Comments

2

I've seen another report that suggests Wright was pulled over because he had an air freshener blocking his rear-view mirror. If that's true, the cops there need some serious guardrails about how and when they detain someone. There are way too many pretextual stops made all over, but that is one of the worst I have heard of.

3

And as to the "freeway widening," perhaps you should read the article you linked. This is not adding a lane. It is not widening the freeway. It is fixing a place where a lane is blocked for a short distance, forcing drivers to merge (aka stop) and then opens up again. This project is akin to moving a stalled car out of the road, not to making the road wider. What the hell sense would it make to leave a blockage in place just to gratuitously make it harder to get through? You are correct that building more lanes does not generally fix traffic congestion. But this is not a project to add lanes.

Also, if we were to make I-5 even narrower, are you offering your neighborhood street as an alternate route for the cars, buses, and semis that now use I-5? I don't want them on mine.

4

when today's Slave Patrols
have both Impunity and Immunity there'll
be No End to their malfeasances & shenanigans.

too much Power ALWAYS Corrupts
look no further than the Donald
J [for Genius, dummys] trumpf
and his alt-Classy progenies.

6

Obviously, building more freeway lanes increases global emissions.

Demand high speed passenger and freight rail like even Third World countries get, and replace highway lanes with light rail lanes or high speed rail lanes.

7

Why even think about perpetuating that photoshop story? Vice should have tossed it in the garbage.

@3: Multiple sloggers had to educate Charles on this, now Matt. (sigh)

I not sure whether Matt is being sarcastic in the U District story: "Great job, cops!!!"

12

@11 You are missing the point. If there were more details, we could more accurately assess the situation. Is this the best they have? If there is more ("there was a gun on the seat and he was reaching for it..." for example) they there might be justification. Just give us the facts as they see it - what caused the officer to decide to shoot? Without the details, and in light of the current climate of highly visible police aggression, you have to expect people to react as they did...

13

Cute Tim Tam slam, Matt!

15

You can tell stranger writers never leave their downtown bubble of mixed-use buildings and electric scooters because that part of I-5 is a fucking nightmare. Like three ramps entering/exiting all in the same small area and then as you exit onto 90 you see this big lane of concrete give way to stripes indicating not to drive on that space.
The space is already there, they are just re-purposing it. As in, actually giving it a purpose because right now it just sits between two actually useful lanes.
Fixing this issue would only help your disadvantaged South Seattle neighbors who have jobs which require them to travel into or around the city.

17

@5,

Suspect visibly has a deadly weapon in hand and is actively threatening to use it on someone, either pointing a gun at them or advancing with a melee weapon held in an attacking posture. Or if the suspect is driving a vehicle directly at people.

Alternately, if they know for certain the suspect has already used a deadly weapon before, then possibly they would be justified if that suspect reached into a car or bag or whatever.

Deadly force should only be used by cops when deadly force is also being used by suspects.

18

@16 - if that is true, they have some SERIOUS training failures there. And that cop needs to be a cop no more. Nowhere, never, no way.

19

Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Ivermectin.
Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?

20

@6 - I don't disagree. I am in no way in favor of building more lanes generally. This is a special case where we have an unnecessary traffic clusterfuck (which is actually wasting tons of gas and creating more emissions while people idle there trying to merge).

And I don't know when the last time you were in a Third World country was, but I've never seen one with high-speed rail or even decent passenger trains of any kind. If they have any rail at all, it is overcrowded, dangerous, and slow. I guarantee you that if the people in most developing countries had any alternative they would stay off the trains. The right comparison is to Japan or Taiwan where trains are fast and uber-reliable. We absolutely should build a shinkansen network here ASAP.

21

14 jesus Blip
Comment of the YEAR

22

Say his name: Daunte Wright! Black Lives DO Matter!
As long as systematic racism continues to be the accepted "norm", no, we haven't learned a fucking thing since May 25, 2020! Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd entirely in cold blood and by using unnecessary force.

@4 kristofarian and @14 blip for the WIN, BAYBEE!

@5 & @11: Oh, look--rainmist the point again.

23

1, 5, 9, 11...oh fuck, just kill them. Who cares. Right?

24

Interesting that it now turns out that the 'very senior' officer involved couldn't tell the diff between her Taser (which she says she was intending to use) and her Glock.

Well, shit then...accidents happen.

25

@21 kristofarian: Agreed and seconded. I have nothing more to add. You and blip NAILED it.

27

Warm weather suggestions for this upcoming weekend, Matt? How about watching fun spring-y movies like Ferris Bueller's Day Off ?
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it." Matthew Broderick, June 11, 1986
Shiek shiek shiek-AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

28

The problem, of course, is that officers who have gunned down brown-skinned folks for very little reason have often then fabricated circumstances that would retroactively justify the use of deadly force. These deceptions largely evaded scrutiny for decades, until widespread smartphones with the capacity to record and publish video started to consistently reveal them. And yet, the entire criminal justice system colludes to protect officers from all but the most egregious violations.

The Stranger had a spoof years ago about SPD investigating itself for a shooting where officers entered a "suspect's" room and shot them dead while asleep in their bed. The farcical inquest found that the sleeping perp had his hand under his pillow, and thus may have been concealing a weapon.

29

The video shows the cop saying "holy shit I shot him." That person needs to be fired. If that cop is too stupid to know whether they have their gun pulled or their taser, they need not be walking around with deadly weapons.

I don't give a shit what this kid did. I am sick to fucking death of people justifying the murder of Black people EVERY.SINGLE.DAY by cops. The police do not prevent crime. The police do not solve crime. The police commit crime. The police cover up crime. The police are the problem. Fucking get rid of them. And for everyone who says "what about the crime?" Guess what, crime will not stop. There will literally be no difference in crime without police. What there will be a difference in is how many Black people get murdered for NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL EVERY SINGLE DAY by government sanctioned, taxpayer funded white supremacist terrorists.

Fuck the police.

30

I don't know why cop apologists have such a problem understanding justification for use of deadly force. It's actually very simple: the subject must pose an immediate danger of inflicting death or serious bodily injury on another before use of deadly force against that subject.

The imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury to another could be the cops themselves or any other person. The words for this legal standard vary a little from state to state, but that definition is basically it.

Simply fleeing does not constitute justification for use of deadly force. If it did, you would have 100,000 people a year killed by the cops instead of 1,000. A subject attempting to get back into his/her car to flee once they realize they're to be arrested is not uncommon at all. A cop can use force to prevent that but not deadly force, not simply for flight in and of itself.

It's interesting that the cop apologists here are bending over backward to justify this murder when even the cops themselves at the scene...including the shooter...knew what level of force was permitted, in that the shooter mistook her gun for her taser. Apologist commenters trying to justify what even the involved officer wasn't trying to justify. Figures.

As to that mistaking your gun for your taser, that is inexcusable. Among the several differences is that the taser is much lighter in your hand than your gun, you must draw it from the opposite side of your gunbelt from your gun and...it's yellow. The grip also feels different.

That said, I believe the mistake was a sincere one, as there are plenty of jumpy cops out there who get frazzled when thrown into a dynamic situation involving resisting/fleeing suspects. When the shit goes down, such officers get thrown for a loop and react in an almost panicked way. In that state, I suppose it's possible to mix up your taser and gun, but man, my own experience makes that hard to fathom just on a personal level.

Such a cop has no business being a cop...but they are.

Anyway, get ready for perpetual outrages such as this and consequent demonstrations. They're going to become a full-time, non-stop occurrence going forward. Cop recruiting has been down for years now, and it really declined in the last year. I've seen figures like 70% and more tossed around as the percentage decline.

LE agencies have been hiring people they never would have considered hiring 10-20 years ago. And with recruitment and interest in LE as a career continuing its decline, the deeper and deeper into the barrel of prospects LE agencies will have to go to to fill ranks. So, more cops like this one that confused a gun for a taser are coming.

Of course, substandard recruits will mean more outrages in the future, which will lead to more decline in recruiting, which will lead to even poorer quality of recruits, which will lead to even more outrages, which etc., etc., etc.... Not sure what the answer to that will be. Drafting cops maybe?

