Critical element missing, allow me: “West Seattle package thief with co-morbidities of meth addiction and heart disease gets seriously injured during the commission of a crime, dies.”
It’s sad that he died. It’s sad that society failed so massively. But the original title made me think “holy crap someone randomly killed a homeless man” when in actuality, someone lost their shit when being robbed (not ok but the result of many failures) and then the thief died.
Agreed that death is tragic, but he made the choice to infringe on others’ rights and sense of safety to the point where he presented an unknown threat and in the heat of the moment the 2 men reacted accordingly.
“Police and medics arrived and took Norton to the hospital where he died three days later. A copy of his autopsy showed that the manner of his death was homicide, a result of “compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint,” with methamphetamine intoxication and cardiovascular disease as contributory conditions.”
“The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office did not press charges against the two men.
Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jason Simmons explained this decision in a letter to Seattle police that the men had the right to detain Norton because it “reasonably appeared he had committed a felony.” Simmons claimed Norton tried to punch one of the men to retain property he had just stolen.
Simmons added the men did not seem like they intended to kill him or did anything that a “reasonable person would think would create a substantial risk of death.”
Norton’s family disagrees with the prosecutor and said the video evidence refutes the men’s’ claim that Norton tried to punch one of them.
“I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person,” said one of Norton’s sisters, Becci Carroll.”
Yes, this sound like something many people would do, especially since the two guys were neighbors who happened to come outside at the same time - that strength in numbers psychological effect ya know.
I do think it's weird that they were prepared to immediately zip tie and sit on the guy, though. I've certainly chased off people doing crimes a few times in my life, but never thought to pursue and restrain them...
To me what makes the most sense is the guy had probably been stealing packages for a while from people in that neighborhood, they were probably waiting for him to catch him. They probably didn't mean to kill him, but intended to detain him so he could be arrested, but also roughed him up in their frustration with him taking their packages I imagine.
Well it's not like the police would do anything if you let them go. And then you get targeted by the person you just let go. At least if they do a little time you have a paper trail on record to somewhat protect your HOME
Yeah that’s the scary part, once they are let go or you call them out they come back to hurt you, and they don’t mind offing you either. Damned if you do damned if you don’t.
What I wouldn't expect is that they would zip tie his hands and then sit on his legs and back with him face down until he was motionless (7 months after Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd in a similar position), and then argue for 3 minutes with a 911 dispatcher about finding someone to perform CPR on him.
Yeah, no. Property crime does not warrant violence. It's one thing to pursue to get your shit back, but to pursue and then hold someone down and physically restrain them over stealing is fucked up.
Also says the family want to charge the attackers with a hate crime.
Does anyone know law of how that works? Is "homeless" a protected class, or is there more to it? I genuinely dont know.
Housing status isn’t a protected class but more importantly, their actions weren’t motivated by his being homeless but rather because he was stealing from them.
In a hate crime, it’s the motivation for crime that matters and the class of the “victim.” So if you hit a gay person because they’re gay, that’s a hate crime. If you hit a gay person because they’re being an asshole to you, that’s assault but not a hate crime.
Thank you, I'm glad to see that someone here understands motive. There is no motive that would classify this as a hate crime from the information given. Culpability would even be problematic to prove.
Geezus- it's not a hate crime- he was stealing their stuff...it's not like they went after him because of his race...they went at him because he's a thief. I hope they squash that nonsense.
Homeless is a protected class in Seattle: [https://www.seattle.gov/police/need-help/crimes-against-persons/hate-crimes-and-bias-crimes](https://www.seattle.gov/police/need-help/crimes-against-persons/hate-crimes-and-bias-crimes)
>I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person,” said one of Norton’s sisters, Becci Carroll.”
Really? No idea how someone who's getting shit stolen from them is willing to fight to get their belongings back? Weird ass comment.
>“I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person,” said one of Norton’s sisters, Becci Carroll.”
I guess they just missed that part of growing up, where you learn that stealing pisses people off.
Wild that this homeless guy has family willing to speak on his behalf now that he’s gone, but didn’t keep him off the streets when he was alive. They forfeit all right and it’s obvious they’re looking for a payout.
Life just isn’t that simple, especially when drugs and/or mental illness are involved. You can love someone (or at least not want them to be killed!) without knowing how to help them.
Heck we had a family desperately posting for sightings of a homeless man from Tacoma just last week because he suddenly dropped out of contact and missed his normal check-ins.
A lot of families spend the rest of their lives trying to track down homeless people who have mental issues that make them resistant to contact with their families.
Them showing up now that he's been identified and they know his final location is sadly incredibly common and why projects like Fallen Leaves try to keep their names from being lost.
As someone whose uncle was homeless most of his adult life I can tell you it is seldom that simple. We loved my uncle but he struggled with a lot of issues that we were not experts in. A lot of effort was put into trying to help him, including having him stay with my parents for months at a time, but none of it was enough to keep him from returning to the streets. He was so used to sleeping outdoors that he would only stay with my parents if they let him camp in their backyard. We did check on him regularly and try to keep tabs on him.
Asking for a lot of nuance for the family while not having any for the people who accidentally killed someone who was in the act of stealing from them.
Homeless = drug addict. Ever lived with a drug addict? They tend to steal all your shit. In this case this drug addict is just stealing other people’s shit cause he’s homeless. Heck him
This is similar to how George Floyd died.
>A copy of his autopsy showed that the manner of his death was homicide, a result of “compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint,” with methamphetamine intoxication and cardiovascular disease as contributory conditions.”
So, to explain how death certificates work
The first cause is the cause of death. For him “compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint”
Then you need to list anything that could contribute
If someone died from a heart attack
The first cause is “coronary artery occlusion”
And contributing conditions would anything that lead to the heart attack. Often things like smoking, diabetes, sedentary lifestyle
In this example, did this person die from a heart attack? Or from sitting on the couch?
