Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Some Mothers Have Them: Warning, Co… | It's Almost Cocktail O'Clock »

Friday, March 11, 2011

Crime / City City Attorney Calls for State Laws to Be Changed After Williams Killing

Posted by Cienna Madrid on Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:28 PM

In a letter dated today and addressed to the Williams' family attorneys, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes says he will not convene a grand jury to investigate whether or not former police officer Ian Birk could be held criminally responsible for killing John T. Williams.

"I must respectfully decline your request," Holmes writes (.pdf). "The King County Prosecuting Attorney has determined that there will be no criminal prosecution in Mr. Williams's death."

However—and this is exciting—Holmes adds that the laws governing an officer's justifiable use of force should be changed. He's not the first attorney concerned by the "breadth and vagueness" of the law addressing an officer's justifiable use of deadly force that puts prosecutors in a horrible "all or nothing situation" where manslaughter charges are impossible for homicides that don't qualify as murder (something I touched on here).

Furthermore, Holmes states: "I believe the statute should be amended, for example, to add a 'reasonable belief' requirement or perhaps to remove the 'malice' element altogether."

I'm not sure if this means Holmes is committed to drafting a measure to get the law changed—his office wasn't immediately available for comment (I'll update when I hear from them). Hopefully, it does.

UPDATE: Holmes office says that the city attorney is willing to help convene a group of stakeholders to tackle the issue—not necessarily draft legislation. Bummer.

Holmes's letter is in response to a request sent Monday by Williams' family attorneys Tim Ford, Andrea Brenneke, and Connie Sue Martin, calling on either Holmes and King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg (.pdf) to assemble a grand jury of citizens to decide whether or not criminal charges should be pressed against Birk (after Satterberg declined to press criminal charges against the former officer last month).

The grand jury system was last used in King County in 1971.

Similar to the public inquest that took place, a grand jury would review all of the facts surrounding Williams death, with one important difference: a grand jury would be educated on the (murky) laws governing officers' use of deadly force. Essentially, the jury would then decide whether or not Birk followed the law. The public inquest jury was not instructed in this manner.

FacebookShare

Comments (8) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

This is a great idea.

Only problem is the rest of the State is envious of Seattle, so they're unlikely to do the right thing.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 11, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Hopefully people aren't expecting a grand jury to be convened. Even if Satterberg made the request, a majority of the judges would have to approve the request. I don't see that happening.

Posted by Gidge on March 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Good luck dipshits, Seattle is home to only %10 of Washington State residents...Hubris be thy name.

P.S.

Petey Holmes only deals with misdemeanors-Seattle Municipal Codes- not the RCW his words are empty and his actions will be impotent along with the rest of you transplants who are scrubbing this city of its common sense and working class roots.

Posted by johnnyappleseed on March 11, 2011 at 6:04 PM

I published a number of questions about the evidence here on Publicola:

I've been looking over the Ian Birke video evidence and somethings still bother me. I'm having a hard time finding the original inquest materials (only retellings by news sites) so maybe it's old news, but in looking at the two police webcams, these things stick in my craw.

When Burke walks from his car, he really does walk. In fact, I would say he strolls. He doesn't leap out of the car and he isn't yelling as soon as he exits the vehicle. If you watch only the portion of video of Burke exiting, then you would see a person as non-chalant as can be.

To me this disproves the "cop on steroids" theories that the guy was hopped up and trigger happy. The video evidence is clear that he's cool as a cucumber up until the confrontation.

Which means, by implication, that there must have actually been a confrontation...because something about the situation went from mild to terrible for Burke to use his weapon. I can't put the strolling police and the shooting police together as a single stream...unless I imaging a John T. Williams, turning suddenly and maybe moving to charge at the police.

Next, in the 2nd police cam, Williams is laying supine on the ground. How in the world did he fall in that position? I'm looking at the street in Bing Maps (really good Bird's Eye, can zoom and everything) and first of all it looks like Williams would have been uphill from Birk. How did he fall backwards! (And I think Mythbusters has already proven conclusively that a bullet does not push you backwards.) Could he actually have been raised up on his heels in a far more threatening stance than is assumed?

I also wonder if he didn't stagger and fall backward. He was drunk remember. This would have added some more distance from him after the bullets, so maybe he was more like 5 or 6 ft then staggered backward.

Burke was clearly stunned by the whole thing. When the second car arrived, he was still crouched near the utility case (which would not have afforded him any protection whatsoever since he was on one side of it, not behind it). According to the two videos, there were two minutes between the shots and the arrival of the second car. Even as the other police approached he did not move until the group of them massed up to the body...in case he was still alive...

http://publicola.com/2011/03/08/on-publi…

More...

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on March 11, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Your final statement makes no sense. To advocate for a change in the law would suggest that the current law prohibits a charge, which is exaclty what Satterburg said. So if he advocated for a change, it would actually imply his interpretation is correct, thus bolstering his position. You can look no further than Holmes' letter for an example. By advocating for change in the law, Holmes clearly agrees with Satterburg's interpretation of the law. So is Holmes wrong too?

I guess that is what you get when you play "air law" Cienna.

Posted by faulty logic on March 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM

We haven't had a state grand jury in King County since the early 1970s. It's a somewhat expensive process. Many state constitutions require grand juries to indict in order to file a felony charge; ours doesn't, and the US Supreme Court has said that's okay even though it's in the Fifth Amendment: the grand jury portion doesn't apply to the states. The left often fights against grand juries because sometimes prosecutors abuse the power. It's a secret proceeding, they can subpoena anyone and, absent a privilege, force them to testify. Grand juries do what prosecutors tell them to do. It would be a waste of time and energy.

Posted by Algernon on March 12, 2011 at 1:59 PM

@4:

So many flaws in your reasoning! If Birk seemed nonchalant, it could just as easily mean violence came easy to him. His casual utterances after the shooting also show little to no emotion, so it's not a given that "something changed" as you say. Your theory about how Williams fell is just bizarre and groundless, reading into it what you want to see apparently -- the official investigation certainly doesn't come to that conclusion. And was Birk necessarily "clearly stunned" just because he was crouched with gun drawn? No... but it made for good theatrics to support his claim he was threatened. And it wasn't two minutes between shots and backup arriving. Even according to SPD inquest testimony, it was 87 seconds (16:12:35 to 16:14:02). If you're going to make wild claims, at least get your basic facts right -- when you exaggerate, it makes anything else you say suspicious, and with good reason.

http://www.birkaction.com/bglinks.html

Posted by Mhann on March 13, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Cienna, you're still going on about changes needed in the law -- which is fine, it could definitely be clarified. But you have completely missed the boat on covering the reasons why, in this case, the law as it presently reads is sufficient. None of the many blatant flaws and misrepresentations in Satterberg's statement declining to prosecute are being exposed. Isn't that part of a journalist's duty?

http://www.birkaction.com/satterberg.htm…

Posted by Mhann on March 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM