Video Released in Seattle knife-shooting.

[JacksonKnives]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... eo18m.html
Don't know if this has made its way around the forums yet, but I didn't find anything with the search. The case actually goes back to August, but it hit the news up here when the dash-cam footage was released on Friday.

First, let me say that I've never had any bad experiences with beat cops. Law enforcement is a broad category, and I respect most officers of the law, but the guys who are out there on patrol get a good deal more respect, so long as they're not acting like complete muppets.

The ACLU is speaking up about this case now; I haven't checked up on kniferights but it's a pretty clear-cut verdict even without advocacy, I think. I won't pass judgement, as Ian Birk is neither a citizen nor representative of my country and I'm not a witness, judge or jury member, but I think anyone who sees the video and reads the details of the evidence will likely come to the same conclusion I have.

I hope the friends and family of John T. Williams will soon get some kind of closure. May justice be done.

[Dr. Snubnose]

Kinda hard to tell what happened from the video....I make no judgments...Doc :D

[The Deacon]

Kinda hard to tell what happened from the video....I make no judgments...Doc :D

At the very least, it raises more questions than it answers. The three biggest for me being where Williams was when the officer fired, what direction he was facing at the time, and whether the knife was still open or not. Williams appeared to be walking at a fairly steady pace when he crossed in front of the police car, but I can't tell from the video whether he continued walking, or stopped, or if he turned around when the officer challenged him. Have to say that the questions being asked of Birk by some of the other officers make me wonder if the the knife was even open at the time he started shooting.

[Jordan]

http://www.spyderco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45061

This is the thread from back in September when this first came up here... I didn't see anything on the video to change the way I saw it then. This was not Joe Citizen that was shot. This was a homeless man with an extensive criminal record (direct quote from the September 1st Seattle Times article). There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence against the policeman, or for him. Given the lack of evidence, I choose to believe the civil servant over the homeless alcoholic felon.

[HotSoup]

The knife, when recovered from the ground by police, was folded shut.

[Dr. Snubnose]

The knife, when recovered from the ground by police, was folded shut.

So I gather by your comment....never whittle with a fixed blade?... :p ...Doc :D

[HotSoup]

So I gather by your comment....never whittle with a fixed blade?... :p ...Doc :D

Apparently not!

[JacksonKnives]

At the very least, it raises more questions than it answers. The three biggest for me being where Williams was when the officer fired, what direction he was facing at the time, and whether the knife was still open or not. Williams appeared to be walking at a fairly steady pace when he crossed in front of the police car, but I can't tell from the video whether he continued walking, or stopped, or if he turned around when the officer challenged him. Have to say that the questions being asked of Birk by some of the other officers make me wonder if the the knife was even open at the time he started shooting.

Paul,
The Times report that he was shot in the side.

What the video shows (though I hadn't really heard any details of the case until now, so this is all new to me) is the tone and speed with which the officer responded. Less than 8 seconds between contact and firing five rounds. If it were a perp brandishing a gun I would feel differently, or maybe even if it were a butterfly knife or other restricted blade being used in a threatening manner, but in this case Williams was minding his own business--if anyone did the provoking, it's clearly Birk. I haven't seen any witness reports to the contrary, and the inquiry has suspended him.

We've had recent incidents up here of city cops picking up homeless (yes, they were native, too) men from high-traffic areas of town and driving them to industrial/business areas. For whatever reason, these cops thought it was within their rights to detain these men without warrant and move them to an area that would be "less problematic." It's something that our society as a whole turns a blind eye to, because it's convenient to have cops "take care" of the "undesirables."
I don't like walking past an alcoholic panhandler any more than anyone else. Taking him from a place where he's at least got a chance of finding something to eat, though, or even making it to a shelter where he might actually get help when the temperatures drop to -25C, and dumping him off somewhere where there isn't even bus service? That's inhuman.

This case in Seattle is even more clear cut than that. Indecent exposure and making yourself a public nuisance certainly makes you a target for police attention, but this guy was, for all intents and purposes, shot in the back.

[The Deacon]

This is the thread from back in September when this first came up here... I didn't see anything on the video to change the way I saw it then. This was not Joe Citizen that was shot. This was a homeless man with an extensive criminal record (direct quote from the September 1st Seattle Times article). There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence against the policeman, or for him. Given the lack of evidence, I choose to believe the civil servant over the homeless alcoholic felon.

