Comments on Nickels's Crackdown

Amen Josh, A fucking men.

That’s why laws exist. So, when people break them, they get arrested. Why is this such a big deal? The city did its job. Apparently, it should do it more often.

Is that why laws exist? Really? Think about that a little more. It's possibly the most inane thing you have ever written.

And why should the police go around busting bars that give drinks to underage patrons? Because that's the best use of their time?

Nickels is promoting the license idea because he's too big of a pussy to demand that the SPD do its job and deal with rowdy and violent drunks.

Much easier for him to promote his futile whack-a-mole strategy of closing down clubs than to actually fix the problem with more vigilant law enforcement.

@2 It's WAY more fun for the officers than busting meth-heads, I'm sure. Shake that ass! This situation reminds me of the Redmond High School sting back in June, with the cops hired for their baby faces...

The shoplifting analogy is way off mark. The people busted over the weekend were servers and bouncers, not the underage minors or gun toters (who were part of the sting.) Are you suggesting shoplifting would be reduced if the store clerks were busted?

The problem with the current system is that the staff, not the clubs, are the ones being held accountable. Meinert keeps saying that the clubs are responsible, but I think this sting shows that's BS. As the Chief said, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. These violations are going on all the time. SPD can spend all their time trolling the bars and arresting staff for violating the law, but don't bitch when they're not available to patrol the streets to address more serious crimes. Let the city yank the licenses of some of these chronic scofflaw bars, and the owners will take notice. Hell, if a 7/11 clerk sells cigs to a minor, or allows illegal use of food stamps, the store owner is held accountable, not the clerk.

I'd rather SPD spend some time late at night addressing shootings and assaults in the hoods, not just in the areas with lots of bars.

Okay Andrew, maybe Josh's sentence doesn't float your boat.

But parse this one for me: if bars, clubs, etc. are violating existing laws then how in the world will new laws and/or regulations improve the situation?

Josh is exactly right on this. There are more than enough tools currently available. The cops and prosecutors don't need any more -- especially coming from this mayor.

i wouldn't mind new laws holding clubs accountable if there are multiple violations from it's staff. you want both the staff and the owners to want to keep the law. i am not in favour of the nightlife ordinance.

The problem with the current system is that the staff, not the clubs, are the ones being held accountable.

And why is this a problem? The bouncers are the one's who broke the law, not the owner of the club. If a bouncer knows that he will be held responsible for accepting bribes to break the law, that's a powerful motivation to stop.

Holding bad bouncers (and 7/11 clerks who sell cigs to minors) directly responsible for their decisions is the most effective way to straighten them out.

@8 - that may be, but much as it's unconvincing to claim Abu Ghraib was the product of "a few bad apples", repeated violations at a club suggests that the poor enforcement is actively encouraged by the owners, and not just an example of individual negligence. In that case, the owners should be held responsible too.

@2 Considering the role alcohol has in violence, I definitely think that enforcing these rules is a worthwhile use of the police time, particularly the gun laws. If a bartender knows that if they serve the drunk guy one more, they'll go to jail, they won't serve him, and he might actually regain enough sense to realize it's a bad idea to jump that guy who accidentally bumped into him.

And really, drinking with underage people just sucks. Let's enforce the hell out of that one.

Included in the discussion should be how under-21's are deprived of the freedom to control their own bodies as they see fit (drinking alchohol) - I believe "nanny-state" is the new catch-phrase here. Arresting some out-to-make-a-living bartender for serving a 20-something a beer is total fucking bullshit.

I'm not getting why bouncers should not let undercover officers bring their guns into clubs. Should we disarm the police?

It's a big deal cause they're trying to justify more police officers.

And I agree with @12.

@9:
If there's the violations were club policy, then of course the owners should be held responsible.

But why in the hell would an owner want guns in his nightclub? That's the last thing they would want. These bouncers, at least the ones taking the bribes, were totally screwing over the owners and the patrons.

I'd rather SPD spend some time late at night addressing shootings and assaults in the hoods, not just in the areas with lots of bars.

The problem is that the mayor isn't providing adequate law enforcement services to nightclubs, preferring instead that they enforce the law themselves. That makes about as much sense as asking the hoods to enforce the law themselves.

The police should be spending time addressing serious crime wherever it occurs. If that means more police, then I guess we need more police.

@14,

By that logic, why would bouncers want guns in nightclubs? They're as or more likely than patrons to be victims of violent drunks.

Club owners have a responsibility to monitor their employees and ensure that those employees are following the rules. If they fail to do that, they should be held accountable.

I think most of you are missing the point: the mayor's office has basically made it clear that the only reason they had this sting was to make it look like there's a huge problem with underage drinking and thus drum up support for their unpopular nightlife regulations. Feit is right on here. The mayor's office is trying to wag the dog: everyone knows these are a bunch of scuzzy bars where crap like this goes down. It was a no brainer on the cops' part. What's shocking is that they clearly knew exactly where to go when they wanted to find a dozen clubs to nail, which begs the question: if underage drinking is such a problem, why aren't the cops down in Tiki Bob's every night carding everyone till they chase the kids with the fake IDs? And why is the shit that goes down at the Last Supper Club an excuse to come down hard on bars everywhere? Nickels has politicized police work to try and win a political fight with bar and club owners; this has nothing to do with public safety and certainly is not a good-faith effort to crack down on underage drinking.

Sean wrote:

The bouncers are the one's who broke the law, not the owner of the club.

Sean, could you be more specific, please? To what law are you referring?

@15

Some places account for a lot more crime than others. It's more cost effective to reduce some of the characteristics of those sites that make them attractive for crime than to have a bunch of police sitting around busting people. For bars, that would mean to reduce service to minors, reduce overserving, and reduce the likelihood that there are drunks with guns. If a club consistently fails to address these problems, they should be shut down.

SPD has been authorized to hire more cops, but there's a shortage of candidates for police openings pretty much everywhere. They can barely keep up with getting their current positions filled. (Of course, there may be some unemployed bouncers needing a job soon.)

Given the limited number of cops available, it makes sense to use tools that reduce the demand for their services.

If I kept leaving my doors and windows open, and kept getting burglarized, would you rather I just lock the damn doors, or should the city station a cop by my house to keep arresting the steady stream of burglars?

Nice piece...funny misspelling: you meant "rein in", as one would an out-of-control horse, not "regin in" which would refer to a monarchy in some way. Not that you'd ever refer to the Mayor as wannabe king.

Nice. I don't care about the timing of the busts. I just care that the job gets done. Is that so wrong?

also, josh, you made a funny... you wrote "reign in" rather that "rein in". I think you meant the latter (as in a way to get control of run-away horse teams) rather than the former, which would refer to some sort of monarchy. Not that you'd acuse the mayor of being a wannabe king.

Number 17 Is closer too it. The nightclub law would basically give Mayor Nickels the right to decide which clubs stay open and which close. That right is currently in the hands of a committee at the Washington State Liquor Board.
And I have to wonder why Nickels in so concerned about night clubs. Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that his son is currently awaiting trial because he has been accused that as a bouncer he sold information of which dealers were dirty at a number of different casinos. Could it just be possible that Major Nickels has an vendetta against nightclub and is not really worried about the safety of this city. I call for an independent review of night clubs in the Seattle Area, not just 1 sting by the police to tell us what is really going on at Seattle night clubs.

It's not a big deal. But the Mayor wants it to be, because the Mayor has an agenda.

@18 (re: Guns in Clubs)

In Washington State it is illegal for anyone -- with the exception of law enforcement -- to have a firearm within an establishment licensed to serve alcohol. (This even applies to those with concealed weapons permits.)

Police are the only ones allowed to carry their guns in clubs -- and they can even when they're off duty.

So if the bouncer can claim he knew the guy was a cop then it wasn't a violation of the law letting him in.

I've lived in a lot of places in this country and of all of them, this is my favorite. But my god can this city be fascist about alchohol. In clubs, in bars, in the grocery store...I mean you can't buy liquor unless it's from a state run store at certain hours of the day on certain days of the week. Give me a fucking break. It's all about protecting us from ourselves and also the children. Oh the children protect them! Protect them from the evils of society and from themselves. You know what? Fuck the children. Fuck the ridiculous priorities of this city's leaders. This city needs to lighten up and the cops need to focus on things like violent crime instead of jaywalking violations.

Sean wrote:

The bouncers are the one's who broke the law, not the owner of the club.

I responded:

Sean, could you be more specific, please? To what law are you referring?

Timrrr, referring to my response, responded:

In Washington State it is illegal for anyone -- with the exception of law enforcement -- to have a firearm within an establishment licensed to serve alcohol.

This does not support the idea that the bouncers violated the law. If Timrrr is correct and that which he described is the only law regarding weapons in establishments licensed to serve alcohol, then 1) the bouncers did not violate the law by failing to prevent people from entering with weapons, and 2) if the person involved in the sting who entered the club with a gun was a police officer, then taking the gun in was not a violation of law, and if he was not a police officer, then he violated the law.

Can anyone provide a reference to the applicable part of Seattle Municipal Code?

I never go to any of the places listed in the article, but the places I do go to seem pretty good at checking ID's and keeping underage people out (The Crocodile, Neumos, the Funhouse, The High Dive, the Sunset, the Comet, etc). Were there places involved in this sting that had no violations? The places I go also never check for weapons. Then again neither do restaurants or grocery stores.