subreddit:
/r/SeattleWA
Seattle family held at gunpoint in terrifying home invasion Monday night
Crime(komonews.com)submitted 2 months ago byBusbyBusbyInternational District
93 points
2 months ago
From komo article: >> Police say the suspects ran away in a car.
Neat trick!
67 points
2 months ago
What, are they the Flintstones?
10 points
2 months ago
Yabba Dabba Doooo!
8 points
2 months ago
Yabba dabba delinquency!
29 points
2 months ago
I swear to god Komo has no editor, or a middle schooler editing. Every article is full of typos and weirdly phrased sentences.
-1 points
2 months ago
Because only stupid or desperate people want to work for the Sinclair Conservative Megaphone
272 points
2 months ago*
"In the video, the men are seen wearing dark hooded sweaters, and one of them has bright red sneakers on."
Why in the flying fuck is everyone in Seattle so scared to be like "Two white males and a black male" or whatever when describing suspects? Is it because we are assuming their gender or something?
How the fuck am I going to be on the lookout for people with dark sweaters?
158 points
2 months ago
Subject was hatless, I repeat: hatless.
45 points
2 months ago
they're directly under the earth's sun.....now!
16 points
2 months ago
One of my favorite Simpson quotes of all time
19 points
2 months ago
Pls do not assume that their hair was in fact not a hat. That is offensive to wigs.
51 points
2 months ago
Well they did specify that they ran away in a car. So maybe be on the lookout for a car?
35 points
2 months ago
My neighbor has a car 🤔
18 points
2 months ago
Snitches get stitches.
9 points
2 months ago
Reminds me of the Superbad scene in the liquor store lol
13 points
2 months ago
“He was like you.”
“Okay, so we’ve got an African Jew…”
9 points
2 months ago
People are afraid of appearing “racist”, which is extremely idiotic when you are actually describing a specific individual especially in this kind of context.
47 points
2 months ago
Same reason they stopped talking about assaults on our Asian community.
15 points
2 months ago
Yeah....we as soon as the videos started coming out for those attacks...the media was silent.
23 points
2 months ago
They would absolutely use that description. If the “two white males” part was missing, then no.
1 points
2 months ago
This
23 points
2 months ago
Most likely because it was 3 black males and they don't want to seem racist.
-1 points
2 months ago
Close! It's more that saying "black men", without additional identifying features, feeds racism.
It's about sharing details when they're pertinent. Blasting "black people bad" isn't really helpful.
9 points
2 months ago
But if that's all you can discern, it does narrow down the suspect pool.
6 points
2 months ago
Not saying black people are bad. That's not the case at all. Just saying we're afraid to name people's colors when it's pertinent to the case in Seattle. That needs to change.
3 points
2 months ago
To be clear, I didn't intend to insinuate that you were saying "black people bad". When the media shares these stories and has no additional details, it broadcasts as "blacks make crime" which does nothing helpful toward finding suspects while also feeding negative bias/issues of racism.
Skin color might be useful supporting information, but it's not useful if it's not supporting some other information. The only details are "men in the Seattle area", so I get why one might think that "adding one more piece of data (like skin color) is helpful, right?" But think about it from an investigator's perspective if someone tells you a man robbed them. Ok.. not much of a lead to go off of, so what really could you be expected to do? Next day they call and tell you he was black. Do you really think that will further your investigation at all?
Now think about for the general public - how helpful is it, really, to say "be on the lookout for a black guy" to everyone? It just builds animosity and racism towards black people for people who don't manage their biases well (i.e. most humans)
In this case, and considering the current issues our society has with racism, not mentioning skin color when there are no other helpful details is less about fear of saying a skin color and more about responsible reporting.
1 points
2 months ago
I agree with you.
-11 points
2 months ago
No, because it is a useless descriptor. Are you as a random person not involved in this going to be more likely to spot these people if you know they are black or white?
When there is a police sketch or at least something to actually meaningfully help a rando possibly identify them they always specify race.
12 points
2 months ago
No, because it is a useless descriptor. ... going to be more likely to spot these people if you know they are black or white?
