News The Shooting Of J T Williams - Murder by Cop ?

[DanP]

This is an international news discussion; why would I compare its occurrence to things in my local community to gauge it's probability?

How did you determined that ? Do you have stats or it;s just what you dreamed of last night ?

 

[alt]

No, but either:
A: People make horrible horrible mistakes that lead to the death of another person.
B: People decide to murder someone, and do so.

And YES it happens everyday on this planet I live on, Earth. This is an international news discussion; why would I compare its occurrence to things in my local community to gauge it's probability?

I agree with your A & B, and IMO, this incident, seems to be a combination of both !

 

[alt]

I'm not certain it's correct to conclude the suspect was "tame" - based upon the video. We also know the suspect was weilding both a piece of lumber and a carving knife - both potential weapons. We also know the suspect was often intoxicated.

Oh, good grief - a piece of lumbar and a carving knife ? It all depends on your pespective, does't it ?

I suppose he was shot dead, four or five times through the side, because he could have been an expert ninja warrior, about to unleash a volley of poisenous ninja darts / stars towards his side / rear ... you know, like you see in the old Shintaro movies ..

 

[WhoWee]

Oh, good grief - a piece of lumbar and a carving knife ? It all depends on your pespective, does't it ?

I suppose he was shot dead, four or five times through the side, because he could have been an expert ninja warrior, about to unleash a volley of poisenous ninja darts / stars towards his side / rear ... you know, like you see in the old Shintaro movies ..

Gee, now that you mention it - anything is possible - given the fact that we can't actually see what happened.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't believe "weilding" speaks to intent - but it is correct. He held the wood and the carving knife openly in his hand - not a box or a bag. If attacked, he could have used them as a weapon. Given he was walking on an inner-city street, perhaps self defense was his intent?

merriam-webster:
"Definition of WIELD
transitive verb
1chiefly dialect : to deal successfully with : manage
2: to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <wield a broom>
3a : to exert one's authority by means of <wield influence> b : have at one's command or disposal <did not wield appropriate credentials — G. W. Bonham> "

btw - Are totems typically carved from a thin piece of cheap paneling?

could have, but it seems he was "wielding" them as tools, not weapons. if the cop had some history with this guy, then he must also have known the history of this guy's old profession in carving (and perhaps he still was making a buck or two to support his alcohol habit.). weapon seems an odd conclusion for those who know him.

the other thing odd about this is that the cop didn't attempt to use a taser or pepper spray first. it's not like anyone was being attacked, and the cop was the one running after him. unless williams was somehow a witness to some other event, the only logical thing in my mind at this point is the cop was agitated over his authority not being acknowledged.

 

[Galteeth]

could have, but it seems he was "wielding" them as tools, not weapons. if the cop had some history with this guy, then he must also have known the history of this guy's old profession in carving (and perhaps he still was making a buck or two to support his alcohol habit.). weapon seems an odd conclusion for those who know him.

the other thing odd about this is that the cop didn't attempt to use a taser or pepper spray first. it's not like anyone was being attacked, and the cop was the one running after him. unless williams was somehow a witness to some other event, the only logical thing in my mind at this point is the cop was agitated over his authority not being acknowledged.

Also worth noting; the blade was apparently closed when it was found on the ground by the officers. If this was the case, it seems likely that Williams was trying to "disarm" when the cop shot him.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/11/john_williams_knife_was_folded.php

 

[zomgwtf]

First point I'd like to make is towards whowee:
I think intention is necessary when using a term like 'weild' because the term is so broad. I mean the way you seem to look at it we could claim he was wielding his shoes, does that give the police reason to kill him? No since he's not wielding his shoes with intention to murder. So your definition is right but I think intention does play a part in determining the exact meaning of the term.

Next would be @ Proton.
I really don't know if police officers in that area have access to tasers. I know here in Canada the taser is used at the same level of force as a gun. So if you are going to tase a person it's supposed to mean that you would be able to pull your gun and kill them. When a police here uses there gun it's always to kill.

Now the piece of wood could be a wood panel carving in the process or something. Can't really tell from the picture but it seems likely given the explanation in the story.

 

[zomgwtf]

Also worth noting; the blade was apparently closed when it was found on the ground by the officers. If this was the case, it seems likely that Williams was trying to "disarm" when the cop shot him.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/11/john_williams_knife_was_folded.php

Well from the images posted before I couldn't even see that the blade was open in the first place. Not entirely sure though since those are pretty bad quality.

