Police officer kills man for carving a piece of wood in public.

[mrjarrell]

The cop in this case resigned and no charges will ever be filed against him. As usual.

Seattle cop who shot Vancouver Island carver resigns

 

[misconfig]

The cop in this case resigned and no charges will ever be filed against him. As usual.

Seattle cop who shot Vancouver Island carver resigns

Thanks for the article.

The shooting was deemed NOT JUSTIFIED, you see this MURDERER was looking for trouble. Why isn't he in PRISON YET!?

 

[femurphy77]

Didn't we already lump all cops into the bad pile over this story a couple of months ago?

 

[jsharmon7]

Sad story all the way around. Here is the officer's version of the story:

Officer: Left with no reasonable alternative but to fire - Seattle News - MyNorthwest.com

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I was taught this drill in the academy, as are most cops. Basically, a suspect armed with a knife can close a 21 foot gap in as little as 1.5 seconds and stab you before you even can get off a shot.

Yes, but it does not explain that if the officer was in fear of his life or serious bodily injury why did he advance on the man with the knife? He wasn't afraid of him. Let's look at what the officer said.

"I got the impression I got his attention when I shouted out to him. He glanced over his right shoulder at me and I motioned for him to come over and talk to me," Birk said. "He simply turned his head and kept walking away, in the same direction."

He is clearly not afraid of the woodcraver. The woodcarver was shot for the temerity of having a weapon in the presence of a police officer. Listen to the officers words:

"Ma'am, he had a knife and he would not drop it."

The officer did not say that the woodcarver started toward me or I was afraid. No, just that he had a knife and did not obey me.

He wasn't afraid of the decedent. He was angry at him for not instantly obeying. That's why they let the decedent bleed out. Contempt of cop will often result in a death sentence.

If the officer was afraid of the man walking along minding his own business why not maintain distance, using the car as a shield, or use the car to approach the man walking down the street by activating the lights and siren?

We've still yet to hear what crime or ordinance violation the decedent was commiting. There was no reason to stop the decedent, other than the inbred hyperaggression instilled into some of today's officers.

The problem rests in the hyperaggressive training that our public servants are receiving. The concept of the peace officer is as dead as a woodcarver in Seattle. The enforcer is with us, until we regain control of our government.

 

[UncleMike]

Didn't we already lump all cops into the bad pile over this story a couple of months ago?

Yup!!
This is just another revival of an old "us vs them" thread.
It seems to be the thing to do when LEO's don't provide "atrocities" fast enough to satisfy the haters.

 

[Benny]

Wow. Where to begin?
I seriously doubt this was a case of "murder."

The camera shows very little.

You hear the officer repeatedly order the man to drop the knife. By repeating the command several times, it is my assumption that he did not comply. This could be for several reasons, but that's not the point.

The officer then opened fire on the individual out of camera view. I do not know if the man turned toward him with the knife, lunged at him with the knife, or just stood there like he was in line at the convenience store.

Being as this is a "gun board" I would hope that most of you posting in this thread are familiar with and understand the "Tueller Drill." If not read up-
Tueller Drill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was taught this drill in the academy, as are most cops. Basically, a suspect armed with a knife can close a 21 foot gap in as little as 1.5 seconds and stab you before you even can get off a shot.

I do not know how close the officer was. I do not know what exactly provoked the shooting. I would hope that before you accuse someone in this incident of being a "murderer" that you would understand the legal definition of murder and that you were actually on scene and saw the entire incident unfold because I can't see anything on the tape that would lead me to believe that the officer was in the wrong....especially because of the way he was "walking."

Wow, I should have known it was only a matter of time before someone tried to justify this murderer's actions.



(BTW, I KNOW this story has been posted before, but I can't for the life of me, find it)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

One more thing about this Tueller Drill straw that the cops were clutching at the last time this shooting came up: John Williams was shot four times in the side and back, not the front of his body.

No doubt the police will tell us that Williams was running backwards at the officer.

YouTube - Autopsy Shows Woodcarver John T Williams Was NOT Facing Officer When Shot 4 Times!

 

[E5RANGER375]

Yup!!
This is just another revival of an old "us vs them" thread.
It seems to be the thing to do when LEO's don't provide "atrocities" fast enough to satisfy the haters.

yeah!!!! because killing us is just fine right? yeah, throw in a oorrra in there. and if you tell us we were wrong then your just a cop hater, YEAH! now lick my boots citizen

 

[kadetklapp]

Wow, I should have known it was only a matter of time before someone tried to justify this murderer's actions.