Back when that thread was posted, I too was willing to give the officer the benefit of the doubt. But I have to disagree with you about the video. It shows a man walking quietly across a street while apparently whittling on a chunk of something. He is not near anyone, he is not acting irrationally, his pace is slow but his gait is steady, or at least no more unsteady than mine. I think it's safe to say that the woman who crosses the street a few seconds ahead of him is either not aware or not afraid of him, given that she walks right past the police car. Yet the police officer decides he is a threat worthy of deadly force. The person crossing the street at the time the warning and shooting occur and the drivers of the auto and truck which pulled up in the two leftmost lanes of the street where the shooting took place would be the witnesses with the best views of what actually happened. However, at the very least, unclear who or what was being threatened severely enough to warrant the officer's response.

[Jordan]

I can't argue with any of that Deacon. For the several seconds that the man is in view of the camera, he does appear to be shambling along quietly. However, since everything of import occurs off camera... I can't quite reconcile that as evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the policeman. As far as pedestrians and drivers in the vicinity... most people are pretty oblivious most of the time. In my experience, mentally ill felons bring the wrath of the world upon themselves. Perhaps I appear to be stubbornly supportive of the cop here, fair enough. Allow me to explain my perspective using Occam's Razor.

Postulate 1: A felon with a history of mental illness and alcoholism threatened a police officer and was shot.

Postulate 2: A police officer joins the force, serves for 2 years without incident, and then decides to commit a cold blooded murder in broad daylight on a crowded street corner for no easily determinable personal benefit.

Which makes the most assumptions?

[The Deacon]

The problems with your first postulate begin with the fact that Williams cannot be heard making verbal threats. If HotSoup's statement is factual, the knife was closed when recovered and if Daniel Jackson's statement is factual, Williams was not facing the officer. Combined, they make the suggestion that he was threatening the officer sufficiently to warrant deadly physical force somewhat less than credible. The fact that Birk cannot be heard asking passers-by "are you all right?" or "did he hurt you?" after he shoots, makes the idea Williams posed an imminent threat to anyone else.

Beyond that, the reaction of all the other officers who could be heard on that tape seemed a lot closer to "why in God's name did you shoot him" than to "wow, good job!".

Now perhaps the laws are different there, but here even a police officer needs to be reasonably sure that a serious felony has already been commited, or that someone poses an obvious threat of committing one in the immediate future, to justify deadly force.

Cold blooded murder, probably not. "Human error" or "a momentary lapse of judgment" on the part of Birk leading to a less than "righteous" shoot, sure looks that way.

[Jordan]

The knife was dropped, not every lock is as rock solid as a :spyder: .

I am not suggesting that the dead man squared off and started frothing at the mouth and screaming obscenities... just that he might have made the police officer feel sufficiently threatened to use deadly force. They were somewhere between 9 feet and "two carlengths" (according to the... shall we say flowery language of one of the eye witnesses) away from each other. That is well within my personal comfort zone in terms of distance away from crazy persons. Wouldn't take much in the way of threats for me, personally, to start feeling pretty threatened.

People don't always take rounds directly to the chest... instinct tells people to decrease their silhouette and present the shoulder in a violent confrontation. He may have been shot in the side... doesn't mean he was executed.

The policeman's fellow officers responded to a scene in which one of their own was standing over a homeless guy armed with a knife which may or may not have landed in plain view. They are likely to want to know why the man died first, rather than begin slapping him on the back for his fine marksmanship.

As far as I know, even down here in Texas policemen have to pass a similar litmus test to use deadly force... probably in Seattle too. Stands to reason that the police officer knew that too.

I dunno... could very well be that he just exercised startlingly bad judgement. Could even be that he REALLY hated hobos and decided to shoot one, for all I know. I wasn't there, I dunno. All I have is a few newspaper articles and an 8 minute video that shows virtually nothing to go on. One of the articles mentions that the official inquest will take place in January... maybe something will surface there. Until then, I don't know what happened... so I default to the most reliable witness present... the shooter.

[psychophipps]

I didn't see a single indication that the officer was in any immediate danger. If the officer thought he was in danger of a lethal variety from the knife then he should have stepped away to create distance. Clear the crowd, secure the scene, call for backup, and shoot only if absolutely necessary. This is what I get from most use-of-force criteria, and I didn't see (or hear) a whole mess of the first three.

[The Deacon]

I didn't see a single indication that the officer was in any immediate danger. If the officer thought he was in danger of a lethal variety from the knife then he should have stepped away to create distance. Clear the crowd, secure the scene, call for backup, and shoot only if absolutely necessary. This is what I get from most use-of-force criteria, and I didn't see (or hear) a whole mess of the first three.

