Council's Harrell Not Cool with Prosecutor's Refusal to Charge Birk

Dan Satterberg

Today King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg announced he would not be filing charges against Seattle police officer Ian Birk for the fatal shooting of John T. Williams, reports the Seattle Times. Subsequently, Seattle Police Chief John Diaz announced that the Firearms Review Board officially determined the shooting "not justified."

NWCN quotes Satterberg as saying: "There is no evidence to show malice, there is no evidence to refute Officer Birk's claim that he acted in good faith. There is simply no evidence to overcome the strong legislative directive … not to prosecute a police officer under these circumstances."

The Seattle City Council's Bruce Harrell responded with this statement:

I am very disappointed in the King County Prosecutor’s decision not to file criminal charges regarding the death of Mr. John T. Williams. This matter demonstrates that changes to state law regarding the Public Inquest proceedings should be made. The public must have a restored confidence that the inquest process is fair, impartial and thorough. This result erodes public confidence in that process.

Officer Birk should be disciplined to the fullest extent provided under the internal process used by the City of Seattle. Our recruitment and training of police officers must prevent this type of tragedy from occurring again. We must adopt a zero tolerance culture relative to the unlawful use of force.

My proposal that officers be required to wear body-mounted cameras when they are dispatched to potentially violent situations, as opposed to relying on their stationary dashboard cameras to provide evidence, remains a feasible solution to restore public confidence in any process that examines police accountability and possible misconduct.

UPDATE: The Council's Tim Burgess has released a statement as well:

I want to acknowledge that the King County Prosecutor’s decision today leaves many people angry and disappointed. I’ve read the prosecutor’s decision and I understand his reasoning, but I fully appreciate that it won’t sit well with many in our city.

In determining criminal liability, Washington law gives great deference to the judgment of police officers in the use of deadly force. However, in contrast to state law, Seattle Police Department policies regarding the use of deadly force are more restrictive. Now that the prosecuting attorney has made a decision about criminal charges based on state law, the Chief of Police must determine if Officer Birk’s actions met the higher standard of Seattle’s policies. Chief Diaz should complete his review and let all of us know his decision as quickly as possible.

Based on the findings of the police department’s Firearms Review Board that the use of deadly force in this specific incident was not justified, I don’t believe Officer Birk should remain as a Seattle police officer.

In our system of government, I do not have the authority to bring criminal charges. This authority rests with the King County Prosecutor, a separately elected official accountable to King County voters. [...] Our Firearms Review Board conducted its process, concluded that the shooting was not justified, and has recommended that Ian Birk should never again carry a gun, wear a uniform, or return to duty as a Seattle Police officer.

Under the laws that govern me, and the city of Seattle, we have not been permitted to make a disciplinary decision as to Ian Birk’s employment until the completion of the inquest, and the completion of any criminal proceedings. I know the public finds the lack of action frustrating. So do I. The laws that govern this issue place greater value on the officer’s due process rights, and rights in his job, than the public’s expectation that improper use of force will be swiftly and appropriately dealt with.

The fate of officer Birk should be known around mid-March. Meanwhile, a federal investigation into the Seattle Police Department for excessive use of force against minorities is ongoing.