Slog AM: Moderna Seeks Approval for Vaccine Use in Adolescents, "Joints for Jabs" Is a Low-Key Dud, the Solar Eclipse Looks Cool



The Labor Department reports the Consumer Price Index jumped 5% from a year ago, the largest annual gain since August 2008. So, inflation from all that pandemic spending and stimulus is definitely taking hold. Banks are turning away cash deposits from businesses. Too much cash, too few goods, that's the pandemic economic story for now.


The Axios report on unemployment fraud is dubious and poorly sourced. Since Washington was the hardest hit state and lost about $500 million (about half of which was recovered), the $400 billion figure seems absurd. The real figure is probably in the low tens of bilions, which is scandalous enough.


«Festivals are back, baby.»
Really Jasmyne? '...are back, baby'? After all we have gone through together?


Lunar New Deal: GOP Rep. ‘Loonie Louie’ Gohmert (R-TX) feels Moon too close and makes women way too weepy (ETC!) & wants the whole thing Gone ASAP.

when asked if there might be any Detrimental Effects from there being NO fucking MOON anymore Loonie Lunar Louie Gohmert-Pyles just said, well, if the Libtards don’t Like it it's GOTTA Be a Good Idea. let’s just give it one Try and we’ll just see what happens? surely it won’t be That Hard to move it back?

also ‘Science’ – Who NEEDS it?’ he (allegedly!) said but Corps Americana once again Refused to tell the Whole (gottdamm) Story.

good idea, Jasmyne, re: Kamala -- we might as well hire Julia Louis-Dreyfuss to walk the VP thru the pitfalls of the Number Two spot and hell even the (Shotgun) dick Cheney may have a few good pointers as well but I think the Main Thing is to say 'fuck' a LOT and look like you REALLY Mean it.


About that Arlington teen gunned down two nights ago (from ST):

"The homeowner... told police he had heard pounding on his back... door and thought someone was trying to break in.... He armed himself and opened the door to find a 'shirtless stranger,' police said. The homeowner told Smith he was armed and to leave his property, but Smith started to walk toward the homeowner, who fired his weapon, police said."

Any of you reactionary Sloggers want to make a self-defense case on that?


Poor Louie Gohmert, obviously a sarcasm fail.

@5: No self-defense at all. Kid was unarmed and not a threat. And the homeowner shot him twice. Horrible.


@5, I won't make the case since the Legislature (which is democratically elected) and the Washington State Supreme Court (which is democratically elected) already have made the case for self-defense in the facts and circumstances of the Arlington Teen.

Please read the 121 words of RCW 9A.16.050 at Please also see State of Washington v. Reynaldo Redmond

Please read the 266 words of RCW 9a.52.010 (2) and the 79 words of RCW 9a.52.020 and the similar number of words in 9A.52.025

Since Reynaldo is longer, I'll give you the operative text, "The law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.«1» State v. Studd, 137 Wn.2d 533, 549, 973 P.2d 1049 (1999)."

Short version: Anyone can go where they are legally permitted to go. They are not required to refrain from going there or to retreat once there, if threatened. (Redmond). You have the right to use deadly force when you are legally holding a gun and someone advances on you after telling them to leave someplace they have no legal right to be in. Lastly, not leaving property that isn't yours, after being told to do so, is burglary, which is a felony. You have the right to use deadly force in active resistance to a felony.

If there is an immoral act in this case, it is by the voters for who they elect and how those elected folks wrote the law. The homeowner did what we told him he could legally and morally do. No more, no less. We can't hold him culpable for taking the collective "we" at our words on the subject.


@6, See @7.


@7. When your kid gets inebriated and killed by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I hope you remember your citations.


@9: Charitable of you to assume #7 will ever have children


7: ' You have the right to use deadly force when you are legally holding a gun and someone advances on you after telling them to leave someplace they have no legal right to be in.'

Never went to law school, huh?


"Lastly, not leaving property that isn't yours, after being told to do so, is burglary, which is a felony. You have the right to use deadly force in active resistance to a felony."

9A.52.080 Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.


7 - Not leaving a place you have no right to be is Trespass, not Burglary.

The perpetrator has to have intent to commit a crime against a person or property within the structure for it to be Burglary.


@8: At some point, common decency and compassion (see @9) has to take precedence over trying to excruciatingly extract debatable legalities to prove a point.


My prediction: the "homeowner" (notice the emphasize on his status as a property owning male) will not be charged for shooting this "trespasser." Again, humanity denied, relationship or lack thereof to a unremarkable strip of land emphasized.


@14, Nope in Washington State its burglary after you have been notified to leave and don't comply, its burglary even without that if its within a structure or a fully enclosed fenced yard. Read RCW 9a.52.010 (2) and RCW 9A.52.020 and 025.

Another circumstance when that comes into play is with shoplift (misdemeanor theft). If the perpetrator of the theft has been previously trespassed, in writing, by the police, then they get charged with felony burglary. In Washington State, mentally ill, homeless people, can become felons for stealing beer.

@9, As tragic as this is, its legal, because we have said it is. RCW 9A.16.050 (1) imposes a duty on us all not to behave in a way that would reasonably allow another to perceive imminent risk of "great personal injury." If we get so inebriated or mentally ill that we can't restrain ourselves from doing that, we open the door for someone to legally use deadly force against us. Assuming that to be the case, where were more sober friends from this party, to recognize he had reached that state, and chaperone him for his own safety? The implications of not imbibing responsibly can be deadly, even without someone getting behind the wheel.

@13, Oregon Law is nearly identical to our own. You can see the analysis that leads it to be burglary. The DA in question was a public defender before being a DA.



The important thing is that the gun is safe.


@17. The point is not to be a sociopathic shithead who leaps to justify a senseless killing with a sealioning wall of text. If you were capable of empathy this would be intuitively obvious. All you have to do is put yourself in the place of the family, and not leap to defend any asshole who shoots without thinking. If you want to write a dispassionate post-mortem analysis save it for your DeVry University paralegal certificate.


It's absolutely ridiculous that so much money was stolen from unemployment. Just as ridiculous as the information regarding billionaires and trillionaires paying little to no taxes. My mother (retired, lives on social security and her retirement savings) paid $3000 in federal taxes. How does this shit make any sense? Oh right, it doesn't. But people continue to ignore how this country bleeds money due to incompetence and bleeds money for the rich, but everyone else is supposed to suck it up - work for nothing, live on the streets, die if they get sick or disabled, etc.


@11. Agreed, but life finds a way.


@20, I am just telling you what the Legislature has said and the Washington State Supreme Court has said. So you want to nuke the messenger as a response because you don't like what the Legislature we elect, and the Supreme Court of the State we elect, have said.

Or you could factually refute me with your own RCW citations and common law citations. You could run an initiative to change the criteria that much. Or you can do the intellectually equivalent of putting your head in the sand so you don't have to listen to democratically determined definitions of justifiable homicide. If we don't like those definitions, we can elect different legislators to write new ones.

The homeowner has not been arrested. That means that based on the testimony they have (one-sided and self-serving, not disinterested with no skin in the game on the outcome, but its all they have) they don't even have probable cause to arrest. Unless they turn up something new (like a new witness who says they witnessed the whole thing, and they describe something different), that is where it stands and where it will remain.


@21, I feel terrible for the family. I find this outcome tragic.

That doesn't make what the homeowner did unlawful. We have lots of deaths that are both legal and tragic.

I didn't jump to anything. I responded to a request from @5, by stating what we has a society have determined is the way analyze the homeowners actions, via who we elect, or allow to remain in the Legislature and on the State Supreme Court.

If we don't like those definitions of justifiable homicide, burglary, trespass, etc. we can change them by only voting for candidates who are committed to changing them. There is not a single legislator, even the most progressive ones, who have even introduced a bill to change them, and yet you probably voted for yours anyway (nobody is a single issue voter). The last one that tried, quickly withdrew their bill after public outcry, and did not seek reelection.


@25. Cut the kids in half.


@22, very true. Also stunning is that our ex-head of state UE was given a job in the freaking Biden administration even after her “overseeing” of the failures here in WA state.


One of the things I hate most in this world is people stealing money that's intended for people in real need. I know quite a few people here in California who need that unemployment money for rent and food for themselves and their hungry little ones. It just makes me furious when (1) that dough winds up in the hands of convicts and cartels, and (2) that I have to deal with the realization that such people exist. I'm being emotional about it, I admit, but it makes me favor bringing back drawing and quartering. So bloody heartless.