Exactly. For that matter, I don't see any indication Williams presented a threat to anyone. Which would mean that, without stretching the section of Washington law quoted below almost as badly as Mr Vance has stretched the definition of a gravity knife in NYC, I'm not even sure what Mr. Williams was doing to warrant any intervention by Birk.

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

At the very least, given that Birk obviously felt threatened enough to draw his weapon even before challenging Williams, he could have driven around the corner then either used the bullhorn, which I assume is more or less universal in police vehicles, or had the car as an obstacle between them until the knife was on the ground. As I said earlier, I wouldn't go so far as to call his actions cold blooded murder, but what happened was, at the very least, the end result of a series of extremely poor judgment calls on his part.

[jackknifeh]

At the very least, given that Birk obviously felt threatened enough to draw his weapon even before challenging Williams, he could have driven around the corner then either used the bullhorn, which I assume is more or less universal in police vehicles, or had the car as an obstacle between them until the knife was on the ground. As I said earlier, I wouldn't go so far as to call his actions cold blooded murder, but what happened was, at the very least, the end result of a series of extremely poor judgment calls on his part.

My question for anyone who may know, especially LEOs is this: Is it standard procedure to remove the handgun from it's holster before doing anything else? I have no idea but would think it would be a very good idea in certain situations. Was this one of those situations? Why did he feel threatened by the man walking across the street?

Jack

[psychophipps]

Some LEOs just flip the freak out when they see a knife for some reason. I was taking a written test for a LEO position and took my jacket off to expose my CRKT Bear Claw attached to my belt. The officer got all red in the face like I just kicked his favorite puppy, dressed me down for carrying a "dangerous weapon" (all 2" of it and ignoring all of the much longer-bladed folding knives clipped onto everyone's pockets I had seen around us), that he couldn't trust me because he didn't know me from Adam (despite showing him my LCCP earlier that day), that I was lucky I wasn't getting my test nullified, and so on. I had to turn it in to the recruit watching things at the front of the office until I was done for the day. :rolleyes:

I guess LEOs have applicants attacking them with edged weapons in a regular basis, or something... :confused:

[Dr. Snubnose]

Some LEOs just flip the freak out when they see a knife for some reason. I was taking a written test for a LEO position and took my jacket off to expose my CRKT Bear Claw attached to my belt. The officer got all red in the face like I just kicked his favorite puppy, dressed me down for carrying a "dangerous weapon" (all 2" of it and ignoring all of the much longer-bladed folding knives clipped onto everyone's pockets I had seen around us), that he couldn't trust me because he didn't know me from Adam (despite showing him my LCCP earlier that day), that I was lucky I wasn't getting my test nullified, and so on. I had to turn it in to the recruit watching things at the front of the office until I was done for the day. :rolleyes:

I guess LEOs have applicants attacking them with edged weapons in a regular basis, or something... :confused:

Only when taking tests :p ....LOL....Hey when I was at the Academy being certified as a Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor I got taken to task for wearing an NRA Firearms Instructor Cap (which I was already certified as).....BTW The NRA was in charge of giving the coursework....I was told unless I was Jewish I better remove that cap right away...I can only imagine what would have happened to me if I was wearing a fixed blade....but they didn't have a problem with the fully loaded Sig Sauer P226 holstered at my hip....Go figure.....Silly me...It was Firearms Certification....Not Hat Day....Doc :D

[Pinetreebbs]

Lots of interesting points raised in this thread. I watched the video several times. The most striking thing to me was the officer's body language as he crossed the frame.

My hat is off to any LEO, it is a tough job. It also takes a toll and makes some always suspect of non LEO people. When it borders on paranoia, it's time to make a carrier change, something that departments should be watching.

[ghostrider]

Here's what I don't quite understand.

...

The officer said he stopped Williams because he was carrying an open-bladed knife and a piece of wood while walking across the intersection of Boren Avenue and Howell Street.

...

That this is even considered criminal activity is beyond me, and scary at the same time.

Walking down the street, whittling on a piece of wood warrants a stop from the police?

I've been noticing a growing fear of "weapons" in our society, and as doc illustrated, a serious contempt for anyone who doesn't buy into such demagoguery. You can open carry a pistol in Seattle, but whittling on a piece of wood can get you shot?

Don't mind me, I'm just looking for the Mad Hatter.

[yowzer]

One thing that didn't really get much mention in the news is that Williams had a long history of violence, with many arrests for assaults on care takers and others. Officer Birk had run into the guy before (Every officer who worked that area for more than a few days had probably encountered him), and was presumably aware of this.

It doesn't sound like he was a threat in this case, but he certainly had the potential to appear as one with his history and walking around openly holding a pointy thing (Closed or not).