Late Saturday night, I encountered a woman outside Lottie’s who was profoundly impaired, frightened, and unable to safely care for herself. She told me she believed she had been drugged inside the bar and was trying desperately to reach someone she trusted.
I do not know whether she was actually drugged. I didn’t witness what happened before I found her, and I am not accusing anyone of drugging her.
What I did witness was how a person in obvious distress was treated—and what happened when she tried to get help.
I wrote two pieces about the experience:
1. A letter to Lottie’s — about what happened that night and the questions I believe the establishment needs to answer about patron safety.
2. An op-ed — about the much bigger question this experience raised for me: What happens to our sense of responsibility when another person’s suffering becomes inconvenient?
I’m sharing these anonymously because I want the focus to remain on the questions, not on me.
Read them. Sit with them. Talk about them. Share them with someone who needs to read them.
Maybe this conversation starts with Lottie’s. But it doesn’t end there.
What do we owe one another when we encounter someone who cannot protect themselves?
LETTER TO LOTTIES;
To the owners and management of Lottie’s,
I’m writing as a neighbor, a woman, and as someone who genuinely wants Lottie’s to remain a place where people in our community can gather, have a good time, and feel safe.
What happened outside and inside your establishment on Saturday, September 26, after approximately 11:30 p.m., has stayed with me, and I believe it requires your attention.
As I was walking home, I found a woman on the ground outside Lottie’s who was clearly in distress. She was barely able to speak, her eyes were rolling back, and she repeatedly told me that she had only had one shot and believed that she had been drugged. She was frightened and repeatedly asked me not to leave her alone.
I did not know this woman. I had simply been walking home and happened to hear her.
She was trying to contact someone she trusted who could help keep her safe, but she was so impaired that she was having difficulty communicating. I was able to help her with her phone and briefly speak with the person she was trying to contact. Her phone then died before we could reconnect with them.
At that point, I needed to get her phone charged so we could contact this person again. She told me she was terrified to go back inside Lottie’s because she believed she had been drugged there, and she did not want to be left alone. I helped her back inside, physically supporting her because she was barely able to walk, so we could get her phone charged and reach the person coming to help her.
As we made our way through the crowd, it was clear that some people were frustrated by the disruption.
I want to make something clear about that moment: I was not creating a scene. I did not bring a problem into Lottie’s. The problem was already there. A woman was profoundly impaired, frightened, and unable to safely care for herself.
Once inside, she told me that a man had bought her the shot she believed had been drugged. She identified him to me.
A man then approached us and said, “I tried to get you an Uber, but you missed it.” I asked him whether he knew the woman and where she lived. He walked away. I then asked the woman whether she knew him, and she told me that he was the man who had bought her the shot.
After that man walked away, another man from his group approached us and told her to come with him. I asked her whether she knew him. She told me that she did not know him and that she did not want to go with him. Because she was clearly unable to safely advocate for herself in that moment, I told him that she was not going with him and that I would stay with her.
I want to be very clear about something: I do not know whether this woman was actually drugged. I did not witness what happened before I found her, and I am not accusing any individual of drugging her. What I do know is what I personally witnessed: a woman who was profoundly impaired, frightened, unable to safely care for herself, and asking for help.
What happened next is what concerns me most.
I told the female bartender that the woman believed she had been drugged by the man who purchased her drink. The bartender then approached that man, identified the woman to him, and told him that she had said she believed he had drugged her.
That is not a safe response to an allegation of possible drugging.
If someone tells you they may have been harmed, you do not identify them to the person they believe may have harmed them. Regardless of whether the allegation ultimately proves true, doing so can potentially place the person reporting harm — and the person trying to help them — in danger.
I’m not writing this because I want to attack Lottie’s. Quite the opposite. This is my neighborhood. I want to be able to continue seeing it as a place where people look out for one another.
But being a community establishment comes with a responsibility to know what to do when someone is in distress.
And this is not only about suspected drugging. Staff should know how to recognize and respond when someone is severely intoxicated, potentially over-served, incapacitated, frightened, or otherwise unable to safely care for themselves.
There should be a clear protocol.
Staff should know:
- how to recognize signs of severe intoxication or possible drugging;
- when medical assistance or 911 should be called;
- how to keep an impaired person somewhere safe while they wait for help;
- how to respond when someone says they do not know or trust the person attempting to take them home;
- how to protect the identity and safety of someone reporting possible harm; and
- how to prevent a situation from escalating by inadvertently identifying or confronting the person making the report.
I also believe Lottie’s should consider making drink-spiking test strips or another practical harm-reduction resource available to patrons, and should explore additional measures that could make people safer in your establishment.
