Seattle (1 Viewer)

[Pat Hartman]

How would you solve this problem?
Do the people who live there have any rights?
What about the businesses who are being "taxed" by the occupiers so they won't destroy the business?
Do people who can't get fires put out or help from the police due to slowed response times have any action against the city council for allowing this to happen?

 

[Jon]

Are these anarchists left or right wing?

 

[Steve R.]

How would you solve this problem?

A problem in restoring normal rule is that the mayor and governor don't seem to be interested at this time in solving the problem, according to what I have been hearing from Fox News. In fact, it appears that the mayor is supporting the occupiers. (There may be other interpretations from other (fake) news sources.)

One tidbit that I noticed. Evidently both the mayor and chief of police denied giving the order to "abandon" the area. Typical bureaucratic obfuscation. Somebody is lying. Besides lying, the political leadership of Seattle appears gutless.

Getting back to resolving the "occupation". Trump has already made the assertion that if the gutless mayor and spinless governor are unwilling to resolve the situation that he would. The optics of the federal government stepping into a local matter at this time would be exceedingly bad. The fake news media probably already has stories written, waiting to be published, accusing the Trump administration of "war crimes" should federal law enforcement or federal troops act against the occupiers.

The mayor is evidently supporting the occupiers, so she would be very quick and very vocal that the Trump administration would be suppressing the will of the people. The Washington Post has already run this article: Seattle mayor blasts Trump’s threat to ‘take back’ the city after protesters set up ‘autonomous zone.

The Trump administration must incessantly push the narrative that the "occupation" is a local matter to be resolved by the mayor and governor. The failure of the mayor and governor to act, must be made a focal point. This means, as difficult as it would be for Trump to accept, to reject any attempts to make this a federal responsibility to resolve.

Do the people who live there have any rights?

Those brought under the control of the revolution will have no rights. The revolution will take whatever it wants (through mob rule) when it wants to further the advance of the revolution.

 

[Jon]

I would round up all of those who are extorting the local businesses and go for legal proceedings against them. I presume they will be pleased about that, because after all, aren't they raging about equal justice for all?

With Seattle spawning the Starbucks empire, perhaps they have all had a little too much caffeine lately.

 

[Steve R.]

I would round up all of those who are extorting the local businesses and go for legal proceedings against them.

It would be very difficult to initiate legal proceedings against them. The Democrats appear to control the legal process in Seattle and also for the State of Washington. The mayor, at this time, appears to have no interest in filing charges. She appears to support the "occupiers". So no "rounding up" would appear to be on the horizon. Then there is the Attorney General for the Sate of Washington. He is a Democrat. I do not know anything about him, but as a Democrat he would be expected to tow the party line meaning that he would probably refuse to file any charges against the "occupiers". The Democrats want the country to be in disarray so they can accuse Trump of being incapable of running the country.

For the federal government to file charges, a federal crime must be asserted.

 

[Isaac]

What is happening in Seattle is beyond the pale, beyond words. It doesn't even need the dignity of a statement about it. If it doesn't speak to the ridiculousness of where this has gone, I don't know what would. The people who don't think it's any big deal, they would think that, until it was their daughter or wife or family member who has to walk to work or a downtown apartment past people she hopes not to offend who are carrying rifles.

I am sure there will be people who live or work in the area illegally "taken over" who will consider where to move. I know here in Phoenix, near the beginning of all this, the chief of police (who incidentally is black), tolerated about 2 nights of unlawful activity. Then she put a stop to it ... 100%. And has gotten to work on the serious change that was needed.
And since then, actually, the crowds protesting have been peaceful, and have actually softened hearts and opened eyes and fostered cooperation.
Amazing how enforcing the rule of law works.

 

[Steve R.]

Amazing how enforcing the rule of law works.

The rule of law only works when the political leadership seeks to follow it. We are in an election period. Democrats are "suspending" their support for the rule of law until after the election.

 

[isladogs]

Democrats are "suspending" their support for the rule of law until after the election.

Evidence?

 

[Isaac]

It is well known that in many of the bigger cities right now in the US, district attorneys and prosecutors are choosing not to prosecute the majority of the lawlessness and only going after the bigger stuff (major arson, homicide). Many of them have been quite open about it.
Or you can just look at pictures or videos of people looting, painting, graffiti, etc., without consequence. Or you can just take the very subject of this thread as your evidence. The government in Seattle is allowing portions of the city to be illegally controlled by non-law enforcement. The police have abandoned the area and, as a matter of current policy, have chosen not to respond or involve themselves in anything except emergency 911 calls. Blockades, fences, public intimidation and blockages, and ongoing graffiti are going unchecked.

Most of the areas where this is happening are, indeed, very liberal areas.

 

[moke123]

I guess USA Today is reporting on a different Seattle.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-hill-autonomous-zone-police-free/3173968001/

 

[Steve R.]

Evidence?

Quick examples:

Three City DAs Will Not Prosecute Protesters for Low-Level Offenses

St. Louis police arrested 36 people during violent protesters. All have been released without criminal charges.

LA Protesters Arrested For Violating Curfew Won't Be Charged

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michigan Barber Has Licenses Suspended After Defying Shutdown Orders

Yet the Governor of Michigan essentially reversed herself and encourage people to get out and protest.

With little social distancing, Whitmer marches with protesters

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N.J. has charged more than 1,700 for violating stay-at-home orders but just a handful of citations have been issued in Pa.

