> No, she didn’t lie
I watched her lie about something of which I have personal direct knowledge. Her claims have also been repeatedly contradicted by video evidence.
> and yes, it was a screaming mob. A mob that literally showed up on city council members doorsteps, among others.
Ah, the charged language. What's the difference between a "mob" and a protest making demands? This language reveals the sources you've been using for such information and they ain't great.
> I see you’re siding with the anarchists though, so this won’t be a productive conversation.
I would be curious to know what you think anarchists are.
> Accusing a black woman of racial profiling.
1. If this seems impossible to you, you should check out the actions of black cops. Profiling doesn't require the individual to be a white supremacist, e.g.
2. I didn't even claim that. I referred to the department.
> Good lord. You people are more racist than anyone.
In what way is anything I said racist?
> The consent decree did not recommend against hiring her (I just read it).
Ah, I misremembered which group it ran afoul of. Best's hiring was a mess. There was supposed to be a process: search committee finds options, Mayor makes a suggestion / selection, council confirms. What actually happened: search committee finds options, suggests hiring outside the department as the whole point was to institute reforms, and an outside hire would have no baggage in the department. The police union raises a ruckus about Best not being in the final 3 (she was already at SPD), this becomes news, and Durkan personally puts her on the finalist list, then selects her and council confirms.
> It’s also over 8 years old, long before her time, and they have since found them compliant.
The consent decree is a very low bar and the civilian oversight board has repeatedly stated that SPD is not following their recommendations or ready for end the consent decree. Despite this, Durkan and Best had applied for release from the consent decree in April. Part of that decree were issues regarding excessive force. As a reminder, SPD has been routinely beating protesters and indiscriminately teargassing protesters for nearly three months.
> The data says they use force in only 0.3% of encounters, and significant force likely to cause injury is only a small fraction of that:
> Further, the use of serious levels of force – force that causes or may be reasonably expected to cause substantial bodily injury – remained extraordinarily low, occurring in 21 of nearly 870,000 (0.0024% - or less than one quarter of one hundredth of a percent) of officer dispatches.
Based on police reporting. And remember, the vast majority of situations police are deployed to are in no way violent nor involve an arrest.
> Considering how unwilling many perps are, 21 out of 870,000 is shockingly low. Well done on the reform!
Uncritically accepting police number is going to lead you astray.
> There may be evidence of racism, but probably not the kind you think you are protesting. 42% of this force was used against white people, including 2 officer involved shootings, while 28% was against black people, including 0 officer involved shootings.
Those numbers imply a disproportionate racial impact already. Look at Seattle's demographics.