March 28, 2006
I doubt it was a love crime

This exchange probably takes the cake for the silliest comments made by public officials about the Capitol Hill bloodbath:

When asked by City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen whether the shootings were a hate crime, [Seattle deputy police chief Clark] Kimerer said all possibilities are being investigated.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 28, 2006 06:07 PM | Email This
Comments
1.
Sushi was a Native Alaskan or as some of you would call it Eskimo, but the rest of them were white as day and so was the shooter.

So how can you get it to be a hate crime (except against Sushi).

By the way, Sushi went to military school and was in the military, Palouse. Check his profile on "my space".

http://www.myspace.com/sushiismyname

Posted by: J.J. on March 28, 2006 07:11 PM
2. Maybe Huff had something against people wearing black. I'm sure Kimmerer will check that issue out.
Oh, that's right, Huff was wearing black himself. Nevermind.

Posted by: Barry Nunn on March 28, 2006 07:27 PM
3. If you want to know what kind of music these kids listen to, it's called Trance.

Please go here for an example.

Trance music aims for a hypnotic state with a combination of hard, up-tempo, four-on-the-floor beats, arpeggiated sequences, and euphoric, anthem-like refrains.

Posted by: Steve on March 28, 2006 07:58 PM
4. Rasmussen is homosexual. The shooting was on Capitol Hill. When I first read that quote I assumed Rasmussen was fishing to see if there was an anti-homosexual tone to Huff's act, hoping for another example of how downtrodden Rasmussen's people are.

Posted by: Legast on March 28, 2006 08:10 PM
5. Quickly adding, I know nothing about the sexual orientation of the victims or other attendees of the after-rave party.

Posted by: Legast on March 28, 2006 08:12 PM
6. Kemmerer may have had a brain f**t when he made that statement. So be it. Unfortunate act - Huff saved taxpayers some money and gave the MSM less fodder for their insidious reporting by offing himself.

Posted by: KS on March 28, 2006 08:16 PM
7. Per PC definitions, it can only be a hate crime if there are no white male victims.

Posted by: H Moul on March 28, 2006 08:53 PM
8. The real question should be...what are they not telling us that has hapened to 12, 13, 14, 15 year olds at these 'raves.' All I have to know is that they frequented these events and now I KNOW without a doubt that the picture isn't pretty (fill in the details and I promise you you have just scratched the surface, 12to 15 year olds are totally impressionable and I promise you have been 'used up' at these things). Seattle's PD know and the rest of us should know so we can take steps tp prevent further child abuse. Kook murders we are helpless against, but having young girls thrown into these situations we can do something about. For some reason the culture in Seattle welcomes the inculcation of youth into destructive situations and that is just wrong. Your children and mine (when we have some) will be insulated from this type of thing, but every child deserves the same. All will not excape it, but strict laws preventing this type of exploitation of minors would at least drive it to the fringes of our society. Kook murders we just have to live with, open assault on vulnerable youth we do not. By God we as a society have stood by and let the corruption of impressionable youthes go unabated and it is time to do something about it.

Posted by: JDH on March 28, 2006 09:13 PM
9. What---somehow if it was a hate crime that they'd be deader than they already are??? The concept of Hate Crimes is totally lame. It is a ploy to punish thought, instead of holding someone accountable for their ACTIONS. And H Moul is right. Seattle only prosecutes hate crime laws one way. Everyone knows it. Otherwise, the guy who killed poor Christopher Kime would've been hit with the charge long ago. As it is, because Kime was white and his assailant was black and was part of a group spewing anger and hatred at whites while hurting people, this of course did NOT qualify as a hate crime in the eyes of Seattle officials.
Of course.

Posted by: Misty on March 28, 2006 10:23 PM
10. So this means we can expect a ballot initiative to add goth kids to anti-hate crime laws in November?

Posted by: Vexorg on March 28, 2006 10:54 PM
11. They need to outlaw Huffing at raves. It can be fatal.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/dustoff.asp

Posted by: Richard Pope on March 28, 2006 11:49 PM
12. Well...the shooter WAS a white guy, so we're 95% there already.

Posted by: Mumblix Grumph on March 29, 2006 02:18 AM
13. I encourage all regular posters to this site take a few minutes to read the Stranger's interview of the survivors of the Capitol Hill killings and also the profile of Kyle Huff. Hopefully these articles will make you think, especially the profile.

As a "survivor" of the local, small town party culture of the late 60's-early 70's, I find elements of the "Rave" culture to be strikingly similar to the rock concert, hard-core party scene I once was a part of. We were a tightly bonded core of social misfits searching for identity in a troubled world. We worked, attended school, tinkered with cars, had girlfriends, partied and eventually (most in our early to mid-twenties) grew up. The troubling part was that some did not grow up. Some died along the way in car accidents, some OD'ed, some committed suicide. Several never grew up and died later, after years of troubled marriages, hit-and-miss employment, and of course, drugs and alcohol. As I look back, the majority of those who fell along the way were similar to Kyle Huff; quiet, introspective, never connecting with others or with life. They lived along the fringes and, for the most part, died alone.

I encourage each of you to rmemeber not only what happened on Capitol Hill, but also consider the survivors. As a survivor myself, I often wish I'd done more to help those who fell along the way. I encourage each of you to consider what we could do to help troubled young folks find a better way before they too, fall to the wayside. God Bless.

Posted by: Saltherring on March 29, 2006 07:27 AM
14. When I vote against maroons like Rasmussen, I assure you it is out of hate.

A pure, absolutely guiltless hate.

Romans 9:13: As it is written, ``Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.''

Revelation 2:6: But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

You see it's not a sin to hate. The left always throws out the "God of Love", well I am throwing out the "God of Hate."

The left loves to be nonjudgmental, so much so when the see someone else make judgments they judge that attitude to be "hate."

Hypocrisy to the nth degree.

I am making a judgement on the left. My judgement is that I hate the kind of philosophy, politics and agendas they have for what it doing to us. It is the same reason I have an implacable hatred for communism and socialism.

The subversion of individual liberty to power of the state.

Hate crimes are one same step away from "thought crimes."

When the Rasmussen's of the world have enough power it will become a crime to disagree with them. For historical references see Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et. al.

I don't hate Rasmussen, I hate his ideas, his politics and his agenda.

Posted by: JCM on March 29, 2006 07:35 AM
15. What's being ignored here by the big media is that there was enough grass in the house to cover a football field. The Stranger is the only Seattle paper to my knowledge that's mentioned that little tidbit.

Posted by: Steve_dog on March 29, 2006 08:01 AM
16. No question this is a HATE CRIME... the shooter was White...and we all know WHITE on WHITE crime in Seattle is rampant.

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on March 29, 2006 08:14 AM
17. I'm not sure what point you are making JJ saying he was in military school. Perhaps then he knew how to handle a firearm? Great. If there was not one in the house for him to handle, that knowledge isn't much use.

Posted by: Palouse on March 29, 2006 08:27 AM
18. JCM is correct. Until these young folks come of age, they are indeed victims of the leftist culture, its permissiveness and its failure to inact and enforce laws protecting the innocent.

Steve-dog is also correct. The Times and PI have said nothing about the drugs and alcohol in the house. They have also said little of the fact late-twenty and thirty-somethings were partying with 14 and 15 year old girls. There is only one reason young girls were allowed into that house. Where are the laws to protect young people from sexual predators? Young teens are NOT consenting adults!

Posted by: Saltherring on March 29, 2006 08:38 AM
19. When I was a young lad of 20, we had a term for girls under age 18: jailbait!

Posted by: Libertarian on March 29, 2006 09:04 AM
20. When I was a young lad of 20, we had a term for girls under age 18: jailbait!

Remember... 15 can get you 20.

Posted by: Mike H on March 29, 2006 09:40 AM
21. I'm thankful that Huff turned the gun on himself and died. There's nothing that makes these senseless killings worse than the media dragging the trial of an obviously guilty a--hole like Huff out over a period of years. Then the whole agonizing appeals process drags on for many more years. And finally after whining from all of the anti-death penalty folks, the guy dies by lethal injection. It's ridiculous.

Kyle Huff did us all a nice favor by killing himself on the spot. At least he got that part right.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 29, 2006 09:49 AM
22. When I was a young lad of 20, we had a term for girls under age 18: jailbait!

Remember... 15 can get you 20.


Don't get me wrong, I am NOT advocating the adults in this case should have been interacting socially with those teenagers after hours. But I have always wondered what the "line" is. For example, a seventeen year old can date (and presumably have sex) with a 15 year old. Yet as soon as that seventeen year old turns 18, he's committing a crime? If so, I could have been arrested as a teenager when I was 18 dating a 17 year old, as I am sure alot people could be.

So what was the "magic age" that the older kids had to be in this case to tell the teenagers to go away?

Posted by: Palouse on March 29, 2006 09:51 AM
23. Yet as soon as that seventeen year old turns 18, he's committing a crime?

I think the law says something to the affect that if you are within a certain amount of years, and that number depends on the age, it's not a crime (i.e., a 21 year old sleeping with a 17 year old is legal, but an 18 year old sleeping with a 14 is illegal, or something like that).