Yet like Whitmer, Phil Murphy finds it OK for people to gather to protest

Murphy walking tightrope between encouraging activists, maintaining public health

 

[moke123]

Here's what one resident thinks of the situation
https://www.insider.com/inside-chaz...e-police-expelled-george-floyd-protest-2020-6

 

[Isaac]

I guess USA Today is reporting on a different Seattle.

No, that's the one. All reporters concentrate their photos and videos on what they want and decide to show. Even in that one I clearly saw blockades in a public street and seemingly limitless graffiti. You can go to other news sources and see photos of persons guarding those blockades with semi automatic rifles. And I haven't seen anyone disagreeing that protesters stormed an entire police precinct and forced officers out, and that those officers have been ordered by politicians to stay out.

 

[Isaac]

Here's what one resident thinks of the situation
https://www.insider.com/inside-chaz...e-police-expelled-george-floyd-protest-2020-6

It goes without saying that if you are engaging in criminal behavior like blocking public streets or throwing things at police officers, you are going to feel much safer without them. Mobs of people vs. police - well of course, the mobs will feel safer without the police, because the police continue to threaten them with the forceful implementation of their orders and the law. Of course they feel safer. They were opposing the police.

 

[Isaac]

I should add something which it just occurred to me may not be obvious: I fully realize (and agree), that there are a bunch of people doing something that they like, agree with, and feel safe doing. They are happy and they support what is happening. It is still wrong, illegal, dangerous, and unfair to the population as a whole, who deserves order and deserves the basic protections like the ability to call for services normally rendered by the government.
I get it - there are those who actually DO want to live in that environment. Not disputing that at all. There are those who want to do away with the orderly structure of law which currently governs them and even go beyond that into a bit of chaos to make their point. If there was a way for them to do that without unfairly affecting anyone else, the rest of normal people who still consider themselves within the social contract, that would be one thing. To partially take over a city and force their away and force away law enforcement (and the politicians to allow it) is quite something else.

 

[moke123]

The police left to de-escalate the situation and it worked. They are still responding to 911 calls in the area.
I haven't really followed the story but just googling "Seattle CHAZ" I haven't seen any bad stories except for Fox.

If there was a way for them to do that without unfairly affecting anyone else, the rest of normal people who still consider themselves within the social contract, that would be one thing.

Exactly who are the normal people? Are they the ones who dont get pulled over for driving while black?

 

[Pat Hartman]

What pisorsisaac@gmail.co is saying is that you don't have to infringe on MY rights so you can protest because you believe that you have been denied YOUR rights.

How is denying me my rights going to get me on your side?

 

[Isaac]

The police left to de-escalate the situation and it worked. They are still responding to 911 calls in the area.
I haven't really followed the story but just googling "Seattle CHAZ" I haven't seen any bad stories except for Fox.
Exactly who are the normal people? Are they the ones who dont get pulled over for driving while black?

@moke123 ... I can see the points that you're making. When dealing with unrest of any kind, I concede that law enforcement has to make the decision on whether to "negotiate" at all, and what exactly the negotiation might consist of. I don't think the argument can be made that police had to abandon the area and leave it that way, or at least I wouldn't agree with that at all. Law enforcement in many cities saw the same issues and it seems to me that those who decided not to tolerate it, didn't tolerate it. They had a choice. If they made a choice to pull back because that was the best thing they could think of, that state of affairs should have been persisted for an absolute minimum amount of time in order to be fair to the entire population that is served.

re: your comment about googling Seattle Chaz. You haven't seen any bad stories except Fox? I don't have the time to verify that right now, but so what? Are you saying the photos posted on Fox are fake? There are only two choices in how to respond to that. Either they aren't fake, in which case all that means is the majority of the news simply isn't showing what Fox is showing, which I'd agree with. The other choice is to say that they are fake, which, well .. if you really believe that, then I'll be open minded about that possibility if there is a shred of persuasiveness to the idea.

re: your comment about normal people. I'm referring to the other 99.999999999% of the united states, which despite their various views and feelings, don't apparently feel the need to actually physically occupy and hold ransom areas of a public city. And yes, unashamedly I am referring to that as normal.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Here is Trump's path to step in and kick out the occupiers. Call it a civil rights violation as a violation of due process and a violation of the "taking" clause. And both of those ARE federal jurisdiction cases.

The lawsuits that will spring up as a result of this occupation will reverberate for a decade.

 

[Jon]

I guess USA Today is reporting on a different Seattle.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-hill-autonomous-zone-police-free/3173968001/

What I find interesting about that article is the double-speak. On the one had, they lead the article with this:

In Seattle, a group of peaceful protesters have cornered off several city blocks and established the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Then a couple of paragraphs down, they say this:

The group gathered after Seattle police abandoned a precinct in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on Monday and effectively handed the area over to the protesters they had clashed with for days.

Definition of clash:

meet and come into violent conflict.

So on the one hand they are saying peaceful, but on the other hand they are saying violent. Journalists contradicting themselves so blatantly in their own article are not going to persuade me. It shows the journalist has no integrity. Part of the problem is that that Democrat supporting journalists with a political agenda throw in "peaceful" protests to distort the truth. As you can see in this article, they slipped up.

If you really think they are peaceful protests, how do you explain this arson, criminal damage, looting and violence?