The murder of John T Williams by Seattle PD (dash cam vid)

[KudZu LoTek]

That's what caught my attention and made me go back to rewatch the clip - the way he was holding it was not a natural carry in any sense unless he was trying to conceal it from the camera. Also, the way he spit out "put the knife down" was suspicious, there was no pause at all to give Williams a chance to comply. Not to be flippant, but it reminded me of the South Park hunting episode - "It's coming right at us" being a magic phrase that allowed the hunters to fire at will. Just guessing here, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was mandated in Seattle police regulations that an officer must order a suspect to stand down a minimum of three times before using their weapon. Birk utters the special words (conveniently off camera, but loud enough for the audio to be heard) the prescribed number of times and he's free to cut loose. For people not familiar with Seattle, the area this happened in is just off off downtown with lots of offices, businesses, pedestrians, and auto traffic during the daytime. Any cop firing their gun there should be doing so with extreme restraint, not wildly shooting off rounds like Birk was. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[Nordic]

Maybe Williams was a witness to something that they didn't want him to talk about.

Or maybe I've seen too many movies.

But it sure looks like they hit him on purpose. Either that or the cop is completely insane. There's really not a lot of middle ground here.

[82_28]

The Stranger's SLOG is doing a fantastic job these last few days of covering Birk's inquest -- the best in all the local media. After reading excerpts of today's testimony I am having a hard time imagining Birk not being fucked. Links to the previous few days of testimony, opening arguments etc can be found at link.

Day Three: Birk Defied Training, Never Warned Williams He Would Shoot

Today attorney Tim Ford, representing the family of deceased man John T. Williams, spent the morning pointing out failed training and inconsistencies in the testimony of Officer Ian Birk, a two-year veteran of the police force who ultimately shot and killed Williams in a fast and violent altercation last summer.

Ford: Seattle Police are trained to give a warning before they fire, correct?
Birk: That is part of our training, correct.
Ford: Did you ever say [to Mr. Williams], "put the knife down or I’ll shoot?"
Birk: There was a lot going on. I did the best I could under the circumstances.
Ford: You could’ve said, "or I’ll shoot."
Birk: I said everything I could’ve said under the circumstances.
Ford: You could say [put the knife down] three times but you couldn’t add "or I’ll shoot?"
Birk: The concern was basically immediate and I needed to respond as fast as possible... There was no intent on my part to kill Mr. Williams. My intent was to stop the threat. We don’t decide who lives or dies. It’s a terrible thing.

Like the two previous days of the public inquest into Williams' death (more on that here, here, here, here, and here), the courtroom was packed with off-duty officers, family of both Birk and Williams, Native Americans, and a few anti-police protesters, wearing 'stop police brutality' pins or red tears drawn on their cheeks.

Many of these people were shuffled to an overflow room, located one floor above, to watch Ford interrogate Birk. Among the inconsistencies that Ford highlighted in Birk's version of events: that before yesterday, Birk never stated that Williams turned his head, saw Birk as he was yelling "Hey!", and then continued to walk away, prompting Birk to pursue him; that Birk kept walking towards Williams as he turned (belying the notion that Birk considered him to be a real threat); that officer Birk fired at Williams without giving him any sort of verbal warning; and that—despite stating that Williams was brandishing a blade at him, two closed knives were found with Williams' body. The entire encounter between Birk and Williams took place in 10 seconds (video here).

Ford: Did [Williams] have time to close the knife after you shot him?
Birk: I have no idea... It was difficult if not impossible to focus on Mr. Williams and the knife and my gun at once.
Ford: You pointed the knife out to other officers arriving at the scene…. Are you now suggesting that Mr. Williams had another knife in his hand and put it in his pocket after you shot him for Mr. Mudd [the lead homicide investigator] to find later?
Birk: I would make no such suggestion. My understanding is that a fire medic found an open knife immediately adjacent to Mr. Williams body.
Ford: When you saw it did you think, "My god the knife was closed?"
Birk: Nothing that specific... It did surprise me, having just seen officer Williams with the knife in his hand.

Jumping ahead...

