Pharyngula

Posted by: Paul | May 26, 2011 7:41 AM

wow.......just wow

Posted by: RobertL | May 26, 2011 7:51 AM

Aargh! Fuck!!

I just log to quickly browse the last few posts, and what do I get?

Fucking annoyed and dismayed about about policitians treating women like shit. MRAs jumping in and completely missing the point. Tearing up about being reminded that Douglas Adams has been dead a long time.

And now this travesty of justice. This is one of the more disgusting fucking abuses of power that I've ever witnessed.

I'm fucking depressed now. And angry.

Posted by: Rick Miller | May 26, 2011 7:53 AM

What's with the bunny-hop line to approach the body?

It looks to me like that department had some recent training on the procedures to be followed after a shooting and were itching for an opportunity to try it out.

Posted by: godskesen | May 26, 2011 7:54 AM

That makes me sad. What a bunch of insane fucking thugs. And it's so damned scary that the other officers support him. Hopefully they won't once they see the footage of his actions.

Posted by: BilBy | May 26, 2011 7:58 AM

I just forwarded this to a South African ex-cop I know who promptly replied 'yis- thats just murdering someone!'

Posted by: marcelghe87 | May 26, 2011 8:01 AM

Haven't seen the video yet (youtube blocked at work), but after reading the post and the comments, I'm not sure I want to. I'm about to move from Romania to Seattle this fall.

Posted by: Thegoodman | May 26, 2011 8:04 AM

This is one of the worst things I have ever seen.

I am physically ill to know this happened in the US. Never mind 'decertifcation', Birk should be tried as the murderer he is.

This would be outrageous in a fucking ass backward Muslim nation like Syria or Iran. In the US its inconceivable.

Posted by: m.a.lukasiewicz | May 26, 2011 8:08 AM

This is the most shocking and disgusting thing I have seen in a very long time.

It's amazing that the cop himself describes the event as : "the man was carving wood with the knife, he didn't drop it, so I shot". The reply to this is "you did the right thing". It's insanely stunning; a man carving wood is deemed a threat in the US?

Posted by: makyui | May 26, 2011 8:13 AM

Oh my god...

When I was younger I did a lot of herb-gathering, so I had a knife that I would carry around openly and in plain sight, both in the country and around town. The sheath was falling apart, so you could clearly see exposed steel. I even carried it into supermarkets and whatnot and the only comments I got was for how nice it looked. Cops waved at me and paid no other mind. There's no fucking way I would've been able to get away with if if I hadn't been white.

The fact that this fucker isn't in jail right now just screams what the fuck is wrong with this country.

The sheer irony in this violent bastard jumping to kill a harmless man within four seconds of telling him to drop his carving knife - followed by a fucking RIDICULOUS number of police officers following to attend to the now dead harmless man.

YES. This so fucking much.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | May 26, 2011 8:15 AM

Appalling as this is, at least the US system allows us to see the video and hear the testimony. As long as that is the case then the 'petty tyranny' has not completely taken over.
Once again I'm reminded how glad I am that my country's police force is (mostly) unarmed.
Doesn't stop this sort of thing happening though.

Posted by: graham martin-royle | May 26, 2011 8:21 AM

That is sick. Okay, so this cop is now no longer a cop but he still hasn't been charged with anything. Until that happens justice has not been done and until the police accept and recognise that this was totally wrong, then they can justifiably be called a bunch of murderous thugs.

Posted by: claude | May 26, 2011 8:28 AM

The officer did not appear to be in immediate danger, he did not use his patrol car which he could have to better position himself with the victim. It was a judgement call by the officer that Mr. Williams was not going to comply. It's not an uncommon incident for a drunk subject with a weapon in his hands not to comply but be more agressive. Yes this shooting is bad and for Mr. Williams and his family it is tragic. But and this is a big but the officer did not act in a criminal manner. Dont presume you will be treated without prejudice by a police officer, presume that your life is on the line and comply immediately in any command. You can always argue the rights violation another day after suffering the indignity.

Posted by: kaylakaze | May 26, 2011 8:29 AM

I emailed Rachel Maddow's show and asked them why the hell they haven't covered this. (He was let off without charges, BTW)

Posted by: John Morales | May 26, 2011 8:30 AM

claude:

Dont presume you will be treated without prejudice by a police officer, presume that your life is on the line and comply immediately in any command.

You describe a police state.

That's what you think the reality is?

Posted by: erlendaakre | May 26, 2011 8:39 AM

@PZ

Any one of which is a killing offense, of course.

The officer claimed he was going towards him, when he shot him.. I have no idea if that was true, but if it is then it would be legitimate self defense and the cop should not get fired. The cop did get fired so presumably he did something wrong.

IF the guy was shot in the back in cold blood without being aggressive, the cop should be convicted of murder. But no criminal charges were made against the cop.

This to me at least, with the limited information I have from the media and limited knowledge of the US legal system indicates it's not a clear cut case.

Either the prosecution or other part of the judicial system is corrupt, or there simply was not enough evidence to charge the cop with anything.

So based on this, and the fact that you can't see what happens in the youtube clip, I think the video makes you make up your opinion based on emotions, rather than what actually happen (which we may never know).

Posted by: Quodlibet | May 26, 2011 8:42 AM

claude:

Yes this shooting is bad and for Mr. Williams and his family ... You can always argue the rights violation another day after suffering the indignity.

Let's just let that statement stand on its own.

Posted by: toomanytribbles | May 26, 2011 8:46 AM

imbecile with a weapon.
and his buddies were worse than the keystone cops.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | May 26, 2011 8:48 AM

Being a cop cannot be a moral proposition. Why not? Because, when you become a cop, you swear to uphold society's laws as a block - which means that you're saying you're willing to adopt society's agenda in all respects, whether you feel it's right or wrong in some particular detail. The consequences of this can be seen clearly - hypocrisy and a sense of privilege.

Of course nobody could get a job as a cop if they swore to uphold, say, anti-cocaine laws but not anti-marijuana laws and to only uphold speeding laws where it made sense and drinking restrictions on teenagers only if they were "troubled kids" - the proposition has to be that you buy the whole agenda, or nothing - consequently you get a foundation of lies from the very beginning.

Since cops are willing to adopt this immoral position, it stands that they are the enemies of society and not its defenders.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2011 8:49 AM

This to me at least, with the limited information I have from the media and limited knowledge of the US legal system indicates it's not a clear cut case.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | May 26, 2011 8:51 AM

The victim was carrying a knife, and did not respond (half-deaf and possible very drunk), and suffered from alcoholism and possibly mental problems and had threatened to kill police officers

Posted by: erlendaakre | May 26, 2011 8:55 AM

@SQB

Or, maybe, that the cop(s) fucked up but thought they could get away with it, because it's "just another dead injun".

Maybe. No way for us to know. Could be a conspiracy between several police officers (and maybe other parts of the government).

Or it might just be the result of the fact that police officers are humans being faced with stressful situations which require split second decisions.

In either way, cops should be required to wear cameras at all times while on duty. Tiny cameras are getting reasonably good quality, and power and storage capacity should not be a problem.

Posted by: D.D.H.K. | May 26, 2011 8:56 AM

I'll bet Officer Birk is a Christian,any takers?

Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com | May 26, 2011 8:56 AM

@erlendaakre #29

Cop. Armed with gun. Trained. Will not get close enough to target to be in danger from a knife.

4 seconds. Not enough time for the victim to both turn and charge.

On the record. Bullet wounds back and side, none to front.

Posted by: erlendaakre | May 26, 2011 9:04 AM

@Jadehawk

Just now, i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're naive. but from now on, I highly suggest you stop claiming that a lack of a murder conviction means a cop didn't murder anyone.

@Danny
You can't turn around and move a few feet in 4 seconds?

On the record. Bullet wounds back and side, none to front.

Posted by: blotzphoto | May 26, 2011 9:10 AM

If Y'all would like a more recent story to chew on, this friend of mine was shot by a trigger happy policeman last month.

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-1926-local-musician-shot-killed-by-police.html

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 26, 2011 9:12 AM

claude:

But and this is a big but the officer did not act in a criminal manner.

Yes. Yes he did. He shot an innocent man who was not threatening the officer in any way. That is a crime. It's called "murder."

Dont presume you will be treated without prejudice by a police officer, presume that your life is on the line and comply immediately in any command.

Why? Why should I have to do that? Why should I have to be fucking frightened of police officers? As long as I am obeying the law, as long as I am not threatening them or anyone else, why the fuck should I submit to jackbooted thugs?

And anyone who behaves in a manner that induces fear in the law-abiding public is a jack-booted thug.

You can always argue the rights violation another day after suffering the indignity.

That always turns out well, doesn't it? I mean, if an officer isn't charged with at least manslaughter in a case like this, why the fuck should I expect justice?

Posted by: Rico | May 26, 2011 9:19 AM

the problem with police in general is that it has a corps mentality and like everything freakin organisation with such a mentality it does not allow dissent and sadly it protects all it's member no matter on how badly they failed to do their actual job. and this is the case here that cop just shot williams for no real reasons well maybe except for his own prejudices and for what he wanted to see if he is not straight away lying about what happened anyway. cause there also comes the other problem that sadly often testimony of a cop has more value than of a someone who isn't a cop although they are lying as much as anyone else would to save their ass plus they get protected from their comrades.

and there we come to another point noone forces you to come a policemen, it's your own decision so you know what you are doing and you know that you are held up to a higher standard than other citizens so there is no freakin excuse with him having prejudices that threaten people, cause his prejudices actually killed someone and i badly hope he will get sued for it still and get the highest possible sentence just to show other cops they can't easiely get away with murder just cause they are cops, the evidence presented against him would be easiely enough to sentence someone for murder if he wouldn't be a cop

Posted by: erlendaakre | May 26, 2011 9:22 AM

@David Marjanović

If you're too stupid to read six comments before you add your own, what are you doing on a blog?

Post #6 is not all that relevant, as there is a big difference in getting fired from a job, and being convicted for murder.

Posted by: Tsar Bomba | May 26, 2011 9:30 AM

The State of Washington has some interesting (and to my knowledge, unique) laws regarding when a police officer can he criminally responsible for shooting someone. As I read those laws, they basically made it impossible for any prosecutor to bring charges against this officer, as the jury would have been instructed in a way that they would have never brought in a guilty verdict.

(Paraphrased from the Seattle Weekly) Washington law (RCW 9A.16.040) lists 10 different ways in which a peace officer is justified in using deadly force--one of which states that 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."

Officer Birk has asserted the the man he shot posed a threat as he stood nine feet away giving him dirty looks while holding a dull carving blade. Based on this alone, a prosecutor could charge Birk with a belief that there is a reasonable likelihood of a guilty verdict.

But to further this point, the law also says: "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." This is so wide open, and so based on the subjective beliefs of the police officer, that in my opinion, it would make it impossible to get a jury to convict Birk. Birk didn't have to be justified, he just had to have a good faith belief that he was--in other words it is completely dependent on what was going on in his mind, and frankly unless he made some statement that he killed the victim out of malice, there is just no way a jury would convict, so no charges could be brought according to prosecutorial ethics rules.

There is a reason, though, why the department ended up paying 1.5 million dollars in a settlement. This outrageous use of deadly force shows that the department was either negligent in training, supervision, or hiring, or all three. My first thought when reading this was WHY DIDN'T HE JUST TASE HIM! Every police officer I have seen in the past few years carries a Taser in addition to the sidearm. The Taser is intended for situations where you need to bring someone under control but when deadly force is not needed. Or, why didn't the officer call for assistance from other officers before confronting this guy?

Posted by: jededor | May 26, 2011 9:31 AM

I wonder if the general attitude of US police might have something to do with the crapload of guns you tend to have everywhere around? Policemen here in Europe (at leas the few countries I've been to) seem a lot more relaxed than in US (at least as they are pictured in TV). /obviousness

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | May 26, 2011 9:32 AM

better watch your shit anytime a cop is within eyesight

Of course, this will require you to be paying close attention to your surroundings at all times, which will doubtless be interpreted by the cop as suspicious and dangerous behavior.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | May 26, 2011 9:38 AM

Ah, yes. So what is the advice for living above: be prepared to assume the position at any time, for any reason, for no reason, 'cos, see, the cop might be insane, jittery, hopped up on speed, whatever?

I'm not gonna come down in any personal way on the guy that uttered it. Because I know so well how very entrenched it is becoming in the culture. And on the surface, I've no doubt it seems sensible enough. See enough of this shit, and you're kinda hoping to live, hell, of course it seems sensible enough.

But it's no way to live.

And what's really pretty alarming is: what I see here is paranoia, fear, a Kafkaesque sense of ever-present guilt...

And these are not symptoms of a healthy society. These are the hallmarks of a police state. Of a people living in terror beneath a mad and arbitrary authority. An authority which is itself fearful of the people, for it knows too well how it has abused its power, and fears if it falls, the fall will be both precipitous and painful.

It's bizarre, honestly. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it...

I mean, we know lots of nations formally call 'emselves democracies that just aren't, in any meaningful way. But, seriously, as much as we know the political system has its flaws, as everywhere, I do still tend to think of the US as at least somewhat more than so merely nominally a democracy. Yes, the federal and state systems are gerrymandered to hell in many places, yes, the PR saturation makes for an oddly constrained political dialogue in which two old-guard parties dominate endlessly and vie for more or less the same business dollar...

But against that, people do have the vote, they do (we're reasonably confident, on average, at least) get counted, and they do, at least, have a reasonably independent judicial branch to fall back upon...

But then, maybe this is just what you get when the underlying fundamentals of egalitarianism and democracy are eroded a million different ways, a million different places. Death of the dream by a million cuts. Because the court systems are far from colour blind, most places, because of all the fucking around with the districts, because there's been this constant, steady PR effort to turn the political dialogue into the rhetorical equivalent of a wrestlemania match between the right and so-right-they're-barely-on-the-planet. Because, as a consequence, the odds you're ever going to get government you really feel represents your interests in any meaningful way is pretty much nil. Because you're as militarized as Sparta ever was. Because, probably most importantly, the distribution of wealth is as wildly and alarmingly polar as it ever was...

Well, hell, maybe this is just where it all goes, after all that. Measurably more 'democratic' than Democratic Kampuchea, sure, but not enough to make it especially comfortably liveable.

Posted by: cairne.morane | May 26, 2011 9:41 AM

Jesus Fucking Christ!?!

Sorry. Old Habit.

Murdered in cold blood on the street.

I agree with sudonim2. I think that the country was always like this. It's only recently that we get to see how bad it really is.

Mike.

Posted by: Equisetum | May 26, 2011 9:44 AM

So, instead of assuming the justice system works fairly well.

You should always assume the justice system in the U.S. does not work. It's broken from top to bottom. If you're curious about that search Ed Brayton's blog for 'police' and 'abuse'.

This is just New Orleans, but I have feeling that they are not atypical, just the worst, and possible more visible since their horrible response during Katrina:

On 17 March this year, the federal department of justice (DoJ) decided that enough was enough and it has made moves to have the New Orleans police department (NOPD) placed under the supervision of a federal judge. The New Orleans jail system will likely follow.

source

Posted by: Shala | May 26, 2011 9:47 AM

How pathetic do you have to be to be an apologist for police brutality, erlendaakre?

Posted by: cairne.morane | May 26, 2011 9:53 AM

Equisetum #67 :

"You should always assume the justice system in the U.S. does not work."

/agreeing

As one commenter on Ed's blog pointed out some time ago : the US does not have a justice system. It has a legal system. There is a profound difference.

Mike.

Posted by: mistermuz | May 26, 2011 9:55 AM

A friend of mine saw an incident at the main train station in the city. Some guy bugged out, pulled out a large knife and began lunging at people.
He was actually aggressive and behaving in a threatening manner towards officers and the public.

You know what the cops did? Western Australian police are fully armed with Glocks too (23s from memory) and this was before tasers and pepper spray were in use.
Well, two of them cleared the platform and got everyone away from the guy, until five more rocked up with riot shields. They corralled the guy up against a wall, forced him to the ground and cuffed him.
That's how you police, see.
I'm not saying they're saints all the time, but that time those guys got it right.

The stupid thing is all these incidents play out the same. The force and the union won't hear of any wrong doing on the part of their officers. This is partly because the union and the upper ranks are all cops too and believe that they all stand together no matter what and without that the service falls apart, thin blue line blah blah. The government doesn't want to annoy them so they won't do anything too overt either.
It's pretty sad that we haven't figured out a way to instil, I dunno, morale I guess, unity, in people without them being willing and able to kick one of their own to the curb when they do something truly idiotic and terrible. That would be part of the job, you'd think.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | May 26, 2011 9:58 AM

... You should always assume the justice system in the U.S. does not work. It's broken from top to bottom. If you're curious about that search Ed Brayton's blog for 'police' and 'abuse'.

This, if true, pretty much makes what I'd been seeing as a bit odd above really not so odd.

Goes without saying, but seriously, that just cannot stand. You just can't run a modern democracy in those conditions. That alone would tear it to pieces, over time. And makes egalitarianism a bitter mockery of a word for everyone who falls beneath its treads.

Posted by: Cepmk | May 26, 2011 10:14 AM

If that happened in the UK the only issue would be the question : Murder or Manslaughter. Based on the video evidence alone, which is the first I have ever seen or heard of the matter, that was absolutely outrageous and an affront to a civilised society. Which then demands the question to be asked, do you live in a civilised society?

Posted by: Equisetum | May 26, 2011 10:27 AM

AJ Milne OM:

You just can't run a modern democracy in those conditions. That alone would tear it to pieces, over time.

That's exactly what has been happening over the last couple of decades, and it appears to be getting decidedly worse over the last few years. The militarization of the police department, the fucking 'war on drugs' (then shoot the fucking drugs; don't shoot the people), the endemic racism in the U.S. have combined with systemic anomalies like elected D.A.s and judges (and Drug Courts) to form a perfect storm of injustice. And I can't see it getting any better. It makes me angry, especially since I've been living in Germany and I know that it doesn't have to be that way. There is a different way to run a justice system. There are different ways to train the police. I actually saw a cop assaulted on the street during an altercation. He brushed off the attacker and just kept on talking to him. No taser, no gun. In the U.S. you get tased for being naked.

Posted by: plien | May 26, 2011 10:35 AM

Weed Monkey: This is nothing new. Just another of those things why I've long ago decided to never, ever to visit your (possibly beautiful) country. I'd never dare.

My brother had to go to LA on a bizz (US-side screwed up, he had to fix it) and he said he was scared shitless. Mostly by the braindead ignorant people, but that what passes for news was even more scarier...

An old uncle of BF was visiting some family who had migrated in the 50's. Aunt spoke a bit of english, uncle did not. He got tasered for failing to comply. Aunt was tying to tell them he couldn't understand them, but they did anyway. He was a heartpatiënt....

No matter how beautifull some area's are proclaimed to be or how much i want to see mustangponies i'll never visit the states. I'd rather live thank you.

(and as a bonus; no airport 'security'! ;-)

Posted by: AKron | May 26, 2011 10:45 AM

Good job one of them said?

Posted by: andrewrobcampbell | May 26, 2011 10:47 AM

The victim is actually from my neck of the woods here on Vancouver Island (He's Native Canadian, not Native American. Though I think they prefer the term First Nations or Indigenous). He was well known and well liked.

Posted by: sandwiches19 | May 26, 2011 10:50 AM

Very tragic abuse of power and judging from the video this police officer is guilty of murder.

But why is this an example of racism? There are stories of this type of abuse occurring by police officers of all races. Myers are you just going to co-opt this news story to support your ideology like you did with Jared Loughner? I thought you would have learned your lesson by now.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 26, 2011 10:54 AM

googlemess:

This is a story about someone overreacting. A trigger-happy cop sees something, misinterprets, overreacts, and shoots an innocent man for no good reason.

This is a story of someone put in a position of authority, given a lethal weapon, harassing someone who was breaking no laws, and shooting him for no apparent reason.

Every day, 200 million Americans drive vehicles in which split-second reactions mean the difference between life and death. Sometimes mistakes are made, and people die.

Absolutely! However, very few of those drivers target a pedestrian and intentionally run them over, even out of fright.

The police officer intentionally pulled his sidearm, aimed it at a pedestrian, shouted a few orders, and intentionally pulled the trigger when the pedestrian did not comply.

He did not "accidentally" pull his weapon. He did not, in a split-second decision, "accidentally" shoot to kill.

Posted by: erlendaakre | May 26, 2011 11:04 AM

@Shala

How pathetic do you have to be to be an apologist for police brutality, erlendaakre?

After viewing the youtube video it was not immediately clear that this was a case of police brutality as you can't see the only interesting part (the actual shooting). And the movie is made by the clearly biased persons behind a website against the officer responsible for the murder.

Thanks to @makyui for giving good references (the autopsy report). The autopsy report says the bullets hits his side, which makes it more unlikely the murder was in justifiable self defense.

With this new information the case looks much more questionable than from the video alone, and raises a big question as to why the officer was not charged with anything.

Posted by: Tony Jolley | May 26, 2011 11:05 AM

Seattle police seem to swing from one extreme to another. Quite a few years ago, a man with a samurai sword held the entire force at bay for 8+ hours, and now they're shooting people after a few seconds. Can't we get a happy medium?

