Knife rights and five seconds to live.

I try to stay out of the knife rights thing. As far as I'm concerned most of the arguments too closely parallel gun rights and there just isn't going to be any useful ground between the pro and anti sides in either case because all the arguments are rooted in absolutes and platitudes. I try to stay out of it but in this case I figure something might come out of it because no matter how doubtful I may be of abstract concerns and rights there is clearly something wrong here and how people see, and fear, knives has a lot to do with it.

The story in a nutshell is that John T. Williams, a native American woodcarver, and well known lush, in full form at the time, was walking across a crosswalk. He had a knife in one hand and a piece of wood he had been carving in his other. Officer Ian Birk sees the knife, gets out of his cruiser, pulls his gun and orders Williams to drop the knife several times, and then shoots Williams four or five times. Elapse time from first order to shooting is approximately five seconds.

Officer Birk then holds his gun on the motionless Williams as other cruisers and police arrive. They take time to form a ten-man 'stack' and then rush Williams who, as far as I can see, hasn't moved and is dead.

After the fact the knife, a folder with a three inch blade, is found closed and is photographed.

Watch the video:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/trigger_happy.php

Include short discussion and crime scene photo of closed knife:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/108548839.html

An account that cover most of the same ground but includes a good photo of the knife presumably opened for display:
http://mother-earth-journal.com/2010/09/01/05-seattle-police-officer-slays-native-woodcarver/

Discuss. I'll come back with my two cents worth. Please keep it civil.

One can only hope that this police officer is charged with 2nd degree murder.

Agreed. Crimes perpetrated by the watchmen are far more serious than those committed by common citizens as they're entrusted with the public good.

The officer's actions were found "unjustified" and was forced to resign but he wasn't charged with anything.
(one of the sources)

-jh

Not a lot to say here. If he wasn't threatening anyone with it lethal force was not justified.

What a Dumb @*s. Im sorry that is the only word to describe a cop who abuses his power and authority, not to mention the privelige of carrying a handgun. Dosen't he realise that crap like this is what gives police officers and sheriffs deputys a bad name?
Adventureboy

What happened just prior to the incident? What was the call that the officer got and what had William done? If nothing then the officer was wrong. However I've been aroung long enough to know that the media doesn't always tell the whole story.

Take Care and Stay Safe.

What prompted the officer to stop Williams -

Was there a call about him?

Was he drunk at the time (well known lush) and was he threatening anyone?

Absent those two circumstances, the cop should hang. (Sister is retired police captain so ya know)

That's a terrible incident.
If the guy was on a crosswalk, and the blade of the knife was not opened, AND he had a piece of wood in the other hand, it's pretty hard to see how the knife poses any immediate danger to anyone. Whatever happened to a warning shot by a peace officer? And why does it require ten deputies to subdue one man who is shot and lying motionless on the ground?

The police have a very difficult job to do. But there needs to be a better balance in their response to incidents like this.

There is a phobia about knives in this country. It's weird - almost some sort of deep primeval fear. Maybe it comes from the ridiculous number of Hollywood horror shows that show people getting carved up.

Anyway - the takeaway is to be careful how you carry a knife in public. And perhaps avoid doing it near civic centers.

Pete #2

For many reasons police never fire warning shots. The biggest one being that you have no idea where the shot fired "into the air" will land.

This happened a while back. As I recall the victim here was near deaf and probably did not hear the call to drop his "weapon". Regardless, the knife itself was legal in Seattle and when recovered at the crime scene, it was closed.

This has less to do with knife laws and more to do with misconduct on the part of this particular now former-LEO. From eye witness accounts and police video, the victim did nothing to initiate the incident.

To the best of my knowledge there is no law enforcement agency that currently trains or permits the use of warning shots. As with everyone who carries guns, the police are responsible for every bullet that they shoot.

Using a taser, on the other hand, might well have been justifiable.

Warning shots are basically a legend, much as shoot to wound.

