Post navigation

Prev: (10/09/17) | Next: (10/09/17)

District 3’s Sawant fighting defamation suit from officers who shot Che Taylor

Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant faces a defamation lawsuit from the Seattle Police Department officers who shot Che Taylor last year. Sawant filed for a motion to dismiss last week.

The officers, Scott Miller and Michael Spaulding, claim she used the fatal shooting while naming the officers to further her own administrative agenda and political platform. The lawsuit filing itself says the two “do not want one red cent of public money.” Their claim alleges Sawant called the officers murderers and stated their decision to shoot Taylor as a product of racial profiling before the two had their day in court.

The Council member continues to reference the incident as she did before, despite the jury’s decision to clear the officers. Miller and Spaulding requested retractions of their names by Sawant’s office but say they never got a response.

In this council briefing from January, Sawant uses the phrase “even though he was murdered by the police” about eight minutes into the session but does not specify officer names.

Defamation lawsuits require the statements be false. Due to the nature of Sawant’s statements, one of which are opinionated and the other a fact (the officers did kill someone which is by definition murder, though they weren’t charged), the court might not see defamation as relevant.

But let’s say the court does. What’s next?

Defamation additionally requires a reasonable person to have monetary, job-affecting, or family-related damage caused by the words spoken from another individual. The burden of proof here is lower for private citizens than public figures, like officials. One of the questions the court would need to settle in any decision: Due to the high publicity of the shooting, and the fact that the two individuals at hand are police, should Miller and Spaulding meet the higher or lower standard?

The officers’ lawsuit say their families suffered — likely to be labeled emotional distress, which isn’t necessarily provable in court unless there were resulting therapy sessions. However, the suit goes on to cite that Miller’s children had to transfer out of the Seattle School District, which could satisfy the proof of damage done to him (and his family who are private citizens) by Sawant’s statements.

The labels Sawant allegedly put upon the officers are ones Miller and Spaulding say impacted their careers. However, SPD communications officer Patrick Michaud verified they are currently back at work for SPD.

The lawsuit cites how Google searches populate this negative moment in their lives, but the court will likely see this as irrelevant to defamation. Rather, they will see it simply as a result of the internet age in a highly contentious and publicized police-involved shooting.

Sawant’s motion for dismissal likens the officers’ case to previous cases in which Sawant was accused of defamation but the plaintiffs cited no specific moment or record in which she did so. Her dismissal argues Sawant continued to speak out on the issue for advocacy and accountability. The dismissal transcribes relevant parts of her entire speech before the march referenced by Miller and Spaulding.

The council member previously faced a defamation lawsuit by landlord Carl Haglund, filed December 2016. He took issue with landlord-related legislation being nicknamed after him due to his documented reputation of paradoxically poor upkeep and rent increases. The ordinance, which is now in place, banned rent increases at building with housing code violations.

When it comes to the courts, Sawant costs the city money. Already, Seattle is over budget for litigation costs by $13.4 million, as reported by Crosscut’s David Kroman. The Haglund lawsuit alone could result in the city covering $185,000 for the council member. The cost of defending a dynamic and extremely progressive District 3 leader and legal expenses for city officials — especially this year in Seattle — are nothing new. Some are petitioning the city to remove legal funding for the case. While that outcome seems unlikely, the real question is what voters will say when she mounts her reelection campaign in 2019.

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alison Eckles
6 years ago

I simply don’t understand where we all are headed ever since Trump is the president. …

d4l3d
d4l3d
6 years ago

So, what is the takeaway from the last paragraph? Should she shut up and sit down? The public elected her. The public’s money defends her. She’s not the one who did the egregious act.

Jim98122x
Jim98122x
6 years ago
Reply to  d4l3d

Depends on which egregious act you’re talking about—the shooting, or the alleged libel? The officers’ suit is claiming that her calling them murderers before they had appeared in court, and her refusal to apologize even after they were not charged, IS egregious. It’s at least a fair question whether the city should continue to indemnify her. Running her mouth like this where it might/might not be libelous isn’t really crucial for doing her job. The other council members don’t seem to have a recurring problem with it.

Adam
Adam
6 years ago
Reply to  d4l3d

The public elected her to represent District 3 and govern, not try to get headlines running her mouth about things she clearly doesn’t have a grasp on, or have all the information about.

If she decides to use to her platform to defame people, that should be her own expense.

Whichever
Whichever
6 years ago
Reply to  d4l3d

They elected her to be a part of government, to act with their interests in mind – not run her mouth and be an attention-seeking bag of hot air. Her mouth is what’s getting her in trouble.

Ironically, all the money that is being spent to defend her civil court battles could be better spent on the things she allegedly supports.

Fairly Obvious
Fairly Obvious
6 years ago
Reply to  d4l3d

“They elected her to be a part of government, to act with their interests in mind – not run her mouth and be an attention-seeking bag of hot air. Her mouth is what’s getting her in trouble.”

