ah
Yes
the all
NEW Epstein
Ballroom~'ladies'
under 14 Get In Free.

"It is the duty of the poor to support and sustain the rich in their power and idleness. In doing so, they have to work before the laws' majestic equality, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."

If you are a teacher and you punch a student in the jaw you should be incarcerated for 5 to 10 years. Instead, back in 2018 we had Pete Holmes as City Attorney and Dan Satterberg as KCPA so instead of being charged with a felony he was let off with a misdemeanor, and got off easy.

Johnson was charged with one count of assault in Seattle Municipal Court and completed a 24-month deferred prosecution deal, with community service. The charge was dismissed in 2020, according to court records.

Restorative Justice is neither.

“ On Tuesday, Tacoma City Council expanded the city’s homeless camping ban, building on the ordinance established in 2022.”

Hopefully the Seattle City Council will pass a similar ordinance otherwise all the Tacoma derelicts will just relocate north.

Is that the infamous Pike Place Market gum wall?

Of all the issues with Donald Trump, I can't bring myself to rate rebuilding a house wing from the 1940s very high on the list. Perhaps it would be best if he focused on mainly things like this? Also, assuming the Democrats manage to elect a President again, won't the next one just rename it something like The Undocumented Immigrant's Commemorative Ballroom Upon Stolen Land anyway?

@3, It's really difficult to discipline public employees. He went on to take a job with a different district. Sound familiar?

@6: It shall henceforth be known as the Epstein Ballroom.

Did a single face-punch seven years ago really cause Mr. Sheikhibrahim between $76 million and $124 million in damages today? That must have been one hell of a punch! 😂😂😂

@9 The reason he got punched is also because he pushed the teacher and called him the N word so I don't think he was exactly a great person to start with. No reason to punch a child but still.. the punch didn't exactly knock him off a straight and narrow life path to greatness.

@7 One of the reasons I agree with Franklin Delano Roosevelt that there should not be public employee unions, whether they are SPOG or SEA.

@10: "the punch didn't exactly knock him off a straight and narrow life path to greatness."

You never know. Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face. 😃

@8 The Epstein Ballroom is brilliant. My congratulations, sir.

@2 --Bingo!

like it says over the
Very Doors of OUR USSC:
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

EQUAL LAWS
minus the
Justice's

what they
Actually
Meant
to say

you can
even Ask
the Framers.

@13 -- thanks!
I stole it from
someone
Else.

@3 had be picked anyone since? Seems that response was sufficient to correct his behavior.

@10 from Seattle Times:

"The Jan. 11 altercation started when Johnson asked Sheikhibrahim to remove his backpack in compliance with a school policy. The two argued. Johnson “taunted, teased, and challenged” the student, according to the district’s investigative report. Students told the district-hired investigator that both Johnson and Sheikhibrahim used a racial slur during the argument"

At best both behaved equally poorly, and given one was a middle schooler and the other a grown man I don't see that you can really blame the middle schooler at all

Street Vendor Shutdown - about fucking time

Some nasty news here - Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus wrote a letter to the court asking for no jail time for a pastor convicted of child rape, hoping for some "restorative justice" instead. Not good!

https://mynorthwest.com/seattles-morning-news/auburn-mayor-pastor/4146027

@14: Oops, are you a sock puppet bro OGLHHNBB (@8)?

Anyhow, 'The Epstein Ballroom' idea is a substack post:
https://deanobeidallah.substack.com/p/heres-how-next-dem-president-should

It’s not difficult to discipline, or even terminate, a government employee. That’s an old wive’s tale. I’ve seen it done many times. What it takes is managers and supervisors who know the process and are willing to document.

And it’s good to know that The Stranger is apparently pro-food poisoning.

The guy was fired by the school district. If anything the criminal justice system went easy on him by clearing his record but his being in a public sector union had nothing to do with that.

@20: "If anything the criminal justice system went easy on him by clearing his record"

That's normal for a first-time offender who commits misdemeanor assault (i.e Assault 4, i.e. no weapon and nobody gets hurt). Contrary to what you may have read about our "broken criminal justice system," our society doesn't actually lock people up and throw away the key the first time they do something stupid. 😃 Instead, we give them a chance to show they're a decent member of society, and if they clear that bar, we let them move on with their lives. 😁 The ones who end up doing time are habitual fuckups. 😆 Mind you, this dude should not be teaching kids, but nobody goes down for a punch. 😆

@20, KUOW says your teacher got a 5 days suspension.