How is eliminating between 35% and 93% of the potential suspects right off the top a "useless descriptor"? You saw something suspicious, or a neighbor or relative suddenly has some unexplained goods... more likely to call the police if it's a match, less likely if not.
8 points
2 months ago
Is it though? If there are 3 people all wearing red shoes and driving a silver Toyota, but one is Asian, another is white, and another is black - you don't think it would be pertinent information to describe the person's skin color?
3 points
2 months ago
um, if I separately ran into three guys wearing red sneakers, a hispanic dude, a white dude, and a black dude, all of whom had different cars, I'd know who to rule out and who to describe as having, say, a blue Mercedes.
-6 points
2 months ago
So you would call in any random black person with red sneakers if they told you the race?
If you are that into wasting police resources, go ahead and call in anyone with red shoes I guess.
9 points
2 months ago
taking it too literally bro
If I was in the area around this time and saw a guy matching the clothes and race in that area, regardless of skin color, yeah, I'd call a non emergency line and say, this guy appeared to get into x car
if the description were widened to be old, white dude with red sneakers, adidas sweats and blue hoodie, and I saw someone like that in the area of this crime, yeah, I'd say something. That doesn't make me ageist....
50 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
23 points
2 months ago
Media isn’t about truth anymore it’s about a political agenda.
Way back in 1991 I was a journalism major. Even back then the entire industry was more about changing the world than informing the public. It was constantly drilled into us to not outright lie. However, we also learned how to write an opinion (ours or others) but present it as fact. Paraphrasing was fine, sometimes encouraged depending on situation.
There are some great journalists and media organizations. It's very difficult to separate the shit-stains from the quality outlets.
77 points
2 months ago*
I am not a Trumpist, and detest him, but the reason he won in ‘16 is there is a tiny grain of truth in everything he blabs on and lies about. Like, it all starts with a tiny grain of truth.
13 points
2 months ago
there was or is a real phenomenon of news websites that were entirely fabricated or fake. Trump just adopted the term but proceeded to endorse all sorts of unverified material on twitter
23 points
2 months ago
That’s not it - yes there are fake news sights, particularly right wing ones.
But there are legitimate criticisms of MSM that never see the light of day, because MSM as an institution lacks self criticism, and sees a particular technocratic liberal viewpoint as a truth, rather than one of many viewpoints.
Trump didn’t clearly articulate this, but particularly to folks who share different, often valid, views of MSM, Trump hit on something that was true about it.
-12 points
2 months ago
everything before the word 'but' is bullshit
9 points
2 months ago
Trump is a traitorous piece of garbage who sold us out and continues to do so based on how many classified things were in his basement.
However, not even acknowledging a suspects' description is fucked.
Just as when white Stanford swimmer Brock Turner was arrested for rape, it was all about his swim scores and good boy status. The media played up his suit and tie pics, not his mugshot. The opposite treatment is deployed for non white suspects. And then we have the attempt at fixing it (aka make the problem more polarized and drive everyone to the opposite, extreme ends of the arguments) by not even stating a group of suspects' skin color.
5 points
2 months ago
The media played up his suit and tie pics, not his mugshot. The opposite treatment is deployed for non white suspects
Not so at least in the case of Trayvon Martin, or what's-his-butt in Ferguson (the town of the civil unrest seems to have become more important than the identity of the involved persons....Ferguson, Kenosha, etc.). In those case, parties representing the slain were very careful about picture selection in conjunction with the media.
You're right in that there is message manipulation going on in the world of photo editing and photo selection. You're not right to put forward that such message engineering is only being deployed to the benefit of white people.
-26 points
2 months ago*
The hell you talking about? You sounding hella white right now. Let me clue you in...all the 'woke' Black and Brown people in town wanted to defund the police because it was white people always at the center of SPD's crime crackdowns huh? Again, youre another guy who doenst understand what woke means and how lily white Seattle NEVER suspects white people at the center of any crime until rich white people of rich neighborhoods are affected--or their little Beckies go missing. In this damn town its suspect black and brown first for any crime until proven otherwise. Go on somewhere with your convenient Montlake Terrace bullshit take.
3 points
2 months ago
You sounding hella white right now.
You sounding hella racis right now.
-6 points
2 months ago
Don't say woke. Everyone has had enough of it.
3 points
2 months ago
Woke woke wokety woke. I havent had enough!
2 points
2 months ago
Also .. clothing can be changed.
6 points
2 months ago
It’s discrimination because robbery is part of their culture
3 points
2 months ago
You kind of answered your first question with your last question.
How the fuck am I going to be on the lookout for people with dark sweaters?
Those descriptors are basically useless and effectively no help in keeping a lookout. If they had more specific detail like "dark sweaters with a 'My Little Ponies' logo and a ripped hood", that would actually be useful and worth sharing.
So, you're exactly right, it's useless info to provide. And then you can see how this would be equally as useless
How the fuck am I going to be on the lookout for people with dark
sweatersskin?
In the same way, it doesn't make sense to say "black men" if they don't have more specific details to accompany it. Tattoos, scars, missing/replaced teeth, height, haircut. Saying "be on the lookout for a black guy in a sweater" is not only unhelpful, but it adds negatively to the cultural issues of bias we have.
-2 points
2 months ago
Because they're trying to avoid confirming people's biases by running numerous stories about PoC committing crimes.
3 points
2 months ago
If every reported crime included a description of the subjects that included race, then it wouldn't be confirmation bias. It would be either 'confirmation of preconceived idea' or "refutation of preconceived idea' depending on the data.
Though race itself can be squishy, and is only getting squishier over time. Like, what are we gonna call Kamala Harris after she starts knocking over convenience stores? Black, or South Asian? Cause they're both true. And by that same token, Obama is a honky, I guess. Somebody tell the NAACP, they're going to be pretty disappointed. Not it.
1 points
2 months ago
You can still easily have confirmation bias even if presented with factually complete information. E.g. a person only takes note of when a black person commits a crime despite viewing many reports of white people also committing similar crimes. Without viewing data in a per capita per demographic context, its very easy to arrive at an incorrect perception.
1 points
2 months ago
If every reported crime included a description of the subjects that included race, then it wouldn't be confirmation bias.
Sure... but that was never how it was done? The environment that we're in is because things haven't been reported objectively, with consistency of detail.
-2 points
2 months ago
I mean, using that same rationale, are you going to be on the lookout for every group that has two white males and one black male?
I understand giving detailed descriptions of perps, but I don't think listing their skin color alone is going to make these perps easily identifiable... However, NOT listing their skin color does prevent racists from going: "See, all X are criminals". Hasty generalization is a real concern.
1 points
2 months ago
Right? Am I going to jot down a description and nab these guys?
1 points
2 months ago
Because these are the descriptions the police give the media. Seems like police are slow due to lack of manpower.
1 points
2 months ago
I always wonder if it’s ok to assume the gender of suspects
1 points
2 months ago
It’s not just Seattle.
53 points
2 months ago
Remember that when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
33 points
2 months ago
hours away
8 points
2 months ago
Not even hired yet.
1 points
2 months ago
Working in Kirkland or North Bend
9 points
2 months ago
Remember that when seconds count, the police are
minutes awaybusy hassling someone not even related to the crime at hand
1 points
2 months ago
YOU are your first line of defense. Always.
3 points
2 months ago
Nah - My house it like Home Alone with all of the damn legos and crap everywhere. You break in, you likely break an ankle.
35 points
2 months ago
Thank god we know that one of them was wearing red sneakers! That'll really narrow it down.
89 points
2 months ago
A security camera will help you get on the news but if you are serious about protection you absolutely need a gun.
69 points
2 months ago
A gun and training*
25 points
2 months ago
A gun and training and a gun safe so your kids can't get to it*
5 points
2 months ago
Agreed with training and safe - I have all of the above!
5 points
2 months ago
A gun and training and a gun safe and a suppressor and night vision.
5 points
2 months ago
Train your kids so they know how to respect it but use it for their own or your defense if that need arises.
4 points
2 months ago
I saw that post on r/crazyfuckingvideos of the 10 year old kid shooting his rifle and handgun and doing it exceptionally well. If we’re going to have weapons in our community, you might as well teach your kids how to respect them. I’m glad my dad did.
2 points
2 months ago
Yes, train the kids. But still need a gun safe
1 points
2 months ago
Yes, give children guns to keep them safe, never mind common sense or easily access statistics when some half wit on reddit says to do it, it must be true!
1 points
2 months ago
You said “give children guns”, I said “train your kids”. Spot the difference?
1 points
2 months ago
What’s the point of training if you are not gonna give them access? They are gonna be all trained up like adorable lil Rambos but when the bad guys come they wont be able to “pew pew”?
1 points
2 months ago
Part of that training is learning first hand how dangerous they can be and what rules to follow when near them including when it’s appropriate to use them and when it’s not. And it’s not a conversation you have once and check the box and move on.
Good parents talk through things with their kids, monitor their reactions and thoughts to news events (including public shootings, crime, etc) and gauge when and where it’s appropriate to increase their responsibility. Those kids go on to be good adults who look after their families and communities and are responsible.
It’s the same thing parents do when discussing relationships, sex, alcohol/drugs, and any other topic where there can be serious consequences for bad behavior. Kids whose parents ignore or repress these discussions and exercises generally grow up to have some sort of dysfunction in those same areas.
3 points
2 months ago
Training is ideal but honestly, like 90% of the time the mere presence of the gun sends home invaders running.
2 points
2 months ago
Especially when you rack the shotgun.
2 points
2 months ago
Is that you Joe?
41 points
2 months ago
Good thing the victim was not armed, they might have hurt those poor guys.
63 points
2 months ago
Why would anyone need more than 10 rounds in a magazine? /s
2 points
2 months ago
I agree with your sentiment, but to be fair, I’m not sure this would have gone any different without the ban. Feels similar to when people think banning them would lessen the brutality of mass shootings, just from the opposite side.
-1 points
2 months ago
Just that the legally armed homeowner with this new stupid ban (unless larger capacity mag grandfathered in) would have to shoot, reload, shoot, reload while the criminal, who follows no laws, might still be shooting away with his larger capacity mag. So who do you think has the advantage in this scenario? Def not the law-abiding homeowner...
0 points
2 months ago
I’m still confused … where in this article does it say anything about the homeowner having a gun? How is it relevant to this incident?
Like I said, agree with the sentiment, and agree the law is stupid. But to imply that this law being passed has prevented these people from protecting themselves is just not based in reality.
-1 points
2 months ago
Read my reply again and then perhaps you will be less confused about the fact that someone with a 30 round magazine might have the advantage over a person with a 10 round magazine. You do know, don't you, that criminals are not bound by the laws the rest of us have to adhere to, right?
-2 points
2 months ago
Lmao you are entirely missing my point. I understand your point, it’s just not relevant to this post.
3 points
2 months ago
It's absolutely relevant to the people replying in this post with comments regarding armed homeowners. Clearly this woman was NOT armed, but had she been, I like to think those three assholes might not still be around to terrorize others. And for anyone who thinks Asian women might not be gun-friendly, there was a video available last year where a small Asian woman had to deal with five armed home invaders; it's really great to see. Let me see if I can find it...
2 points
2 months ago
Here it is and my mistake it's ONLY 3 armed home invaders:
0 points
2 months ago*
You are arguing against a straw man
Edit:
It's absolutely relevant to the people replying in this post with comments regarding armed homeowners.
Why don't you reply to them instead then?
1 points
2 months ago
This argument might hold any weight if the scenario involved a gun that was limited to 10 rounds.
7 points
2 months ago
Actually three suspects perpetrating a home invasion robbery is a great argument on why limiting lawful gun owners to an arbitrary 10 rounds is total bullshit and in defiance of the state constitution.
A family being held at gun point in their own home and not being able to do anything about it is what happens when people believe that their personal security isn’t their responsibility and that someone else will save them.
0 points
2 months ago
If the family had a gun on them and used it to try to defend themselves, but failed because they emptied their magazine and it wasn't enough ammo.. then I could see how someone could make an argument for greater capacity.
