPD, SPOG, and other law enforcement agency scandals occurring locally, regionally, and nationally, I wonder if he & his wife said fuck it and became expats?

22

Alabama, Texas and Florida are all vying for the designation of most fascist state. My money is on Texas.

23

@19: Max didn't sound sarcastic to me.
Go back to resuscitating your inflatable doll before it loses all its hot air, raindrop dear.

@20 Bauhaus I: Tongue-in-cheek or not, men have no business deciding the outcome of women's health. Period.

24

@17 alright that was a good retort

25

@1 Max Solomon, @2 DOUG, @4 kristofarian, @8 diFrankieFox, @19 raindrop, and @20 Bauhaus I:
Okay, I have a question for you and all fellow commenters assigned male at birth:
Would you trust the medical advice of a female proctologist who had absolutely no idea what her male patients' health conditions were like, regardless of how great in detail you described your symptoms?

26

@18 I know what I'm saying. The Alabama Supreme Court is the American Taliban. And I think that affects everyone.

27

@25 yes. there are idiot doctors of all genders. no guarantee a man is going to know anything more just because he has the same parts

28

@25: Sure, why not? Especially if you accompany me to the examination room and hold my hand.

29

@5 One of the reports said that it was impossible for Kandula or Dave to avoid the collision because of the speeds involved. Is it negligent to not be running your siren when you're going so fast that you can't avoid an accident if someone steps in front of you? Maybe, especially when you're going 50 over the limit. That'll be for Davison to decide, and possibly eventually a jury.

Discipline by SPD will depend on that "when necessary." How often was Dave chirping his siren? How many blocks before the collision was the last chirp? Are chirps allowed as a substitute for continuous sirens when operating at high speeds in residential zones?

If Dave's last chirp before the collision was three or four blocks back, then I could see negligent driving charges. I think it's unlikely from Davison, but you never know. That could also prompt internal discipline, since that's far enough away that the average pedestrian isn't going to know that a cop is going to barrel through the intersection in 5-10 seconds. If the last chirp was half a block away, I don't see any possibility of charges or discipline, though I would hope that it would prompt a change to the SPD procedures.

And I'll note again that if SPD actually used their sirens all the time except when a silent approach was needed (like the fire department), this whole thing could have been avoided. And likely also the multimillion dollar civil suit against the city that will come.

30

@29, SPD is an employer, not a legislative body. "If Dave's last chirp was three or four blocks back ...." Now you are using SPD policy to determine a criminal legal standard. That is not allowed. Only laws by legislative bodies and appellate court rulings determine law.

You speculate that had his siren been on the whole time, this would not have happened. Speculation.

It's dark, and she is so distracted, with earbuds in, she doesn't notice red and blue light reflecting off of every visible surface within range of that cars overhead lights, how can we know she would have heard the siren, or just not tuned it out with all the other sirens that can be heard anytime you step outside in Seattle (at least where I live)?

The video (as Ashley and the Seattle Times report) showed the woman spotting the police car while she was entering the roadway, but not yet in the car's lane. She then sprints in front of the car. Likely an "oh shit" instantaneous reaction in a split second, that was the wrong instinctive call.

The best argument to make for some kind of negligent driving charge is the speed; however, its difficult because state laws allow emergency vehicles to exceed the speed limit when responding to an emergency. So is 10 mph over the limit not criminally negligent, but 20 mph is? Double the limit is not criminally negligent, but three times is? Since the Legislature didn't see fit to make that distinction and there is no clear case law on the subject, anything a jury comes up with is arbitrary and capricious. Arbitrary and capricious is unconstitutional. It won't stick.

The siren would have made a difference? Speculation based on facts not in evidence. How many people you seen blocking an emergency vehicle in their rear-view mirror, all lit up, with the siren and horn screaming, with the driver having their head so far up (and likely the music) that they don't notice, or don't notice for 10 seconds or more? Speculation won't make it into a criminal trial.

31

@29, Also one of the reasons no felony charges were brought, was the inability of the Prosecutor to show mens re. That is an element that must be proved for a misdemeanor. So Davidson isn't going to have better luck.

Mens re is not required to show civil negligence. The City will settle for millions.

32

This is from the POV
of the Patriarchy
auntie Gee:

'if women get Pregnant
don't Blame the Menfolk
for their wanton Sex Drives
[the Former, fool, NEVER the latter].'

and I Concur with

"MEN should have
NO SAY in women's
health issues, and yet,
millions of years later,
here we are in dystopia
all because of the fragile

MALE EGO.'

Bingo
auntie Gee.

End Stockholm
Syndrome -- fuck
the Patriarchy & stop
Fucking the Patriarchy.

33

@25: I assume you have no issue with male doctors who perform abortions, right?

Avoid sexism Auntie, you too Kristo. It's not a good look for "progressives" to have.

34

@30 I'm not sure if you're just really dense or if it's an act. Hanlon's Razor and all. Just in case you're posting in good faith, let's try this again.

SPD doesn't make laws, but they do make policy for how officers should conduct themselves. If you don't follow policy, you can get fired. That's what's called the "disciplinary process" which is what I said SPD would follow. I never said that SPD would set the law. They set policy. Repeat it again, maybe a little slower this time so it sinks in. Pooooolicy.

But here's the wild thing. Hang on to your hat because this gets weird. The same set of evidence could be used to determine criminal charges and also disciplinary action! Crazy, right?! So if an officer was determined to be a negligent driver in court, it might trigger discipline. Or Davison might choose not to file charges (most likely IMHO). But the /same set of facts/ that led to no charges being filed could result in internal discipline by SPD. And even if no charges are filed and no discipline is handed down, the /same set of facts/ could result in the City being civilly sued for several million dollars, and possibly losing.

And that evidence will absolutely include the number and frequency of siren chirps. And a determination of negligence (criminal, civil, or resulting in discipline) will absolutely turn on whether the officer did everything that is reasonably necessary to operate a vehicle at that speed. If the officer took proper care, then he isn't at fault if someone steps out in front of him. The actual speed isn't particularly important except insofar as it affects the standard of proper care in that instance. Again, this might shock and amaze you, but there are varying levels of care required depending on the hazards of the situation.

To use an analogy, you need a different level of fall and dropped tool protection if you're working 2 feet above ground than if you're working 200 feet above ground. If you're working 200 feet up and drop a hammer on someone's head and they die, you are going to be held negligent if you didn't meet all appropriate OSHA requirements to prevent dropped tools. If you did meet those requirements, you did your best and sometimes bad things happen. You might still get civilly sued, but you won't go to jail. The fact that the hazard is higher for a 200-foot drop means that you have to take extra precautions.

And I know that mens rea is your favorite get-out-of-jail free card, but it may not apply here the way you say it does. If Dave knew of a risk and disregarded it, that's recklessness, a higher standard than negligence. If he didn't know of the risk and should have, that's negligence. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea) If SPD officer training covers when sirens should be used during high speed operations, and he didn't follow guidelines, that likely falls under either negligence or recklessness.

35

@26 Doug: +1 Agreed. Thank you for the clarification. I wish we could build a wall around all the clueless blood red neofascist states of MAGA confusion, pen in the RWNJs and pro-Turdists until they all die off. They're all inbred sewer rats fighting in a trap, already dying of terminal stupidity.

@27 Brent Gumbo: +1 Agreed. Thank you, too, for making some good points, and the reminder that bad doctors are plentiful in all genders.

@28 & @33: Hard pass. Just keep on blowing on your inflatable doll, raindrop dear, before it runs out of hot air.
You can hold its hands though, during the resuscitative process.
If you're lucky you can even play pat-a-cake with your Mal*Mart supply of Twinkies.

@32 kristofarian: +1 Agreed. Thank you and bless you for also responding.
As usual, you nailed it. I've been doing precisely that--I have indeed stopped fucking the patriarchy
since ending an abusive marriage and don't miss it one bit.
I do feel genuinely sorry for those, regardless of gender, who are stuck in unhealthy relationships, isolated from friends, family, support, and resources, and who have no way out of their nightmares.

@33: I have nothing against ANY doctor, regardless of gender, out to perform safe, healthy abortions, raindrop dear. You know me better than that. As kristofarian aptly points out, the sexism lies within the patriarchy. That needs to end.
I have been fortunate that I never had to terminate an unwanted pregnancy during my reproductive years. But I would never stand between another woman or adolescent girl who does or ever did. RWNJs have their heads of their asses, as does ANY woman who wildly continues to support the Orange Turd, and that the MAGA / mega church will "save" her--usually just because she's Caucasian.

36

@34, I, like you, wish this young woman was alive. I, like you, wonder if the possible improved response time to the person who reported an O.D., was worth the risk to everyone else. I don't assume, as you do, that a continuous siren, would have changed the outcome. It's possible, but any conclusion you or I make would be based on speculation, not facts, evidence, or a any published scientific study of the matter.

"If you don't follow policy, you can get fired."

Agreed.

"The same set of evidence could be used to determine criminal charges and also disciplinary action!"

Disagree. (At least in this case, but agree generally).

The standard for criminal charges is criminal negligence, not negligence. They are different legal standards. So if you are guilty of criminal negligence (requires mens re - i.e. Perpetrator intended the recklessness to cause harm) you are guilty of civil or ordinary negligence (just the act or omission, without ill intent). The opposite is not true. People are guilty of ordinary civil negligence all the time, but rarely of criminal negligence.

Number and frequency of chirps is irrelevant to criminal negligence, and is not a basis for establishing it, since there is a statute that allows breaking speed limits, going through lights and traffic controls, etc. when an emergency vehicle is involved in emergency response. The statute doesn't require continuous use of a siren, OR USE OF A SIREN AT ALL.

Number of chirps is also not going to be relevant. "When necessary," says the policy, with regard to siren use. When is it necessary? When there is an obstruction controlled by a human in front of you you need to move out of the way, and when someone is standing into danger in front of you (which is also the ONLY time its legal to use a vehicle horn under the RCW, which is a precedent that could be cited to an arbitrator for to define "when necessary," and there isn't a preceddent for the employer to cite in their policy or elsewhere in statute or policy suggesting continuous use, every few blocks, etc.).

So what is the non-arbitrary, non-capricious standard for when exceeding the speed limit during emergency response becomes criminally reckless, or against SPD policy? 10 mph over the limit, double the limit, triple the limit? Where is it spelled out in policy or law for SPD to cite to an arbitrator?

OSHA. Good example, but that is conflating civil negligence (OSHA violation) with criminal negligence (crime), and also conflates industrial protection standards with legal standards and contractual standards (where applicable) to discipline public employees. Courts take a dim view of discipline in the course of public employment being used to curtail citizen civil rights (see "Garrity v. N.J. or just google or read Garrityrights.org)

SPD probably doesn't have an enforceable "negligence" standard in its vehicular emergency response policy. It's too hard to define specifically enough to make it enforceable for disciplinary purposes. Once you have exceeded the speed limit (as authorized by law) additional risk and recklessness is being assumed. When is it too much risk and recklessness? Define it PRECISELY and objectively enough that an employee would know when they crossed the line. Any ambiguity is going to favor the public employee.

Then you have the Chief's own precedent. Don't go balls to the wall when its a Priority 1 call and you get disciplined (Two officers, The Stranger, SLOG AM 2/19). Do go balls to the wall and you get disciplined (as you propose here). Where is the middle ground? How do you define some middle ground specifically enough that SPD can defend discipline successfully to an arbitrator, a civil service commission, or a judge?

Lastly, how can anyone know that this person would have heard a continuous siren, or not tuned it out as a routine part of the environment? I.e. Sirens in an urban environment as "white noise," "the boy who cried wolf," etc.

37

@36 OK, so let's look at the statutory definition of criminal negligence. "Criminal negligence (sometimes called culpable negligence) refers to a defendant who acts in disregard of a serious risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived. Another common definition includes an act that amounts to a gross deviation from the general standard of care."

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-criminal-negligence.html

So a prosecutor would have to convince a jury that Dave operated in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't. Yes, it's an arbitrary standard. But that's the way the law is written. You don't have to like it, but laws are often written in the gray rather than black or white. The standard of care is highly relevant here as well, because that is going to end up being the SPD manual and training. The training is relevant because if officers are trained that "when necessary" means "all the time when you're going 50 over the limit," then it's going to be easier to prove criminal negligence.

I don't disagree that more likely than not Dave is going to walk, on both criminal charges and SPD discipline. I absolutely disagree that there's no way to charge negligence under these conditions. It would take a prosecutor who wants to make a point, though and I think that's unlikely. Of course, his comments after the fact will make a civil suit against the city much easier since Dave is such an unsympathetic character.

