Seattle Crime Reports : Seattle Crime Blog : Seattle, Washington

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Not a crime in the traditional sense, but still downright criminal:

Beginning in January, shoppers must pay 20 cents for each plastic or paper bag they use at grocery, drug and convenience stores in Seattle.

The Seattle City Council this afternoon also passed a ban on foam containers at food-service businesses that also will take effect in January.

The stupidity of people in this supposedly educated city continues to amaze me: so afraid that they'll miss the trendy "going green" bandwagon, local busybodies are willing to put aside all common sense and dictate the shopping habits of those in their community, justifying it with claims that such meddling is acceptable because it's the "right thing to do." The idea that protecting the environment starts and ends with you has been twisted by these individuals: rather than the reasonable approach ("OK, our household will just stop using plastic bags") they're taking an unreasonable one ("We don't like plastic bags in the grocery stores, so we want to make sure anyone who uses them has to pay the price") and have somehow convinced the Seattle City Council to agree with them.

Well, the City Council, and its president Richard Conlin in particular, should be ashamed of the decision they made today. The only solace a reasonable man can take is knowing how foolish these folks will look when it's three years from now and the "positive impacts" of the tax that so many people are counting on will have proven to be nonexistent.

By the way: there's plenty more research into the ill effects of such a policy at the Northwest Economic Policy Seminar's site Seattle Bag Tax.org, which features information put together by a nonpartisan group of individuals who don't have an agenda beyond offering up the facts and examining the potential outcomes a bag tax could have on our city. The treehuggers rallying behind the tax should take some time to look over the site and see what impacts similar approaches have had in the rest of the world. But of course, I wouldn't expect them to. After all, what good are facts - and there are plenty of them here - when they prove your flimsy argument faulty?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Check out these posters I've been finding taped all over around the city lately. Only in Seattle would fighting for the "underdog" be taken to such extremes:



I'm almost convinced that the people who espouse this nonsense are folks from outside the downtown core who never venture into the city itself...if they did and could bear witness to the impact homelessness has on all aspects of local urban living, they'd realize that painting Seattle's homeless population as an innocent bunch of helpless heroes being persecuted by the big, bad politicians at City Hall is little more than fantasy.

Then again, maybe that's why their message of making "practical and realistic help a reality" is regulated to lamp posts and street signs, sure to be washed away and forgotten about as soon as the next rain storm has passed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

It feels good to be back in the blogosphere...and it looks like I haven't missed much over the past few weeks. Why, over at SLOG, Dan Savage and his band of cronies are still debating an issue that should have been laid to rest months ago: the foolish, overreaching, never-gonna-happen ban on pit bull ownership.

In his post today, Dan - who seems to rely on sob stories about dead children to prove his point - makes a hasty statement:

A breed ban is a blunt instrument, and it’s imperfect—just like a handgun ban. But I support the latter for the same reasons I support the former.

But here's the problem: handgun bans aren't just "imperfect"; they're completely ineffective. If this prohibitionist had been paying attention to the political climate over the past few months, he'd know that handgun bans have been a hot news item as the U.S. Supreme Court makes up its mind on District of Columbia v. Heller.

A March article from the AP offered some (un)surprising statistics on the effectiveness of Washington D.C.'s handgun ban, which took hold in the mid-1970s and is the center issue in District of Columbia v. Heller:

Since the [D.C. handgun ban] was passed, more than 8,400 people have been slain in the district, many killed by handguns. Nearly 80 percent of the 181 murders in 2007 were committed with guns.

When it comes to bearing arms, there are two kinds of Americans: those who view handguns as a last resort tool of defense, and the more knee-jerk crowd that sees them primarily as a means of committing violence. The latter seem unwilling to accept that guns aren't bad, even when the statistics prove otherwise.

I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that "banning" anything - drugs, alcohol, guns, dogs - is at its core a lazy way of solving problems that simply does not work. We've seen it in the past with Prohibition, and we're seeing it today with the War on Drugs and the D.C. handgun laws.

Though perhaps enticing to individuals unwilling to take the extra steps toward only penalizing those who've done something wrong, make no mistake: a breed ban is a clunky approach advocated by busybodies uninterested in supporting more effective methods. Instead of calling for an all-out ban, Dan Savage should do the responsible thing: focus his efforts on punishing people who have violent dogs. What breed those dogs happen to come from is utterly inconsequential.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Back on Veteran's Day, notorious FOX News commentator Bill O'Reilly offered his take on the "suspicious" ferry passengers we covered earlier this morning. Here's the clip (discussion of the P.I. comes in at around 50 seconds):



Before proceeding, let's be clear on a few points:

• We at Seattle Crime Blog have a collective loathing for Mr. O'Reilly and his supposed "no spin zone";
  
• the tactics of ordering cameras upon Roger Oglesby after he had already declined to comment is an extremely sleazy thing to do;
  
• Jesse Waters' questions are certainly not "fair" or "balanced"; and
  
• bringing in D. Parvaz's totally unrelated statement that "church is a repressive institution" when it has nothing to do with the matter at hand just makes you look like a bunch of ideology-driven assholes...which, of course, you very well may be.

