"The knife was folded in a closed position", deaf, drinking, carver shot 4 times, killed

[uppityperson]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013385604_policeshooting10m.html

Newest turn in shooting: Carver's knife found shut
By Steve Miletich

The knife that John T. Williams was carrying when he was fatally shot by a Seattle police officer on Aug. 30 was folded in a closed position when it was recovered minutes after the shooting, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The knife's condition, combined with evidence that Williams was shot in the side, played a role in a preliminary determination by the Police Department's Firearms Review Board and Chief John Diaz that the shooting was not justified, said one law-enforcement source. The three-inch blade was found closed when another officer picked up the knife, which is documented in evidentiary photographs taken at the scene, the sources said.
(clip)
Birk shot Williams after he stopped his patrol car at a red light and saw Williams walking and carrying a piece of wood and a small knife that turned out to be used for carving. Williams, who was a member of Nuu-Chah-Nulth First Nations in British Columbia, did not respond to three commands to drop the knife, according to police officials and an audio recording retrieved from Birk's patrol car.

Williams' family has said he probably didn't hear the officer command him to drop the knife because he was deaf in one ear. Williams' blood-alcohol level was measured at 0.18, according to an autopsy report obtained by The Seattle Times under a public-disclosure request. A driver with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 is considered drunk. The Police Department originally said Williams advanced on Birk but later retreated on that statement.

According to two people familiar with the shooting, who asked not to be identified, less than 15 seconds passed between the time Birk issued his commands and when he fired his gun. Seattle police have said that Birk fired four rounds from a distance of nine to 10 feet. Williams was struck by four bullets on the right side of his body, indicating he was not facing the officer at the time the shots were fired, according to an attorney for Williams' family.

[Angry Dragon]

1. Thanks for the update

[ConsAreLiars]

2. Anyone who reflexively defends killer cops should make an exception for once and

denounce this homicidal jackass and demand that first degree murder charges be filed. The long history of letting cops murder minorities with impunity, and chorus of slogan slingers who defend the killers do no favors for honerable cops.

[jancantor]

21. There are people who reflexively condemn them as well

I've seen it here ad nauseum. Regardless, this guy was thrown under the bus by his own dept. almost from the get-go, which is the best indicator the shooting was probably bad. The police chief, etc. did everything but say "this shooting was fucked up" right from the get go. Diaz, for example, met with Native American community leaders early on and even mentioned that cops make "mistakes" which is about as tacit an admission as you can get.

This shooting will almost certainly not meet the standard for 1st Degree Murder regardless of what you demand. I strongly doubt you have even read the 1st Degree Murder statute and know what the requisite elements are in WA state.

RCW 9a.32.030 fwiw

[KT2000]

3. they cannot defend this cop

It sounds like he was not wired right for the job. He was not responding to the situation he was faced with.
Doesn't this just make you want to cry. That poor man.

[midnight]

4. This is really horrible....

[Hannah Bell]

5. thanks for the update. so much for those here who defended the police

because of the dangerous open 3 inch blade he was waving about threateningly.

[jancantor]

6. Error in the article

A person with .08 is NOT considered "drunk" as the article claimed. .08 is the threshold for "legally impaired". There is no legal threshold for "drunk" since it is not an element of DUI in WA (or any other state I am aware of). Very sloppy writing on the part of the Seattle Times which is typical for them. It is correct to say .08 is the legal threshold at which legal impairment is presumed. Impairment =/= "drunk" and while drunk is not a technical or legal term, the level of intoxication we refer to as "drunk" is much higher than the mere threshold for impairment, and especially for an alcoholic, many of whom maintain homeostasis at a .10 or so.

[AlabamaLibrul]

7. I don't see how that's at all relevant when describing the legal limit

.08 is pretty widely known as the level at which you will certainly get "busted" for "drunk driving" (although there are related violations like public intoxication, which is presumably less tied to BAC), not "legal impairment".

[jancantor]

8. Um, no

First of all this occurred in WA state. WA state does not have "drunk driving". They have DUI. In order to prove the elements of DUI, the state must prove the person was either

1) impaired
OR
2) had a BAC of .08 or above

It is also established in the RCW that impaired can be "presumed" by a BAC of .08 within (iirc it's) 2 hrs of operation.

while operating or in physical control of a motor vehicle while on a "way". (doesn't need to be a public way)

NOWHERE is there mention of a threshold for "drunk". That is incorrect terminology. Feel free to research NHTSA and other Org's or the model penal code which have all specifically designed DUI laws such that DRUNK was not an issue. This is a common issue with educating some ignorant judges, and even juries who have been conditioned by media etc. to beleive that the threshold is "drunk". It is not.

Iow, it is ENTIRELY possible that somebody is a .08 but is NOT in any way, shape or form - drunk. A mere 4 cues on the HGN can offer PC that the person is impaired, but clearly is not PC that the person is DRUNK.

Words have meaning. We all know what "drunk" means, which is why the law was not written to only include "drunk" driving. In fact, there is an advertising campaign that explains that "buzzed driving" is illegal. One does not have to be DRUNK to be impaired.

Impaired can be described as affected by an intoxicant to the extent that one's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely has been... wait for it... impaired.

