Is this a good resolution to what may have been murder?

Swish: Let me know when you have actually done whittling and carving oh and find something to say the man was being obviously dangerous with the cop behind him.

And yes the cop is supposed to observe and wait until the last possible minute possible to use deadly force.

I shouldn't really have to. The officer got out of the car to begin with to find out what the man is doing. As it is not apparent that he's whittling with one viewing of the video, I really don't see any problem with that aspect of it.

As for the "find something dangerous" part, I've already admitted that that the officer is in the wrong after reading the report blueharp presented.

Really hard to see him whittling? he is clearly whittling on a piece of wood with a small knife. The big clue is the hunk of wood in his hand and him using the knife on it.

Even granting it's hard to see on the video, I don't think it'd be a real problem to see in real life, but even assuming it was, fair enough, the stop itself, is reasonable.

It's the rest of the affair that's a failure, most of it detailed in the report I linked. The shooting was just the end of a bad string of choices.

What really bothers me is that isn't there supposed to be lots of other methods to get weapons away from people than shooting them? Couldn't he have (like others have said) tasered him or something? I thought that police officers are trained to handle situations in the least lethal way possible.

This officer did not have a taser, though officers in the vicinity did.

he didn't call them.

...to use the soon be meme level use of the phrase. The document posted shows the review and explains things in some detail.

firearms Review Board Document Courtesy of blueharp.

edited 27th May '11 9:39:29 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Couldn't the police officer at least try to restrain him first? I mean, it's better to possibly be stabbed than be a murderer.

Not really better to be stabbed. That is unreasonable to ask we covered that in other threads. But online the case where the man presented a clear threat. In this case he apparently didn't and he had not exhausted his options.

edited 27th May '11 11:27:33 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Honestly, it's not a matter of to restrain or not restrain, or to shoot or be stabbed. It's a matter of waiting for the guy to turn around and confirm that he's heard the orders being given. The time between warning and shooting was ridiculously short. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to respond in time if I wasn't expecting to be approached by a police officer.

edited 27th May '11 11:41:11 PM by Clarste

From the Report: 1) The firearms discharge occurred while Officer Birk was on-duty./ 2) The firearms discharge was intentional and directed at a person/ 3) The use of the firearm wan not necessary to apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believed had committed, was committing or was attempting to commit a felony./ 4) The officer did not have probably cause to believe the suspect, if not apprehended, posed a threat of serious harm to the officer or threat of physical harm to others./ 5) Reasonably effective alternatives to the use of a firearm appeared to exist/ 6) Considering the circumstances known to the officer at the time, it would have been reasonable alternative to allow the suspect to escape without resorting to the use of a firearm/ 7) The actions of the officer contributed to the need to fire. /

... The use of deadly force by Officer Birk resulting in the death of John T. Williams was unjustified."

They then go on to recommend that Officer Birk be relieved of all duties and that an internal investigation be conducted. They also note that it's actually the responsibility of the King County Prosecutor, not the Review Board, to determine if crimminal charges are necessary.

They also note that according to regulations "a 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..."

They did not find that Birk acted with malice.

Given all this, I think the answer to the thread title is "Not Yet", and that this is not a case of murder.

By the way, thanks for posting the report, it contains some fascinating information.

edited 29th May '11 5:12:55 AM by DeMarquis

I don't think anybody believed malice was an issue here, but rather sheer incompetence or negligence, which in some senses is actually worse from a police officer. If anything, I would consider it more criminal from a police officer, and thus more worthy of prosecution, not protection.

What to call it is irrelevant, the law defines things as it pleases, if it's desirable to create a phrase to describe something like this, it could be done any number of ways.

De Marquis: I am still waiting for evidence that the cop did not just randomly shoot another passerby in the back.
And why is the cop not in jail yet?!

I've tried whittling before. Sometimes the wood is hard, and you need to stab at it a bit.

This man doesn't look the slightest bit threatening to me.

Well, I suspect that if we applied those standards, we quickly would not have any police, or at least any actual qualified people who would be willing to do the job. The duties of a police officer inherently put bystanders at risk, they need to know that they wont end up in jail every time they make a mistake. Even if that mistake kills an innocent person. Society essentially trades the risk from a lawless anarchy for the risk from incompetent and malicious police officers. I dont think there is a perfect solution.

Remember, the standard is not whether the victim of a police shooting really was a threat to anyone, the standard is whether or not the officer believed, in good faith, that the victim was a threat.

In this case, that standard was not reached, and I think officer Birk is headed for further legal trouble.

Reasonably believed in good faith.

Shooting a man who is just whittling wood is not reasonable. It's not reasonable to shoot non-hostile and non-confrontational armed people. Shooting people who fail to respond to a command ain't reasonable either. What if a man is, say, deaf? Do cops have a right to just shoot deaf guys?

A guy carving wood can hardly be construed as a threat. The reason for shooting him was that he had a weapon. It's part of what bugs me: That cop looked for an excuse to murder a random dude. Armed and homeless? He thought he got the excuse, and he shot.

When armed folks (say, a gal going to the range with a shotgun to shoot some clay, or a dude whittling some wood with a carving knife) do not attack or threaten anybody and get shot anyway, it's a clear case of sociopath cop looking for an excuse.

It's not common (it's safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of cops don't want to go around murdering people), but it happens. We shouldn't let those walk away with a slap on the wrist... If a cop murders a dude/gal, he should pay the penalty for murder, like anybody else.

edited 30th May '11 3:45:42 AM by SavageHeathen

I am disinclined to let slip numerous willful mistakes as occurred in this case. It is one thing to be wrong, it is another to make wrong choices that result in another's death. The multitude of them here? Way past reasonable. At a certain point, there needs to be punishment for such negligence, otherwise there is no justice. And no, money is not enough.

Of course, when you consider the instances of police covering up their mistakes, and doing their best to avoid justice, it's even harder to find a reason for tolerance.

Though really, it's not like I wouldn't be somewhat lenient. A 20 year prison sentence would be excessive, but 5 years? 4? 3? Even 1 year in jail would be better.

I would nail this cop legally speaking.

Sort of reminds me of the incident in Pema, AZ the police immediately buried info and kept changing their story even scolded the media for not believing them.

This is sad, I mean at least over here the guy who effectivly "killed" Ian Tomlinson is going on trial for Manslaughter.

We really need Barkey in here to tell us how he feels about this.

I remember hearing about this. It just baffles me why a police officer would shoot some old man carving wood.

@Blueharp: "Though really, it's not like I wouldn't be somewhat lenient. A 20 year prison sentence would be excessive, but 5 years? 4? 3? Even 1 year in jail would be better."

We appear to be converging in our positions. Some sort of legal punishment seems called for here. The death penalty maybe not.

Well, since I don't think I ever called for the death penalty for him, it's probably not me you're thinking about.

Several posters called for summary execution, and when I responded to them, you responded to me, creating the impression that you were siding with them.

Not one that came from my words as far as I can tell.

Looking at this from a purely academic law enforcement perspective, the officer is completely in the wrong.(From all the other perspectives he is too, but I'm focusing particularly on a neutral POV examination)

Ability, Capability, and Intent, are all of what are required for an LEO to use deadly force. Did the man have the ability? Yes, he can physically stab someone with a sharp object if he has one. Did he have the capability? No, he wasn't close enough to actually stab the officer, and to be honest he wasn't in a position to do so. He was also turned around apparently since he got shot in the back. Did he have the intent? From what I could see, no, he did not.

If you kill someone without all three of those elements as a cop, you are wrong. Outrageous newbie mistake or sociopath? Doesn't matter, he won't be a cop again, maybe in some little podunk town with low hiring standards, but not in any metropolitan or countywide police force. He deserves jail time.

edited 1st Jun '11 12:36:14 AM by Barkey