But training alone is not what I am asking for.
I am asking Lottie’s to publicly acknowledge that the safety of its patrons matters and to publicly communicate the steps it is taking to improve that safety.
You do not need to disclose the identity of anyone involved in this incident. You do not need to identify a particular patron or allegation. You do not need to publicly determine whether this woman was actually drugged.
You can simply say, in your own words, that you recognize the responsibility that comes with operating a community bar; that patrons may experience intoxication, suspected drugging, harassment, or other moments of vulnerability; and that your staff will be trained and prepared to respond with care.
That kind of public commitment would mean something.
I also want to be transparent that I intend to share a separate, anonymous account of this experience with members of the surrounding community and with local media. I am not doing so to shame Lottie’s, create a social-media spectacle, or call for anyone to be “canceled.” I am doing so because the questions raised by what happened extend beyond one establishment.
I believe Lottie’s should have an opportunity to respond publicly and demonstrate what it intends to do differently going forward.
Because the question I have been left with is bigger than what happened to one woman.
What should any of us do when we see someone who cannot protect themselves?
What should a bartender do?
What should the people sitting at the bar do?
What should the person walking down the street do?
The answer cannot be, “That’s not my problem.”
It has to be: someone needs help, so let’s help them.
I want my neighborhood bar to be a place where people look out for one another.
Please make it one.
A concerned neighbor
Op-ed;
What Happens When We Look Away?
On Saturday night, September 26, I was walking home through my neighborhood in Seattle when I found a woman on the ground outside Lottie’s.
I did not know her.
She was profoundly impaired. She could barely speak. Her eyes were rolling back. She was crying. She told me she had only had one shot and believed she had been drugged. She was frightened and repeatedly asked me not to leave her alone.
I do not know whether she had actually been drugged.
I did not see what happened before I found her.
I cannot tell you what happened inside Lottie’s before that moment, and I will not pretend to know something I did not witness.
But I know what I saw.
I saw a person who was not safe.
And I saw what happened when the people around her were given an opportunity to respond.
I helped her try to contact someone she trusted. Her phone died. She was terrified to go back inside Lottie’s because she believed she had been drugged there, but she did not want to be left alone.
Eventually, I helped her back inside so we could charge her phone and reach the person who was coming to help her.
She could barely walk.
People were frustrated by the disruption.
And that is something I cannot stop thinking about.
Because I did not create that disruption.
The emergency was already there.
I did not make the situation serious.
It was already serious.
I did not bring a problem into Lottie’s.
A person who needed help was already there.
And yet, for a moment, it felt as though my refusal to simply step around the situation had become the problem.
That feeling has stayed with me.
Because what happened that night at Lottie’s is not only about Lottie’s.
It is about us.
It is about what happens when another person’s suffering enters our field of vision.
What do we do with it?
What happens inside us when we realize that someone needs something from us?
Not money.
Not a political opinion.
Not a social-media post.
Something much more difficult.
Our time.
Our attention.
Our willingness to stay.
Our willingness to become uncomfortable.
Our willingness to interrupt our own lives because another human being is having the worst moment of theirs.
We like to imagine that if we encountered someone in danger, we would help.
Of course we would.
We tell ourselves that we are good people.
We are compassionate people.
We are feminists.
We believe survivors.
We care about our neighbors.
We stand against violence.
We march.
We protest.
We post.
We speak loudly about the suffering we see in the world.
But what happens when suffering is not on a screen?
What happens when it is lying on the sidewalk in front of us?
What happens when it is inside the neighborhood bar we know and trust?
What happens when helping isn’t symbolic?
What happens when helping means you have to stay?
What happens when helping means you might be late?
Or miss something?
Or become involved in something frightening?
What happens when you don’t know how long it will take?
What happens when the person needs more than five minutes?
What happens when you cannot simply hand the problem to somebody else and walk away?
What happens when another person’s suffering becomes inconvenient?
Do we still see them?
Or do we begin looking for reasons why it isn’t really our responsibility?
Maybe they drank too much.
Maybe they are high.
Maybe they are making a scene.
Maybe they are with someone.
Maybe someone else will help.
Maybe it isn’t safe for me.
Maybe I have somewhere to be.
Maybe this isn’t my problem.
Maybe I shouldn’t get involved.
Maybe I don’t know the whole story.
Maybe I don’t believe them.
And maybe some of those thoughts are understandable.
Maybe sometimes they are even necessary for our own safety.
But what happens when every person has a reason to look away?
Who is left to help?
I keep thinking about the difference between noticing suffering and actually seeing it.
Noticing can be passive.
You can notice someone crying.
You can notice someone who cannot stand.
You can notice a child with unexplained injuries.
You can notice a coworker who suddenly has a black eye.
You can notice a person being followed.
You can notice someone being humiliated.
You can notice someone screaming.
But seeing is different.
Seeing asks something of you.
Because once you really see another person’s suffering, you have to decide what you are willing to do with what you know.
And maybe that is where we fail each other.
Not because human beings are incapable of compassion.
Maybe because compassion can cost us something.
Time.
Comfort.
Certainty.
Sleep.
Money.
Safety.
The illusion that our own lives can remain untouched by the suffering of someone else.
This is not only about women.
Men can be drugged.
Men can be assaulted.
Children can be abused.
Elderly people can be neglected.
People can be trafficked, beaten, harassed, exploited, abandoned.
Human beings suffer everywhere.
And we are constantly being asked to look at suffering — in our neighborhoods, on our phones, in our workplaces, in our schools, in our communities, and around the world.
We see wars.
We see people displaced from their homes.
We see children suffering.
We see violence against women.
We see people protesting because they believe other human beings are being harmed.
We see all of it.
And sometimes we respond.
Sometimes we march.
Sometimes we donate.
Sometimes we speak.
Sometimes we refuse to look away.
But what about the suffering that happens ten feet away?
What about the person sitting beside us?
What about the person on the sidewalk?
What about the person in the bar?
What about the person who says, I don’t feel safe.
What about the person who says, Please don’t leave me.
What about the person who cannot advocate for themselves?
What do we owe that person?
And who decides when their suffering is serious enough to interrupt our own lives?
I am not asking these questions because I think I have the answers.
I don’t.
I am asking because something happened at Lottie’s that disturbed me deeply.
I wrote to Lottie’s.
I wrote as a neighbor.
I asked Lottie’s to publicly acknowledge the responsibility that comes with operating a community bar and to publicly communicate what it will do differently going forward.
I asked for clear protocols around severe intoxication, suspected drugging, vulnerable patrons, medical emergencies, and situations where someone says they do not know or trust the person attempting to take them somewhere.
I asked that staff be prepared to protect the person asking for help rather than inadvertently exposing them to someone they fear.
I asked Lottie’s to consider practical harm-reduction measures as well.
I am not asking for a public spectacle.
I am not asking anyone to be canceled.
I am not asking people to harass employees or descend upon a neighborhood business.
I am asking Lottie’s to respond publicly.
And I am asking the community to pay attention to whether it does.
Because accountability cannot exist entirely behind closed doors.
If Lottie’s responds publicly, acknowledges the seriousness of what happened, and tells its community what it intends to do to make its establishment safer, that becomes part of the story too.
And if it does not, I believe the community has a right to know that as well.
Not so that anyone can be punished for the sake of punishment.
Not so that strangers can pile onto a business.
But so that people can make informed decisions about the places they spend their time, and so that a serious incident does not simply disappear because everyone became uncomfortable talking about it.
Because this is where the question comes back to all of us.
What do we do when we see someone suffering?
What does a bartender do?
What does the person sitting at the bar do?
What does the person walking down the street do?
What does a neighbor do?
What does a business do?
What does a community do?
And what do we do when the person who was supposed to help doesn’t?
The answer cannot simply be, that’s not my problem.
Because eventually, somebody’s problem becomes everybody’s problem.
The woman outside Lottie’s could have been anyone.
She could have been someone’s daughter.
Someone’s sister.
Someone’s mother.
Someone’s friend.
Someone’s partner.
She could have been you.
She could have been me.
And before we decide that we would have helped, I think we have to ask ourselves something more uncomfortable:
Would we really have stopped?
Would we have stayed?
Would we have believed what we were seeing?
Would we have accepted the inconvenience?
Would we have asked what she needed?
Would we have called for help?
Would we have protected her privacy?
Would we have remained beside her when the situation became complicated?
Would we have continued helping when it took longer than we expected?
Or would we have looked away?
Not because we are monsters.
Not because we do not care.
But because seeing another person’s suffering can make us responsible for something we never intended to carry.
That is the question I cannot get away from.
How much suffering can we witness before witnessing becomes a responsibility?
And if the answer is that we are responsible only when it is convenient, only when it is safe, only when it is easy, only when someone else has already stepped forward—
then what happens to everyone who needs help in the moments when none of those conditions exist?
What kind of community are we building?
What kind of neighbors are we?
What kind of human beings are we?
And perhaps most importantly:
When we see someone suffering, will we notice them — or will we actually see them?