Viva la Chaz! Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)

[Galloism]

They have a stated policy of requiring police secure the scene of a violent crime before they charge in themselves and become another victim of it. This was a violent crime. Ergo they're not permitted to go to the scene of the crime without police to secure it.

Therefore, not allowing the police to escort them was effectively a denial.

It was in the link.

Not allowing the police to escort the EMT isn't denying the EMT entry. The EMT were given conditions under which they could enter, and were actively begged to accept them and come to the assistance of people who needed it, and refused those conditions of their own volition on policy grounds.

And if the EMTs had not followed policy of their employer they likely would have been, at best, reprimanded or, more likely, fired. They also could have been killed.

You're really asking them to take a risk to their lives and jobs to enter.

This is not much different than a flat denial.

[Senkaku]

Not allowing the police to escort the EMT isn't denying the EMT entry. The EMT were given conditions under which they could enter, and were actively begged to accept them and come to the assistance of people who needed it, and refused those conditions of their own volition on policy grounds.

And if the EMTs had not followed policy of their employer they likely would have been, at best, reprimanded or, more likely, fired. They also could have been killed.

You're really asking them to take a risk to their lives and jobs to enter.

This is not much different than a flat denial.

you’re right, I’d hate to put emergency first responders in any kind of potential danger or risk (?)

As for being fired or asking THEM to lose their jobs, we’re saying it’s bullshit that SPD implemented the policy, that Best and Durkan should lose *their* jobs, and that they should’ve been allowed to enter

[Ethel mermania]

It'd be more akin to saying that if you insisted that any paramedics who entered CHAZ were unarmed, they weren't denied entry. Only their firearms were. Clothing isn't likely to pose a serious threat to the safety of the protesters occupying the area. It's been very clearly demonstrated over the past month that the same can't be said for the police.

Maybe I lived in Florida too long, but if it was a choice between my clothes or my gun, i'd sooner give up my clothes.

It's called concealed carry for a reason.

[Galloism]

And if the EMTs had not followed policy of their employer they likely would have been, at best, reprimanded or, more likely, fired. They also could have been killed.

You're really asking them to take a risk to their lives and jobs to enter.

This is not much different than a flat denial.

you’re right, I’d hate to put emergency first responders in any kind of potential danger or risk (?)

Again, this is a normal policy that has been adopted by EMTs the world over, for the safety of the EMTs.

As for being fired or asking THEM to lose their jobs, we’re saying it’s bullshit that SPD implemented the policy, that Best and Durkan should lose *their* jobs, and that they should’ve been allowed to enter

SPD did not implement the policy. SFD did.

And again, this is a normal policy that has been adopted by EMTs and non-enforcement emergency responders the world over, for the safety thereof.

You're asking EMTs to go into an area where violence is known to have recently occurred (hence why they're called), without any kind of security. And they're not permitted to be armed themselves, by policy. Why do these policy which have stood for... i dunno, probably 50+ years anyway, be suddenly changed because of a protest?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

What about if it was a serious medical emergency but without any indication of crime?

They'd have to go into a known lawless area, a bit like a ghetto, in order to stabilize and evacuate the injured person. I'm guessing in this situation they could use their own judgement about the risk? Or would they have to defer to whatever SPD or SFD ordered?

Another thing I'm wondering is why the ambos can't co-operate with the occupiers to the extent of receiving a patient at the perimeter.

[The Two Jerseys]

Another thing I'm wondering is why the ambos can't co-operate with the occupiers to the extent of receiving a patient at the perimeter.

It's generally inadvisable for persons without proper training and equipment to move an injured person unless absolutely necessary.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Another thing I'm wondering is why the ambos can't co-operate with the occupiers to the extent of receiving a patient at the perimeter.

It's generally inadvisable for persons without proper training and equipment to move an injured person unless absolutely necessary.

If the ambos won't enter then it IS absolutely necessary.
I heard CHAZ-people were taking casualties all the way to the hospital, that's surely worse than taking them just to the perimeter.

