City Council Condemns the Killing of Summer Taylor on I-5



What an insufferable city council and mayor we have to endure. Lots of bloviating word salads and meaningless resolutions at taxpayer expense, all self-serving, all patronizing, all trying to claim the mantle of the most outraged, and the most socially virtuous. Nobody believes them. They are all truly reprehensible.


"We’ve been in a state of chaos for over a month," Morales said. "I feel in large part because the mayor is sending conflicting messages and really does not seem to be in control of her police department."



Grieving, yes. Blaming: premature. For nineteen consecutive nights, the protesters were allowed to block traffic on I-5. Then... tragedy. Investigate, reflect, criticize if necessary, but the council's sanctimonious comments seem premature and prejudiced. And not even mentioning the driver? I'm not sure anyone is blameless here, and that includes the council.


@1 spot on, except lots of people unfortunately believe them.

The blame dodging cum political attack judo is fucking stunning. "Now let's see, how can I make this completely %110 not possibly my fault, and twist it at the same time to strengthen my political goals and attack the mayor?" Summer's not even fucking cold yet. And no, that's not the same argument as "too soon to talk about a mass shooting."


Der Stranger is in fine form again, desperately trying to downplay that the driver was a black man. I wonder how reticent they would be to mention his name and picture if he was another race, say white. What a shitheel propaganda rag.


2 YES. STAND DOWN DURKAN. Council do what we are asking - Defund the police and use the monies to provide services AND HOUSING for the disenfranchised.

Free the protestors now. End homelessness in this city,


I don't believe that most people who live and vote in Seattle support a nightly protest on the freeway, while we deeply care about the issues and are demanding a plan and progress.

The Mayor and City Council remain in over their heads. Embarrassing again.


@1 how much did this personally cost you as a taxpayer? Maybe you should charge them rent for taking up so much space in your head.


“Tell your boss none of this would’ve happened if he’d hired smarter people” - Bruce Willis as John Smith, “Last Man Standing”

FFS, Seattle City Clowncil! If you cretins would just enforce the fucking laws, no one would’ve died at The CHOP or on I-5.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to “peaceful assembly”. Blocking streets and intersections, seizing public property, and doing the ‘Cupid Shuffle’ on an interstate highway are NOT forms of ‘protected speech’. If you have an utterly craven City and State government that refuses to enforce the law, that doesn’t mean what you’re doing is legal or OK, no matter who ‘woke’ you think you are.

You allowed a group of anarcho-socialists to take over Cal Anderson Park and the surrounding area and impose their own brand of (dis)order. Six Black men were shot - two fatally - by (mostly) other Black men (the last killing was probably by The CHOP’s own militia). You’ve allowed roving bands of yahoos to wander onto the freeway every night, for causes that don’t have anything to do with BLM (on Sunday, the yahoos du jour were protesting government policies in - wait for it - fucking ETHIOPIA!!!

Our city is spiraling into anarchy, and it’s 100% on you. The sad thing is that you’ve not only enabled the anarchists, malingerers and malcontents, you’ve misled well-meaning citizens like the late Ms. Taylor into thinking what they’re doing is legal and they have a right to expect to be protected.

You didn’t drive the car and you didn’t shoot the guns, but you created the environment that made it possible.

It is my hope that at some point the people of Seattle will wake up, but I think more people are going to have to suffer as a result of your malpractice before they come to their senses.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” - H.L. Mencken


Say their names: Lorenzo Anderson, Antonio Mays, Jr. Who condemns their violent murders? Why don't Black lives matter equally?


This city is like Thanksgiving dinner. The mayor is at the adult table, and the City Council comprises the children's table where food is thrown while endless too-loud silly and inane comments are made. What a goof.


"Dan Strauss weakly..."

Why am I not surprised? In the times to come, we're not going to hear much from Strauss, and when we do, it's going to be a lot more sentences containing both "Dan Strauss" and "weakly". It's too bad we had to settle for him.


White woman gets killed at “BLM protest” - condemnation all around. 16 year old black teen is murdered by armed CHOP member(s) - nary a peep. That’s some racist shit.


"City Council Condemns the Killing of Summer Taylor on I-5"

I would hope so, Ms. Graham.


The Council took a brave step in doing this. Who will write their Profiles in Courage when 2020 is in the books?


I want to take a moment to process this. A protestor is killed by a reckless driver on a federal highway under the jurisdiction of the state and Tammy uses the tragedy to take shots at SPD and the mayor? Maybe one of the reasons there are conflicting messages Tammy is because you and your fellow demagogues on the council are too busy undermining the mayor and high fiving each other like an old Almost Live skit rather than working to solve the problem. I think about the old axiom that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Tammy, stop running for mayor and being part of the problem and do your damn job.


Wow, the City Council issued a statement. Impressive.


Mass hysteria.



Well, if anyone around here would know about what it's like to be reprehensible...



Most of the people who live and vote in Seattle probably don't spend much time on the freeway...


Yet another death due to failed leadership: this time Inslee's, as he ultimately tells the State Patrol what to do. I'm sure taxpayers will end up forking it over to Taylor's family, since they failed to arrest her as she cavorted on the freeway like a fucking moron.


Oh look at COMTE. My comment is popular so he gets jealous but has no meaningful response so he, naturally, slips into gratuitous insulting.



Nothing gratuitous about it...


@30: Fine, omit the adjective. Never say that I'm not accommodating.


@13: I seem to recall reading how CM O'Brien was unstoppable, and anyone who dared challenge him would get utterly, hopelessly, and humiliatingly crushed. Whatever happened to that?!? Why did he turn out to be such a weak incumbent?


O'Brien decided not to run. It became moot.

Safe Seattle's chosen candidate lost. Their second choice lost. Their third choice lost. So...? Your point?


Also, I only said Safe Seattle's candidates would get crushed, not "anyone". Simple observation of their track record. They lose every time. They're really bad at campaigning, and their ideas and philosophy are really, really unpopular. What with like, you know, reality and facts and data not on their side. They usually come in fifth or sixth place, if there's that many candidates. Sometimes they place as high as third in races with only three candidates.

Someone who wasn't as abysmally bad at elections as Mr. Bouncy House & Friends could have taken O'Brien, what with his decent but unspectacular record.

You're as bad at reading comprehension as Bounce House is at winning, tensor.


@37: 'Also, I only said Safe Seattle's candidates would get crushed, not "anyone".'

Actually, you quite clearly wrote O'Brien wouldn't lose. You sneered at the very idea he could possibly be in any trouble.

Then he quit the race, because his constituency wouldn't support continuing his record of multiple, catastrophic failures. You immediately claimed he couldn't have been looking at bad polls. So, great reading comprehension on your part there.



Yes, Alphabet Soup (#36) did insist Mike O'Brien was unbeatable and his re-election would humiliate his many critics. Zer did it in zer's characteristically categorical style--you either agree with me, or you're not only factually wrong, but morally wrong.

And when O'Brien withdrew because his own polling showed less than a quarter supported him, Zer dismissed its significance. O'Brien coulda won if only he woulda run.

Zer's thinking is as scrambled as zer's screen name.


Yeah, yeah, that's what it says isn't it? It's right there in the link to my post that you gave... er, wait, no it's not there, is it? Apparently the link to my post is missing from your post? How'd that happen?

If you're so obsessed with this, why don't you quote me? Nope? Cite me? Nope? Can't do it, can you?

That's what I thought.

If you lived in O'Brien's head maybe you'd have special knowledge on why he decided not to run. Pretty obvious he lives in your head. I guess I'm camping there too. So big and roomy! Lots of guys could live up in this bitch. What with all teh empty space left where one might find links to things you claim were posted right here on the fucking searchable web of documents that never forgets.

It's the internet. It's searchable. It never forgets. So? Link to where I said that or shut the fuck up.


@39: I knew you'd fall for it...

"O'Brien has every reason to go on being confident he will sail to reelection, again, with no effort."

And the only person who claimed to "live in O'Brien's head," was, well, you know...

"I think he's making a mistake if he thinks he wouldn't win. I think he could sail to reelection. Maybe he's looking at bad polls. But I doubt that. My money says that the polls say the same thing I said..."

Sure they did.


Yes. You asserted he turned out to be a weak incumbent. How do you know? You don't. You made that up. O'Brien's decision not to run is not any evidence that I was ever wrong. You can't seem to wrap your head around the idea of just now wanting to be on the City Council any more. Speak for yourself. Don't project your inadequacies onto others.

"He has every reason to be confident". Before he chose not to run, he had every reason to be confident. The opposition always picks shit candidates. Don't they?

After he chose not to run, It remains true he would sail to reelection. It's called the subjunctive case. Look it up.

You're fixated on your imaginary "fact" that he chose not to run because he couldn't win. That's a made up fact. You can't read anyone's mind, and there's no evidence to support it.

The evidence we have is what happened next. Heidi Wills suffered and embarrassing loss. Amazon & the chamber of commerce PAC spent ONE MILLION DOLLARS. They outspent Strauss by two or three times over. And still District 6 rejected that brand of politics.

