Slog
Feb 17, 2011 2:59 PM
and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
Because first a prosecutor has a duty to find probable cause before bringing charges. If Birk thought he was justified in shooting him, even if he was completely off base(which he was) that cuts strongly against malice. The Inquest panel was split on that question with 4 yeses and 4 unknowns.
I would love to see him prosecuted, but as they say, the law is the law. It should be changed, but it is what it is.
Since he approached intending to kill and closed the distance, murder (to a lesser degree) is appropriate.
Although Execution of Non-White People could also be used.
It would be worse than no charge at if the County prosecuted and a jury wouldn't convict because they weren't unanimous. A civil jury doesn't have to be unanimous, and since the attorneys are private, it doesn't get charged to the taxpayers. Let this guy get dragged through the mill in a trial where we don't have to pay for his prosecution.
Again, if the law were The Law then their would be no need for the courts. It is not an absolute, no matter how hard you stamp your feet yelling that it is so.
It is also a huge leap in logic to assume that Mr. Satterberg's decisions are based solely on the law. His office is a political office, whether you like it or not. His decisions will always be affected by the various power-brokers in the county and popular perception.
We do not have courts to simply throw things at an see if it sticks. It is the duty of every attorney, but especially prosecutors to only bring actions if they have grounds to do so. You dismiss his opinion, but he was elected to do this job, and if, in his opinion, a crime has not been committed, then he is duty bound to not prosecute.
If anything the public seems wanting a trial on this. By declining he is going to have a tougher time with re-election then if he gave into the pressure and tried him.
"A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
(a) He recklessly causes the death of another person;"
Can anyone with a good understanding of the RCW show why or why not this should be an option?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soggydan/54…
Damn.
I contrasted this case with the Palatine slaying over in Publicola.
In the Palatine case, justice was done against the murderer ( a citizen, not a cop ) even though the citizen felt he was acting in a "defensive" (retributional) manner.
However, there was no public outcry in defense (or for) Mr. Palatine by the mainstream press, the blog press and there certainly weren't any marches decrying the violence.
"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."
"Malice" is defined as such:
"(12) "Malice" and "maliciously" shall import an evil intent, wish, or design to vex, annoy, or injure another person. Malice may be inferred from an act done in wilful disregard of the rights of another, or an act wrongfully done without just cause or excuse, or an act or omission of duty betraying a wilful disregard of social duty;"
You'd have to convince an entire jury of 12 that Birk's actions went pretty far beyond negligence. The prosecutor (correctly, IMO) decided that wasn't a realistic outcome. This decision is backed by the the results of the public inquest where half of the jurors thought that Birk believed there to be a threat, half said it was unknown, with zero out of eight finding that Birk believed there to be no threat - the finding that all 12 would have to come to in order to convict in a criminal setting.
That said, I also think that the protections for officers from the legal consequences from this sort of gross negligence is far too over-reaching. Even so, the prosecutors have to act within the bounds of the law, too.
"During the inquest, his office’s position was that those answers had no legal effect. Because of that, the jury was given no legal guidelines, heard from no use of force experts and was never given any summary of the evidence and what it showed. Mr. Satterberg’s use of these findings to justify what he wants to do is duplicitous, and it shows how badly flawed the King County inquest system has become."
"The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]
Satterberg (in the PDF twists the second half around to say that there's no way you could convince a jury that he had a "dishonest or unlawful purpose ("bad faith")" using deadly force.
But the statute isn't talking about a "bad faith" shooting, it's talking about a good/bad faith "belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section." I think a "bad faith belief" would be the kind when you screwed up, shot a guy, and only now retroactively believe that it was a good idea. If there's a reasonable possibility that that's the case, then it seems like this should go to trial for a jury to decide.