 

[DanP]

Well from the images posted before I couldn't even see that the blade was open in the first place. Not entirely sure though since those are pretty bad quality.

Is the cop on payed administrative leave ? He should be in the jail, with a large bail on his head, awaiting due legal process.

 

[alt]

Well from the images posted before I couldn't even see that the blade was open in the first place. Not entirely sure though since those are pretty bad quality.

If you have a look at the link I put in post #8, it shows seven pics. One of those shows the knife on pavement, at the scene of the .. umm .. incident. The knife is definitely closed.

Was it closed when the bullets hit Williams ? It must have been - one can hardly imagine him closing it subsequently.

Was it opened while Williams was walking down the street ? Impossible to tell from the video.

If it was open, then Williams may have quickly closed it when challanged by Birk. So if Birk has the ability to see the knife open when he chased Williams, he would have had the ability to see Williams close the knife, therefore, presenting no threat to him. But he shot Williams dead anyway. Big guy !

 

[Al68]

At this point you don't know it was a murder.

We don't know for sure, but it seems pretty clear. The police car audio recorded the officer explaining to a passerby, and later to another officer, why he shot Williams, effectively admitting to murder, assuming that audio isn't fake. (possibly even http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030" in Washington State)

Of course the officer changed his story later, but we know what his initial story was: "he didn't do what I told him to." Hardly a defense to murder charges.

 

[mheslep]

Seattle paper

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/432014_williams18.html?source=mypi

Last month Birk, who was hired in 2008, was told to surrender his gun and badge. A shooting inquest is scheduled for January 20. Birk's attorney did not agree with the release of the video, but King County District Court Judge Arthur Chapman ruled Thursday that the footage should be released.

Chapman, who also conducted the shooting inquest involving Ben Kelly, is conducting the inquest into the Williams shooting no behalf of King County Executive Dow Constantine.

The city's firearms review board concluded its hearing Oct. 4 and presented preliminary findings to Police Chief John Diaz that week. The Seattle Times reported the firearms review board found the shooting not justified.

 

[mheslep]

(possibly even http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.32.030" in Washington State)

Not 1a) "premeditated" or 1c) in furtherance of other crimes, but yes maybe so for 1b) "extreme indifference to human life". I doubt even the latter though, and suspect negligent homicide or manslaughter would be the charge, assuming the officer is sane.

 

[Al68]

Not 1a) "premeditated" or 1c) in furtherance of other crimes, but yes maybe so for 1b) "extreme indifference to human life". I doubt even the latter though, and suspect negligent homicide or manslaughter would be the charge, assuming the officer is sane.

I would think he would at least be charged with second degree murder, since Washington law allows first degree murder charges without premeditation. With of course the intent of pleading it out. A civilian would probably have been charged with first degree murder already.

And it appears that he has no defense whatsoever, and his lawyer (as he should) is just desperately trying to minimize the prison time. Unless of course there is far more to the story than we know.

 

[WhoWee]

If you have a look at the link I put in post #8, it shows seven pics. One of those shows the knife on pavement, at the scene of the .. umm .. incident. The knife is definitely closed.

Was it closed when the bullets hit Williams ? It must have been - one can hardly imagine him closing it subsequently.

Was it opened while Williams was walking down the street ? Impossible to tell from the video.

If it was open, then Williams may have quickly closed it when challanged by Birk. So if Birk has the ability to see the knife open when he chased Williams, he would have had the ability to see Williams close the knife, therefore, presenting no threat to him. But he shot Williams dead anyway. Big guy !

Is it possible the knife was open and Williams tried to conceal it behind his backside to close it out of site- then subsequently shot in the side facing the officer - due to a misinterpretation of the action? We just don't know, and shouldn't jump to conclusions.

 

[mugaliens]

Murders committed by cops re always interesting, no matter where they take place.

I've carried a firearm for more than two decades, including Iraq, while in the military. I've held concealed carry permits in several states, and I currently hold one, even though I usually open carry.

I also participate on several OC and CC forums, as well as general firearms and law enforcement forums.

