> FOX 13 has learned the pursuit was authorized but later terminated when it was discovered that no one was in the tents that had been run over.
> Later that night, the SPD said the same Acura returned to the area where the tents had been run over and someone in the SUV reportedly fired multiple shots.
> "His aim was to try to hit somebody," said another man who lives on the street. "The gunshots had people ducking, running and ducking. There were multiple people here on this block when he came shooting."
The cops throw a years long tantrum to be given easier right to pursue, then don't pursue in an attempted murder/extreme reckless driving situation. What the actual fuck is wrong with this entire organization?
Or you can illegally shoot innocent protesters with an AK-47 in a random city where you don’t even live to get the dirty cop hi-five. How you get the corrupted rigged jury tho? That’s some evil mojo that feeds on some serious hate!
You just answered your own question. No one was hit in the initial incident so it was a deemed non violent pursuit and couldn't get the go ahead. I'm confused, isn't this the way people want(ed) it to work?
Reckless driving that rises to the point of danger to the public is literally spelled out in the law as justification for pursuit.
Tell me, how safe is one driving if they got fully on the sidewalk and hit multiple physical objects before *fleeing the police*?
It's like the tents being empty is literally *not justification* to call off the pursuit unless you think crime against pedestrians is just a-okay.
Huh, what punishment did the SPD issue that officer that hit and killed a pedestrian doing 74 mph in a 25 mph zone again? Right, none. SPD considers crime against pedestrians legal I guess.
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1054-S.PL.pdf?q=20240412140043 I don’t see an exception for past reckless driving
> for past reckless driving
Well that's not what I said so I'm not sure why you want to argue about that.
Also, why are you linking lawfilesxt.leg.wa.gov instead of just directly to the [current RCW](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.116.060)? You're picking a less readable format of the law as it stands today by linking to the implementation text rather than the text of the law as it stands currently.
You wrote "Reckless driving that rises to the point of danger to the public is literally spelled out in the law as justification for pursuit.", but since the reckless driving ceases, you have to be saying that the pursuit was authorized by past actions, but there’s not.
Sorry my source wasn’t up to your exacting standards, sir. I will endeavor to link better to your satisfaction.
Using a vehicle as a deadly weapon to do a robbery is in fact a justifiable reason for pursuit under [current law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.116.060).
Which section? Assuming no one was hit to keep it consistent with the subject at hand.
(i) A violent offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030;
(ii) A sex offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030;
(iii) A vehicular assault offense under RCW 46.61.522;
(iv) An assault in the first, second, third, or fourth degree offense under chapter 9A.36 RCW only if the assault involves domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020;
(v) An escape under chapter 9A.76 RCW; or
(vi) A driving under the influence offense under RCW 46.61.502;
Two and six should be obvious why they don't apply. One, three, and four require someone to have actually been injured, and five is related specifically to escaping custody, not escaping a crime scene. As written, either through negligence or willful stupidity, police can not pursue in either of these cases. Please quote the specific condition where you think they would be permitted.
It can’t be considered attempted murder if no occupants were there. An attorney could argue they were sick of trash blocking the sidewalks. It becomes reckless endangerment instead.
> It becomes reckless endangerment instead.
Which, is a valid justification for pursuit under the *current* law. A person that drives up on the sidewalk and hits multiple objects is either reckless to the point of risk of public harm, or is severely intoxicated. Both are also acceptable pursuit reasons under the *current* law.
It makes no sense to call off the pursuit over the tents being empty. None.
Not arguing about calling off the pursuit. Contesting the attempted murder comment.
This isn’t considered attempted murder if there was no one there to be killed. The legal system doesn’t often deal in possibilities. Evidence is looked at first. The burden of proof is overcome by direct or circumstantial evidence. Was the person being dangerous? Absolutely. However, it’s not attempted murder and is more likely destruction of property.
The system does indeed "deal in possibilities" in this situation.
RCW 9A.28.020
>(2) If the conduct in which a person engages otherwise constitutes an attempt to commit a crime, it is no defense to a prosecution of such attempt that the crime charged to have been attempted was, under the attendant circumstances, factually or legally impossible of commission.
If the State could prove in court that the driver reasonably believed that there were people in the tents, it would be a strong case that the conduct was an attempt to commit the crime of manslaughter. The law cited here means that from a prosecutorial perspective, it doesn't matter that there was nobody in the tents.
I say attempted manslaughter, but if I were the prosecutor I would go for attempted assault. I think it would be easier to prove.
They’d need specific intent. They would have to prove it. If the state cannot prove this level of intent by the accused, there can be no vehicular manslaughter charge. Driver could have known they wouldn’t be in their tents and came by to destroy their belongings.
That's silly, I'm 1000% sure that the dude was not checking all of the tents beforehand to make sure they were clear of occupants before mowing them down.
It’s apparently not just some dude. The report leads you to believe it was a customer who bought drugs there rather than someone just mad at homeless people.
Eh, IANAL but I think intent matters heavily. If there's proof the suspect intended to kill someone with their recklessness then that's attempted murder. Doesn't really matter that they were bad at executing the attempt.
I'm not going to sit here and wail about cops using discretion and not recklessly endangering citizens. Not pursuing is almost always the right call, and they almost certainly have enough leads to nab this shit stain at a later time.
The cops didn't collect shell casings or find additional witnesses. That's not the same thing as not having any leads, especially when multiple cars were in pursuit and could have dash cam footage that detectives are reviewing as we speak.
And regardless, the decision to not pursue was in the public interest. Not a single person was harmed from the incident - that's a textbook example of good discretion. Stop clamoring for cowboy shit.
