"critical injuries for kids in the state’s welfare system took a huge jump in the first half of this year. By the end of June, at least 92 children had died or nearly died, up from 78 in the first six months of 2024."

Time to start using the pensions of the individual case managers responsible for the negligence that allowed this, to pay the inevitable civil claims.

The Stranger's commenters demand that when other types of public employees negligent acts or omissions lead to deaths or injury. Be consistent dear commenters.

Sand at the beach gets hot (not all sand, but most sand I've ever met). The last place I want to stick my [cold] beer bottle is in that hot sand. And then everyone who actually likes hot beer just leaves their bottles in the sand, cluttering up the ocean with junk. I hate everything about this (apart from the butt plug idea, which probably does have its fans, so I'll give them a pass).

I see HMW has once again forgotten the Continue Reading link in one of her posts.

This Hannah is even worse than the old Hannah, which I didn't think was possible.

The Airshow Climate Action coalition will be much ado about nothing.

things should be consistent if you want them to be treated consistently, or at least that’s how it usually works

How do we classify Ozzy, under Acid Rock or Heavy Metal?

"No Charges for Bad Cops: ... Prosecutors say that the officers didn’t break the law, and the Sheriff’s office is still investigating to see if any internal policies were violated."

What were the cops supposed to do at that point? Let him go? They also didn't have his driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration at that point, which under Florida, and 49 other states laws, you are required to provide at a traffic stop.

So how were the officers going to do their job, complete the stop, write appropriate citations, etc. at that point without removing him from the car to identify him.

Under the 1977 Pennsylvania v. Mimms case decided by the liberal Burger Court (7-2), officers have the sole determination on whether someone steps out of, or remains in the car, for officer safety. At a traffic stop, one is detained and not free to go, and getting a subject away from all the places a weapon may be hidden around a car. Removing someone from their car was held to reasonable under the 4th Amendment.

There is no law or court precedent that requires an officer to tell you why you are being stopped. In many cases, an officer doing so may thwart a criminal investigation.

The Stranger rightly rages when Trump violates rule of law. Why not when others, like this falsely entitled driver, violate rule of law by not complying with what they are required to do at a traffic stop and by SCOTUS ruling? The Stranger couldn't possibly be intellectually consistent.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/434/106.html

Penn v. Mimms

@7, By picking one or the other category.

Why would we grant asylum to someone from Brazil?

Brazil is not an authoritarian country.

Granting asylum to someone from North Korea, Russia, or Cuba makes sense. Likewise granting asylum to someone from war torn Syria, Ukraine, or Yemen.
Or granting asylum to an LGBTQ individual facing a death sentence in any Islamic country.

But Brazil? No reason a person from Brazil needs asylum.

Seems asylum claims have been used to get around the regular immigration process.

@11 Don't bother these people with facts and reason.

Being from an authoritarian country is not a requirement for asylum. I’m not seeing any details about his specific case so it could be a bunch of bullshit but if it’s still moving through the courts there may be something to it and its outcome will be determined on its own merits. His country of origin is irrelevant.

@13, FTW!

@11 regardless whether this person's asylum claim is ultimately determined to be founded, which you personally have absolutely no way of knowing, they followed the correct procedures in applying. They are literally following the laws of this country, but ICE doesn't care and apparently neither do you.

How about we keep the Blue Angels and instead cut down on carbon emissions by stopping arms shipments to Israel. Win win.

Trump is not remotely afraid of teachers. But the American people are 100% sick of people who enter the country and promptly break our laws. Overstayed your visa by 5 minutes? GTFO!

The Stranger wants to bitch about the child welfare system but what if you don't think it's safe or healthy for your 15 year old daughter to "transition" her sex? Well, then you are a bigot and the State will take your child, for their welfare of course. I also don't hear a peep about the dozens (hundreds?) of sexual assaults perpetrated on students every year by their public school teachers.

I'm definitely not "over" the Blue Angels. I love them and may God bless America. I also don't believe in human caused global warming so the carbon emissions don't worry me a bit.

