Shooting in Seattle reveals who benefits from its "political correctness"

Today, a Sunday, I took a trip down to the corner of Third Ave. and Pike Street in downtown Seattle to pick up something at the McDonald’s located there before heading on to work. Except for a couple of Seattle bike cops hanging out by a storefront, that entire block of sidewalk was totally bereft of the usual gaggle of characters who have nothing to do with their lives except congregate: unemployed people and other non-working types like homeless folk and older “kids” still living with their parents. It wasn’t all that surprising, given that last Wednesday there was a shoot-out there between a couple of men, later identified as Marquise Latrelle Tolbert and William Ray Tolliver, both with long arrest records. Apparently they got into some kind of argument, and out came the guns. Neither man was apparently injured, but eight bystanders—including a nine-year-old boy—were hit by gunfire, and one woman died at the scene. 

The shooters escaped, and although the media relayed to the public calls for “assistance” in apprehending the suspects, one wonders how this could be done when no description of the suspects was provided. Not that it was a “big” surprise about who the suspects might be when they were identified, along with their mugshots which the police helpfully provided. Of the course, it isn’t a “surprise” that those of the public who not present during the shooting would be permitted to remain in “suspense” concerning the perpetrators, which is typical of the “political correctness” of the city and its media when it comes to violent crime and who is doing it here. They could be Hispanics, right? But then again, the only Hispanics you usually see in downtown Seattle are construction workers, food preparation employees, janitors and “Latinas” clinging to Anglo males like wet rags. Otherwise, how things shakeout in downtown Seattle is as plain as day: whites, East Asians and Indians benefit from “positive” racist stereotypes, and everyone else is disadvantaged from negative racist stereotypes, and unfortunately a few bad apples actually deserve it. 

In short, Seattle isn’t any different on the street-level than any other place; when you talk “progressive” here, it is about self-service, like what you would expect from someone like Hillary Clinton. Nobody around here isn’t “in” something unless there is something “in it” for themselves. Martin Luther King Jr. day doesn't mean a thing to Asians and Indians who are stereotyped as being “smarter” than other people  and who are not only actively recruited for office drone jobs, but they are often the managers who doing the discriminatory hiring, because they “prefer” to work with their own "kind." However, to be honest, the people you usually see hanging out at places like Third and Pike are not the type of the people who would “fit in” anywhere except where they are at, and what they do “do” is that provide an excuse for the “privileged” and “entitled” groups here to “rationally discriminate” against all members of the "group" they allegedly "represent." This is not to say that some push back occurs, since in public employment and at he King Country Metro there is a great over-representation of black employees, and as I have mentioned before that fosters a different set of "entitlement" in which a culture of discrimination against other underrepresented groups and “ethnicities" exists.

Yet there is still the question of the “political correctness” of the city in trying to avoid some tough questions. Part of it, I think, is that while this city does have a “class”—or if in regard to Indians, a “caste”—system based on racial or “ethnic” stereotyping, it nevertheless tries to avoid being called out for it by being patronizingly tolerant of bad habits, which can easily “evolve” from the mundane to the shootings in public spaces in broad daylight. Take for example an observation I made in Seattle’s downtown library. I was sitting in a corner working on my laptop, occasionally sticking a piece candy in my mouth; presently a white female librarian approached me and told me that there was no eating in the library. I expressed frustration at being targeted for eating candy while people were having five-course meals on the top floor. She appeared a little “shook” by my unaccented Midwest English (she was probably expecting a Spanish accent) and my indignant tone, and she quickly vacated. But as do most people who have their motives questioned, she apparently contacted someone she thought would be more intimidating, and a few minutes later a security guard arrived, but he apparently decided not to bother me after a quick look-over, since I wasn’t “eating.”

The next day I was sitting in the same spot when a black male showed up with a Styrofoam carton from which you could smell its contents obtained from a local teriyaki restaurant clear to other side of the building. He sat down and started munching away. Presently a white male  employee putting away books appeared, but he took no notice of the man eating who (perhaps rightly) didn’t expect anyone to confront him. Frustrated that I had been accosted for less from a librarian the previous day, I pointed him out to the employee and said that I thought that people were not supposed to be eating here; he just looked up  and shrugged. Then a black female librarian was walking past and I pointed out that I had been harassed the day before about eating a piece of candy and this guy was having lunch here and nobody was saying anything about it. The man eating closed the lid of the carton and tried to conceal it, but the aroma its contents were still quite powerful; the librarian went over to him, smiled at him and asked him if he was “alright,” and just left to her previous business, and this guy just got back to his “business” of eating his lunch. I got the impression that she considered my intervention to be “racially” motivated. “Racially” motivated? From my perspective I was targeted for my “ethnicity” in a city that has a culture of prejudice against Hispanics, and this guy was permitted to break rules because of his black “victim” status. 

