Accurate, but as OP, I didn't post this as "local news."
I posted this because it is objective evidence against the arguments made by the current US federal government for sending troops into Seattle ~"to quell the violence."
I believe that this threat is unprecedented since the mid 1800's, has impacts on the tech sector, how other countries behave going forward, and world history in general.
If I am off-base here, I would genuinely like to hear the counter arguments.
The article pointedly does not go into why the decrease happened, or what the trend has been. It would be consistent with the facts in the article if the City of Seattle saw Trump's actions with other cities and said, "we don't want that, maybe we should re-fund the police." Or perhaps Seattle never actually de-funded them in the first place, and has just focused efforts on reducing violent crime, because they were wanting to do that anyway and/or because they wanted to avoid giving Trump any excuse to send troops to Seattle. I am appalled at Trump, but this article does not necessarily prove him wrong.
When I first heard "de-fund the police" as a slogan, I figured that phrase must have been run by Frank Luntz, just to make sure it made progressives (this includes myself, to some extent) sound as dumb as possible. I mean, he could not have focus-grouped a better phrase. It's hilarious, if you think that dark humor is funny.
All that aside, the reality is:
> In one version of the story, yes-ish. Parking enforcement and 911 call center response were moved out of the police department. Restructuring the 911 system has become an important step in many cities' efforts to reduce armed police response to civilians. Dispatchers are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system: They are tasked with identifying true public safety emergencies and deciding what resources—armed or unarmed—should respond. (Parking enforcement was later moved back into the police department.)
> But in another version of the story, no. While the police department lost a little over 10% of its budget between 2020 and 2021 (mostly because 911 dispatch and parking enforcement were moved), it has been closing that gap since.
> Tellingly, not a single sworn officer has lost their job or pay due to budget constraints. In fact, the department has consistently received more funding for hiring than it can spend. And yet, the myth that the police department was defunded persists, partly because budgets are convoluted and boring, and because it's an easy answer for the police departments' woes.
It's crazy how hard, under Biden, that NPR station had to dance around the simple objective fact that: No. Seattle did not "de-fund the police." Actually, SPD got more money than they could spend.
I posted this. Why? Because I was sitting on the shores of Lake Washington three weeks ago at my parents' house. We were talking about the fact that I was flying back to Poland, and how worried they were about the Russian army.
I thought about it for a moment, while looking out the window of their house. I said:
"The chances of me looking out the window in Poland in the next year, and seeing the military, are lower than they are sitting here, in Seattle."
I stand by that assessment. It still blows my mind given the reality of the USA, and the objectively successful and peaceful city of Seattle.
The fact that this made it to the front page suggests that I’m not alone in believing this kind of thought is not entirely disconnected from reality.
Given the real threat of the US military being deployed to Seattle for 100% political reasons, if it doesn't stay on the front page... well.. what does that say?
I was there in 2020 and after 2020 and it was perfectly fine city almost no traffic because it was recovering from the pandemic. Walked the city and didn’t run into any crime or homeless. The downtown area was vibrant with life.
> Republicans don’t use statistics or numbers. If the vibe is off they’ll get violent.
I don't think sweeping generalizations and othering "Republicans" are going to help the situation at all. They already feel alienated by "the libs", as witnessed by Clinton's "deplorables" remark, which is just saying out loud an attitude which seems to come across in the "Blue" media in subtle things. Continue down this road and it'll be "well, Republics are violent if the vibe is off, so it's okay for us to use violence." And then, pre-emptive violence. If you look at history, this is how these things go.
Right so Republicans get to name call and make sweeping generalizations to rile up the population and spread lies, but if I start doing it to hold all Republicans responsible for things they’re voting for with silence and inaction, then I’m making things worse…
How many more awful things do they get to do then pin it on Trump and shrug their shoulders before you realize that the “be cool and nice” attitude is weaponized against you? They’re never going meet you half-way and offer the same respect. Their leader is a violent sex offender they’re rubber stamping.
The “respect the Republicans who are rubber stamping all this bs” attitude just is disingenuous to what is going on. You’re painting Trump a monster rightly but then giving everyone else a free pass.
The fact they’re deploying National Guard to cities ignoring real crime statistics is PROOF they don’t use statistics or numbers or any valid information to make governing calls.
Violent crime incidents in Seattle police’s M sectors
(the downtown core) declined 36% between June–August 2025
compared to the same period in 2024.
This was the lowest number of incidents for the summer
period since 2017.
If you stop arresting people for anything the stats can also go down, just saying. There is a theory that violent crime has generational spikes and as certain groups age out of risky behaviors, the crime rate falls (for awhile). Politicians will of course take credit for the changes despite their policies having little real effect on what is a natural process. It's kind of like Pfizer taking credit for ending covid when really the virus just burned itself out naturally. But the public is fooled!
This is all made up, unless you have studies and statistics to back this up, then the “theory” is not a theory, it’s a lie.
Pfizer never claimed to end covid, they were just the first one to make a vaccine. Do you remember there were 3 vaccines available and Pfizer was first to market?
The only public fool here is the one making false claims.
Yes, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) reports Uniform Crime Statistics
to the FBI. 3 2
These reports are the standard crimes reported to the FBI and are useful
for tracking historical data and comparing crime stats between cities 3 1
1.https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/public-disclosure-requests/public-information-online
2.https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/cityauditor/auditreports/gun%20violence%20audit/gmuinvestigationsreportfinal.pdf
3.https://www.seattle.gov/police/information-and-data/data/public-data-sets
I've a hard time understanding how this ended up on HN frontage. Maybe someone could enlighten me ?
HackerNews - aka local news for residents of the Bay Area, Seattle & NYC
I wonder what percentage of the world’s software engineers live in these 3 cities?
Accurate, but as OP, I didn't post this as "local news."
I posted this because it is objective evidence against the arguments made by the current US federal government for sending troops into Seattle ~"to quell the violence."
I believe that this threat is unprecedented since the mid 1800's, has impacts on the tech sector, how other countries behave going forward, and world history in general.
If I am off-base here, I would genuinely like to hear the counter arguments.
The article pointedly does not go into why the decrease happened, or what the trend has been. It would be consistent with the facts in the article if the City of Seattle saw Trump's actions with other cities and said, "we don't want that, maybe we should re-fund the police." Or perhaps Seattle never actually de-funded them in the first place, and has just focused efforts on reducing violent crime, because they were wanting to do that anyway and/or because they wanted to avoid giving Trump any excuse to send troops to Seattle. I am appalled at Trump, but this article does not necessarily prove him wrong.
> maybe we should re-fund the police.
When I first heard "de-fund the police" as a slogan, I figured that phrase must have been run by Frank Luntz, just to make sure it made progressives (this includes myself, to some extent) sound as dumb as possible. I mean, he could not have focus-grouped a better phrase. It's hilarious, if you think that dark humor is funny.
All that aside, the reality is:
> In one version of the story, yes-ish. Parking enforcement and 911 call center response were moved out of the police department. Restructuring the 911 system has become an important step in many cities' efforts to reduce armed police response to civilians. Dispatchers are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system: They are tasked with identifying true public safety emergencies and deciding what resources—armed or unarmed—should respond. (Parking enforcement was later moved back into the police department.)
> But in another version of the story, no. While the police department lost a little over 10% of its budget between 2020 and 2021 (mostly because 911 dispatch and parking enforcement were moved), it has been closing that gap since.
> Tellingly, not a single sworn officer has lost their job or pay due to budget constraints. In fact, the department has consistently received more funding for hiring than it can spend. And yet, the myth that the police department was defunded persists, partly because budgets are convoluted and boring, and because it's an easy answer for the police departments' woes.
https://www.kuow.org/stories/did-seattle-defund-the-police
It's crazy how hard, under Biden, that NPR station had to dance around the simple objective fact that: No. Seattle did not "de-fund the police." Actually, SPD got more money than they could spend.
Not a lot of traffic, someone submitted and enough people browsing /newest upvoted it, so it will briefly be on the front page.
I posted this. Why? Because I was sitting on the shores of Lake Washington three weeks ago at my parents' house. We were talking about the fact that I was flying back to Poland, and how worried they were about the Russian army.
I thought about it for a moment, while looking out the window of their house. I said:
"The chances of me looking out the window in Poland in the next year, and seeing the military, are lower than they are sitting here, in Seattle."
I stand by that assessment. It still blows my mind given the reality of the USA, and the objectively successful and peaceful city of Seattle.
The fact that this made it to the front page suggests that I’m not alone in believing this kind of thought is not entirely disconnected from reality.
Given the real threat of the US military being deployed to Seattle for 100% political reasons, if it doesn't stay on the front page... well.. what does that say?
___
edit: I will continue to assume that you all mean well, but we all suffer from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias
Please take this into consideration when you come across seemingly insane topics like this one.
Of course crime is down, the city burned to ashes in 2020.
I was there in 2020 and after 2020 and it was perfectly fine city almost no traffic because it was recovering from the pandemic. Walked the city and didn’t run into any crime or homeless. The downtown area was vibrant with life.
That's why it's below 2019 levels?
Reports of violent crime are 36% down from the recent COVID-19 era peak, but are still above 2018 rates.
This is an attempt to get ahead of Republicans deploying National Guard on Seattle? Or is that a city they like?
Republicans don’t use statistics or numbers. If the vibe is off they’ll get violent.
> Republicans don’t use statistics or numbers. If the vibe is off they’ll get violent.
I don't think sweeping generalizations and othering "Republicans" are going to help the situation at all. They already feel alienated by "the libs", as witnessed by Clinton's "deplorables" remark, which is just saying out loud an attitude which seems to come across in the "Blue" media in subtle things. Continue down this road and it'll be "well, Republics are violent if the vibe is off, so it's okay for us to use violence." And then, pre-emptive violence. If you look at history, this is how these things go.
Right so Republicans get to name call and make sweeping generalizations to rile up the population and spread lies, but if I start doing it to hold all Republicans responsible for things they’re voting for with silence and inaction, then I’m making things worse…
How many more awful things do they get to do then pin it on Trump and shrug their shoulders before you realize that the “be cool and nice” attitude is weaponized against you? They’re never going meet you half-way and offer the same respect. Their leader is a violent sex offender they’re rubber stamping.
The “respect the Republicans who are rubber stamping all this bs” attitude just is disingenuous to what is going on. You’re painting Trump a monster rightly but then giving everyone else a free pass.
The fact they’re deploying National Guard to cities ignoring real crime statistics is PROOF they don’t use statistics or numbers or any valid information to make governing calls.
Eh… that’s abrupt. What changed so suddenly? Or are the numbers faked?
article's source @ https://downtownseattle.org/programs-services/research/econo...
Violent crime was down in practically every major city this summer. It's not really sudden--it's been trending down the last 2 years
If you stop arresting people for anything the stats can also go down, just saying. There is a theory that violent crime has generational spikes and as certain groups age out of risky behaviors, the crime rate falls (for awhile). Politicians will of course take credit for the changes despite their policies having little real effect on what is a natural process. It's kind of like Pfizer taking credit for ending covid when really the virus just burned itself out naturally. But the public is fooled!
This is all made up, unless you have studies and statistics to back this up, then the “theory” is not a theory, it’s a lie.
Pfizer never claimed to end covid, they were just the first one to make a vaccine. Do you remember there were 3 vaccines available and Pfizer was first to market?
The only public fool here is the one making false claims.
Does the Seattle police department report uniform crime statistics to the FBI?
per Kagi Quick Answer