I recently took two years off and drove from San Francisco to Panama. I spent a lot of time in El Salvador and in Honduras and made some observations. Police in those countries are invisible (non-existent?). You can pretty much do what you want- Honduras just built a new highway system, you can drive as fast as your engine allows. But when you get to know people, the owners of small businesses will tell you that there's another kind of protection. I would call it racket. In San Pedro Sula especially, when you stop paying for protection, your troubles start. Even on the smallest personal level: there are no meters in the center. We parked on a public street, and a 15 years old teenager came and asked 20 Lempiras for parking. My very experienced German companion wanted to ignore him, but then the teen's "supervisors" showed up. They looked like people you don't want to mess with. They politely offered the schedule: 1h is 20, 30min is 10 and left. We opted tor 30min, and the teen timed us to a minute on his watch. In exchange, he "guarded" my California plated car and blocked the upcoming traffic so that I could leave the parking spot (and that he could get another "customer"). I believe some people would actually prefer that system, but so far I liked the American system better.
The great news for business owners in Seattle’s CHOP zone is that they get to pay for two protection services: one is from the city which is nonexistent. The other is from the private service.
Yeah, if you pay taxes and are within the CHOP zones, do you get a refund because you didn't get the law enforcement services you paid for? Completely ridiculous that this CHOP thing has been allowed to continue for so long. No other group could simply seize control of part of a city and behave like a gang.
> do you get a refund because you didn't get the law enforcement services you paid for?
Maybe if you get in on the class action lawsuit against the city. There's no duty to protect (which is absurd, but apparently how this country works), but the premise of the lawsuit is that the city did worse than merely failing to protect.
Similar happened to me in Morocco. Parked in a public park. Guy came over and told me it was 20 dirham. I Argued with him a little bit pointing out it’s a public parking lot and there is no meter. Spouse told me to pay the man or he may cause trouble. I relented thinking of the damage he could cause to our rental. He did guard our car and stopped traffic.
Police were prevalent, just setting up speed traps and shaking down tourists.
In Egypt a decade or so ago, this was rife. There was the usual tipping, but a guy at the airport wanted a tip for telling me it was OK to use a public toilet. Watching cars is another common one, and it's appreciated of course but the implicit threat of damage is not. Offering to carry bags through the express security line in the airport was another strange one.
I had that happen in Capetown. It was cheap enough I was happy to pay the guy and be done with it. I'd feel differently if I was local, but I also obviously looked like a tourist, had an American accept etc.
This is everywhere in South Africa. It annoys people but it's not worth making a fuss over. It's clearly extortion but it's so widespread for so many years that it's de-facto legal.
This very much applies to the de-facto economic system in Russia. Not on the parking meter level, but more that you cannot run a moderately-sized business without being a part of a corrupt network originating from the early post-USSR mafia.
The biggest trouble with this model is the lack of long-term predictability. Sure, you can pay your protection money and operate your business today, but the next day your "supervisor" gets on bad terms with his superiors and gets replaced. Their successor may simply not like you (or have their own protege to take your place) and then you're basically screwed. Your business gets raided, your family is taken hostage, you will be happy if you're left alive after basically donating your share to somebody who had better connections.
As a result, nobody wants to do long-term investments. Business that cannot be promptly liquidated is not not worth the hassle. Assets that cannot be transferred outside of Russian jurisdiction in case shit hits the fan are liabilities. So the economy boils down to extremely corrupt oil/gas companies owned by people from Vladimir Putin's personal network, and rather rare mom-and-pop shops that sort of fly under the radar until they don't.
I hope this model isn't coming to the West, since it's simply incompatible with economic prosperity.
This was a thing in the early 2000s in Sicily when I was stationed there with the Navy. However, being a brash 19-year-old and thinking I was hot shit, I always just ignored them and never suffered any ill effects. It might have been related to my obvious association with the military (although I wasn’t personally intimidating I’m sure), or maybe they’re all bark and no bite there. Perhaps I was just lucky. I think today I’d probably just pay the 2€.
3 years ago in Catania we rented a car without insurance. Then after getting into the city from the airport and navigating to the unexpectedly shoddy, dark and cheap neighborhood where our hostel was we found a group of kids offering their services for helping us park the car. There was absolutely no traffic at around 10 PM and though it wasn't just the easiest place for parking it was hardly something that we needed help for. On the first night we paid up, they very diligently guided me while I reversed into a spot, but next night we said we know how to park already thank you. No supervisor showed up, but we were then sweating bullets because what if something happens to the uninsured car! (Nothing happened. Yaay!)
I went to a football (soccer) game in Istanbul at the new "Olympic" Stadium. We drove there and since there's insufficient proper parking, everyone was just dropping their cars wherever they could within walking distance. It's in a surprisingly desolate area but numerous enterprising individuals had set up a similar parking scheme there. We paid.
On the way out, several cars had had their windshields smashed: punishment for the non-payers.
I think he meant that some people would prefer the parking service experience. As in some people would prefer having a service where you can pay someone to watch and guard your car.
To be fair, there’s also some due process when you’re not paying your taxes. In this case, I imagine that the process for dealing with non-payment is rather violent, inconsistent and chaotic.
Is there a clearly laid out code that says what the penalty for non payment is? Does your car get keyed? window smashed? set ablaze? or do you get beat up?
(Assuming you are not trolling and asking this genuinely)
I can vote for local taxes - either directly via ballot propositions in California or indirectly by electing the people who will decide these taxes. Can I vote for the mafia here?
There is a predictability with taxes - I know exactly how much I am going to pay, how and when the tax rate is going to change etc. Any change comes with sufficient notice and always subject to a democratic process which I can participate in (town halls, petitions to governments, elections). What is the predictability / process here?
Taxes are still constrained to the constitutional framework of the USA. And there is a clearly defined legislative process which people can follow in case they think taxes are unjust. Judicial rulings are enforced throughout the country. What is the process here to address my grievances? Is it predictable or subject to whims of the local mafia?
I really have no idea who to believe when it comes to the CHOP zone because there’s so many incentives to lie. I’m curious if anyone on HN lives nearby and can comment on their experience. Thanks.
- Local business hired a PMC/Local Armed Security group (don't remember the name) to provide real security after Car Tender was attacked. On the night that happened, they had a dude with an AR15. What happened was some junkie/non protester jumped a fence, started a fire, took some cash, and keys to vehicles. The owners (dude with a gun) detained him, but protesters started mobbing and forced them to release the dude who broke in. Some stuff was recovered by the mob.
- There was at least two armed groups of volunteer security. One organized one (the gun club mentioned and the now well known picture of the dude with the ar15, vest, and green bandana- this dude: https://libertyunyielding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/arm...) was part of it. From what I've been told, they were organized and mostly on the roof providing overwatch and sniper support in case something happened. The other group was possible gang bangers- these are the people who shot the white jeep and most likely executed one person. Then there is "Raz." I am unware of his involvement other then breaking multiple state and federal firearms laws.
- Towards the end, a majority of the population was a mixture of homeless, gang members, and non-local people who came to support the vision of CHAZ. There was protesters, but their numbers deminished
I support drastic police reform, but anyone who thinks pure anarchy will work clearly doesn't know much history. It's been tried time and again and again. The sad truth is that it always implodes.
There are more then a few "for sale" signs in Capital Hill that I've walked past in the past few weeks. I watched a few people move out of my building and I'm planning on leaving shortly when I land a new job (or I don't)- just gotta find out which.
Visited June 29 for a number of hours, visited protests at the police line after it was dismantled approx. Jul 1-4.
The area proper on 29 was generally enjoyable to be around. Observed lots of drifter types, no visible violence, some good musical performances, nice community gardens, free food tent. Saw very little public drinking, some weed, lots of tobacco (mainly self-rolling, which I thought was interesting). A few circles of older folks smoking weed in circles out front their tents and hammocks on the outskirts of the habitation.
The protests at the police line were very disheartening. The militarization of police was of course frightening (not for my own life so much as the state of the nation). The protesters themselves had a fair amount of infighting, some of them seemed unstable (these ones were often the ones with guns).
Overall I found the CHOP area pleasant to be around, however the fact that CHOP armed guards killed more black teens in that ~2 week period than SPD in the past 6 months made me question if it was possible to logically consistently support both CHOP and BLM -- it's concerning there hasn't been more coverage of the disconnect there.
> however the fact that CHOP armed guards killed more black teens in that ~2 week period than SPD in the past 6 months made me question if it was possible to logically consistently support both CHOP and BLM
Being able to hold conflicting beliefs simultaneously is the hallmark of a failed political ideology.
What exactly led you to believe that the anarcholeftists who set up CHOP and the racial justice folks who started Black Lives Matter seven years earlier subscribe to the same "political ideology"? This is like arguing that technolibertarian atheists and born again evangelicals can't agree on God, therefore conservatism is a failed ideology.
For the record: put me in the "police are needed to deter obvious crime and violence" camp AND the "we do WAY too much policing of things other than immediate criminal behavior" group. How's that for failed?
> For the record: put me in the "police are needed to deter obvious crime and violence" camp AND the "we do WAY too much policing of things other than immediate criminal behavior" group. How's that for failed?
Well then you wouldn't fall into any political ideology I was being critical of. Both your views are moderated by some common sense. Abolishing the police force is not a moderate view (and yet is what is being called for).
Almost no one who shouts "defund the police" literally means they want no law enforcement. That is absolutely not "what is being called for" in any meaningful sense. And if you bothered to look for a mission statement or explanation from these people from any source but conservative media, you would know that.
That's untrue, there is an active debate about it on the left, and the people who originated the idea insist that abolition is exactly what they meant and still mean.
Link me one significant policymaker, pundit, protest movement head or thought leader who "insists" on "abolition". Hell, I'll even take a name brand blogger.
People say crazy shit somewhere, I'm sure. But even the Chapo folks aren't calling for this in the way you mean.
By the way, I'm not trying to put the idea down. I think police abolition is an interesting proposal and a lot of work and thought has been put into it. It erases those thinkers when we say "they don't really mean it" and bundle them in with much weaker proposals. They do really mean it, and the debate is important.
There’s a YouTube channel called cctvuser that has the most complete record of what happened in the Chaz. It is hundreds of hours of video collected from dozens of sources covering almost all the important bits and a lot of the boring parts. It’s as unfiltered as you’re likely to get in my opinion.
I live nearby and visited on June 14th for a few hours, at around 3pm. I note the time because the conclusions I came to during my time there are dependent both on the time of day, as well as the date.
First off, while I was there, it was an overall friendly, bustling atmosphere. There were no armed security forces, no armed thugs demanding protection money from businesses, etc... It felt more like the Folklife festival; there were parents with their kids, people doing street art, and stalls selling food. While most people were wearing masks, there was also a distinct lack of social distancing. My first impression was that this was a plausible excuse for people to be outside and in a large, social situation. It was a beautiful sunny day, of course people want to be outside.
There was a central event area where there were some kind of organized speeches/events. While I was there, a speaker was talking about the unjust seizure of land in the Seattle area from an indigenous people group, and after that there was a musical performance from members of that indigenous group. All around the area there were solicitors urging the passers by to sign petitions and vote on various issues. The craziest things I saw were people digging up Cal Anderson park lawn spaces to create vegetable patches. There was an incredible amount of graffiti all over the place, a high percentage of it anti-cop. There were stalls with free granola bars/water/other snackish things and a few pieces of first aid equipment, all labeled as "supplies for protesters".
What follows are my opinions and interpretations:
I do not believe the CHAZ/CHOP had any real impact on the political discourse of Seattle. There was heavy protesting and rioting beforehand in the Capitol Hill area up to the retreat of the Police from that precinct (for those unfamiliar with Seattle political geography, Cap Hill is an epicenter of progressive/liberal culture) and the retreat of the police was a very good move from the government's standpoint. By giving a very small area of land over to "the protesters" (whatever group may take that mantle upon themselves) the city government did two things: it successfully redirected attention away from the police and the issue at hand, and it allowed the protest movement to collapse under its own weight.
