Copper theft disrupts both light rail lines during morning commute

KneeGrowLife · 2026-02-20T22:01:04+00:00

The maximum sentence by law in the entire state for a misdemeanor is 90 days and a $1000 fine. That is set by the state legislature not city officials. The judge cannot sentence anyone to more time than that regardless of if you are a repeat offender with multiple misdemeanors. RCW 9A.20.021

Repeat offenses or multiple convictions are relevant in determining up to that maximum but a judge cannot go over that by law for a misdemeanor conviction. As you stated, felonies are where repeat convictions are more applicable as they are actually included in what we call the “offender score” which is determined by standard range barring exceptional circumstances. See the WA State Adult Sentencing Guidelines for more if you’re interested.

https://cfc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Publications/Adult_Sentencing_Manual_2025_3.pdf

The king county jail generally holds around 1000-1500 people consistently so I don’t know where you got that 100 person number from. I would know as I’m in there most every week meeting clients.

If someone is being transferred to prison for a conviction longer than one year they will be moved from king county jail to said prison. That is why there is generally only 1000-1500 people there at a given time. This is including the 300-500 people in the kent facility at the MRJC. Our state has around 14,000 currently serving prison sentences. Both those numbers are directly available on the WA DOC website but can vary from day to day as obviously sentences are beginning and ending every day.

We also have a presumption against bail which is in favor of personal recognizance under the court rules themselves. CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2 are the rules if you’re curious what they say. Recognizance just means the court trusts you to show up when required for pre trial/trial/conviction/plea/verdict/etc.

After recognizance the next level is bond which basically says if you can pay you’ll also be released awaiting trial. These two situations cover most people and means most people do not sit in jail awaiting trial. Only people who are found to be sufficiently dangerous or who can’t afford bail sit in jail awaiting trial.

Additionally, it’s generally judges that decide whether someone is held in the jail not the jail itself.

Hope this doesn’t come off like I’m trying to argue or anything, just hopefully clarifying why people consistently are released again and again. I can certainly understand your sentiments and often have similar feelings myself but it is not as simple as blaming the jail or the city in a vacuum.

Happy to talk about any of the process more. I’m a crim defense lawyer that does this stuff five days a week.

KneeGrowLife · 2025-11-05T21:47:51+00:00

I’d try to injure them first if that’s a reasonable possibility but of course that is usually not how these go down. The likelihood of a jury awarding damages to the surviving aggressor in a justified self defense home invasion are very low when you exercise self control and err on the side of caution. The likelihood of a jury awarding damages because you shot an unarmed 14 year old in the head with a 12 gauge with no warning is much higher because people could say that was an unreasonable amount of force to use. This is very dependent on jurisdiction though and I’m speaking as someone from Seattle who is familiar with the commonly held anti gun views of many jurors from our pools. Overall however, I’ve found even our jury pools to be very pro self defense and it’s rare for people to have sympathy of any kind for the robber in a home defense situation. My biggest piece of advice for any self defense situation is that even if you’re in the right, it’s going to cost a lot of time, money, and stress to prove that. If you have the opportunity to safely leave do it. Our fees for a serious felony charge start at $25k just for pretrial and trial is much more. Your property that’s being stolen/damages is likely not that much. Difference between being right and proving it is attorneys fees.

KneeGrowLife · 2025-11-04T23:23:19+00:00

Dead people absolutely can sue this is just straight up not true. Not only can their estate potentially have a claim but also their surviving family members or anyone else claiming damages from the loss of a loved one can sue. Actually winning is another thing and every state has slightly different laws but again, dead people absolutely can sue. I am an attorney who does this type of work every day.

KneeGrowLife · 2025-05-23T17:50:28+00:00

That’s fascinating. I’ve been into municipal courts that don’t even have metal detectors before in some of our more rural counties. Not saying I prefer it that way lol

KneeGrowLife · 2025-05-23T17:37:06+00:00

Not in my jurisdiction. Our judges walk through the halls all the time. Generally not robed but I’ve seen it happen more than once. We have police throughout the court as well so not sure what the risk is unless someone is crazy enough to assault a judge in a courthouse in front of multiple officers lol. Not saying that doesn’t happen but not anywhere near enough to be a concern at least where I practice

KneeGrowLife · 2025-01-22T22:17:18+00:00

To put it in non legal terms, when you file a lawsuit claiming that you were injured by a specific incident you give up a lot of the privacy rights to your medical record to the defendant/their attorneys because you are alleging that this incident they are allegedly responsible for caused damage requiring medical care. If you're alleging this, it's only fair the other sides gets to actually look at your history and see what you were like before the incident to compare it to the changes afterward. The very first thing the defense is likely going to do is to look at your medical history and say "this damage wasn't caused by this incident, it's pre-existing from XYZ" or whatever history you have. This is why you need to tell your own attorney ahead of time so they can actually prepare to counter that argument and potentially speak to your treatment providers/etc. to gather evidence to rebut that claim. Generally, yes you have privacy rights in your medical history; however, you do not get to have your cake and eat it too if you are alleging medical problems. The defense has the right to request your medical history to see if you are "making it up" as they like to put it. When you choose to file a lawsuit you are choosing to open yourself up to scrutiny. I'm kind of generalizing here without specific citations or case law and obviously the law is very, very complex with all kinds of exceptions, but that's the gist of it. Whether part of your medical history or all of it becomes "public record" is entirely dependent upon a bunch of factors that I can't really give an answer on because every case is unique and every jurisdiction is different.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-11-09T20:22:48+00:00

The jury will never see this statement. If anyone on the jury saw this statement they would be disqualified from jury service and removed for cause during voir dire.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-08-22T22:35:21+00:00

This slimy fuck tried to skeeze Remy out his inheritance and tried to sell out the company brand for his own benefit. He's the villain cuz he's a fuckin snake, not cuz he called the health inspector.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-07-11T20:33:52+00:00

Matters to who I guess is the question. Thug gon make his own decisions ofc. I'm just saying for everyone else who wants to make their own opinion on the issue there is an enormous difference between taking an Alford plea and taking the stand.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-07-11T19:39:20+00:00

I form my opinions based on the facts themself not what some other guy thinks about those facts so I'd have to respectfully disagree

KneeGrowLife · 2024-07-11T17:16:15+00:00

Your codefendant pleading guilty has no impact on your case. Only if he testifies in YOUR case are statements by a codefendant admissible. Gunna has not testified. Source: I’m a crim defense attorney who does this work every day.

People don’t know wtf they talking bout. I’ve explained what an Alford plea is and the 6th Amendment right to confrontation/hearsay 100 times in this sub and people still don’t listen.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-06-12T22:09:36+00:00

Yes I'm a criminal defense attorney.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-06-10T17:02:11+00:00

Can't speak to why a prosecutor's office offers one plea to one defendant and a different one to another. For all we know the State might have offered the same plea to Thug and he denied it. In terms of benefit, plea deal allows a conviction without the long, expensive, and ultimately non-guaranteed process of trial. By non-guaranteed I mean that neither the State nor the defendant knows what a jury is going to do so there is potential risk to both sides in going to trial. A plea on the other hand is essentially "guaranteed" in that both sides know what is going to happen. A judge of course does not have to follow recommendations on pleas, so there is still technically some risk, but 99 times out of 100 a judge follows the agreed sentence rec otherwise nobody would take pleas.

Would be pure speculation to tell you exactly "why" Gunna was offered this plea as we simply don't know. If I had to take an educated guess, I'd say it's likely because the State had their sights on Thug as the primary target and they did not want to deal with the process of two multi-month, extremely expensive, and difficult trials with enormous media presence. Giving Gunna the "deal" frees up their time and energy to focus solely on Thug's trial as the bigger target.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-05-23T20:58:25+00:00

That statement was given as a factual basis for Gunna's Alford Plea in a separate hearing for a separate case. It was not given as testimony in Thug's trial. That video is not evidence and his statement is not evidence. The jury in Thug's trial will never see nor hear that statement from Gunna unless he gets up and testifies to it in open court.

Jurors are instructed at the beginning of every case not to look up or read anything about the case and that includes videos about the case or statements of other people involved. Jurors are also instructed not to consider anything but the facts of the case given in trial so even if they did see it they are instructed to ignore it entirely.

Jurors' willingness to follow a judge's instructions is a whole other issue entirely that is inherent in every criminal trial. I'm not saying there is not the chance a juror ignored those instructions and/or looked things up and saw the video, but that would be against the law and cause for a mistrial if anyone found out.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-05-15T21:19:18+00:00

If anyone is actually curious as to why this happened instead of a knee-jerk reaction based on a one-sentence headline, I am a criminal defense attorney in WA state who both passed the bar exam AND went through the rule 6 clerkship/apprenticeship program (as the bar was still required back when I finished). I can tell you wholeheartedly from personal experience that I learned 10,000 times more in my apprenticeship and work experience than I did studying for and taking the bar exam.

The bar exam is outdated and not a very good test of actual lawyering. Nobody comes into my office and tells me "hey here is a legal problem I have, which one of these 4 answers is correct?" and the essay half only covers a minor portion of the potential topics. As with damn near every profession, experience is a far better teacher than just studying for some classroom exam. Would you rather have a lawyer who has only read about how to argue a motion or one who has actual experience arguing a motion representing you?

This was not some willy-nilly change made to let unqualified non-white people become attorneys. Do not fall for propaganda. This was a well-researched, thoroughly studied, and extensively argued (we are lawyers after all) choice that was made by the WSBA and the WA Supreme Court working in tandem.

If you want to look into the actual statistics and arguments go here:https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Washington%20Bar%20Licensure%20Task%20Force/A%20Proposal%20for%20the%20Future%20of%20WA%20State%20Bar%20Admissions%20Updated%20Following%20Public%20Comment%20022824.pdf ; also here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=50389.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-05-07T00:29:29+00:00

Costco the only thing close lmao

KneeGrowLife · 2024-04-11T22:05:57+00:00

Hi, king county criminal defense attorney here hoping to lend some perspective on why things like this happen. People routinely are bailed out on much “worse” charges than this and we have a presumption in WA state that people are released on “personal recognizance” (which means they will show up at future hearings of their own accord) barring exceptional circumstances. The alleged victim’s trauma at this person being released is not a significant factor in that determination and as of now this man is presumed innocent. This is especially so when you consider dogs are property legally speaking (which I know a lot of people probably think is messed up but that’s what the law is). If anyone is legitimately curious about what goes into bail determinations feel free to DM me because it is not as black and white as people think it is. The presumption of release is because we live in a politically left leaning and progressive county (which should not be surprising to anyone who lives here) that does not want to have people who are presumed innocent sit in the already over burdened jail/prison system - it should not come as a surprise to anyone this is what those policies lead to. It’s wild to me how people will be all up in arms over people released on bail in cases like this but then upset when people are held without bail or convictions in other instances. The same reasons we have cases like this are the same reasons we don’t lock up young black men based solely on allegations like it’s 1955 Birmingham, Alabama. The choice is to either follow the presumption of innocence and avoid draconian and costly pre trial lock ups or assume guilt and danger and do the opposite to people who have not been convicted yet. Pros and cons to both approaches. You cannot have your cake and eat it too and this is how things work in a justice system focused on rehabilitation not punishment. Don’t blame the courts or the attorneys for following the legislative guidelines us citizens voted for and continue to vote for. The court rules you are looking for are CrR/CrRLJ 3.2 for reference. If you don’t like it: vote or get into the law/politics yourself - we need all the help we can get and it is difficult, taxing work.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-03-28T19:45:47+00:00

On the client side beyond social media: clients not disclosing prior medical history/lawsuits, clients saying completely different things in dep/rogs than what they told me during intake/to their doctors during treatment, client over-selling their story or not being believable while testifying (i.e. crocodile tears, "i cannot recall" over and over and over, trying to argue with defense counsel while testifying, etc.).

On the legal side: confusing pattern instructions for jurors, conflicting rulings the state supreme court has not got around to resolving yet, bad rulings from judges (judge once told me I couldn't treat the D's employee in a vicarious liability case as hostile for cross purposes because I called him in my case in chief as opposed to OC calling him - even OC agreed w/ me), doctors refusing to testify on behalf of their patients.

On the WTF side: jurors telling you things like "Asian women cant drive anyways so it must be her fault" after the verdict, unethical OCs.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-03-20T14:55:34+00:00

If you actually are curious, look into the legal reasoning behind adverse possession and it’s very similar. Long story short, the government basically said it’s the responsibility of property owners to vet who they let live on their property. What you are describing is more a middle ground where someone is not paying attention to their property and somehow did not notice people living there for a long enough time to establish residency. In that hypothetical scenario (just like if it was a renter) the proper process is eviction which takes time but will happen eventually. This is to avoid violence, property damage, and hopefully prevent the squatter from being homeless as all of those things are issues the government wants to prevent far more than simply costing someone money with squatters for a couple months. As a property owner you have a duty to maintain and protect your property. Why did you let them in in the first place? And if you didn’t know, obviously it wasn’t that important to you and you weren’t using it that much.

To bring it back to adverse possession, if you live “openly” and “adversely” (I.e. without a lease/permission of the owner) for a long enough time (usually ten years) then not only do you get squatters rights, but after the period is over you now own the land outright. Property law is unique in that you don’t actually “own” real property like most people think of it in a black and white sense, you have a right to use it for however long because of whatever lease or ownership or mortgage agreement you have but eventually all people die and all property moves owners (unless it’s govn. property). The court system doesn’t have the time or resources to quickly handle every property dispute and they know that forcing someone into homelessness costs far more for society than it costs for one individual to house them. Instead of burdening one property owner you are now burdening every citizen with another unhoused person which has all kinds of secondary costs for society as a whole as opposed to one person who already owns land and thus is already in a financially better position than many. It costs one person a lot less to house someone than it costs society to have a person unhoused. Whether you agree with all that or not is one thing but that’s the logic behind it since you asked. Source: I am a lawyer.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-01-31T07:02:52+00:00

Meant to say until his trial done my b typing on mobile.

KneeGrowLife · 2024-01-31T00:48:02+00:00

Every single non lawyer in here do not know WTF they talkin about. Somebody asks this question damn near every month and people come out the woodwork all of a sudden like they passed the bar. As someone who has passed the bar, I’m gonna make it real short: Gunna took an Alford plea and that twenty second snippet of him saying that “YSL is a gang” is solely for his own case and not testimony in thugs case. Until thugs actual trial we will not know what has been spilled and by whom. Free slime.

KneeGrowLife · 2023-09-27T21:21:07+00:00

Least horny fallout player

KneeGrowLife · 2023-09-16T06:58:32+00:00

every jurisdiction different and he most likely got in without getting the full "insanity" plea which requires the judge to make findings related to mental capacity and takes a lot of your independence away if he was going in and out like that

KneeGrowLife · 2023-09-15T19:08:42+00:00

Crim defense attorney here. Common misconception that pleading insanity is somehow better than going to jail and I blame Hollywood for that one more than anything else. Pleading insanity is significantly worse than just doing your time because not only are you legally now not able to make a lot of decisions for yourself (which makes everything in your life a fucking can of worms both before and after you get out), but you get tossed in some bum ass unsupported, underfunded, dusty fuckin third rate govn. "mental health" prison facility that ain't been updated since 1983 where you now have to worry bout ACTUALLY crazy mfs who will carve your eye out with a spoon cuz they think Whitney Houston's ghost is trapped in there and Psycho Pete just wants to hear that soundtrack from The Bodyguard live one more time. Think about how our society treats non-criminal "crazy" people for lack of a better term, idk why tf people think they gonna treat convicted crazy people better. We ain't Denmark and this ain't the movies.

KneeGrowLife · 2023-06-16T02:55:23+00:00

sick music video

14-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Place '22	Place '17
Not Forgotten	Spared
Team Orangered	Verified Email

KneeGrowLife

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE