You never know what Seattle city attorney Pete Holmes will say next, but it rarely surprises the city’s cops. He’s accomplished at uttering anti-police nonsense, including several phrases uttered during his failed attempts to prosecute police officers.
Holmes took part in a recent interview/debate trying to win the endorsement of Seattle’s (most) leftist newspaper, the Stranger, in his re-election bid. Holmes is running against Scott Lindsay, a former public safety advisor to recently resigned mayor Ed Murray. During the interview, Holmes may have pushed even his own absurdity envelope.
If the Nazi is a police officer or a uniformed person, it’s an Assault 3 [felony]. I can say that, which is a scary thought…
The Stranger brought up an incident that occurred in downtown Seattle last September 18th. A man punched an apparent neo-Nazi man who was wearing a Swastika armband. The Stranger asked the candidates, “Where are you on punching Nazis? Is it Assault 4 [a misdemeanor] or is it a citizen’s arrest?” (Okay, that second question was kind of funny.)
This was Pete Holmes’ astonishing response: “If the Nazi is a police officer or a uniformed person, it’s an Assault 3 [felony]. I can say that, which is a scary thought.” Yeah, scary for police officers. However, Holmes is a self-admitted aficionado of a certain green, leafy substance recently made legal in Washington State. So, perhaps that played a part in his offensive comment.
Even Holmes’ opponent, Lindsey, expressed shock, “Wait, what?” My thoughts, exactly. And I shouldn’t have to say it, but I have no sympathy for the pathetic piece of human waste who got sucker punched. But what the heck did Holmes mean, “If the Nazi is a police officer…?” Does he really make this association so easily?
What’s going on in Mr. Holmes’ mind? His answer to a question about Nazis is to connect these neo-heil-Hitlers to cops? This is not normal — especially for a city attorney. Then Holmes explained that what would be a misdemeanor if committed against an ordinary citizen is a felony when committed against a uniformed police officer. Okay, that’s true, but what does that have to do with suggesting a police officer might be a Nazi? Where does that notion come from? How deep-seated must his disdain for law enforcement be to say such a thing?
So, it seems that Mr. Holmes feels that millions of Americans who voted for the Republican Party candidate for President of the United States must have crazy views
The Stranger then noted: “At this point, Holmes … [tried] to make a point about an entirely different topic from earlier [in the interview] …” But the Stranger wouldn’t veer off course and pressed Holmes about “punching Nazis.” Holmes essentially said even “people with crazy views” deserve justice, which almost made me fall off my chair. I wonder what this man thinks is a “crazy view?” If the Nazi is a police officer, seems like a crazy view to me.
He then said something to the effect of, if someone assaults a Nazi who is not harming anyone, his office would have to respond, just as if a Black Lives Matter protester were assaulted. I was surprised to hear Holmes put these two groups in the same category (did he mean to do that?).
Holmes added, “At the end of the day we have to maintain a civil society and allow people to say — ” Then he interrupted himself and devolved back into the leftist politician I recognize and alluded to what he considers a crazy view, “in fact I think the more the Donald Trump supporters of the world speak out with white supremacist views and we hear them, the more we’re going to effectively alienate them in the public discourse.” So, it seems that Mr. Holmes feels that millions of Americans who voted for the Republican Party candidate for President of the United States must have crazy views.
Think about this: Holmes is the person responsible for prosecuting crime in a major American city. Yet he willfully conflates people who voted for President Trump (roughly half the electorate, and a majority of many more than half the states) with white supremacists, and then advocates working to “effectively alienate” them.
Is it just me, or is Mr. Holmes associating people who don’t agree with him politically with Nazis and white supremacists?
What does effectively alienating look like to Mr. Holmes? Does it look like Antifa and BLM shutting down conservative speakers at Berkeley? Does it look like dozens of other conservative events across America where violent, leftist demonstrators assault people and commit property destruction specifically to keep those with opposing views from exercising their First Amendment rights?
It would be interesting to hear Pete Holmes answer another question: where are you on punching cops?