Posted by: Phere | May 26, 2011 11:08 AM

Oh my god. Way to start my morning - sobbing into my keyboard. But it's not about me, it's a good thing that people are aware that they can be gunned down by the law for as little as being old, deaf, and doing a craft.

"You did the right thing" = "That's one less brown person....ew....in our way."

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 26, 2011 11:10 AM

And the movie is made by the clearly biased persons behind a website against the officer responsible for the murder.

the "movie" is footage from the cops cop-car

Posted by: Phere | May 26, 2011 11:15 AM

Oh..and @ Robert #3 - I feel ya...I do.

Shit like this makes me one step closer to gathering up my family, getting a bunch of weapons, and living "off the grid" like those paranoid crazies we laugh at.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUL-U9MUY8KYyNdOz0mVLJQIOQ81UEVm8 | May 26, 2011 11:16 AM

Rey: It's your perogative to scratch around for some threadbare pretext for reading "white supremacy" into my comments; I think I'll just read inbecility into yours, and square that circle before it rolls downhill too far.

David

Posted by: Quatguy | May 26, 2011 11:20 AM

That 'cop' is a murdering, trigger-happy prick.

John Williams was a respected Native Canadian carver who was down on his luck and living homeless in Seattle. He was carving a piece of wood at the time! Was he threatening anyone or waving his knife wildly in the air foaming at the mouth? No! Was he a danger to the public? No!

He was simply practicing his art, walking down the street!

That 'cop' should be in jail.

Posted by: Grumpy1942 | May 26, 2011 11:22 AM

There are almost no good cops.

A good cop is one who does his job the way it should be done. One who never beats a suspect. One who never plants evidence or lies in court. One who treats all citizens with respect regardless of color or class.

But most cops who meet those criteria still manage to fail in one important respect.

A good cop protects the rest of us from bad people, even bad cops.

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 26, 2011 11:27 AM

I don't even think I can manage a fucking facepalm anymore. We need better trolls. Ours are broken, and they make me want to fucking vomit.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | May 26, 2011 11:28 AM

Shorter David: A cop shooting someone in the back is an unpredictable event, just like a car accident.

Anyone else see the parallel here with rape apologism?

Posted by: Grumpy1942 | May 26, 2011 11:29 AM

To anticipate the 'peer pressure' argument:

Yes. So-called 'good cops' are subjected to enormous peer pressure never to give evidence against another cop.

But who's applying that peer pressure? If it's only bad cops the pressure shouldn't matter. But the peer pressure also comes from the majority of other 'good cops'.

Posted by: mjparme | May 26, 2011 11:34 AM

What is even more sad is the most law enforcement officers support Birk in this shooting. Just read the comments at this link:

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/3085468-Video-Cop-shoots-deaf-knife-holding-woodcarver/

This is par for the course for law enforcement in this country, they believe they do no wrong and everything is justified and when something like this happens the blue wall of silence goes up. Police officers in the US are nothing more than a state sanctioned armed gang of thugs.

Posted by: Droidberg | May 26, 2011 11:41 AM

I've watched this video twice so far mainly because I didn't get a clear view the first time and while I have to agree the officer over reacted and acted inappropriately I'm a bit bothered by the allegations that he was being racist. (At this point I am going under the assumption that the video is all some of you have watched) I'm also a bit bothered by the response you all are giving toward the officer who said "you did the right thing" but I'll take these one at a time

Firstly, a police officer comes up to a light and sees a man walking with an open knife. Not in a sheath mind you but in his hand. That seems unusual to me, probably enough so that if I was in the officer's shoes it would be reasonable to go and see why exactly he had it out. So giving the command to Mr. Williams to turn around, drop the knife etc seem reasonable enough to me. What is not reasonable was the amount of time between when the command was given and the time the shots were first fired. So we have reasonable for him to get out of the car in the first place but completely unreasonable to shoot at the man.

Secondly, I'm bothered how everyone is reacting to the other officers when the arrived on the scene. You all are saying that the officer saying "you did the right thing" seems to be justifying Birk's actions which they really don't. But look at it from the arriving officer's point of view. At that moment he has no reason to suspect Birk did anything wrong given that his job is to uphold peace, find law breakers etc. Granted if the other officers were not bothered AFTER watching the tape then yes I would be bothered if they still held to their statements of doing the right thing.

Again my views have been formed after only watching the video and not doing any other research as of yet so I'd appreciate not being eviscerated on that point.

Posted by: Alkaloid | May 26, 2011 11:57 AM

So how do Americans actually get control over the police?

Posted by: rainyday | May 26, 2011 12:00 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like American police officers are trained to be trigger happy. Whenever I see cop shows about the U.S. they always show at least one but often more shootings. Cops generally approach suspects or vehicles with either guns drawn or with their hand on their gun. When you have a gun in your hand you're likely to use it. Whenever I see Dutch or British cop shows I almost never see a gun. Sure there are high speed chases and spectacular arrests, but hardly any guns.
Again, my view is very limited because I don't live in the US, but it does make me wonder. It also seems like cops have some kind of special status in the US. I can't help but get the feeling that, at least in the eyes of other cops, a cop is more important than anybody else. Which makes prosecuting them very difficult in cases like these, because nobody wants to be the unpatriotic asshole that dares to say anything bad about the (hero by default) police. Imho the police is there to serve the people, so the people and their safety is the most important thing for a cop. Also they are expected to uphold the law, even if another cop commits a crime, the law should be upheld. Thats what they're there for!

Posted by: Robin J | May 26, 2011 12:14 PM

Droidberg, #115

I've watched this video twice so far mainly because I didn't get a clear view the first time and while I have to agree the officer over reacted and acted inappropriately I'm a bit bothered by the allegations that he was being racist.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | May 26, 2011 12:23 PM

I haz a horrified and depressed. And a disgusted.
:( :( :( :( :(
-

Oh my god. Way to start my morning - sobbing into my keyboard.

Me too, Phere. Me too.
-

Posted by: ted.elsner | May 26, 2011 12:37 PM

If you think this is some isolated incident in the US you are very much mistaken. Events like this happen far more often then you could possibly imagine. Usually they happen to people performing WWB or DWB offenses walking or driving while brown, however whites have it happen to them as well, although at a lower rate.

I suggest you look into the number of wrong door no knock swat raids that happen that result in the death of the homeowner/renter and other events where cops attack what are non violent offenders, often killing them in what can only be described as cold blood.

One of the best writers to follow regarding these sorts of police abuses in Radley Balko. He is a libertarian (but dont let that stop you, if you dont like his other politics ignore them) and has written about these issues first at foxnews.com of all places and now at the huffpo. In fact his first huffpo piece just went up about an Arizona shooting of a former marine where the swat team entered the home without knocking (police reports later dispute this) and killed him. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

He also posts alot of other stories of this sort at theagitator.com Again you may not agree with his libertarian politics but his coverage of police misconduct and executions of americans is second to none.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U | May 26, 2011 12:45 PM

Grrr. Above googlemess written by

Kermit

Posted by: Thegoodman | May 26, 2011 12:53 PM

...it seems to me like American police officers are trained to be trigger happy...

I don't think the effect of the trigger happiness is the cause of training.