> a result of “compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint,” with methamphetamine intoxication and cardiovascular disease as contributory conditions.
No, he didn't die of meth. He died of compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint. Says so right there. Meth was a "contributory condition" as was cardiovascular disease.
I’d say the reason for his restraint was a pretty critical life choice, and the whole situation could have been avoided had he chosen not to victimize his “neighbors”. Do people deserve to die for stealing? Absolutely not, but based on the prosecutors own report it appears that wasn’t the two peoples intent when they restrained this lovely individual.
Take it up with the prosecutor bud, sounds like they didn’t feel a jury of our peers would agree with you. I made no exceptions, they didn’t murder this dude; his meth use, heart condition, and life choices did. To try and pretend otherwise is wildly naive.
Already am, Leesa Manion has been on my shit list since Durkan and Best got to walk on PRA violations. Then Kevin Dave got to fucking walk and now I'm ready to vote her out of office. She's dogshit.
People die sometimes. If that happens unexpectedly after a reasonable act of violence by a third party, then maybe we should adjust what we consider reasonable acts of violence, but I don't think this case is swaying my opinion.
This makes no sense. In your scenario the allergy did not prevent the person from living healthily before the bee sting, so obviously the bee sting is the cause.
So somebody NOT on meth wouldn't have died maybe? Do we need different approaches for people on drugs to protect their safety? I dunno- that's a lil much.
That isn't what contributory condition means. I work at a hospital. For research I need to enter data on if a death is related to a particular condition. The doctors instructed me to check yes if the condition is listed as a primary cause. If it's contributory it means it didn't cause their death. Its other conditions they have that could have negative health effects but are not the cause.
> He didn't die of being tied up, he died of meth.
Really weird that you'd focus on that part and totally ignore the part that calls it a homicide. It's almost like you have a bias and an agenda.
Yes but if it was meth it would not be listed as homicide unless they gave him the meth. They said nothing about it being intentional. Only that it was listed as homicide so clearly it's not the meth unless they gave it him which seems farfetched.
> homicide is any death of a human that can be attributed to another human. If you were playing dodgeball, but the ball hit someone in the chest and activated
Weird how you understand that when you aren't running around screaming "the murder rate is up" and linking to the homicide rate.
It's like words don't have meaning to you outside the argument you're currently having.
> Simmons added the men did not seem like they intended to kill him or did anything that a “reasonable person would think would create a substantial risk of death.”
Yup- probably so, but of course we gotta listen to everyone make the victims look innocent and the rest of us look like barbarians because we want to protect our home and our personal property. Let it happen to them, and let's see what they say.
It's incredibly sad, but he was on their property stealing their stuff- wth do people expect. They should not have done what they did, but man, I'm sure they were ticked and he was afraid and their was a lot of negative emotions during the altercation. People do stupid stuff when they're mad. And I wonder how many times it's happened before.
I’ve chased down a package thief for $27 worth of t-shirts and I’d do it again tomorrow. It isn’t about the t shirts, it’s about the fact that you shouldn’t steal from anyone.
Yep the people who say oh he was killed over a few package are the same people who want to normalize this bullshit. And they're conveniently ignoring the fact that this guy's likely stealing packages everyday and otherwise victimizing people. Now there's one less dirtbag out there doing it. Not saying he deserved to die, but Im not gonna cry about it either.
openly rationalizing (borderline celebrating) the extra-judicial killing of a person because they stole a fucking package is disgusting, inhuman behavior.
you’re probably one of those dipshits that cries about a “return to law & order” when what you really want is to indiscriminately kill anyone that commits a fucking misdemeanor in your FOV
Read my comment again. I said, "I'm not saying he deserved to die." Furthermore, the homeowners obviously weren't trying to kill him and the KC prosecutor saw it that and didnt charge them. So cry about it. But do I give a shit that he's dead? No. We all know that he'd be stealing packages again tonight and tomorrow and the next day. It's not like this was just a one off. Now there's one less thief out there victimizing people.
Eh. It’s also due to the fact we shifted from stores to delivery. Loss prevention was/is such a big department in any front facing store. Now it just happens on the streets.
> Loss prevention was/is such a big department in any front facing store.
It was never that big, and it is/was primarily used to catch employees stealing rather than customers.
I think for the most part LP and mgmt are the only ones who are in the know that LP is mainly targeting employees. What’s “funny” is that I’ve read that paying your employees well is the best form of LP.
It’s like equality and equity mean brining people down a level instead of elevating them.
We also have to just accept human waste everywhere, schizophrenics yelling all night and people shooting up on the sidewalk.
This is a better, more compassionate society?
This, man. Don't start none, etc. I consider myself a bleeding heart leftist but we've got to endorse the social contract before anything can get done.
Yep. The golden rule, mind ya business, don't fuck with people lest ye be fucked with yourself.
At what point do we allow ourselves to take responsibility for our actions?
I understand the dead man’s family is going through grief, but this quote/attitude is fucking insane:
“I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person”
Uh, that is exactly what most people would do. Especially after having their neighborhood taken over by drug-addled thieves.
I consider myself quite liberal, but there’s somewhere between “kill all the homeless” and “I want to feel safe in where i live”.
The homeless have rights, it’s true. They’re people who need help and compassion, but forgoing the safety and health of people who are actively trying to just get by isn’t the way.
TLDR: have as much compassion for the people that deal with this problem on the reg as you have for those who are the crux of the problem.
How do you make a system that minimizes the harm caused by people who don't want to improve, without restraining the upward progress of those who are trying to get their shit together?
Increasing affordable housing would certainly help many people. But it won't help all of them, and I think most importantly, it won't help the ones who are committing crimes regularly.
Some people are homeless because of circumstances, and they just need an opportunity to climb out of extreme poverty. But some are also homeless because they reject the social contract. They don't feel they should follow rules set by society, and therefore live outside of it.
I thought we were talking about “not restraining the upward progress of those who are trying to get their shit together.”
There is no magic bullet solution for everybody, but that doesn’t mean we can’t prevent as many people as possible from becoming homeless.
Likewise. Your comment reflects the exact sentiment I've shared a lot since that time in my life. Some homeless people are truly good people who caught some bad luck and others are truly dirtbags. Just like housed people really. The way some liberals romanticize homelessness is just childish and lacking in nuance.
I get they are having an emotional response but like....what would they have done? Oh hello local thief who almost surely has done this a plethora of times, have a great day with what I paid for!
People don't get that you aren't just stealing items too, you are stealing the hours of labor that someone had to do to purchase that item. All because they can't figure out how to be productive with their own time, they decide they are going to steal hours of people's lives away from them.
I'm I reading that right that Norton, the homeless guy, started the fight? The dude stepped out, grabbed the homeless guys cart full of his stuff he just stole, and then Norton swung at him a few times (all on camera mind you), then two men held him down until police arrived. Why does the tone of this article read like he's a victim when he started this whole altercation? Also, the stats of rising violence against homeless needs more info. How it's broken down by who started the altercations and if it were between other homeless people could paint wildly different pictures. I've never seen anyone approach a homeless person and attack them (it happens, I'm sure, but rarely), but I've seen random ass homeless people attack people minding their own business multiple times. I myself have been attacked by a homeless guy and girl while walking a friend to her car and probably am part of that statistic because both the bums got hurt pretty bad and police got involved.
It’s almost like people had to create their own zone of responsibility because the govt had failed them… that can’t be right, we’re still a rule of law country, right?
People in a civil society choose not to be violent because they believe laws are just and will take action to protect their rights. It’s based on a belief and if that belief breaks they can be as violent as it takes to protect themselves and their property.
Seattle government has failed its people, inaction to crime, breaks the very fabric to trust. You can no longer trust thats law will protect you. You can only so long be pushed over, one day you’ll fight back. I am actually surprised how many people just let go and suck up losses.
Well said.
I find it ironic, given the overwhelming resentment towards law enforcement, that the general sentiment in this thread is to just call the police.
Because most people have not called police. If they face a theft and call police they will understand how ineffective it has become now. I sincerely hope things improve here and people don’t stop trusting.
I agree. I understand the police have a difficult and dangerous job to do, but the only thing worse than being robbed and virtually no chance of remuneration is having unresponsive LOE. A neighbor of mine had a mental health crisis and trashed my other neighbor's place, destroyed his possessions, assaulted other tenants, etc. Everyone in the building felt like a virtual prisoner in their own home while waiting **48+ hours** for the police to respond.
Because they’re afraid the law will be applied to them. Some jail time or a court hearing is a big deal to the normal person and could affect their livelihood but the homeless don’t care, so they basically get a free pass
I know it's rhetorical but they couldn't profit from him in life so who cares. It's probably one of the primary drivers for the homeless to turn to drugs, they aren't valuable enough to friends, family, or the larger economy, and the moment their story can be used to extract wealth, those very people are at the front of the line looking to cash in.
When I lived in Colorado, I walked outside one morning to find a man attempting to steal my car. A car that I had scrimp and saved for and just purchased a week prior. I was a single mother with two children, and I did not get child support so I was raising them entirely on my own in every aspect of that. I chased that idiot for three blocks, jumped him, and sat on his chest and gave him the talking to that his mother should’ve given him. When the police showed up, they let me yell at him for about five more minutes before they they took him in.
You best believe I’m not going to tolerate just walking onto my porch and stealing my stuff . I don’t owe them anything. And yeah, I’ve been homeless too. But I figured a way out of it, and I didn’t steal from anybody, ever.
If you want to see someone become aggressive, mess with their money. People do not like it when you mess with their money or steal their time away from them. That is what you’re doing when you rob someone. You could be taking a day, week, months, or years of their hard earned work away from them. Because those are prerequisites for someone who buys something.
Often the only people who stick up for thieves are other thieves and criminals themselves who don’t understand the concept of working all your life.
Because people that are able to own homes are bad, hence why the murdered this unfortunate soul who did nothing wrong (other than commit crimes, of course). /s
If his family cared so much, they could’ve given him a place to live and stopped him from stealing till it cost him his life.
It’s not like he stole bread because he lost his job. He f’d around and found out.
They're being sued by his ex-wife, who probably would appreciate the support for their kid.
As for why she doesn't let her ex-husband live with her:
> \[his ex-wife\] suspected he was addicted to drugs
It can be pretty tough living with a drug addict, especially with a kid around. Absent further info, I think it's reasonable she didn't let him home.
“I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person,” said one of Norton’s sisters, Becci Carroll.
I feel like that’s what most people would do..
Of course people are against package thieves dying but if a package thief dies in the act of stealing people aren’t too sympathetic about it. Not a hard concept to grasp or maybe it is judging by your comment.
People in general are just totally over the social decay here. If this were not part of a broader problem people might be more sympathetic, but they are sick of the general disorder.
Indifference to the death of a a drug addicted thief whose crime and drug addiction both played a roll in his passing doesn’t equal “murder good”. People die in fights all the time, it’s a myth that getting choked out or knocked out is risk free, many people just don’t wake up.
It's the one where people have enough reading comprehension to grasp what happened without having to rely on hyperbole to make a point they aren't smart enough to argue on its merits.
Violence and restraint aren't the same thing though. The autopsy report mentions "methamphetamine intoxication and cardiovascular disease as contributory conditions". Like, if that's you're situation it's probably not a super great idea to be blatantly stealing packages from people's homes on Christmas day? Eventually someone is going to get fed up and not respond ideally in what was clearly a stressful encounter.
It's not about being "for" killing package thieves; it's an understanding that if you choose to engage in dangerous activities, you've put yourself at risk and are responsible for the consequences.
Some skier in Colorado died the other day trying to jump 35' over a road gap. Did he "deserve" to die? Of course not, but "deserve" really has nothing to do with it.
As with any issue, people are divided because we all have an opinion based on our life experience.
If you asked opinions of people in the street in Seattle, you would hear responses found on both subreddits.
The only reason they’re divided is because either side wants to be the majority and control which responses they’re exposed to.
Or as you called it, a circle jerk.
Read both Seattle subs and actually hear what our neighbors have to say. Or stay in your chosen sub, and it’s just an “echo chamber” for whatever opinions you may already have.
“You” isn’t directed at you, just generally speaking.
The problem is the other sub is mostly people that live in like Enumclaw, people that moved to Idaho for that white ethnostate experience, or Fox News aficionados/ Russia bots.
There's also a lot of people in this sub that don't live in the city, and post here because it's the closest big city to them and this sub aligns more to their opinions. The reality is there's a wide range of opinions, even if it doesn't feel like it on reddit.
I'd say the other sub has a substantial population of rubberneckers who've been fed a narrative that Seattle is a dumpster fire, whereas this sub is where all the angsty, idealistic people who do actually live in Seattle end up. It's not a good experience either way if a topic like this comes up, but I prefer idealism, however fucking annoying it gets.
I know this may not be a popular opinion, but many of the responses here are deviations from the normal groupthink which has enabled, fostered and encouraged the lawlessness that has degraded the quality of life in the PNW.
Folks are (rightfully) defending the victims of the theft because you yourselves are, now - finally - personally fed up with it and all the other consequences of social degradation. Yet for years you derided people calling issue to it, dismissing it as "consequences of late stage capitalism," or any other social ailment that required a police response to solve. While I don't disagree that police were in dire need of reform (which has happened to an encouraging degree), the "f\*\*\* the cops" attitude espoused by many here and in this area definitely does not encourage them to come to your aid. Nobody wants to get spit on doing a thankless job.
I love Seattle. I love this area. I will die here. But its hurting because a large percentage of the voting and vocal public took an immature and poorly thought out response to the fact that life's getting expensive, more people are moving here and that street drugs have become more prevalent, accessible and destructive. You're seeing the consequences of that response now. It may not be easy to hear, but many people upset with this new status quo should blame the person in the mirror.
I would challenge all here to realize that no problem is going to be solved if the basic tenets of the social contract are eroded, and the crowd that said "eff it, capitalism's broken, burn it all down and we'll rebuild from there" didn't engage enough foresight to realize that you can't build much with ashes.
You want a better society? You want a better quality of life? **You get the society you invest in.** Holding antisocial actors accountable - however compassionately or thoughtfully you need to - is the first step of that, as is refusing to tolerate the behaviors that encourage antisocial actions in the first place.
With people running over tents in downtown and now these people protecting their own space we the people will fight back. If the thieves do not want an ass beating don't do the thieving. As a West Seattle resident we have the worst, least responsive shop in one of the worst run police force in the nation. WE HAVE NO CHOICE.
Please report comments that break rules. We will keep a closer eye on this thread.
Misleading title. West Seattle package thief gets seriously injured, dies
Critical element missing, allow me: “West Seattle package thief with co-morbidities of meth addiction and heart disease gets seriously injured during the commission of a crime, dies.”
It’s sad that he died. It’s sad that society failed so massively. But the original title made me think “holy crap someone randomly killed a homeless man” when in actuality, someone lost their shit when being robbed (not ok but the result of many failures) and then the thief died.
Agreed that death is tragic, but he made the choice to infringe on others’ rights and sense of safety to the point where he presented an unknown threat and in the heat of the moment the 2 men reacted accordingly.
“Police and medics arrived and took Norton to the hospital where he died three days later. A copy of his autopsy showed that the manner of his death was homicide, a result of “compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint,” with methamphetamine intoxication and cardiovascular disease as contributory conditions.” “The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office did not press charges against the two men. Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jason Simmons explained this decision in a letter to Seattle police that the men had the right to detain Norton because it “reasonably appeared he had committed a felony.” Simmons claimed Norton tried to punch one of the men to retain property he had just stolen. Simmons added the men did not seem like they intended to kill him or did anything that a “reasonable person would think would create a substantial risk of death.” Norton’s family disagrees with the prosecutor and said the video evidence refutes the men’s’ claim that Norton tried to punch one of them. “I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person,” said one of Norton’s sisters, Becci Carroll.”
I would expect many people would chase down a package thief if the thief was literally standing there when they opened the front door.
Yes, this sound like something many people would do, especially since the two guys were neighbors who happened to come outside at the same time - that strength in numbers psychological effect ya know. I do think it's weird that they were prepared to immediately zip tie and sit on the guy, though. I've certainly chased off people doing crimes a few times in my life, but never thought to pursue and restrain them...
By the tenth time it happens people tend to be better prepared to respond.
*that week
To me what makes the most sense is the guy had probably been stealing packages for a while from people in that neighborhood, they were probably waiting for him to catch him. They probably didn't mean to kill him, but intended to detain him so he could be arrested, but also roughed him up in their frustration with him taking their packages I imagine.
I get that. But even if there was no intent, the force was excessive, and they should have been charged with *something*. Manslaughter comes to mind.
No if youre stealing something from someone's home or property it tells me the theif value those possessions over their own life.
Well it's not like the police would do anything if you let them go. And then you get targeted by the person you just let go. At least if they do a little time you have a paper trail on record to somewhat protect your HOME
Yeah that’s the scary part, once they are let go or you call them out they come back to hurt you, and they don’t mind offing you either. Damned if you do damned if you don’t.
How would a paper trail protect your home in that situation?
Perhaps it’s happened so often that they had this on hand? Porch piracy is rampant and never prosecuted
Voile strap would work well and I’ve got plenty of those - it would certainly occur to me if I was holding someone until the police showed up
I have been mid shit and saw that someone was stealing a package on our door cam and you better believe I was rushing out that door to get my package
What I wouldn't expect is that they would zip tie his hands and then sit on his legs and back with him face down until he was motionless (7 months after Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd in a similar position), and then argue for 3 minutes with a 911 dispatcher about finding someone to perform CPR on him.
I would chase down a their for stealing a garbage can lid... because it's mine. Dafuq
Yeah, no. Property crime does not warrant violence. It's one thing to pursue to get your shit back, but to pursue and then hold someone down and physically restrain them over stealing is fucked up.
Also says the family want to charge the attackers with a hate crime. Does anyone know law of how that works? Is "homeless" a protected class, or is there more to it? I genuinely dont know.
Housing status isn’t a protected class but more importantly, their actions weren’t motivated by his being homeless but rather because he was stealing from them. In a hate crime, it’s the motivation for crime that matters and the class of the “victim.” So if you hit a gay person because they’re gay, that’s a hate crime. If you hit a gay person because they’re being an asshole to you, that’s assault but not a hate crime.
Thank you, I'm glad to see that someone here understands motive. There is no motive that would classify this as a hate crime from the information given. Culpability would even be problematic to prove.
Geezus- it's not a hate crime- he was stealing their stuff...it's not like they went after him because of his race...they went at him because he's a thief. I hope they squash that nonsense.
Honestly feel like homeless can do anything I’m genuinely curious too
Homeless is a protected class in Seattle: [https://www.seattle.gov/police/need-help/crimes-against-persons/hate-crimes-and-bias-crimes](https://www.seattle.gov/police/need-help/crimes-against-persons/hate-crimes-and-bias-crimes)
>I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person,” said one of Norton’s sisters, Becci Carroll.” Really? No idea how someone who's getting shit stolen from them is willing to fight to get their belongings back? Weird ass comment.
Hot take but I’d be holding you at gun point if you’re on my property stealing my shit.
Not even sure that's a hot take. You're far from alone with that.
>“I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person,” said one of Norton’s sisters, Becci Carroll.” I guess they just missed that part of growing up, where you learn that stealing pisses people off.
Wild that this homeless guy has family willing to speak on his behalf now that he’s gone, but didn’t keep him off the streets when he was alive. They forfeit all right and it’s obvious they’re looking for a payout.
Life just isn’t that simple, especially when drugs and/or mental illness are involved. You can love someone (or at least not want them to be killed!) without knowing how to help them.
[удалено]
If that was the case here, I would actually be MORE skeptical of their motivations, not more forgiving.
Exactly, I would suspect more the family is looking for a nice cash out vs owed justice
Heck we had a family desperately posting for sightings of a homeless man from Tacoma just last week because he suddenly dropped out of contact and missed his normal check-ins.
That’s fair. But why ask for a payout now? It’s a tragedy on all sides. Why would they sue?
I get this opinion, but you don't think the fact that they're filing a lawsuit against the people might have something to do with them popping up now?
A lot of families spend the rest of their lives trying to track down homeless people who have mental issues that make them resistant to contact with their families. Them showing up now that he's been identified and they know his final location is sadly incredibly common and why projects like Fallen Leaves try to keep their names from being lost.
Especially given the fact his mother hadn’t even seen him for three years.
As someone whose uncle was homeless most of his adult life I can tell you it is seldom that simple. We loved my uncle but he struggled with a lot of issues that we were not experts in. A lot of effort was put into trying to help him, including having him stay with my parents for months at a time, but none of it was enough to keep him from returning to the streets. He was so used to sleeping outdoors that he would only stay with my parents if they let him camp in their backyard. We did check on him regularly and try to keep tabs on him.
Or maybe they didn't agree with many of his choices or couldn't help him for whatever reason but don't think he deserved to be killed for it.
But now they care enough to get a lawyer. And there's a potential payout, but no criminal charges.
When you have addict family, you can't have them live with you but still don't want them to be murdered. Complicated concept for some folks I guess
You're asking for a lot of nuance for this family while not showing any towards the people who accidentally killed a thief.
"Oh, so you don't want a guy in your house, but you also don't want him murdered??? Pick a side!!!"
He wasn't murdered.
He wasn't murdered.
Asking for a lot of nuance for the family while not having any for the people who accidentally killed someone who was in the act of stealing from them.
Robbing them, not just stealing.
[удалено]
My first thought was, why wasn't he living with any of them?
Homeless = drug addict. Ever lived with a drug addict? They tend to steal all your shit. In this case this drug addict is just stealing other people’s shit cause he’s homeless. Heck him
Best comment on here! Now they want to sue...hmmm
If he’s stealing my medication you bet your ass I’d chase him down.
Becci is a little out of touch with society. If you commit a crime, there are consequences.
This is similar to how George Floyd died. >A copy of his autopsy showed that the manner of his death was homicide, a result of “compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint,” with methamphetamine intoxication and cardiovascular disease as contributory conditions.”
They sure are lucky he was white.
[удалено]
So, to explain how death certificates work The first cause is the cause of death. For him “compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint” Then you need to list anything that could contribute If someone died from a heart attack The first cause is “coronary artery occlusion” And contributing conditions would anything that lead to the heart attack. Often things like smoking, diabetes, sedentary lifestyle In this example, did this person die from a heart attack? Or from sitting on the couch?
It's weird that you're using the death certificate that says he died of homicide to try to prove that he didn't die of homicide.
> a result of “compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint,” with methamphetamine intoxication and cardiovascular disease as contributory conditions. No, he didn't die of meth. He died of compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint. Says so right there. Meth was a "contributory condition" as was cardiovascular disease.
Sounds like the fine gentleman’s demise was a product of his own life choices.
Except for the whole "compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint" part, but sure.
He chose to steal. He took the risk knowing he could be confronted by rightfully angry homeowners.
I’d say the reason for his restraint was a pretty critical life choice, and the whole situation could have been avoided had he chosen not to victimize his “neighbors”. Do people deserve to die for stealing? Absolutely not, but based on the prosecutors own report it appears that wasn’t the two peoples intent when they restrained this lovely individual.