"Johnson was not fired — even though a Seattle Public Schools investigation found that he had punched his student in the face.

Instead, he received a five-day, unpaid suspension and conflict management training. He currently teaches math at Washington Middle School."

https://www.kuow.org/stories/seattle-schools-knew-these-teachers-abused-kids-and-let-them-keep-teaching

The KUOW article (and series) shows repeated cases of teachers not be disciplined or fired.

KUOW also shows the same pattern with administrators. Reassigned after findings of wrongdoing with no adverse discipline.

https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/former-rainier-view-elementary-principal-reassigned-to-seattle-high-school/

The latter was not represented by a union.

As noted, its very difficult, but not impossible, to discipline public employees.

Assuming teacher Johnson was subsequently fired, after the KUOW piece, it was after years of paid work and administrative leave and based on subsequent additional investigation.

Sound familiar?

@21 "our society doesn't actually lock people up and throw away the key the first time they do something stupid."

Well perhaps we should. /s

Since the student was 13 years old at the time the appropriate charges would be either:

Assault of a Child in the Second Degree, a Class B felony.
Or
Assault of a Child in the Third Degree, Class C felony.

With sentencing enhancements for being in a position of trust as a teacher Johnson should have been sentenced to at least 5 years, if not 10.

But Pete Holmes and Dan Satterberg were both progressive prosecutors who were always willing to make excuses for any criminal. So they dropped the charges down to a misdemeanor.

@23: lol, you’re crazy. 😅 For Assault of Child 3, there would need to be either a weapon or “substantial pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering,” and for Assault of Child 2, there would need to be substantial bodily injury, a deadly weapon, torture, strangulation, poisoning, or a pattern or practice of repeatedly assaulting the same individual child. 😆 None of those horribles are present here. The guy punched a kid in the face one time, and the kid walked away just fine. That’s Assault 4, a misdemeanor. It’s not some kind of wonky conspiracy by the prosecutors, it’s the correct charge for the crime. 😂

Where are all the homeless going to go?
I’ve got a great idea: progressives should bring them in to their homes. To do anything else would prove what we already know: all of their pearl clutching is purely performative.

It’s funny how so many people are angry about the east wing of the White House.
Any bets on whether the next democrat to live there will tear it all down…at taxpayer expense?

Trump is not sending troops into San Francisco.

@23 @23 like I wrote in #15 (albeit with a typo) the teacher hasn't punched anyone else since, so the "progressive prosecutor" intervention apparently worked. What's the possible purpose of taxpayers financing 10 years in prison for this guy if a suspended sentence and behavioral classes was sufficient to put a stop to the negative behavior? Satisfying your bloodlust is not a worthy purpose.

when the Cruelty IS the Point
satisfying your Bloodlust
IS a worthy purpose.

see: thedjt
and his
magas.

@27: "What's the possible purpose of taxpayers financing 10 years in prison for this guy if a suspended sentence and behavioral classes was sufficient to put a stop to the negative behavior?"

Deferred prosecution, not suspended sentence. 😃 But you're more right than wrong, this time. 😄

Say, weren't you on here earlier this month trying to argue that deferred prosecution is something prosecutors do when they "know the charge isn't worth pursuing?" Yet just three weeks later, here you are arguing that prosecutors not only enter deferred prosecution agreements in strong cases, but that deferred prosecution actually has a rehabilitative effect on offenders! My dude, don't look now but you might actually be starting to learn something! 😜

@29 I didn't say this case was strong I said this intervention was sufficient to change the negative behavior.

You're right though that I misstated the disposition, good and important catch, thank you for your service.

@30: well he socked an 8th grader in front of a roomful of witnesses and then bragged about it on tape to a different roomful of witnesses, so yeah I'd say it was a pretty strong case—but also a good candidate for deferred prosecution 😂 inch by inch, thumpus is dragging you into the real world! 🤣

@31 "so yeah I'd say it was a pretty strong case"

Well like you wrote above "the kid walked away just fine," which is important because even a bruise qualifies as "substantial bodily harm." If as the articles indicate the kid pushed the teacher prior to being struck (softly enough to leave no mark at all) how would you disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt?