I think individuals who have a somewhat psychopathic desire to shoot someone are very inclined to go into the armed forces. This is common for both the law enforcement and the military. Of course I have nothing to back this up, and even if a study were done on the topic, it would be difficult to know if someone was telling the truth or not. Like a few have mentioned, this is a product of the environment of fear that our government and media portray so vividly on a daily basis.

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 26, 2011 12:59 PM

Posted by: erlendaakre Author Profile Page | May 26, 2011 8:03 AM

Seems this was 1 year ago, does not appear as the cop got convicted, which would presumable mean the guy was not shot in the back?

No, juries usually won't convict cops, although in this case he wasn't even charged so it never went to trial.

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 26, 2011 1:05 PM

Posted by: claude Author Profile Page | May 26, 2011 8:28 AM

Don't presume you will be treated without prejudice by a police officer, presume that your life is on the line and comply immediately in any command.

Sieg heil.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | May 26, 2011 1:09 PM

Shonny, Demonhype's dad is probably about the same age as mine (would be if he was still alive), and that story rings true to me. My father would tell those stories too, except in a way that made me wonder whether, despite having actively fought against the Russians and hated them to his dying day, he actually secretly admired certain aspects of the totalitarian occupation. "You understand, that was what they had to do to keep people in line. It couldn't happen here, but there were a lot of people around causing trouble for everyone else. You just had to be careful someone didn't mistake you for one of them."

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 26, 2011 1:23 PM

Absolutely! However, very few of those drivers target a pedestrian and intentionally run them over, even out of fright.

And when they do, they can't count on all their coworkers perjuring themselves to help cover it up.

Posted by: Haruhiist | May 26, 2011 1:31 PM

My mouth literally fell open in disbelief watching this video. It was mostly open by the time I realised the cop had shot the man for no reason. But the kicker was all the other corpse treating the wounded man as if he were a live grenade...

I'm so glad to say, that this is inconceivable here. If this really is not a one-off occurrence, I can only hope that there is a way towards improvement for Americans. Nobody should have to live in fear of the people who should e protecting you.

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 26, 2011 1:35 PM

Posted by: Thegoodman Author Profile Page | May 26, 2011 8:04 AM

This is one of the worst things I have ever seen.

I am physically ill to know this happened in the US. Never mind 'decertifcation', Birk should be tried as the murderer he is.

This would be outrageous in a fucking ass backward Muslim nation like Syria or Iran. In the US its inconceivable.

It's only inconceivable if you're not familiar with recent US history.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | May 26, 2011 1:40 PM

mjparme, I have peeked at one or two other law enforcement fora like that one. That thread is typical.

Note this comment from one of them: "It would be nice to flag and get rid of the non LEOs so we can have some semblance of intelligent discourse on OUR site." Very telling.

Posted by: erlendaakre | May 26, 2011 1:45 PM

@truthspeaker.jediknights

Of course. Why would you assume the justice system works fairly well, despite all the evidence to the contrary?

There are LOTS of problems with the US justice system, but my point was that it is still preferable instead of having judgement passed from someone just watching a youtube video.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 26, 2011 1:47 PM

He shot a man three times in the back and once in the side and continued to work for close to a year before pressured to resign. Police are supposed to be our exemplars, we hold them to higher standards than normal people, not lower. That other police were not denouncing his behaviour and in fact tried to downplay the severity of this crime is a disgusting testimony to how they view their profession.

Posted by: badgersdaughter | May 26, 2011 1:55 PM

...large cap letters going across the top of a page "Be Prepared to Kill Anyone You Meet."

WTF? No, wait, I know. I work as a database administrator. For me, would the equivalent statement be "Be prepared to delete anyone's user account"? A banker, "Be prepared to close anyone's account"? A retail clerk, "Be prepared to throw any customer out of the store"? An HR specialist, "Be prepared to fire anyone who works here"? A school principal, "Be prepared to expel any student"?

Well, OK, the school one is actually probably written into the teacher handbooks here in Texas, but you get my drift. But that attitude does not even rise to the level of being wrong in other administrative positions. Because that is all police are supposed to be... social administrators also granted limited power and tools to stop people from causing immediate harm to other people.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/OfntDEU8weHH9fXFkPntUFf2N9dwgg--#b5ba4 | May 26, 2011 1:59 PM

I live in Seattle and remember the - subdued - hooplah over this. The truth is that police, regardless of the city you're in, can get away with almost anything they want up to killing you. And this was just a verification of that fact. There was the predictable outrage and then forgetting about the incident. We're already a police state.

Posted by: btthegeek | May 26, 2011 1:59 PM

shonny wrote:

And Demonhype - sounds like you're full of shit. It might not be great under Soviet rule, but your story appears rather concocted.

Uh, yeah, you need to stop watching the History Channel and crack a book once in a while.

Check out historians Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest. They are bit out-dated but provide a solid beginning. Also check out novelists Alexander Solzhenitsyn (One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich) and Arthur Koestler (Darkness at Noon). Also check out the film Утомлённые солнцем (Burnt by the Sun).

Then you can get your ass back here and apologize to Demonhype for saying that totalitarianism "might not be great."

Posted by: incapacitated | May 26, 2011 2:02 PM

You can always argue the rights violation another day after suffering the indignity.

Not if you're dead....

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | May 26, 2011 2:03 PM

The policeman was wrong.

The woman who was waiting to cross the street saw the victim whittling, and calmly crossed the street toward him. She, or someone else, can be heard saying, "He didn't do anything."

The policeman could have done a dozen other things, including following in his car to see if a threat was made. As he said, the man was carving.

The victim turned toward him? What else would a person do, and how was that a threatening move?

As for not dropping the knife when ordered, the victim had little chance, and may well have not realized that he was the one being addressed--having no reason to consider himself a threat--and had no way to know it was a cop yelling at him.

Seattle cops were a lot too violent back during the protests a decade or so ago. But I got good help from them a few years before that, so I am not going to generalize. My more recent run-in with the police was in another state, and I thought those guys were a long way over-reacting (and damn poor at detectiving).

I will defend the policeman who said, "You did the right thing." Not that he was right, because he wasn't. He was trying to help a brother officer through what he assumed was a traumatic moment, and what he said was not legally binding.

The line approaching the victim was kind of funny, but not a waste of anything. It was standard practice and good practice for approaching a live and armed criminal.

Speaking of the approach, notice that none of the police looking at the face-up victim said, "No, look, he's obviously dead. You can see a bullet hole in the front of him."

Posted by: CJO | May 26, 2011 2:14 PM

only 22% of SPD officers live in the city. The rest commute from suburbs and rural areas; those officers tend to hostile to the urban milieu

The same is also the case in Oakland where I live. The cops are all from the 'burbs. Not sure what the actual percentage is, but it's low. I've read that only 15 or 20 percent of the force lives in or near the urban core.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | May 26, 2011 2:26 PM

>>> Dont presume you will be treated without prejudice by a police officer, presume that your life is on the line and comply immediately in any command.

Why? Why should I have to do that? Why should I have to be fucking frightened of police officers? As long as I am obeying the law, as long as I am not threatening them or anyone else, why the fuck should I submit to jackbooted thugs?

I live in LA and have had various encounters with police in the last 45 years and have always tried not ot make them upset before I new anything about them.
Now watching the video and reading the comments here some things occur to me that are reasons why I should comply unless I want thing to escalate of course .

Some one above said that a lot of officers are former infantry soldiers and may even be Irac, Afghanistan vets many of whom suffer fro PTSD,
From the video it is plain that they are not calm when they arrive but are very excited and well armed.
Some officers also suffer from stress related conditions related to the job,.
In there encounters they see people who are high on drugs and often react in very unpredictable ways.
They are humans who often are afflicted by irrational prejudices and fears. They are armed and like conflict and may tend to be very aggressive and domineering.

whether it is ideal or how I would want law reinforcement to behave in a modern civilized democratic country I leave aside at first. I assume the officer is armed scared aggressive and may react first before finding out anything more than the mistaken assumptions he may have already made because of his past life experiences.
It ain't Mat Dillon or Sherlock Holmes I dealing with I try to let him take his time he must have some intelligence and will find out that I am not a threat.
some day it may be different but not today as the video clearly shows.

uncle frogy

Posted by: Muskiet | May 26, 2011 2:36 PM

Yeah... this shooting was a big deal over here.
What the video doesn't say is that the knife was of a legal size for Williams to have and that the Firearms Review Commision has ruled the shooting "unjustified", a ruling that happens very rarely against a uniformed officer.
There have been lots of incidents like this lately like the "I'm gonna kick the Mexican piss" incident and Christopher Harris ending up in a coma because he was shuffed head first into a wall after he figured out the people running after him were cops.

Posted by: Horse-Pheathers | May 26, 2011 2:50 PM

It certainly reeks of cold-blooded murder to me....but even in the worse case scenario, if Williams _had_ threatened Birk with that knife (which I strongly doubt), he didn't have to die.

Birk should have called for backup before confronting Williams, number one, and waited for that backup to arrive, keeping an eye on Williams until then. Number two, "guy with knife" is exactly the sort of thing a TASER is designed for, and if feeling threatened, should have been Birk's first line of defense. Third, Birk apparently engaged Williams too closely -- what kind of idiot confronts someone they believe to be armed with a knife from nine feet away? Forth, never gave Williams a chance to comply with his order (or even recognize they order was directed at him). Fifth, he never warned that he would shoot.

If Birk had followed common sense on any one of these points, Williams would likely still be alive. Fuck Birk -- his stupidity and impatience cost a man his life.

What one of us would immediately assume that we were the one being addressed if a cop started yelling nearby? Especially if we had no ill intent and were just meandering along minding our own business? Wouldn't you also turn around to see what the fuck was going on? Would you be able to sort out the situation far enough to comply with Birk's orders in the four seconds given, even without partial deafness complicating things? Most of us would probably wind up just as dead as Williams in a similar situation, the way Birk mishandled this.

Just.....dammit so much.

Posted by: Glodson | May 26, 2011 3:02 PM

That was sickening. Sadly, what makes it even worse is that it seems very unlikely that Birk will every serve time for what he did, which was manslaughter in the best of circumstances. I don't even begin to understand how one can justify shooting a man in the back,and side, in four seconds after giving a command.

Watch that fucker, Birk, he might end up on another police force some day. Allowed to walk the streets armed.

Posted by: Crewvy | May 26, 2011 3:12 PM

Welcome to Amerika.
How exactly was this officer protecting and serving his community?
When you can be gunned down in the street by a police officer ,I`m guessing you have bigger problems there than terrorism.
The actions of the American police state have exceeded Al Qaedas best dreams, enjoy your freedom America.

Posted by: richardrob | May 26, 2011 3:16 PM

Does this mean a cop could open fire in a restaurant kitchen and not be subject to criminal charges? All those cooks have knives. Bigger than what Williams had.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | May 26, 2011 3:25 PM

@Thegoodman - No, we SHOULD fear the police. As the police exist, they are dangerous (as you said, conservative, racist, xenophobic, and undereducated). They are poorly trained and led.

We SHOULD NOT HAVE TO fear the police, but it is stupid and dangerous to suggest that a policy of trust is a prudent course of action at present. Standing up against police brutality is not inconsistent with fearing them.

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 26, 2011 3:37 PM

Posted by: Crewvy Author Profile Page | May 26, 2011 3:12 PM

Welcome to Amerika.
How exactly was this officer protecting and serving his community?

That depends. If you define the "community" as affluent white people who don't like seeing intoxicated American Indians walking around in public, then he was doing a fine job.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | May 26, 2011 3:40 PM

@Cepmk

This wouldn't happen in the UK? Read this:

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

Shot for the crime of being Glaswegian, carrying a table leg and being stiff and sore after cancer.

Posted by: makyui | May 26, 2011 3:42 PM

Maybe if everyone walked around on their knees, with their hands folded behind their heads at all times?

Nah, they might think you're hiding something if they see you from the front. Best just keep them over your head.

Posted by: Lambert | May 26, 2011 3:48 PM

Remember the Wild West? Well the whole damned country is like that now, as far as the god dammed police are concerned. It seems to me that Seatle operates the same policy as we have here in New York, shoot first and ask questions lie about it later.

I have long held the view that police departments, world-wide, are mostly full of bullies, and cowards. The cowards who happily kill innocent people, and the cowards who will not turn them in.

Posted by: louis14 | May 26, 2011 3:58 PM

Three years ago I was in Phoenix, AZ. I was travelling with a friend in a motorhome. We were visiting some friends in a shop they owned and had parked up at the back entrance to the shop.

It was dark as a pair of police cars pulled up abreast of each other directly behind the motorhome just as I was coming out. I had to walk around the cars to get the the open back door of the shop, and just as I passed the driver's door, the cop jumped out of his car pointing a bright flash-light and shouted at me to stop and turn around. I turned and couldn't see anything except the glare of the flash-light and he shouted at me "Where did you come from?" repeatedly.

I pointed to the motorhome and said, "Over there." I had to say it twice before he stopped shouting and listened to my answer.

After a pause he said something about how I should know better than to sneak up on a police officer. And after a further pause (I still couldn't see him - just the bloody flash-light beam in my face) he said - OK - you can go.

As I made my way quickly into the shop, I wondered how close I had come to being killed. That officer's tone in the video above reminded me so much of the AZ officer.

Watching that horrendous video above, I'm seriously wondering whether I was in lethal danger. Except I am white. Maybe that made the difference.

I've also wondered what they were both doing in that parking lot that they were so jumpy about someone strolling innocently past them.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 26, 2011 4:10 PM

Some (too many) years ago my city/town/whachamacallit had a police officer hanging around in the city centre. His name was Topi, and everyone knew him. His only job was to chat with people, and he did it very well. Unfortunately he grew old, retired, and got replaced by thugs sitting in their Volkswagen Syncros.

I'm pretty sure Topi prevented way more crime just by being there, talking to people and being accessible than these modern cops, who make me afraid.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 26, 2011 4:27 PM

amphiox @176
Absolutely. Every organisation that is allowed to use force (in our, the people's behalf) must be completely, extremely transparent. There must never be a (police) force that is not accountable for their actions.

