[kellyhound]

story and other dashcam vid here : http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...hooting-67485/

[chris]

How many cops with guns does it take to cuff a dead man.

[AmericanIllusions]

ARE YOU FUCKIN KIDDING ME. When I saw that long line come into view I wanted to laugh but I was too disturbed at the sight of a fresh un-armed corpse. I hope the truth comes out what ever it may be.

[kellyhound]

Many witnesses who saw a fatal police shooting unfold on a downtown Seattle street contradicted the officer's version of what happened.

Thursday was the fourth day of the fact-finding inquest into whether the shooting that killed John T. Williams, 50, a First Nation woodcarver, was justified. Officer Ian Birk, 27, at the center of the inquest, testified Williams was holding a piece of wood and a knife in a threatening manner, leaving him no option but lethal force.

The incident happened on a warm August day and many people saw it. Janelle Coppinger saw the shooting as she was driving by and was deeply disturbed.

"Beautiful sunny day in downtown Seattle, peaceful part of town, it just seemed wrong I had to go back, I had to go back," she testified.

More than a half dozen citizen witnesses testified that they didn't remember seeing the woodcarver holding a knife or threatening the officer.

Most reported hearing the officer yell to put down the knife several times, then open fire. They seemed disturbed by what they saw, and some asked not to have their faces photographed by the media.

One witness testified he thought the officer must be using a taser.

"He yelled twice, didn't hear what he said because he had his back to me, and almost immediately after he yelled two times he shot three times. After he shot the officer was standing, bouncing up and down. Very agitated like he was waiting for the guy to get back up," the witness said.

A fire department lieutenant who responded to the scene testified she saw an open knife next to Williams' body. But according to other responding officers, the knife was closed on the ground next to the body.

Officer Birk's attorney suggested witnesses may not have been close enough to see whether Williams had a knife and could have had their vision blocked by cars moving through the intersection.

The eight member jury will be asked to answer a set of questions about whether the shooting seemed justified. It is not a criminal proceeding. Their answers will be used by prosecutors to decide whether officer Birk should be charged with a crime. For now he remains on administrative leave with pay.

One of the first officers to arrive at the scene after First Nations woodcarver John Williams was shot by Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk last summer testified Friday in the inquest into the fatal shooting.

Seattle Police Officer William Collins told the jury that the knife Williams was carrying was not open but still presented a danger to Officer Birk.

"A closed knife poses the same threat as an open knife. If a person is aggressive, a knife is a threat. Our job is to stop someone walking with a knife," said Collins.

Birk said he shot and killed Williams because the woodcarver wouldn't drop his knife.

A medical examiner also testified Friday regarding Williams' autopsy. He detailed the wounds caused by four bullets that hit Williams' right side.

"The first one entered on the right side of the chin and went through the tissue under the chin," said Dr. Aldo Fusaro.

Fusaro testified Williams was intoxicated at the time.

[Faline]

[chaka20]

hahaha noo wayy... those guys looked funny getting in line to go look at the dead body haha...those are the cops that make the police have a bad reputation

[flyflicker123]

Well there you pukes go,,he did have a knife,,open or not.. he was shot from the front,,not the back like some pukes here said. Drunk,armed,,legitimate threat..so piss off.

[dooshman]

What I don't understand is why the police repeatedly utilize deadly force to suppress a knife-wielding person, if that person is not a DIRECT THREAT TO ANYONE. By that I mean if no one, including the cop, is within twenty feet of the person, how is he a threat? At worst, the cop should've shot the man in the leg or something. But to shoot to kill?

The law tells us that we, in the course of defending ourselves, are allowed to use equal force that will thwart an attack. So if someone, say, attacks me with his fists, I have a right to defend myself, with my fists, or, if he is overpowering, perhaps I can utilize a stone, stick or even a knife. But if I were to use a gun in such a situation, when I do not see such a weapon on the assailant, then I become the instigator of a crime.

The same should go for the cops. The cop's got a gun, the assailant has a knife. They're about twenty feet apart. The cop, by and far, has the superior firepower. He should not have to use deadly force on that person.

Why don't the police use something like a bean bag for such an affair? If a cop shoots the attacker in the chest or even the head, that'll fuck him up to the point where he will definitely not be a threat anymore. Best part, no one dies in the course of the action.

[bdjackass318]

why not use a taser? this just seems plain wrong to me

[kellyhound]

Since the shooting of Native American Woodcarver John T. Williams on Aug. 30 an article about it has appeared in the Times just about every day and I believe I’ve read most of them, if not all of them. Perhaps I may have missed it, but I don’t recall having read about any elaboration as to why Officer Ian Birk shot to kill.

He fired five successive rounds from a distance of roughly 9 feet, four of which pierced Williams’ body, within roughly five seconds of issuing his first command for Williams to drop his knife (after saying “hey” several times). Whether or not Officer Birk genuinely feared for his safety, I don’t believe five seconds was enough time for Officer Birk to deduce that Williams was an imminent threat to his safety and nor do I believe it was enough time for Williams to deduce the situation, especially considering that he was deaf in one ear and supposedly inebriated at the time of the shooting.

Deafness and inebriation aside, for Officer Birk was likely unaware of such factors at that time, I don’t understand why Birk, assuming he genuinely feared for his safety, fired five rounds in succession at Williams from a distance of roughly nine feet. Assuming Williams did turn to face Birk, why didn’t he distance himself from Williams with his weapon drawn while reissuing commands for Williams to drop the knife?

And if he genuinely believed that he had no choice but to immediately open fire due to signs of pre-attack indicators, why didn’t he fire a round at a time until Williams was immobilized and then alert the paramedics?

I believe that firing five rounds in succession is indubitably shooting to kill and for that reason charges should indeed be filed against Officer Birk.

— Daniel Nelson, Seattle