It kinda cheers me up to think that somehow in the middle of all this awfulness, an Amazon patent attorney can still lose a bar bet.

@2 is insightfully correct

That video wasn't corny, it was tear jerking and awesome. Though I bet Trump would offer a comparable demonstration of empathy, I mean just check out this similarly heartwarming video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdLfkhxIH5Q

KAGA, motherfuckers!

@4,

I don't know much of the specifics, but gathered that he pretty much orchestrated the whole thing and she basically acted as an accomplice and did his bidding. Also, pretty sure his name is widely circulated, think I heard it on NPR's reporting.

@5
Yes, the video is terrific!
Dems - Encourage a child to overcome stuttering.
GOP - Put the kiddies in cages!

Aunt Becky’s real life husband is Mossimo Gianulli the Mossimo of the 90s cool kids that weren’t grunge clothing line. When he was indicted I didn’t realize they still had them.

I’m surprised Pacific Place or Westlake Center are still in business after all these years.

@7 is correct.

Hey, Vancouver Canucks 4-0 with St Louis right now

Thank you Mayor Durkan for standing up for common sense and the majority of Seattle that is deeply opposed to the stupidity of “Abolish the Police!” as the solution to ending systemic racism in policing. In hindsight people will realize that this extremism was fueled by Russia to divide the left and get Trump re-elected and that the Seattle City Council is a bunch of simpletons that are in way over their head.

@6 -- broadly speaking, there is a correlation between increasing law enforcement staffing levels and reductions in criminal activity. There's a bunch of links in this article discussing this issue:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/13/18193661/hire-police-officers-crime-criminal-justice-reform-booker-harris

Also this academic article comes to the same conclusion:

https://campus.purdueglobal.edu/documentstore/Docs10/pdf/CJ/PICJ/PICJ_V5N2_3_Guffey_29_43.pdf

"It appears that when cities or counties reduce the number of sworn police officers as a result of bad economic conditions or other factors, the crime rate tends to increase. The explanation for this may be that criminals or potential criminals learn aboutthe officer reductions through media reports and decide that times of reduced police officer staffing may be the most opportune time to commit their crimes."

Sound familiar?

There are lonely senior citizens in Shoreline and all you dicks want to do is talk about politics. Go visit some old man whose family doesn't want to hear about the illuminati anymore.

Bellevue is hiring more police. It's a nice place to live.

@20: More like the innate desire humans have to be intimate with other humans in the celebration of life. Nothing about being insecure.

It's not pertinent why large celebrations occur (from frat parties to revivals) is it? You weren't objecting to them before covid.

@15, wear a mask outside and risk goes way down. For churches and motorcycle rallies too. It’s that simple.

@22: South Korea's first large beak was from a religious gathering. So it's not just the poor countries that have these.

It's the event that's the issue, not the reason for the event.

@25: We're not in disagreement there. I put the blame on not adapting to safe practices, not on the cause of the event.

If hiring more cops is NOT the way to respond to an increase in shooting deaths, as the writer implies, what is the proper response? This is a sincere question. It's one thing to say that most 911 calls dealing with the unhoused population should be delegated to social workers who are better equipped to help those people than cops are, but violent crime? If the idea is that unarmed personnel are the best response to violent crime, what does that look like?

If the answer is that ten or twenty years down the road, investment in communities will reduce violent crime by reducing the conditions that create it, could you provide some examples where this worked? And explain what to do while we're awaiting that day?

Because it's a simple political reality that an increase in violent crime tends to provoke a public backlash that leads to calls for harsher enforcement and sentencing. Most of the draconian laws on the books right now can trace their origins to previous spikes in crime rates.

Every well-funded suburb is another example.

The unserious @32 is incapable of responding seriously to the serious @30.

@30 -- probably the single most important change we could make as a country to allow a reduction in the number of law enforcement officers would be to completely change the way we regulate guns. If we had fewer guns in circulation, we could actually talk about having armed and unarmed police the way they do in the UK.

The problem is that those advocating defunding police are doing it backwards. They are attempting to create police departments that reflect a society with strong firearm regulations, when that doesn't exist. So what you'll wind up with is a continuation of our current system of guns everywhere, but now you won't have sufficient police resources on hand to mitigate the threat that poses. Criminals will feel more free to use guns even more aggressively than they do now, to the detriment of regular people.

It's kind of like the left wing version of assuming that tax cuts are going to reduce the size of government. They don't, you just wind up with huge deficits as far as the eye can see.

@36: How goes the quest to outlaw coronavirus? Does your legal team believe it can get this action as "fart" as the Supreme Court?

@37: And drunk drivers and abusive spouses need to be arrested and often jailed. Just how is a social worker equipped to enforce an arrest if not deputized and trained as a "cop"?

@37 -- things like domestic disputes, traffic enforcement, and doing mental health checks will still require a law enforcement response. While in some circumstances other resources can and should be used to help people going through these things, and we should provide funding to do that, the idea that those other resources will wade into situations like that without police officers to assist and protect them if things go bad is farcical. If you want to talk about who is engaging in a strawman fantasy, I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

& Never question
one's Betters.

They Know what
They're Doing.

& You
do Not.

@42: Well, that was predictable. A snarky out as soon as the obvious logistical questions inevitably arise.

I'm in favor of offloading a lot of these things from the cops. They hate domestic calls already, going to the same house repeatedly, same reports to do over and over again. But these obvious questions (39 and 41) need answering.

I'm sure the drama queen way cops comport themselves adds a soothing element to any DV call. When did such a group of supposedly macho men because such a culture of screaming mimi's?

@47: Yes, it's accurate that you're incapable of engaging in intelligent discussions.

@47 -- reality has a way of intruding on fantasy. WA has a mandatory arrest law for domestic violence incidents, and you posted that we should have non law enforcement personnel respond to these types of cases. So they can not enforce the mandatory arrest requirements? And if you're going to say we shouldn't have a mandatory arrest requirement so we can effectuate this reduction in law enforcement staffing, I think there's both an optics and substance problem with not arresting people for crimes that disproportionately victimize women.

It's not unreasonable to support additional resources to fund things that can help take over the management of a lot of these calls from law enforcement. But that doesn't mean that there won't still be a need for law enforcement to also respond to these types of calls. They still need to be there to provide for the safety of these new resources, but they will no longer be the primary person handling the incident. This is the conversation that has to happen when you move beyond sloganeering. Unfortunately it's one that the Seattle City Council is currently incapable of having.

@46: Well, they enforce restraining orders and help get abused women and children the help they need. I have no idea how "macho" they are or "how screaming mimi" they are, they're just doing their jobs I guess. I don't know why you have to characterize them this way. Maybe you'd change your attitude if you actually saw first hand an abuse situation.

@51: Aww. Well, you are intelligent you - it's just frustrating when we ask those tough questions and you get snarky. Imagination is very important. So use it to strengthen your arguments, because we are really interested in what you have to say.

@46: Pardon me Catalina (re: 50). I'd like to share in the humor on that - but I find it a tad acidic.

52
whoa
good one!

@48 -- imagination is good! But those who are elected can't govern based on imagination. They have to be grounded in reality. How do you think we as a country have gotten into such a giant mess right now? Because we have a party in the GOP that has thrown responsible governance out the window. I don't want to see the Democratic Party fall into that same trap, and this 50% defund police nonsense is exactly that: irresponsible governance.

If you want to see a reduction in the need for police, you have to create the conditions that make that reduction realistic. That includes a variety of different things: way less guns on the streets, more funding for mental health issues, and on and on and on. If you don't do those things first, then reducing law enforcement funding is not going to be constructive or safe. And I don't want to see that happen to Seattle.

I've been around long enough to see the parallels with the monorail debate. The people in favor of it said exactly what you did @48. Just because a transit system hasn't ever been built in this fashion and operated at a profit doesn't mean we can't do it here! The realists said the opposite, that this was going to be bad, and it wasn't going to work, and here's all the reasons why. And in the end the realists were right, and it was a disaster of monumental proportions.

I see the same thing happening right now, with a lot of the same people who were so certain about the monorail, when it comes to talking about defunding police. And that give me pause, and it should give you pause too.

Sorry meant @51, you_can't_stop_us.

I must be slow on the uptake, but I just realized what many must already know: raindrop is a total Karen.

@59 seatackled, +1. "Pompous ass" also came to mind.

I'm trying not to use the term "Karen" as I feel it's really unfair to good people who happen to be named "Karen".

@59/60 - I don't know why you two go into insult mode when we're having a discussion of having social workers do more of the things police do.

I had to look it up:

A common stereotype is that of
a white woman who uses her privilege
to demand her own way at the expense of others."

@63: Which is used by stereotypes themselves.

Stereotypically.

@60

Pompous ass certain seems apt, but it's not synonymous with being a Karen.

Regarding literal Karens, on the one hand it's sort of weird the direction that the name has taken, but I figure cool Karens don't let it bother them, while literal Karens who get upset about the new usage are probably also figurative Karens. They're like the white people who get all defensive when you criticize slavery and vehemently say they have never had anything to do with slavery.

@66: Rather arrogant to assume you know what any woman named Karen would think about the matter.