(BTW, I KNOW this story has been posted before, but I can't for the life of me, find it)

Again, please point out to me how this was murder.

But according to Birk, Williams's eyes were fixed, his jaw was set, and nine feet from the knife, there was no more time to wonder what the carver would do.
"As I'm telling him to put the knife down for the third time, his weight dropped, he lowered his center of gravity. If he had had the opportunity to take a step in my direction, there was nothing I could have done," Birk said.
That's when he fired -- four shots -- until he saw Williams go down.

When I saw the footage of the man walking across the street, I immediately recognized him as a possible EDP, or emotionally disturbed person. These people are becoming more and more common and they are extremely dangerous. It doesn't matter how old the "wood carver" is. A 9 foot gap with an edged weapon can be slammed shut as quick as you can blink.

Yes, but it does not explain that if the officer was in fear of his life or serious bodily injury why did he advance on the man with the knife?

So what should the officer have done? Got in his car and left? Hide behind his car and wait for backup while the suspect continued walking away? Or tell the man to drop the knife and hold him at gunpoint until another unit shows up?

There was no reason to stop the decedent, other than the inbred hyperaggression instilled into some of today's officers.

The officer observed what was possibly a disturbed individual displaying signs of intoxication or defect walking with an edged weapon. Thats a good reason to check on someone.

You can tell a lot about body language to begin with, he looks like a thug to me.

WOW Talk about weak sauce. You've got to be kidding.

If you could hang a man for "walking like a thug" there would be a shortage of rope in this country.

 

[E5RANGER375]

If you could hang a man for "walking like a thug" there would be a shortage of rope in this country.

rope? your so living in the 14th century. we use bullets now days

 

[misconfig]

Again, please point out to me how this was murder.



When I saw the footage of the man walking across the street, I immediately recognized him as a possible EDP, or emotionally disturbed person. These people are becoming more and more common and they are extremely dangerous. It doesn't matter how old the "wood carver" is. A 9 foot gap with an edged weapon can be slammed shut as quick as you can blink.



So what should the officer have done? Got in his car and left? Hide behind his car and wait for backup while the suspect continued walking away? Or tell the man to drop the knife and hold him at gunpoint until another unit shows up?



The officer observed what was possibly a disturbed individual displaying signs of intoxication or defect walking with an edged weapon. Thats a good reason to check on someone.



WOW Talk about weak sauce. You've got to be kidding.

If you could hang a man for "walking like a thug" there would be a shortage of rope in this country.

I was of course talking about the cop, not the victim here. I said it once, I'll say it again - that officer was looking to start some trouble.

It has already been pointed out, the officer's actions were NOT justified, the autopsy revealed he was shot in his side and back.

What more info to you have to disprove this MURDERER was justified in shooting?

 

[Benny]

Lets not miss this little tidbit of information either:

Detective Jeffery Mudd, the lead investigator on the case, told the jury earlier Tuesday that the knife was closed when it was found at the scene.

So let me get this straight...

1. Williams was minding his own business and happened to have a knife in his hand and may or may not have been carving a piece of wood.

2. A cop rushed him and told him to drop the knife.

3. Before Williams could even turn around, the murderer shot him in the back and the side 4 times.

4. The knife wasn't even open when he got shot.



How is this not murder and how are criminal charges not being filed?

 

[Benny]

Again, please point out to me how this was murder.

See my above post...How was it not? Because the murderer was wearing a badge?

 

[kadetklapp]

I was of course talking about the cop, not the victim here. I said it once, I'll say it again - that officer was looking to start some trouble.

It has already been pointed out, the officer's actions were NOT justified, the autopsy revealed he was shot in his side and back.

What more info to you have to disprove this MURDERER was justified in shooting?

I'm still wondering how you can say this is a murder.

Murder is the act of killing another human being with malice, traditionally called "malice aforethought." Malice is defined as the intent to kill or to inflict bodily injury, either express or implied. If a deadly weapon is used, intent to kill will necessarily be implied by a court of law. The presumption is that if the assailant brought a deadly weapon with him/her there was an intent to use the weapon. If the assailant picked up a weapon at the scene of the crime in an act of defense or in a provoked fit of rage, there might not be malice. See homicide and manslaughter.

