• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

An election reminder (Satterberg)

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Ballots have been sent out and I thought I would take the opportunity to remind everyone that prosecuting attorney Dan Satterberg is up for re-election. Dan Satterberg is the man who refused to prosecute the murderer Ian Burk for his cold-blooded killing of Mr. John T. Williams.

Satterberg refused to prosecute despite the fact that when the "inquest jury" was asked the following question "Based on the information available at the time Officer Birk fired his weapon, did John T. Williams then pose an imminent threat of serious physical harm to Officer Birk?" only one of eight jurors answered "yes" http://www.komonews.com/news/local/114299464.html

Now is a good time to ask yourself if you wish to endorse a man for public office who apparently feels that police are above the law.

Personally I have not decided who, if anyone I will vote for, but have decided that Satterberg will not get my vote.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
I thought that I would add that Dan Satterberg is the only name on the ballot. There is a space for a write-in, I have decided to write-in "John T. Williams"

Oh, and for clarification this is for the King County ballot.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Question 10.... At the time did the officer believe there was a immeninent or serious threat of bodily harm to him.. Yes 4 unknown 4.....

Enough said. Last I checked it was "proof beyond reasonable doubt". Maybe I missed something.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Question 10.... At the time did the officer believe there was a immeninent or serious threat of bodily harm to him.. Yes 4 unknown 4.....

Enough said. Last I checked it was "proof beyond reasonable doubt". Maybe I missed something.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Question 11: Based on the information available at the time Officer Birk fired his weapon, did John T. Williams then pose an imminent threat of serious physical harm to Officer Birk? Yes 1, No 4, Unknown 3

"Officer" Birk had no RAS and therefore no right to detain Williams.
Birk should have been charged. A trial jury should have decided. The only reason Birk was not charged is because he received special treatment as a LEO.

The coroner's inquest is very different from an actual trial jury. Would a jury have convicted Birk? Maybe, maybe not, but it should have gone to trial. There was more than enough evidence to charge Birk.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Question 11: Based on the information available at the time Officer Birk fired his weapon, did John T. Williams then pose an imminent threat of serious physical harm to Officer Birk? Yes 1, No 4, Unknown 3

"Officer" Birk had no RAS and therefore no right to detain Williams.
Birk should have been charged. A trial jury should have decided. The only reason Birk was not charged is because he received special treatment as a LEO.

The coroner's inquest is very different from an actual trial jury. Would a jury have convicted Birk? Maybe, maybe not, but it should have gone to trial. There was more than enough evidence to charge Birk.

So even that question.... 1 yes (there goes criminal case), and 3 unknowns. So a split vote 50/50 just on if the guy was a threat. Nevermijd all the other questions that they agree on.

My point was merely that the title and premise was misleading. A look at the specific questions and how they answered shows its not so clear cut as the poster made it sound.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
So even that question.... 1 yes (there goes criminal case), and 3 unknowns. So a split vote 50/50 just on if the guy was a threat. Nevermijd all the other questions that they agree on.

My point was merely that the title and premise was misleading. A look at the specific questions and how they answered shows its not so clear cut as the poster made it sound.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


Why do you assume that a trial jury would behave in the same manner as the coroner's inquest?

So, let's assume Birk was in fact in fear for his safety at the time he fired. Does that automatically get him off the hook? Does it not matter that he caused the chain of events that led to his "safety" being threatened? He should not have even left his car. Also his story changed several times. Oh, and when responding officers got to the scene, the folding knife was on the ground and wasCLOSED.

Scenario: I am in my car at a stop light. I see a guy that I had an argument with the night before. I get out of the car, draw a firearm and start yelling at the guy. If he threatens me, can I fire and claim self defense? Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that since it started with my unlawful actions, that I am the one to blame? Shouldn't it at least go to an actual trial for a jury to decide?
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
Also, if memory serves, Satterberg also is in favor of 594. Make sure you all vote against him.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
2. Was John T. Williams holding an open knife at the time he was first observed by Officer Birk? Yes 8

6b: Did John T. Williams have sufficient time to put the knife down after Officer Birk's order? Yes 1, No 4, Unknown 3

9a. If yes, was John T. Williams' knife blade open when Officer Birk fired his weapon? No 4, Unknown 4
He closed after he was shot cuz it was found closed next to his corpse.

Enough said. Last I checked it was "proof beyond reasonable doubt". Maybe I missed something.
It is a inquest not a criminal trial. Maybe MA inquests need "proof beyond reasonable doubt." Prosecutors can indict a ham samich I am told. But, this apparently does not apply to cops in Seattle.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
He closed after he was shot cuz it was found closed next to his corpse.

It is a inquest not a criminal trial. Maybe MA inquests need "proof beyond reasonable doubt." Prosecutors can indict a ham samich I am told. But, this apparently does not apply to cops in Seattle.

Someone didn't watch the video just automatically sticking up for the blue.

It's for damn sure a non enFORCEr wouldn't have the same treatment from the prosecutor.
 
Top