Here's my "objective" answer: As the video does not show the event, we can infer little from it, except that the LEO was aggressive while the suspect appeared sluggish, at best. Much more can be inferred about the fact that the victem was shot five times in the right side of the chest, as well as the eyewitness accounts, all of which make this appear to be that of either a hard-of-hearing or iPod-ed individual not complying with an officer's instructions fast enough to suit the officer's preferences, to the point where the officer felt justified in drilling the elderly suspect five times in rapid succession.

Here's my personal opinion: Johnny Cop-O saw this chance at his yearly coller, imagined the worse, and hopped on adrenaline, bypassed what little training he apparently had, jumped to erroneous conclusions, made worse decisions, and unnecessarily ended a man's life.

By the way, mheslep, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3061392&postcount=62". Thanks. It helps lend credence to what I'm about to share.

"You weren't there!" I can hear the law enforcement officers on the other forums saying. "You don't know what it's like until you've been there, and you haven't been there!"

Sure I have. I've been shot at, been in battle, and lost friends, all while operating under strict rules of engagement (ROE), which both direct and limit our courses of action given the circumstances.

I sincerely doubt the SPD's ROE (usually a combination of briefings, read files, policy directions, and city, state, and federal law) allow anyone to drill an elderly, wood-whittling suspect five times in the side of the chest. If the LEO felt "threatened" by such a situation, he's not LEO material.

As I mentioned previously, I open carry nearly everywhere I go, whether to the grocery store, bank, or restaurant. Fortunately I live in a state where it's not only legal, but where it's not an uncommon. In fact, it's legal in 44 of our 50 states.

Also, fortunately, the training our law enforcement officers receive includes this fact. To date, I've had three "run-in's" with law enforcement officers while open carrying. The first was at Wendy's, where I walked up behind them in line at Wendy's. They turned, saw I was carrying, gave a smile and a nod, to which I responded with a "How're things around town, today? Quiet, I hope." Until we were served, the ensuing conversation was short, but friendly. The other two times were pretty much the same (once in the parking lot of Wal-Mart, another while walking along the sidewalk).

Dangerous? If the behavior of this SPD officer and FBI crime statistics are any indication, I'm about 1,000,000 times more likely to lose my life from the hands of one sworn "to serve and protect" than he is to loose his life because I'm openly carrying a firearm.

Imagine the incredible danger I'd be in if I walzed around town whittling a piece of wood with a pocketknife! Well, at least in Officer Ian Birk's neighborhood.

Around here, they wouldn't care half a whit.

DanP, I hear you. At the very least this officer should be removed from the force, as he's a loose cannon. If eyewitness testimony and nearby security cameras attest that he simply fired on an innocent man, then charges of murder should definitely be considered, as NO ONE should be allowed to hide behind a badge. I know laws were enacted to hold harmless a police officer acting "in the line of duty," but in the military, we have what's known as a "line of duty determination" and other boards which decide whether or not similar situations were really in the line or duty or if it involved one or more soldiers going "off the reservation" and simply killing (murdering) innocents.

That's integrity.

I'd like to see our local police departs start policing their own. If Burk went off the reservation, call the shot as such, and haul him up on charges. While you're at it, re-examine both your training and ops protocols, plugging any leaks you might find. Finally, start weeding more out during training. I mean, serious - would you prefer a perfect physical specimen of a wacko, or an average human being who has a good head on his shoulders? Sure, it'd be nice to get the best of both, but in our world, and when you're arming police officers with deadly weapons, sanity trumps physical prowes 25/8.

 

[Al68]

As the video does not show the event, we can infer little from it, except that the LEO was aggressive while the suspect appeared sluggish, at best. Much more can be inferred about the fact that the victem was shot five times in the right side of the chest, as well as the eyewitness accounts, all of which make this appear to be that of either a hard-of-hearing or iPod-ed individual not complying with an officer's instructions fast enough to suit the officer's preferences, to the point where the officer felt justified in drilling the elderly suspect five times in rapid succession.

Great post! I would just add that while the video doesn't show much, as you said, the audio is much more useful. The officer explains, both to a passerby and to another officer, why he shot the guy. Basically he admitted to murder, or at the very least manslaughter. He gave no indication at the time that he fired in self defense, or with any valid justification, despite the fact that he was attempting to justify his actions.

 

[alt]

I've carried a firearm for more than two decades, including Iraq, while in the military. I've held concealed carry permits in several states, and I currently hold one, even though I usually open carry.

I also participate on several OC and CC forums, as well as general firearms and law enforcement forums.

Here's my "objective" answer: As the video does not show the event, we can infer little from it, except that the LEO was aggressive while the suspect appeared sluggish, at best. Much more can be inferred about the fact that the victem was shot five times in the right side of the chest, as well as the eyewitness accounts, all of which make this appear to be that of either a hard-of-hearing or iPod-ed individual not complying with an officer's instructions fast enough to suit the officer's preferences, to the point where the officer felt justified in drilling the elderly suspect five times in rapid succession.

Here's my personal opinion: Johnny Cop-O saw this chance at his yearly coller, imagined the worse, and hopped on adrenaline, bypassed what little training he apparently had, jumped to erroneous conclusions, made worse decisions, and unnecessarily ended a man's life.

By the way, mheslep, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3061392&postcount=62". Thanks. It helps lend credence to what I'm about to share.

"You weren't there!" I can hear the law enforcement officers on the other forums saying. "You don't know what it's like until you've been there, and you haven't been there!"

Sure I have. I've been shot at, been in battle, and lost friends, all while operating under strict rules of engagement (ROE), which both direct and limit our courses of action given the circumstances.

I sincerely doubt the SPD's ROE (usually a combination of briefings, read files, policy directions, and city, state, and federal law) allow anyone to drill an elderly, wood-whittling suspect five times in the side of the chest. If the LEO felt "threatened" by such a situation, he's not LEO material.

As I mentioned previously, I open carry nearly everywhere I go, whether to the grocery store, bank, or restaurant. Fortunately I live in a state where it's not only legal, but where it's not an uncommon. In fact, it's legal in 44 of our 50 states.

Also, fortunately, the training our law enforcement officers receive includes this fact. To date, I've had three "run-in's" with law enforcement officers while open carrying. The first was at Wendy's, where I walked up behind them in line at Wendy's. They turned, saw I was carrying, gave a smile and a nod, to which I responded with a "How're things around town, today? Quiet, I hope." Until we were served, the ensuing conversation was short, but friendly. The other two times were pretty much the same (once in the parking lot of Wal-Mart, another while walking along the sidewalk).

Dangerous? If the behavior of this SPD officer and FBI crime statistics are any indication, I'm about 1,000,000 times more likely to lose my life from the hands of one sworn "to serve and protect" than he is to loose his life because I'm openly carrying a firearm.

Imagine the incredible danger I'd be in if I walzed around town whittling a piece of wood with a pocketknife! Well, at least in Officer Ian Birk's neighborhood.

Around here, they wouldn't care half a whit.

DanP, I hear you. At the very least this officer should be removed from the force, as he's a loose cannon. If eyewitness testimony and nearby security cameras attest that he simply fired on an innocent man, then charges of murder should definitely be considered, as NO ONE should be allowed to hide behind a badge. I know laws were enacted to hold harmless a police officer acting "in the line of duty," but in the military, we have what's known as a "line of duty determination" and other boards which decide whether or not similar situations were really in the line or duty or if it involved one or more soldiers going "off the reservation" and simply killing (murdering) innocents.

That's integrity.

I'd like to see our local police departs start policing their own. If Burk went off the reservation, call the shot as such, and haul him up on charges. While you're at it, re-examine both your training and ops protocols, plugging any leaks you might find. Finally, start weeding more out during training. I mean, serious - would you prefer a perfect physical specimen of a wacko, or an average human being who has a good head on his shoulders? Sure, it'd be nice to get the best of both, but in our world, and when you're arming police officers with deadly weapons, sanity trumps physical prowes 25/8.

A simple, perhaps simplistic point that I tried to make in this thread, is that either the cop Burk is a psycho, or a society that would afford him impunity, or even merely acquiesce to his action is psycho.

You sir, somewhat restore my faith in the fact that it is not society that is psycho, and that there are strong, capable, and honorable persons out there, who are ready to speak up to ensure that it doesn't become so.