You fire when you have a clear site picture, and you aim center mass so as to ensure a hit.

Hollywood is the only place you fire a warning shot and then shoot a gun out of someone's hand.

>Crimes perpetrated by the watchmen are far more serious than those >committed by common citizens as they're entrusted with the public >good.

So you don't think people should be treated equally before the law?
Policemen know they are the one minority it's considered enlightened to be in favour of persecuting.
I'm still waiting for a 'civil liberties' organisation to defend a cops right to silence. They only want civil liberties for people they like.
qjs

Actually, many professionals in many fields are legally held to a higher standard based upon the idea they have received education and training above and beyond that of the average citizen.

Pete

>Actually, many professionals in many fields are legally held to a >higher standard based upon the idea they have received education >and training above and beyond that of the average citizen.

That is fair. If the training is relevant. If say I've had many hours of safe handling training, but still wave my gun around like an idiot. I should be punished more than someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

But the idea that just because I'm a cop, I should be automatically punished more for any crime and have nil legal rights isn't.
qjs

Yet you probably will be. You can't have it both ways; assaulting an officer is generally held as a more serious crime than assaulting a fellow citizen based on the theory that you're attacking the whole of society. And one entrusted with representing society is often held to a higher standard.

Specialized training can also lead one to being held to a different legal standard. For instance, a professional boxer who kills someone in a bar fight will likely be judged differently than an untrained person because of his specialized skills. It's just the way the law works.

It should go without saying that we're basing these comments only on the facts as they have been presented; there may be important bits of the puzzle that we've not been shown. This is a discussion on an internet forum, not a trial in a court of law. However, it doesn't look like there'll be a trial. That's tragic since at first face is looks like an unjustifiable homicide.

Cops commit crimes everyday, they are just like any other part of society and in this case one of Seattle's finest committed murder.

Here lies the problem of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes

This cop hasn't been charged with murder and justice has not yet been served. Failure to do so will just eventually lead to further violence within Seattle as public resentment will grow.

There has been plenty of information regarding the previous background of the victim and virtually none regarding this cop.

There will be plenty of folks doing there hardest to ensure that this cop isn't prosecuted if only to protect there own positions especially if this cop has been previously involved in other acts of unjustifiable violence either whilst serving in the Seattle police force or in a previous career.

From http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-02-23/news/ian-birk-why-he-wasn-t-charged-and-what-happens-next/
"(...)Last week, although SPD's own Firearms Review Commission deemed the shooting "unjustified" and Birk resigned, there was still anger (although not enough to provoke a riot; see above) directed at King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg for not charging Birk. But that decision was inevitable, as Washington law protects officers like Birk from prosecution over the use of deadly force in all but the most egregious cases.

That specific state law (RCW 9A.16.040) lists 10 different ways in which a peace officer can legally kill someone—including one that says an officer can do so if he or she has "probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others."

(...)

But to take this point further, the law also says that "a public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section." In other words, Satterberg would have had to prove that Birk didn't actually believe Williams posed a threat and that he shot him with the direct intention of committing a crime.

Proving what anyone believes is a nearly impossible legal task. Thus, it's the law itself, more than anything else, that kept Birk from being held criminally liable for Williams' death."

-jh

Hmmm ... thread not locked ... good sign.



I think you nailed a big part of the story there Pete.

Some of this might come down to rote learning of police academy classes where an instructor might repeatedly drill the students that you tell a knife holder to drop the knife three times and 'then you shoot them'. Police Academy 101 taken too literally. Fact, under stress people revert to lower levels of understanding and loose the nuances in their training. Was Birk under inordinate stress?

The other thing that pops up related to police training is the nuget of conventional wisdom that 'A man with a knife can kill you faster than you can use a gun'. This is sometimes stated as 'within 25' a knife is faster than a gun'.

Like most such bromides there is a grain of truth. In a situation where the knife man can use concealment a highly trained or talented person with a knife, a cross between a ninja and 'Mack the knife', can cover ground so fast, and inflict so much damage, that they might, conceivably, get the drop on an inattentive person carrying a gun and kill them before they can shoot.

Thing is that Williams, half drunk or better, doesn't strike me as being ninja material. A street corner in broad daylight limits opportunity for sneaking up on a person unaware. Birk seemed much more aware, alert, and prepared than Williams.

The one thing that sticks out in this is just how frightened the police seem to be. The initial shooting seems to be a combination of reversion to simpler levels of understanding, rote learning, and fear. But after that it is all fear. IMHO irrational fear. Holding gun/s on prostrate victims when they are pretty clearly no longer a credible threat. it is likely policy. But what were they thinking? Maybe he had a bomb vest? That the knife was a super weapon? That he might pop up and slash them all to pieces?

Waiting until you have ten officers present and forming a tactical stack seems to point toward irrational fear and deep need for reassurance and support. That it was the police feeling small and weak when confronted with a half-drunk guy with a knife using a cross walk. He even crossed with the light. Clearly a well mannered and traffic aware slasher ... the best kind.

One thing is clear; people who carry knives need to be aware that much of the public, and some police, see a knife, no matter how small and innocently carried as an immediate deadly threat. As people move toward electronics and away from hands-on use of tools this inordinate fear is only likely to grow.

In training, this is actually known as the Tueller Drill. Interestingly though, it doesn't assume the person is concealing the knife, is a 'Ninja', or is getting the drop on an unaware person. Quite the contrary, when the drill was first developed, it was tested using both recruits from the Salt Lake City PD and people attending Gunsite training courses (which were comprised of civilians, LEO, and Military of varying levels of experience, age, and physical fitness).

They would typically start with the 'knife' in hand and try to tag the person before he/she could draw and shoot his dart gun with relative accuracy, more or less being a test of reaction time. It was found that most people could reliably cover a 7yd distance in about 1.5 seconds. This is where the whole "21 foot rule" came into play. Though, Tueller never called it that, as he felt calling it a rule implied it was always true....whereas, in actually, there is a bit more variability. Some officers can draw faster or slower, some assailants can cover 7 yards faster or slower.

Either way, it became generally accepted that a potential attacker "under 21 feet" was considered to be in the person's danger zone. As they were able to grab/touch the officer before most could shoot. At the time, this was exacerbated by the fact that most officers were trained not to draw their weapon unless absolutely necessary and not to move once they drew their weapon, as it was thought to be unsafe to walk with gun in hand. Nowadays, better training will focus on properly and safely moving both backwards and forwards, as necessary, with a firearm in hand. (Of course, that doesn't guarantee anything in the way a person will react.)

One of the other results it had, with regard to training, was a fundamental shift in thoughts on "when" to draw a firearm. It's why you now often see officers drawing their gun from their holster long before an apparent escalation of force. Tueller found that already having one's firearm in hand significantly reduced reaction time.

All in all, it's a pretty interesting thing to read up on. Dennis Tueller is still training officers and is well regarded in the field. He'll often speak at a variety of conventions and such, which are quite interesting to listen to.

I've been reading and contributing to this thread but without watching the video. Finally got round to it.
Is this a joke?
The entire confrontation between the cop and Williams happens off camera!
How can anyone say what happened based on this?
Like with Bin Laden; it sounds when you don't know much about it like an execution. An unarmed man or man with a folded knife; gets shot by an armed man.
But if you have a knife or are known to use guns and suicide bombs the fact is; if an armed man confronts you, anything other than keeping your hands in view without a weapon, is going to get you shot. People simply don't have fast enough reactions to wait till they can positively identify what is in the hand.
If Williams had the knife in his hand and kept coming at the officer, the officer would have no option but to shoot.
And how can you say the cops knew he was no threat once he was down? They didn't know the extent of his injuries. He might have popped up and rushed at them.
As for the idea that someone has to be super trained to stab someone? You have someone stood in front of you and you have a knife. Tell me; what are the chances of you missing? But it's very easy to miss with a gun.
Also bullets don't inflict injuries as massive as a knife can. Your gun means you may have to hit him several times to get him to stop. Anyone, with no training, can kill you with one swipe of a knife.
qjs

I think some of the articles mentioned eyewitnesses, plus the police spokesperson mentioned looking at footage from other nearby cameras. Plus forensics and all that.

Several articles pointed out that Williams was shot to the side, so (if correct) unless he was advancing in a fencing pose, he wasn't really posing an immediate threat to the cop, or at least not advancing towards him. Plus the blade was found closed.



Anything's possible, sure, but if someone is lying motionless after 4 firearm rounds in his torso, I doubt he'd suddenly "pop up and rush at them".



I respectfully disagree. Sure you probably could surprise someone and inflict massive injuries with a single cut or stab of a knife, but against someone who is 10 feet away, looking at you and being prepared for every move and has at least some training in martial arts and self defence, not so easy. Plus, having seen real photos of what a single bullet (even a small caliber one) can do to a human body, you'd have to be wielding a chainsaw claymore to do that kind of damage.

-jh

Drawing and aiming a loaded weapon is a stress factor in itself. The this is for REAL factor.

Heck, even at the range using actual live ammo can be stressful. I haven't ever pointed a weapon on a human, but I remember vividly reverting to the lowest level of training the first time in the Army I did the quick draw (point-shoot) drills on close range with live ammo. There was very little room for fine grained mental processing...

Although the dangerous knife man existed nowhere else but in the officer(s) mind, the stresses of confrontation were very much real. Which means there is little or no ability to process an alternative interpretation of events.

If I ever find myself in a situation where I am not able to thing beyond: This man is close enough to slash my guts, and he's GOING TO DO IT then I'd probably shoot him, too. One thing I fear if I ever find myself in a violent confrontation is that I shall loose the ability to "think out of the box" and find alternate solutions.


But I leave it to better and more well informed heads than me to discuss the causes leading up to this incident, how it could and should have been prevented and the correct reaction for the officer.

>I think some of the articles mentioned eyewitnesses, plus the >police spokesperson mentioned looking at footage from other nearby >cameras. Plus forensics and all that.

Witnesses make mistakes; which is why no one asks just one witness. Because they usually all say something different. Please produce this footage and the 'forensics and all that' evidence you say exists.

>Several articles pointed out that Williams was shot to the side, >so (if correct) unless he was advancing in a fencing pose, he >wasn't really posing an immediate threat to the cop, or at least >not advancing towards him. Plus the blade was found closed.

As you say (thanks for being fair) this is what just what articles say happened. And the fact is; when you decide to shoot you are basing the decision on what he was doing slightly before you pulled the trigger. If he turns away as you are shooting, he's going to get shot in the side or even back. And the cop is supposed to take the time to be sure the knife is open?

>lying motionless after 4 firearm rounds in his torso

The cop had no way of knowing he hit the torso with all 4 shots.

>Sure you probably could surprise someone and inflict massive injuries with a single cut or stab of a knife, but against someone who is 10 feet away...not so easy. Plus, having seen real photos of what a single bullet (even a small caliber one) can do to a human body, you'd have to be wielding a chainsaw claymore to do that kind of damage.

As has already been mentioned. Most people cant' react fast enough to shoot someone who starts running at them from 21 foot away.
This very incident disproves knives can injure more than bullets. Williams was shot 4 times. Does he look like he's been gutted? Now just think of what a knife stabbed into you then pulled sidewards can do. Human bodies are very easy to cut (you can do it with paper).

Mostly harmless wrote:
> Although the dangerous knife man existed nowhere else but in the officer(s) mind, the stresses of confrontation were very much real. Which means there is little or no ability to process an alternative interpretation of events.

This is the nub of any shooting. It is incredibly stressful, and you have a fraction of a second to make a decision that may get you killed or in prison. Then the pundits spend weeks debating.
Maybe this cop did go out and decided "I'm shooting the first person who looks at me funny". I'm not defending him. I don't know what happened. I'm just saying there isn't the evidence here to condemn him. And the arguments about 'he only had a folded knife' is incorrect.
qjs

A knife is a more general-purpose tool than a gun. I'd have more sympathy with the officer in this case if it had been a drunk man waving a gun around.

Mistakes happen. If guns are involved, mistakes are more likely to have fatal outcomes.

The various replies so far show that the situation can be complex.

I have actually run through the simulation many times personally ... knife against gun. The knife is a very effective weapon at short ranges (say less than 20 feet) and could be lethal against someone with a gun if they are not prepared. However, if the person holding the gun has their weapon already drawn and trained on the attacker with the knife- they should have very good confidence of subduing that attacker provided they keep a cool mind and can shoot accurately. The time factor is very small, so there's no room for error. But it could certainly be done if the gun owner is well prepared.

In the case of the original story - we just don't have enough info to evaluate exactly what happened. But the police officer has some good tactics that he could use. For example - take a position behind any parked vehicle, or behind a telephone pole, or even the seat at a bus stop. Any physical barrier. Then he could train his gun on the suspect and order him to drop the knife. The presence of a physical barrier would make it much, much harder for a suspect with a knife to do harm to the officer.

In reference to the comments about warning shots. I will speak my own mind - but it differs substantially from accepted procedures. I believe there is a definite place for "warning shots" or "warning blows" as a tactic, and that includes any lethal weapon (gun, knife, stick etc.). Anyone who is skilled with a weapon should be able to use it with sufficient accuracy that it can be used to deliver non-lethal force. That may seem like a high standard, but high standards are necessary if you want to save human life. Ask yourself a simple question ... suppose you are a criminal suspect standing 20 feet from a police officer. You have been ordered to comply with a police request. But you are hesitating. Now imagine that officer fires one bullet into the ground, just 12-24 inches from your left or right foot. Accurate shooting. Do you honestly think you are still going to ignore the commands that are given to you?? Not if you are even slightly sane. The warning shot gives the officer the opportunity to demonstrate his command over the situation. I think it's highly regrettable that this type of policy has been dropped as an option in US law enforcement. We are rabidly killing each other for no reason. It's not always necessary.

Pete #2

Keystone cops with assault rifles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY82seEBw5w

Then there is the real Pima County Sheriff's Department SWAT team;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnYV4nrNdjA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnYV4nrNdjA

How do you react when your asleep and subject to a home invasion and need to protect your DW and DD? The cop who aimlessly points and rapidly fires his pistol into the door way next to the other cops ear drum (makes him fall down) was classic Keystone cop.

I respectfully disagree. The bullet has to go somewhere. If it ricochets and hurts someone, the shooter is responsible.

The cop was 9 feet away from the victim when the cop shot him in the back and the side. The bullet holes he made would have been very visible esp with all the blood being ejected from the holes in the victims torso.



If you listen carefully, in the video a witness challenges the cop and said 'what happened, he wasn't doing anything', the cop replies 'he had a knife and wouldn't drop it.'

The cop shot him down firing 5 shots, also the cop already had his pistol drawn even before making the challenge on someone who was not committing a crime.



The police were probably frightened because it was probably quite clear on initial inspection when they arrived that one of there own had just committed a murder. The rest was street theatre for the onlooking public.

Why fire five shots? This poor fellow would have been floored by the first. Basically the more you analyse this murder the more you come to the conclusion that murder in the 1st degree is a more appropraite charge for this Seattle police officer.

For anyone subscribing to the 'he only had a knife; so was no threat' school. Anyone know a bullet that can chop slices like that off someone?
Note there is barely any effort displayed. For the stab he's just extending his arm.
And note a threat vest and even chain mail are no protection.
qjs

http://www.coldsteel.com/spfko.html

No one is denying that a knife has substantial potential for damage. But for the context of this thread, let me just bring attention to the fact that even the venerable Cold Steel Spartan can do very little damage in the "closed" position.

Don't have it. Never seen it. My point when mentioning it wasn't to claim that his quilt and murderous intent would've been obvious from them, but to answer your question of how can anyone say what happened based on (just) the video from the vehicle. I would assume the board who reviewed the officers actions had some other evidence as well when they deemed his actions "unjustified".

And I'd also like to make clear that while from what little I do know I agree with the board's verdict, I don't call for blood or lynch mobs. My guess is the cop made a tragic mistake and overreacted to something he thought he saw. I think everybody misreads people all the time, this time seeing threat that (probably) wasn't there.

And I agree that all eyewitnesses make mistakes. Including the officer in question.

-jh

If he'd let williams walk up to him and then open the knife, it would be too late to stop him.

I notice that the inquest jury, unlike us, who have had a chance to see all the evidence; : were split on whether the cop was justified or not:

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=13963

and that the police didn't have enough evidence to pursue criminal charges.

Sadly one can't 'assume' the review board had other evidence. Police forces throw their officers to the wolves if it's politically inconvenient.
qjs

Not sure what's your stake in this, but you keep quoting the 21 ft rule and how that if the guy rush the cop etc etc...

Yet you keep ignoring the fact that the knife was closed, and the guy had his back to the cop up till the point he was shot.

I sure hope you are not/will never be in a position of authority, consider you can justify shooting someone in the back who is walking away and unaware of you and killing him, just because he has a closed knife in possession.

It's no wonder why many people hate cops. It's a survival mechanism.

Evidently from the video, the disease of scared bully is systemic in that police department. The ten-man stack looked like a bunch of fumbling cowards with guns, a little book knowledge, and no real life experience...shameful and scary.

I've got to give this a BIG +1. The reasoning in QJS's post would permit the police to shoot everyone on the planet in possession of a knife or (heaven forbid) a gun. If the police were smart they would even be shooting each other. If officer B draws his pistol it would be too late for officer A to do anything about it. I'm sorry, the "reasoning" is just absurd.

If is a very big word.

>I sure hope you are not/will never be in a position of authority, >consider you can justify shooting someone in the back who is >walking away and unaware of you and killing him

Actually I was in the London police for 5 years, was rated 'Exemplary' on leaving and never had a complaint against me sustained.
I think that I dealt in facts helped.

Please produce the evidence Williams was shot in the back. None of the reports say this.

>The ten-man stack looked like a bunch of fumbling cowards with guns.

No they looked like people following their training, as they are supposed to. It's easy to say 'he was dead why approach him carefully?' But they didn't know that. Unlike in Hollywood, people simply fall down when shot. You've seen the news; where are the plumes of blood and bodies jerking in spasm when hit with bullets?

>If officer B draws his pistol it would be too late for officer A to do anything about it. I'm sorry, the "reasoning" is just absurd.

What has that got do with a man with a knife approaching an officer on the street and refusing to stop? Is inventing views I don't hold the best you can do?
qjs

The problem with police work is that the officer has to make split second decisions, potentially life or death, in what can be an extremely tense situation. These actions can then be reviewed endlessly by critics at leisure who are under nowhere near the same pressures and influences. Kind of like instant replay in sports.......

Most of the time the officer makes a good decision. This was not one of those times.

QJS -- What made you think the victim approached Birk? The victim didn't approach the officer, former officer Birk initiated contact after he saw the victim cross the street. Birk was never threatened; no one was threatened.

There's a reason "SPD's own Firearms Review Commission deemed the shooting "unjustified"". The knife as well as being closed when found at the scene, was of legal length in Seattle. The only thing the hearing impaired victim did wrong was not responding to Birk's verbal commands.

You are possibly right about him approaching the officer. I thought the cop said 'he kept coming' but now listening to the video, I'm not too sure that is what he's saying. But he did feel threatened and the jury 9who unlike us had access to all the evidence) thought the evidence inconclusive.
That close; a sudden turn might look like the start of an attack. As I said before; maybe the officer did shoot when he shouldn't have. I But we don't have the proof he did. Aren't people innocent till proven guilty? Though the web is awash with people calling this murder based on a video that shows nothing of the confrontation.
qjs


from wikipedia:
>In August, 2010 homeless First Nations woodcarver John T. Williams was shot and killed by SPD officer Ian Birk. Birk testified that he saw Williams stabbing at a piece of wood with knife as he walked down the street. After stopping and getting out of his patrol car Birk repeatedly told Williams to drop his knife. Williams was, in turn, shot when as turned toward the police officer. Birk would testify that Williams' knife was open and he appeared intent on attacking him. Subsequent grandjury findings on the level of threat posed by Williams were inconclusive but an internal review of the shooting by the SPD's Firearms Review Commission found the shooting "unjustified" and cited Birk's tactical mishandling of the confrontation as being responsible for Williams' death.[6] In the aftermath of the shooting Williams' lengthy criminal record and threats against police officer's lives were published.[7] Birk also resigned from the Department, though prosecutor Dan Satterberg declined to file charges prompting a protest by Williams' family and supporters.

>In the aftermath of the shooting Williams' lengthy criminal record and threats against police officer's lives were published.

Maybe I was closer to the truth when I compared it to Osama. If you are a known violent criminal, who has threatened police officers lives and with a knife in your hand you repeatedly refuse to drop it then make a sudden move....
If that had been Mother Theresa there'd be no dead body on the street.
qjs

The cops surely are chatting it up nicely before they form a stack to approach this guy who is supposed to be so dangerous. One of the closest cops is fully NOT paying attention to the "potentially" dangerous man on the ground while he's chatting with his partners. I wonder if that's standard police procedure too. This does look like those cops selected this opportunity to carry out some training. These cops can't think outside the book.

If a cop is allowed to issue the death penalty without a judge and a jury, then the cop needs a much better reason then the evidence shown here. A normal death penalty case goes on for years and goes through many appeals, and we know the criminal is scum. This victim wasn't awarded the opportunity of an appeal. This victim got an instant death penalty because he didn't turn around fast enough for a cop who was the initiator. This cop got away with murder, plain and simple.

Williams criminal record probably says a lot about him being a habitual inebriate -- not really rationale for deadly force, however . . . the article: SPD Officer Ian Birk Escapes Charges spells out quite clearly why Birk wasn't prosecuted. I'm sure that WA State LE don't want that loophole too closely scrutinized.

A decent write up of the autopsy result:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013082467_shooting06m.html


PDF of autopsy results. Note order of shot listing is unrelated to sequence of shots:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2010/10/05/2013082602.pdf

All shots seem consistent with Williams' face, the shot in chin entered side and exited the other side, and body, shot entered right side of chest and exited left side under arm, being turned sideways to Birk.

Shots were fired from 9 or 10 feet away.

What a difference!

http://www.theprovince.com/mobile/news/t...3782/story.html

What a difference!

http://www.theprovince.com/mobile/news/t...3782/story.html

What a difference!

http://www.theprovince.com/mobile/news/t...3782/story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/07/florida.shooting.witness/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Looks like the cops are getting a little smarter with regard to the suppressing of some evidential video, which might not tally with their account during their street operations.

Edit.

Changed for political correctness.

I may get flamed for this, however I firmly believe that this fine forum is not the appropriate venue for such debates on so called "street executions." Doug Ritter has a very good reputation in regards to promoting safety, survival and knife rights. It is my opinion, inflammatory posts like the above only serve to undermine his efforts now and in the future.

Yep, your right... Just saw the video a got a little verbose. So have now edited the offending word.