I'm not a Marvel-type of moviegoer, but I watched the first episode of Loki last night, and it was intentionally goddamned hilarious and well-directed and the script was I liked the sets, too. Man, it's been a while since I've seen Tom Hiddleston in anything. Obviously, he's been working on his body with diet and exercise. Slim, but super-ripped! Those trainers can do anything with a body. I guess I'm a Loki fan now.

Who be slappin' my French baby? Yeah, I know he isn't extremely popular in France right now, and some of his policies approach the line, but I still want to give him a nice warm bath.

Kamala, who I think is grace personified, seemed out of her element on her Central American tour, and it was like she was saying somebody else's words. Kamala wouldn't have just said, "Don't come." Kamala would have said, "Please don't come because if you do, you may be getting yourselves into something worse than you are experiencing here."


17 Took all of 3 seconds of googling to find out you’re full of shit. Not only does burglary require unlawful ENTRY INTO A BUILDING but also with the intent to, yknow, BURGLE.

It would be incredibly idiotic for washington to define a simple crime like burglary so broadly that someone walking on your lawn could be charged with it, if you think about this for literally any amount if time at all, yet somehow you managed to type out an entire wall of text without ever actually doing that. Fascinating.


@27: That was curious. But it's not as if the Biden administration did not know that. Indeed, perhaps it was because of her going through that experience and hard lessons learned on security on that level that made her a good choice.


Pfizer has been giving the vaccine to 12 to 17 year olds for a while now. While it is good that another drug is available, I don't think it matters very much. Given that we have an oversupply (due to folks in their 20s, 30s and 40s not getting vaccinated), it would be trivial to shift things around to accommodate the youngsters. The next big milestone is when the Pfizer drug is approved for kids 5 to 11. That should happen some time in September, which will be followed by all the schools requiring it. I expect most states to follow the lead of California, and require it for every student. They got rid of the religious and philosophical exemption after a big measles outbreak a few years ago.

Anyway, the big issue is the high number of selfish idiots who don't get vaccinated. The public service announcements really need to change. For the most part, older Americans are getting vaccinated. They should have young people, with the message "I'm young, I'm strong. I'm not afraid of the disease; I'm getting vaccinated for my family and my community. I don't want it to spread, and more people to die."


@29, That occurred when the young man who died, was pushing on the back door. RCW 9A.52.010 (1), "(1) "Enter." The word "enter" when constituting an element or part of a crime, shall include the entrance of the person, or the insertion of any part of his or her body, or any instrument or weapon held in his or her hand and used or intended to be used to threaten or intimidate a person or to detach or remove property." Some part of his body passed the threshold when the door flexed.

Putting that issues aside please consider RCW 9A.16.050 (1) and State v. Redmond. The homeowner has the right to go outside (Redmond and he is on property he owns, is renting, or has license to use), he has no obligation to retreat (Redmond), he has a right to be armed (Article 1, Section 24, Washington Constitution), he tells the guy to leave (also his right), and the guy advances on him. He now is "reasonably apprehending a design" to do him "some great personal injury," and their is "imminent danger of said design being accomplished." He is also resisting felony assault which triggers (2) of that section. Given that, the officers couldn't find probable cause of a crime (no arrest) and the prosecutor, if that is all the information there is, won't have a basis for probable cause either.


@29, Don't take my word for it, take our own Prosecuting attorney's word for it. “There are parts of self-defense law that are crystal clear,” said Satterberg. “If you are in your home and someone is trying to break into your home, you don’t have to wait to see if they intend you some harm, you can assume evil intent and you can repel that invasion and this prosecutor will always give you the benefit of the doubt.”

The link is also helpful for the issue of how self-defense law is interpreted in general.

You may also wish to revisit The Stranger's own reporting on a case with some similarities and some differences. The key commonality is both told the people they shot to move away or keep away and they kept coming.


You said “in Washington State its burglary after you have been notified to leave and don't comply, its burglary even without that if its within a structure or a fully enclosed fenced yard” & the washington state attorneys i cited say this is plainly wrong & now you’re saying the kid entered the home when, even if true, would still not meet the legal criteria for burglary, because intent is required. What you describe at most would have been misdemeanor trespass.

It’s ok to admit you’re wrong about things sometimes. You probably think it’s a display of weakness but the opposite is true. Your insecurity is pitiable, albeit extremely annoying.



In @25 you explicitly acknowledge the tragic element of events. And that's the thing. Regardless of whether or not the action meets some literal definition of legality, it was entirely avoidable, which is what makes it morally reprehensible. And regardless of how often you might suggest otherwise, we don't need one singular objective definition of morality for an action to be deemed indefensible.