Posted by: KeplersDream | May 26, 2011 4:32 PM

@Cepmk

This wouldn't happen in the UK? Read this:

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

There's also Ian Tomlinson, although he was pushed and hit, not shot. The officer who killed him is (probably) going to be prosecuted now, but it took several years, an inquest, and a lot of effort by his family to bring that about. And had the usual features - the officer lied, other officers lied to the victim's family, and a sloppy finding of death by a pathologist. To fair to the pathologist, his report seems to have come from his extraordinary incompetence rather than a desire to cover up for the killer.

Then there was the infamous slaying of Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station in 2005. Special Forces fired eleven shots without a word of challenge, seven entering his head and one his shoulder at close range; all because an undercover soldier seconded to the surveillance unit and identified only as "Frank" thought he matched the description of a known terror suspect. Except that "Frank" decided that going for a piss was more important than verifying his suspicions.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 26, 2011 4:34 PM

Everyone wear formal buisness ware and keep hands in sight. No piercings no ink no mody mods or non conservative dress. Otherwise the police might think you "look suspicious" and then it'd be your own fault when you are killed.

This sickens me. you are the assholes who let browncoats take power with your immoral sniviling cowardly victim blaming. A spine or a conscience; grow one

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 26, 2011 4:38 PM

Hey you poster above me. Yah you fucking hind sight man. I'm pissed off so let me just say I hope you get fucking shot and killed youmurder appologist fuck

(really hoping you didn't mean me.)

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 26, 2011 4:40 PM

Really, how many times has the "Police officers are just humans, they make mistakes" card been pulled out? It doesn't work for "Teachers are just...." or "Bakers are just...." if they accidentally shoot someone. It really shouldn't work for someone whose job is to protect civilians. For someone who carries weapons and has little restrictions on using them. No wonder people are afraid of the police. They have an excuse for everything they do and if they pull something really really bad... "(S)he is just human" is actually an acceptable defense.

This seems to be a case of a nervous officer firing too soon, but if the wood cutter had not be walking down the street with blade in hand it is unlikely this would have happened.

Posted by: Paul | May 26, 2011 4:48 PM

We don’t see what happened, but if our wood cutter turned toward the officer quickly and made any forward motion (because he is hard of hearing in one ear), a twitchy officer might fire upon him. This looks like a confluence of mistakes.

Quit fucking opining without reading. 3 bullets in the back. That's what the civilian got, 4 seconds after being addressed (with no sign that he even realized he was being addressed). Confluence my ass.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 26, 2011 5:00 PM

It's quite possible that police officers are human beings, who make mistakes. It's just that mistakes aren't fucking acceptable when you're talking about people's lives.

I used to be an IPSC range officer when I practised the sport. I wish we had as strict gun handling rules everywhere.

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | May 26, 2011 5:04 PM

Apparently the women in question was too drunk to be able to recall all the details, but not quite drunk enough to be unable to give consent.

Makes perfect sense, really. If it's not illegal to kill a non-white man because he's holding a knife, then why would it be illegal to rape a woman because she's drunk, called the police for help, and the officer wanted to "cuddle".

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | May 26, 2011 5:18 PM

@Paul
#202

I just...don't know how to process all these issues with police taking advantage of people.

Also...
Power ~= Bad
Yes, it's not a "scientific source", but it did link to some studies.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 26, 2011 5:22 PM

@ Paul -

No, mostly the "defense" just centered around how much of a fucking drunk she was. The NYTimes article is so full of fail on this front. I half expected the author to finish by saying, "Did I mention that she's a drunken alcoholic, you know, one of those women who drink until they're drunk?" The article described her as breaking down while she "recalled WHAT SHE SAID happened to her." Note, not "while she recalled what happened to her." Obviously, she was so drunk, she was unable to be a reliable witness--but that's not too drunk to be able to give consent.

Yes, the parallels between victim blaming in rape cases and murder cases are quite clear.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2011 6:00 PM

Birk "resignation" (and why not dismissal?)

assuming that wasn't rhetorical:

because dismissing him would have tacitly meant the dept. officially recognized he had done something wrong.

If you look at the officer testimony during the hearings, evidently they all went on record as saying Birk followed proper procedure.

How to get around that?

why, by forcing the officer to submit a resignation instead of firing him, of course.

"Fall on your sword for us"

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | May 26, 2011 6:06 PM

it would have been better to look both ways before crossing.

But in this case the car chased the pedestrian down the sidewalk and ran over him.

What is it with authoritarian apologists and their bizarre analogies?

Posted by: timgueguen | May 26, 2011 6:51 PM

Don't put too much faith in tasers either. Inept cops can kill someone with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident Given some of the details that came out about the officers involved I can't help but suspect these guys were assigned airport duty because they were considered problems. If it weren't for a bystander with a camera this incident probably would have been a one day story and then forgotten.

Posted by: evilDoug | May 26, 2011 7:48 PM

I did not hear the murderer identify himself as being police at any time. Is this not customary?

The FRB's findings, as stated by makyui @ 198, seems to fit well with what is apparent in the video. The cop acted with gross stupidiy and recklessness. I think appropriate action against him should have included marching him on the public square in full uniform, cutting off his buttons and stripes, firing him in public, then charging him with murder.

... compliant individual, if they ...

Walking down the street with a large (or any sized) blade make you armed and dangerous.

As far as Tasers go, there seems to be lots of evidence that cops use them indiscriminantly because they are convenient. No risk of getting the uniform wrinkled. Lots of people have been killed with Tasers. Somehow trials often conclude that some pre-existing condition was really what killed the victim, while overlooking the fact that the fundamental purpose of a Taser is to completely disrupt normal bodily function.
I know someone who has a brother in the RCMP, and says his brother will not carry a Taser specifically because it is a step in escalation to using a gun.

mistermuz @ 73 described a situation in Australia where several police, acting together and apparently actually thinking, resolved a difficult situation. Well done! That is what we should all demand and expect of a police force.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 26, 2011 8:00 PM

What is it with authoritarian apologists...

self answering question.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 26, 2011 8:16 PM

@Ichthyic

most of them are not authoritarian apologists. Most of them are authoritarian accomondationists.

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 26, 2011 8:40 PM

Posted by: Jadehawk Author Profile Page | May 26, 2011 4:34 PM

wow. victim-blaming for getting killed by a jumpy cop. that's a new one to me.

Then you must not follow police misconduct cases much. It's the first excuse they - the police and their defenders - always go for.

Posted by: Data Venia | May 26, 2011 9:29 PM

I believe the officer acted too quickly, but...

You sicken me.

Walking down the street with a large (or any sized) blade make you armed and dangerous.

This seems to be a case of a nervous officer firing too soon, but if the wood cutter had not be walking down the street with blade in hand it is unlikely this would have happened.

That is obscene. There is no way for Williams to survive the encounter - when he turns round to find out who Birk is shouting at, he gets shot; if he'd ignored the noise behind him, I don't see a different outcome. The poor bastard was not going to walk another block.

"The autopsy report also noted that a pair of headphones attached to an AM-FM radio were found with Williams' body, Ford said. The report didn't specify where the headphones were retrieved, Ford said.

Williams' family has said he probably didn't even hear the officer command him to drop the knife because he was deaf in one ear and wearing headphones."

So, law-abiding citizens of Seattle must also expect it to be lethal if they have the audacity to be walking down the street getting their groove on.

Posted by: Spamamander, internet amphibian | May 26, 2011 9:44 PM

Let's just add here that Washington is an open-carry state. My ex walks around fucking Walmart with his Glock on his hip. Someone carrying a blade to carve with being 'armed and dangerous' is beyond asinine thinking when you're perfectly free to walk down that same street with a loaded gun.

Posted by: ray.jonathan.w | May 26, 2011 11:14 PM

That officer should get at least 20 years in jail.

Posted by: Andyo | May 26, 2011 11:27 PM

googlemess #80

Seattle is liberal to the max: it elects blacks and Chinese and gays to office, the only minority it never elects is Republicans.

Although liberal Seattlites got pretty mad at the Makah for wanting to hunt whales, as was their treaty right.

Posted by: Lord Setar | May 26, 2011 11:48 PM

Zoe Trope #228:

The US is a scary authoritarian state, which is why I refuse to step foot across the border anymore, even if y'all do have cheap gas and great Mexican food. There's a price for civil rights, and that price is higher than $4/g.

And with his majority, he can invoke the notwithstanding clause as well...

Posted by: jrsutter | May 27, 2011 1:43 AM

@73 -- US police do that type of thing too.

It comes down to matters of training, department policy, laws, and the officers responding.

The use of tasers in the US is a real abuse. They are used whenever a cop feels. Rarely, if ever, do cops face disciplinary action for using them. A guy I know was taser for saying "I don't give a fuck if you tase me." sounds threatening, right? He was cuffed in the back of a cop car. They pulled over, dragged him out and tased him. His leg kicked out and hit the one officer so they charged him with assaulting a police officer. That charge was dropped. Was he being an ass and unruly? Sure, but he didn't need or deserve to be tased for ranting in the back of a cop car.

Some cops are good, a lot aren't. Its the level if deference and automatic respect officers are given. They get control and power, and power corrupts. A person who's just an ass can be a tyrant if he or she has a badge.

@everyone who thinks no charges = no guilt, cops are rarely prosecuted. It takes a lot.

Also, shots to the side could indicate he was turning and the cop really did feel he was justified in shooting. Was he wron to shoot the guy, of course. Does he believe that, or rather did he believe that at the time? Who knows. He didn't soun out of control. There isn't anything to indicate it either way. Sitting here at our computers (or phones) with all the information before us it's easy to know it was the wrong move. We can't assume he didn't think he was justified. He obviously isn't cut out to be a police officer.

It was more likely because he was homeless than because he was brown.

Posted by: defides | May 27, 2011 3:03 AM

We've had some...grimly satisfying news over here in Blighty.
A year or two ago, there was a demonstration in London, and Ian Hamilton - a newspaper seller, in late middle age, also having problems with alcohol - was walking home from work. The Met Police were pursuing a policy of 'kettling', which involves denying exit to EVERYONE from within a cordon. One imagines this policy is designed to ensure 'rioters' don't get out, and into parts of London that aren't being policed. Problem is, the policy results in people who have nothing to do with riot or even demonstration being trapped within the 'kettle'.
A policeman in riot gear decided Hamilton wasn't walking fast enough, smacked him behind the knee with his telescopic baton, then gave him a mighty push. Hamilton, whose hands were in his pockets, couldn't get them out to break his fall and landed on his side, with one arm underneath his abdomen. A police dog attacked him, although not seriously.
Mr Hamilton sadly died.
The police then began saying it had been rioters who were responsible for his fall, then that they had been responsible for preventing emergency services from helping Mr Hamilton.
An American who happened to be there at the time had taken video footage which showed what had really happened - a wholly unnecessary and unreasonably vicious assault on someone in a place and at a time in which the most notable thing happening was - a man walking along with his hands in his pockets. No rioters, no demonstrators, even; no yelling, no shouting, no confusion. Just a normal late afternoon scene in the City of London with the exception of a dozen blokes in riot gear.
Because of problems with the autopsy, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that it would not be possible to secure a conviction of the policeman, because there was - by definition - reasonable doubt of his guilt.
However, new medical evidence was presented at the coroner's inquest last month and the jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing.
The DPP has now reviewed the situation, and earlier this week it was announced that the police officer would face charges of manslaughter.
This result would not have been possible if the video footage hadn't been available.
Maybe police in major US cities should have to wear personal video cameras - like those used by the Navy SEALS - which ought to make them think at least twice about pulling their guns out and killing someone who doesn't appear to represent any danger to anyone.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | May 27, 2011 3:10 AM

After reading about the experiences of others photographing while brown, I've made it a point to photograph airports when I'm travelling by air: Inside, outside, planes, captain's uniforms, transport systems, sky trains, fuel equipment, hangars, baggage trucks, signals, radar, runways, signs, obscure gadgets, aerial views, videos of procedures... No one ever says a word to me.

Posted by: cathibeastevenson | May 27, 2011 3:29 AM

And there is the current trial, in Portland OR, about misconduct being reported and the trainee doing the reporting being told - you won't get backup because you have angered the others in this area by telling about their misdeeds.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/05/former_rookie_portland_officer.html

that's just the first days reporting.

Posted by: Velok | May 27, 2011 3:54 AM

I am so glad I live in Norway; police here don't carry guns (nor tazers)...

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2011 7:13 AM

If Seattle had a Native American equivalent of the Black Panthers, carrying legal firearms in a legal manner but following cops around to monitor their behavior, I predict you'd see a lot of anti-gun control people change their tunes.

But this guy was carrying a knife. You can't expect the government to let people carry knives around in public. That's a public safety hazard.

My GF and I were wondering what would happen if we were buttering croissants while eating at a sidewalk cafe in Seattle, with say a dozen others around us doing the same thing.

"YOU! PUT DOWN THE KNIFE"

"Who, me?"

*BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM*

let the bodies hit the floor.

Posted by: Non Edible Nacho | May 27, 2011 7:45 AM

WHY DIDN'T HE JUST TASE HIM!

WTF. This in insane. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to make this guy suffer something pretty close to torture, shocking him with electricity because of walking in the fucking streets. The fact that you consider this the reasonable alternative and that, even in a relatively progressive blog such as this, up to what I have read in the comments thread, no one has expressed anger and dismay at the idea, suggests society is going so consistently towards the right that we might not be noticing it due to the intertia.

Posted by: MacTurk | May 27, 2011 8:32 AM

An undisciplined,armed,uniformed thug runs up behind someone focussed on whittling or carving and puts four bullets into his back. And the punishment is that he is allowed to resign? Why is he not facing murder charges?

The trigger happy thug should be in jail,not drawing his pension or unemployment money.

And what was it with the crocodile of some ten(or more?) cops creeping up on the poor guy bleeding his life out onto the street?

You may understand why a lot of perfectly moral people object to being lectured by Americans about human rights and how wonderful and superior "The American Way of Life" is.

In Ireland, uniformed police are usually unarmed. We do have armed police, but they are well trained in fire discipline. As this thug obviously was not.

John Morales(no 244) wrote "...being tased instead is a more reasonable alternative".

How about approaching the guy from the front? You know, waving to attract his attention, with gun in holster? As opposed to inflicting massive pain or death on the poor guy from the back?

Posted by: Timaahy | May 29, 2011 9:17 AM

I find this video fucking terrifying.