This news broke during happy hour last night, which is why you couldn't read it on the Stranger until today.

@2) Cienna wrote about this yesterday morning. She linked to it in her post.

Ok - you can't charge him with murder. Dumb, but we'll take it as a given for a second. How about assault? Reckless endangerment? 200 other things? Sounds like Satterberg isn't even trying here. And yes, maybe he's trying the "get people angry so they change the law" trick, but you could do that by filing charges, having a judge rule that he can't be tried, and look like a hero politically (you're standing up to a dumb interpretation of a law, and that bad judge ruled against you). So yes, not trying at all.

This is what happens when you elect a pro-death penalty Republican to the office of County Prosecutor. Satterberg believes the State has a license to kill.

my innerwebs tell me that there's gonna be a rally tonight at westlake at 6pm
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=1…

I was talking with one of the City Council members about this last night, among other things, and I think they realize people are very upset and want them to change the City to Guild relationship in a major way.

this is a fucking outrage. THIS is the problem with police.

Birk ordered a deeply inebriated, deaf man to "put the knife down" three times in four seconds, and fired four shots in the fifth second, with a woman carrying a baby nearby. It is legal to carry a knife in public, and it is legal to carve in public. The officer's contract with SPD may prevent him from being fired. The SPD was forced to rehire an officer who admitted to lying under oath, a felony. Birk will be charged with no crime, so how are we going to get rid of him?

Does knowing that Officer Birk is out their protecting you make you feel safe?

Uh oh, I hear a drunken drum circle forming. That'll show em!

@10 the fact that we had to rehire someone that lied under oath is just as outrageous. I'm as pro-union as you can get, but the power of SPOG is beyond union to bordering on madness.

How about reckless endangerment and repeatedly violating the First Nations woodcarver's civil rights?

Call in the Feds. It's Trilateral Commission time.

@5- Read it over again. They can't charge him with ANYTHING unless they can prove "evil intent." It's police state bullshit, a different law for the people with guns.

Birk is on paid vacation right now, right?

Will there be a riot in Seattle today? It depends on whether the cops show up at the rallies in their riot gear. If the cops march up in riot formation, I guarantee a riot will ensue.

Message from the SPD to the citizens of Seattle:

"If we don't like the way you look or walk, we can stop you and shoot you down in cold blood, regardless of the 'risk' you do or do not pose to society. We can, and will, take your life from you whenever we please - BECAUSE WE ARE THE POLICE."

Message duly noted.

Dom,

This news was confirmed at 7 p.m. last night. Speculation without fact is just that.

@15: AS I'VE BEEN SAYING, they have to EITHER prove malicious intent OR the lack of a "good faith belief" that he was justified in his actions. He's a trained police officer. He's been instructed in the proper use of various levels of force, and knows damn well what criteria justify the use of lethal force. Either he knew that what he did was wrong, or he doesn't remember shit from his training.
The people saying that he's not liable under the law are lying through their teeth.

"Many people don't buy that reading of the law; however, those people aren't the prosecutors."

Will someone please help me understand this? It seems to me the real problem here that the prosecutors are misinterpreting the law.

From another commenter on Cienna's original post.

Two criteria are required for a cop to gain protection from liability -- there has to be (1) good faith AND (2) no malice... simply prove a lack of good faith, and Birk is fair game for prosecution. Right? RIGHT?

Why does the media let the prosecutor get away with distorting what the law says so badly, without countering it? Is there some reason you can't reply "Wait, that's not what the law clearly states"?

SPOG IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

Evidence

There is the video and there are remote witnesses, but there is no direct evidence of what actually happened. Strip away the police car webcam, and the witnesses (who said Williams did not even have a knife) and you are left with the testimony of the cop at the scene...as in many cases.

Intent

Officer Birk looked out his window on a sunny day, saw some citizens walking, maybe a mom with a baby carriage...and then...one of these things does not look like the others! A disheveled drunk using a blade. Was his intent that day to go out and kill woodcarvers? Or did he see a danger and respond?

For all of you, would you want Woodcarver John T. Williams sitting in a park near your kids? Please answer truthfully.