32

"I thought it was my taser, but it was my gun"
Is the same excuse used by the BART officer who murdered Oscar Grant

33

RE: "I thought it was my taser but it turned out to be my gun."

When I was in the Army National Guard, we did civil disobedience and riot training. Face shields, transparent shields, batons, etc. They trained us to be mostly defensive, just pushing with the batons and not swinging them. Still, they admitted that things don't always go as smoothly as they do in training.

I distinctly remember our platoon commander (a lieutenant) tell us that if we ever hit a rioter in the head with the baton and killed or injured them, we should say we were aiming for their shoulder but missed.

I have no doubt that the people who train cops tell them to do the shame kind of shit.

Cops have told so many lies that they're now expected to wear body cameras because nobody trusts them anymore. I don't know if this cop truly did make a frantic mistake, but it hardly matters because public trust in the police is in the fucking gutter. Nobody believes them. Their reputation is in tatters.

When the public perception of you is that low, even if you're one of the good cops, you've lost.

34

@29: Except the Capitol Police, I assume you'd still like them around.

35

@33 - "I have no doubt that the people who train cops tell them to do the same kind of shit." I was told that, too, in relation to nightsticks anyway. I never heard it suggested as an excuse for inadvertently firing your gun.

Like I said, I actually don't doubt it was an error. That's because I've seen cops freak out and do stupid shit like that, if not that specifically. We called such cops "squirrels," and there are plenty of them. It seems there are more than ever nowadays. So, if it's technically possible for a squirrel to mistake a gun for a taser, it will happen somewhere at some times.

Besides, why say you mistook a gun for a taser when saying "I thought he was going for a gun" is so much easier and more credible, as well as time-proven? "There was something shiny in the car, so it had to be a gun he was running for!"

36

@33 - To be clear, I'm not excusing the officer. Just because I tend to believe her account doesn't mean it's not at least Manslaughter...because it is.

38

@37 - There is no argument. Flight in and of itself does not justify deadly force. The officer involved herself determined deadly force wasn't justified when she drew what she apparently thought was her taser. No other officer used deadly force. There is no argument here. It was not a justified use of deadly force.

39

@29 xina: Spot right ON, agreed and seconded for the WIN!

@37: Put your face mask back on and sit down, already, blunderbuss. Your lame attempts at egging on heated arguments are futile. If the current "norm" apparently is for police to shoot first, especially if the victim has brown skin, then end up in court on a murder charge second,--then, yes, I am against it. I agree with xina, @29, Urgutha Forka @33 and Morty @35, @36, and @38. As a cop, himself, Morty obviously has seen a lot.
Before you blow another fuse and go off again like a short gun half cocked, get your facts straight. You're welcome.

40

@37 - Again you are off track. Morty gave us a good explanation of the standard @30. What you are talking about is the application of that standard. I have been an attorney for 42 years now and my job is to provide facts to a jury that they will apply to the law (the "standard") as given to them by the judge. Give me more facts in this case, and I will let you know if I believe the standard has been violated. Your long litany of potential facts is a pure smoke screen. So far, all we have is the suspect returning to the vehicle, and the officer allegedly pulling out the wrong weapon...

41

@30, @35, @36 & @38 Morty: I meant to also commend you for your equally spot on comment @30. Well said and summarized. Agreed and seconded.

@5, @11, and @37: You really should take a piss test first, BEFORE blindly engaging in self-aggrandized water sports--especially when the pool is empty.

42

This is America. You can't count 3 people dead and 1 or 2 injured as a mass shooting. That is just a run of the mill average day in this country kind of shooting.

44

Violent White Folks Who Were Taken Into Custody With Loving Care By Police
https://newsone.com/playlist/white-arrested-with-by-police/item/14

No matter what white people do, police never feel threatened enough to use deadly force. So the answer to the troll is NOTHING.

THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE. NOTHING. PERIOD. FULL STOP. EVERY FUCKING TIME.

GOT IT?

45

@43 - Essentially, they need to see him produce a weapon and have a reasonable perception he intends to use it to immediately inflict death or serious bodily injury on another. So, it's not even enough that they see him produce a gun, they must also determine he intends to immediately use it to inflict death or serious bodily injury on another.