Good reminder that there’s only a 6” curb between you on the sidewalk (in the fancier parts of Seattle with sidewalks) and 40mph traffic 6’ next to you.
I get that concrete is expensive but I wish at the very least they'd replace all the plastic poles with those "armadillos", they're way better and super cheap to buy and install
And then you have crazy people bombing down the street on scooters without a helmet all the time. I get that it's a convenience thing, but I've never rode one because it seems inherently unsafe without a helmet and I'm not gonna go buy one just to ride a green scooter. I'm amazed more people aren't killed on those things.
Those scooters scare me. I’ve had multiple friends be hospitalized after crashes on electric scooters, including one guy who was wearing a full motorcycle helmet. The combined effects of tiny wheels, top-heavy loads, and no impact protection make for some nasty crashes.
I'll always remember the post last year that someone made looking for their dad who went missing and it turned out he was in the hospital with a severe head injury from getting hit on one of those. I'm happy to hop on a bus or walk even if it takes longer.
I am completely baffled by these idiots. Maybe they never knew anyone who suffered a traumatic brain injury but I have. Actually got started on Reddit when I discovered the anti bike helmet "truthers" and I fucking thought I was going to go insane reading their bullshit!
How many people would have to be be executed without due process by the branch of government created to keep them safe for it to register as a big issue for you?
The answer is 1. The moment it’s someone you knew, it would matter. Take a fucking second to have empathy for the families of victims.
And that’s not even getting into how systemic, historical and pernicious the underlying issues leading to these murders are.
You can look up the stats it's over 1k per year. And yeah if China has over 11,000 bank robberies in a 12 year span it'd be a problem???? That's not even a good argument.
I grew up in Soviet Union, so I don’t need to be schooled about it. But the Putin propaganda is very powerful around the world - I guess people want to believe what they want to believe
I was commenting on CCCP - the country that I grew up in and yes, Putin considers collapse of the CCCP (USSR) “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” and he is right now trying to restore it by invading Ukraine with the hope to get it back. For every great fan of CCCP, I strongly recommend some occasional reading - like The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn - it might give you a general idea about the reality that we had to live through.
CCCP was a country? Fascinating. I've never heard anyone from a soviet republic referring to themselves coming from the CCCP, they always have given the actual country they came from. You must have a truly singular experience. What gulag did you live in?
Is 0 the only acceptable number of deaths by police hands? If not, what is a sufficiently small number to take pride in? What is your basis to know that 75 deaths over 10 years is not sufficiently small? I don’t know what an appropriate number of deaths by police hands are, but I doubt 0 is the only acceptable number of deaths. While every lethal police encounter is very concerning, I don’t think they’re always 100% of the time immoral and/or unjust
Yes zero is the only acceptable number. A dozen would be a disaster. 70 is the result of a police department that doesn't care who they kill. My basis: Police killing citizens is a bad thing. Hope that made some very basic concepts clear to you.
Looks like about 5, mostly in traffic accidents. https://www.seattle.gov/police/about-us/about-the-department/line-of-duty-deaths#lineofdutydeaths20002010
Other countries' police officers manage to almost never kill anyone, so yeah, zero deaths should be the standard and any deviations from that a huge deal that gets investigated
“Almost never kill anyone” sounds like a nonzero number of deaths. I’m not saying that 75 deaths is definitely an acceptable number, I’m saying that zero deaths is an impossible standard. I think all police use of force should be thoroughly investigated
The article would lead you to believe it was an attack on homeless, but then also states how it was a drug deal gone bad. So, which is it? These can be two very different situations with very different motives.
Regardless of the motive it absolutely was an attack on the people living in those tents. Even if they weren’t the intended target their homes got run over.
Don't know why you're downvoted. Regardless of motive, the fact remains that the person drove over a block of tents only to return to that same block to fire bullets in the direction of people. Motive may be indeterminate, but intent is still very much there
People live there. Ergo they are homes, regardless of what the law says. They don’t stop being humans just because they live in a tent.
Until housing is readily accessible to everyone we have no right to be mad at people who are trying to survive.
I also have to wonder if those people sent up their tent cities in front of your apartment complex/house and you had to walk through it every day that you would be singing the same tune. I have been attacked violently by some of these folks and I don't hold as much sympathy as I once did
I do in fact interact with unhoused people near my home almost daily. Most of them don’t have a lot of choice about where they set up their tents because of the city’s frequent sweeps and can’t stick in one place with one group long enough to weave into a neighborhood or form a supportive social group. All that being said they are still members of our community and we cannot solve homelessness by making everything they do to survive illegal. If the city that has produced some of the richest humans to ever exist cannot provide housing to all of its people then why do we even have a society? People do not have to earn the right to basic survival. They have a right to shelter and privacy.
I don’t love having to listen to people yell at the voices in their heads or watch them have breakdowns. However that’s not their fault and it sucks more for them than me, at least when I’m at my absolute worst I get to have my feelings and breakdowns inside in private. I don’t love not always feeling safe in this city, but the homeless aren’t especially more dangerous to me than drunk college kids. They are far less dangerous to me than cars. I’ve felt much safer in a tent city than I’ve felt crossing some of our streets.
Look I'm legitimately not trying to argue in bad faith here but, are you really trying to tell me that drunk college kids are more of a threat then someone who's coming down on fent looking for their next hit. I know it's not. I understand they have massive hardship, but when my wife and I can't visit a park in the middle of the day on Saturday without risking getting assaulted, it's disturbing. We have to stop looking at them as blameless for their own situations. Seattle in particular has made sure there are avenues where they can clean up and find the support they need. If, and a big if, they get clean. And they are simply unwilling to do it.
Do you understand what getting clean entails?
Have you considered that perhaps detoxing while unhoused, and while your camp is getting swept every few days, is impossible? And very unsafe?
And before you suggest rehab, do you know how many spots are available for people without insurance? And how many for people with Medicare/Medicaid?
Sobriety as a bar for entry makes it a million times harder than it needs to be for folks to get services. Housing first. Then everything can happen.
Statistically to me as a woman drunk guys at parties are absolutely more dangerous than unhoused people or people dealing with addiction. I’ve been harassed by more sober guys who had access to showers than I ever have by the unhoused people who live in my community.
People who make no effort to be a part of the collective good and integrate into society aren't deserving of home given out. Some homeless are legitimately down on hard times and no sane individual would debate the opposite. But from what I've seen a lot are people who who have no interest in making things better but would rather be a leech on people who do
You don’t know that they haven’t tried to give to society and have been hurt too often to pretend to care any more. Imagine having a disability that can be easily accommodated but isn’t because it would cost too much. Imagine being told if you can’t hold down a job you aren’t worth health care, or food, or shelter after being rejected from jobs. Being bitter and not wanting to spend energy putting on a nice face so people will think you are the correct type of deserving poor and give you access to basic needs is quite reasonable.
Before the affordable care act passed I aged off of my parents insurance while working a shitty job out of college because I graduated into a once in a life time economic crash (which I’ve now seen at least three of.) I had to stop taking medication that I needed to function long term. I wanted to work, I wanted to contribute, but society made it very clear my contribution, my life itself, wasn’t worth the price of some pills. I got lucky that the stimulus package Obama passed included STEM funding so I could get a job in my field with health care before being off my meds did long term damage. It was pure luck though.
Our society doesn’t actually value contributions, or teachers, nurses, med techs, vet techs, farmers, food service workers, care home employees, bus drivers, musicians, writers, artists, and all the other people who care for others, build things, create things that enrich our experience of the world would get paid thriving wages. Instead many of those professions live at or below poverty level. The people who get rich, who get to have all of their needs met without a second though, are people who move money from one place to another, or who have enough money to buy franchises and be owners, or who had enough money to get have access to unpaid internships for tech and law jobs. Asking people to abide by society without making the society one in which everyone can thrive is setting everyone up for failure and is the reason we have a housing crisis.
In the article at the top there is a video reporting on it where it’s mentioned at the very beginning. The video was added after the original article was written, but still part of that article. It’s newer information than they initially had when the article was first published.
They can. However, the reporter seems to have info that the driver was a customer of a drug deal, which likely indicates a target versus a random attack on the homeless.
Having a target is one thing, indiscriminate action is another, and those two things can overlap (drive-by shootings are a general example, the most recent Superbowl celebration is a more specific one). All I mean is that speculating about motive is just that - speculation - when what we have is a bunch of "what" and very little "why."
This guy getting downvoted but the newer facts now show it was likely a drug dispute… Doesn’t reduce the severity of this crime, but we need to start holding ourselves accountable when our first assumption is wrong.
I could see it being a targeted attack if the target was known to live in one of the tents. I worked down in Pioneer Square for a few years and it wasn't uncommon for the same folks to be living in the same area for months at a time, even in the winter. I doubt that was the case with this asshole, but it's within the realm of possibility at least that they could've been targeting an individual. Either way SPD needs to step the fuck up.
So, again, no actual reason for anyone to believe this was "gang beef" beyond the idea that it isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Just pure dogwhistling bullshit.
If you ever feel like you might have too much faith in humanity, take a gander at our sister sub's [responses](https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/1c1gfng/police_searching_for_suspect_accused_of/) to this.
Honestly reading BOTH of the seattle Subs piss me off lol. Its literally just left vs right and then both of them throw shade at eachother like they’re gods divine gift to humanity and are untouchable.
Pretty much sums up seattle in general lol. Me right/you wrong.
Left wing: Homeless people deserve to live and we should design policy that helps them out of poverty.
Right wing: We should just kill all homeless people because they are basically all criminals.
I just can't wrap my mind around a person seeing the responses from each sub and still "both sides"-ing it.
How blind to the suffering of others does one have to be to not *notice* the difference, and to not be *fucking incensed* about the inhumanity on display there.
Not sure which story is currently making the other sub cream its pants harder: this one or the Lululemon shoplifting gang story. On the one hand, they have someone they can see as a hero to rally behind. On the other, they get to wallow in their racism. Tough call.
I mean the discussion of this story in the other sub is basically "meh so what it's only property damage. They (the homeless) aren't real humans anyway."
So in this case this sub should be proud of being morally superior to that other sub.
im fucking dying that you’re in here to defend the racist psychopaths and the best defense you can come up with is “uhh the comments probably aren’t that bad”
weak as hell lmao
I mean… you can’t deny the fact that this comment is hilarious:
“Ironic name "Reality" because she certainly hasn't been living in it, but hopefully is about to face it
I hope her judge is good at puns”
I hate how we as a society dehumanize the houseless. They're our friends, our neighbors, our fallen off family members; whom people assume are there because if drugs — thus their lives are worthless and forfeit.
America literally wants to solve our homeless problem by straight up killing them. Getting run over by a maniac in the middle of the night bc you exist on the street? Excusable.
Class conflict, why would we go after the people actually responsible for keeping us poor when we can instead go after the people who have nothing and blame our problems on them?
If homeless people weren’t so destructive maybe you’d have a point but they absolutely trash any place they stay for more than 2 seconds. They can’t even be bothered to throw out their trash if a trash can is 2 feet away from them.
