Property Rights

Property Owners' Lawsuit Against Seattle Over Its Toleration of the "CHOP" Takeover Can Go Forward

Plaintiffs allege that Seattle affirmatively supported the Capitol Hill Occupying Protest (rather than just declining to stop it).

|

From Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle, decided Friday by Judge Thomas S. Zilly:

[1.] Procedural Due Process Violation—First Cause of Action

Plaintiffs plausibly allege that they had a protected property interest in the full use and enjoyment of their property and that the City's affirmative actions in support of CHOP caused Plaintiffs to suffer a temporary deprivation of those interests.

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that from June 8 to July 1, 2020, CHOP participants used City-provided barriers, with the City's approval, to block access from their properties to streets, sidewalks, and other public rights-of-way. Many of the Plaintiffs also allege that because of CHOP's existence, and the rampant crime and vandalism that ensued, they were deprived of all (or nearly all) economic use of their properties. At least one Plaintiff alleges that CHOP participants physically invaded its premises by setting up, without permission, a "makeshift medical tent," to which the City provided beds and medical equipment.

Those allegations are sufficient to support Plaintiffs' claim that they were deprived of state-created property interests. See Guimont v. Clarke (Wash. 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Yim v. City of Seattle (Wash. 2019) (holding that "a regulation that compels a property owner to suffer a 'physical invasion' or 'occupation' of his or her property is compensable no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it or how minute the intrusion" and regardless of whether the invasion was "temporary or permanent"); Keiffer v. King County (Wash. 1977) (concluding "[t]he right of access of an abutting property owner to a public right-of-way is a property right" under the Washington State Constitution).

Plaintiffs further allege that "the City provided Plaintiffs with no notice or opportunity to be heard before or after depriving Plaintiffs of the freedom of movement, the right to access their properties, the right to use their properties, and the right to exclude others from their properties." "[I]n the absence of a sufficient countervailing justification for the" City's actions, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs plausibly asserted a procedural due process violation.

[2.] Substantive Due Process Violation—Second Cause of Action

… "[A]s a general matter, … a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause."  There are, however, certain exceptions to this general rule[, f]or example … [if] (1) "[government] officers' affirmative actions created or exposed [plaintiff] to an actual, particularized danger that she would not otherwise have faced," (2) "the injury … suffered was foreseeable," and (3) "the officers were deliberately indifferent to the known danger." …

Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the City's actions—encouraging CHOP participants to wall off the area and agreeing to a "no response" zone within and near CHOP's borders—foreseeably placed Plaintiffs in a worse position than they would have been in absent any City intervention whatsoever. Their allegations are also sufficient to show that the City acted with deliberate indifference to that danger. See Hernandez v. City of San Jose (9th Cir. 2018) (allegations that officers "shepherded [plaintiffs] into a violent crowd of protestors and actively prevented them from reaching safety … even though [the officers] knew the mob had attacked" others earlier, were sufficient to state a substantive due process claim).

[3.] Unlawful Taking—Third Cause of Action

Under Washington law, "[t]he right of access of an abutting property owner to a public right-of-way is a property right which if taken or damaged for a public use requires compensation." …

Plaintiffs allege that from June 8 to July 1, 2020, the City allowed and encouraged CHOP participants to block access from Plaintiffs' properties to streets and other public rights-of-way, resulting in the deprivation of all or nearly all economic use of their properties. Those allegations support Plaintiffs' assertion that the City's policies and practices related to CHOP deprived them of protected property interests, albeit temporarily, without just compensation…. "[T]emporary takings are subject to the same categorical treatment as permanent takings where a regulation denies all use of the property." …

The Court acknowledges that judgments about where and to what degree the police should be deployed in these types of emergency situations are best left to the City. Under Plaintiffs' theory of the case, however, the City is not liable under § 1983 simply because its response to the creation of CHOP was "too little, too late," or because the City failed to prevent CHOP participants from physically invading their properties.

Rather, Plaintiffs plausibly assert that the City's endorsement of, and the provision of material support to, CHOP set in motion a series of acts by certain CHOP participants, who the City knew or reasonably should have known would deprive Plaintiffs of protected property interests. These allegations support the claim that the City's conduct was "causally related to [the] private misconduct" and it was "sufficiently direct and substantial to require compensation under the Fifth Amendment."

 

NEXT: R Street Institute Event with Two Ilyas - Speaking About Our Respective Books

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m glad someone is talking about the rights of the people who live, work, own property, and businesses in the “lawless area.” Those rights were treated worse than toilet paper by both the criminals occupying said zone and the mayor and governor who openly supported it. (Mayor remarked “maybe we will have a Summer of Love….” in support of it.)

    For those who had to live and still try to work in that area it was hell-ish. And I find it ironic that a movement that is supposedly about civil rights would be so happy to ignore/deny the civil rights of other people.

    1. “Supposedly” is doing a lot of work here. Historically, “antifa” wasn’t fighting totalitarianism. It was itself totalitarian, and merely fighting a competitor.

    2. It’s about time — spineless administrators (first in academia and now elsewhere) find it easier to appease the violent thugs rather than be neutral enforcers of regulation.

      As Alan Kors put it, it isn’t like the Methodists are going to violently take over the administration building. Hence it will take expensive legal judgements and bureaucrats having to justify unpopular budget cuts and/or tax increases to fund them to keep bureaucrats honest.

      Essentially a balance of terror…

      1. How are things going at Oberlin right now?

        If they actually had to pay that judgement, they’d have to get it out of unencumbered funds and a surprising amount of any endowment is encumbered.

  2. Sure – Seattle made a discretionary choice about how best to deescalate, and should be able to articulate their reasoning in court

    1. The word “de-escalate” is doing a lot of work in your comment.

      1. People don’t call him “Gaslightr0” for nothing.

      2. If you assume bad faith by Seattle you’re just begging the question.

        You could be right, or you could be wrong. Lets get some fact-finding/discovery before you jump the gun with your narrative, eh?

        1. And the Biden emails are Russian forgeries. OK.

          1. I walked away from other threads twice b/c that issue got so idiotic…please don’t have it follow us here.

          2. I mean we have USG intel community analysts and fact-finders actually saying that so, yeah.

            1. Did you miss the Director of National Intelligence saying that it wasn’t a Russian op, and the Biden campaign hasn’t not denied that they are fake? etc. etc.

              *damn*

              1. Hey, the Democrats have constructed their alternate universe, and mean to live there no matter what comes.

                1. Tell me about it…it’s far worse than what they turn around about point out about pizza parlors and such. It’s a willing abrogation of reality, and far more damaging to the Republic than Qanon nonsense, which is/was mostly a joke that got out of hand.

                  1. The worst part of it is, they’ve got enough of the media working with them on it, that something like half the population lives in a false reality bubble where their alternate universe looks real.

                    The press says Trump called neo-Nazis “fine people”, half the population thinks it’s true. The press calls the Proud Boys a “white nationalist” group, despite being founded by a black guy, half the population thinks it’s true.

                    The public needs to understand that, “In Pravda there is no news, and in Izvestiya there is no truth.” That we already effectively have state run media, except that it works for the same party all the time, in and out of power.

                    1. something like half the population lives in a false reality bubble where their alternate universe looks real.

                      Your facts come from like Breitbart and Gateway Pundit and Rush Limbaugh.

                      Ours come from like all the usual media.

                      Who has the alternate reality bubble?

                      To whit: DNI is a political. The analysts have disagreed, on the record.
                      https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

                    2. I can’t but laugh, Sarcastro, I can’t but laugh. This is not just a policy disagreement, this is a situation where the left is closing their eyes, plugging their ears, and saying “nah nah”. By all means, keep believing what you want.

                    3. “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement”

                      In other words, it’s not a reasoned conclusion from evidence, it’s an evidence free gut feeling. They don’t know squat. They’re just suspicious.

                    4. I did think it was pretty funny for Brett to lament how many people live in a bubble of unreality.

                      I’ve got plenty of sources to point to. But I guess those are all part of the bubble as well.