 

[vish_al210]

well, I am a guy frm the other side of ur wrld.. .But things shldnt change so much... Well is it legal to shoot downa guy dead, 'If the officer deems so".. Well in my country (ridicule as u may but I feel much safer here...) it is only when engaged that an officer can fire.. I agree they may man handle some drunk guy or homeless on the streets or beat him dwn..(that is inhumane enough) but shooting them dwn is like very rare o'er here.. even if he is a criminal..he is tried... The funda is capture not kill.. Even when forced to fire. the first option is to diffuse the situation, disarm, incapacitate the suspect..
being shot below the knee or the hip is not a pleasant feeling..
But at least better than the option of killing someone..
Don't officer's get trained as to where they can and where they can't shoot... How can one serve and protect when they are ready to unload the burden of their 5 bullets on the first harmless suspect they find...
That's absolutely ridiculous... and speaking as he is.. mugaliens does seem like an alien along with a few other who are disturbed by the occurance of this event..
And for those who think that a one off situation//event is not of concern... just think again... a one off incident is all it would take.. to end my life or anyone else's .
take care.. and have a wonderful time... and a pleasantly eventful year ahead...

 

[DanP]

You sir, somewhat restore my faith in the fact that it is not society that is psycho, and that there are strong, capable, and honorable persons out there, who are ready to speak up to ensure that it doesn't become so.

Society can't be a psycho :P There are certain rules under which it is perfectly OK to take the life of another human being, and no one should loose any sleep over it. However I do not believe this was one of those cases.

The problem a bit more complex than the simplistic mentality that either the cop is a psycho, or the society is rotten.

 

[DanP]

A simple, perhaps simplistic point that I tried to make in this thread, is that either the cop Burk is a psycho, or a society that would afford him impunity, or even merely acquiesce to his action is psycho.

You sir, somewhat restore my faith in the fact that it is not society that is psycho, and that there are strong, capable, and honorable persons out there, who are ready to speak up to ensure that it doesn't become so.

Please note that this nuance in Mugaliens's post:

" While you're at it, re-examine both your training and ops protocols "

If the LEO felt "threatened" by such a situation, he's not LEO material.

it makes a very important distinction. There are many causes which can lead to open fire and kill someone, and most of those do not imply psychopathology.

 

[BobG]

Hey.. its not about murder or not... He was a cop.. Here in my country... cops r supposed to shoot below the hip, preferably below the knee.. even for that some moronic HR folks scrw their happiness... And here someone gets to unload 4 in the sternum.,... now that is excessive force... don't u think so...

The purpose of shooting someone is to stop them. You should pick the largest part of their body (their torso) to increase the chance of hitting them and a target most likely to stop them. That also means stopping them has a very good chance of killing them, so you should only be shooting them when the situation is so dire that killing the perpetrator is worth stopping them from doing whatever they were doing.

The decision to shoot was the mistake - not shooting the perpetrator in the chest.

I believe the officer's story about the knife originally being open. You can't get a good view of the knife in the video, but considering what Williams appears to be doing to the board as he's crossing the street, it wouldn't make sense for the knife to be closed. When and how Williams closed the knife is impossible to determine.

I think shooting Williams was a horrible over reaction. Birk, the officer, had been on the force for only 2 years, so inexperience could have played a part.

Birk had also responded to a previous incident with Williams about a year earlier. Williams had grabbed a fellow shelter member around the neck and Birk and another officer responded to find Williams no longer threatening the fellow shelter member, but drunk, incoherent, and in the middle of a seizure. It's at least possible (and reasonable) that that incident was something that would make a strong enough impression to stick in Birk's memory.

The whole picture of William's life presents less of a threat, but I could see him being seen as somewhat of a threat to both himself and others. Being struck by vehicles twice over the years limited William's ability to be a major threat, since the accidents left him with a permanent limp.

And, yes, it was perfectly normal (and legal) for Williams to be carving wood with an open knife in public. Unless we're going to enact laws banning open knives in public, then we're pretty much relying on police officers being able to accurately assess the threat presented by those knives - which Birk obviously didn't do.

From all appearances, the entire purpose of Birk leaving his vehicle and accosting Williams was that Williams was someone Birk didn't think should have a knife. Williams clearly wasn't threatening anyone with the knife when he was crossing the street.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013175206_williams16m.html#loop

btw - Are totems typically carved from a thin piece of cheap paneling?

The Williams brothers carve all kinds of totems, with some being extremely small. Basically, they tend to carve whatever wood they come across with the wood determining the size of the totem they carve.

They're actually very good at what they do, but they don't seem to be the sophisticated artists, searching for just the right piece of wood, etc. They're just drunks that do what they do.