I was struck by the lack of focus of the protest movement; while the police were pushing back against the protests, there was a very clear message being sent through social media, the traditional media, and in the channels of political discourse: The current level of police violence is unacceptable. However just a few days after the CHAZ/CHOP was born, a large number of tangentially-related concerns bubbled to the surface. While I was there, I was approached by solicitors that wanted to pass better environmental regulations, pass legislation to protect trans teens, and institute new taxes on large corporations (e.g. Amazon). All three were motivated in some way ("POC communities are usually the first to suffer in environmental disasters, to protect these communities we must protect the environment", or "how will we pay for new social programs? Tax Amazon!") but it was very clear to me that without keeping a strong focus on changing policies to suppress police violence, outsiders of this movement would be enabled to glance into the cauldron of demands and simply state "the socialists are yelling again".
With regards to the shootings, I can say that while I nor anyone I know who went to the zone personally saw firearms, I know they were there at some point, and there were people with more firepower than sense taking advantage of the lack of cops to do whatever they wanted. I can see the tone of the area changing drastically between 3pm and 3am (which is when some of the shootings occured) and while I am certain the lack of police presence did not help matters, Seattle does have shootings every now and then. It's not immediately clear to me how much of the shootings is or is not due to lack of police.
I have not been to capitol hill since the police moved back in; from what I have heard from other people who have been there, things are more or less "normal" now, just with more graffiti and street art. I don't know what's going to happen to the vegetable gardens. ;)
I just walked through Cal Anderson Park this evening. The gardens are still intact. There are huge elevated 55g drums of water for irrigation, it's hard to miss.
I'd like to note, this is from before the Mayor ordered the cops back in to break it up.
This quote however is a worthy take away:
"As for “Defund the Police,” that slogan doesn’t mean get rid of the police completely. It’s to cut their budget and demilitarize their roles while boosting social services. This is a rational goal, but we can already see one possible unintended outcome if the people of Seattle perceive that traditional police services are declining. Those with money will just hire their own “high threat private protection services.” They’re already doing it.
There’s a ton of work to be done reforming the police. But going back to the Pinkerton’s era has got to be one of worst ways to reduce inequality in a city already riven by it."
It's hard not to think there's also a "we'll take our ball and go home" attitude going on here. People call to reign in the police, so instead of learning to de-escalate the situation they throw their hands up, stop policing an area altogether, and say "see what happens when we don't get to do things our way?"
- The camp is gone, swept up by the SPD re-occupying the precinct. Wrapped up a couple weeks ago.
If you want on-the-ground reports from people in the neighborhood (not really the camp itself), there are a LOT of threads about the CHAZ/CHOP on reddit: https://reddit.com/r/seattle. Lot of trolling, lot of flaming, but also a lot of people who live on cap hill who talk about their experience living next to it.
They did mention his death, they just didn't mention it was CHOP security that murdered him, or the video evidence of the execution ("Oh you're still alive?" followed by a gunshot), or the fact that he was black (ironically making CHOP the greatest per-capita rate of police killings of unarmed black people). They did however mention the very incredulous rumor that the murdered teen and his friend were shooting, which there is no evidence for and a lot of evidence against.
Honestly, it's weird that an article criticizing the CHOP security debacle would decide to leave out pertinent details that help bolster the critique.
As a side note, there is both/r/seattle and /r/seattlewa. Both of them are seeing heavy traffic from out-of-towners right now, but the general divide is /r/seattle is the left-leaning one and /r/seattlewa is the right-leaning one (at least within the context of Seattle).
Yeah, I check out both, but didn't feel like wading into that hairball. And to be honest, just picked the one less likely to inspire downvotes and complaints.
Who'd guess that advocating for less policing without providing a clear alternative would be terrible for everyone except for those who can pay for private security.
I'd support major changes in the police funding and move more to social services, but I'm really skeptical it will happen. The mayor doesn't seem like a rock the boat kind of person.
> BLM protestors block freeway At 2am, demanding police to be dismantled
You mean the police blocked the interstate for the protest and the driver went up an off ramp and struck two protestors, killing one.
> police chases down and arrest the driver
Police showed up after a civilian followed the car, yes.
> no real news coverage
By which you mean extensive national and international news coverage (seriously, just search for it) but it still hasn't been made clear why the driver was on the highway.
Comparing these two "timelines" maybe gives more insight about you than any "incident", because they're not really parallel in spatial, personal, or temporal scope.
> You mean the police blocked the interstate for the protest
This makes me so sad.
I’m in no way excusing the driver (who will undoubtedly receive punishment), but after 19 consecutive days of walking onto the freeway, and the city effectively supporting it, some kind of accident was bound to happen at some point. It’s terrible, but I hope there’s some lessons to be learned (the city seems to have learned something, as they stopped allowing the nightly freeway protests).
> I’m in no way excusing the driver (who will undoubtedly receive punishment), but after 19 consecutive days of walking onto the freeway, and the city effectively supporting it, some kind of accident was bound to happen at some point
Yes, someone driving onto a highway via an off ramp is bound to lead to an accident.
Again: I’m not excusing the obviously dangerous behavior of the driver.
However, people do stupid and reckless things all the time — and as a society we take reasonable precautions against that. I don’t know why he ended up on that road, but it was only a matter of time before someone ended up there. I sincerely doubt that freeways are shut down flawlessly 100% of the time.
> some kind of accident was bound to happen at some point.
This seems to be burying the lede quite a bit. This wasn't an 'accident', this was someone driving up an off-ramp, turning around, driving past multiple vehicles which were in the way to protect protesters and swerving into them.
The problem wasn't with the nightly freeway protest, it was with the person committing outright vehicular homicide.
You can't be serious. That black man that killed the protestor on the freeway was in no way intentionally ramming into the people. He was driving along a freeway. He did his best to miss the people but they were everywhere!
You think he did this ON PURPOSE? Are you for real? What's his motive?
You realize there's video of the incident at hand, right [1] (not safe for the squeamish)? You can see the driver drive by multiple obvious vehicles on the shoulder of the highway, then swerve into protesters. They weren't 'everywhere' as you claim, he literally drive right into them. He didn't 'do his best to miss them' by swerving into them. Anyone else in that exact situation would've seen the vehicles like that from a mile away and slowed down safely.
This is before we even start talking about that the highway was closed and that he had to take an off-ramp onto it and then do a u-turn, which was corroborated by the police. Though I have a feeling you won't respond again after this.
He didn't swerve to miss the cars. At the start of the video he was already driving on the shoulder of the freeway (indicating that he clearly saw the cars on the road and chose to drive by them at high speeds). He wasn't even in the proper lane. Once he bypassed those cars, he then proceeded to swerve into the two protesters on the left hand side of his car. Rather than slamming on the breaks, he ran full speed into them.
And again, per your own admission, he was speeding. On a freeway that was closed. Where he was caught with multiple cameras driving up the wrong entrance and then doing a U-Turn.
Occam's Razor would indicate that this was not an accident at all because there's so many confounding factors that it would be absurd.
You’re inventing a narrative. Available evidence suggests he didn’t set out to murder people, but I think little more is known.
Unquestionably he was reckless and dangerous at a minimum (and the charges make sense to me). I don’t think it’s known why he went up the off ramp. Maybe drugs were involved (apparently police took something “that looked like meth” from the car, per an article I read). But bad assumptions, panic and confusion are also powerful.
Without giving my personal opinion on what this video shows, I think it's quite interesting that two people can come to totally opposite opinions about what it shows. I think you're probably both earnest in your opinions too.
> it still hasn't been made clear why the driver was on the highway.
This is the most interesting thing about the event. If the driver hadn't been black, even if their true (still unknown) motivations had been identical -- mental illness, for example -- the narrative would have been very different.
It does not seem the perpetrator was running from the police, so they did not "chase" him. Accounts show that he was avoiding the protesters and police would him very quickly once he got to safety.
