[CuriousCanadian]

"Drunk,armed,legitimate threat..so piss off...."

Yes, that officers life was in sooo much danger - seeing how the poor native guy had a knife that was CLOSED and was STANDING THERE and he was deaf too.

A threat would be:

native guy with open knife CHARGING YOU!!

BIG DIFFERENCE

[grimekeepa]

I love the title buddy instantly earned....... Designated Shooter

[TheUrinator]

Based on the story, inappropriate use of force. Personally, I think the cop thought he had a good excuse, so he killed the guy. This is a situation that calls for the use of a tazer. That many shots in such a short time shows poor judgement and the cop obviously did not use deadly force as a last resort. The #1 defense against a knife is distance between you and the knife. Use the tazer or shoot to disarm, not shoot to kill.

[BrownRock]

Wow, 12 man arrest team for one dead guy. How do you even arrest a dead man?

[mrh2008]

I love the morons that say "shoot to disarm" and "Shoot to wound"... If you do either of those, then off you go to prison... Doesn't matter if you're a cop of not.

[manic406]

did they just cuff a dead guy wtf

[drm82]

[fibercus]

+1 on tazer may have been better choice.

But single file / designated shooter reduces liability in case hes got a shot left. Never seen dead man cuffed b4

[keno1964]

Originally Posted by 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

Mr. Nelson has obviously never been in a situation where he feared for his safety or the safety of others. He also knows nothing about police training procedures.
By putting all that drivel up in the public view, he has done nothing more than prove his ignorance and guaranteed further public backlash via those as ignorant as he.

[jon212]

9 FUCKING FEET?!?! AN "INTOXICATED" MAN WITH A SHEATHED KNIFE POSED A THREAT TO AN OFFICER WITH A GUN FROM 9FT AWAY!?!?! They said the officer seemed jumpy right after, sounds like he immeadiately knew he fucked up and was in shock (but thats just my opinion)