An appeals court has reversed a judge’s dismissal of a federal defamation lawsuit brought against District 3 representative Kshama Sawant over her statements made about the actions of officers in the Seattle Police killing of Che Taylor.
“Where a communication is capable of two meanings, one defamatory and one not, it is for a jury, not a judge, to determine which meaning controls,” the appeals panel wrote in the reversal of the U.S. District Court ruling made late last year.
CHS reported here on the 2017 defamation case brought by officers Michael Spaulding and Scott Miller alleging Sawant’s statements about Taylor’s killing, while not identifying the officers, damaged their reputations. In statements made during Seattle City Council proceedings, Sawant said that Taylor had been “murdered by the police.”
Sawant has defended the remarks as part of her work for advocacy and accountability and said she did not single out specific officers.
Last December, the city settled a $1.5 million wrongful-death lawsuit over Taylor’s killing. Police say the two officers were conducting an undercover operation in search of another man. According to court records, the officers said they recognized Taylor as as a known felon and claimed to have seen a holster on his hip. The officers said they opened fire when they saw Taylor reach for his hip. The holster was found in the middle of the street. A handgun was recovered — from under a seat in Taylor’s car, far from his body.
https://twitter.com/VBalasubramani/status/1458500554208862208
While the bills in the case are being covered by the city, the reignited legal fight will add to a challenging time for Sawant. The longest serving member’s battle for her council seat is now at a critical juncture with special election ballots going out later in the month for a December 7th special recall vote only for District 3 citizens.
The defamation suit names Sawant and the City of Seattle as defendants and also claims officials reopened an internal investigation into the shooting in retaliation over the case. The lawsuit seeks damages to be determined by the court.
HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
How is a wrongful death committed by the cops – wrongful as agreed upon by SPD – not a murder?
Seems like she described the situation pretty accurately.
A defamatory statement must be false — otherwise it’s not considered damaging. They would be wise not to open this to scrutiny just for the sake of revenge. Depends how the court leans.
Because wrongful death is not murder.
Lol. Yeah, it was her statements defamed them haha.
I know a lot of people say this, but she really is a disaster. I don’t get the appeal. Are her supporters like Trump’s where she thinks she could literally commit any crime in public and they would still vote for her? Bizarre.
As a person studying to be a lawyer at UW, show me the crime! There is none.
As part of your legal studies you should probably learn the difference between an analogy and a statement of fact. It may help when you are arguing in front of a jury.
To answer Mar’s question, yes. It’s pretty clear those who back Sawant feel the ends justify the means so she has carte blanche to misuse her office, endanger other elected officials, demonize opponents and ignore the parts of her job that don’t further the “movement” (e.g. her own brand).
She is like the Trump of the Left.
No surprise right? Seattle is so liberal that our comparable at the Conservative side is probably West Virginia… of course a large crowd in Seattle will be enamored with her Socialism pitch.
But they shouldn’t delude themselves that they have the “people on their side”. They are like the fringe 10% in the whole US population.
“Trump of the left” is so insanely stupid and wrong that it makes me think Seattle just doesn’t know anything it’s talking about. She isn’t even close. And she has support because socialism is so much better than Capitalism. You may not like her methods but the ideology is one that works and is needed. The Trump types are the very neocons on this board trolling and her dissenters. Not her.
“And she has support because socialism is so much better than Capitalism.” Really? Oh please. Can you prove that? Are you possibly confusing “being social” with “socialism”? I don’t have as many fingers as there are occurrences of socialism having failed as a model for society and economy (and please don’t ask me for resources – you’re quite capable of finding those yourself). I give you that – pure capitalism isn’t that great either, and companies not fessing up to their social responsibilities is a real evil that we should try to change. But let’s be real – her tactics, and rabidly divisive slogans on the telephone posts around the neighbourhood ARE like the left version of Trumpism. There’s simply no excuse for that form of radicalism, on either side. I find it frankly disgusting that we spend so much time just bashing in each other’s heads while accomplishing nothing to achieve real change. Aren’t you getting tired of it? I sure am.
And don’t let me get started on “that ideology works”. Your evidence? Where are you getting those ideas from?
You do know she is not simply a socialist, that she’s a Marxist right? Please do point me to a successful Marxist government… China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba… yes, so very successful – so much so that they need/ed to have closed borders to keep their citizens from fleeing, re-education camps to indoctrinate them and terror campaigns to just kill the intellectual class off…. so successful that they have ‘elections’ that somehow create lifetime dictatorships… Please do find me an example that hasn’t ended up in imprisonment and violence when those want it get into power, decide to force it on their populace and prevent those with the means from fleeing.
Yes. She is a disaster… and… Yes. She and her supporters are like Trump and his supporters in that she believes she is justified in flaunting any law as long as it supports her political agenda. Because of her “cause”, the law does not apply to her. If you disagree with her, she and her supporters will immediately label you as a rich, right-winged, capitalist-supporting, anti-BLM racist, progressive-hating, white, republican who detests progressives and poor and working people because you want a Seattle that caters to the rich. As a D3 resident who is none of those things… her strident haranguing has become indeed bizarre and exhausting.
The cops are such babies. Like always.
Do the taxpayers have to pick up the tab for this lawsuit against her like we did with the others? She’s a very expensive council member in this regard.
I think it is great that Sawant may be held accountable for her irresponsible behavior and statements regarding this incident. Let a jury decide if her statements were defamatory. To me her statements were incredibly irresponsible and consistent with her treatment of similar cases, such as the death of the black muslim man who fell to his death several years ago. In that case she also jumped to the conclusion that he had been murdered, in that case by white supremacists, I believe. What is consistent here is a tendency to speak out without possessing the facts, and usually just to elevate her profile.
/Who is paying the defense of this case? Her personally or the city? How many dollars have been paid to defend her for her wilful actions, by us taxpayers?
To her acolytes who decry the cost of the upcoming recall vote? What is the cost of that vote, vs the cost of her defense to date and including this matter?
The good news is that we recall supporters will be able to point to this added insult of hers and blowhard action.
Blame the conservatives suing her. Not her.
It’s also wrong to exclusively refer to all protestors as “rioters and looters” but the courts would never consider that defamation despite that being precisely what it is.
ACAB includes the courts