[The Two Jerseys]

It's generally inadvisable for persons without proper training and equipment to move an injured person unless absolutely necessary.

If the ambos won't enter then it IS absolutely necessary.
I heard CHAZ-people were taking casualties all the way to the hospital, that's surely worse than taking them just to the perimeter.

That's just plain not true.

If someone falls down the stairs, it's not absolutely necessary to move them before EMS arrives unless there's a life-threatening situation like the building being on fire.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If the ambos won't enter then it IS absolutely necessary.
I heard CHAZ-people were taking casualties all the way to the hospital, that's surely worse than taking them just to the perimeter.

That's just plain not true.

If someone falls down the stairs, it's not absolutely necessary to move them before EMS arrives unless there's a life-threatening situation like the building being on fire.

Are we actually posting in the same thread?

Police won't enter the CHAZ.
Ambulances won't enter without police escort.
Your solution if there is a serious injury ... is?

[The Two Jerseys]

That's just plain not true.

If someone falls down the stairs, it's not absolutely necessary to move them before EMS arrives unless there's a life-threatening situation like the building being on fire.

Are we actually posting in the same thread?

Police won't enter the CHAZ.
Ambulances won't enter without police escort.
Your solution if there is a serious injury ... is?

For the protesters to grow up and lose that hateboner they have for the police.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Are we actually posting in the same thread?

Police won't enter the CHAZ.
Ambulances won't enter without police escort.
Your solution if there is a serious injury ... is?

For the protesters to grow up and lose that hateboner they have for the police.

Well I can agree with that.

But I also agree with the protesters who did take injured people to the hospital in cars, since with all their comrades so hostile to the police they didn't have the option of letting ambos in.
The city might have done better to send police WITH an ambulance, and asked nicely at the perimeter instead of just entering.

I know it annoys you when I make criticism of anyone but The Criminal, but you should be used to it by now.

[WayNeacTia]

Are we actually posting in the same thread?

Police won't enter the CHAZ.
Ambulances won't enter without police escort.
Your solution if there is a serious injury ... is?

For the protesters to grow up and lose that hateboner they have for the police.

For the mayor to grow a set and tell the police to get the hell back in there and enforce law and order. The protesters had their fun, and built there little fort. Now it is time to them to go to bed and let the adults back in to clean up after them.

[Galloism]

What about if it was a serious medical emergency but without any indication of crime?

They'd have to go into a known lawless area, a bit like a ghetto, in order to stabilize and evacuate the injured person. I'm guessing in this situation they could use their own judgement about the risk? Or would they have to defer to whatever SPD or SFD ordered?

Another thing I'm wondering is why the ambos can't co-operate with the occupiers to the extent of receiving a patient at the perimeter.

If there is gunfire in the area presently or very recently, generally they must wait for police. Again, they’re not permitted to be arm themselves and have no real means of self defense.

But “it’s a ghetto” isn’t reason enough itself.

[Ifreann]

Are we actually posting in the same thread?

Police won't enter the CHAZ.
Ambulances won't enter without police escort.
Your solution if there is a serious injury ... is?

For the protesters to grow up and lose that hateboner they have for the police.

Which is, of course, the point. The police want to try and force circumstances that will justify them forcibly dismantling the CHAZ. It'd be a bit too obviously evil to go in and gas the whole place and shoot anyone with a camera when the CHAZ is peaceful and safe. So they'll keep paramedics out, and let Proud Boys and other Nazis in.

[Greed and Death]

For the protesters to grow up and lose that hateboner they have for the police.

Which is, of course, the point. The police want to try and force circumstances that will justify them forcibly dismantling the CHAZ. It'd be a bit too obviously evil to go in and gas the whole place and shoot anyone with a camera when the CHAZ is peaceful and safe. So they'll keep paramedics out, and let Proud Boys and other Nazis in.

If you are not letting the police in how in bloody hell do you expect them to remove Nazis and Proud Boys ?

[Ifreann]

Which is, of course, the point. The police want to try and force circumstances that will justify them forcibly dismantling the CHAZ. It'd be a bit too obviously evil to go in and gas the whole place and shoot anyone with a camera when the CHAZ is peaceful and safe. So they'll keep paramedics out, and let Proud Boys and other Nazis in.

If you are not letting the police in how in bloody hell do you expect them to remove Nazis and Proud Boys ?

I don't expect the police to remove Proud Boys or Nazis. I expect the police to work with them because they have broadly the same goals.

[Aureumterra]

For the protesters to grow up and lose that hateboner they have for the police.

For the mayor to grow a set and tell the police to get the hell back in there and enforce law and order. The protesters had their fun, and built there little fort. Now it is time to them to go to bed and let the adults back in to clean up after them.

Careful, we don’t want a mass temper tantrum

[Senkaku]

Are we actually posting in the same thread?

Police won't enter the CHAZ.
Ambulances won't enter without police escort.
Your solution if there is a serious injury ... is?

For the protesters to grow up and lose that hateboner they have for the police.

"if I had been brutalized I would simply stop being mad about it"

thanks for the hot tip lol

[Galloism]

For the protesters to grow up and lose that hateboner they have for the police.

"if I had been brutalized I would simply stop being mad about it"

thanks for the hot tip lol

There's a reasonableness factor though, right?

After all, I got shot by a black guy, but I don't hate black people. I don't even hate people who choose to live in Florida, or choose to deal drugs, or choose to wear t shirts. Because I recognize a person is responsible for his or her actions, not people broadly making some metric choice similarly or sharing a certain demographic to the person I was shot by.

After all, to the shop owners brutalized by protestors, they probably shouldn't have a hateboner against protestors or even BLM protestors. We should assign blame to the individual and, if there's a cultural factor involved, to the culture involved - and work to change it. You can see that a culture requires change without hating the members thereof.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and we can just hate people because of something someone they're broadly associated with did.

[Senkaku]

"if I had been brutalized I would simply stop being mad about it"

thanks for the hot tip lol

There's a reasonableness factor though, right?

After all, I got shot by a black guy, but I don't hate black people.

you cannot choose to go to a special school for 8 weeks and be officially declared Black by the state and expect most other Black person you meet to cover up your crimes for you, so I'm gonna give this analogy a 0

I don't even hate people who choose to live in Florida, or choose to deal drugs, or choose to wear t shirts. Because I recognize a person is responsible for his or her actions, not people broadly making some metric choice similarly or sharing a certain demographic to the person I was shot by.

kind of a different situation than if the person you were shot by was voluntarily part of an institution that then protected them and kept having its personnel shoot other people and everyone in that institution either was on board or unwilling to leave it or speak out, isn't it

After all, to the shop owners brutalized by protestors, they probably shouldn't have a hateboner against protestors or even BLM protestors. We should assign blame to the individual and, if there's a cultural factor involved, to the culture involved - and work to change it. You can see that a culture requires change without hating the members thereof.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and we can just hate people because of something someone they're broadly associated with did.

you and me protesting for the same thing or being part of the same race is a "broad association." Me killing or brutalizing someone in my official capacity as an employee of a state institution, and you going along with it as a fellow employee, or perhaps even joining in? sort of a different situation

it's understandable your impulse would be to make a #NotAllMen argument, but it doesn't work quite as neatly when you're substituting in cops lol

[Galloism]

There's a reasonableness factor though, right?

After all, I got shot by a black guy, but I don't hate black people.

you cannot choose to go to a special school for 8 weeks and be officially declared Black by the state and expect most other Black person you meet to cover up your crimes for you, so I'm gonna give this analogy a 0

I don't even hate people who choose to live in Florida, or choose to deal drugs, or choose to wear t shirts. Because I recognize a person is responsible for his or her actions, not people broadly making some metric choice similarly or sharing a certain demographic to the person I was shot by.

kind of a different situation than if the person you were shot by was voluntarily part of an institution that then protected them and kept having its personnel shoot other people and everyone in that institution either was on board or unwilling to leave it or speak out, isn't it

"Police" is not an institution. There are almost 18,000 separate such institutions in the United States. This is why I mentioned "drug dealers", who are part of various cartels generally speaking, or broadly connected with various cartels, all of which use violence. In fact, there are probably fewer cartels than police departments to fight them, because they're bigger.

But I don't "hate" drug dealers because I got shot by a drug dealer.

After all, to the shop owners brutalized by protestors, they probably shouldn't have a hateboner against protestors or even BLM protestors. We should assign blame to the individual and, if there's a cultural factor involved, to the culture involved - and work to change it. You can see that a culture requires change without hating the members thereof.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and we can just hate people because of something someone they're broadly associated with did.

you and me protesting for the same thing or being part of the same race is a "broad association." Me killing or brutalizing someone in my official capacity as an employee of a state institution, and you going along with it as a fellow employee, or perhaps even joining in? sort of a different situation

If you join in, that should definitely be viewed as a crime. But the ~800,000 officers that are part of 17,985 separate institutions?

Probably not appropriate.

it's understandable your impulse would be to make a #NotAllMen argument, but it doesn't work quite as neatly when you're substituting in cops lol

I don't think you understand the nature of policing, nor the nature of an institution, or what comprises an institution.

And this is about police officers regardless of sex. Your heteronormative assumptions of policing nonwithstanding.


I will not and cannot endorse hatred across a broad class of individuals broadly sort of related based on the actions of a few.

[Senkaku]

you cannot choose to go to a special school for 8 weeks and be officially declared Black by the state and expect most other Black person you meet to cover up your crimes for you, so I'm gonna give this analogy a 0


kind of a different situation than if the person you were shot by was voluntarily part of an institution that then protected them and kept having its personnel shoot other people and everyone in that institution either was on board or unwilling to leave it or speak out, isn't it

"Police" is not an institution. There are almost 18,000 separate such institutions in the United States.

this makes about as much sense as saying public schools or libraries aren't institutions lol

and the Seattle Police Department is one specific body which is over 150 years old and employs thousands of people

This is why I mentioned "drug dealers", who are part of various cartels generally speaking, or broadly connected with various cartels, all of which use violence. In fact, there are probably fewer cartels than police departments to fight them, because they're bigger.

I feel like this could be the start of a whole separate and probably very interesting investigation of what percentage of the illegal drug trade is actually controlled by cartels (like what % of the actual end sales are made by guys aligned with an established cartel with some sort of hierarchy or international reach?)

But I don't "hate" drug dealers because I got shot by a drug dealer.

I'm guessing if they'd been terrorizing your community for decades and shooting or torturing lots of people, while claiming to everyone else that they were helping you and that you weren't complying with their instructions, you might start to get a little more frustrated!

(Also, for all this "I don't hate drug dealers" stuff, I'm guessing you're not fond of them! I don't know why you're assuming 2 Jerz's characterization of protesters "having a hateboner" is in any way a fair or accurate assessment of what are in fact much deeper and more complex emotions)

you and me protesting for the same thing or being part of the same race is a "broad association." Me killing or brutalizing someone in my official capacity as an employee of a state institution, and you going along with it as a fellow employee, or perhaps even joining in? sort of a different situation

If you join in, that should definitely be viewed as a crime. But the ~800,000 officers that are part of 17,985 separate institutions?

Probably not appropriate.

If they're not denouncing what's going on and quitting if it continues, it's entirely appropriate. The officers in Atlanta who're basically striking to protest one of their fellows being indicted for murdering Rayshard Brooks? The countless officers in New York who are saying and doing nothing, after weeks of NYPD running people over, harassing them, beating them, etc.? The officers in Seattle who are still on the force, after watching their fellow officers shoot people in the chest, spray kids in the face, and incite violence?

There are plenty who are physically joining in, but I don't think it's ridiculous to say that those who aren't actively taking a stand, and are instead just meekly going along with their department's line (or who are getting outraged about any actions to hold their fellow officers accountable), are also complicit and play a vital role in letting all the misconduct we're seeing continue! If bad cops thought people in their workplace would stand up for what was right, we'd be in a very different situation.