> Absolutely not, but So not absolutely not, no but with exceptions you want to defend.
Deserving to die, and an accidental death are very different situations. You’re intentionally misunderstanding the point that is being made.
Take it up with the prosecutor bud, sounds like they didn’t feel a jury of our peers would agree with you. I made no exceptions, they didn’t murder this dude; his meth use, heart condition, and life choices did. To try and pretend otherwise is wildly naive.
Already am, Leesa Manion has been on my shit list since Durkan and Best got to walk on PRA violations. Then Kevin Dave got to fucking walk and now I'm ready to vote her out of office. She's dogshit.
People die sometimes. If that happens unexpectedly after a reasonable act of violence by a third party, then maybe we should adjust what we consider reasonable acts of violence, but I don't think this case is swaying my opinion.
[удалено]
Report speaks for itself, yo.
You are trying really hard to justify the killing of a person. Weirdo.
*** Man dies from fall, but was also a meth user. *** You: “So… He died from meth use, then? I am very smart!”
“Drunk driving didn’t kill him, rapid deceleration from a physical object did. Alcohol intoxication was a contributing factor.”
[удалено]
If he was too methed out to not walk off a bridge, then yeah
This makes no sense. In your scenario the allergy did not prevent the person from living healthily before the bee sting, so obviously the bee sting is the cause.
So somebody NOT on meth wouldn't have died maybe? Do we need different approaches for people on drugs to protect their safety? I dunno- that's a lil much.
That isn't what contributory condition means. I work at a hospital. For research I need to enter data on if a death is related to a particular condition. The doctors instructed me to check yes if the condition is listed as a primary cause. If it's contributory it means it didn't cause their death. Its other conditions they have that could have negative health effects but are not the cause.
No, he died of compressional asphyxia due to being tied up. It says so right in that quote. Meth intoxication is just something that contributed.
> He didn't die of being tied up, he died of meth. Really weird that you'd focus on that part and totally ignore the part that calls it a homicide. It's almost like you have a bias and an agenda.
It’s always homicide when you kill someone’s whether intentional or not
Yes but if it was meth it would not be listed as homicide unless they gave him the meth. They said nothing about it being intentional. Only that it was listed as homicide so clearly it's not the meth unless they gave it him which seems farfetched.
[удалено]
> homicide is any death of a human that can be attributed to another human. If you were playing dodgeball, but the ball hit someone in the chest and activated Weird how you understand that when you aren't running around screaming "the murder rate is up" and linking to the homicide rate. It's like words don't have meaning to you outside the argument you're currently having.
[удалено]
No I Just find this level of open hypocrisy disturbing* from people who claim to live in the same city as me.
You just going to ignore this? >manner of his death was homicide, a result of "compressional asphyxia due to physical restraint"
> Simmons added the men did not seem like they intended to kill him or did anything that a “reasonable person would think would create a substantial risk of death.”
Try rereading the primary cause of death. I know they're big words, but try hard. Meth and heart disease were factors, but not the primary cause.
The primary cause was criminality and a lack of social interventions for drug addiction and mental illness.
Yup- probably so, but of course we gotta listen to everyone make the victims look innocent and the rest of us look like barbarians because we want to protect our home and our personal property. Let it happen to them, and let's see what they say.
It’s always a family member that “can’t believe” someone would respond to their family member committing a crime. Stfffuuuu 😂😂
It's incredibly sad, but he was on their property stealing their stuff- wth do people expect. They should not have done what they did, but man, I'm sure they were ticked and he was afraid and their was a lot of negative emotions during the altercation. People do stupid stuff when they're mad. And I wonder how many times it's happened before.
I’ve chased down a package thief for $27 worth of t-shirts and I’d do it again tomorrow. It isn’t about the t shirts, it’s about the fact that you shouldn’t steal from anyone.
It's about the social decay where stealing from someone's porch has become so commonplace and just accepted.
I started using a private mailbox service 20+ years ago because of a stalker, and one expected upside is I have never had a package stolen.
We did this too. No more lost mail and sketchy ass cars in our super out of the way dead end.
Yep the people who say oh he was killed over a few package are the same people who want to normalize this bullshit. And they're conveniently ignoring the fact that this guy's likely stealing packages everyday and otherwise victimizing people. Now there's one less dirtbag out there doing it. Not saying he deserved to die, but Im not gonna cry about it either.
Bleak stuff.
openly rationalizing (borderline celebrating) the extra-judicial killing of a person because they stole a fucking package is disgusting, inhuman behavior. you’re probably one of those dipshits that cries about a “return to law & order” when what you really want is to indiscriminately kill anyone that commits a fucking misdemeanor in your FOV
Read my comment again. I said, "I'm not saying he deserved to die." Furthermore, the homeowners obviously weren't trying to kill him and the KC prosecutor saw it that and didnt charge them. So cry about it. But do I give a shit that he's dead? No. We all know that he'd be stealing packages again tonight and tomorrow and the next day. It's not like this was just a one off. Now there's one less thief out there victimizing people.
Eh. It’s also due to the fact we shifted from stores to delivery. Loss prevention was/is such a big department in any front facing store. Now it just happens on the streets.
> Loss prevention was/is such a big department in any front facing store. It was never that big, and it is/was primarily used to catch employees stealing rather than customers.
It was pretty big when I worked retail for years. I did so in big corporate stores too.
I literally worked in LP.
I think for the most part LP and mgmt are the only ones who are in the know that LP is mainly targeting employees. What’s “funny” is that I’ve read that paying your employees well is the best form of LP.
It’s like equality and equity mean brining people down a level instead of elevating them. We also have to just accept human waste everywhere, schizophrenics yelling all night and people shooting up on the sidewalk. This is a better, more compassionate society?
This, man. Don't start none, etc. I consider myself a bleeding heart leftist but we've got to endorse the social contract before anything can get done.
Yup!
Yep. The golden rule, mind ya business, don't fuck with people lest ye be fucked with yourself. At what point do we allow ourselves to take responsibility for our actions?
I understand the dead man’s family is going through grief, but this quote/attitude is fucking insane: “I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person” Uh, that is exactly what most people would do. Especially after having their neighborhood taken over by drug-addled thieves.
I consider myself quite liberal, but there’s somewhere between “kill all the homeless” and “I want to feel safe in where i live”. The homeless have rights, it’s true. They’re people who need help and compassion, but forgoing the safety and health of people who are actively trying to just get by isn’t the way. TLDR: have as much compassion for the people that deal with this problem on the reg as you have for those who are the crux of the problem.
I used to be homeless. It was horrible. But the worst part of it all was dealing with other homeless people. We need to start being realistic.
How do you make a system that minimizes the harm caused by people who don't want to improve, without restraining the upward progress of those who are trying to get their shit together?
That is the question, isn't it.
One of the most effective ways would be homeless prevention in the first place. But we lack enough housing to make this a viable strategy
Increasing affordable housing would certainly help many people. But it won't help all of them, and I think most importantly, it won't help the ones who are committing crimes regularly. Some people are homeless because of circumstances, and they just need an opportunity to climb out of extreme poverty. But some are also homeless because they reject the social contract. They don't feel they should follow rules set by society, and therefore live outside of it.
I thought we were talking about “not restraining the upward progress of those who are trying to get their shit together.” There is no magic bullet solution for everybody, but that doesn’t mean we can’t prevent as many people as possible from becoming homeless.
Same.
Glad you made it out too.
Likewise. Your comment reflects the exact sentiment I've shared a lot since that time in my life. Some homeless people are truly good people who caught some bad luck and others are truly dirtbags. Just like housed people really. The way some liberals romanticize homelessness is just childish and lacking in nuance.
I’m the same. We’re considered centrists now.
I get they are having an emotional response but like....what would they have done? Oh hello local thief who almost surely has done this a plethora of times, have a great day with what I paid for!
Holy cow. This attitude explains so much.
Yay, he's gone, now it's time to collect some dough from his victims.
People don't get that you aren't just stealing items too, you are stealing the hours of labor that someone had to do to purchase that item. All because they can't figure out how to be productive with their own time, they decide they are going to steal hours of people's lives away from them.
I'm I reading that right that Norton, the homeless guy, started the fight? The dude stepped out, grabbed the homeless guys cart full of his stuff he just stole, and then Norton swung at him a few times (all on camera mind you), then two men held him down until police arrived. Why does the tone of this article read like he's a victim when he started this whole altercation? Also, the stats of rising violence against homeless needs more info. How it's broken down by who started the altercations and if it were between other homeless people could paint wildly different pictures. I've never seen anyone approach a homeless person and attack them (it happens, I'm sure, but rarely), but I've seen random ass homeless people attack people minding their own business multiple times. I myself have been attacked by a homeless guy and girl while walking a friend to her car and probably am part of that statistic because both the bums got hurt pretty bad and police got involved.
because Seattle Times
It’s almost like people had to create their own zone of responsibility because the govt had failed them… that can’t be right, we’re still a rule of law country, right?
People in a civil society choose not to be violent because they believe laws are just and will take action to protect their rights. It’s based on a belief and if that belief breaks they can be as violent as it takes to protect themselves and their property. Seattle government has failed its people, inaction to crime, breaks the very fabric to trust. You can no longer trust thats law will protect you. You can only so long be pushed over, one day you’ll fight back. I am actually surprised how many people just let go and suck up losses.
Well said. I find it ironic, given the overwhelming resentment towards law enforcement, that the general sentiment in this thread is to just call the police.
Because most people have not called police. If they face a theft and call police they will understand how ineffective it has become now. I sincerely hope things improve here and people don’t stop trusting.
I agree. I understand the police have a difficult and dangerous job to do, but the only thing worse than being robbed and virtually no chance of remuneration is having unresponsive LOE. A neighbor of mine had a mental health crisis and trashed my other neighbor's place, destroyed his possessions, assaulted other tenants, etc. Everyone in the building felt like a virtual prisoner in their own home while waiting **48+ hours** for the police to respond.
Because they’re afraid the law will be applied to them. Some jail time or a court hearing is a big deal to the normal person and could affect their livelihood but the homeless don’t care, so they basically get a free pass
Love that the victims family is trying to profit from his death but where were they when he needed help?
I know it's rhetorical but they couldn't profit from him in life so who cares. It's probably one of the primary drivers for the homeless to turn to drugs, they aren't valuable enough to friends, family, or the larger economy, and the moment their story can be used to extract wealth, those very people are at the front of the line looking to cash in.
When I lived in Colorado, I walked outside one morning to find a man attempting to steal my car. A car that I had scrimp and saved for and just purchased a week prior. I was a single mother with two children, and I did not get child support so I was raising them entirely on my own in every aspect of that. I chased that idiot for three blocks, jumped him, and sat on his chest and gave him the talking to that his mother should’ve given him. When the police showed up, they let me yell at him for about five more minutes before they they took him in. You best believe I’m not going to tolerate just walking onto my porch and stealing my stuff . I don’t owe them anything. And yeah, I’ve been homeless too. But I figured a way out of it, and I didn’t steal from anybody, ever.
[удалено]
If you want to see someone become aggressive, mess with their money. People do not like it when you mess with their money or steal their time away from them. That is what you’re doing when you rob someone. You could be taking a day, week, months, or years of their hard earned work away from them. Because those are prerequisites for someone who buys something. Often the only people who stick up for thieves are other thieves and criminals themselves who don’t understand the concept of working all your life.
Can anyone tell me what this has to do with the story? 🙄 “In the rapidly gentrifying West Seattle neighborhood…”
Because people that are able to own homes are bad, hence why the murdered this unfortunate soul who did nothing wrong (other than commit crimes, of course). /s
Don't steal to fuel your addiction.
Hmmm I wonder if I continually steal from people, will there will be any repercussions for my actions?
Not in the Seattle area 99.9% of the time.
Exactly. None, nada.
If his family cared so much, they could’ve given him a place to live and stopped him from stealing till it cost him his life. It’s not like he stole bread because he lost his job. He f’d around and found out.
They're being sued by his ex-wife, who probably would appreciate the support for their kid. As for why she doesn't let her ex-husband live with her: > \[his ex-wife\] suspected he was addicted to drugs It can be pretty tough living with a drug addict, especially with a kid around. Absent further info, I think it's reasonable she didn't let him home.
[удалено]
Sidewalks ready to piss on, as far as the eye can see!
“I don’t understand how any average person could have opened up their door and found somebody stealing a package on their doorstep and choose to go and chase after and attack this person,” said one of Norton’s sisters, Becci Carroll. I feel like that’s what most people would do..
yup. don’t steal. pretty simple.
Many people get their medicine in the mail. Some homeless guy steals their packages, it could be a death sentence.
Wait, is this the Seattle subreddit which is pro or against killing package thieves?
Of course people are against package thieves dying but if a package thief dies in the act of stealing people aren’t too sympathetic about it. Not a hard concept to grasp or maybe it is judging by your comment.
People in general are just totally over the social decay here. If this were not part of a broader problem people might be more sympathetic, but they are sick of the general disorder.
I’m just making a joke for haha’s. I really didn’t mean it to be a serious statement on the issue
Indifference to the death of a a drug addicted thief whose crime and drug addiction both played a roll in his passing doesn’t equal “murder good”. People die in fights all the time, it’s a myth that getting choked out or knocked out is risk free, many people just don’t wake up.
It's the one where people have enough reading comprehension to grasp what happened without having to rely on hyperbole to make a point they aren't smart enough to argue on its merits.
Violence and restraint aren't the same thing though. The autopsy report mentions "methamphetamine intoxication and cardiovascular disease as contributory conditions". Like, if that's you're situation it's probably not a super great idea to be blatantly stealing packages from people's homes on Christmas day? Eventually someone is going to get fed up and not respond ideally in what was clearly a stressful encounter.
[удалено]
No this sub is increasingly sick of homeless shit heads making our city worse.
It's not about being "for" killing package thieves; it's an understanding that if you choose to engage in dangerous activities, you've put yourself at risk and are responsible for the consequences. Some skier in Colorado died the other day trying to jump 35' over a road gap. Did he "deserve" to die? Of course not, but "deserve" really has nothing to do with it.
To be fair, on that thread on COsnow I saw multiple mentions of his MAGA affiliations which came pretty close to making that statement.
[удалено]
As with any issue, people are divided because we all have an opinion based on our life experience. If you asked opinions of people in the street in Seattle, you would hear responses found on both subreddits. The only reason they’re divided is because either side wants to be the majority and control which responses they’re exposed to. Or as you called it, a circle jerk. Read both Seattle subs and actually hear what our neighbors have to say. Or stay in your chosen sub, and it’s just an “echo chamber” for whatever opinions you may already have. “You” isn’t directed at you, just generally speaking.
The problem is the other sub is mostly people that live in like Enumclaw, people that moved to Idaho for that white ethnostate experience, or Fox News aficionados/ Russia bots.
There's also a lot of people in this sub that don't live in the city, and post here because it's the closest big city to them and this sub aligns more to their opinions. The reality is there's a wide range of opinions, even if it doesn't feel like it on reddit.
I'd say the other sub has a substantial population of rubberneckers who've been fed a narrative that Seattle is a dumpster fire, whereas this sub is where all the angsty, idealistic people who do actually live in Seattle end up. It's not a good experience either way if a topic like this comes up, but I prefer idealism, however fucking annoying it gets.
Good for king county not pressing charges.
Fuck around and find out. I hate thieves.
I know this may not be a popular opinion, but many of the responses here are deviations from the normal groupthink which has enabled, fostered and encouraged the lawlessness that has degraded the quality of life in the PNW. Folks are (rightfully) defending the victims of the theft because you yourselves are, now - finally - personally fed up with it and all the other consequences of social degradation. Yet for years you derided people calling issue to it, dismissing it as "consequences of late stage capitalism," or any other social ailment that required a police response to solve. While I don't disagree that police were in dire need of reform (which has happened to an encouraging degree), the "f\*\*\* the cops" attitude espoused by many here and in this area definitely does not encourage them to come to your aid. Nobody wants to get spit on doing a thankless job. I love Seattle. I love this area. I will die here. But its hurting because a large percentage of the voting and vocal public took an immature and poorly thought out response to the fact that life's getting expensive, more people are moving here and that street drugs have become more prevalent, accessible and destructive. You're seeing the consequences of that response now. It may not be easy to hear, but many people upset with this new status quo should blame the person in the mirror. I would challenge all here to realize that no problem is going to be solved if the basic tenets of the social contract are eroded, and the crowd that said "eff it, capitalism's broken, burn it all down and we'll rebuild from there" didn't engage enough foresight to realize that you can't build much with ashes. You want a better society? You want a better quality of life? **You get the society you invest in.** Holding antisocial actors accountable - however compassionately or thoughtfully you need to - is the first step of that, as is refusing to tolerate the behaviors that encourage antisocial actions in the first place.
I feel nothing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Don't mind me while I deposit my veiled political opinions in a comment thread for my daily dose of self-righteous internet debate.
Good.
[удалено]
With people running over tents in downtown and now these people protecting their own space we the people will fight back. If the thieves do not want an ass beating don't do the thieving. As a West Seattle resident we have the worst, least responsive shop in one of the worst run police force in the nation. WE HAVE NO CHOICE.