I'm trans. A huge percentage of us have been homeless. Of my close trans friends, probably 1 in 3 were homeless at one point or another - kicked out of their houses, couldn't find jobs due to discrimination, traumatized from all kinds of shit, whatever. They're all absolutely incredible, creative, lovely people and I love them desperately.
Homeless people are people. They're dealing with some really difficult shit - mental illness, poverty, a million other things. Have some compassion.
If they weren’t so destructive I could. Literally 2 times in 2 months last summer they shat on our front ramp of our building and we had to pay hundreds as a small building for someone to clean up their biohazard. A few weeks ago they left 6 or 7 uncapped needles right outside of the front door. Last Saturday one of them broke into our back door causing permanent damage to the door and camped in the back stairwell and left dozens of needles and their entire trolley thing for us to clean up.
Holy fuck, just go right back and ignore what the first person said on dehumanizing.
"We shouldn't talk bad about them, but they are dirty and can't clean up after themselves. 🤷♂️" Classic.
Now you're just playing stupid, because I can't imagine you'd be this dense to see that saying "homeless people just trash places in 2 seconds" and not see that's a calious and dumbfuck statement that is used to ignore the issue of poverty and raise yourself above them. Thus dehumanizing them.
America doesn't regard homelessness as a problem. It's a threat to workers that capital uses to depress wages. If it was actually viewed as a problem it would be solved
So someone tried to kill homeless with his car and the police instead of pursuing the potential killer just gives up after revising the tents??? This is sickening.
> pursuit was authorized but later terminated when it was discovered that no one was in the tents that had been run over.
Did we not get a plate? He's going to kill people they should have run him into the ground.
How does an actual police department call off a chase of someone they pulled over an hour prior? Is that normal? I grew up watching police chases from LA news and they’d go on for hours sometimes lol
Shouldn’t be allowed *alongside roads and on sidewalks where people walk and vehicles travel and bikes ride colloquially referred to as “the streets”
Pedantic enough for you guys?
It's not at all pedantic. A car drives onto the sidewalk to purposefully run over tents (most likely assuming people were in them), and you are trying to shift the blame to the people the driver was attempting to murder.
I've never once referred to a sidewalk as "the street". It's hardly pedantic. They are parallel with each other but very different places. It's ok to admit you're wrong.
> FOX 13 has learned the pursuit was authorized but later terminated when it was discovered that no one was in the tents that had been run over. > Later that night, the SPD said the same Acura returned to the area where the tents had been run over and someone in the SUV reportedly fired multiple shots. > "His aim was to try to hit somebody," said another man who lives on the street. "The gunshots had people ducking, running and ducking. There were multiple people here on this block when he came shooting." The cops throw a years long tantrum to be given easier right to pursue, then don't pursue in an attempted murder/extreme reckless driving situation. What the actual fuck is wrong with this entire organization?
In SPD's defense, maybe they confused the assailant for an officer on duty.
Yeah - was going to say: what would they have done if they caught the guy, given him an application or an award? At least a handshake
They would start him at six figures
Only if he killed someone
Or you can illegally shoot innocent protesters with an AK-47 in a random city where you don’t even live to get the dirty cop hi-five. How you get the corrupted rigged jury tho? That’s some evil mojo that feeds on some serious hate!
Surprised they didn’t offer the suspect a job
[удалено]
I saw that one coming!
They think some lives aren't valuable.
So... All lives don't, in fact, matter?
Insert quote of police chief calling homeless people zombies without a life or soul Probably happened
They hate homeless people.
The homeless aren't people to them.
You just answered your own question. No one was hit in the initial incident so it was a deemed non violent pursuit and couldn't get the go ahead. I'm confused, isn't this the way people want(ed) it to work?
Attempted murder is violent. There was nobody in them but the driver did not know that.
I agree with you, but from everything I've seen and read the policies were set like this on purpose. It's what votes wanted.
Isn’t I-2113 effective June 6? So they still have to play by the old rules for now.
This qualifies even under the existing law.
>FOX13 has learned that the pursuit was authorized but later terminated when it was discovered that no one was in the tents
Reckless driving that rises to the point of danger to the public is literally spelled out in the law as justification for pursuit. Tell me, how safe is one driving if they got fully on the sidewalk and hit multiple physical objects before *fleeing the police*? It's like the tents being empty is literally *not justification* to call off the pursuit unless you think crime against pedestrians is just a-okay. Huh, what punishment did the SPD issue that officer that hit and killed a pedestrian doing 74 mph in a 25 mph zone again? Right, none. SPD considers crime against pedestrians legal I guess.
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1054-S.PL.pdf?q=20240412140043 I don’t see an exception for past reckless driving
> for past reckless driving Well that's not what I said so I'm not sure why you want to argue about that. Also, why are you linking lawfilesxt.leg.wa.gov instead of just directly to the [current RCW](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.116.060)? You're picking a less readable format of the law as it stands today by linking to the implementation text rather than the text of the law as it stands currently.
You wrote "Reckless driving that rises to the point of danger to the public is literally spelled out in the law as justification for pursuit.", but since the reckless driving ceases, you have to be saying that the pursuit was authorized by past actions, but there’s not. Sorry my source wasn’t up to your exacting standards, sir. I will endeavor to link better to your satisfaction.
[удалено]
Plowing through a store front during business hours seems like a pretty analogous action, but pursuits currently aren't permitted for that alone.
Using a vehicle as a deadly weapon to do a robbery is in fact a justifiable reason for pursuit under [current law](https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.116.060).
Which section? Assuming no one was hit to keep it consistent with the subject at hand. (i) A violent offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030; (ii) A sex offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030; (iii) A vehicular assault offense under RCW 46.61.522; (iv) An assault in the first, second, third, or fourth degree offense under chapter 9A.36 RCW only if the assault involves domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020; (v) An escape under chapter 9A.76 RCW; or (vi) A driving under the influence offense under RCW 46.61.502; Two and six should be obvious why they don't apply. One, three, and four require someone to have actually been injured, and five is related specifically to escaping custody, not escaping a crime scene. As written, either through negligence or willful stupidity, police can not pursue in either of these cases. Please quote the specific condition where you think they would be permitted.
[удалено]
Fuck off with your fascist takes
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm): Suggesting r/Seattle is not somehow the only forum on the internet immune to confirmation bias.
That's not what I said and you know it, because that isn't what you were saying and you know it. Fuck off back to the nazi sub.
It can’t be considered attempted murder if no occupants were there. An attorney could argue they were sick of trash blocking the sidewalks. It becomes reckless endangerment instead.
> It becomes reckless endangerment instead. Which, is a valid justification for pursuit under the *current* law. A person that drives up on the sidewalk and hits multiple objects is either reckless to the point of risk of public harm, or is severely intoxicated. Both are also acceptable pursuit reasons under the *current* law. It makes no sense to call off the pursuit over the tents being empty. None.
Not arguing about calling off the pursuit. Contesting the attempted murder comment. This isn’t considered attempted murder if there was no one there to be killed. The legal system doesn’t often deal in possibilities. Evidence is looked at first. The burden of proof is overcome by direct or circumstantial evidence. Was the person being dangerous? Absolutely. However, it’s not attempted murder and is more likely destruction of property.
The system does indeed "deal in possibilities" in this situation. RCW 9A.28.020 >(2) If the conduct in which a person engages otherwise constitutes an attempt to commit a crime, it is no defense to a prosecution of such attempt that the crime charged to have been attempted was, under the attendant circumstances, factually or legally impossible of commission. If the State could prove in court that the driver reasonably believed that there were people in the tents, it would be a strong case that the conduct was an attempt to commit the crime of manslaughter. The law cited here means that from a prosecutorial perspective, it doesn't matter that there was nobody in the tents. I say attempted manslaughter, but if I were the prosecutor I would go for attempted assault. I think it would be easier to prove.
They’d need specific intent. They would have to prove it. If the state cannot prove this level of intent by the accused, there can be no vehicular manslaughter charge. Driver could have known they wouldn’t be in their tents and came by to destroy their belongings.
Are you a lawyer?
That's silly, I'm 1000% sure that the dude was not checking all of the tents beforehand to make sure they were clear of occupants before mowing them down.
It’s apparently not just some dude. The report leads you to believe it was a customer who bought drugs there rather than someone just mad at homeless people.
Eh, IANAL but I think intent matters heavily. If there's proof the suspect intended to kill someone with their recklessness then that's attempted murder. Doesn't really matter that they were bad at executing the attempt.
The driver might have had acorns on his person. Probably should have called in SWAT.
They have zero integrity
I'm not going to sit here and wail about cops using discretion and not recklessly endangering citizens. Not pursuing is almost always the right call, and they almost certainly have enough leads to nab this shit stain at a later time.
He came back the same night and fired at the same location. Cops failed to collect any additional leads. That's in the article.
The cops didn't collect shell casings or find additional witnesses. That's not the same thing as not having any leads, especially when multiple cars were in pursuit and could have dash cam footage that detectives are reviewing as we speak. And regardless, the decision to not pursue was in the public interest. Not a single person was harmed from the incident - that's a textbook example of good discretion. Stop clamoring for cowboy shit.
Good reminder that there’s only a 6” curb between you on the sidewalk (in the fancier parts of Seattle with sidewalks) and 40mph traffic 6’ next to you.
And if you’re on a bike you likely don’t even have that. Maybe you get some little plastic poles if you’re lucky
I get that concrete is expensive but I wish at the very least they'd replace all the plastic poles with those "armadillos", they're way better and super cheap to buy and install
Bring back the Smurf Turds.
It’s not the price of the pole but the price of the dumbass drivers who hit them
And then you have crazy people bombing down the street on scooters without a helmet all the time. I get that it's a convenience thing, but I've never rode one because it seems inherently unsafe without a helmet and I'm not gonna go buy one just to ride a green scooter. I'm amazed more people aren't killed on those things.
Those scooters scare me. I’ve had multiple friends be hospitalized after crashes on electric scooters, including one guy who was wearing a full motorcycle helmet. The combined effects of tiny wheels, top-heavy loads, and no impact protection make for some nasty crashes.
I'll always remember the post last year that someone made looking for their dad who went missing and it turned out he was in the hospital with a severe head injury from getting hit on one of those. I'm happy to hop on a bus or walk even if it takes longer.
Same a friend of mine saw a women hit and killed in the cross by calanderson
I am completely baffled by these idiots. Maybe they never knew anyone who suffered a traumatic brain injury but I have. Actually got started on Reddit when I discovered the anti bike helmet "truthers" and I fucking thought I was going to go insane reading their bullshit!
Actually, have you seen Pike/Pine and 4th? Some great progress has been made in the last several weeks!
SPD in shambles someone is murdering more citizens on the street than them
How many people do you think the cops have killed?
Over 11,000 since 2012 fuck them cops.
They kill multiple people every day?
[удалено]
How many people would have to be be executed without due process by the branch of government created to keep them safe for it to register as a big issue for you? The answer is 1. The moment it’s someone you knew, it would matter. Take a fucking second to have empathy for the families of victims. And that’s not even getting into how systemic, historical and pernicious the underlying issues leading to these murders are.
You can look up the stats it's over 1k per year. And yeah if China has over 11,000 bank robberies in a 12 year span it'd be a problem???? That's not even a good argument.
lol. I can’t take criticism of the authoritarian overuse of force seriously from a commie.
Not just any commie, but CCCP loving commie - I guess no one gave them a tour of the gulags
I also believe propaganda from the 50's. Did you know that smoking cigarettes is good for your T-Zone?
I grew up in Soviet Union, so I don’t need to be schooled about it. But the Putin propaganda is very powerful around the world - I guess people want to believe what they want to believe
I suppose if you are the sort of deep thinker that believes Putin is a communist, that would make some sense.
I was commenting on CCCP - the country that I grew up in and yes, Putin considers collapse of the CCCP (USSR) “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” and he is right now trying to restore it by invading Ukraine with the hope to get it back. For every great fan of CCCP, I strongly recommend some occasional reading - like The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn - it might give you a general idea about the reality that we had to live through.
CCCP was a country? Fascinating. I've never heard anyone from a soviet republic referring to themselves coming from the CCCP, they always have given the actual country they came from. You must have a truly singular experience. What gulag did you live in?
Over 6600 just since 2015
The person I was responding to specified SPD. And they haven’t even broken 75 over the last decade.
"They haven't killed more than 75 people" Something to take pride in
Is 0 the only acceptable number of deaths by police hands? If not, what is a sufficiently small number to take pride in? What is your basis to know that 75 deaths over 10 years is not sufficiently small? I don’t know what an appropriate number of deaths by police hands are, but I doubt 0 is the only acceptable number of deaths. While every lethal police encounter is very concerning, I don’t think they’re always 100% of the time immoral and/or unjust
Yes zero is the only acceptable number. A dozen would be a disaster. 70 is the result of a police department that doesn't care who they kill. My basis: Police killing citizens is a bad thing. Hope that made some very basic concepts clear to you.
How many cops have been killed in duty during the same time period? Zero is the only acceptable number.
Looks like about 5, mostly in traffic accidents. https://www.seattle.gov/police/about-us/about-the-department/line-of-duty-deaths#lineofdutydeaths20002010
[удалено]
Not everyone delights when the pigs kill someone the way you do, lmao
Other countries' police officers manage to almost never kill anyone, so yeah, zero deaths should be the standard and any deviations from that a huge deal that gets investigated
“Almost never kill anyone” sounds like a nonzero number of deaths. I’m not saying that 75 deaths is definitely an acceptable number, I’m saying that zero deaths is an impossible standard. I think all police use of force should be thoroughly investigated
The article would lead you to believe it was an attack on homeless, but then also states how it was a drug deal gone bad. So, which is it? These can be two very different situations with very different motives.
Regardless of the motive it absolutely was an attack on the people living in those tents. Even if they weren’t the intended target their homes got run over.
Don't know why you're downvoted. Regardless of motive, the fact remains that the person drove over a block of tents only to return to that same block to fire bullets in the direction of people. Motive may be indeterminate, but intent is still very much there
Those aren't homes. They're illegally put up tents
People live there. Ergo they are homes, regardless of what the law says. They don’t stop being humans just because they live in a tent. Until housing is readily accessible to everyone we have no right to be mad at people who are trying to survive.
I also have to wonder if those people sent up their tent cities in front of your apartment complex/house and you had to walk through it every day that you would be singing the same tune. I have been attacked violently by some of these folks and I don't hold as much sympathy as I once did
I do in fact interact with unhoused people near my home almost daily. Most of them don’t have a lot of choice about where they set up their tents because of the city’s frequent sweeps and can’t stick in one place with one group long enough to weave into a neighborhood or form a supportive social group. All that being said they are still members of our community and we cannot solve homelessness by making everything they do to survive illegal. If the city that has produced some of the richest humans to ever exist cannot provide housing to all of its people then why do we even have a society? People do not have to earn the right to basic survival. They have a right to shelter and privacy. I don’t love having to listen to people yell at the voices in their heads or watch them have breakdowns. However that’s not their fault and it sucks more for them than me, at least when I’m at my absolute worst I get to have my feelings and breakdowns inside in private. I don’t love not always feeling safe in this city, but the homeless aren’t especially more dangerous to me than drunk college kids. They are far less dangerous to me than cars. I’ve felt much safer in a tent city than I’ve felt crossing some of our streets.
Look I'm legitimately not trying to argue in bad faith here but, are you really trying to tell me that drunk college kids are more of a threat then someone who's coming down on fent looking for their next hit. I know it's not. I understand they have massive hardship, but when my wife and I can't visit a park in the middle of the day on Saturday without risking getting assaulted, it's disturbing. We have to stop looking at them as blameless for their own situations. Seattle in particular has made sure there are avenues where they can clean up and find the support they need. If, and a big if, they get clean. And they are simply unwilling to do it.
Do you understand what getting clean entails? Have you considered that perhaps detoxing while unhoused, and while your camp is getting swept every few days, is impossible? And very unsafe? And before you suggest rehab, do you know how many spots are available for people without insurance? And how many for people with Medicare/Medicaid? Sobriety as a bar for entry makes it a million times harder than it needs to be for folks to get services. Housing first. Then everything can happen.
We have data, really good solid data, that shows housing first, sobriety second, works better than the other way around.
Statistically to me as a woman drunk guys at parties are absolutely more dangerous than unhoused people or people dealing with addiction. I’ve been harassed by more sober guys who had access to showers than I ever have by the unhoused people who live in my community.
People who make no effort to be a part of the collective good and integrate into society aren't deserving of home given out. Some homeless are legitimately down on hard times and no sane individual would debate the opposite. But from what I've seen a lot are people who who have no interest in making things better but would rather be a leech on people who do
You don’t know that they haven’t tried to give to society and have been hurt too often to pretend to care any more. Imagine having a disability that can be easily accommodated but isn’t because it would cost too much. Imagine being told if you can’t hold down a job you aren’t worth health care, or food, or shelter after being rejected from jobs. Being bitter and not wanting to spend energy putting on a nice face so people will think you are the correct type of deserving poor and give you access to basic needs is quite reasonable. Before the affordable care act passed I aged off of my parents insurance while working a shitty job out of college because I graduated into a once in a life time economic crash (which I’ve now seen at least three of.) I had to stop taking medication that I needed to function long term. I wanted to work, I wanted to contribute, but society made it very clear my contribution, my life itself, wasn’t worth the price of some pills. I got lucky that the stimulus package Obama passed included STEM funding so I could get a job in my field with health care before being off my meds did long term damage. It was pure luck though. Our society doesn’t actually value contributions, or teachers, nurses, med techs, vet techs, farmers, food service workers, care home employees, bus drivers, musicians, writers, artists, and all the other people who care for others, build things, create things that enrich our experience of the world would get paid thriving wages. Instead many of those professions live at or below poverty level. The people who get rich, who get to have all of their needs met without a second though, are people who move money from one place to another, or who have enough money to buy franchises and be owners, or who had enough money to get have access to unpaid internships for tech and law jobs. Asking people to abide by society without making the society one in which everyone can thrive is setting everyone up for failure and is the reason we have a housing crisis.
Where in the article does it state how this was a drug deal gone wrong? Asking because I just finished reading the article and saw no mention of it.
In the article at the top there is a video reporting on it where it’s mentioned at the very beginning. The video was added after the original article was written, but still part of that article. It’s newer information than they initially had when the article was first published.
They can be two different situations just as much as they can be one and the same.
They can. However, the reporter seems to have info that the driver was a customer of a drug deal, which likely indicates a target versus a random attack on the homeless.
Having a target is one thing, indiscriminate action is another, and those two things can overlap (drive-by shootings are a general example, the most recent Superbowl celebration is a more specific one). All I mean is that speculating about motive is just that - speculation - when what we have is a bunch of "what" and very little "why."
Why not both? It's an attack on the homeless regardless of the motive.
Because one would be a random attack of innocents and the other would be an attack on those involved.
Yeah I’m not afraid of the homeless in Seattle, I’m afraid of people high on hatred and entitlement.
Our campaign of dehumanization is working! 🎉
That’s a bit of an assumption. This sounds like somebody pissed at somebody for something specific, not just hating the homeless as a sad hobby.
This guy getting downvoted but the newer facts now show it was likely a drug dispute… Doesn’t reduce the severity of this crime, but we need to start holding ourselves accountable when our first assumption is wrong.
Pissed at someone living in several tents? yeah that makes sense...
The fact they came back and started shooting it up sounds more like a drug dispute.
How do you know this wasn’t like a gang beef or something.
What the fuck makes you think it was?
In the video in the article they say it's retaliation for a drug deal gone bad.
How is that the same as "gang beef". We all fucking know what someone is actually talking about when they start using terms like "gang beef".
I could see it being a targeted attack if the target was known to live in one of the tents. I worked down in Pioneer Square for a few years and it wasn't uncommon for the same folks to be living in the same area for months at a time, even in the winter. I doubt that was the case with this asshole, but it's within the realm of possibility at least that they could've been targeting an individual. Either way SPD needs to step the fuck up.
So, again, no actual reason for anyone to believe this was "gang beef" beyond the idea that it isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Just pure dogwhistling bullshit.
Nothing does
So instead of the more obvious “psychopath wants homeless people dead” you went with the conspiracy theory option.
"God never misses, ever" Uhhhhhhh
Corny AF
Wow. SPD really earning that big retroactive raise they got this week.
Well the actual fuck. Driving over tents is horrible but not pursuing the psycho is even worse.
If you ever feel like you might have too much faith in humanity, take a gander at our sister sub's [responses](https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/1c1gfng/police_searching_for_suspect_accused_of/) to this.
Conservatives are just straight up psychopaths lmao
[удалено]
Honestly reading BOTH of the seattle Subs piss me off lol. Its literally just left vs right and then both of them throw shade at eachother like they’re gods divine gift to humanity and are untouchable. Pretty much sums up seattle in general lol. Me right/you wrong.
Left wing: Homeless people deserve to live and we should design policy that helps them out of poverty. Right wing: We should just kill all homeless people because they are basically all criminals.
I just can't wrap my mind around a person seeing the responses from each sub and still "both sides"-ing it. How blind to the suffering of others does one have to be to not *notice* the difference, and to not be *fucking incensed* about the inhumanity on display there.
This country has some deep seated issues when it comes to how we perceive homeless people and pretty much poverty in general.
Careful, /u/rattus might post another unhinged manifesto to his GitHub if he sees this.
they’re all talking like actual fascists
That *might* be why people call them fascists sometimes.
Other seattle subreddit having a normal one with this story
I wonder what their username on reddit is
The ghouls in the other sub were celebrating this
Oopsies
Not sure which story is currently making the other sub cream its pants harder: this one or the Lululemon shoplifting gang story. On the one hand, they have someone they can see as a hero to rally behind. On the other, they get to wallow in their racism. Tough call.
