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

[alt]

On a possibly related note, there was recently a big bust of a police steroid ring in my home state of new jersey.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/26/illegal-steroid-use-among-police-officers-a-big-problem/

I guess the main relevance here, is that they WERE busted.

A few days ago in Australia, a number of sailors in the Australian Navy were busted for trafficking in large quantities of narcotics. Again, the the good, the comforting thing here, is that they WERE busted.

 

[mheslep]

Alt: Above you have made the statements "We're on the slippery slope", and "portends it’s eventual demise" about the consequences of this shooting for US society. In response to RussW you seemed to contradict any such conclusion. Can you clarify what you do, in fact, mean? Please - just on these points and not another.

 

[alt]

Alt: Above you have made the statements "We're on the slippery slope", and "portends it’s eventual demise" about the consequences of this shooting for US society. In response to RussW you seemed to contradict any such conclusion. Can you clarify what you do, in fact, mean? Please - just on these points and not another.

OK - and thanks for the unambiguous question.

“We’re on the slippery slope”

I made this comment immediately after having quoted the Seattle Times letters editors bi-line .. ‘I am now officially scared of all of you’ .. in post #6 (link was provided). That’s a pretty powerful wouldn’t you say ? And not from some ‘know nothing / know it all” from the other side of the world, but from the ST editor. My comment was directly in response, even if rhetorical and exasperated response, to that. Please let me know how you get on after you’ve queried the ST editor (for balance, of course) about his use of that powerful bi-line.

"portends it’s eventual demise"

You seem to have inadvertently taken me out of context. I did not say "portends it’s eventual demise" about the consequences of this shooting for US society” as you have stated in the above post. In post #13, I said

But as a member of a free society, to see something like this and to not be shaken to the core (on the evidence available thus far) is anathema to such a society, and portends it’s eventual demise, IMO.

See the difference ? Not the shooting, but awareness of it, followed by unconcern, inaction, or even ennui, would be anathema to a society, and would portend it’s demise. I stand by what I said.

I hope I have sufficiently answered your questions.

Anyway - though I appreciate the debate, I am perplexed as to why the main contributors here, have chosen in the main, to dissect my words, but have largely avoided the elephant in the living room.

 

[zomgwtf]

Off topic but serious question:
Why does every thread involving russ involve some sort of off-topic completely unrelated debate?

 

[mheslep]

OK - and thanks for the unambiguous question.

“We’re on the slippery slope”

I made this comment immediately after having quoted the Seattle Times letters editors bi-line .. ‘I am now officially scared of all of you’ .. in post #6 (link was provided). That’s a pretty powerful wouldn’t you say ?

No?

And not from some ‘know nothing / know it all” from the other side of the world, but from the ST editor. My comment was directly in response, even if rhetorical and exasperated response, to that. Please let me know how you get on after you’ve queried the ST editor (for balance, of course) about his use of that powerful bi-line.

Do you note that's simply a quote from a letter writer to the paper, who may be ill-informed about the event, and of whom we know nothing but a name?

In post #13, I said

But as a member of a free society, to see something like this and to not be shaken to the core (on the evidence available thus far) is anathema to such a society, and portends it’s eventual demise, IMO.

See the difference ? Not the shooting, but awareness of it, followed by unconcern, inaction, or even ennui, would be anathema to a society, and would portend it’s demise. I stand by what I said.

What inaction? From quickly reading some references it looks like the cop has a lawyer and is forced to defend himself. If inaction is your true cause for concern here, you haven't discussed it in your posts.

Anyway - though I appreciate the debate, I am perplexed as to why the main contributors here, have chosen in the main, to dissect my words, but have largely avoided the elephant in the living room.

Nobody is under obligation to accept your assertion of the elephant dejour. Consider that there are similar such "don't bother me 'bout the details, how can you all fail to see ..." claims on this forum all the time. Take the trouble to show here how this is so.

 

[Galteeth]

Off topic but serious question:
Why does every thread involving russ involve some sort of off-topic completely unrelated debate?

I guess the debate seemed on topic to me. The post was about a police shooting that many feel was unwarranted and the debate seemed to evolve into a discussion of whether this incidence should warrant concern as either part of a larger trend or as an isolated incident in and of itself? I think more generally anyone who has "non-mainstream" political views ( i would include myself in this category as well as Russ, although our views are very different) is going to provoke a response by expressing their thoughts and reactions to a given political situation, since the "non-mainstream" implies coming from a viewpoint that is alien to the bell curve or such of how most people view things.
Perhaps, "non-mainstream" is a bad word to use, as it can have a negative connotation, but I mean for example, very conservative, very liberal, anarchist, libertarian, communist, etc.
People must then find some common ground to have a discussion, and that can be hard. But it is ultimately educational as people can learn from those with different view points (even if it's just understanding what the view point is). Too often, people communicate in "echo chambers" where all they hear is like-minded consent.


I am assuming when you said "serious question" you were not being facetious.

 

[alt]

No?

Do you note that's simply a quote from a letter writer to the paper,

Yes, do you note I said " .. about his (the Editors) use of that powerful bi-line",

who may be ill-informed about the event,

As might be you, or I, or the editor, or other posters - or not ..

and of whom we know nothing but a name?

Well, that's a bonus - I only know you, and you only know me, by some silly user name.

What inaction? From quickly reading some references it looks like the cop has a lawyer and is forced to defend himself. If inaction is your true cause for concern here, you haven't discussed it in your posts.

I didn't say there was inaction. I was responding to your question. Please read the earlier posting again.

Nobody is under obligation to accept your assertion of the elephant dejour. Consider that there are similar such "don't bother me 'bout the details, how can you all fail to see ..." claims on this forum all the time.

The 'elephant' is not [STRIKE]dejour[/STRIKE] de jure. It's just a common metaphor.

Take the trouble to show here how this is so.

What ?

 

[zomgwtf]

I am assuming when you said "serious question" you were not being facetious.

Nope I wasn't being facetious.

It somewhat boggles my mind that people can't just discuss the murder by cop article and instead of to argue about why it should be discussed by people not local to the incident. Why do we have a World Affairs forums in the first place then!

 

[alt]

Nope I wasn't being facetious.

It somewhat boggles my mind that people can't just discuss the murder by cop article and instead of to argue about why it should be discussed by people not local to the incident. Why do we have a World Affairs forums in the first place then!

I fullly agree with what you say here, and it somewhat boggles my mind too.

 

[mheslep]

Nope I wasn't being facetious.

It somewhat boggles my mind that people can't just discuss the murder by cop article and instead of to argue about why it should be discussed by people not local to the incident. Why do we have a World Affairs forums in the first place then!

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

 

[vish_al210]

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...

 

[DanP]

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

We can call it homicide.

 

[zomgwtf]

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

Ok, that's fair enough, I was really just calling the article by that name... wasn't implying that it definitely was murder by cop.

It still stands though, I think the discussion should be about the actions of this cop. I'm Canadian though does that mean that I can't take part?

 

[Hepth]

It still stands though, I think the discussion should be about the actions of this cop. I'm Canadian though does that mean that I can't take part?

I don't see the actions of the officer as anything too out of the ordinary. People make horrible, life-ending mistakes everyday (in addition to intentional murder). Most are held accountable for their actions. What would/will be a REAL topic of debate is if/when, after "conviction" he is suspended without pay for a week, then allowed to return to street duty. THAT would be a real crime (which seems oft repeated in the law enforcement community).

 

[DanP]

I don't see the actions of the officer as anything too out of the ordinary.

So this happens every day where you live ? Cops taping tame suspects 4 times ?

 

[mheslep]

Ok, that's fair enough, I was really just calling the article by that name... wasn't implying that it definitely was murder by cop.

It still stands though, I think the discussion should be about the actions of this cop. I'm Canadian though does that mean that I can't take part?

Of course, not that anyone from anywhere needs my permission to discuss anything.

 

[WhoWee]

So this happens every day where you live ? Cops taping tame suspects 4 times ?

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

"wielding" implies some kind of intent, does it not?

in any case, the carving of totems seems to have been both a cultural tradition and means of income for several in seattle.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013175206_williams16m.html

the actual piece of wood from the scene seems not too weapony. looks like just a thin piece of cheap paneling.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2013443744.html

 

[WhoWee]

"wielding" implies some kind of intent, does it not?

in any case, the carving of totems seems to have been both a cultural tradition and means of income for several in seattle.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013175206_williams16m.html

the actual piece of wood from the scene seems not too weapony. looks like just a thin piece of cheap paneling.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2013443744.html

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?

 

[Hepth]

So this happens every day where you live ? Cops taping tame suspects 4 times ?

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?

 

[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 !