Considering our benevolent President does what she did, but like 100 times a day, and gets off scot free, I don’t see this lawsuit going anywhere.

Privilege
Privilege
6 years ago

Just to be a bit pedantic, “(the officers did kill someone which is by definition murder, though they weren’t charged)” is incorrect. Murder, by definition, is a criminal act and even requires pre-meditation, otherwise it’s manslaughter. If she said they killed him, there would be no case. Of course I’m only an internet lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

There’s a reason why the press typically uses “alleged killed” in all of their coverage of murder cases. To avoid defaming those who are innocent.

Now whether the cops are innocent or not, well… the courts said one thing, people say other things. Still, describing it as a murder is, legally, very likely a defamable statement especially when said by someone in a position of power. As private citizens, we have no real ways to defends ourselves if target by people with a bully pulpit.

We should hold elected officials to higher standards, even if they’re talking about cops and dead civilians in today’s climate.

Jim98122x
Jim98122x
6 years ago
Reply to  Privilege

“We should hold elected officials to higher standards”
Exactly. She should know better, and conduct herself accordingly, even if the average person wouldn’t. And if she doesn’t know better, she needs to learn. I don’t want to elect the average person to speak for me, I want somebody who would do a better job than that.

Phil Mocek
6 years ago
Reply to  Privilege

This is splitting hairs over murder vs. manslaughter. Both are variations on homicide–the killing of another human–that have specific legal meaning but to most people in most contexts mean the same thing.

I doubt many people who, aware of the fact that one or more of these officers (Scott M. Miller #7496 and Michael B. Spaulding #7491 of Seattle Police Department) committed homicide, heard Sawant’s rhetoric and thought, “Oh, I knew they were killers, but that they actually committed murder is news to me. That very much lowers my opinion of these homicidal police officers.”

Privilege
Privilege
6 years ago
Reply to  Privilege

Legal definitions are not what “most people” think. Thank god.

I think you’re the one splitting hairs. It is a homicide, but a murder is literally defined by premeditation. “The killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.”

Whether that’s grounds for a defamation case is for the courts to decide. But it isn’t necessarily frivolous, even if you hate cops. It is literally why we have courts.

She should’ve chosen her words more carefully.

Phil Mocek
6 years ago
Reply to  Privilege

– “The killing of a human being” Undeniable.
– “by a sane person” – I take this to be accurate.
– “with intent” – Check!
– “malice aforethought” – Arguable, but vice cops likely considered this guy to be dirt and likely figured the world would be better with him dead.
– “and with no legal excuse or authority” – This is unclear and strangely circular, but it hinges on law, not action or even intent.

If that is murder, then it is not a stretch to call Miller and Spaulding murderers. I don’t suspect that they went in intending to kill Taylor, but I don’t doubt a bit that they wished they could kill him. They’re vice cops. They’re probably trained to hate the people they investigate. Calling them murderers seems to be equivalent to 1) stating that one believes that these two hoped the victim-to-be would give them opportunity to dispense with trials and execute him on the spot, and 2) indicating that one believes such a killing to be unlawful.

Finding the expression of angry rhetoric that implies that the killers in this case acted with malice to be defamatory in nature seems frivolous, even if you think that our peace officers deserve blanket immunity from repercussions of their actions.

Bob Knudson
Bob Knudson
6 years ago
Reply to  Privilege

Phil, it’s disappointing to read that you think vice cops “are trained to hate the people they investigate.” Sure, some of them might have some negative feelings (not the same as “hate”) towards the low-lifes they have to deal with every day, but for their formal police training to make them “hate” is highly doubtful. All of us on this blog are used to your anti-police bias, but please try to make it rational.

Phil Mocek
6 years ago
Reply to  Privilege

Bob, I think reasonable people can disagree about what sort attitudes are likely imparted on drug warriors by drug war training about–as you put it–“the low-lifes they have to deal with every day.” Some of us suspect that foot soldiers in the war on drug users value all lives equally. Some of us suspect they would happily make those “low-lifes” disappear given the opportunity.

I’m not anti-police. I’m pro-ethics. I oppose police misconduct and those who enable it.

HTS3
HTS3
6 years ago

“I’m not anti-police. I’m pro-ethics. I oppose police misconduct and those who enable it.”

Hmmm. Actually you paint a pretty broad swath with that anti-police brush. You’re essentially saying that all vice-cops would kill someone that they felt was one of those “low-lifes.” The cops I know don’t fall into this category. And the ones I’ve seen interacting with all kinds of people on the street don’t reflect this behavior. So you think it’s fine for our elected representatives to call the police murderers? This is problematic to me. You see, I think having a police force is important. And on that police force, I want to attract the best people for the job. And I think there will be fewer good, qualified, compassionate and intelligent applicants if our representatives call them murderers when to those involved they were doing their job.

Phil Mocek
6 years ago
Reply to  HTS3

I wrote nothing of the sort. I think you misread.