@35, You kind of do need that standard. Indefensible requires some standard the action is measured against to arrive at your conclusion. Indefensible is meaningless without some standard by which you evaluating what happened.

It was preventable. Assuming this guy was drunk out of his skull, high, or both, to the point that he couldn't find the right house, couldn't stop himself from walking toward someone in the right to tell him to leave, instead of walking away, he got himself that way. Where were the responsible party hosts or friends to chaperone him if he got to shitfaced stupid, and judgmentally impaired, to keep from undertaking actions that would allow another to reasonably conclude they were at risk of "great personal injury" from this young man?

When this kid advanced at someone morally and legally telling him he had to leave, with the means to protect himself if he turned on him for telling him that, the kid violated the moral imperative not to threaten another with great personal injury. You morally have the right (as well as legally) to use any and all levels of force to stop the person from inflicting "great personal injury" on you, which often only takes one punch.

The moral and legal duties in this case were all on the young man. He abrogated those moral duties to the person he encountered, and it tragically cost him his life. Tragic. It would have been just as tragic if the young man had been allowed to continue, gotten into the house, and caused great personal injury to the homeowner or his wife. If would have been just as tragic if the young man had close those last few steps and punched or shoved the homeowner to the ground where he strikes his head (e.g. Peroline). The only way to avoid that tragedy was for this kid to have enough wits about him to leave when told to do so, or have friends around him to substitute their wits for the impaired wits of their friend.


@35, What is morally indefensible, according to the Legislature, and by extension, the voters who elect them, is the idea that the homeowner would have to gamble by letting the kid get close enough to him, to find out if he would cause him "great personal injury" or death (E.g. Peroline who was the same age, and died giving a 20 year old that benefit).


Motherfucken chickenshits gonna have to live with the fact he killed a kid for a bullshit reason whether he is charged or not.

When I was a kid out in rural King County we had a drunk knock on the door late one night after he ran off the road and we were the first porch light he saw. He used the phone and had a bowl of stew while his people came and got him. No one died.

A few years ago an Alzheimer's patient with his clothes on over his pajamas woke me up knocking on the door at 4 in the morning. As soon as he opened his mouth I knew he wasn't a threat. No one died.


Man, there's some real fucked up people in this world.


@17 Dumbass, you are fucking wrong! Your own cited statutes say EXACTLY what I said and nothing like what you said. Learn to fucking read what you cite before posting.

Based on your "interpretation," why have a fucking Trespass offense at all?! I put interpretation in quotation marks because only someone with a severe learning disability could misinterpret something so clear as badly as you have. Is it intentional?


@38, Did the drunk try and force the door? Nope. Some of the reporting says this guy did. Did the drunk move toward anyone, rather than away, when someone told them they were armed, and the drunk needed to leave? How about the Alzheimer's patient. Did he do those things.

@40 and @41, He tried to force the door. Doors are on structures. Burglary.

That aside, the other justifications under statute and the right of the homeowner to leave his home under State v. Reynaldo Redmond are not in dispute. The homeowner has no legal obligation to stay in his home, fort up, and wait. He has no legal obligation to call 911. That is the legal arrangement this electorate has chosen to permit.

There is no witness saying the homeowner never told the kid that he was armed and the kid moved toward away, not toward the homeowner.

There is no probable cause of a crime under the legal structure the electorate has permitted to exist and choose to allow to continue to exist.

Not one of you has suggested that the young man had any legal obligation to protect himself by not opening legal doors for the lawful use of deadly force against him. Not one has suggested that we have an obligation to not behave in a way that would allow another to conclude they are at imminent risk of great personal injury (the threshold for lawful use of deadly force in common law and Washington Statute).

All of you seem to think it morally defensible that the homeowner must allow the kid to strike the first blow, see if it kills him, and if it doesn't, then, and only then, can he use deadly force.


@42 - You are fucking wrong again, Dipshit. The homeowner "opened the door" per the story. Banging on a door, no matter how loudly, does not constitute trying to force a door. Fuck, your smug and self-satisfied stance when you are simply dead wrong is breath-taking. You must have zero friends and never get invited to parties.

And you're clearly not a lawyer or a cop, or you would not persist in your "interpretation" of what the Burglary statute clearly states. In fact, you wouldn't have put forward such an absurdist "interpretation" in the first place.