Who gives a flip about Unesco. Trump should just rip off the band-aid and withdraw from the UN? We are a sovereign nation who will never accept global governance so why waste our time on the UN?

McNeil refused a lawful order to step out of the vehicle. That will result in a use of force 100% of the time in the United States, as it should. If he had simply complied with the officer's orders he would have left with a couple of tickets at most. Not racism, just the common sense policing that the public demands.

@8 and 17 are obvious trolls (or just irredeemable dumbfucks), but for anyone here with an actual brain: police need valid cause to believe a traffic violation has been committed to effect a traffic stop. If the stop is invalid subsequent orders to show ID, get out of the car, etc are invalid. These cops apparently stopped this man for driving without headlights during the day when it was not raining. I would be very surprised if that stop was valid.

Oh and, even setting that aside, you'd think a professional could manage that situation without breaking a window and punching the guy in the face, but unfortunately these days cops are rarely mistaken for professional.

RE "kids dying". Your claim that fentanyl is the likelier culprit is WHY the Keep Families Together Act is problematic. If parents are exposing their children to fentanyl, the kids need to be removed until said parents get off drugs, or the kids will die of neglect or exposure to the drugs. It's not that hard to figure out.

"McNeil refused a lawful order to step out of the vehicle. That will result in a use of force 100% of the time in the United States, as it should."

The factual inaccuracy of this statement aside: What if the driver is hard of hearing? Or is physically unable to comply as fast as the officer expects? Do you really believe that anyone who doesn't exhibit perfect obedience to authority -- for any reason whatsoever -- deserves summary execution? Because that's clearly what you're implying here.

@17: you actually come into this traffic, drug & crime-ridden hellhole to see the BAs? i find that difficult to believe.

@18, You are correct that if headlights not being on, and the law didn't require them to be on, was the reason for a traffic stop, then its not a valid detention under the 4th Amendment, and everything that follows is not valid.

The place to challenge that is in court, after the fact, not at the side of the road. The place to challenge that is with the public employer, after the fact, and not at the side of the road.

The remedy is monetary damages, after the fact, for economic damages, physical injury, and mental anguish. The remedy, after the fact, is potential discipline by the employer.

In this case, they also pulled him over for not wearing a seatbelt. That applies no matter the time of day and is a primary offense in Florida.

All the remedies for 4th Amendment violations are after the fact, not at the side of the road, after adjudication, administrative or legal.

@20, Pennsylvania v. Mimms makes stepping out of the vehicle when directed to do so a requirement. So is remaining in the vehicle when directed to so so.

In this case they were communicating well enough for the driver to request a supervisor.

Florida law allows the hearing impaired to indicate that on their driver's license. So if such a license is produced at a traffic stop, as required by law, an officer would know that.

There was plenty of time for someone to comply in the video. The issue was the guy was making no effort to.

@7
Pop metal

@18 - I am neither a troll or dumbfuck. Just knowledgeable enough in the law to know McNeil refused to comply with a lawful order.

@20 - McNeil was not summarily executed. He was punched. And yes, he deserved it.

@21 - the Kirkland side of the lake is a wonderful place to catch the BAs while avoiding the shithole Seattle has become.

NotMyopic would eat a cops butthole on command, because he knows the place to contest an unlawful order is in court, after the fact. BabyBack would do it just for fun

@23 The law doesn't require -- or justify -- violence in such instances, if the subject isn't physically assaulting the officer. Passive refusal to obey a police command rarely if ever deserves to be equated with active resistance. Perhaps in certain extreme high-pressure situations it might, but a headlight/seat belt violation, no. Write the ticket, add an extra charge for refusing to show paper or exit the vehicle, stick it on his windshield as if he weren't there, and go. It's not rocket science. Definitely don't punch him or otherwise assault him if he doesn't do so first.

@25 To be clear, I wasn't writing about McNeil specifically, but giving a broad, generalized response to your broad, generalized statement about "use of force" which too often does lead to unprovoked tragedy.