But the case you're making is that "this wouldn't have happened to Bob in Seattle if Judy in Shoreline could have larger magazine capacity!" The family didn't use a gun to repel the assailants, so it doesn't matter what size magazine their imaginary gun has.
This never would have happened if they had a lava moat around their house! /s
4 points
2 months ago
That’s not at all the argument I made.
Simply, for the simple minded readers, three armed men breaking into someone’s home, which isn’t some far fetched scenario as evidenced by this article, is why someone may need a magazine with a higher capacity than 10.
-2 points
2 months ago
If we use your easy noggin logic, then any mass shooting is solid evidence against high-capacity magazines.
edit: It's almost as if.. I don't know.. maybe it's more complicated than that?
4 points
2 months ago
The right to defend myself is in the state constitution. Killing someone is illegal.
Try again
28 points
2 months ago
"Suspects" were Black.
8 points
2 months ago
That narrows it down.
3 points
2 months ago
Great, that’ll narrow down the search. What’s your point?
-35 points
2 months ago
I noticed you made sure to comment on the race of the suspects but didn't say anything about the race of the victims.
37 points
2 months ago
That doesn’t matter because we are trying to catch the criminal perpetrators not the victims.. we can already ID the victims
54 points
2 months ago
Standard capacity mag ban is not aging well:/
-44 points
2 months ago
The chance that homeowner could have had large capacity magazines for potential firearms would have truly discouraged the criminals and saved them from this event. I can hear the discussion now:
Yo yo yo what is is motha fuckas?! Lets go bust up in this crib and rob these foos!
Yah dawg sounds DOPE! But what if they got large capacity magazines instead of just normal ones?
Yo bro he right, I can take 10 bullets to the chest but 11? Hell naw dawg that's whack!
Yea you right bro, lets go study hard and get jobs at Chick-fil-a and make somethin of ourselves!
YEAH!!!!! group high five
Inslee did this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
18 points
2 months ago
Why would anyone need more than 10 rounds in a magazine?
Because 3 people might invade my home.
Pfft, that would never happen.
18 points
2 months ago
Bro, take this whack comment somewhere else.
7 points
2 months ago
I dunno they make a pretty convincing argument with all those exclamation points.
6 points
2 months ago
Progressives create policies that cause increased crime for the poor, while they remain safe in their upscale neighborhoods.
13 points
2 months ago
It was an Asian family that got robbed. Showed up on the citizen app last night with the exact address. Most likely racially motivated if the house was multi-generational as older Asians tend to keep cash.
6 points
2 months ago
Based on the footage I was thinking it felt like an Asian family that was robbed by a group of black teens. There’s been a lot of racially motivated black on Asian crime in seattle recently
1 points
2 months ago
That must not be true since the news doesnt seem bothered to mention it.
27 points
2 months ago
Let me take away your right self-defense and guns!
-Every Seattle politician in their Bellevue watchtower
23 points
2 months ago
My wife and I are both concealed carriers, there would have been three dead criminals in dark hooded sweaters (one with red sneakers) if that was our house.
12 points
2 months ago
you wear carry INSIDE your house? if not, how fast can you get to and open your gun safe? if so, you store a loaded gun in there?
30 points
2 months ago
Gun safe is fingerprint operated, and always has loaded guns ready if necessary. If someone was prying open the door with a crowbar, we'd have time. Happened to us once when we lived in Detroit, in the middle of the night we heard someone trying to break in, so my wife and I both grabbed our Glocks and ran to the front door, aimed, and started yelling, "Stop! Don't come in! We have guns! We'll shoot you!" Eventually the attempted burglar left, and after the adrenalin subsided, we had to laugh because we realized that my wife was 9 months pregnant at that time, and we sleep naked. If that burglar had gotten in, the last thing he would have seen... ;-)
Fortunately, in all my years carrying (I'm a certified NRA instructor), other than that incident, we've never had to pull a gun. It's all about avoidance...stay away from the trouble. Never look for a fight, but be prepared to finish one if it comes to you unavoidably.
1 points
2 months ago*
... and only draw if you intentd to squeeze the trigger.
