The Seattle City Council's Public Safety Committee meeting on December 10, 2024, sparked intense debate over proposed legislation allowing police to use less lethal weapons in certain situations. Public commenters expressed strong opposition, warning that the legislation could lead to increased police brutality and further financial liabilities for the city.

Raymond Mitchell, a vocal critic, highlighted the city's previous financial burdens, noting that Seattle had already paid millions in settlements related to police misconduct. He cautioned that passing the new legislation would likely result in similar outcomes, urging council members to consider the potential damage to their reputations and the city's image.

Tim Marin echoed these sentiments, arguing that the legislation would disproportionately affect marginalized communities and reflect a failure of the council to seek innovative solutions to public safety issues. He criticized the lack of a racial equity analysis in the proposal, suggesting that it perpetuates systemic inequalities.

Robert Engle expressed his dismay at the council's rush to pass the bill, recalling the significant settlements paid out after the protests of 2020. He questioned the rationale behind reintroducing policies that had previously been deemed harmful.

David Haines shifted the focus to the broader context of crime in Seattle, criticizing the council for prioritizing crowd control measures over addressing more pressing criminal activities. He called for a reevaluation of police tactics, emphasizing the need for accountability and responsible use of force.

River Hayes, a law student, warned that the legislation would enable police to justify excessive force under vague terms like "imminent risk," potentially leading to indiscriminate violence against citizens. He characterized the move as part of a troubling trend toward police militarization.

Monterita Castro concluded the public comments by urging the council to consider the voices of those harmed by police actions, emphasizing the long-term consequences of their decisions on community trust and safety.

In response to the public outcry, committee members acknowledged the importance of the comments and the need for further discussion on police training and accountability. The meeting underscored the community's deep concerns about police practices and the potential implications of the proposed legislation, setting the stage for ongoing dialogue as the council considers its next steps.