26: Don't knock it till you've tried it.

@26, There is no judge to hear the matter at the side of the road.

I believe in rule of law. SCOTUS has dictated the remedies.

You seem to only believe in rule of law when it gets an outcome you like, and in disregarding it when it doesn't. That actually sounds like Donald Trumps method of operation.

There are questions in this case.

The questions aren't whether the stop was lawful. A seatbelt violation justifies the stop. The questions aren't whether he was obligated to provide his license, insurance, registration. The questions aren't whether he was obligated to exit or remain in the car at the officer's direction. All of that has been settled by SCOTUS, decades a 1/2 century or more ago.

The question is whether the punches were necessary or excessive.

Try willfully refusing to comply with providing your license, registration, and insurance at a traffic stop. Try refusing to exit or remain in the vehicle as directed. See how that works out for you. SCOTUS has said you have no right to refuse or to demand the police do anything before you do so. See how little sympathy you will get from the courts for doing that, absent successfully disproving the alleged lawful basis for the stop. It won't work out well for you, because that is what rule of law dictates.

Either you believe in rule of law as a principle, or you are like Donald Trump where rule of law only applies when it gets you the outcome you think it should, and can be freely disregarded when it doesn't.

https://www.jaxcriminal.com/blog/2024/april/the-differences-between-reasonable-suspicion-pro/#:~:text=Reasonable%20suspicion%20is%20a%20legal,or%20dispel%20the%20officer%27s%20suspicions.

Breaking News: SCOTUS allows Trump Admin to fire employees of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

I guess the Supremes believe in the Unitary Executive theory. Another based ruling.

@27, Incorrect again.

RCW 9a.16.020. "The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;"

If the person won't obey a lawful order to exist the vehicle or remain in the vehicle at a lawful traffic stop as required by SCOTUS under Pennsylvania v. Mimms, then the only way to achieve the outcome is to forcefully remove them. The outcome of getting them out of the vehicle, and away from all the places weapons can be hidden, but accessed and used, before the officer can react, is to use force, if they don't remain or leave the vehicle as directed. The refusal necessitates the use of force to get the legally required outcome of Penn v. Mimms.

If the person won't identify themselves, so that the cop can complete their traffic investigation, and write a ticket (or not), then all that is left is to take them to jail, book them as a John or Jane Doe, and put them in front of a judge who will order them to identify themselves. If they don't go voluntarily, then force is required, to get them to jail. If they refuse the judge, they will be held in jail under a contempt order until they do, or they are involuntarily fingerprinted by order of the Judge. If they aren't in the system, then the fingerprints won't work, and they will continue to sit there.

Without the ability to use force to compel the outcome dictated by Mimms, or the outcome of laws requiring you to identify yourself in a traffic stop, both laws would be rendered unenforceable and meaningless. You can't be cited, if you can't be positively identified. It can't be determined if you are legally permitted to drive, if you can't be identified.

Traffic laws and an officer safety ruling by SCOTUS (i.e. Mimms), would become voluntary since you could defeat either by refusing to identify and refusing to exit or remain in the vehicle.

It is routine, when people refuse to exit as directed, for police to break the window and drag them out, usually after numerous requests and opportunities (although only one request or opportunity is required). It would be an aberration for that not to occur. It's been done since 1977's Mimms ruling. It's been upheld over and over again. You can easily find thousands of video of it on Youtube.

Being booked as a Jane or John Doe for refusing to identify is rare, because cops can usually find a name in documents in the vehicle subsequent to arrest. If they can positively I.D. without the help of the arrestee, they are booked under their name, for resisting a lawful government operation or arrest. You can find thousands of videos of resisting arrests on the internet as well.

@30, The problem is the intrusion on Congresses ability to set the law and determine taxation levels and what taxes get spent on.

Can the President thwart Congress by firing the people required to enforce a law or to spend money for a Congressionally mandated purpose. If so, then Article 1 of the Constitution, which establishes Congress becomes effectively null and void.

@31, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ0XM_RchMY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5trhgdoHd38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDrQtpZwGKo

@29/31 so many words just to say "I love eating popo poopoo"

@24: Thank you

@7 Black Sabbath is considered the god fathers of heavy metal.

They evolved over the years and so did Ozzy’s solo career incorporate more than just that, but at its core Black Sabbath are heavy metal and Ozzy was a big part of that.

But yes there was a lot of acid, and heroin and other stuff too - contrary to early albums warning the listener about how awful that stuff can be haha

@36: Thanks as well.

@34, So few words to say you are for rule of law (as you should be) when Trump runs a foul of it, but not when the average motorist refuses to provide I.D. as legally and Constitutionally required, at a lawful traffic stop, or when legally and Constitutionally required to exit their vehicle at lawful traffic stop.

TLDR: Your a hypocrite

@34

Your single minded hatred of law enforcement just reinforces my suspicion that you are posting from 1313 North 13th Avenue in Walla Walla.

Or at least that this was your address for a not insignificant stretch of time.

So what were you convicted of?

@38 "at a lawful traffic stop"

If it WAS a lawful traffic stop, which you can't know at this point, you just choose to believe because the cop said

@26 & 34
I thought you gays loved licking buttholes and eatin da poopoo. I've been reading Dan Savage for years, so wtf are you homophobic??? You are not very Progressive

@40, Until and unless the driver can prove there was no basis for the stop in court, there was.

The courts have been clear that you don't have the right to resist because you think the cop had no lawful basis for the stop. That's the role of judges and juries, and courts take a dim view of motorists userping their role at the side of the road by appointing themselves to the Court's role.

The cop says he had reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation and probable cause to allege a traffic violation via a ticket. The motorist says he had neither of those things. The judge says to both parties, let me have the citation, come to court and I'll figure it out.

A non-cop can drag me or you to court against our will. Someone sues me or you and says we spit on them. If we don't show up at the first hearing to contest it we lose. If we show up with verified allabies that we were at McMurdo Station in Anarctica at the time of the alleged incident, case dismissed.

We don't get our legal costs or compensation for the time off work unless we can prove the person new we didn't do it and filed anyway. The burden of proof is on us to prove that, which is virtually impossible. So we just get to suck up the cost of answering the allegation and showing it disproved

Think about it. In either the case of the State alleging wrongdoing or a private citizen doing so, there would be no way for the courts to function and make the determination, one way or the other, if the parties can't be forced to show up. Nor could there be the possibility of justice for the state or a private party, if they got penalized for making an assertion that it turned out the wvidence didn't support. It would criminalize or create liability for the mere act of making an assertion for the court to decide on.

The point is whether I believe the cop or not, the motorist has no right to thwart the cop from having him exit the vehicle or write them a ticket, so a court can decide who is right, or that neither can prove their claims about the other I.e. the cop can't prove to the court's satisfaction that the driver wasn't wearing his seatbelt and the driver can't prove the cop knew he wasn't wearing his seatbelt and decided to cite him anyway.

In order for any judicial system to function, the courts have to assune the parties are acting in good faith until someone proves to the coert that one both sides is not. That requires showig more than that one side couldn't prove their case.

CTRL + F "Alvarado" = NOT FOUND
CTRL + F "Benjamin Hanil Song" = NOT FOUND

You aren't a "journalist", Hannah. You're even worse than the other Hannah who got fired for being a lying sack of shit.

@43 CTRL + F "fucks given" = NOT FOUND

@44 - only lame cucks (like you) care about sportsball

It really depends on the cop. The older officer that is always at gay events sure looks tasty.

As for The Blue Angels: our annual hand-wringing over this stupid topic (almost as stupid as the hand-wringing over the season time changes) completely ignores the fact that aerospace and the military are huge economic engines for our region. Those people who enthuse about aviation have a right to see the air show, just as the cycling hobbyists have a right to their bike lanes. Just leave town for the weekend if it makes one tense and nervous.