 

[Proton Soup]

The Williams brothers carve all kinds of totems, with some being extremely small. Basically, they tend to carve whatever wood they come across with the wood determining the size of the totem they carve.

They're actually very good at what they do, but they don't seem to be the sophisticated artists, searching for just the right piece of wood, etc. They're just drunks that do what they do.

sort of like Jackson Pollock, i guess.

 

[alt]

Society can't be a psycho :P There are certain rules under which it is perfectly OK to take the life of another human being, and no one should loose any sleep over it. However I do not believe this was one of those cases.

Yes, I know and understand this.

The problem a bit more complex than the simplistic mentality that either the cop is a psycho, or the society is rotten.

I used the term 'psycho' in a generic sense, much as mugaliens in his post #66 used the term 'wacko'.

And I think I've explained often enough in this thread, that I'm saying that a society which allows this sort of thing to go unchallanged, is the concern. This doesn't appear to be the case here. It appears something IS being done. The hearing on 20th January will be interesting.

 

[alt]

Please note that this nuance in Mugaliens's post:





it makes a very important distinction. There are many causes which can lead to open fire and kill someone, and most of those do not imply psychopathology.

Again, please note my earlier reply. Psycho is a common term, such as wacko. I meant no more psychopathology than one might mean wackopathology.

 

[mugaliens]

A simple, perhaps simplistic point that I tried to make in this thread, is that either the cop Burk is a psycho, or a society that would afford him impunity, or even merely acquiesce to his action is psycho.

Fortunately, there's a hearing coming up, so the folks in charge of society in that neck of the woods are least making the attempt to police their own. Hopefully, it's not just for show.

You sir, somewhat restore my faith in the fact that it is not society that is psycho, and that there are strong, capable, and honorable persons out there, who are ready to speak up to ensure that it doesn't become so.

Why, thank you! I do try. I think there are a lot of us out here. Most of us are fairly quiet people, though, so they often go through their lives unnoticed.

 

[alt]

Fortunately, there's a hearing coming up, so the folks in charge of society in that neck of the woods are least making the attempt to police their own. Hopefully, it's not just for show.

I'll keep a look out for it.

Why, thank you! I do try. I think there are a lot of us out here. Most of us are fairly quiet people, though, so they often go through their lives unnoticed.

I understand.

 

[alt]

A couple of bucks each way ? I wonder what happens next ?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013989423_inquest21m.html

 

[WhoWee]

A couple of bucks each way ? I wonder what happens next ?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013989423_inquest21m.html

A split result at the inquest with both sides claiming sound results?

""I don't think there has ever been a verdict like this in a King County or Seattle inquest," said Tim Ford, an attorney for the Williams family.

Ford pointed to the jury's vote of four "no," one "yes" and three "unknown" to the question of whether Birk, based on information available at the time he fired, faced an imminent threat of serious physical harm from Williams.

"I think this is as strong a statement as you could expect," Ford said. "I think they've spoken really clearly."

Buck said the most telling answer was the jury's unanimous vote that Birk had ordered Williams three times to put down his knife.

Buck also said it was important jurors concluded that Birk believed Williams posed an imminent threat. Four jurors answered "yes" and the rest answered "unknown."

"Generally a positive result, that's what matters," Buck said."

Expect a plea deal - no longer a cop and probation.

 

[mugaliens]

Expect a plea deal - no longer a cop and probation.

That sounds likely. Depends on what the prosecutor thinks. I find it telling this is the first time in Seattle's history that an inquest has returned a finding other than "exonerated." As the Williams' family attorney mentioned, that's telling.

As for whether or not he had time to put down the knife, one thing which does not appear to have been considered is "lock up." I don't know the psychological term for it, but it's what happens to many people when faced with a sudden and threatening change in their environment.

For example, if someone were playing pin the tail on the donkey and when you pulled off their blindfold they found themselves on the railroad tracks, staring at a train just four seconds away, with it's horn blaring loudly, many people would just freeze, and be hit by the train. Some, perhaps most, perhaps not, would not freeze. They would hurry off the tracks and out of harm's way.

Cut to Williams, whittling while crossing the street, minding his own business, when from behind he hears someone yelling, "PUT THE KNIFE DOWN!" several times in rapid succession. He turns to find himself facing a cop, with whom he hasn't had the best relationship, and this cop is pointing a gun at him.

