# Sexual assault no longer a crime in Seattle?



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Rape cases are being, pretty much, overlooked in Seattle. 









Seattle police staffing shortage affects sexual assault case investigations


The Seattle police chief said the department's sexual assault unit is about half the size it was a few years ago, with just five detectives handling all the cases.




www.king5.com





So I'm wondering if a woman defends herself during an attempted rape, will she be prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon?


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Only if she uses a 'high caliber' round, like 9mm. 😈


----------



## Michael_Js (Dec 4, 2013)

Remember who runs Freattle - liberal socialist demonrats. In fact, they run (ruin) the entire state for everyone!! Defund the police! Love the criminals...that's their motto! They are passing SO many gun "control" laws, besides the ones the liberal administration is passing...
The entire west coast is lost!

Peace


----------



## Weldman (Nov 7, 2020)

Don't worry if Barney Fife gives chase if you are accused of sexual assault, just drive away and go your merry way. You are covered under House Bill 1054 which went to law under RCW 10.116.060 and you won't be pursued.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

The real crime is the dems defunding the PD.


----------



## ErickthePutz (Jan 10, 2021)

Nowhere did anyone state that sexual assault was decriminalized. The article is about no staff to investigate due to staffing issues due to defunding. Nowhere did the article state that a person loses the right to self defense.

This is WHY you keep being relegated to the looney fringe. You make up “news” and it starts rolling.

Be responsible. Post facts.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

ErickthePutz said:


> Nowhere did anyone state that sexual assault was decriminalized. The article is about no staff to investigate due to staffing issues due to defunding. Nowhere did the article state that a person loses the right to self defense.
> 
> This is WHY you keep being relegated to the looney fringe. You make up “news” and it starts rolling.
> 
> Be responsible. Post facts.


Credit where due, THIS was a helpful and informative post.
More often than not, you're intentionally cryptic and terse.
I like this new style.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Being it's not going to be investigated no sense even reporting it. Which includes the shooting of the rapist, no reason to investigate that either. Sounds to me like the perfect shoot and shut up scenario. At least that's what I'm hearing.


----------



## KellyDude (11 mo ago)

Our government can't even protect us from convicted cartel hit men who are IN prison! 

Texas family is left reeling after murder of grandad, four grandkids

We're on our own!


----------



## 0rocky (Jan 7, 2018)

After the creation in Seattle of the CHOP / CHAZ zone, I didn’t think anything was a crime. Maybe the act of defending yourself is the only remaining crime?


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

0rocky said:


> After the creation in Seattle of the CHOP / CHAZ zone, I didn’t think anything was a crime. Maybe the act of defending yourself is the only remaining crime?


Simply _wanting _to defend yourself is a crime these days.


----------



## Jingo (Nov 10, 2021)

There is so much case law on personal self-defense in Washington State that it will take decades for liberal Seattle to build up anything against it. 

I remember a woman who broke up with her boyfriend and he came back and was pounding on her apartment door and she shot him through the door. The prosecutor wasn't sure if he could get a conviction so he convened a grand jury and the grand jury wouldn't indict.

I also remember another case where a man and his son were coming home from a Mariners game and flashed their high beams at another car. That car followed them home and started assaulting the man. He took his son in the house and went back out to the trunk of his car and retrieved his Glock and shot the man over a dozen times. The prosecutor again convened a grand jury and again the grand jury would not indict.

I only bring up those two incidences because it gives a view of people's attitudes of self-defense in Washington. There have been so many cases where prosecutors simply would not prosecute a person who used a firearm in self-defense .

In Spokane a man got in a road rage incident where he didn't rage. He drove to a very public location at a convenience store got out of his car and walked towards the store to go inside. The other driver assaulted him and he shot the other driver. The prosecutor did not prosecute.

We have had very good state supreme court decisions on the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically they said it's an out and about in public right in Washington State. 

They also went and overturned all drug convictions that were enhanced because firearms were present. They wisely decided that just because you had firearms in a house when you were dealing marijuana it did not mean they were used in a crime.

If you look back at the Great depression, there was an awful lot of organized crime. Law enforcement was busy was organized crime and when people shopped somebody out of self-defense, the shootings were ruled justifiable. 

I once sat with this old gal who told me a story about the Great depression here in Washington. She told me her neighbor had a couple boxes of apples on the back of his bunk board and the man across the street stole one. The neighbor went across the street killed the man and took back his apples. The sheriff wrote out a couple days later and ruled it justifiable homicide. "Yeap shouldn't have stole them apples " was all the old gal I had to say about that.

I suspect Eastern Washington will pick up that lifestyle very quick. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if most of Western Washington doesn't follow a couple years later.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

ErickthePutz said:


> Nowhere did anyone state that sexual assault was decriminalized. The article is about no staff to investigate due to staffing issues due to defunding. Nowhere did the article state that a person loses the right to self defense.
> 
> This is WHY you keep being relegated to the looney fringe. You make up “news” and it starts rolling.
> 
> Be responsible. Post facts.


Well, in essence you are correct. They didn't decriminalize it. They will investigate it at some point. When they have time. When they get more help. When they don't have more pressing stuff to do.

Drug are still illegal on the books there, as is theft. Yet drugs are dealt openly on the street. KOMO did a documentary on it. This was back in 2019 so it's been around a day or 2.









KOMO News Special: Seattle is Dying


Seattle Is Dying. It's a harsh title. Someone on social media even called it a




komonews.com





But, ya gotta understand they are short staffed. And, if a perp decides to run, they can no longer legally persue.









New Washington law restricting police pursuits causing concern among law enforcement


A new law in Washington limiting when police can pursue suspects is causing some concern among law enforcement officials.




www.king5.com





Shoplifting has become an occupation also.









Opinion | Shoplifting as Usual in Seattle


Progressives oppose an effort to prosecute the most prolific thieves.




www.wsj.com





They really have crime under control. 









Crime Soars in Seattle After City Council Cuts Police Funding: '30 Years' Backwards


Crime is soaring in Seattle in the wake of the city council's decision to "defund the police" partially during the Black Lives Matter riots.




www.breitbart.com







ErickthePutz said:


> This is WHY you keep being relegated to the looney fringe. *You make up “news” and it starts rolling*.
> 
> Be responsible. Post facts.


I know, I know, I forged all these stories. Guess I do belong in the looney bin. Here's another good one I managed to fake.









Seattle's crime surge spreads statewide thanks to Democrats' progressive policies


Thanks to a Democratic legislature that codified the radical defund police proposals into laws, plus light-on-crime judges, the crime surge hitting Seattle is spreading across the state.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Credit where due, *THIS was a helpful and informative post.*
> More often than not, you're intentionally cryptic and terse.
> I like this new style.


Yep, you caught me. Making up stories. You and the Putz are good at this.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

And @ErickthePutz, thanks for the reminder. I had almost forgotten what a low tolerance level I have for stupid. Intelligent people would look for facts so they can refute them, but stupid people don't. You happened to remind me of that. And I think maybe others are joining your ranks. I should care but like Rhett Butler said:


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Yep, you caught me. Making up stories. You and the Putz are good at this.


Your title asks if this particular crime is no longer a crime. Factually, yes. It is still a crime and your article does not refute this.
Your question about a woman defending herself and being prosecuted was not based on any information in the linked article.
Putz' asked for facts, not speculation or hyperbole.

I pointed out that he actually chose to engage and provide a real perspective instead of his usual short and cryptic replies, and thanked him for it.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Your title asks if this particular crime is no longer a crime. Factually, yes. It is still a crime and your article does not refute this.


Yes, I guess if the law is still on the books, technically it's still a crime. But what deterrence is the law when it's set aside for maybe some time later? They may get to it at some time in the future. Maybe. Still a crime that's not prosecuted, in reality, is no longer a crime.

But my question was, since they are treating it this way, if a woman defends herself will she be prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Yes, I guess if the law is still on the books, technically it's still a crime. But what deterrence is the law when it's set aside for maybe some time later? They may get to it at some time in the future. Maybe. Still a crime that's not prosecuted, in reality, is no longer a crime.
> 
> But my question was, since they are treating it this way, if a woman defends herself will she be prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon?


I think that was his point. That the article does not support the title of the thread.

The answer to your second question can only be speculative. Soros DAs are flipping the legal world on its head, so anything is possible. It's up to them to determine charges.
I don't know Seattle defense law, so I can't say whether deadly force is legal in response to rape. In any case, it is my conviction that it _should_ be.
Eric's 2nd point was simply that the article also does not address that topic. The article provides no reason to believe self-defense is not allowed.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I think that was his point. That the article does not support the title of the thread.


So, that point is it's illegal so one should know that and not do it. Sort of like drugs, correct? There are consequences for doing and selling drugs. IF one gets caught and IF the DA wishes to prosecute. They might get to it some time, maybe. anyhow. But there's so many other things to deal with. Maybe sometime we'll really have a war on drugs. Maybe sometime they will really go after the cartels. But there's soooo much money to be made. And there are sooo many other things to focus on. Like white supremacy and internal terrorists. So they might actually do something about it some time in the future. Sort of like all those rape evidence cases stacked on a shelf. Maybe. Some time in the future, when things settle down. They just might find time. Like the cases of mass shoplifting that reach into the 100's of thousands of dollars. 

So, depending on your point of view, many things are illegal. Jaywalking is against the law but you see it all the time. So a crime is not a crime unless someone is willing to prosecute. Speeding is a crime. Littering is a crime yet look at how trashy our environment is. So, even if its a crime and not prosecuted, it ceases to be a crime. Oh, it's still on the books. We have laws still on the books from the lated 1700's and early 1800's. I know doing the research on this is a burden to some. Defecating on the street is illegal. Yet there are lots of video evidence of this happening now. Illegal? It sure doesn't seem like it.

I may or may not prove my point later. Until then, you and the Putz are free to call me a liar, a looney or anything in between. Be my guest.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> So, that point is it's illegal so one should know that and not do it. Sort of like drugs, correct? There are consequences for doing and selling drugs. IF one gets caught and IF the DA wishes to prosecute. They might get to it some time, maybe. anyhow. But there's so many other things to deal with. Maybe sometime we'll really have a war on drugs. Maybe sometime they will really go after the cartels. But there's soooo much money to be made. And there are sooo many other things to focus on. Like white supremacy and internal terrorists. So they might actually do something about it some time in the future. Sort of like all those rape evidence cases stacked on a shelf. Maybe. Some time in the future, when things settle down. They just might find time. Like the cases of mass shoplifting that reach into the 100's of thousands of dollars.
> 
> So, depending on your point of view, many things are illegal. Jaywalking is against the law but you see it all the time. So a crime is not a crime unless someone is willing to prosecute. Speeding is a crime. Littering is a crime yet look at how trashy our environment is. So, even if its a crime and not prosecuted, it ceases to be a crime. Oh, it's still on the books. We have laws still on the books from the lated 1700's and early 1800's. I know doing the research on this is a burden to some. Defecating on the street is illegal. Yet there are lots of video evidence of this happening now. Illegal? It sure doesn't seem like it.
> 
> I may or may not prove my point later. Until then, you and the Putz are free to call me a liar, a looney or anything in between. Be my guest.


No, his point was that your chosen title is not supported by the article you linked.
He didn't address legality based on officer availability or DA prosecution choice.
It was simply about the claim the question implied and the lack of any support for it by the article linked.

I didn't call you anything, and won't.
He implied that unsupported claims will cause your opposition to push you to the "looney fringe" and consider your perspective irrelevant.
You implied he is stupid. I'll leave it to you to explain why.
I would recommend we not wander into personal accusations against one another, and just stick to the topic and supportable facts concerning it.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> No, his point was that your chosen title is not supported by the article you linked.


Ok, so rape is still on books. It's illegal. But since it's not being pursued, that's a none point, correct? Who cares if it's prosecuted or not. 

You still haven't addressed my question. If a woman defends herself from a crime that's not prosecutable (or won't be pursued), will she be charged for assault? Some gun crimes are still being prosecuted. Not all, but some.

Defecating on the streets is still illegal also. Who cares if it's not prosecuted. At least is still on the books.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Ok, so rape is still on books. It's illegal. But since it's not being pursued, that's a none point, correct? Who cares if it's prosecuted or not.


Nobody has stated they don't care about the prosecution.
The only point made was that the article does not support the notion that the act is no longer a crime.


inceptor said:


> You still haven't addressed my question. If a woman defends herself from a crime that's not prosecutable (or won't be pursued), will she be charged for assault? Some gun crimes are still being prosecuted. Not all, but some.


I did.


Kauboy said:


> The answer to your second question can only be speculative. Soros DAs are flipping the legal world on its head, so anything is possible. It's up to them to determine charges.
> I don't know Seattle defense law, so I can't say whether deadly force is legal in response to rape. In any case, it is my conviction that it _should_ be.
> Eric's 2nd point was simply that the article also does not address that topic. The article provides no reason to believe self-defense is not allowed.


----------