Ford: You kept walking [towards Williams] as you said, "put the knife down" how many times?
Birk: My recollection is that I stopped moving as soon as I could perceive that he was still holding the knife.
Ford: You shot after the third order. Did Mr. Williams have time to comply between the second and third order?
Birk: Mr. Williams had ample opportunity to do a number of things preventing this situation from becoming what it ultimately became.
Ford: You didn’t ever say stop, did you?
Birk: I don’t believe I ever did, no.
Ford: You’re trained to ask a man with a knife to come towards you?
Birk: Of course, if he would’ve complied with that command, it would’ve been a sign that he was compliant with what was going on.
Ford: It’s a terrible thought to think that you killed that man if he was trying to comply with your orders and close that knife, isn’t it?
Birk: Well sir, I think it’s been made very clear that the whole circumstances are troubling for everyone involved.

Officer Birk testified that Williams exhibited pre-attack postures (meaning an attack is imminent) in the seconds leading up to the shooting—namely, that as Williams, a man Birk estimated to be around 5'7" inches and a slight to medium build—turned towards Birk, his "brow was furrowed, his eyes fixed in a 1,000-yard stare, his jaw was set. He had the knife raised up... his weight dropped and he lowered his center of gravity," as testified Birk yesterday. Today Ford had him demonstrate—repeatedly—what a set jaw, furrowed brow, and 1,000-yard stare look like, causing bitter laughter to erupt in the overflow room. Birk looked ridiculous. "If only looks could kill," muttered one spectator.

Ford: [While in your patrol car] Were you noticing he was Native American?
Birk: I wouldn't have been surprised that he was Asian or Pacific Islander... He didn’t appear to be Caucasian if that’s what you’re driving at, sir.

Throughout his questioning, Ford has subtly played the angle that Birk targeted Williams because he was a minority. He has Birk read from his official statement of the incident, which was taken on August 30, 2010 10:00 p.m.—roughly six hours after the shooting. In the first paragraph, Birk reads that he noticed Williams because the area is full of trespassers, strangers, and narcotic users. Then Birk notes that the "individual appeared to be a Native American male."

Birk: What’s important of course isn’t what his ethnicity is, it’s his behavior which I tried to outline.

Ford plays the in-car video of the event again and again for the courtroom. He highlights a woman saying, right before the two-minute mark, "why did you shoot that man? He didn't do anything!" to which Birk responds, "Ma'am, he had a knife and he wouldn't drop it."

Ford: Not “he threatened me with a knife.” You didn’t say, “He wasn’t about to attack me with a knife."
Birk: Being addressed by a citizen… it was not the time to go into detail about what happened.
Ford: You didn’t say, when talking to another officer [also heard in the video], “he tried to attack me.”
Birk: We’re trying to move through the process as quickly as possible. When speaking with another police officer, it's not the time to go through the specifics of what happened. [Saying he wouldn't drop the knife] gives them enough of an idea of what’s going on. The time and circumstances wouldn’t have been appropriate to go into details.
Ford: [When Det. Mudd arrives, who's investigating the homicide] You never told him, “I thought he was going to attack me,” you said nothing about pre-attack indicators.
Birk: I believe it was clear to Det. Mudd that was clear.
Ford: But he was trying to investigate the facts of the case, wasn’t he? ...Your statement also says Williams shows complete disregard for your presence while crossing the street. Did you expect a Native American to react in some way to the presence of a police officer?
Birk: No, I was just merely trying to point out that he seemed very preoccupied with what he was doing and unaware with his surroundings.
Ford: The other people crossing in front of your patrol car, did they show a complete disregard for your presence?
Birk: I suppose they did but not in the same sense that Mr. Williams was doing so.
Ford: All of that—continuing [to walk], the jaw setting, the stern expression all happened between the first and second “put the knife down.”

Ford has Birk read from his statement: "The individual continued to stare right at me as I loudly ordered him to drop the knife a second time."

Ford: If someone asks you to put your gun down, would you drop it?
Birk: Depending on the circumstances.
Ford: You didn’t say [to Williams], as in your statement, to drop the knife.
Birk: I recalled the events to the best of my ability.
Ford: All of that, all of those events—fist clenching, attack preparation, tightly clenched knife, thousand yard stare, formulating a plan—all occurred between the second and third “put the knife down.”
Birk: All of these things were happening at once. Yes, all of those things can happen very quickly.
Ford: In the two seconds between the time you said, "put the knife down" and you shot he became a lethal threat to you?
Birk: Yes sir. A threat can go from non lethal to lethal certainly in a few seconds.

Jumping ahead...

Ford: You testified that Mr. Williams was staring right at you [when you fired]?
Birk: That’s what I recollect, yes sir.
Ford: Do you know why, then, the bullet passed through the right cheek and out his left cheek?

Buck objects to the question. It's sustained; Birk doesn't have to answer.

Ford's questioning was right on target. It strains the bounds of logic to think that a man crossing the street, a man who was perceived by a police officer to be in an altered state—either drunk, on drugs, or mentally impaired—who was oblivious to the officer because he was preoccupied, would swing around, see that officer, and instantly assume an attack position—all in under 10 seconds. I just don't buy it.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archiv ... ould-shoot

I don't see how anyone anywhere can deny that Tim Ford is filleting Ian Birk before the jury, city and state. However there are the obvious racist douchebags who populate such online discussions, as always. I don't think anything is going to save Birk other than a lenient conservative judge or a threatened, spineless liberal one at this point.

[Perelandra]

Tangential, yet important.

The Seattle Police Officers' Guild, the employees union representing approximately 1,350 sworn officers, publishes a newspaper each month called the Guardian. Written by and for cops, it's not online, not for sale, and not in newspaper boxes. Most Seattle residents have never seen a copy. But if they had been reading the Guardian over the past year, while the city grappled with several high-profile incidents involving officers using force against racial minorities, they would've gained insight into the views of some police officers.

Take, for instance, last month's issue featuring an editorial by Officer Steve Pomper, who's angry about the five-year-old program to train all city employees on racial disparities and profiling issues.
"The city, using its Race and Social Justice Initiative, continues its assault on traditional and constitutional American values such as self-reliance, equal justice, and individual liberty," Pomper begins. "But more to our concern, the city is inflicting its socialist policies directly on the Seattle Police Department."

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-some-seattle-cops-think-the-problem-is/Content?oid=6266406

[Twyla LaSarc]

Just following this one, but thank you 82 for shaking this thing like a terrier. I don't know him or his family, but I do know Indian artisans in the area. The loss of someone with that skill is devastating.

But if they can make you scared of boxcutters, lord knows a three inch knife is 'threatening'.

[Iamwhomiam]

Mr. Williams was partially deaf, an alcoholic and suffered from mental illness. He was also well know to area police personnel.

Less than 5 seconds from the time he gave the command until he shot and killed Mr. Williams.

When the taxpayers finally get tired of paying for the damages won in lawsuits brought by families who've suffered the loss of a loved one by Seattle's Killer Cops, maybe then we'll see these unfit officers removed and the good ones better trained.

More coverage:

Seattle officer: I had no 'reasonable alternative' but to shoot woodcarver

Detective: No witnesses said police shooting victim a threat

Audio of Birk's testimony.

Very sad and all unnecessary.

Next Killer cop to be investigated:

Inquest ordered in fatal Seattle police shooting

[Joe Hillshoist]

Everything people are saying about Tuscon actually applies to this killing btw.

In case no one noticed.

[Joe Hillshoist]

So yes pere its tangential but fucken hell its about as imortant as important can be.

cos it actually shows the link that people are trying to show between Palin et al and Tuscon.

How the Beckist rhetoric of socialist propaganda, as written in the cop rag, contributed to the increasingly insane violence the seattle PD has been engaging in. Culminating in this blatant bullshit.

Now perhaps if you combine that with the insane dribblings of psychotic scumbags who advocate "second amendment solutions."

[Joe Hillshoist]

then you'll press submit by accident and trash a whole post. Anyway i'm sure you all get it.

Pere I've said it before and I'll say it again:




U2_82

[Perelandra]

Cheers, Joe.

Comment from the Stranger article:

Isn't the very notion of a government-subsidized police force socialist in nature? Last I checked, my money is being taken from me to pay for law enforcement, without my explicit consent or right to abstain. One could argue that the average citizen could do a better job of protecting themselves through the purchase of personal firearms rather than pay for communal police protection.

Let's let the free market decide!

Methinks some of these officers not only need an education in racial sensitivities, but basic civics, rhetoric, and introductory logic.

I don't know what it would take to have effective civilian oversight of the SPD, but that's what's needed.

[stickdog99]

I remember a tiny newspaper story in the local North Carolina rag from 1985. A man who had escaped for a mental hospital was in the middle of a busy street outside the hospital "brandishing a 2 by 4." Two university cops were called. They ordered the guy to drop the 2 by 4, then proceeded to shoot him 7 times.