If any cop in America feels like they can stay silent about what's happening and stay in their job, they are a bad cop. That's what I'm telling you.

How can an official responsible for public safety who sees a massive, pervasive threat to public safety and remains silent about it to protect their co-workers over the public be deemed "good"?

it's understandable your impulse would be to make a #NotAllMen argument, but it doesn't work quite as neatly when you're substituting in cops lol

I don't think you understand the nature of policing, nor the nature of an institution, or what comprises an institution.

If "the police" don't meet your definition of an institution then I genuinely don't know what would lol

[Senkaku]

And this is about police officers regardless of sex. Your heteronormative assumptions of policing nonwithstanding.

no, I was just doing a little drive-by shitting on you for being an MRA lol I thought that was clear

I will not and cannot endorse hatred across a broad class of individuals broadly sort of related based on the actions of a few.

I feel like the use of the word "hate" here (not stemming from my use!) and your comparisons to you getting shot by a Black guy and the general attempt to analogize not liking cops to hating Black people is pretty messed up and out of touch with reality but if that's your position then uh enjoy holding the thin blue line and have a good one

[Galloism]

"Police" is not an institution. There are almost 18,000 separate such institutions in the United States.

this makes about as much sense as saying public schools or libraries aren't institutions lol

They are institutions, but not an institution. I hope that helps clarify.

Teachers have been raping students for decades. Where’s the outrage against teachers as a group?

and the Seattle Police Department is one specific body which is over 150 years old and employs thousands of people

Seattle police department is an institution. Police are not an institution.

I hope that helps clarify.

This is why I mentioned "drug dealers", who are part of various cartels generally speaking, or broadly connected with various cartels, all of which use violence. In fact, there are probably fewer cartels than police departments to fight them, because they're bigger.

I feel like this could be the start of a whole separate and probably very interesting investigation of what percentage of the illegal drug trade is actually controlled by cartels (like what % of the actual end sales are made by guys aligned with an established cartel with some sort of hierarchy or international reach?)

A very interesting (and murky) discussion. Yet “drug dealers” are not an institution.

But I don't "hate" drug dealers because I got shot by a drug dealer.

I'm guessing if they'd been terrorizing your community for decades and shooting or torturing lots of people, while claiming to everyone else that they were helping you and that you weren't complying with their instructions, you might start to get a little more frustrated!

Technically, they have been terrorizing and shooting up neighborhoods for decades. They don’t pretend being there to help you though.

(Also, for all this "I don't hate drug dealers" stuff, I'm guessing you're not fond of them! I don't know why you're assuming 2 Jerz's characterization of protesters "having a hateboner" is in any way a fair or accurate assessment of what are in fact much deeper and more complex emotions)

It should be legalized and regulated. Most drug dealers are as much a victim of the status quo as a perpetrator. Life is hard.

Police are in a similar position in a lot of cases. If they crack down on crime in minority communities, they hate minorities. If they don’t, they don’t care about them. It’s a tough problem.

If you join in, that should definitely be viewed as a crime. But the ~800,000 officers that are part of 17,985 separate institutions?

Probably not appropriate.

If they're not denouncing what's going on and quitting if it continues, it's entirely appropriate. The officers in Atlanta who're basically striking to protest one of their fellows being indicted for murdering Rayshard Brooks? The countless officers in New York who are saying and doing nothing, after weeks of NYPD running people over, harassing them, beating them, etc.? The officers in Seattle who are still on the force, after watching their fellow officers shoot people in the chest, spray kids in the face, and incite violence?

There are plenty who are physically joining in, but I don't think it's ridiculous to say that those who aren't actively taking a stand, and are instead just meekly going along with their department's line (or who are getting outraged about any actions to hold their fellow officers accountable), are also complicit and play a vital role in letting all the misconduct we're seeing continue! If bad cops thought people in their workplace would stand up for what was right, we'd be in a very different situation.

If any cop in America feels like they can stay silent about what's happening and stay in their job, they are a bad cop. That's what I'm telling you.

I look forward to you calling out all the teachers who do not specifically call out teachers raping students. Which happens repeatedly.

I don't think you understand the nature of policing, nor the nature of an institution, or what comprises an institution.

If "the police" don't meet your definition of an institution then I genuinely don't know what would lol

Let me help - an institution is an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, especially one of a public, educational, or charitable character.

IE, The Seattle PD is an institution. “Police” are not.
The Seattle fire department is an institution. “Firefighters” are not.
The Mayo Clinic is an institution. “Medical personnel” are not.
The National Organization of Women is an institution. “Feminists” are not.

I hope this helps you understand what is an institution.

[Galloism]

And this is about police officers regardless of sex. Your heteronormative assumptions of policing nonwithstanding.

no, I was just doing a little drive-by shitting on you for being an MRA lol I thought that was clear

Except I’m not of course. I’m less r/mensrights and more r/leftwingmaleadvocates

Although even that’s not perfect.

I will not and cannot endorse hatred across a broad class of individuals broadly sort of related based on the actions of a few.

I feel like the use of the word "hate" here (not stemming from my use!) and your comparisons to you getting shot by a Black guy and the general attempt to analogize not liking cops to hating Black people is pretty messed up and out of touch with reality but if that's your position then uh enjoy holding the thin blue line and have a good one

I honestly think it’s on point. Police are more afraid of black men than any other group because of repeated violent encounters with black men. It’s not appropriate, and we need to train out race and gender assumptions about suspects, but it is part of the reason we have the problem now: due to bad experience, they start seeing a group of people as a block instead of individuals.

This has been commented on before:

The police do shoot more unarmed black men than unarmed white men. The question is does this happen because these cops are just racists out looking to kill black people or is there something else behind it?

Here is my theory. My theory is that the reason police shoot more unarmed black men is because they know they can get away with it. They know that the family is too poor to afford a lawyer and society will back them and not care about it, so they do it. They may be racists or they may just be total assholes who just wanted to fuck with someone or who got their ego hurt and wanted to "teach someone a lesson." But under my theory, while police brutality disproprionately affects black people as a group, the correlation between being black and police shooting you isn't direct. Alot of the problem is socioeconomic. The police aren't gonna be as quick to shoot a kid of any race in a place like Hyde Park because it's an upper middle class neighborhood and a police shooting would likely bring the full wrath of the people there (who have actual political and economic power) down on them. But let's say the police go to a trailer park that is mostly white. I think that just like in a poor black neighborhood, the police really wouldn't have qualms about killing someone in a trailer park or in Philadelphia's fishtown neighborhood because they know the response will be awfully similar. Along the lines of "who cares? It's a shithole neighborhood and the guy they shot was probably a bum and a criminal thug anyhow." We gotta stop police brutality, but we shouldn't simplify it to "it's just cops shooting black people cause they're black."

I like randomly accusing broad classes of people of sociopathy as much as the next everyone, but having been in law enforcement, let me shine a light on it.

There’s an informal “threat matrix” in human minds - all human minds. Try to imagine it as a number line, where at 1 you can fall asleep in their presence, and at 10 you shoot them.

Now, when you approach a car, or gathering, or something, you very quickly and, based on your own biases, create an “initial threat value”.

Let’s say it’s a group of white women - 3
A group of black women - 5
A group of white men - 7
A group of black men - 8

An action is taken that could be threatening. Reaching into a pocket, glove box, taking a confident step toward you, something. Whatever it is, you add +2 to your initial threat matrix.

The white women you ask them to stop (5).
The black women you threaten them they must stop (7).
The white men you shove up against the wall, unstrap your gun, grab your taser, etc (9)
The black men you pull your sidearm (10).

And this is how men and black men in particular get shot so much.

Keep in mind, this whole thing was about a “hateboner” based on stereotypes, where Jersey suggested it was bad, and you defended it.

Well, stereotyping based on perceived patterns is causing the very problem we are justifiably upset about.