Oh, and the RCW isn't as clear-cut as you say. RCW 46.61.035 (irrelevant stuff snipped):
(1) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated.
(2) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may:
(b) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;
(c) Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he or she does not endanger life or property;
(3) The exemptions herein granted to an authorized emergency vehicle shall apply only when such vehicle is making use of visual signals meeting the requirements of RCW 46.37.190, except that: (a) An authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle need not be equipped with or display a red light visible from in front of the vehicle; (b) authorized emergency vehicles shall use audible signals when necessary to warn others of the emergency nature of the situation but in no case shall they be required to use audible signals while parked or standing.
(4) The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his or her reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Did Dave slow down at red lights to verify that it was safe to proceed? Nope. He ran right through them at speed. He obviously endangered life or property since Kandula was killed. So there's a decent chance he could have been popped for violating that RCW.

BTW, I don't know where you got the idea that I think that if Dave had been running his siren continuously, Kandula wouldn't have been killed. I said that I thought there was a better chance of that outcome, and Dave did not do everything he could to alert pedestrians in his way that he was coming down the road at 70+ mph. I also observed that SFD vehicles don't seem to run people down despite responding more often to serious threats to life and safety, and perhaps that might be due to running their sirens continuously.

38

PS The recent case where officers were disciplined for slow response is nearly irrelevant to the Kandula case. If they had been disciplined for driving 25 mph to a Priority 1 call, it would absolutely be relevant. Instead, they were disciplined for sitting around doing nothing for 20 minutes. That’s a totally different scenario.

39

@38, Their discipline was for a slow response. It did not pick out which aspects of the response were too slow. They did not drive at Priority 1 speeds, exceeding the speed limits, either, in addition to sitting around.

SFD drives trucks and vehicles that lack the capacity for speed, maneuver, etc. They rarely exceed the speed limit, and then by nominal amounts relative to police cars. Their response times are slower than SPD as a result (hence dual dispatch to many medical emergencies - narcan, an epipen, chest compressions, wound pressure, don't care who administers them) because lights and sirens (also not run continuously in many cases) are used to go through traffic controls like lights, and to clear traffic only, not to speed.

Perhaps that could, or should be SPD policy as well (speed limits, but going through red lights at controlled rolling stops to check cross traffic, clearing traffic with lights and sirens), accepting that more victims in Priority 1 cases may die as a result, with the upside of less risk to the public from responding vehicles. That is a discussion that should be had with data.

"Use audible signals when necessary to warn others of the emergency nature of the situation." There is that ugly modifier "when necessary", with no definition and common law.

"Criminal negligence." You again ignore that ALL CRIMES require the element of mens re ("the guilty mind). The way you cite NOLO (thank you for that) is as if its civil negligence. All that the Prosecutor must prove is an act and not just an act, but an act (gross negligence, not simple negligence) + a guilty mind. Read Ashley's coverage again. She quotes the KC Prosecuting Attorney on the need to prove that element of the crime. It's no different for misdemeanor crimes. Men's re is required to prove misdemeanor crime.

40

You still think that mens rea is a get out of jail free card. As if you can't be convicted of negligence unless you're a cat-stroking supervillain talking about your master plan. Let's repeat. Criminal negligence requires only that you /should have known/ that something presented a hazard and/or that you acted more recklessly than an average person. Someone can be convicted of criminal negligence for leaving a firearm in reach of a toddler, even if they didn't intend for the toddler to shoot their sibling. Likewise, someone driving more recklessly than an average person can be convicted of negligence even if they didn't mean to kill anyone. I hope you're not a defense attorney.

Convenient for your arguments that you completely ignore RCW 46.61.035(2)(b). Any emergency responder going over the speed limit needs to slow down to confirm that it's safe to proceed through intersections before running a red light. Did Dave slow down before going through intersections? If not, he didn't follow the law.

I always wondered why SFD slowed down for red lights and SPD didn't about half the time. I see now that it's because SFD actually follows the law and SPD is willing to ignore it. Not exactly shocking.

41

PS If Washington’s negligence standard is so vague that it can never be proven, explain how there are convictions for criminal negligence in general and negligent driving in particular every year.

Also discuss the varying levels of mens rea. You seem to think that willfulness is the only one that exists. Compare and contrast willful through negligent.

42

@41: So you're asking someone to explain or try to refute your arguments over what you see as data but are simply anecdotes? Just like Gaza, this dialogue will just keep going in circles.

43

@42 No, not at all. I’m challenging Ahab to back up their assertion that it’s impossible to prosecute someone for negligence. The fact that prosecutions happen is not an anecdote, so either Ahab is wrong or they can offer a clarification of the argument.

44

"I
hope
you're not
a defense attorney."

pro bono and
Worth every
penny

"Just
like Gaza,
this dialogue will
just keep going in circles."

if you're still Equating
anti-Nutnyahooism
with anti-Semitism
& Hamas with ALL
Palestinians then
yes fuck yes yes

45

@40, The problem you have with mens re is this, which the KCPAO acknowledged in Seattle Times Reporting:

"Senior Deputy Prosecutor Amy Freedheim, who runs the Felony Traffic Unit at the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, explained that state law provides for police officers to exceed the limit when responding to legitimate emergencies. Dave, who is also a trained medic, was responding to a 911 call of a drug overdose in Queen Anne."

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/seattle-police-officer-who-struck-jaahnavi-kandula-wont-face-charges/

That state law is going to make it fucking impossible to show:

"Criminal negligence requires only that you /should have known/ that something presented a hazard and/or that you acted more recklessly than an average person."

The average person can't speed to an emergency legally, go through stop lights legally, etc. Yet the State Legislature, elected by us all, has said a police officer can speed, with the inherent additional risk involved to us all.. How much risk and recklessness may be taken? The statute, and court precedent, in the criminal context, doesn't tell us. Without giving Dave, and other emergency responders, a line they can't cross, you can't prove intentional recklessness to cross it.

Kind of hard to show his state of mind was to do something to recklessly kill someone when there is a prima facia case he was not only doing the right thing, but what the people of the state of Washington, through who they elect, expressly permitted.

I would also point you to Ashley Nerbovig's excellent coverage here at The Stranger on that point. It is unusually factual and complete reporting by The Stranger of the unpleasant legal issues and outcomes, even while not liking it. https://www.thestranger.com/news/2024/02/21/79396467/king-county-prosecutors-decline-to-charge-spd-officer-for-killing-pedestrian

The folks who get it right in this? The CPC, as reported in the same article in the Seattle Times noted above:

"The civilian-run Community Police Commission, echoing that many in the community will be 'disheartened' by Manion’s decision, called for 'much needed changes to [SPD’s] vague emergency vehicle operation policy,' asking in a statement: 'at what speed would Officer Dave have had to drive for his emergency response to be considered reckless or disregarding the safety of pedestrians in the area?'"

Their last question is just as true of State Law, as it is of SPD Policy.

Without adding to State Law, that emergency responders may put all of us at risk by speeding, going through traffic signals, etc., to specify WHAT LIMITS THERE ARE ON HOW MUCH SOMEONE MAY EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT, how much additional risk they may put us all under, what limits there are on the manner they can disregard red lights, disregard assigned direction of travel to a lane, etc., no charge of criminal negligence is going to be possible.

The Chief won't be able to discipline either without resolving SPD's "vague policy."

Community Police Commission for the win on this one, as distasteful as that is in this tragedy.

46

@25, Part II, the Sequel: I guess this is the question I meant to ask all SLOG commenters assigned male at birth:
What would your reaction be if you were a patient of a RWNJ female proctologist who insisted on monitoring your sex life, restricting when you could have erections, made you were a penile corset, and politically lobbied "for religious reasons" to make Viagra distribution illegal in all 50 U.S. states?

47

@46: !@#$ing AutoCorrect! Make that: "...monitoring your sex life, restricting when you could have erections, made you wear a penile corset, and politically lobbied "for religious reasons" to make Viagra illegal in all 50 U.S. states?"

48

@46: Gender is observed at birth, not assigned.

49

@49: That's right. Keep on stammering, raindrop dear. Did my question make you flinch? Good.
A scenario like this would scare the shit out of any neofascist gun lovin' MAGAt and RWNJ preacher
of often misquoted "biblical" bullshit.

50

Griz's back is up this week.

51

@49 is pure science, dear.

52

@51

19th Century 'science'
to be Sure but
Science it
WAS, in-
deed!

"well-played,"
dewey.

53

@45 You keep walking past the elephant in the room. Yes, state law allows emergency responders to break traffic laws on emergency calls. But they also require that emergency responders slow down at intersections to verify that it is safe to proceed. Let's repeat that little piece of the RCW here. Read it this time.

(2) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may:
(b) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;

Now go back and read it again. Because reading comprehension isn't a strong suit for you.

So the question remains to you, did Dave slow down at the intersection to see if it was safe to proceed? Yes or no question, no Gish Gallop required. If he did, then we can talk about sirens etc. If he didn't, he broke the state law that allows him to go 74 in a 25 zone.

Yes or no?

54

@53, Yes.

However, since she wasn't hit in an intersection, its not relevant to a charge. "Kandula was walking westbound on Thomas Street when she approached an unregulated crosswalk at Dexter Avenue North." That isn't an intersection, Friend.

The fact that he passed through intersections without collisions is prim afacie evidence that Dave "Proceed[ed] past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation."

He is not having his actions criminality reviewed for his conduct at an intersection but for colliding with a pedestrian that was not in front of his vehicle, but who ran in front of it when she was startled and saw it coming.

She understandably panicked and her amygdala took her thought processes and body captive and falsely told her she could beat the threat. The amygdala never tells us to run backward. It happened so fast, the prefrontal cortex, where we do analysis and calculations never caught up. That is tragic on her part, not criminal (assuming she had lived to be charged with anything).

"Kandula never slowed her stride or looked up until she was almost in the traffic lane. That’s when she started running, right into the path of Dave’s cruiser." "Running ... into the past of Dave's cruiser."

The investigation showed Dave brake 1 second before impact. Evidence he was scanning for risks and was on the brakes as soon as she appeared and before she started running.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/seattle-police-officer-who-struck-jaahnavi-kandula-wont-face-charges/

All that is "reasonable doubt" as the KCPAO indicated. If it's reasonable doubt for a felony manslaughter case (death by criminal negligence), its reasonable doubt for misdemeanor negligent vehicle operation.

If a prosecutor doesn't have evidence that can prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, under judicial rules, judicial precedent, and BAR ethical codes, they can't charge it. If the KCPAO can't overcome reasonable doubt of criminal negligence as an element of a manslaughter charge, the City Attorney can't overcome reasonable doubt of negligence in misdemeanor charge where that is a key element either.

The win still goes to the Community Police Commission for identifying the key legal issue that prevents charging and also prevents discipline. The laws are too vague and so is the policy.

55

@54 Ah. So the intersection of Dexter and Thomas is not an intersection. That's a bold place to plant your flag. Friend.

56

@54 Also, let's look at some numbers. Dave was traveling at ~75 mph or around 108 ft/second before he started braking. In the urban canyons of SLU, it's hard to see down cross streets, especially on a street as narrow as Thomas. From the next alley west of Dexter (~150 feet away), you can see ~20-25 feet down Dexter. At the 25 mph speed limit, a car on Dexter could go from completely invisible to Dave to the middle of the traffic lane in the same time that it took Dave to get to the intersection. Dave would have T-boned that car at ~50-60 mph. He would have had no way to avoid a collision with a car following all traffic rules.

That's what slowing down at an intersection is for--to check that nobody is coming on the cross street. Dave was lucky to have made it through several intersections without hitting a car, and Kandula paid the price for that. And before you complain that a car driver should have stopped for the siren, remember that we're in an urban canyon and it's hard to locate sound and lights if you're not in a line of sight to the police car.

Finally, the fact that Dave hadn't hit anyone earlier in the route is no proof that he was operating safely. The Exxon Valdez didn't hit any reefs until it did.

57

@55, Criminal negligence is a common element to the contemplated misdemeanor driving crime and the felony manslaughter crime considered by the KCPAO. If the required element of negligence can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in one crime that has that element, it can't be proved in another with the same required element, for the same act (or omission) and outcome.

Your arguments about not exceeding traffic limits while doing emergency response is a great policy argument for the Legislature to consider when modifying laws on what traffic laws are, and are not waived for emergency response.

It's an irrelevant court argument. If it was relevant, the KCPAO would have taken it to court to prove the negligent element of the crime of manslaughter and the CAO would take it to court to prove the negligent element required of the motor vehicle operation crime.

Community Police Commission FTW! You can't win a conviction on vague law. You can't win a disciplinary action based on vague policy (that mimics state law).

58

@51: 'Pure science', my ass. Patriarchy isn't science--it's pure fascism.
Afraid to answer my question (@46 / @47), raindrop dear? The Orange Turd and its Turd Reich lackeys and RWNJs have you so brainwashed it's pathetic. What will you do when they rewire what's left of your brain into a present day Lawnmower Man?
Have fun packing, shipping, and handling merchandise for Amazon for no pay, benefits, or time off.


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
Preview

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