I refer you to today's news. The guy who crushed the nimby, business-backed, pro-law&order candidate is 100% behind defunding the cops. The anti-homeless, terrified of crime constituency is simply too small to win any election. Mike O'Brien and Dan Strauss aren't phenomenons; they're fairly ordinary. Competent but not the second coming.. What they're not is Safe Seattle, not magahats, not SPD bootlickers, not Amazon sycophants. And if you're not one of those things, you're set to in win in D6.


@42: Glad to see you're still bringing the laughs.

"O'Brien's decision not to run is not any evidence that I was ever wrong."

Despite your risibly failed denials ever since, you actually had, over and over, asserted he would "sail" to re-election, that anyone who attempted to run against him would lose, and lose badly. Mike O'Brien decided your prediction was worthless. Therefore, your argument on that point is with Mike O'Brien, not with anyone else. He's the one who said you were wrong, so please go take that up with him. It's not my fault his actions invalidated your claims.

"O'Brien's decision not to run is not any evidence that I was ever wrong."

It would be an interesting intellectual exercise to ask what, if any, evidence you would ever accept -- on any topic -- for your having been wrong. I'm guessing the result would be a long-winded pile of words, indirectly communicating your resentful refusal to answer.

"After he chose not to run, It remains true he would sail to reelection."

After he chose not to run, it became impossible for him to obtain reelection, much less 'sail' to it. It's called cause and effect. Look it up.

"That's a made up fact. You can't read anyone's mind, and there's no evidence to support it."

"A poll last year, conducted by O’Brien’s consultant WinPower Strategies, reportedly showed that the incumbent was unpopular in his district, which elected him by a 23-percent margin in 2015." (

Again, it's not my fault that your claim, "he can't be looking at bad polls," was false when you made it. Go argue with the pollsters. (And "unpopular" just three years after "23-point margin"? Ouch! Catastrophic failure of policy-making can do that in a democracy.)

This isn't even the first time I've quoted this one of your worthless predictions back at you, so I'm looking forward to more of this same fun in future. Please continue not to disappoint, although you seem to have no choice in that matter.


Your only fact is a third hand report of a single internal poll. Everything else is made up. That one poll, perhaps bolstered by several other polls -- ones we could actually read, rather than just hear about via rumors -- might add up to something.

Instead we watched as the candidates most favored by O'Brien's haters got knocked out of the primary. The candidates most similar to O'Brien did far better, and in fact, won. When O'Brien's haters settled for Hedi Wills, and godawful amounts of money were thrown into her campaign, they went down in flames.

So O'Brien bowed out and someone who has essentially the same politics won in spite of being vastly outspent.

You should let it go. You thought you'd scored a point, you thought at last Angry Selfish Seattle was going to chalk up a win, and instead you lost. Again. Have you heard what Strauss has said about defunding the police? His convictions run deep, and I know that pains you. Strauss knows full well what the budgeting process entails and has no illusions about what it takes to successfully implement change and reform. Durkan is afraid to address these questions on his level, so she attacks bumper sticker ideologies and sound bites she saw a protester kid yell on TV. Everyone has caught on to her.

Your attempts to belittle the defund movement are losing, because they're so transparently unsound. Every time Durkan and Durkan apologists like you make straw man attacks instead of addressing the substance of the agenda, it lampshades just how helpless you are to deal with the actual arguments. Even now instead of facing up to what's happening, you want to change the subject to something you think I said back in 2019, as if that will help you save the SPD's budget pork.

You lost. Get over it. You're losing again right now. Might want to see to that.


@44: "Your only fact is a third hand report of a single internal poll."

Well, it's not my fault Mike O'Brien chose not to release the results of the poll he paid to have conducted; you can take that up with him. That he refused to release it suggests his numbers were very, very bad indeed.

"So O'Brien bowed out and someone who has essentially the same politics won in spite of being vastly outspent."

Which is further proof that O'Brien had doomed himself with his own bad policy decisions, not that he could have "sailed" to re-election if only he had won. As I wrote back then, Seattle's not going to start electing Republicans anytime soon. We just wanted someone who wasn't a proven failure at the job we'd elected him to do.

"Have you heard what Strauss has said about defunding the police?"

I'm told he speaks weakly, and that we had to settle for him. So perhaps he wasn't so great a replacement for O'Brien?

"Strauss knows full well what the budgeting process entails and has no illusions about what it takes to successfully implement change and reform."

It's just too bad we in Seattle had to settle for a guy like that!

"Everyone has caught on to her."

Indeed, I recall reading she was ten percentage points down, very shortly before the election.

"... to something you think I said back in 2019,"

You didn't read the quotes you demanded? I can provide them again if you like. (It wouldn't be the first time.)