Posted by: Mike H on March 29, 2006 10:26 AM
24. Seattle Weekly has a profile of Huff at
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0613/twin.php
that notes he fired off 22(!) rounds at that fake moose while he was drunk and in his early 20s, and has continued to hit the bottle hard; he was a doper as well...
The "Brothers spent much of their time together—twin loners, an apartment resident called them—and liked to cruise the Internet. Both were wanna-be drummers and attended local music events at bars, sometimes wading into mosh pits. At times drank heavily and had occasional bar arguments with others...."
Was he progressing into a brain-frying, angry, alcoholic stupor - along with whatever ailed him psychologically?

Posted by: Piercestar on March 29, 2006 10:31 AM
25. Life is full of magic ages. If you're 17 on election day, and 18 on the day after, you can't vote. Same for drinking, driving, etc.

When I was a kid we had a term for 20 something guys with 14 year old girls: child molestors.

A few issues need to be separated and addressed. First off, Huff was a sick puppy who should burn in hell. Second, if the guys who lived in the house were supplying drugs or alcohol to the junior high aged girls they brought home at 4am, they should be charged.

The MSM has no problem turning this into a call for gun control, but god forbid they caution parents about letting your pre-teen daughters party til 4am and go home with a bunch of wanna be statuatory rapists to get drunk and high.

Posted by: Kevin on March 29, 2006 10:36 AM
26. Palouse my only point was that Sushi did have the training you suggested (including I am sure physically training) and in the end it didn't help him one bit. For you must have the will as well as the ability, and like I said if he had such a will he would be the type of person who wouldn't have been there in the first place so really it isn't relevant.

And, as for "every man for himself" quite honestly if someone started shooting in a house I was in with a bunch of pot smoking ravers I would save myself as well instead of some foolhardy attack on someone who would mow you down in a second. They were just someone I would be hanging out with, and not worth some self sacifice act of bravery. For me I would do everything I could to save my own skin, even if I had to use someone else as a shield.

But again, of course I wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Posted by: JJ on March 29, 2006 03:57 PM
27. When the Rasmussen's of the world have enough power it will become a crime to disagree with them. For historical references see Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et. al.

I don't hate Rasmussen, I hate his ideas, his politics and his agenda. - JCM

Do you not hate Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et. al. or is it only their politics and agendas JCM that you don't like?

I once saw an interview with Hitler's secretary. And she said that he was a very good boss to work for. Kind and considerate. And I also know that he liked dogs and had a fondness for children.

If you personally met Hilter me might have come off to you as a perfectly likable guy. BUT it is exactly his ideas, politics and agenda that made HIM worthy of hatred regardless of any likable traits that he might have had. He might have seemed like a good person outwardly but his ideas, politics, and agenda made HIM EVIL.

No I will freely say I HATE Rasmussen. I hate him because of his ideas, politics and agenda, but I hate HIM and consider him evil, just like I would consider Hitler evil even if he was likable if I met him in person. What he did with his ideas, politics and agenda makes him worthy of hate, just like it does Rasmussen.

Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 29, 2006 04:20 PM
28. My point was not related to just knowing how to use firearms (although that is helpful), but actually having one that you can access and use to defend yourself. Perhaps someone else made the point about training itself, not sure.

And I was referring primarily to whomever actually resided in the house (not sure if Sushi was one of the residents). I don't expect ravers to go around packing.

Posted by: Palouse on March 29, 2006 05:41 PM
29. What a dumb question. Perhaps City councilman Rasmussen is trying to distract attention away from the more important and relevant question - What are 14 and 15 year olds doing at a house party at 7am with adults? Perhaps self proclaimed homosexual Rasmussen could find a way to make an argument that this was a hate crime thus house parties with 14 and 15 year olds with adults should be "Protected" along with the drug use AND underage sex with adults. Should police and government protect these activities? City Councilman Rasmussen is an absolute selfish pathetic pig and is an embarrassment to this city - and not because he’s gay, but because he will use his position to aid in protecting crimes within certain subcultures - Again, what a shame.

Posted by: Jackson on March 29, 2006 05:41 PM
30. Misty, while I agree with you, that is a battle we have already lost. Leading republican politicians and commentators use that term now as if it was legitimate.

Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 29, 2006 07:01 PM
31. I think a very interesting and important aspect of this to remember is that lots of these kids were not from Seattle but from suburban areas.

These were not all street kids. These were not all urban types. Lots of them were suburban brats.

So, this isn't just a problem with Seattle but with suburban parents who allow their kids to go to Seattle for raves and such.