                      This is that epistemic closure that was all the rage – the ability on the right to not just be unaffected by empirical evidence but to call such evidence and all who refer to it liars or dupes.

                    5. The left started talking about epistemic closure as a bit of projection in the first place.

                      Let’s just concentrate on one verifiable point: Did Trump call Nazis in Charlottesville “fine people”? Yes or no?

                    6. Sarcastro: “…the ability on the right to not just be unaffected by empirical evidence but to call such evidence and all who refer to it liars or dupes.”

                      From Sarcastro’s “evidence”: “…we do not have
                      evidence of Russian involvement…”

                    7. 20-30 days of rioting in seattle was de-escalation?

                      100+ days of rioting in Portland was de-escalation?

                      Oddly strange concept of de-escalation

                    8. “Who has the alternate reality bubble?

                      To whit: DNI is a political. The analysts have disagreed, on the record.
                      https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

                      Sacastro cites a report signed by two of the most corrupt & biased former intelligence officers Brennen & clapper, to demonstrate he is not living in a bubble.

                    9. 2 down, many more to go, Dallas.

                      How broad is this conspiracy?

                    10. “Sacastro cites a report signed by two of the most corrupt & biased former intelligence officers Brennen & clapper”

                      That doesn’t even support his claim…

                2. Yep. I remember seeing someone call it the Community-Based Reality years ago, a description that I happily propagate.

            2. You know, Madison and Jefferson were so anti-Adams/Federalist, they had convinced themselves that the XYZ bribery affair was faked by him. It most certainly wasn’t. I cannot help but notice the similarities in how we are reacting here today.

              1. Good point — and I’ve long felt that we didn’t need to get dragged into what became the War of 1812.

            3. Politico Headline: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say”

              From the story: “‘We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,’ the letter reads.”

              1. Yeah – in a Russian op, some of the e-mails may be genuine. But that doesn’t mean some are not, nor that it’s not a Russian op that y’all are eating up.

                1. “But that doesn’t mean some are not, nor that it’s not a Russian op that y’all are eating up.”

                  I have no idea whether it’s a Russia op. But it seems many folks are all too happy to assume, without evidence, that it’s a Russian op.

                  But maybe the lack of evidence that it’s a Russian op is just more proof that it’s a Russian op.

                  1. Other people do have an idea that it’s a Russian op. People who are recognized experts in such stuff. Read things other than American Thinker sometimes. You used to read things.

                    At the very least the laptop at the repair place seems quite a questionable scenario, given Giuliani spending the past 2 years in the Ukraine asking all comers for intel on Hunter Biden.

                    1. “At the very least the laptop at the repair place seems quite a questionable scenario,”

                      We’re talking about a dude who takes pictures of himself using illegal drugs, who smokes crack. People like that make questionable decisions all the time.

                    2. Your use of the present tense is kinda screwed up, dude.

                    3. Your assumption that a crackhead suddenly became a sensible person is kinda screwed up. There’s no scenario where dropping a computer off with a hard drive full of incriminating photos at a computer repair joint isn’t crack head stupid.

                    4. “Other people do have an idea that it’s a Russian op. People who are recognized experts in such stuff.”

                      Your experts literally say that they don’t know if it’s a Russian op, just that they are “suspicious” that it might be. Do your really want to be someone who doesn’t understand the difference between suspicion and reality, Sarcastro?

                    5. “Read things other than American Thinker sometimes. You used to read things.”

                      I read the letter you linked to. You should too.

                2. In a typical op, the innocent, easily verified emails would be real, and the incriminating, difficult to verify emails would be fake. You know, like the Steele dossier had innocent stuff that could be verified, and nasty stuff that couldn’t be? That dossier is now known to have been a genuine Russian op. Confirmed sourced from Russian intelligence. And Trump denied it was true from the beginning.

                  But Biden isn’t claiming ANY of it is fake. He’s not denying he had the meeting, just that it was on his “official” schedule. He’s not denying that it was Hunter’s laptop or hard drive. Wire transfers have been confirmed. Emails from Hunter’s lawyer confirm the repair shop had his laptop.

                  He’s not denying anything. He’s just refusing to talk about it. Is that how an innocent guy responds to a fake smear?

                  1. “He’s not denying anything. He’s just refusing to talk about it.”

                    Seems like he’s trying not to give airtime to a bunch of nonsense.

                    1. Seems like he’s trying not to give air time to a massive scandal.

                  2. Goodness, what leaps and bounds to conclusions here!

                    Conspiracy thinking 101.

                    1. You seem to think the national media *doesn’t* regularly cover for Joe Biden. It’s not so much a conspiracy as a blatant choosing of sides.

                  3. “Is that how an innocent guy responds to a fake smear?”

                    It could be how a man would respond if he was too senile to remember whether he was innocent or guilty. Of course, that makes him unfit to be President and every Democrat who has spent much time with him in the last few years and who endorsed him either a completely gullible fool or an enemy of his country…

                    Also, even if I had no memory left of some years, _I_ could indignantly respond, “I’d never do that!” with no fear of being wrong. Biden cannot. He can only deny specific instances of corruption – if he can remember what he was doing in that instance.

                3. Well then you (Biden) hold a press conference and explain which ones are fake and why. Heaven forbid, have one of your lackeys in High Tech explain how you know they were forged.

                  Although there is the question of why Hunter Byden didn’t go WTF upon receiving these emails from his boss.

                  “Hey boss, I just got an email from you promising me a bleepload of money — I’m not complaining but I think your account’s been hacked. You didn’t send this, did you?”

                  1. Shouldn’t take long for you to figure out why that’s not practicable.

                    1. Likely it’s not practical because none of them are fake.

                4. Given the indictment filed against russian hackers recently, an indictment so thorough it proves the US security establishment has thoroughly owned the russian cyber attackers, if it was really a Russian op we’d probably have pretty detailed evidence of it.

                  (Which doesn’t make the e-mail real, but its probably not *russian* disinfo).

                1. Keep F-ing that chicken.

                  Maybe it’ll turn into Hunter being a pedo. But for now it’s just ugly nihilistic wishful character assassination.

                  1. You first, apologist. How’s that Trump-Russia story holding up, by the way?

            4. “I mean we have USG intel community analysts and fact-finders actually saying that so, yeah.”

              Honest question, are you saying that there’s something called a “USG intel community…fact-finder” or are you citing generic “fact-finders”?

              1. You see how it’s not a proper name? Then I’m not using it as a title.

                Come on, man.

                1. OK, so you’re citing generic “fact-finders”? You’re saying that we should believe something because someone who calls himself a fact-finder said so?

                  1. There are people in intel who figure out what’s going on in adversary nations. They have various titles. Analyst is not uncommon.

                    What are you trying for, here? The idea that intel people don’t actually make factual findings?

                    1. You’ve got Clapper, fired by Trump. You’ve got Hayden, who works for CNN these days. You’ve got Panetta, well known Democratic pundit. You’ve got Brennan, fired by Trump. You’ve got Ledgett, fired by Trump.

                      Are ANY of these guys not either known Democratic activists, or nursing a personal grudge?

                    2. Fired by Trump means they’ll lie?

                      Plus you’ve still got like 40 to go in your weak attempt to explain this away.

                    3. Sarcastro,

                      You’ve made a claim. “USG intel community analysts and fact-finders”

                      Who are these supposed people?

                    4. “Are ANY of these guys not either known Democratic activists, or nursing a personal grudge?”

                      More importantly, did any of these guys say what Sarcastro says that they said? The letter says that they have no evidence, but are suspicious. That didn’t use to count as proof, or even evidence.

                    5. Sadly for you the FBI came out tonight and verified they have the laptop and it is Hunter Biden’s.

                      Now your Russian theory rests on the fact that the Russians planted the emails on the laptop, got Crackhead to drop it off then the convinced a Trumpster to turn it into the FBI one year before the election.

                    6. No, Sam, it rests on what the FBI finds, if anything.

                      And your assuming Giuliani’s story of where he got it is correct.

                      And calling the rehabilitated Hunter a crackhead is just awful.

                    7. https://twitter.com/MajorCBS/status/1318697910922481666

                      “The FBI & DOJ concur with DNI Ratcliffe’s assessment that Hunter Biden’s laptop and the emails in question were not part of a Russian disinformation campaign. FBI does has possession of the Hunter Biden laptop in question.”

                      Now what, Sarcastr0.

                      P.S. I care more about the sound a gnat’s fart makes than I do your tone policing.

                    8. Dude, note even FOX News thought it was a credible story. The NY Post had a mini-revolt over it.
                      Lets see who in the FBI said this – if it’s basically signed off by politicals, we all know about what Trump and Barr have been doing on this. Until we hear more actual evidence, you will not see much play among anyone not as brain poisoned as you.

                      Good luck with your Ukrainian Pedophilia hunt against Presidential candidate Hunter Biden!

                    9. “And calling the rehabilitated Hunter a crackhead is just awful.”

                      And what exactly makes you think he’s rehabilitated?

                    10. Brett, stop speculating nonsense to character assassinate a candidate’s kid.

                      He went to rehab. Until there’s evidence of a relapse it’s pretty damaging to assume it didn’t work.

                      FFS, have an ounce of humanity.

                    11. “Lets see who in the FBI said this – if it’s basically signed off by political, we all know about what Trump and Barr have been doing on this.”

                      Additional evidence is just more proof of the conspiracy!

                    12. I don’t need to assassinate Hunter’s character, it died years ago. You’re trying to resurrect it.

                      I don’t need to prove he’s a crack head, that’s established. You need to prove he isn’t one any more. So, I’m asking: Where’s the evidence that he’s reformed?

                      He’s been to rehab? Big deal. He’s been to rehab like a half dozen times. Maybe the first time it could be taken as evidence that he’d reformed. The umpteenth time?

                      A major party candidate for President has a drug addict son. I wouldn’t hold that against the dad. The only relevance to Hunter being a crackhead is that you can’t appeal to his supposed good judgment to demonstrate that it isn’t plausible he did something stupid. Doing stupid things is perfectly in character for Hunter.

                    13. That’s not how rehab works. Or how addiction works.

                      And drug addiction is not a character flaw, it’s a disease.

                      So you know any former addicts? This lack of empathy is pretty screwed up.

                      Because while I wouldn’t want Hunter to be President, you are being such an asshole.

                    14. Pretty much everyone that comments here is at minimum an asshole including you and me, fuckwit.

            5. No they aren’t. No official has gone on the record and said the emails were Russian forgeries.

              You’re confused or lying.

              1. But he’s not going to admit it.

              2. The FBI is investigating whether it’s a Russian op, they have already found Giuliani was compromised, and Giuliani himself said ‘The chance that Derkach is a Russian spy is no better than 50/50.’

                But keep telling yourself this is some rock-solid dirt.

                1. “The FBI & DOJ concur with DNI Ratcliffe’s assessment that Hunter Biden’s laptop and the emails in question were not part of a Russian disinformation campaign. FBI does has possession of the Hunter Biden laptop in question.”

                  https://twitter.com/MajorCBS/status/1318697910922481666

                  Yikes-a-rooni

                  1. You already posted this.

                    Go back to Gateway Pundit.

                    1. Thats CBS.

                      Hard to dismiss them as fringe, yet here you are doing so.

                      Just like you propped up a letter from those 50 Dems and said you believe in empiricism when it explicitly said in the letter they had no evidence.

                      Good grief.

                    2. I addressed the comment above, the first time you posted it.

                      Evidence of false e-mails is not the same as evidence it’s an op. The letter supports the matter I asserted, not the strawman you are trying for.

                    3. In your letter, what evidence did they present that it was a foreign operation?

                      And why don’t you discount the political appointees in your letter, like you are doing in the current FBI/DOJ statements?

                    4. Your letter didn’t provide any evidence AT ALL. Did you even read it? The people who signed it have no evidence, no knowledge of the providence of the laptop, they’ve got nothing but “Looks like the sort of thing the Russians might do.”

                      But no evidence it’s something the Russians actually DID.

                2. “But keep telling yourself this is some rock-solid dirt.”

                  Nobody’s saying it’s rock-solid dirt.

                  You claimed, without evidence, that it’s Russian propaganda, and you supported that claim by falsely saying that IC analysts have said on the record that the emails are Russian forgeries.

                  Your side is claiming that the story doesn’t need to be investigated by the media or others because it’s been shown to be Russian propaganda, which is definitively false.

                  1. Everyone is finding this nonsense not credible, from FOX News to the Delaware Police to a crapload of Intel folks.

                    Maybe there will be some future validation, but for now I’m pretty confident with the analysts and journalists on my side, versus you guys with Giuliani’s crazy story and Trump’s crony DNI.

                    1. Yup, opinions on your side, evidence on our’s, and you’re going with the opinions, ’cause you like them.

                    2. You have like 2 people on your side, and neither are great shakes.

                      But I guess my side is a vast conspiracy of journalists, law enforcement, and intel folks.

                      Again, new facts may come to light but you’re buying stuff no one else is at the moment.

                    3. “Everyone is finding this nonsense not credible, from FOX News to the Delaware Police to a crapload of Intel folks.”

                      Other people don’t believe it so we shouldn’t either? That’s not an argument, Sarcastro. What about evidence? The NY Post published emails that purport to be from Hunter Biden’s laptop. They presented some evidence that the emails are indeed from Hunter Biden’s laptop. It’s not conclusive, but it’s evidence.

                      But you guys insist, without evidence, that the story is Russian propaganda and doesn’t need to be investigate further. That’s not how it works.

                    4. “But I guess my side is a vast conspiracy of journalists, law enforcement, and intel folks.”

                      If the story were wrong, you would only need one.

                    5. @pretty much everyone:

                      The providence of the laptop is unproven. The verity of the emails is unproven. That these things are unproven is a reason for news media to have steered away from the allegations (and the NYPost is taking a huge risk publishing them).

                      On the other hand, you can’t just wave it away as a ‘Russian Op’ without specific evidence that it is, in fact, a Russian Op.

                      Arguing you don’t believe it because you don’t find them credible is defensible. Arguing its a Russian Op without specific and convincing evidence is not – it has the same problems as alleging its real.

                      #FactsWanted

          3. Provenance pointers from birthers are always a treat.

            Carry on, clingers.

        2. I don’t have a “narrative”. I am saying, though, more specifically, that complete abdication of the role of a sovereign authority and letting an independent country be declared within the continental United States is not “de-escalation.” Sure, they overlap on a Venn Diagram, so you got me there.

          1. OK, so is your alternative is a crackdown on the protestors? Mass arrests, police use of force all over the place, etc?

            I think it’s pretty reasonable to think that wouldn’t have gone well and explore other options.

            1. Yes, that’s the alternative when violent thugs take over an entire neighborhood for weeks at a time, turning it into a dystopia right out of Mad Max. Sure, doing that wouldn’t have gone well for the thugs, but probably a lot better for their victims.

            2. You are so bad at logic. False choice fallacy. It needed by either summer of love/chop/murder sprees OR send in the tanks and go all Janet Reno on them.

              1. m_k, did you see the question mark? What is your alternate idea? Because people were trying different stuff all over the nation and there wasn’t any great success with any of them.

                1. Oh, don’t be silly. You asked a leading question by framing it as either or.

                  1. I could have said ‘so do you support the alternative…’ but I did not.
                    I’m honestly curious about what alternatives people envision.

                    All I see so far is Brett’s vigilantes and jackboots.

                    1. Well, I’m not thinking it would be a bonus army situation or a Janet Reno special, but they could have done what happens in LA all the time when they send in the authorities to break up a homeless camp.

                    2. Which is what, m_k? Because I suspect you know that that might not work so well with protesters who are doing more than just living their life without a home.

            3. Complete abdication of authority or mass arrests. Of course there is no other alternative. The idea of arresting those who are blocking others from accessing and using the area is so racist.

              Of course, when property owners in California were stopping people headed into wildfire zones that didn’t live there (to try to stop looters) law enforcement was able to arrest them without mass arrests and use of force all over the place. But that’s different because reasons.

              1. Then give an alternative.

                1. “Then give an alternative.”

                  Why does Harvey Mosley have to give an alternative? We expect the government to figure out how to keep order, and if the government allows a mob to burn the police station and force people away from their property for months at a time, it’s quite reasonable to say that we expect them to do a better job.

                  1. So you do think a crackdown was required, due to property rights.

                    I don’t think so.

                    But I want to see Seattle’s reasoning.

                    1. As to “So you do think a crackdown was required, due to property rights.”

                      No. I think a crackdown was required due to the “protesters” violating innocent people’s rights. The violence level would have been determined by the actions of the “protesters”.

                    2. Your way ends in blood, Harvey. And you’re okay with that – it’s what the protesters deserve if they resist!

                      Seattle does not seem to have thought like that. I’m not sure they were the unreasonable ones here.

                      Though again, I want to hear their argument. Yours being awful does not mean theirs is great.

                    3. Why would the police coming in and restoring order end in blood?

                    4. Yeah, we’re fine with cracking down on violent criminals ending in blood, if the alternative is letting them continue to prey on their victims. You don’t want to end in blood? Don’t attack other people!

                      But, curiously, Seattle was able to shut down CHOP without a massacre as soon as they annoyed the mayor, instead of just making the lives of many of her citizens a living hell.

                2. Stomp it when it got started, not when it was established.

                  Don’t order the police to leave criminals alone as the victimize people.

                  Don’t supply criminals with resources with which to victimize people.

                  Let people defend themselves without being arrested.

                  There are lots of alternatives to letting a warlord set up in the middle of a city for months.

                  1. Stomping and vigilantes, eh?
                    This is pretty freaking authoritarian, Brett.

                    Insisting Seattle is guilty due to not stomping and still enforcing laws against murder is hopefully not the case the plaintiffs go for.

                    1. 1. “Stomp” is being used metaphorically, Sarcastro.
                      2. We didn’t put up with idiots calling Kenneth Walker a vigilante, why should be put up with it from you?

                    2. 1. Quite a telling choice of metaphor given the policies being supported, no?

                      2. Let people defend themselves without being arrested. Don’t be obtuse about what that means.

                    3. A “vigilante”? Definition: “a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.”

                      The people running CHOP fit the definition better than property owners merely defending themselves.

                    4. Brett, asking people to defend themselves without worrying about the law means you want vigilantes. You want shootings of the protesters.
                      Your policy list has a very clear implication of blood, by law or by citizens that you want to suffer no consequences.

                      If that’s all you got, I side with Seattle’s choice easily. But I like to think that there’s some middle ground, even if I cannot offhand think of it.
                      Though around here people do love killings over property a lot more than has been in vogue since like 1920.

                    5. “Brett, asking people to defend themselves without worrying about the law means you want vigilantes. ”

                      No, it doesn’t. Defending yourself is legal in all 50 states. Vigilantes go out looking for criminals, they don’t sit at home and shoot people who break in.

                      Just because you like to think lawful self defense shouldn’t be a thing doesn’t mean it isn’t a thing.

                      It’s actually pretty routine over most of the country to not prosecute people who have obviously defended themselves.

                    6. Brett, currently people are able to defend themselves if it’s legitimate.
                      You are arguing for not even an arrest.

                      Which is a lot more lax. I cannot believe you are not aware of the consequences.

                    7. Again, “It’s actually pretty routine over most of the country to not prosecute people who have obviously defended themselves.”

                    8. You didn’t say obviously. But I’m all for your backpedaling.

                      You’re still quite bloodthirsty about those protesters.

                    9. Look again. I absolutely did.

                      And, no, I’m not bloodthirsty about protesters. But I’m not humoring your lie about CHOP being run by “protesters”. It was run by homicidally violent thugs.

                    10. Your OP said: ‘Let people defend themselves without being arrested.’

                      You backpedaled.

                  2. This guy can’t even imagine a scenario where not using force might be the best approach. Jeebus.

                    1. I can’t imagine a scenario where not using force is the best approach to a criminal gang taking over part of a city and running it like a little dictatorship.

                    2. I can, Brett.

                      And Seattle may have.

                      Don’t essentialize your lust for protester blood in service of property rights.

                    3. You can, because you don’t care about their victims. THEY don’t count, only the criminals running CHOP had any rights that concern you. All the people living an owning property in that zone they took over? They don’t mean anything to you, their suffering is meaningless.

                      I care more about the rights of the innocent, and if you have to bust heads of the guilty to get them to stop attacking the innocent, so be it. If they don’t want their heads busted, they can surrender peacefully.

                    4. I care more about life than property. That is not the same as saying I don’t care about the property owners, but thanks for once again explaining to me what I think!

                    5. I care about both, because people spend the days of their lives accumulating property. You destroy their property, you turn the part of their finite lives they spent obtaining it into a waste. They don’t get those hours and days back when you destroy their stuff.

                      Property IS life. Something people on the left seem to never understand.

                    6. People who didn’t work for what they have don’t understand.

                3. I did give an alternative. Actual armed vigilantes “patrolling” roads into wildfire areas were arrested for trying to keep looters out. There were no killings. No mass violence. Of course, these vigilantes were smart enough not to engage the police in violence. Are you saying that the “protesters” in Seattle are too stupid to realize that attacking law enforcement officers is a bad idea that could have extremely violent consequences? Or is this just the ultimate heckler’s veto? Threaten enough violence and you can disregard any laws you like.

                  1. Vigilantes. The nonviolent solution. Of course!

                    There’s a reason that won’t fly in court.

                    1. Vigilante. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

                    2. Harvey literally said vigilantes.

                    3. Harvey compared the thugs in CHOP to vigilantes. Which is what I said: The closest thing to any vigilantes in CHOP were the thugs.

            4. “crackdown on the protestors?”

              Maybe what the city ended up doing? No killings, no mass arrests, no excessive force.

              All it took was CHOPers going to the mayor’s house and bothering her.

              1. That puts the burden of proving that causality on the plaintiff. And also cuts down on the timeline a lot.

        3. We’re not assuming bad faith, we’re observing bad faith.

          But for the purposes of this lawsuit, whether Seattle was really trying to “deescalate” rather than humoring thugs is irrelevant. It used the rights of the people living there in order to do it, whatever “it” was. Now they need to make the people whose property rights they took whole again.

          1. Brett, your bad-faith-o-meter is forever pegged. You observe it in every single institution to the right of OANN.

            Seattle’s ability to articulate a rational basis for their actions would seem to be pretty key to the case.

            1. Rational basis doesn’t matter in a taking case, either. What matters is if the government took your property. Good reason, bad reason, no reason at all, doesn’t matter. They took it, they need to make you whole.

              1. Takings is only one of the three, and strikes me as the least likely count to succeed, requiring an affirmative police duty tied to property rights that the law does not generally recognize.

        4. That’s what denial of a motion to dismiss is all about. You have alleged enough to go into discovery. What you’ll find remains to be seen.

          1. Yeah, you and I are on the same page.

            A bunch on here have already tried Seattle and found them guilty.

            1. No, they formed an opinion based on the public record. Which is pretty bad for the City. Whether the plaintiffs will be able to prevail, given the narrow legal window they have to go through, is another story.

              1. The opinion is not based on the public record, so much as it is on ideology. These comments have made clear where people are coming from, and it ain’t facts:

                1) Dislike for Seattle as being liberal
                2) Frustration at the lack of blood spilled to protect property
                3) Wishes that the protesters had gotten beaten, due to being liberal

                Luckily, this is not the public opinion, it’s the opinion of this commentariat.

                1. No.

                  This is all about a city not protecting the property of it’s residents by making an affirmative choice not to enforce the law. That the city’s inaction was driven by a toxic ideology is irrelevant.

                  1. If you read the comments, it’s pretty clear a bunch of people here just want the protestors punished. Violently.

                    Though protecting property by killing people is also something vastly overrepresented in this group.

                    Law enforcement is discretionary. There are reasons why a full-on crackdown may not have been the best policy. Maybe those reasons don’t stand up when Seattle has to defend them, but a priori insisting the only solution is to go full-on state force isn’t an argument, it’s spite.

                    1. “Law enforcement is discretionary.”

                      It is, and should be, discretionary for some reasons, and not for others. Given a call reporting a cold burglary and one for a home invasion in progress, of course they should give preference to the latter.

                      But other reasons should not be acceptable. Consider a parallel situation in 1950’s Alabama, where following some black-on-white crime, the local klan announces that since the police obviously aren’t cracking down hard enough, they are going to take over a black neighborhood and ‘enforce order’. And they do so, and the city government announces they won’t interfere with that, and even provide logistics support to the klan.

                      Still all in for ‘law enforcement is discretionary’?

                      I’m not arguing against a general policy of negotiation rather than an assault. Consider the Bundy whackos at the wildlife refuge. They weren’t holding hostages. The refuge employees, I expect, were getting paid time off or working from elsewhere. I suppose the right of birdwatchers and hunters to use the refuge is a rights violation, but that’s pretty minor. That contrasts with CHOP/CHAZ. There were people who lived there who couldn’t go home, businesses that couldn’t operate, not to mention a couple of murders and assaults. It wasn’t out in the boondocks.

                      You keep saying that the city might have a reasonable justification. Are you envisaging some set of hidden facts that would justify the city’s action? My imagination is coming up short – if yours is better, I’m all ears.

                    2. “The refuge employees, I expect, were getting paid time off or working from elsewhere.”

                      The refuge was empty, closed for the season. It didn’t effect them at all.

                    3. Absaroka, I’m explaining what the law is, not what the law ought to be.

                      As I’ve said multiple times, I’m not sure Seattle’s argument will stand up, but preemptively calling them guilty is ideological and not reality. And the ideology behind it is thus far not looking great.

                    4. “The refuge was empty, closed for the season. It didn’t effect them at all.”

                      I don’t think that’s accurate:

                      “Their presence in Burns, and the growing support for the Hammonds online, rattled the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service enough that it began making safety arrangements for its 17 employees at the refuge — a horseshoe-shaped bird sanctuary that surrounds the Hammonds’ ranch.”

                      “On Dec. 30 — three days before the Jan. 2 rally — federal employees were nearing the end of their work day at the wildlife refuge when management told them to go home early.

                      And for their safety, their boss said, they weren’t to return to the refuge until instructed.

                      “That was based on the culmination of our intel,” said Fish & Wildlife spokesman Holm, “and the start of the holiday weekend.””

                      Sending folks home early because you’ve been tipped off an occupation is imminent isn’t ‘closing for the season’. The refuge stays open all winter. If you go the fws dot gov site for the refuge, you will find:

                      “The Refuge is open daily from sunrise to sunset.”

                      “The Visitor Center and Nature Store is open Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm and staffed with the help of volunteers, most weekends.

                      The George Benson Memorial Museum is open daily from sunrise to sunset.”

                    5. “Absaroka, I’m explaining what the law is, not what the law ought to be.”

                      Sure, and Seattle will get its day in court.

                      Just like criminal defendants get a presumption of innocence – and some of them certainly are. But when Fred walks into the bank, fires a round into the ceiling, shouts ‘this is a stickup’, has the tellers fill his sack with money, all on video, and gets caught on the front steps as he’s leaving, the justice system presumes he is innocent. But people who aren’t on the jury can look at that set of facts and thing ‘I can’t imagine an explanation of those facts that would make him innocent’.

                      So, again, what heretofore hidden facts are you imagining that Seattle will produce to justify their actions? Be creative, I’m all ears!

                  2. THEY WEREN’T PROTESTERS.

                    1. Yeah, Brett, most of them were. And even those that were not do not deserve to be shot.

                      I know you disagree on that last one. Which is screwed up – the elevation of property as equal to lives is an extreme minority view in the law and American People.

                      But you go further – you posit a sinister agenda behind Seattle’s policies. Which is your usual deal. You live in a much darker political place than I do, but it’s all constructed by your own speculations.

        5. 20-30 days of rioting in seattle was de-escalation?

          100+ days of rioting in Portland was de-escalation?

          Oddly strange concept of de-escalation

          1. Compared to the alternative, it’s at least arguable.

            1. Sarcastr0
              October.21.2020 at 10:13 am
              “Compared to the alternative, it’s at least arguable.”

              Your definition of de-escalation is delusional.
              Dallas for example has a much higher black population than seattle, portland, MSP. Yet Dallas was able to properly de-escalated the situation in less than 48 hours. Vastly less property damage than the Wok method of de-escalation promoted by the enlightened.

              1. Black population may not be the corollary you think it is.

                Remember, the threshold is rational basis.

                Just because you wanted a more violent reaction doesn’t mean it’s the only reasonable policy choice.

                1. Sacastro’s comment -“Just because you wanted a more violent reaction doesn’t mean it’s the only reasonable policy choice.”

                  48 hours of rioting in Dallas vs 2400+ hours of rioting in Portland , 1000+ hours of rioting in Seattle.

                  Your response shows you and the other delusional believers in “de-escalation” believed 50x more rioting was less violent.

                  1. But. What. Is. The. Alternative. These choices are not made in a vacuum.

                    I don’t know if de-escalation was better, but I think it’s at least an argument, even if you put up a bunch of hours.

    2. Yes, Seattle did make their choice. This judge is making them accept the consequences. I have no problem with that. One other note….this judge is a real geezer. Took senior status 16 years ago.

    3. Seattle made a discretionary choice about how best to deescalate

      You really need to seek help.

    4. The only possible and honest deescalation was to do what the commenters here think was best, of course. Anything else is proof positive of wrong doing.

      Well, that or a NY Post article (the people who brought you Jacko on his Backo memes).

    5. “Aiding and abetting” now constitutes deescalation?!?

      1. That’s some very impressive question begging.

  3. Hope the City pays through the nose to these people. The only problem is it won’t be coming out of the wallets of the politicians who enabled this or their supporters who will continue to pull the lever for them.

    1. …You want voters to be fined by courts when they vote badly?

      1. Ultimately, they kinda do in a literal sense.

      2. “You want voters to be fined by courts when they vote badly?”

        You don’t want voters who support policies that result in damage awards to have to pay taxes to support the damage awards?

        1. What role do ‘law-and-order’ conservatives and Republicans who applaud abusive, racist policing perform in your analysis?

          1. “What role do ‘law-and-order’ conservatives and Republicans who applaud abusive, racist policing perform in your analysis?”

            They pay much fewer taxes than they should in damage awards, because judges, aided by public sector unions, refuse to hold abusive, racist police accountable.

        2. Everyone who pays taxes will be supporting all sorts of stuff.

          The causality between voters voting for people who do things that expose a municipality to legal risk is pretty attenuated. And even if it were not, extra costs based on how you vote is fundamentally undemocratic.

          1. Actions taken for the public good are supposed to be paid for by the public. Not by the government pointing at somebody and saying, “You. Yes, you. Sucks to be you, loser.”

            1. You don’t think the public pays taxes in Seattle?

              1. I guess it’s okay for the people affected by these “protesters” to pay extra taxes in the form of the government willfully depriving (or allowing others to deprive them) of access to their property and means of supporting themselves. And of course the damage to the property. After all, it’s just a risk you assume when you own property, right?

                1. …Do you know what taxes are?

                  1. I would have called it a penalty but CJ Roberts says that it’s really a tax. Haha.

                    But seriously I know you know what I’m talking about in that post because you are an intelligent guy. In case I’m wrong and you aren’t: I was pointing out that the people that Seattle enabled (at best) inflicted harm on the property owners. If they aren’t compensated then they are the ones being taxed (paying) for the government to allow this to happen.

