Comments

1

"I understand that some consider 'Karen' a sort of sexist slur, but I'm going to use it a half-dozen times in this post anyway."

2

In these cases it seems like it would also be appropriate for a Karen/Ken to be issued a civil penalty to compensate the 911-system and responding law enforcement agency for their wasted time, thus easing that burden from the taxpayers.

3

People who call the police because other people are existing need to be punished so it stops. Period. If Karen doesn't like the Black person in the park, well she really isn't going to like the Black person she has to share a cell with in prison. Enough bullshit. i am so sick of racist white people behaving badly and never being held to account. The extreme of this? Kyle Rittenhouse murders people, goes home, gets out on bail and is missing. White supremacist terrorist "Karen" with bullhorn (and prior knowledge of the layout of the Capitol building in D.C.) allowed to go home and is nowhere to be found - FBI raided her home this morning. Racist white people need to be punished, swiftly and severely, until being a fucked up racist shit bag is so unpleasant and uncomfortable they remain in their homes never leaving to bother anyone or they cease to exist. I will never understand why in a country where sick animals are put down these sick animals are allowed to walk around free terrorizing and even murdering other people with no consequences.

4

A $250 fine? That's got more than a whiff of "it's only illegal if you're poor" on it.

And the victim has to know how to file a civil suit, and have the time for it, too?

It's not nothing, I guess, but dang man.

5

CIS Male Karens are Kevins.

Take note of it.

6

Determining intent in court is notoriously difficult. The person making the call will say their intent was to report a crime, the person they are calling about will say otherwise.

7

RCW 9A.84.040 already makes false reporting to 911 a crime and even escalates to felony charges for the misuse of emergency services that result in injury or death like "swatting". You can try and add a bias component to this as another layer but I'd wonder how you'd actually prove that as you would now have to determine intent and essentially read someone's mind.

8

"Karen" wants to speak to your manager.

"Becky" is the one who calls cops on people minding their own business while black.

There's a difference. #NotAllKarens.

9

6, just gotta find out if they are a registered republican. In those cases the intent is to always do as much harm in the most despicable way possible.

10

@9: There is no party affiliation registration in Washington state.

11

As an attorney for forty plus years, the actual language of the bill concerns me: calling 911 with the intent to
"(a) Infringe on the other person's rights under the Washington
state or United States Constitutions;
(b) Unlawfully discriminate against the other person;
(c) Cause the other person to feel harassed, humiliated, or
embarrassed;
(d) Cause the other person to be expelled from a place in which
the other person is lawfully located; or
(e) Damage the other person's:
(i) Reputation or standing in the community; or
(ii) Financial, economic, consumer, or business prospects or
interests."
Remember, the Second Amendment is a constitutional right so if you call 911 because someone is carrying a gun this law could apply - plus tons and tons of other circumstances if you read the language. AND you get the greater of $250 OR "economic and non-economic damages" which would include pain and suffering, AND you get attorney fees and costs which can go into six figures in a trial...

13

@7 - of course, criminal statutes are enforced by the State and not a private citizen. Also, "intent" is frequently inferred both in both criminal and civil legal matter.

BTW - If you are sued by someone and prevail at trial you are NOT given attorney fees unless specifically allowed by contract or statute (of which there are very few and would not apply here.)

14

@13 Thanks for a more in depth opinion. I see your point on intent. I guess in this case it seems to me it would be harder to derive as someone calling 911 is generally doing so in an emergency situation so now you have determine did they actually feel threatened or were they simply being a "Becky" as someone stated above. For the reasons you outline above as well this feels more like a solution in search of a problem than something that will legitimately help people.

15

@4 Although Nathalie made it seem as if damages are capped at $250, she is wrong. That's the floor, not the ceiling. Damages are actually unlimited, and punitive damages and attorneys' fees are available as well.

The bill provides, in relevant part (apologies if the formatting gets screwed up):

(2) Upon prevailing in an action under this section, the
plaintiff may recover:

(a) The greater of:

(i) Economic and noneconomic damages; or
(ii) $250 against each defendant found liable under this section;
and

(b) Punitive damages.

(3) The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to
the prevailing plaintiff in an action under this section.

16

@15 So you're saying it does an OK job of protecting people who have the wherewithal to file suit? Provided the offender doesn't have disproportionate legal resources to get the suit dismissed or defeated, or minimize damages awarded?

How reassuring.

17

At some times up to 90% of the calls the police agencies in King and Snohomish Counties get are for (insert minority non-white race) "threatening me by existing".

That's the part of the budget we should be cutting for SPD and other police forces.

And those "reporting" it should be paying fines.

18

Why can't a male Karen just be a Karen?

19

care-in could be the girl
car-in could be the boy.
for the truly desperate

20

@17: Typically anyone who cites such a shocking statistic provides a link to back them up.

22

Right on. All the more criminal and civil legal tools to keep the degenerate ma white privilege Republikkan Nazi dumbfucks in line all the better.

23

@11 - I agree this is going to be difficult in practice. Intent is impossible to determine in many cases.

And what is the standard going to be? Is the phone call OK if the caller actually felt threatened (rightly or wrongly), or are we going to apply the "reasonable person" standard?


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.