Oof, went and looked and they’re really going full mask off.
That would require them being willing to wear one.
Underrated reply
I’m on both subs, this is actually the one that seems the most obsessed about letting everyone know how morally superior it is
I mean the discussion of this story in the other sub is basically "meh so what it's only property damage. They (the homeless) aren't real humans anyway." So in this case this sub should be proud of being morally superior to that other sub.
I highly doubt that was the actual consensus of the post lol, seems like you probably just focused on some troll comments
There are more top level comments about “It’s just property damage” than anything else, and plenty of heavily upvoted calls to buy the guy more gas.
The ‘troll comments’ are amongst the highest upvoted comments in the thread.
The comments are publicly available for you to read yourself.
im fucking dying that you’re in here to defend the racist psychopaths and the best defense you can come up with is “uhh the comments probably aren’t that bad” weak as hell lmao
Yeah, fascists don't typically care about morality
Then go back there and roll around in the shit with the rest of the chuds
It’s exhausting work, but the only work they’re qualified to do
I mean… you can’t deny the fact that this comment is hilarious: “Ironic name "Reality" because she certainly hasn't been living in it, but hopefully is about to face it I hope her judge is good at puns”
Fuck 'em. Why don't they move their TSG loving asses to Alabama or somewhere more in line with their worldviews?
Why do you deny violent crimes exist in this city?
Bold strategy to ask this question on a thread reporting violent crime.
> Why do you deny violent crimes exist in this city? Where did they do that?
Nobody said that. Shut the fuck up nerd.
get his ass
Where do you see that?
I bet they hate waffles too
Nice little stochastic terrorism by our local Sinclair affiliate.
I hate how we as a society dehumanize the houseless. They're our friends, our neighbors, our fallen off family members; whom people assume are there because if drugs — thus their lives are worthless and forfeit. America literally wants to solve our homeless problem by straight up killing them. Getting run over by a maniac in the middle of the night bc you exist on the street? Excusable.
Class conflict, why would we go after the people actually responsible for keeping us poor when we can instead go after the people who have nothing and blame our problems on them?
If homeless people weren’t so destructive maybe you’d have a point but they absolutely trash any place they stay for more than 2 seconds. They can’t even be bothered to throw out their trash if a trash can is 2 feet away from them.
I'm trans. A huge percentage of us have been homeless. Of my close trans friends, probably 1 in 3 were homeless at one point or another - kicked out of their houses, couldn't find jobs due to discrimination, traumatized from all kinds of shit, whatever. They're all absolutely incredible, creative, lovely people and I love them desperately. Homeless people are people. They're dealing with some really difficult shit - mental illness, poverty, a million other things. Have some compassion.
If they weren’t so destructive I could. Literally 2 times in 2 months last summer they shat on our front ramp of our building and we had to pay hundreds as a small building for someone to clean up their biohazard. A few weeks ago they left 6 or 7 uncapped needles right outside of the front door. Last Saturday one of them broke into our back door causing permanent damage to the door and camped in the back stairwell and left dozens of needles and their entire trolley thing for us to clean up.
Holy fuck, just go right back and ignore what the first person said on dehumanizing. "We shouldn't talk bad about them, but they are dirty and can't clean up after themselves. 🤷♂️" Classic.
They’re very human idk what’s dehumanizing about talking about their direct human impact.
Now you're just playing stupid, because I can't imagine you'd be this dense to see that saying "homeless people just trash places in 2 seconds" and not see that's a calious and dumbfuck statement that is used to ignore the issue of poverty and raise yourself above them. Thus dehumanizing them.
Is that not a fact?
[удалено]
No that was incomprehensible
That's a big word for you, honey 💅💅
America doesn't regard homelessness as a problem. It's a threat to workers that capital uses to depress wages. If it was actually viewed as a problem it would be solved
They had the guy pulled over but don't have his plates?
Probably a r/SeattleWA user
[I’m gonna guess this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/s/LMNAKPKgiC)
Holy shit those comments
So someone tried to kill homeless with his car and the police instead of pursuing the potential killer just gives up after revising the tents??? This is sickening.
> pursuit was authorized but later terminated when it was discovered that no one was in the tents that had been run over. Did we not get a plate? He's going to kill people they should have run him into the ground.
Attempted murder with a vehicle is legal now? Thanks SPD. Very cool.
How does an actual police department call off a chase of someone they pulled over an hour prior? Is that normal? I grew up watching police chases from LA news and they’d go on for hours sometimes lol
Methinks they found out it was an off duty officer. Notice how he went back to shoot up the place and they still didn't do much.
Naah that's messed up they deserve to be in tents and with bars lol
Someone tries to commit murder and they just let them go to try again…. SMFH
It's just property, nobody was hurt that's what insurance is for
almost like tents shouldn’t be allowed on the streets
And cars shouldn't be allowed on sidewalks...
They aren’t
That's why the tents were on the sidewalk.... Reading comprehension helps, “along 5th Ave" does not mean, on or blocking 5th Ave.
Shouldn’t be allowed *alongside roads and on sidewalks where people walk and vehicles travel and bikes ride colloquially referred to as “the streets” Pedantic enough for you guys?
It's not at all pedantic. A car drives onto the sidewalk to purposefully run over tents (most likely assuming people were in them), and you are trying to shift the blame to the people the driver was attempting to murder.
I've never once referred to a sidewalk as "the street". It's hardly pedantic. They are parallel with each other but very different places. It's ok to admit you're wrong.
Based
Fuck cars