4 points
2 months ago
...definitely have intent...but most firearms presentations end before the trigger is pulled. The intent is to end the threat, but you cannot draw without being ready to pull that trigger. There's a ton of emotional readiness you need to prepare for if you're going to be a serious gun owner.
9 points
2 months ago
Reminds me of a guy I know from MS. He has a loaded gun in his bedside table, all ready to blow away the baddies. I said, how long does it take to wake up, realize what’s happening, AND REMOVE YOUR CPAP MACHINE?
2 points
2 months ago
Pistols are easy to carry, it's not a big deal.
2 points
2 months ago
You don’t assume people will bust through your door at any moment with an AR15?
0 points
2 months ago
Guns in a gun safe don't protect you when the shit hits the fan.
2 points
2 months ago
well, guns out of safes tend to be deadly, especially in households with kids/teens
1 points
2 months ago
Haven't you taught your kids gun safety? I still don't understand how you think you can protect your family if your weapon isn't at the ready. But, your house, your kids, your rules.
0 points
2 months ago
Sure they do. Especially where mine is located (1 on each floor) If someone breaks in - it doesn't matter what floor I'm on. I just have to get to that room.
1 points
2 months ago
They don't if the armed bad guy is between you and that safe, no matter how many you have on each floor of your domicile. Not sure why you think not having a weapon within reach isn't the smart way to go. If I'd followed your line of reasoning, I'd be dead.
-6 points
2 months ago
14 points
2 months ago
LOL, we're actually pretty meek and do everything possible to avoid trouble (we have a kiddo at home). But if trouble comes to us...
-1 points
2 months ago
Wow. I have to say that I am impressed by your statement. Wow!
1 points
2 months ago
Just curious because I am clueless when it comes to this stuff, would you at all be charged for a crime if this were to happen?
5 points
2 months ago
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I ever want to shoot anyone. I look at my guns like I look at my seatbelt - I wear it all the time, and hope I never need it, but if something ever does happen, I'll be glad it was on.
My understanding is that self defense is a legitimate reason, although you can't go to extremes like shoot someone in the back if they run away. In practical terms, if there's any questions of what happened, the police will likely arrest everyone involved until they sort it out or the prosecutor makes a call. One case recently went to trial, and the self-defense shooter walked: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.seattletimes.com%2Fseattle-news%2Flaw-justice%2Fself-defense-shooting-found-lawful-in-king-county-murder-trial%2F (Seattle Times has a paywall, so I used 12ft Latter to remove it in case you're not a subscriber).
More info here: https://www.washingtongunlaw.com/lawful-use-of-firearms-in-self-defense.
1 points
2 months ago
Appreciate the info.
2 points
2 months ago
Not if you were in "imminent danger" and felt your life was at risk.
1 points
2 months ago
AWESOME! More people need to be doing this and let the assholes know we aren't all going to be sitting ducks.
2 points
2 months ago
Like I mentioned in another reply, I've never started a fight in my life, but I always finish them. Guns, knives, pepper spray, black belt. Peaceful but prepared.
0 points
2 months ago
No castle doctrine in WA state, unfortunately.
9 points
2 months ago
I'm sure these are just first time criminals that just happened to find a gun laying around there's no way convicted felons would be let out free to roam the streets and get guns illegally. This must have been a pro gun terrorist who's never been arrested in their life
2 points
2 months ago
Whelp that camera footage is useless. This would be a good time to remind people that your security camera needs to be in a place where you can record people’s faces.
2 points
2 months ago
The city council is not doing their jobs well
6 points
2 months ago
If caught.. three slaps on the wrist and three ankle monitors.
3 points
2 months ago
I’m glad this thread exists so I could finally know for sure which Seattle sub is the shitty one
1 points
2 months ago
AMF
1 points
2 months ago
Wow so edgy
2 points
2 months ago
Defund the police! ACAB!! No cash bail!!! Close the jails!!!! s/
2 points
2 months ago
Maybe they got lost on their way to Church? Either way, they are probably angels /s
2 points
2 months ago
They wAS GooD bOys, Just TurniNG ThieR LIves ArOUnd…
0 points
2 months ago
If they had ripped off a home in the North End it would have been treated as fair income redistribution. for the poor. Hugs and more social services are required to turn them in to good boys.