Disregarding spoken and unspoken rules of civil behavior may seem a “small” thing that doesn’t bother most people because they occupy points in space where they don't have to be confronted with it on a frequent basis. But little things often do lead to bigger things. And it doesn’t exactly surprise me that people would be carrying around hidden firearms in downtown Seattle, ready to use them. About 20 years ago I was driving a car south of downtown when I was flagged over by a Seattle police officer at a stop sign near a freeway off ramp; he had pulled over a black male who he discovered did not have a driver’s license. He might be a white cop, but he didn’t want to be a “bad” guy, so he asked me if I could give this guy a ride to where he was headed, as his car was to going to be impounded. I don’t know why exactly, but I agreed to do this; maybe I just wanted to be a “nice” guy too. Anyways, the hitchhiker told me he wanted to be dropped off at what was still the Bon Marche store; on our way there, the man asked me if I wanted to see something. I said not really, but he showed me anyways: pulling up his T-shirt, there was  a 45 caliber pistol (the sidearm that was commonly used in the military before it was replaced by the 9mm pistol), tucked in his pants. I was quite happy to get him out of my car soon afterward, and I couldn’t help thinking about what that cop had allowed himself to miss, being such a nice guy—and about why this guy felt a “need” to carry a gun around he was quite happy to show off to complete strangers. 

I think to myself where does this “justification” for and nonchalant attitude toward violence come from? One day on a bus two black women got on and sat in seats on the opposite side of each other two rows in front of me and started conversely loudly at each other using four-letter word language, which on both counts I considered rude and offensive. After a while, I asked the one who was “talking” the loudest why they didn’t just sit next to each other instead of shouting at each other. Of course, it is pointless to expect that they would do anything but take offense at this suggestion, because people who engage in this behavior are not thinking about other people, and could care even less about what you think. First there was the “mind your business” phase, to which I replied that they their “business” was interfering with mine, followed by threatening me with physical violence even if she was a “woman,” which I stated didn’t surprise me because there was plenty of viral video evidence of black females engaging in such (for a history lesson, the Metro Tunnel was forced to “beef-up” its security methods after a free-for-all brawl, caught on security camera,  involving black females spilled from the Macy’s store onto the tunnel platform). And then, of course, the accusation of “racism.” I wondered aloud why it took her so long to get there, since this is the typical “defense” for anti-social behavior of this type and circumstance. 

But the local media tends to avoid issues of race when discussing crime in the city, or even mention it. The exception, of course, is when Hispanics are the “subject.” Hispanics don’t have much of gang presence in Seattle, much less in downtown Seattle, but that doesn’t stop the “crime reporting” by the Seattle Times that suggests it. I have always had an “issue” with the “advocacy journalism” of crime reporter Sara Jean Green, who I first “encountered” with a response to an email I sent that reveal a total absence of what one might call “objective” journalism. Besides being a "radical" gender victim activist, she also has a “problem” with Hispanics. I recall a story she wrote about homicides in Seattle, which neglected to mention that majority in which both the perpetrators and victims were black, and in fact she avoided all mention of race save to note that one incident involved an Hispanic male; I wrote her an email questioning this, and after having been apparently told by an editor not to respond to emails in a way that put the paper and herself in a bad light, she apparently thought she could “counter” accusations of being racist by telling me that she was part  Iroquois Indian. I’ve seen her picture on her twitter page (there was a link to it from a story about last week’s shooting), and while she may have more Native American in her than Elizabeth Warren, that face with its self-satisfied smirk still looked white to me. I wasn’t buying it.

I wasn’t’ buying it because I remembered a story she composed several years ago concerning a shooting incident in Auburn.  In her initial report, Green wrote:

The shooting happened around 5 p.m. as the father and his two sons sat with some belongings at a bus stop at 17th Street Southeast and B Street Southeast in a neighborhood off A Street, Stocker said. It was unclear why the three were using the bus stop because there’s no route that goes there, and it’s in a construction zone, he (a police spokesperson) said.

The younger, uninjured son, who witnessed the shooting, was being questioned by police. The family apparently lives in the area.

Investigators don’t yet know whether the victims and shooter or shooters knew each other, but it appears the 17-year-old approached the car. Stocker said there may have been some kind of dispute before the shooting.

How are we to interpret this version of events? It is implied here that the victims were up to something unsavory or at the very least "suspicious," perhaps a drug deal gone bad. Perhaps they were gang members. Regardless, it is suggested that one of the victims instigated the shooting. The "suggestions" of the story apparently angered family members, because there was a follow-up story the next day was written by another reporter:

A family friend identified Angel Mireles, 19, and his stepfather, 41-year-old Mark Rivera, as the victims of the drive-by shooting.

Kari Frazier said four members of the Rivera family, including the victims, had gathered at her house in Auburn on Tuesday evening to visit before heading home for dinner.

Rivera, Mireles and Rivera’s 13-year-old son, Isaiah, left Kari and James Frazier’s house a few minutes early to grab some items at the store across the street before meeting up with the boys’ mother, Victoria, at a nearby bus stop.

As Victoria Rivera chatted with Kari and her husband, the sharp snap of gunfire sounded outside, Kari Frazier said.

Looking out the bay window in the Fraziers’ living room, the three saw a commotion at the bus stop where Victoria Rivera’s family had agreed to meet, said Frazier.

The Fraziers ran outside — a few steps ahead of Victoria Rivera — and found two of their friends gunned down in a drive-by shooting. Kari Frazier said she could barely recognize Mark Rivera and Angel Mireles because of the blood.

Mireles died at the scene after being shot around 5 p.m. Tuesday; Rivera died at Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center on Wednesday.

Isaiah, who witnessed the shooting, was not hurt.

Speaking Wednesday from her home, Kari Frazier’s voice was raspy and full of emotion. She identified members of the Rivera family for The Seattle Times.

She said the Riveras were longtime friends. She met Victoria when the two women volunteered at an Auburn food bank more than a decade ago.

Mark Rivera was a warehouse worker and Victoria a stay-at-home mom, she said. In addition to Angel and Isaiah, the couple have a 15-year-old son and 12-year-old twins, a boy and a girl.

Mireles was the father of a 1-year-old son, who he was raising with his girlfriend, Frazier said. Mireles was the son of Victoria Rivera from a previous relationship.

“This family has been through so much,” Frazier said. “They’re low-income, they’re down on their luck. They’re really good people.”

Now, instead of the barely concealed suggestion that this shooting was gang or drug-related, the victims are given a human face, a hard-working family paying a visit to friends, with a perfectly legitimate reason for why they waiting where they were standing. The next day the paper reported an arrest in the crime; the perpetrator appears to have been an armed thief looking for random victims to rob. The surviving son who witnessed the shooting said the shooter and his girlfriend simply drove up to the victims and apparently began mouthing off, instigating an argument—likely providing a “justification” for the shooter. This shouldn’t be surprising; after all, a man recently pleaded guilty to killing a man who he tried to steal his cell phone, merely because the would-be victim of the theft called 9-1-1, and the killer didn’t want a “witness.” He also completed his theft, but complained that the phone wasn’t “a nice model.” In the present case, it was now reported that Mireles approached the car, and the shooter (still not identified, but police conceded that he did have gang affiliations) pointed a gun at him, at which time Mireles apparently tried to disarm him, but was shot in the head. When the father rushed over, he was shot too, and the younger son was also fired on, but managed to escape.

This is another reason why I have so much contempt for so-called "activists" in this city who are actually bigots in their own way. Green’s first email to me was violently “indignant” about the “horrible” crimes perpetrated against women, and this is clearly the reason why she chose this journalistic subgroup to work in. She subsequently that there was a lot of "ugly" she had to report about, but some of that "ugly" is clearly "embellished" for personal political reasons. But she also (despite of her claim otherwise) holds prejudicial attitudes toward Hispanics (males in particular) that doesn’t inhabit just in her small world, but is part of the culture of the city. Why this is so hypocritical was revealed by the shootings last week (there were three incidents downtown within 24 hours) in that the media is loath to identify the kind of “culture” that is responsible of these kinds of incidents—unless, of course, they involve Hispanics, who are not really part of any “culture” that the city is bound to “respect.”