Which is all besides my point that prison was by no means necessary here, but if you want to discuss how criminal cases are processed in the "real world" I'm here for it.

@32: "even a bruise qualifies as 'substantial bodily harm.'"

lol a bruise, get out of here! Unless the injury is disfiguring or impairing, it's not substantial bodily harm. 😂 That's why Sawant's husband didn't catch a felony charge for bruising that college girl, and it's why this teacher didn't catch a felony charge for the 8th grader, sorry to burst that bubble for you and Aguecheek. 😆

As for self-defense against the 8th grader (lol) your first problem is that an aggressor can't claim self-defense, and the teacher was the aggressor. After the 8th grader sasses him, he got in the 8th grader's face, called him the N-word, taunted him, and challenged him to respond. You don't get to behave like that and then turn around and be like, "Help, I got shoved for no reason, self-defense, self-defense!" 🤣

Your second problem is that the use of force in self-defense is lawful only when the level of force deployed is necessary to prevent the attack. The 8th grader shoved the teacher in an attempt to get away from the teacher, not in an attack upon the teacher. The teacher's punch was not self-defense because the punch was not necessary to protect the teacher from harm. 😆

It's unclear to me how you think punching a child in front of witnesses and then bragging about it on tape afterwards makes for some sort of difficult case for the prosecution, but however you got there, you're wrong! 😂😂😂

@33 "lol a bruise, get out of here!"

Confirmed you don't know the law

@34: lol I think you may be confusing two different meanings of the word "substantial" (as in the phrase "substantial bodily harm") Don't worry, thumpus is here to help! 😉

One definition of substantial is simply, "something having substance or actual existence." Under this definition, every injury, no matter how minor, would be a substantial injury so long as the injury actually existed. 😂 This appears to be the definition you are applying, with your "even a bruise qualifies as substantial bodily harm!" 😉

But another definition of substantial is, "considerable in amount, value, or worth." Under this definition, not every injury is substantial just because it exists. Only if the injury is considerable in amount does it rise to the level of substantial. Lesser injuries don't count, even if the lesser injuries are real. 😃

Washington law does not accept both of these definitions when it comes to the question of "substantial bodily harm." The first definition, the thirteen12 definition, is wrong. The second definition, the thumpus definition, is correct. 😂

The thirteen12 definition would collapse bodily injury and substantial bodily harm into a single category, even though Washington law calls out three separate categories of harm: bodily injury, substantial bodily harm, and great bodily harm. So the thirteen12 definition cannot be correct, because it would lead to, at most, two categories of harm when the law specifies three. 😃

For further education on this point, see State v. McKague, 172 Wn.2d 802 (2011) ("As discussed, McKague punched Chang in the head several times and pushed him to the ground, causing his head to strike the pavement. Chang's resulting facial bruising and swelling lasting several days, and the lacerations to his face, the back of his head, and his arm were severe enough to allow the jury to find that the injuries constituted substantial but temporary disfigurement")

Or you could also learn from our real-world examples here on Slog, where even a bruising attack like that of Sawant's husband agains the college girl is not charged as felony assault (which requires substantial bodily harm) but rather as misdemeanor assault (which requires only harmful or offensive physical contact). 😉

Or if even that's too much to ask, you could even just apply your own common sense and ask yourself, "Gee if I've ever bruised someone, did that make me 'feel' like a felon? Did my slappy bar fight make me a felon?" 😂

@35 go back to McKague and read the Ashcroft case they cite with approval. Also you seem not to recognize the distinction between what prosecutors CAN charge and what they choose to charge in any particular case. Solid effort though you almost know what you're talking about.

@36: “go back to McKague and read the Ashcroft case”

OK I will, but you won’t like what I find. Here are the injuries from Aschcroft:

“Both doctors noted bruises on J.'s body at the time of examination, some of which were over 3 days old. The doctors also noted bite marks consistent with the size of an adult mouth. At trial, Dr. Brownstein opined that the location of the bruises and their appearance were not consistent with accidental trauma and could only have resulted from being hit with an object. Dr. Brownstein also identified certain bruise marks which were consistent with being hit by a shoe that had a rigid sole. Dr. Brownstein also indicated that he found some bruises which were consistent with being hit with a cord or rope and others which were consistent with being hit with a belt or ruler.”

To recap: bruises from bite marks, rigid-soles shoes, a cord or rope, and a ruler. Yep, that’s “substantial bodily harm” all right! That’s significant disfigurement! 😆

I’m not sure how you take the multiple-day, multiple-weapon, disfiguring, biting beatdown in Ashcroft and reduce all that to a belief that every punch that leaves a bruise constitutes significant bodily harm under the law, lol 🤪

@37 don't look now thumpy but you're making an argument

@38: I don’t know what to tell you, my dude. 😄 I read you the law on Assault 4 vs Assault 2, I gave you real-world examples of each (Sawant hubby and the teacher both 4s, Ashcroft a 2), I explained why each example fell into the category it did. If you’re still not getting it at this point, I may just have to abandon you to your ignorance. 😂

I do feel like we made some progress on deferred prosecutions this month. Your understanding of deferred prosecution has evolved from “something the prosecutor does when they don’t have a case” to “something the prosecutor does when they think a first-time offender can be rehabilitated.” 😄 In terms of reconnecting you with reality, that’s a pretty significant step, so yay thumpus! 😘

In fact, I’d say we’re almost ready for your next lessons: why antizionism is racist and wrong, and the differences between urban warfare and genocide! 🤣🤣🤣

@39 explicit holding in Ashcraft: "The doctors at Children's Hospital testified that they saw bruise marks on J. which would be consistent with her being hit with a shoe. The presence of the bruise marks indicates temporary but substantial disfigurement."

Good effort to distinguish the facts though, you'd get some points on a law school assignment.

@40: lol you’re almost as confused as the “ten years for a punch” guy. 😄 The Ashcroft kid had substantial bodily harm after being beaten with a shoe, and a belt or ruler, and a cord or rope, and being bitten (lol, jeez!), whereas the 8th grader did not have substantial bodily harm because he only took a punch and got tossed out of class. See the difference? 😆 The middle school teacher didn't take off his shoe and starting beating someone with it! 😝

The holding from Ashcroft is not “even a bruise qualifies as substantial bodily harm," your erroneous argument from @32. The sentence that you yourself have identified as the “explicit holding in Ashcroft” (lol) does not say that, and indeed that is not the law. 😄 The question is not whether bruises exist but whether substantial disfigurement exists. Your supposed bruises=felonies rule is coming from your own imagination, not the courts. 😂

I’m sorry you’re confused, this stuff really isn’t meant to be this hard! 😝 I'll leave you with one more case to melt your brain over the weekend. This is unpublished but fairly recent, and it deals directly with this whole bruising vs substantial harm question: State v. Leilua, no. 58046-2-II (June 18, 2024). To prevent you from tripping over any random sentence as "the holding," I'll hold your hand through the whole thing:

Leilua was convicted of felony Assault 2 (substantial bodily harm) for a jailhouse brawl in which Leilua repeatedly punched his victim in the face. On appeal, Leilua argued it should only have been misdemeanor Assault 4 (harmful or offensive contact) based on the extent of the victim's injuries.

Leilua's victim "sustained bruising to his face and head and a cut under his eye that resulted in a scar." More specifically, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, the victim "had a black eye, a cut on his face that had to be glued, shut, and swelling in his left eye. [He] also had marks or bruising behind his ear and on his forehead." A different witness observed that the victim "had the beginning of bruising on his face, abrasions, a few lacerations, and blood in his mouth. A few of the cuts were too deep for [the witness] to clean up." Pretty bad right? 😄

The victim's condition soon improved: "A few days after the incident Cunningham still had some bruises on his face. Photographs showed that the cut under Cunningham’s left eye had been closed with Steri-Strips."

And then improved some more: "A few weeks after the incident, and [victim] had a 'scar' under his eye. But he no longer had facial bruising."

In light of all this, the Leilua court had to determine whether the conviction for Assault 2 was proper, that is, whether the injuries described above could reasonably be called "substantial bodily harm."

The court accepted the scar as evidence of substantial bodily harm but not the bruising! In the court's words: "The evidence regarding how long the bruising lasted was testimony that the bruising was still there a few days later, but was gone a few weeks later. So the State proved only that the bruising lasted a few days. There was no evidence regarding how long most of the lacerations and abrasions lasted. But the laceration under [the victim's] left eye resulted in a 'scar' that was visible a few weeks later."

"[The Leilua victim] had less serious injuries than the storeowner in McKague. The facial bruising lasted only three days and there was no concussion diagnosis. And there is some issue as to whether the bruising was 'serious' as noted in Hovig. However, [the Leilua victim] had a scar under his eye. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a reasonable jury could find that a scar represents a 'temporary but substantial disfigurement.' RCW 9A.04.110(4)(b). Therefore, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to find that [the Leilua victim] suffered substantial bodily harm."

So there you go: facial bruises lasting a few days not sufficient to constitute substantial bodily harm, but a facial scar lasting a few weeks sufficient to constitute substantial bodily harm! I'll leave you to ponder why that is, but don't strain your brain too much, the answer is laid out in my @35 above 😂

If you can figure out Leilua, then the Sawant husband case, and the Meany Middle School case, and Ashcroft, McKague, and everything else will make so much more sense to you! 😂 You'll no longer have to rely on bizarre conspiracy theories to explain the prosecution and outcome of assault cases. Instead, you'll be able to confront the facts and the laws as they actually exist! 😂 Thanks thumpus! 🤣

@39: "In fact, I’d say we’re almost ready for your next lessons: why antizionism is racist and wrong, and the differences between urban warfare and genocide!"

I know you're joking, because otherwise you're dreaming if you think you'll ever drag the Stranger, or even any supportive commenter, anywhere near that point. (They can't even admit Hamas slaughters Palestinians, or used hospitals in Gaza as military bases, even though the rest of the world knew this long before it became openly obvious in the ceasefire.) Every last one of them, including and especially the Stranger, will have invoked the almighty Take My Ball And Go Home rule long before you even get them close. Long ago, they all went all-in on "genocide," and they're dying on that hill. Full stop.

@41 ok now you're going backwards. That court made no ruling on the bruising because it held the scar sufficient. At best, had they actually said the bruising was insufficient as you imagine, that would be dicta in an unpublished case. Your other attempt was better.

@43: "That court made no ruling on the bruising because it held the scar sufficient."

Nope, read again. 😆 The court considered both the bruising and the scar, and found the bruising insufficient but the scar sufficient.

"The issue here is whether Cunningham’s facial abrasions, lacerations, and facial bruising constitutes 'substantial bodily harm,' defined as a 'considerable' degree of harm. The evidence regarding how long the bruising lasted was testimony that the bruising was still there a few days later, but was gone a few weeks later. So the State proved only that the bruising lasted a few days. There was no evidence regarding how long most of the lacerations and abrasions lasted. But the laceration under [the victim's] left eye resulted in a 'scar' that was visible a few weeks later."

Weeks-long facial scarification makes it all the way to substantial bodily harm, but three-day bruising does not make it all the way to substantial bodily harm, and lacerations and abrasions of indeterminate duration do not make it all the way to substantial bodily harm. This is the law, my dude. It's not thumpus you're arguing with, it's the Court of Appeals! 🤣

For what it's worth, Mr. Leilua also wants to argue with the Court of Appeals. He has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. So maybe you'll get to hear yet another court tell you that thumpus is correct! 😂 But most likely the Supreme Court won't take this case, because the outcome of Leilua's case was correct and the law on assault is straightforward for (almost) everyone to understand. 😉

@42: Honestly, it's not illogical that the same guy struggling to understand the difference between a punch and a disfiguring beatdown would also struggle to understand the difference between urban combat and genocide. If the underlying problem is that he's bad at understanding laws and bad at applying laws to facts, then you'd expect exactly this kind of confusion to crop up in both cases. 😄 Perhaps in the course of curing the smaller confusion between Assault 4 and Assault 2, Doctor Thumpus can also cure the larger confusion between war and genocide. 😁

@44 now you're just embarrassing yourself

@46: dont be a sore loser, this was a dumb hill for you to die on 🤣