Seattle Ban on Crowd Control Methods

[martybegan]

The real issue is the Seattle City council trying this shit in the first place.

View attachment 367159 SEATTLE: Trump! Get outta here! We got this!

NEXT DAY: We want to ban police from using tear gas, rubber bullets, batons, stun guns and harsh language.

Actually the ban was placed a while ago, it was supposed to go into effect tonight at 3:00 AM Seattle time.

Seattle council ties hands of police, protects anarchists by eliminating use of "less lethal force" options

 

[harmonica]

In 383 Emperor Maximus addressed the Britons in Londinium and uttered these words "you must look to yourselves for your own defense". Rome was withdrawing because the Collapse of Rome had already begun. In 27 years it would be all over.

7/25/20 might Mark the end of the United States as police departments starting with Seattle abandon the cities they were sworn to protect. City leaders are already claiming fifedome separate from an overarching federal authority. Federal agents are described as invading. Unless this is stopped and it won't be, this is the spiral intobp collapse.

time for a Final Solution

 

[toobfreak]

The real issue is the Seattle City council trying this shit in the first place.

View attachment 367159 SEATTLE: Trump! Get outta here! We got this!

NEXT DAY: We want to ban police from using tear gas, rubber bullets, batons, stun guns and harsh language.

Actually the ban was placed a while ago, it was supposed to go into effect tonight at 3:00 AM Seattle time.

Seattle council ties hands of police, protects anarchists by eliminating use of "less lethal force" options

All that means is that instead of batons and tear gas, police would have had no choice but to use REAL BULLETS.

 

[Zorro!]

So Seattle cops can't use CS, beanbags, or less lethal rounds.

Seattle police chief warns council of ban on crowd control tools ahead of weekend

As City Council’s legislation goes into effect, it will create even more dangerous circumstances for our officers to intervene using what they have left – riot shields and riot batons,” Best wrote on the Seattle Police Blotter. “For these reasons, SPD will have an adjusted deployment in response to any demonstrations this weekend. The Council legislation gives officers no ability to safely intercede to preserve property in the midst of a large, violent crowd.”

This letter went out from the PD saying they basically can't defend property from large violent crowds.

So the question becomes, if a person now defends their property and it goes lethal, are they to be prosecuted? If the cops won't stop lawlessness, what is the recourse? Just let your property be destroyed?

Nobody wants to deal with that question. Remember, we went to professional police forces not to protect citizens from criminals, but to protect criminals from citizens.

I THINK THAT WILLFULLY REFUSING TO CONTROL DISORDER IS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION — ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT REFUSAL IS BASED ON RACE, AS IT WAS HERE:

Father of man killed inside Seattle’s CHOP zone files $3 billion in claims against city, county, state.

It’s true that there’s no right of police protection on the part of any individual person, but a wholesale refusal to police — and again, based on racial considerations — is different. But here’s why this is likely to wind up in settlement, rather than at trial:

“Oshan said that he and his client hopes that the discovery process will also uncover who was to blame.”

 

[martybegan]

So Seattle cops can't use CS, beanbags, or less lethal rounds.

Seattle police chief warns council of ban on crowd control tools ahead of weekend

As City Council’s legislation goes into effect, it will create even more dangerous circumstances for our officers to intervene using what they have left – riot shields and riot batons,” Best wrote on the Seattle Police Blotter. “For these reasons, SPD will have an adjusted deployment in response to any demonstrations this weekend. The Council legislation gives officers no ability to safely intercede to preserve property in the midst of a large, violent crowd.”

This letter went out from the PD saying they basically can't defend property from large violent crowds.

So the question becomes, if a person now defends their property and it goes lethal, are they to be prosecuted? If the cops won't stop lawlessness, what is the recourse? Just let your property be destroyed?

Nobody wants to deal with that question. Remember, we went to professional police forces not to protect citizens from criminals, but to protect criminals from citizens.

I THINK THAT WILLFULLY REFUSING TO CONTROL DISORDER IS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION — ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT REFUSAL IS BASED ON RACE, AS IT WAS HERE:

Father of man killed inside Seattle’s CHOP zone files $3 billion in claims against city, county, state.

It’s true that there’s no right of police protection on the part of any individual person, but a wholesale refusal to police — and again, based on racial considerations — is different. But here’s why this is likely to wind up in settlement, rather than at trial:

“Oshan said that he and his client hopes that the discovery process will also uncover who was to blame.”

They may think they can win on an extension of the lack of responsibility for individual protection.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I read somewhere a judge rejected it.

I hope you read right