Slog - Comments on City Attorney Seeks to Broaden Obstruction Laws

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:16:55 -0800

I thought we had budget cuts - why are they trying to spend more tax dollars that we don't have?

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:17:18 -0800

Until he can show he's competent to enforce the laws he's already got, he shouldn't be given any more.

Comment by Anon

Anon — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:29:52 -0800

Napoleon I don't see how you expect the city to score a conviction on a bogus charge. The point is to bend the law so that contempt of cop actually becomes a crime, because obviously the police can do no wrong.

Comment by DOUG.

DOUG. — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:52:26 -0800

Broadening the Obstruction statute is horrible public policy and indicative of Seattle's slippery slide into a police state.

Under item "1." in this rewritten statute, a citizen could be arrested for simply asking a police officer for the time of day. And SPD will arrest you for something as minor as this. I have a photocopy of a $3500 check from the City of Seattle which says so.

Comment by Vince

Vince — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:58:59 -0800

I, too, thought budgets were tight. Every time I see a story about some waste of money, I wonder about priorities.

Comment by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:09:03 -0800

And this is a bad thing because obstruction of justice is a good thing?...

Comment by Anon

Anon — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:31:53 -0800

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me, you might want to read about how Blacks are arrested on 'contempt of cop' charge at higher rate before spouting off about "obstruction of justice."

Comment by Judah

Judah — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:37:40 -0800

I once heard a cop accuse someone tell someone who was filming a patently illegal arrest that that they needed to stop what they were doing because it created a risk of injury, and that they were required by law to surrender the tape from their camera. I assumed the cop was blowing ass but, evidently, under parts (3) and (4), the officer was correct.

That's just double plus good.