You have to prove intent. Did this police officer set out on his shift to kill this man just because? If so, prove it. Show proof. No one has shown a shred of proof to that effect.

It has already been pointed out, the officer's actions were NOT justified, the autopsy revealed he was shot in his side and back.

Please share with me the case law which states that being shot in the side or back automatically constitutes murder or even a criminal offense if done so in the defense of one's self. There have been MANY instances of suspects being shot in the back and in the side in order to stop them from assaulting someone with a deadly weapon.

There is a video of such a case where a man was shot in the back and from one dash cam it looked completely like an execution. From the other dash cam it shows the suspect firing off rounds with his right hand across his stomach.

Getting shot in the side and back does not constitute a murder. Try again.

 

[E5RANGER375]

See my above post...How was it not? Because the murderer was wearing a badge?

bingo. if that guy was my dead family member, I would be happy the cop didnt get locked away in prison.

 

[UncleMike]

yeah!!!! because killing us is just fine right? yeah, throw in a oorrra in there. and if you tell us we were wrong then your just a cop hater, YEAH! now lick my boots citizen

Us????
Who in the Hell made you the spokesman for the Human Race??
Is every person who dies a violent death US too??
Or don't you include the Cops who die at the hands of POS criminals as US??

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If you could hang a man for "walking like a thug" there would be a shortage of rope in this country

Did you not use EDP as being justification to shoot someone?

When I saw the footage of the man walking across the street, I immediately recognized him as a possible EDP, or emotionally disturbed person. These people are becoming more and more common and they are extremely dangerous.

Perhaps I have it incorrect. Please explain how "walking like a thug" is distinct from "walking like an EDP"?

So what should the officer have done? Got in his car and left?

Yes, exactly.

No one has told us why the officer was approaching the decedent. If there is no crime or ordinance violation, then the officer drives off, perhaps to harrass yuppies in coffee shops or something else productive.

The officer observed what was possibly a disturbed individual displaying signs of intoxication or defect walking with an edged weapon. Thats a good reason to check on someone.

So, walking like a thug, er, I mean walking like an EDP is a crime? An ordinance violation?

Are hyperaggressive officers becoming more and more common? Are they not extremely dangerous?

 

[jsharmon7]

Wow, I should have known it was only a matter of time before someone tried to justify this murderer's actions.



(BTW, I KNOW this story has been posted before, but I can't for the life of me, find it)

I just don't have an opinion on this story one way or the other. Put me on a jury and present all the facts and witnesses and I'll make a decision. All I've got are some news articles and half a video. From what I've seen and read it looks like a bad shoot to me, but I certainly can't say for sure since I wasn't there and don't have even a tenth of the information available to me. It's very telling how many people here just assume because the shooter was a cop that it's cut and dry murder. We've apparently got body language experts who could tell by his walk that he intended to go kill the man regardless of what the man did. Really? A few seconds of watching an officer walk and you can definitively say what his motives were and what he was thinking? Does that sound ignorant to anyone besides me? We've also got a defense attorney saying that disagreeing with the police will "often result in a death sentence." Really Kirk? Weren't you a police officer before becoming a lawyer? Did everyone you ever dealt with cooperate with you? My experience has been that a whole lot of people are less than cooperative and I've never shot any of them. I'll let other INGO officers chime in on how many uncooperative subjects they've shot for nothing more than not following instructions. We've got another member here telling old men who carve wood to avoid Seattle because they'll surely be killed by the police. More ignorant hyperbole. Again, until I'm on a jury and presented with ALL available facts, I can't condemn the man based on a few seconds of him walking or the fact that his occupation was law enforcement. It's just a sad story all the way around and hopefully justice is served, whatever outcome that may be.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You have to prove intent.

Deadly weapon doctrine. The officer intentionally used a deadly weapon. That gives you the intent necessary for Murder.

When someone is shot on the street in the back, and the shooter is not an enforcer, do the detectives ever bring up Murder? Oh, wait, I know this one! Yes, they do!

There have been MANY instances of suspects being shot in the back and in the side in order to stop them from assaulting someone with a deadly weapon.

Please give us the name of the person that John Williams was assaulting. The piece of wood and the closed knife do not count.