By your implied standard, cops should shoot anyone who runs because they might be going for a gun...somewhere. I mean, if he ran down an alley, he could have a gun stashed around the very next corner, right?

All these cops had was flight, and that was it; it happens all day every day. You cannot use deadly force based on idle speculation, "he might have a gun in his car, and he might try to retrieve it, and he might use it on me." That does not cut it.

If the cop doesn't see it, it's not there.

46

@37,43,

Deadly force has to be used by the suspect first (or is obviously about to be imminently used, e.g., suspect is charging you with a sword over his head). But that does include deadly force the suspect has used recently. If a suspect shoots someone, steals their car, leads cops on a 30 minute chase, then pulls over and starts ruffling through a bag and refusing to put their empty hands up... I would be quite lenient on cops using deadly force there. But shooting a guy who 10 years ago shot someone? No. Be on guard obviously, but there's no recent use of deadly force there.

Cops should always default to "Do not fire unless fired upon." Only if the suspect has already used deadly or attempted deadly force should the cops respond in kind.

49

@43: That There's Awful Big Spewage for such a leaky, braindead lil Spigot. Are you trying to put Seattle's new Mudhoney poop drill to the test? Quit now while you're hopelessly lost in word salad.

@48: Professor_Hiztory: I am left wondering if @43 is Raindrop or a wannabe under an unregistered screen name.

50

No grizzy. And if you see their account history when you click on their name, they're "registered". You can't set up an account without going the email verification process (a step they never bothered to complete). Now that they competed it, no 404's anymore.

51

@50: Unless you have multiple registered online accounts with The Stranger, I think you have a wannabe in "rainmist", Elmer. Congratulations---you both seem to love fueling up a good argument, no matter how futile or misinformed, for shits and giggles, sheer boredom, or otherwise.
At least there are no more 404s.

52

@47,

Being a cop's a tough job. A deadly and dangerous one. They get paid pretty well because of it. And they're given a lot of public trust and authority because of it as well. If a person can't deal with that level of danger, they should absolutely not become a cop.

A cop should go into the job KNOWING they may never be able to defend themselves in a deadly case. That's the sacrifice. Cops are agreeing to sacrifice themselves for the general public, or at least, that's what they're supposed to be doing. It's a noble thing too, or at least, it used to be.

Cops are supposed to be the calm and boring government arm of enforcement. Guns should only come out when you've exhausted EVERY other means of de-escalation.

A cop killed in the line of duty is terrible, but it is supposed to be a sacrifice that they willingly make, they knowingly make, as an officer whose duty is to make peace. They signed up for it, and bravo to them. I could not do it. But if you are signing up for it, then you must agree to the terms. Otherwise, go get some other job.

53

Interesting how the justify everything cops do crowd isn't defending this cop (actually these cops). Why? Because they didn't actually murder the guy - only profiled him, threatened to murder him, let him go (but threatened to destroy his life if he mentioned it). I hope the man wins his lawsuit and those cops never work a day in their lives again. These fuckers all need to be put out to pasture. They do not belong in society and they sure as shit shouldn't be working as government sanctioned, taxpayer funded terrorists with murder weapons.

Town Fires Officer Who Pepper-Sprayed Black Army Lieutenant During Traffic Stop
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/virginia-gov-investigation-police-assaulting-black-army-lieutenant_n_6073a975c5b6ed5952810f00

54

@46 - I gotta disagree there. Waiting until fired on will make you dead most times. The vast majority of police-involved shootings are from very, very close range, like 10 feet or thereabouts on average.

Would you give a free shot to a desperate armed man 10 feet away?

Now, there are times when an officer doesn't have to shoot even when a suspect produces a gun in a threatening way...I've had that happen a few times myself...but a hard rule of not firing until fired upon is too unreasonably dangerous for the cops. Hell, you think recruitment is way down now!

No, the current standard is fine; cops just need to follow it.

55

@52 - I just saw this post, and it's all kinds of incorrect. Cops have never signed up to sacrifice themselves. Cops do not sign up for that. Who would do it? Would you? Remember, the average cop is involved in roughly 1 shooting for every 20 years of operational assignment. What would be your odds of making that 20?

My life has value, a lot of value to me, so why should I lie down and sacrifice it to a criminal who would feloniously rob me of it? Why would you want me to? That view is so off the charts it's not even credible.

No, what you sign up for is an elevated risk of losing your life as a result of confronting criminal suspects in the act. Elevated risk is far from passive sacrifice. No cop ever has signed up to sacrifice himself or herself...ever.

It is true that cops should be willing to take on a bit more risk than a member of the public in order to avoid the use of deadly force whenever reasonably possible. That is true. Accepting increased risk is also true. Accepting your own sacrifice is not. Never has been.

As I said, if cops would simply adhere to the standard for use of deadly force as it is now, most all of these tragedies would be avoided. This cop last night did not adhere to that standard, neither did Chauvin...or any other cop who has murdered someone of late, or ever.

56

@Morty,

People do sign up for jobs in which sacrificing your life is a distinct possibility. EOD personnel. Secret service. Those people are volunteering for a job in which they know the odds of dying, though still rare, are dramatically higher than the odds dying being a desk jockey. They aren't signing up to jump off a cliff, no, but they are signing up for something where it's 100% clear they're going to be putting their lives in grave danger.

I'm neither a LEO nor former LEO so I'll defer to your knowledge on this though. No, cops aren't there to sacrifice themselves. As you said, they have a standard and they merely need to follow that standard.

58

@57 - You don't "unpack" scenarios by adding every conceivable outcome into the standard. For example, since I practice civil law, I use the definition of "negligence" all the time from the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions (WPI 10.01) which says: "Negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. It is the doing of some act that a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do some act that a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances."

Generally, you don't use specific examples in standards. Like Justice Potter Stewart said regarding obscenity: "I know it when I see it." Get all the facts, present it to the appropriate panel or jury, and find out whether the officer acted properly.

60

You are still shouting down a hole. It's not what that person believes, it is what a "reasonable person" believes, and you will note that examples are not included in anything you cite. Is it reasonable for someone to feel threatened by a banana? Well, maybe if its being shoved down your throat! And while "intent" is included in criminal charges, it can be inferred by conduct. You just need to move on - I am.

61

Jobs more dangerous than police work (even before covid): (Sources include Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Garbage Collectors: Fatal Injury Rate: 34/100k.

Delivery Drivers: Fatal Injury Rate: 27/100k.

Farmers: Fatal Injury Rate: 26/100k.

Miscellaneous Agricultural Workers: Fatal Injury Rate: 20/100k.

Crossing Guards: Fatal Injury Rate: 19/100k.

Grounds Maintenance Workers: 14/100k.

Police: Fatal Injury Rate: 14/100k.

62

Also, Howard McCay, a 74 year old white man with health issues was attacked by police in his Seattle home after a neighbor made a welfare call. Possibly six cops were involved against a small, unarmed, elderly man.

The video is online and a law suit is now activated. Your comments are welcomed.

63

@56 - Hmm, maybe we're splitting hairs or something. See, I see those other jobs you cite as also being among those where those who have them have simply signed on for risk greater than most are willing to accept. They're not signing on for sacrifice, not in the way I define that term. Accepting significantly greater risk than most...which all cops should do...is nowhere close to accepting sacrifice in the way I see sacrifice.

And letting a violent felon shoot first when he (they're almost always a "he") may well be less than 10 feet away from you is definitely sacrifice. No rational person would actually do that.

@61 - True. In fact it's more than that; I don't think police work is even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs anymore, primarily due to significantly less crime nowadays, ballistic vests, and better weapon retention training. Now, in my day (said in old coot voice) it was almost always in the top 3.

Still, almost all those other more dangerous jobs are dangerous primarily due to accidents. Police work...along with maybe convenience/liquer store clerk...is dangerous mostly due to other people intentionally trying to do harm to you. Fatalities are split about 50/50 between accidents and assaults. Injuries slant far more heavily toward assaults, tho, and there are a lot of those. About 50,000 yearly when I was working, although probably about 1/2 that now.


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.