Drunk is an much higher threshold.

Also, WA state fwiw does not have such a violation as public intoxication. It is not illegal (neither a crime or a civil infraction) to be intoxicated in public in WA.

[AlabamaLibrul]

9. Of course it's called DUI. Hence the quotes. The angry debate forum is that way. n/t

[jancantor]

11. Your refusal to deal with reality forum is the other way

There is no anger here. Merely an attempt to educate somebody who is clearly not interested in understanding what they are talking about. Fair enough.

If you want to believe that .08 is the threshold for "drunk", then feel free to do so. It is demonstrably false, as I have tried to explain to you. I'll live in the reality based community, without anger on this issue.

There is a reason there is not a statute in WA state called "Driving Drunk" and a reason why "drunk" is nowhere mentioned in the legal statute, that it is not an element of the crime, that the NHTSA established battery of three FSM's are not designed to detect if somebody is drunk.

As an analogy, Drunk is to Impaired as Aggravated Assault is to Simple Assault.

or "all drunk people are impaired. Not all impaired people are drunk. Drunkeness is a subset of the group 'impaired'"

As an analogy, a newspaper article that says "the jury found John Doe innocent of murder today" would be similarly incorrect. Juries don't find for innocence. They find for guilty or not guilty.

If you are ever in WA state, feel free to offer as your defense "Your honor, I wasn't drunk". That won't get you very far, since it is not an element of the crime, nor is it what the presumptive limit .08 indicates.

[uppityperson]

12. Your only point is you don't like the DUI/drunk terminology?

You object to the common phrase "drunk driving" when it *should* be DUI? Seriously, you are arguing this? Well, thanks for kicking the topic.

[jancantor]

15. Not at all

The point I was mentioning was that .08 is not the legal limit for DRUNK. The article is WRONG. It has nothing to do with what I like or dislike. I'm not arguing this. It's inarguable. I am explaining it.

As for the cop, he looks guilty as fuck, but that hardly seems arguable. I guess I could have jumped in with the choir, it just seems so damn obvious.

[uppityperson]

16. Mr Williams had enough alcohol in his blood to qualify as DUI if he were driving.

Other than squabbling about "it means DUI if driving, not drunk", what about the article is wrong, or WRONG, if you want to use all caps?

Thanks for continuing to kick this even if you seem to be nitpicking a minor point.

[jancantor]

17. I don't think this is a minor point

I think there are many in the public, as evidenced by the Seattle times, that think that one needs to be "drunk" to be DUI. That is a dangerously false misconception. The legal limit is .08. That is WELL WELL short of "drunk" for most people. For frequent drinkers, they are definitely not going to feel, look, or act drunk at a .08. But they will be illegal to drive under WA DUI statute.

I've had friends killed and wounded by impaired drivers. One was definitely drunk (.32). One was not. But both were IMPAIRED and that is illegal under the DUI statute.

Mr Williams had well over twice the legal limit for impaired. He may have been drunk. Based on the news reports I have been following he was a well known heavy drinker.

Fwiw, WA does not criminalize "public intoxication" but it does allow cops to take people into protective custody at which point they are transported via ambulance to a medical facility IF they are INTOXICATED (A much higher standard than impaired) to the extent that they cannot reasonably avoid injury and care for themselves. Iow, the "falling down/stumbling" drunk.

I think drawing these distinctions is important because impaired driving is a serious matter that has killed scores of thousands.

[uppityperson]

18. Thanks for the kick

[jancantor]

19. yw nt.

[uppityperson]

20. maybe you should write the stl times and tell them. eom

[jancantor]

22. I wrote them once when they wrote in an article

that "the jury found X innocent of ..." to try to explain to them that juries don't and can't find people innocent. They still do it. The Seattle Times is hackish on legal issues, to put it mildly. I also think it's lame fwiw that they will report on stuff like Appeals court cases etc. without even MENTIONING the name of the case on the docket, let alone a link to same, etc. It's kind of the high priest philosophy that nobody but the times should access the source documents, but only should be spoonfed analysis by the great on-high journalists of the ST.

[uppityperson]

23. We each have our pet peeves and many of us are obsessive, others may say

I agree that sloppy journalism sucks and that much of what we get these days is sloppy journalism.

[jancantor]

25. To me, a journalist first and foremost should strive for accuracy

It annoys me that they make so little effort to be accurate. Juries don't find people "guilty". DUI is not "drunk driving". This is basic stuff

[HereSince1628]

10. Add whittling in public while deaf to the list of terrorist threats.

The inability of law enforcement to deal with the unresponsive without force is a real problem.

The police are terrorized and we've had diabetics in coma tazed too.

[uppityperson]

13. add carrying a closed whittling knife in public while deaf to the list. It is very much a problem

We've had tazed diabetics in insulin shock here too.

[awoke_in_2003]

14. to clarify....

he was whittling in public while deaf and a minority. "they have the authority to kill a minority"- Ice Cube (NWA days)

[felix_numinous]

24. Drunk or not drunk

he was carrying a closed knife and was shot in the side 4 times. Why are police so freaking quick on the trigger these days? Are there no other humane ways to deal with people? Come on.

[Scurrilous]

26. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup: