Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: An election reminder (Satterberg)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923

    An election reminder (Satterberg)

    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.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    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 by END_THE_FED; 07-21-2014 at 02:59 PM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Someone did not object to his nominating petitions?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    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
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    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 by END_THE_FED; 07-22-2014 at 03:49 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It was murder. No matter what the apologist say.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    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
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    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?
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Its the usual apologia.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Also, if memory serves, Satterberg also is in favor of 594. Make sure you all vote against him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    It's a write in

    Satterberg is unopposed .

    "Phil O'Stein might get my vote instead, Jack Mehough, Harry Nutz, or let us all know so we can write in the same name.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    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.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    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.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •