Serious questions for you, but first some ground work...

The article states: “He wasn’t charged for felony theft for the stolen bike, because the bicycle was worth less than $5,000.”

RCW 9A.56.040 States a person has committed second degree theft when they’ve stolen “Property or services which exceed(s) seven hundred fifty dollars in value but does not exceed five thousand dollars in value...” and that Theft 2 is a felony.

King County decided, apparently, to refuse to charge Theft 2 for property worth $3,500, clearly within the legally defined threshold. Would it be reasonable, and make sense, to bump the charge down to Theft 3, the next lesser offense and a gross misdemeanor, which would be adjudicated in Seattle Municipal Courts?

Charges that clearly meet felony definitions are routinely tried as lesser crimes in municipal courts. The defense of the city prosecutor using the rationale of “It was felonies. Thus the County decides, period.” is ridiculous. Clearly, the County has decided it doesn’t charge felonies on $3,500 thefts and has no problem admitting as much to local media. Rather than stepping up to charge Burrus with Theft in SMC, Holmes failed to do anything. The result? Burrus walks without any charges to continue his life of escalating criminal activity.

We bitch and moan all day long about property crime in Seattle yet you seem perfectly content to defend the very people in a position to actually do something about it when they fail to act.

That’s the issue. I’m done defending it.