                    1. By that argument, tort liability is a reimbursement of taxes wrongfully paid from one individual to another. And theft is also a tax. And so is assault.

                      At some point an analogy is too broad to elucidate.

                      Unless you’re an economist in the 1990s. Which I would not advise.

                    2. Wow. You’re not usually this obtuse. When you mention that taxes are paid by people in Seattle in a response about compensating the victims of the government’s actions as if that means that these people don’t deserve compensation you’re the one implying that the burden of the property owners is just another tax.

                    3. I’m not the one that argued Amos was talking about taxes. It turns out he wasn’t. But that hasn’t stopped some people making some pretty silly arguments defending him.

              2. How in the world is that a response to what I said?

                If the government does something for the public welfare, the public is supposed to pay for it. Not some designated fall guy.

                You’d make the CHOP property owners the designated fall guy. The Constitution’s clause on eminent domain is specifically intended to AVOID government making people designated fall guys.

                1. You’re arguing tort liability for all government actions.
                  That’s a pretty radical move.

                  And you are still required to prove negligence, which you are assuming and not proving.

                  1. Tort liability ≠ paying for takings.

                    Look, we discuss takings cases all the time. A taking for “deescalation” is as much a taking as one for building a road.

                    1. This would be a pretty new interpretation of the takings clause – taking via inaction. In fact, it’s dimly remembered from law school but I believe there is caselaw saying that’s not a thing.

                    2. Look, read the complaint. They’re not alleging inaction. They’re alleging that the city actively enabled the criminal CHOP gang. Gave them supplies, and effectively permission to commit their crimes.

                      “Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that from June 8 to July 1, 2020, CHOP participants used City-provided barriers, with the City’s approval, to block access from their properties to streets, sidewalks, and other public rights-of-way.”

                      “Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the City’s actions—encouraging CHOP participants to wall off the area and agreeing to a “no response” zone within and near CHOP’s borders—foreseeably placed Plaintiffs in a worse position than they would have been in absent any City intervention whatsoever.”

                      “Plaintiffs allege that from June 8 to July 1, 2020, the City allowed and encouraged CHOP participants to block access from Plaintiffs’ properties to streets and other public rights-of-way, resulting in the deprivation of all or nearly all economic use of their properties. ”

                      Inaction would have been a vast improvement over what the city actively did to aid these criminals.

                    3. In short, a city has no liability if their police stand by while a criminal beats you with a stick. If they gave the criminal the stick, and permission to beat you with it?

                      Yeah, then they have liability, because they’re not just failing to act, they’re actively aiding in the crime.

                    4. Well then, there might be more of a case. If those allegations are proven, I’m fine with the government having to make that payment – akin to how firefighters still must compensate when they damage a house to keep a fire from spreading.

                      I’m substantially more interested in the other theories, though, since I want to hear Seattle’s deescalation calculus.

                    5. Or in this case, more like they damage a house because the mayor really likes arsonists, so the fire department was ordered to supply accelerants to somebody who was going around torching houses.

                      The damage wasn’t done dealing with CHOP. It was done assisting CHOP.

                    6. Brett, you once again take refuge in your telepathy that always finds liberals are lying and secretly motivated by evilness.

                      Go, enjoy your fan fiction.

                    7. LITERALLY, Seattle provided CHOP with material assistance in perpetrating its crimes against the residents. That’s the complaint here.

                      NOT that they trashed some stuff dealing with the criminals. That they assisted the criminals in perpetrating their crimes. It’s not ” akin to how firefighters still must compensate when they damage a house to keep a fire from spreading.”

                      It’s akin to the firefighters providing an arsonist with gasoline and matches.

                    8. LITTERALLY that’s an allegation in a pleading.
                      And as I have discussed there are other motives than liberal evilness at work even if facts are as you have decided they are.

                    9. Yes, in theory the pleading could be a steaming heap.

                      Only anybody who’d actually followed the news coverage would know that it wasn’t a steaming heap, the city actually did the things the pleading alleges. Right out in the open, they weren’t pretending otherwise.

                      You call it “deescalation”, I call it “complicity in crimes”.

                    10. I’m sure you feel that passionately, Brett. Do you think that argument would play for even a second in open court?

                2. “If the government does something for the public welfare, the public is supposed to pay for it. Not some designated fall guy.”

                  That depends on whether you take your model for government from Anglo-American legal traditions or from Machiavelli.

          2. “And even if it were not, extra costs based on how you vote is fundamentally undemocratic.”

            Sigh. Nobody said it should be directly tied to how you vote.

            1. The only problem is it won’t be coming out of the wallets of the…supporters who will continue to pull the lever for [politicians Amos blames]

              You think that was talking about taxes?

              1. “You think that was talking about taxes?”

                Yes.

                1. So that would imply he thinks Democrats in Seattle don’t pay taxes…I don’t know if that makes a lot of sense.

                2. Also see Amos below.
                  https://reason.com/2020/10/20/property-owners-lawsuit-against-seattle-over-its-toleration-of-the-chop-takeover-can-go-forward/#comment-8532831

                  Sorry, looks like you attacked me for correctly comprehending a radical post once again.

                  1. He says that people shouldn’t be able to vote themselves as much of other people’s money as they want. So what?

                    1. Here is the exchange, with the threading removed:

                      Sarc: …You want voters to be fined by courts when they vote badly?
                      AmosArch: They should.

                      He wasn’t talking about taxes. Your tribalism is making you defend lunatics again.

      3. Yes, as long as I get to be the judge. Otherwise, no.

      4. I’d be happy if the damage awards came ot of the government agent’s pockets myself. Nothing would work better to curb government abuse of rights than to have the people responsible for the policies and the people who carry out those policies on the hook financially for damages.

        1. Defensive policymaking is not good policymaking. This is a concept even the Founders realized.

          1. I’m not talking about bad policy choices. I’m talking about policies that violate people’s rights. I do believe that all policies that violate people’s rights are bad policy choices. But not all bad policy choices violate people’s rights.

            And I would rather have an occaisional innocent politician or government lackey bear the burden of bad policies than an innocent individual.

            1. Not knowing a priori how a court will rule, that still requires defensive policymaking.

              Plenty of surprising court opinions on what rights are implicated come out every year

              Do you want all those laws regulating abortion to mean fines for lawmakers if the court finds the other way?

              1. Yes I do. If the final judgment goes against a politician or government flunky for violating a citizen’s rights I want them to pay. Even if I disagree with the right. It’s called principles.

              2. By the way, your argument is why we have the abomination known as qualified immunity.

                1. Yeah, lawmaking is not law enforcement. Plus, of course, QI is so narrowly operated it might as well be full I.

                  1. Correct. Law making is not law enforcement. Which is why I also included those who implement the policies. Not just those who make them.

                    1. Yeah – defensive enforcement is not as bad a thing as defensive policymaking, due to the difference in scope.

              3. If the defensive policy-making is defensive of rights, then what’s the problem?

                1. Defensive decision making occurs when a manager ranks an option as the best for the organization yet deliberately chooses a second-best option that protects him or herself against negative consequences.

                  Why did the Founders make legislators immune in the Speech and Debate clause? Why not just let them have to speak super carefully? Because they knew walking on eggshells made for crap policymaking.

                  1. Because they were creating a government of legislative supremacy, NOT “co-equal” branches. The executive can’t stop legislators from attending the session, he can’t sanction them for anything they say during it, because the legislature is supposed to be superior to the executive, and can’t be if they’re at the executive’s mercy.

                  2. I’ve been out of school a while but I was taught it was to prevent judicial and or executive retribution over policy differences. But it doesn’t strike me as even germane to the discussion – politicians *always* chose less better options if that’s what improves their re-election chances.

                    1. Sure, but this effect would be substantially increased if it’s suddenly not just about losing your job but your wealth.

      5. They should. Everybody should have some skin in the game. Would you like it if I busted in to your house at gunpoint and said we’d be running a joint bank account where we have equal decisionmaking but its all your money?

        The ancients had the right idea when they factored property ownership into civic power. Now I suppose we should account for the networking and feedback effect that goes into benefiting rich people and scaling for those who work hard but do not necessarily get wealthy but its high time we started thinking about something/anything that starts moving us past this notion that people who contribute nothing or negatively should be able to vote themselves as much of other peoples riches as they want.

        1. You want an aristocracy with one-party rule.

          There are names for such a form of government. And it’s not democracy.

          1. Restricting the vote to as example property owners doesn’t make it not democracy.

            1. That plus fining people for voting wrong sure does.

              1. Nobody has proposed fining people for voting wrong. That was your own invention.

                1. Sarc: …You want voters to be fined by courts when they vote badly?
                  AmosArch: They should.

  4. Wow, it’s almost as if all this advocacy for property rights is nothing more than a transparent way to keep poor people in their place.

    1. Give it time, someone will make a comment here that it is akin to “certain species of property” to expect to use your place of business as a business.

    2. Poor people are people who want to have property. And when they finally get it, they want to protect it against thieves as much as those who had property before them.

      1. The class implications of our current policing structure are not just property based.

        But I’m not as mad as Martinned because I do want to hear Seattle articulate their reasoning – it’s not currently very clear to me.

    3. It’s almost as if you couldn’t possibly be more full of shit if you were the NYC sewage system.

      1. Why are you so empty of anything other than insults and toxicity?

        Posting like that makes this forum worse.

        1. In reply to a baseless assertion, there isn’t much one can do.

        2. Why are you so empty of anything other than insults and toxicity?

          Why are you empty of anything but disingenuous bullshit? When you habitually spout said bullshit, you should expect to be called a bullshitter. Though it’s expected that this is exactly the sort of thing you would feel compelled to defend.

          Posting like that makes this forum worse.

          That you think your pathological lying constitutes a positive contribution is just plain said.

          1. “sad”

    4. You own a business, what does not wanting the city to prevent you from operating have to do with “keeping poor people in their place?”

    5. “The poorest man may in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail. The roof may shake. The wind may blow through it. The storm may enter. The rain may enter. But the King of England may not enter. All of his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.” – William Pitt

  5. The horrible Ivy indoctrinated lawyers on the Supreme Court have ruled several times, no city duty to individuals. That was true, even when the victim was murdered. And she had a judge’s order to make the ex-husband stay away, and the police refused to enforce it.

    The biggest take home point. Buy guns, and kill your attackers yourself. if the pro-criminal police, agents of the pro-criminal lawyer profession tries to arrest the victims, defend yourselves again.

    Shooting the police is not the answer, however. Find the lawyer hierarchy, and the tech billionaires behind them. Deter them.

    1. No duty to individuals is one thing, this is a case of active city complicity in CHOP’s crimes.

  6. The pro-criminal Mayor of Seattle is, of course, a lawyer. All lawyers are in insurrection against the constitution. This out of control profession must be stopped to save our nation.

  7. Here’s the problem from my perspective.

    Yes, these people had their property essentially stolen by CHOP. Yes, the city politicians assisted the thieves. Yes, these people deserve compensation.

    But where is that compensation coming from? Not from the politicians. From the taxpayers. Who are mostly normal folks. It’s “Heads I win, tails you lose” from the city politician perspective.

    1. Maybe so, but it’s still better than “sucks to be you!” Maybe the local voting public will start thinking about whether they really want to reelect these clowns.

      The settlement should, ideally, show up as a line item on city residents’ tax bills.

    2. I think you vastly overestimate the innocence of the “normal folks” there.

      1. Heh. A friend spent a couple of days on Orcas Island attending a kayaking workshop. The owner mentioned he doesn’t like going into Seattle very much because the folks there are too conservative…

    3. But where is that compensation coming from? Not from the politicians. From the taxpayers.

      But at least then the pain is distributed, rather than the usual case where government malfeasance tends to leave a small subset of citizens screwed at any given time.

  8. Are there any successful models for governing places with a majority pro-criminal-mentality like Seattle or San Francisco? Or do they always just turn out as lingering centers of misery like Gaza and/or lose 70% of their population like Detroit?

    Lots of the blue cities seem to be poised for a decades-long decline right about now. And it looks inevitable because the way to avoid it is good civic behavior and the majority of the people there seem to only care about historic grievances, the bogeyman, and getting free stuff (like Gaza).

    Where would they learn good civic behavior? Not in school. Not from their neighbors. Not from the political class. Nowhere.

    1. The right has been predicting the death of cities for decades now. You have a distorted view of what’s going on in cities.

      Like how people think Portland has become a 1980s crime movie. Which I guess it still is, or have y’all moved on?

      1. I don’t have a distorted view of it. Strawmen maybe do. I’m the guy that keeps telling everyone not to make up stories.

        In a world where none of us are making up stories or pointing at strawmen, what are the examples where cities turned around dysfunction? NYC is one, but it’s looking like their turnaround story is quickly turning back.

        1. Your prediction is not really predictive if it’s been a right-wing trope since Reagan.

          Any day now, eh?

          1. Yeah, who cares about cities anyway, right? None of the big problems directly affect ruling-class leftists with law degrees.

            1. That’s not what I said, Ben_

            1. Lots of the blue cities seem to be poised for a decades-long decline right about now

              You have not made this case. Or anything near it.

              1. There is a fun little way to cut through the spin and see what people are doing. I picked a couple of cities – Seattle and Boise – and went to the Uhaul web site and priced a one way rental, one week from today, in each direction. I picked a ’15 ft truck’, but feel free to explore the other options. The results:

                Seattle–>Boise: $768
                Boise–>Seattle: $149

                Probably just a glitch. What about Portland–>Salt Lake City

                Portland–>STC: $811
                STC–>Portland: $380

                Others:
                San Francisco–>Las Vegas: $1251
                LV–>SFC: $350

                All just funny glitches, I suppose.

                1. I mean, that’s a fun metric, but people moving out of cities at the moment is not really proving ‘decades-long decline.’

                  1. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that people are fleeing Seattle, San Francisco, and Portland. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that their destinations are freer cities that don’t coddle looters and rioters. Maybe there’s a virus infecting the people of just those three cities — one that compels them to take one-way trips in a U-Haul truck. Maybe they’re fleeing a Sasquatch invasion.

                    1. None of what you say is established.
                      But it has been a right-wing narrative for the past 40 years.

                2. It’s also because there is way more demand for rental trucks where there is way more people. So Uhaul would rather have their trucks in Seattle and Portland than Boise or Salt Lake City. Also they charge based on what people in a particular location can afford to pay.

                  1. Also they charge based on what people in a particular location can afford to pay.

                    Speaking of just making things up…which is especially pathetic when your B.S. is so trivially easy to debunk. Go to http://www.uhaul.com and check the rates for rentals within each of those cities (use the same city for both the pick-up and drop-off destinations) for the same date and you’ll quickly learn that the rental rates for the same equipment are EXACTLY the same regardless of location.

              2. What else do you foresee happening? People feel less safe in cities because of violence and because of Covid.

                The benefits of city life — living close to work, convenient shopping, restaurants and personal services — are all ruined by Covid. People work from home and shops and restaurants are closed. And when places aren’t closed, the enjoyment of going there is ruined by Covid. Many places will close permanently because short term profitability is impossible due to Covid and long term profitability is dubious because of policy and decline.

                Cities have lots of problems that won’t be getting better because the leadership and the voters think they can foster a criminal environment without consequences — as if teaching and incentivizing people to think like criminals and act like criminals weren’t the absolute worst thing you could do for them.

                Is it going to lead to great times for cities? What would cause anything to actually get better? At best you can argue about the rate it will get worse.

                1. I forsee the status quo continuing, Ben_.
                  Covid is not a forever thing, and I don’t think people are treating it as such.

                  Places are closing in rural areas as well, especially as deaths there have been increasing as urban death rates are falling.

                  leadership and the voters think they can foster a criminal environment without consequences
                  You know who doesn’t think that? Everyone not on the far right. And that includes most current city dwellers.

                  This kind of trashing of cities has been a right-wing thing for a very long time. It will continue for a very long time. And so will American cities.

                  Not that I’m a huge fan – I’d love it if we spread out and became more local but less dense. But my desires do not author reality, and neither does your antipathy.

                  1. The status quo before 2019 has already not continued. What brings it back?

                    Cities have had huge problems for decades already. It got better as crime dropped since 1993 and quite a bit better still after Trump got unemployment down the last couple years. Now crime and unemployment are back.

                    If Biden wins he can open up the border and makes sure marginal unskilled and entry level jobs go to foreign nationals and make sure nothing can possibly be improved in education to improve the prospects of city dwellers.

                    The people who get paid to manage and oversee the misery will have really secure jobs though.

                    1. Pandemics become endemic over time.

                      Beyond that, I see nothing but spite and speculation here.

                    2. Typical policy discussion: non-leftist tried to discuss what can be done to help people out, leftist only interested in pointing fingers and complaining.

                    3. That’s a pretty odd way to put my rejection of your unsupported narrative.
                      Especially since you don’t talk about helping people out, only throw shade at those awful hellscape cities.

        2. You’re predicting the demise of successful, modern, educated, skilled blue communities in America, and the corresponding rise of half-educated, backward, shambling, parasitic red communities — Wyoming, Alabama, central Pennsylvania, rural Ohio, Idaho, Mississippi, upstate New York, downstate Illinois, South Carolina, and the like — as American centers of commerce, education, culture, research, and thought?

          Generations of bright flight and centuries of American experience indicate that this is childish fantasy.

          1. “. . . half-educated, backward, shambling, parasitic red communities — Wyoming, Alabama, central Pennsylvania, rural Ohio, Idaho, Mississippi, upstate New York, downstate Illinois, South Carolina, and the like . . .”

            Geesh, we got the message, already. Middle-class Americans are pond scum who can’t handle freedom. And America would smell of roses — if only you were philosopher king.

      2. No, we think it became more like a Mad Max movie, complete with freaked out warlords ruling part of the city.

  9. If Seattle demonstrates that they thought they had a way to end this not in blood, and it ended not in blood,
    and y’all are arguing the Court should find them liable for not going full on jackboots…

    You’re not actually seeing this case, but rather some kind of outlet for your violent fantasies about an ordered society that keeps the opposition in line.

      1. And I’m fine if there were some self defense action against that. A priori, that does not mean anything about lets start cracking heads.

        1. So it started out bloody and was bloody in the middle. But let that middle keep happening, let the murders continue, because ending it is impolitic among a specific criminally-minded voting bloc.

    1. They had a way to end it. They used it as soon as these morons annoyed the Mayor. They could have used it at any time if they hadn’t approved of what CHOP was doing.

      1. That took weeks. You very clearly require quicker action than that.

        Your own policy suggestions above are all about blood, if not death. Though you blame those you’d condemn to death on accounta their violence against property.

        1. It didn’t take weeks to shut down Chop, it took weeks to decide to shut down CHOP. Actually shutting it down once the police were permitted to took hours.

          1. You said it was the moment the mayor’s house got involved. Check your timeline on that one.

            1. Saractr0: You said it was the moment the mayor’s house got involved. Check your timeline on that one.

              June 28: Kshama Sawant and “protesters” from CHOP march on Durkan’s house.

              July 1: Seattle PD shuts down CHOP.

              Saractr0: That took weeks.

  10. Is the judge’s name really Zilly? I think I remember him from my youth:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/sj6-LG5VpGk?start=42&end=47

  11. Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the City’s actions—encouraging CHOP participants to wall off the area and agreeing to a “no response” zone within and near CHOP’s borders—foreseeably placed Plaintiffs in a worse position than they would have been in absent any City intervention whatsoever.

    1. Plaintiffs are speculating that absent the city’s policy choices, their property would not have been burned down by rioters. That speculation is plausible. So is its opposite.

    2. Plaintiffs are also attempting to create liability for police inaction, including deliberately chosen inaction intended to further public safety, including their own safety.

    3. It is not clear that plaintiffs’ motivation in filing the lawsuit is even about specific damages, instead of about politics. At the time, many commenters urged crackdowns because they wanted stifled political assemblies which they disapproved. Perhaps plaintiffs are of that mind. Plaintiffs are entitled to that opinion, but not to court enforcement of it.

    1. “At the time, many commenters urged crackdowns because they wanted stifled political assemblies which they disapproved.”

      No, you were just calling criminal activities “political assemblies”. Calling rioting and looting “peaceful protest”. We objected to the crimes, you pretended they weren’t happening.

      Look, they can prove their case in a trial, all they needed at this point was plausible, to get to the trial. I’d say from following the news coverage that they’ve got more than plausible, the city was actually assisting the criminals, not merely refraining from stopping them.

      1. Brett, there is a legitimate question whether these political assemblies were peaceable. That in turn could give rise to a legitimate controversy, over which means were best to manage them, if they were not peaceable. But there is no question that they were political assemblies.

        And no question in my mind, anyway, that you and others now joining your opinions want such assemblies stifled—no matter whether they are peaceable or not. You want all your political opponents’ assemblies stifled—stifled well short of any point where the assembly itself creates pressures which might affect (or effect!) political outcomes regarding policies or elections.

        I understand that you are in plentiful company on that. It has nearly been the status quo interpretation for many decades. But it has never been a settled or comfortable status quo. And it has always been in tension with the fundamental constitutional import of a right to peaceable assembly—which has always encompassed effective political pressure as a potential result.

        Despite that, you cannot deny your comments remain consistent regarding a notion that political pressure created by assembly is illegitimate, and you want it to be unlawful. You want to define as not peaceable any effective political pressure consequent to an assembly, and thus gut that Constitutional right. You would never agree that a constitutional right to peaceable assembly could legitimately prove disruptive, or lawfully interrupt accustomed use of a public space—let alone do so for an extended period. That could not be clearer in your remarks.

        I suggest that brief reflection on political occurrences from the founding era forward through the 20th century would lead to a different interpretation of what the 1A right to peaceable assembly means, and perhaps also to a looser interpretation of what conduct passes as “peaceable.” At a minimum, that reflection would suggest that political assembly has long been counted as a preeminent use of the public square, to which other uses must sometimes give way.

        1. “Brett, there is a legitimate question whether these political assemblies were peaceable.”

          Not in the case of CHOP, there isn’t. This is just more, “Ignore the burning buildings behind me, this protest is peaceful.” gaslighting.

          I have no problem at all with peaceful protest, even if I don’t agree with the protesters, but I’m not the slightest bit interested in pretending that riots and looting are peaceful protest. Pretending that peaceful protesters just naturally will assault anyone filming them.

          And you are.

          I’ve been in protests, genuinely peaceful protests. Protests that left the protest site cleaner that when we showed up. It’s not impossible to hold a protest without windows being broken, or cars set on fire. Maybe you should ask yourself why the left seems incapable of protesting anymore without property damage.

          1. CHOP was a “political assembly” like a Civil War army was a political assembly.

        2. Plaintiffs are also attempting to create liability for police inaction

          Wrong. The liability is for inaction by the city officials from whom the police take their orders. In that context, the police are merely a tool.

          At the time, many commenters urged crackdowns because they wanted stifled political assemblies which they disapproved.

          And by “political assemblies” you mean “the forceable seizure and destruction of public and private property (not to mention more than one murder”.

          Brett, there is a legitimate question whether these political assemblies were peaceable.

          You’re arguing that there’s a reasonable question as to whether or not forceably seizing control of both public and private property, defacing much of that property…oh, and murdering multiple people…is “peaceable”? I’ve never seen anyone strain so hard to avoid even the potential of being taken seriously.

    2. 1: Someone charged as an accessory to a crime could plausibly allege that the crime would have been carried out in the same manner absent their assistance, however that does not lessen the criminal liability of their role as an accessory

  12. The dream outcome: Damages in the amount of $100 million. Mayor and her supporters exiled to Cuba. City renamed to “CHOP This.”

Please to post comments