No video recorded it, so nothing happened. There was never another mention of the event that I ever noticed.

It seems to me that stuff like this happens every day. If no video is released and the dead person has no media advocates, nothing is made of these murders as they are business as usual.

[Joe Hillshoist]

It happens so often stickdog.

Same thing in Melb. Cops pick up a homeless guy (young 17 yrs old) disappears, body found later... Thats one I know about but only about 2 or 3 other people do too. It happened back in the late 80s early 90s.

I doubt thats the only time that ever happened. If we knew and no one else did how many other times has it happened?



I do emergency services work, as a volunteer. I've come across in those circumstances and its like they are from another planet compared to coming across them on the street tho. Thats actually made me reconsider me blatent anti cop bias. I've seen them do great things that made me proud to be human.

Years ago a friend taught me a mantra:

"Cops are nice, police are people too, Pigs are nice, cops are people to. Police are nice, pigs are people too."

I didn't have a drivers licenmce for 15 years. It expired and I couldn't be bothered renewing it. (Well I did try, but 5 years of fucking around with interstate bureaucracy to get it transferred interstate so I thought stuff 'em.) Anyway whenever a cop car would pull in behind me I'd chant the mantra, and they would go away. I think it kept me out of prison.

Might have kept me alive in the US.

BTW That was cold blooded murder and Seattle people ... if the media starts acting like everything is good cos this guy goes down (as he should the murdering bastard).

Don't let them get away with it.

"This is just the beginning, we want a clean force." Might be a good rallying cry.

[Joe Hillshoist]

This probably happens far more than any of us realize.

That turns out to be quite an understatement. I did a quick search to look up some details from the David John Walker case back in 2000 and so many other similarly disgusting cases were listed I had to stop. The nausea has receded a bit but I'm still kinda numb from the shock. Seattle PD has a rich history of disappearing undesirables.

But Seattle PD has had numerous black eyes in the past year or so, all involving race and violent attacks caught on camera. Birk could in fact be a fall guy for the entire department and the governance of the City of Seattle. This is not in any way insinuating that I am even close to making light of this obvious murder. What if, however, Mr. Williams was "targeted"? I am not saying Birk, at that moment, knew where he was and was thus hunting Mr. Williams down.

At this point I don't know if I could say that the killing was institutionally sponsored, but institutionally condoned? Certainly. There's no doubt in my mind that Birk's superiors and fellow officers were giving him high fives when he got back to the station, and would be happy to sweep this under the rug if possible. As to the matter of Birk stalking Williams, now that is something that seems entirely too plausible. Perhaps he resented the temerity of some "dirty injun" soiling his clean white streets or standing too close to him at a crosswalk previously. The speed with which he was out of the car, out of camera range, and closing in on Williams speaks of premeditated action.

I just replayed the clip several times, it's hard to tell with the video resolution, but it looks like Birk had his weapon in hand as soon as he exited the car (starts at about 1:01). Seriously, what the fuck is that in his hand? AFAIK that is not SOP for any sort of police encounter like this. If there are any video tech wizards out there that can confirm or disprove that it would be a great help.

82, just to be clear, I am not in any way dismissing your view of the situation. This is just the opinion of another individual who is also saddened and sickened by this horrifying incident. In a perfect world we would both be wrong.

I'm sure I read this here, but can't find it. IT appears that 80 seconds have passed between Birk firing the shots and two other cop cars and a whole bunch of bikes showed up. Despite the fact he hadn't called for backup before he pulled the trigger.

So in theory those cops have 80 seconds to get a report of gunfire, or hear it themselves, identify the location and respond. And the all arrive at once.

WTF???

Apologies if someone already mentioned this, KudZ I thought you already mentioned it actually.

[Joe Hillshoist]

This has got me pissed off, so I did a Jeff.

[82_28]

The inquest was concluded yesterday. It is now in the hands of the DA to decide whether it wants to pursue formal criminal charges against Birk.

This afternoon—after seven days of testimony and eight hours of deliberation—the eight-member jury returned with their answers to 13 questions regarding the causes and circumstances surrounding the death of John T. Williams. The courtroom was silent as presiding Judge Arthur Chapman read the jurors' answers aloud.

Their answers, which were either "yes," "no," or "unknown" show that the jury had significant doubts as to whether or not John T. Williams had an open knife in his hand when Officer John Birk approached him. There was also doubt if Williams was a risk to Officer Birk at the time of the shooting, and if he had time to drop the knife—as Officer Birk ordered—before the officer opened fire. "Apparently, [Birk] thought people would accept his version [of events]," said Tim Ford, the attorney representing the Williams family. "But it didn't turn out that way."

Their answers to these key questions were particularly striking:

6. Did Officer Birk order John T. Williams to put the knife down?
All eight answered yes.

If your answer to question 6 was yes, please answer the following questions:
6a. Did Officer Birk order John T. Williams to put the knife down more than once?
Again, all eight answered yes.

6b. Did John T. Williams have sufficient time to put the knife down after Officer Birk's order?
One answered yes, four answered no, three answered unknown

9.When Officer Birk fired his weapon, did John T. Williams have a knife in his hand?
Eight answered yes.

9a. If yes, was John T. Williams blade open when Officer Birk fired his weapon?
Four answered no, four answered unknown

10. Did Officer Birk believe that John T. Williams posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm to Officer Birk at the time Officer Birk fired his weapon?
Four answered yes, four answered unknown

11. Based on the information available at the time Officer Birk fired his weapon, did John T. Williams then pose an imminent threat of serious physical harm to Officer Birk?
One answered yes, four no, three unknown

The jury unanimously answered "yes" to almost every other question, but these particular answers are significant because they show that Officer Birk failed to convince a majority of the jurors that his version of events was accurate.

Birk was the only (living) eyewitness to the entire encounter between himself and Williams. On top of that, he’s a trained professional. Unlike the other questions, these questions almost force the jury to choose between trusting Birk’s testimony or rejecting it. Because when it comes right down to it, Birk’s testimony is the only evidence we have that Williams blade was open when he turned around. Similarly, Birk’s testimony as a professional police officer is the only proof we have that Williams was an imminent threat. He failed to convince a jury that Williams had an open knife, had ample time to put it down, and posed an imminent threat to himself. He failed to convince them that he was doing his job correctly.

"I'm finally able to get some sleep," said Rick Williams, the elder brother of the deceased Williams. "It's a heavy load I've been carrying."

As I mentioned earlier today, it's now King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg's decision whether or not to press criminal charges against Birk for Williams' death.

Full questions and jury answers after the jump.

1. On August 30, 2010, did Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk observe John T. Williams crossing the street?
Eight YES

2. Was John T. Williams holding an open knife at the time he was first observed by Officer Birk?
Eight YES

3. Did Officer Birk get out of his patrol car to contact Williams?
Eight YES

4. Did Officer Birk gesture to John T. Williams to come back to Officer Birk's location?
Seven YES, one UKNOWN

5. Did John T. Williams have a knife in his hand when Officer Birk contacted him?
Eight YES

6. Did Officer Birk order John T. Williams to put the knife down?
Eight YES

If your answer to question 6 was yes, please answer the following questions:
6a. Did Officer Birk order John T. Williams to put the knife down more than once?
Eight YES

6b. Did John T. Williams have sufficient time to put the knife down after Officer Birk's order?
One YES, four NO, three UNKNOWN

6c. Did John T. Williams try to put the knife down after Officer Birk's order?
Eight UNKNOWN

6d. Did John T. Williams put the knife down before Officer Birk began to fire his weapon?
Eight NO

7. Was the front of John T. Williams' upper body partially turned towards Officer Birk when Officer Birk began to fire his weapon?
Two YES, five NO, one UNKNOWN

7a. If no, was John T. Williams turning towards Officer Birk when Officer Birk fired his weapon?
Five YES

8. Did Officer Birk fire his weapon at John T. Williams on August 30, 2010?
Eight YES

9.When Officer Birk fired his weapon, did John T. Williams have a knife in his hand?
Eight YES

9a. If yes, was John T. Williams blade open when Officer Birk fired his weapon?
Four NO, four UNKNOWN

10. Did Officer Birk believe that John T. Williams posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm to Officer Birk at the time Officer Birk fired his weapon?
Four YES, four UNKNOWN

11. Based on the information available at the time Officer Birk fired his weapon, did John T. Williams then pose an imminent threat of serious physical harm to Officer Birk?
One YES, four NO, three UNKNOWN

12. Did John T. Williams die in King County on August 30, 2010?
Eight YES

13. Did John T. Williams die of gunshot wounds caused by Officer Birk?
Eight YES

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archiv ... s-findings