Brain overload, all neurons firing at once, trying to make sense of this sudden, and drastic change in his environment.

Lock up. He froze. He was shot five times because his brain works the same way many people's brains work, while Birk's actions were clearly against departmental policy/procedures, given the fact his badge and gun were taken pending the results of the inquest and the department ruled his actions as such.

 

[alt]

That sounds likely. Depends on what the prosecutor thinks. I find it telling this is the first time in Seattle's history that an inquest has returned a finding other than "exonerated." As the Williams' family attorney mentioned, that's telling.

As for whether or not he had time to put down the knife, one thing which does not appear to have been considered is "lock up." I don't know the psychological term for it, but it's what happens to many people when faced with a sudden and threatening change in their environment.

For example, if someone were playing pin the tail on the donkey and when you pulled off their blindfold they found themselves on the railroad tracks, staring at a train just four seconds away, with it's horn blaring loudly, many people would just freeze, and be hit by the train. Some, perhaps most, perhaps not, would not freeze. They would hurry off the tracks and out of harm's way.

Cut to Williams, whittling while crossing the street, minding his own business, when from behind he hears someone yelling, "PUT THE KNIFE DOWN!" several times in rapid succession. He turns to find himself facing a cop, with whom he hasn't had the best relationship, and this cop is pointing a gun at him.

Brain overload, all neurons firing at once, trying to make sense of this sudden, and drastic change in his environment.

Lock up. He froze. He was shot five times because his brain works the same way many people's brains work, while Birk's actions were clearly against departmental policy/procedures, given the fact his badge and gun were taken pending the results of the inquest and the department ruled his actions as such.

I agree with all you've said here. Have experienced this 'lock up' phenomenon several times myself, in much more trivial circumstances.

It is also telling that the knife was found in a closed position, so even so, he was in the process of 'disarming' just before he got shot .. looks like ..

 

[BobG]

Lock up. He froze. He was shot five times because his brain works the same way many people's brains work, while Birk's actions were clearly against departmental policy/procedures, given the fact his badge and gun were taken pending the results of the inquest and the department ruled his actions as such.

His brain probably worked even slower than most people's considering he had a BAC of .18.

None the less, being in a near drunken stupor isn't a capital offense and shooting Williams was a horrible mistake at a minimum. But it does at least give some credibility to Birk stopping him in the first place. Merely walking down the street with an open pocket knife isn't sufficient reason for a police officer to stop him, let alone shoot him.

Is stopping a drunk with any dangerous implement sufficient reason? Or is stopping a drunk with a BAC of .18 sufficient reason regardless of what he's carrying? Consider Williams has been struck by vehicles twice before because he's often too drunk to watch out for traffic. Considering homeless drunks are a fairly common site in certain parts of almost every city of any size, hauling every drunk off of the street isn't usually seen as being very feasible, but that doesn't mean that hauling them off of the street would be a bad idea.

 

[WhoWee]

His brain probably worked even slower than most people's considering he had a BAC of .18.

None the less, being in a near drunken stupor isn't a capital offense and shooting Williams was a horrible mistake at a minimum. But it does at least give some credibility to Birk stopping him in the first place. Merely walking down the street with an open pocket knife isn't sufficient reason for a police officer to stop him, let alone shoot him.

Is stopping a drunk with any dangerous implement sufficient reason? Or is stopping a drunk with a BAC of .18 sufficient reason regardless of what he's carrying? Consider Williams has been struck by vehicles twice before because he's often too drunk to watch out for traffic. Considering homeless drunks are a fairly common site in certain parts of almost every city of any size, hauling every drunk off of the street isn't usually seen as being very feasible, but that doesn't mean that hauling them off of the street would be a bad idea.

(My bold)
Do we know the details of those accidents? Did he stumble into the paths of those vehicles or did he challenge those vehicles with his body?

 

[BobG]

(My bold)
Do we know the details of those accidents? Did he stumble into the paths of those vehicles or did he challenge those vehicles with his body?

Embarrassingly enough, I laughed at that (John "Don Quixote" Williams). It wasn't the sort of thing that would occur to me, but I imagine it would be a possibility for a person drunk enough.

No, the details aren't known. The story (linked to in an earlier post) just reported a summary of his past record of things police had to respond to. But Williams didn't appear beligerent in any way while crossing the street, so there was no reason to believe he was about to challenge any vehicles that day.

 

[WhoWee]

Embarrassingly enough, I laughed at that (John "Don Quixote" Williams). It wasn't the sort of thing that would occur to me, but I imagine it would be a possibility for a person drunk enough.

No, the details aren't known. The story (linked to in an earlier post) just reported a summary of his past record of things police had to respond to. But Williams didn't appear beligerent in any way while crossing the street, so there was no reason to believe he was about to challenge any vehicles that day.

You never know what might stimulate an intoxicated person. Let's not forget these two people were not strangers. This police officer might have been the red flag to Williams drunken bull - off camera we don't know.

 

[zomgwtf]

You never know what might stimulate an intoxicated person. Let's not forget these two people were not strangers. This police officer might have been the red flag to Williams drunken bull - off camera we don't know.

Why does that matter at all? None of what you're saying implies use of deadly force is necessary for this situation.

There's a good video of Toronto police at work in a street against a man armed with a knife. He's drunk and going around crazy. Did they shoot him? No, they did everything physically possible to attempt to render this man harmless with great effect (They pinned him with one of their cars then rushed him to). The videos on youtube if you are interested.

I feel confident saying that the Toronto police were MUCH more authorized to shoot this man dead then the cop in your situation even given the worst possible scenarios that you draw out for us.

 

[WhoWee]

Why does that matter at all? None of what you're saying implies use of deadly force is necessary for this situation.

There's a good video of Toronto police at work in a street against a man armed with a knife. He's drunk and going around crazy. Did they shoot him? No, they did everything physically possible to attempt to render this man harmless with great effect (They pinned him with one of their cars then rushed him to). The videos on youtube if you are interested.

I feel confident saying that the Toronto police were MUCH more authorized to shoot this man dead then the cop in your situation even given the worst possible scenarios that you draw out for us.

It sounds as though the Toronto police officer was not alone? Also, were the officer and the crazy drunk familiar with one another?

 

[Amp1]

Just an aside but one person (I guess they did some research or might have known him) said " Williams wasn't homeless at the time of his death
He was living at 1811 Eastlake.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012784234_c

It's a fine point, but it would be good to keep homeless as an adjective to describe a person's living situation instead of the person himself."

I was reading it here:http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2011/02/15/sources-no-charges-in-jt-williams-shooting

IMHO, I think the officer had less than savory feelings/emotion towards J.T. Williams. The FACT that the shooting occurred within seconds (how many?) not minutes seems to indicate the officer wanted to do ...

There are also accounts of Williams being deaf in one ear.

 

[Proton Soup]

new details

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...t-launches-civil-rights-probe-of-1377408.php"

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/March/11-crt-403.html

Justice News Banner
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Justice Department Opens Investigation into the Seattle Police Department

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that it has opened a pattern or practice investigation into allegations of use of excessive force and discriminatory policing by members of the Seattle Police Department (SPD), pursuant to the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the anti-discrimination provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



The Justice Department will seek to determine whether there are systemic violations of the Constitution or federal law by officers of the SPD. During the course of our investigation, the Justice Department will consider all relevant information, particularly the efforts that Seattle has undertaken to ensure compliance with federal law. The Justice Department has taken similar steps in a variety of state and local law enforcement agencies, both large and small, in jurisdictions such as New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and California.



Today’s announcement is separate from any ongoing federal criminal investigation involving the Seattle Police Department.



This matter is being investigated jointly by attorneys from the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington. The Department welcomes any information from the community. If you have any comments or concerns, please feel free to contact us at Community.seattle@usdoj.gov or 855-203-4479.
11-403
Civil Rights Division

 

[WhoWee]

new details

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...t-launches-civil-rights-probe-of-1377408.php"

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/March/11-crt-403.html

What do you think will cost more - the investigation - the "solution" - or the jury awards?

 

[Proton Soup]

What do you think will cost more - the investigation - the "solution" - or the jury awards?

NOTA. ignoring it will cost more

 

[alt]

new details

Justice Department launches civil-rights probe of Seattle Police Department

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/March/11-crt-403.html

Oops ! Nearly missed this PS; thanks for posting. Well, some good will come out of this after all.

Agree, ignoring it will cost more.