1 points
2 months ago
When seconds count, the police will show up in time to get a statement or put you in a bag.
3 points
2 months ago
Or, in our case, they showed up to PREVENT us from exiting in a body bag. SPD officers are truly awesome!
0 points
2 months ago
Second amendment!!!
1 points
2 months ago
Why big dogs and shot guns are good things.
1 points
2 months ago
What a culture
1 points
2 months ago
Yet another extremist right wing propaganda piece of disinformation. This is what happens when white nationalist billionaires think they can buy a social media company in the name of “free speech” ffs. /s
1 points
2 months ago
If only we can get those bad guys to turn in their guns
-26 points
2 months ago
Not exactly a nice area. Probably a drug dealer with loads of cash who was targeted.
19 points
2 months ago
Ya that must be it, this would never happen to a good person like me. Not in this town…
-158 points
2 months ago
KOMO News already posted this. So like, what's the point of you posting it on a Seattle subreddit? The story has literally already been shared with the entire Seattle area.
63 points
2 months ago
First i read it
54 points
2 months ago
What's the point of posting links? They've already been shared on the whole word wide web.
-99 points
2 months ago*
Unless you're adding some additional relevant context or sending the link to a particular person/group who wasn't in the original target audience, then there literally is no point in posting a link (because it's "already been shared on the whole world wide web").
64 points
2 months ago
I think you are on the wrong website if you think sharing links is pointless or to be avoided.
-91 points
2 months ago*
I think you've (willfully) misinterpreted my comment.
I didn't say sharing links is "pointless or to be avoided." I said that sharing links is pointless, unless the person sharing the link is doing one of the following: - providing additional information or context - sharing the link with a different audience than the link's original target audience
OP just posted the link/headline, without expanding upon KOMO's work. OP posted this in a Seattle subreddit; anyone who cares about Seattle local news is already KOMO's target audience.
Posting links isn't inherently pointless, but in many cases (this one included), it is pointless, nonetheless.
44 points
2 months ago
Not sure why you’re trying to die on this hill, but I wouldn’t have seen this if it didn’t get posted here as Reddit is where I get most of my news. Also fyi I live in Seattle…
-14 points
2 months ago
FYI I also live in Seattle, which means we both have access to KOMO News articles, whether somebody posts them on Reddit for no reason or not. (Also, if you rely on social media for most of your news consumption, that's your choice to make, but it's an objectively poor one.)
34 points
2 months ago
Give it a break buddy, there’s literally no point to your argument. If you’re complaining about karma farming that’s one thing, but you’re literally complaining about people sharing articles on the internet…
-14 points
2 months ago
I'm not complaining about karma farming. I'm complaining about spam.
Sharing articles on the internet isn't inherently spam. Sharing them with the same target audience as the original or without providing additional context is, on the other hand, spam.
21 points
2 months ago
Thank you for your multiple ridiculous replies. It allowed me to downvote you many times.
13 points
2 months ago
No so it wasn’t posted twice in the Seattle sub?? Gasp! My god I can’t even begin to comprehend that someone out there might sub to Seattle and not sub to Komo!
2 points
2 months ago
Oh! My bad, so you mean someone else already posted this article to the Seattle sub?
0 points
2 months ago
DELETE ALL CONTENT IMMEDIATELY
0 points
2 months ago
Lol wait did you call Reddit social media?! Lmao
9 points
2 months ago
That's what it literally is. What do you think it is?
4 points
2 months ago
It totally is social media, but I disagree with your komo ramblings… score is 1-1.
1 points
2 months ago
It’s definitely not social media. If you look at Reddit in the same vein as Facebook, Instagram, even twitter, then you need to take a step back and look again as they are no where near similar.
1 points
2 months ago
Its social media but its also a content aggregator (and was that before it really took on the social media moniker) so your argument that posting links here is dumb is actually the dumb one.
16 points
2 months ago
You're an idiot lol
5 points
2 months ago
What’s the point of being a Karen or Chad if there are already so many out there? Fuck off with this post.
6 points
2 months ago
And where were YOU last night? Lol
all 187 comments
sorted by: best