Publicity

John went from whittler to woodcarver overnight. Without any direct evidence and illogical representation of intent, the narrative transforms inebriate to artist. Where is his exhibit? How many of his nation in Vancouver ever lent him a hand? How many Seattlites bought his carvings? And how many more crossed the street to avoid him...

@23- "for all of you, would you want Woodcarver John T. Williams sitting in a park near your kids? Please answer truthfully."

My daughter has spent a lot of time playing in parks with disheveled drunks around. It's called "life in the big city." Your racist suburban ass probably can't understand, but shooting people for being poor and mentally ill is a crime.

@20 - No they dont.

The law, as quoted by Satterburg reads: "A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section."

Lets move that to symbolic logic: ¬(CL) → ¬(M) & (GFB)
Loosely translated - he's not criminally liable (CL) if he has no malice (M) and a good faith belief (GFB).

For clarity, lets find the inverse of that statement: ¬(¬(CL) → ¬(M) & (GFB))
Simplified: (CL) → (M) & ¬(GFB)
Loosley translated - He's criminally liable if he had malice and no good faith belief.

Quick and dirty, but it clearly shows that, based on Satterburg's statement, he needs to BOTH have malice and a lack of a good faith belief that he was in danger to be charged. If you were arguing with Satterburg's interpretation of the law, I'm not a legal expert, my mistake, and I won't comment on that.

Federal law trumps state law. The rally should be at the federal building, requesting the U.S. Attorney to press charges. Birk clearly denied Williams life without due process. Not that I want Birk locked up in a federal slammer for 20 years, but I would settle for, say, two years and a lifetime prohibition on public employment or owning any firearm. Birk is unsafe and should not be permitted any license to use force in any manner.

@20- "Either he knew that what he did was wrong, or he doesn't remember shit from his training."

And if he doesn't remember shit from his training, then he's off scott-free because he was acting in good (incompetent) faith.

the pigs, the gift that keeps on giving:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/th…

No, there doesn't have to be good faith, or lack of malice. The point is the prosecutor has to prove that there was LACK of good faith, or POSITIVE malice. Proof. It's pretty hard to prove a state of mind of anyone. You don't prove that from the result -- i.e. the murder. You'd have to prove it from witnesses hearing Birk say, "You XX%^#@, I'm going to kill you!"

He should be fired. He can't be prosecuted successfully. Unless you want your tax dollars spent having prosecutors fail to make a case. .

@27 for the insightful Where Are The Feds When You Need Them win.

Ya gotta love technicalities! Where is a real life Dexter when you need him?
Seriously, though, I predict he will lose his job. The people of this city will not stand for it, and if the SPD is smart, they will let him go for his own good. Birk will be a walking target in Seattle. He's not safe here after what he's done.
I do hope there will be a civil suit.

Quick, someone make a fat joke. To 1,000 comments and beyond!

30 et al: Excellent points. It's not just proof, but it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't see how anyone can advocate for Satterberg to spend resources his office doesn't have for a case that's not going to go anywhere. As mentioned, a federal civil rights case is the route to go at this point.

I am curious to see if Birk gets fired...but considering the track record of SPOG, I'm sure they'll fight tooth and nail for him and win.

The pigs need to pay

@37- A law that allows the people deputized by the state (who carry around guns so they can kill people more easily) to kill people "by accident" without penalty is a good step towards a police state. Did I vote for it? No. Did I vote for the people who made that law? Probably not. Can I control how the conservative wimps who make up about 50% of our state vote? No.

"want your tax dollars spent having prosecutors fail to make a case."

Yeah. I want my tax dollars spent to find out why anyone downtown should worry about cops who use deadly force that is "unjustified and outside of policy, tactics and training". If the law allows that the LAW NEEDS CHANGING. A man was murdered by an undertrained gung-ho bigot.

So if I run a red light, cause a collision and someone dies in the process, I can go to jail for some sort of homicide. But if a cop blasts someone on the street for no good reason, it's okay because he's a cop, and cops are the good guys.

@26: What #32 said. Are you thick in the head or something? Because !(A && B) equates to (!A) || (!B), not (!A) && (!B). If you are going to correct me on my logic, you damn well better know what you're talking about. Hell yes I mad.