The Shooting Of J T Williams - Murder by Cop ?

[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 !

 

[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.