Posted by: J.J. on March 29, 2006 07:06 PM
32. Conservative, Not Republican

Rasmussen isn't worth the effort of hate... yet. He and is ilk are still stoppable.

I have more pity than hate for people as historically ignorant as him. His politics have been proven to be bankrupt in the last century. I for now I find him a pathetic figure spouting nonsense.


I if it comes to him having the power to follow in footsteps of his idols, the very item he wishes to ban will have restored power to the people.

For those who are liberally inclined that is not a threat, just the reason the founders left the power in the hands of the people, and insured the right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: JCM on March 29, 2006 07:14 PM
33. JCM/ I hate all liberals. I consider them evil. They have caused great pain for my family and I.

And when I say liberals, I include most Republicans in this state.

I am not going to vote this year. I think that is the best thing we as conservatives can do.

Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 29, 2006 07:25 PM
34. The only way I will vote this year is if the Democrats put up a strong opponent to my RINO legislator.

He is a good frog boiler and we don't need him weakening the resolve of the Republican party.

Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 29, 2006 07:36 PM
35. When I say "most Republicans in this state" are liberal I mean the politicians.

Most Republican grassroots pcos and other Republican supporters are just stupid.

Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 29, 2006 07:39 PM
36. Hey, "Conservative, not Republican", if your political acumen is superior to everybody else's, why is your only outlet for political expression as an annoying anonymous blog troll?

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 29, 2006 07:54 PM
37. Stefan,

I think we should have a full time "RINO" bash column here each day so some of our friends on the outer edges of the party can vent their spleen and draw the venom from their political wounds.
That way people don't feel the need to embarass themselves on rather sensitive postings like this one.
As for CnR, I've always felt rather sketchy about him...always pick up odd vibes. Might be fun to invite him to a King County YR event to see how he'll interact.
...
...
...

Posted by: Reporterward on March 29, 2006 09:30 PM
38. conservative not Republican, not voting is always the WORST thing you could do. You will have accomplished the feat of having absolutely NO say in what happens electorally this year.
Doesn't sound too productive to me!

Posted by: Misty on March 29, 2006 11:36 PM
39. If no conservative is running Misty then I really don't have any say regardless of what happens electorally.

Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 30, 2006 06:32 AM
40. Conservative, not Republican, Misty is right, you are not conservative, but you are very foolish.

For all practical purposes --politically--you are a liberal.
Thanks for the illustration.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 30, 2006 09:49 AM
41. Liberal Republicans are a far greater threat than liberal Democrats. For they are less vocal about their liberalism and less forceful. They still enact the liberal agenda but they do so more slowly, giving society time to aclimatize itself to the liberalism.

If you threw the liberal agenda at the public all at once there would be a tremendous backlash. Liberal Republicans ensure that such a backlash won't happen or even it the backlash does happen that it won't result in conservative policies being enacted.

If I will get liberalism regardless then I would rather have the type that liberal Democrats bring for they are more above the board about what they are doing and it at least gives us some chance to organize opposition against them.

Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 30, 2006 09:56 AM
42. Your CD is skipping again. Time for an original thought.

Posted by: Flip on March 30, 2006 10:05 AM
43. Check out what I just read in a Google Group.

http://tinyurl.com/ovx2r

The raver community is getting together to help the survivors of the shooting. The ones who lived in the house but were not shot. In and of itself, great. Right.

Well here is some of the stuff they want to have people contribute to help the survivors.

"### ENTERTAINMENT ###


Weed. Beer. Wine. Hard liquor. Smokes, black American Spirits are their faves. Did I mention that they could really use some weed?
After all, if there has ever been a time to enjoy Initiative 75, this is it. "

### DIRECTIONS ###


Drop your stuff off at 1122 Broadway Ave E at Broadway and Prospect,
one block West of 10th Ave E. Here's a map:


http://tinyurl.com/b36yk

--

Hello SPD, are you out there? This seems like a perfect time for a drug bust since they practically announced it to the whole world by putting it in their Google group.

Posted by: J.J. on March 30, 2006 10:13 PM
44. Conservative, not Republican.

To the extent that liberal Republicans are secretive about their liberalism, I agree with you although not quite to the degree of calling them a far greater threat.” Reagan was right when he said its better to take 70% of the one you agree with than none of the one you don’t. I don’t agree with anything liberals believe. Most conservatives are in the Republican Party, and none are in the d-rat party. There is a lot to disagree with in everything (especially the Washington State Republican Party) but tearing down the only possible political safe harbor available is foolish and emotionally immature.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 31, 2006 11:42 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?