First of all, the men were photographed by the ferry captain, not a fellow passenger. And it wasn't because they "looked Middle Eastern," as the author is so quick to suggest. It was because of what the Times calls "unusual behavior — namely that they were taking pictures below deck, in areas that don't hold much interest for most tourists."

But at this point the author is too far into his epiphany for it to matter...after all, we're just reaching the thesis:

Should a newspaper — in a free country, proud of its history as a melting pot — be stereotyping people as "suspicious" by the pigment of their skin?

Joel is missing the point completely. The newspaper isn't stereotyping at all; they're reporting (or, more accurately in this case, failing to report) on relevant local news, news that people in the community are talking about and that impacts them directly. Ultimately, such reporting should be the central focus of a respected daily paper...no matter what the political leanings of their editorial board.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

Over at the P.I., they're already gloating about this:

The FBI has called off a global manhunt for two men who looked Middle Eastern and were spotted snapping pictures and demonstrating "suspicious behavior" on a Washington ferry last summer.

[...]

Photos of the pair, taken by Washington State Ferries employees, were released to the news media in August in an effort to identify and locate them, after an investigation found that they "showed an inordinate interest in the operation of the shipboard systems," the FBI said at the time.

Turns out the duo was really just a pair of businessmen from the EU, who visited Seattle last July and wanted to take photos of the boat's interior (since their home country supposedly doesn't have car ferries). So much for an "inordinate interest."

As you'll recall, the P.I. - unlike the Times - refused to run the photo of the men, due to "civil liberties and privacy concerns, which editors felt outweighed the newsworthiness of the images." We're all for those same concerns here at Seattle Crime Blog. Problem is, this isn't a civil liberties issue.

These men were photographed in a public place. There were no names associated with their faces, nor even any information as to what country they hailed from. It's no secret that the Puget Sound's ferry system is a shockingly vulnerable terrorist target, and - rightly or wrongly - two Middle Eastern men taking photos in an obscure location of the boat is going to raise questions. Such is the world we live in.

And in their haste to earn praise as a good liberal paper, editors at the P.I. got ahead of themselves: if you'll recall, the FBI wasn't saying that they knew the men were terrorists. They never claimed that if found, the pair would be locked away at Guantanamo and waterboarded 'til the cows come home. They just wanted to talk with them...and if what happened when the pair came forth two weeks ago is any indication, it would have been determined that the men's actions were innocent enough to warrant them walking free.

Sure, the P.I. was right this time. But it would be foolish to underplay the threat of Islamic extremism in the name of political correctness. And, like a certain neighborhood blog we recently called out for not doing their job, the P.I. failed to serve the public's interest by not publishing the photos in question. More concerned about the feelings of two foreigners than the safety of the community, the paper's editors allowed their political biases to impede on good editorial judgment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks

Talk about wasted resources:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals announced today it is offering a $2,000 reward for information on one or more shooters involved in impaling pigeons in downtown Seattle with metal darts.

Several Seattle residents have called PETA in the past two weeks to report seeing three injured pigeons fluttering around with needle-like projectiles — about three to four inches long — piercing their heads, said Tori Perry, cruelty case worker for the Norfolk, Virginia-based organization.

[...]

The darts were fired from a blow gun, lodging directly behind the birds' eyes without penetrating their brains, Perry said.

Perry and her brainwashed PETA cohorts are living in a dreamland, one where it's okay to throw $2,000 down the drain to make a political statement about the value of every single life (because even the life of disease-ridden winged rats is worth saving). Apparently for these folks, the never-ending list of injustices being perpetrated against human beings on a daily basis - even just here in Seattle - is worth turning a blind to. But somebody's messing with the pigeons? They gotta go.

 I won't even comment on the absurdity of Perry's other quote in the Times blurb:

This is just a horrifying case," she said. "Someone who would do this to an animal is a short step away from doing this to a human being."

Sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)

In their coverage of a vicious mugging at 17th & Harrison on Tuesday, local blog Capitol Hill Seattle reprinted the account of a community member who witnessed the incident firsthand. While the entire letter is worth reading for the vivid scenario it eloquently recreates (which explains the bottle of wine, pictured at right), that's not what this post is about.

Instead, take a look at the first paragraph:

I heard a commotion behind me at the west corner of NE 17th and Harrison right under the street light. A young couple walking to their car from On 15th Video, were being mugged by 5 teenage african american youths maybe 13 - 15 years old. There were 3 girls and 2 boys, most wearing hoodies, some in denim jackets, one girl with [CHS has snipped this part to remove personal description]

Something's nagging me about this. Why would you remove the "personal description" of somebody potentially linked to violent crime in the same neighborhood you strive to keep informed through your blog? By the way that sentence opens up ("one girl with...") it seems unlikely that this personal information would be anything as detailed as the girl's name or home address...which means there's no excuse for editing this section out.

I e-mailed the author of CHS asking why this information was removed, and he responded with the following:

because i could not personally verify the account and i felt the details were specific enough to identify somebody

if i had talked to police and received the description or even heard the description directly from the eyewitness, i would have printed it.

make sense?

I might be missing something here: but why would you not want to provide details that could allow police and neighbors to identify a suspected criminal? And why would such details be fair game if  they had come directly from an eyewitness, but not directly from a letter written by that eyewitness? This line of reasoning makes no sense.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, and I have nothing against CHS or its authors. But if you have a blog that is meant to serve as an outlet for the community, it would make sense that you put all your efforts towards helping to remove criminals from that community. Deleting the personal description of a street thug, for whatever reason, goes completely against that logic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks

The issue of suicide has been popping up a lot lately, most recently with the city's plans to build a suicide barrier on the Aurora Bridge (detailed at SLOG on March 25). After paying attention to local news and getting a feel for the general attitude towards this taboo in our area, I've come to the realization that despite all it's libertarian leanings, Washington state has still got a ways to go before we're mature enough to deal with suicide-related matters appropriately.

The problem stems from the fact that we aren't looking at the issue from a reasonable perspective. A want to end ones life is two things:

1. A personal choice
2. A sign of weakness

Our culture fears suicide because we fear depression; and we fear depression because we think everyone should (and can) be happy. This couldn't be further from the truth. If society starts looking at depression and suicide as what they are - a weakness and the ultimate cop-out, respectively - we'll be much better suited to handle issues surrounding it when they inevitably arise in the future. If we start teaching kids that there's nothing glamorous about suicide and that it's a low-class way to go out, we'll be making a huge step in the right direction. After all, who wants to be remembered as a pussy and a chump?

The suicide barrier for the Aurora Bridge is a prime example of how stupidity can reign free when emotion (and the fallacy that "all human life is valuable and must be protected") gets a political foothold. So far, according to Jonah Spangenthal-Lee's report on SLOG, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has given $1.3 million to study a suicide barrier for the bridge, with another $6.2 million on the way. Though half of the funds will go towards a new lighting system on the bridge, the remaining money - approximately $3.75 million, by our count - will be exclusively for the barrier. That's $3.75 million we're putting towards saving the lives of those who don't want to be saved.

Sound like a foolish plan? That's because, like much of the nanny state decision-making that occurs in the Evergreen State, it is.

Of course, the hippies commenting on Jonah's piece seem to think otherwise. Commenter poppy says:

I'm pretty sure $3.1 million (not including the new lighting) for a barrier that would have saved about 40 lives the past ten years, including a 15 year old girl, isn't a waste of money.

Ah yes...invoking the suicide of a teenager to tug at the heartstrings and make your case even stronger. But look past the rhetoric, dear readers: even lowballing the cost as poppy has, $3.1 million to save 40 lives over 10 years is still a waste. These people do not want to live, and cannot cope with the stresses of everyday life that 6.6 billion of us face on a daily basis. Even spending $1 to save their lives seems like a waste.

There are some who share reasonable sentiments. Commenter Fierinferno offered a poignant response that captures my mood well:

If people want to die, let them. If suicide wasn't illegal then maybe they wouldn't be searching for a place that ensured their demise, rather than trying in the comfort of their own home where a chance of failure by discovery is so high.

Are the costs of body disposal so high that we have to save the taxpayers money? This is a legitimate question, because it's the only motivating factor I understand here.

[...]

Before everyone with a nephew or a grandmother who's committed suicide starts going on a tirade, please know that I've also loved people who have committed suicide. I didn't like it, I mourned them pitifully, but I believe it was their right to make that choice.

Well put. Despite experiencing the suicide of a family member firsthand, Fierinferno is a rare breed: one who doesn't let petty human emotion cloud their sense of logic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Seems like most reasonable people would know the answer is a resounding "no." But apparently not these folks:

The family of a teenager who was shot to death at a high school in Tacoma is seeking $35 million from the city's public schools.

The seven wrongful death claims were filed Thursday by the family of Samnang Kok. Lawyers for the family say school officials should have done more to prevent the fatal shooting of the 17-year-old Foss High School junior on Jan. 3, 2007.

We at Seattle Crime Blog feel for Kok's family, we really do. But $35 million from the public school system? Give me a break. This family has fallen victim to our biggest pet peeve: they've allowed their emotion to get in the way of reason. And the selfishness of their lawsuit is apparent. What do they think, that they can teach the school a lesson in crime prevention by stripping them of millions? That sure makes a lot of sense.

Let's hope the judge in this case, whose eyes haven't glossed over with dollar signs, takes the common sense approach and throws the Kok lawsuit out.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Stranger's Josh Feit, who has been covering the political goings-on down in Olympia for SLOG, posted a brief update that caught our collective eye this morning.

It's in reference to HB 2713, described on the Legislature's official website as a bill aimed at "providing for broader collection of biological samples for the DNA identification of convicted sex offenders and other persons."

One can't help but raise their eyebrows at the final three words conveniently tucked into the end of that statement: "and other persons." In fact, upon further inspection, it turns out that the majority of the misdemeanors covered by HB 2713 aren't sex crimes at all.

According to Feit's post - which appears to have lifted the text directly from the bill itself - they include anyone convicted of the following:

• Animal cruelty in the second degree;
  
• Assault in the fourth degree;
  
• Custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree;
  
• Failure to register;
  
• Indecent exposure;
  
• Patronizing a prostitute;
  
• Permitting commercial sexual abuse of a minor;
  
• Permitting prostitution;
  
• Prostitution;
  
• Sexual misconduct with a minor in the second degree;
  
• Unlawful harboring of a minor;
  
• and Violation of certain protection orders.

We at Seattle Crime Blog are generally opposed to the idea of the government storing DNA samples of anyone in the criminal justice system. But we'll concede that the DNA of certain sex offenders - serial rapists, for example - should be on file somewhere so that if those likely to re-offend actually do, it will be easier to track them.

Problem is, of the 12 crimes covered by the bill, only two of them - "custodial sexual misconduct in the second degree" and "sexual misconduct with a minor in the second degree" - could make a legitimate case for DNA collection. But animal cruelty? Fourth degree assault? Violation of protection orders?

And what about "permitting prostitution"? Just what does that mean, and why does it warrant a DNA sample? As SLOG commenter Levislade notes:

Permitting prostitution? Isn't anyone who drives down Aurora without calling the police guilty of that?

Levislade is making a joke, of course...but it does raise some interesting questions as to why seemingly non-violent criminal acts require submission of DNA.

As Feit notes, this is all part of the Democrats' attempt to "look/get tough on crime." Apparently that means taking a page out of the Republican handbook: avoid the challenges associated with confronting serious crimes head-on, so that we can all pat ourselves on the backs for "getting tough" on the petty ones.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It seems like in Seattle these days, community safety meetings come a dime a dozen.

First, there was the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Safety Forum, which we covered back in January. Then on Monday of this week, neighbors from the Central District got together to discuss violence around the intersection 23rd & Union. Finally, last night at the University of Washington, a similar gathering took place to discuss the supposed "crime wave" striking the U-District.

The 23rd & Union forum sounds like it was valuable to the community; Central District News (a blog that you should make a point of subscribing to) offered some great coverage and discussion among commenters. After all, 23rd & Union is an intersection plagued with violence, one that can only dealt with through meaningful community discussion. If CDN's coverage is any indicator, it sounds that discussion got started Monday night.

But the other two neighborhood meetings seemed largely unnecessary. We at SCB would wager to guess that the UW forum last night was much like the Capitol Hill one: a bunch of overly fearful citizens getting together to complain to police officers who are already working hard to maintain order.

Just look at some of the quotes from today's P.I. coverage on the UW event:

"When I'm walking home, I don't want to think that I might not make it to my test the next day because I got stabbed," UW sophomore P.J. Lafemina said. "Even in the middle of the day, the Ave is really sketchy."

There's no doubt that the Ave is sketchy...though we rarely venture to the U-District, we've seen first-hand the street rats who spend their days traversing the area. But that's a problem that plagues many neighborhoods of Seattle - downtown, the Central District, Broadway - and one that can only be stopped when neighbors and businesses put their collective foot down. Just look at how successful that approach was in shutting down the Chocolate City Club and cleaning up 21st & Madison.

But the comment about missing tests due to a stab wound? A good sound byte, but a highly unlikely scenario. Lafemina was likely referring to an incident last Saturday on University Way NE, when a scuffle between two men ended with one them being stabbed. No word on whether the victim was a student at the UW, but even if he was...one out of more than 40,000 students assaulted, and this UW sophomore is worried for his life? If it concerns you that much, dude, purchase a firearm; if you're unwilling to do that, maybe it's time to transfer to a more rural college. We hear University of Oregon is accepting applications through March 15...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks

The other night, we were walking up Pike Street when we saw a police car whiz by with its lights on and pull to a screeching halt...behind a helmet-less bicyclist. We couldn't figure out why, until we got to thinking: does Seattle seriously have a helmet law?

The answer, it appears, is yes. And it's inspiring other cities to do the same:

All bicycle riders would have to wear a safety helmet under a law in the works before the Vancouver City Council.

The regulation would require helmets for all riders and passengers on bicycles, skateboards, roller blades, roller skates and unicycles on all roads, sidewalks and trails.

Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane, already have laws requiring helmets for all bicyclists.

Right... because Washingtonians can't be expected to make safe decisions, the government has a duty to do it for us. After all, nothing keeps society safer than laws governing how we protect our own bodies.

Who is at risk if I don't wear a helmet when riding my bike? I am. And I alone. If the Vancouver City Council has any respect for the mental capacity of their city's residents, they'll strike this law down.

But given the state of local politics in Washington, don't hold your breath.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We at SCB seem to always write about situations where emotion overtakes reason, perhaps because that weakness is prevalent even in a libertarian haven like Seattle. Today is no different, as the news media and blogosphere are alive with discussion over Seattle's aggressive new plan to eradicate homeless camps.

The basics of the plan, as seen in the P.I.:

• The city's Human Services Department drafted the protocol following criticism starting last summer of unannounced sweeps of encampments, which are considered public safety and health problems because of drinking, drug use, garbage, rats, fires and lack of toilets.
• The proposal says the city generally would give at least 48 hours notice before clearing a camp and would try to connect homeless people with services and shelters, though it could deny notice and referrals if it suspects "illegal activities" or a public health hazard.
• The city would store certain personal items, such as prescription drugs or identification cards, for retrieval for up to 60 days.
• The protocol would cover all city property and departments. The city would respond to complaints or upon finding an encampment, and could deputize noncity employees to carry out the rules.

Sounds fair to us. But this has been a point of contention here for some time now. Last week SLOG published a post encouraging readers to attend a public forum on the matter, which occurred at Seattle Center last night. We couldn't go...but Tim Harris of Real Change, who has been extremely critical of the plan at his blog, has posted his take on the evening's events.

Not surprisingly, only one courageous voice - that of local blogger Craig Thompson, whose humorous spat with Harris is certainly worth reading - stood up in support of the plan. Take it away, Tim:

Only one person had spoken in favor of the Mayor's policy, and it was nutbar guerrilla columnist Craig Thompson, spinning his tales of criminality, murder, and the infiltration of the heroin trade into Seattle's homeless encampments, and how we need to destroy people's camps in order to save them from this certain menace.

Harris' anger towards Thompson seems to stem from the latter's moving editorial recently published in the P.I., which details the "criminality, murder and infiltration of the heroin trade" that Harris so casually dismisses. But Thompson has hit the nail on the head: while perhaps homeless people are not to blame or be persecuted for their living circumstances, the situations that inevitably arise as a result of their congregation in illegal camps have negative outcomes (both for the homeless folks trying to survive and the rest of Seattle):

The camp attracts drugs. It may start out a non-violent place but it will not stay one. Nearly all homeless camps I've stood in have signs of drug use -- crack pipes, syringes. They contain weapons, usually knives. [...] If sweeps end, camps will be as violent as they were in the Jungle in 2003, but on Queen Anne, the slopes of West Seattle and Magnolia, in Ballard and Ravenna Park. Criminals linked to hardcore drugs will take over -- this is already happening along Dearborn, around Chinatown, downtown uphill from 5th Avenue.

We feel bad for Tim Harris. So caught up in idealism and the false sense of moral superiority that some of us get from "helping" the oppressed, Harris seems unwilling - or perhaps unable - to accept the painfully obvious truth. No wonder he didn't take Thompson up on the offer of  a guided tour through "The Jungle."

Maybe we're just heartless bastards here at SCB, but we think the mayor's plan makes perfect sense. And for once, it seems like someone else in the local community agrees with us.