• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Woodcarver was shot four times in his side by officer, autopsy shows

Seattleman

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
23
Location
Seattle, WA
I will go back to my original question to the officer, the department...

Why was contact made in the first place? There was no 911 call. The officer choose to engage the deceased. The officer choose to leave his car. The officer choose to not call back up.

What was the RAS for the contact?


I'm with you 100% there. This issue of unwarranted contact is what gets officers into trouble, not to mention the violation of civil rights.

It seems the rules are simple...

Making contact with someone for jaywalking = OK
Making contact with someone because you don't like their T-shirt = Not OK

Pulling over a car weaving in and out of traffic = OK
Pulling over a car because you don't like their bumper sticker = Not OK

Making contact with someone waving a knife around = OK
Making contact with someone whittling wood = Not OK

Making contact with someone with a gun IN THEIR HAND = OK
Making contact with someone with a gun IN A HOLSTER = Not OK
 

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
I can respect your attempts to restore civility, however, when engaging someone who's occupation is based on lies and deceit, and represents a broken and corrupt system, how much respectful treatment can be expected from the very people victimized by these traits?

Some folks don't understand the harm of allowing rats to infest their living quarters. Some have been around long enough to learn first hand of the sickness that can be spread, efforts at building a safe environment undermined, and the things that sustain us poisoned. All by allowing a rat to co-exist with you, unchecked.

Doesn't matter what their profession is based on. We should still remain respectful of others, even if they don't return the respect. If it's a continuing thing where just one person is speaking in a disrespectful manner, then it's a matter of forum rules being broken. Heck, I'm not even gonna get into the whole "people read this board, what would they think if they saw this?" spiel. My point stands.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
Are you just stupid, or do you think I am?

No, I don't think you're stupid.

I think "unbalanced, mildly paranoid, and confrontational" are better descriptors.

You're laughing maniacally about an argument on the internet.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
Your presence here is a personal invasion, why shouldn't the questions put to you be personal in nature?

And if you are involved in activity that can't be revealed on a forum, maybe you better be working in a closer supervised environment.

The owner of the forum could, at any time, simply politely ask that I leave and I would do so immediately.

I'm here as a citizen, and am entitled to privacy in my affairs the same way you are. I'm under no obligation to answer any question that you would not be obligated to answer.

I am, however, restricted somewhat. There are things that if I discussed on a public internet forum I could be disciplined or even terminated.

If that bothers you, you are free to remain bothered.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: No LEO bashing

I would choose to take out my ire on the individual who victimized me, rather than a society as a whole.

The posts - all of them - on this board are available for everyone in the public to read. What safe, sustainable environment am I poisoning? I support your right to carry a firearm openly, and thus fit within the parameter of the membership the owner of the forum seeks to invite.

I do like the "rat" thing you bring up frequently. I'm going to use it as an avatar.
 

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
maclean, I have some serious questions about the conduct of an investigation into an officer involved shooting. Besides the immediate facts of the incident, are any of the following investigated:

The results a drug/alcohol tests for the officer if those test are given.

How much sleep the officer had in the previous 24 hours.

Relationship problems with the officer's significant other.

What the officer ingested in the previous 24 hours.

Professional problems the officer may have been having with his supervisor.

Prescription drugs the officer may have been taking.

Financial problems the officer may have been experiencing.

Problems with extended family.

Well, you get the gist. Basically, how deep is the investigation into the officers personal life which may have had an effect on the officers performance that day, or previous days?
Is there any part of the investigation which focuses on preventing future similar incidents within law enforcement?
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I'm with you 100% there. This issue of unwarranted contact is what gets officers into trouble, not to mention the violation of civil rights.

It seems the rules are simple...

Making contact with someone for jaywalking = OK
Making contact with someone because you don't like their T-shirt = Not OK

Pulling over a car weaving in and out of traffic = OK
Pulling over a car because you don't like their bumper sticker = Not OK

Making contact with someone waving a knife around = OK
Making contact with someone whittling wood = Not OK

Making contact with someone with a gun IN THEIR HAND = OK
Making contact with someone with a gun IN A HOLSTER = Not OK

The sad part is it really is that simple.
 

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
The results a drug/alcohol tests for the officer if those test are given.

Is there any part of the investigation which focuses on preventing future similar incidents within law enforcement.

I don't know the answer to your questions except these two, and the answer is an emphatic yes - at least where I work.

The fact that the information isn't yet public may frustrate you, but that is pretty standard. The same would apply if you were being investigated, prior to the filing of charges or determination not to file charges.

Where I work, as a firearms and tactics instructor I would be a part of the shooting review to determine if training was faulty or if it could be improved to change the outcome. As you know, sometimes the outcome was chosen by the shooter and sometimes by the shot.
 
Last edited:

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Here is some reading on the Seattle Police Department that asks some tough questions after the shooting of John Williams (yes he was a homeless "carver" but he also has a name).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013013157_deadlyforce28m.html?prmid=obinsource

Some excerpts:

"Questions about the scope of that training have grown in light of what happened next — within a minute of meeting Williams, Birk shot and killed the 50-year-old First Nations totem carver." (emphasis mine)
------
"Birk, 27, had been on the streets about two years.

A Seattle police trainer says an officer with that level of street time "can pretty quickly find himself in a situation where he just doesn't have the experience to draw on."

"Combine that with the fact that six officers were murdered last year, and they might find it hard to tell when to back down," said Officer Dallas Murry, a 35-year veteran who coordinates the department's Taser training program."

---------
"At the same time, Alpert said, Seattle police deploy officers, like many large, unionized departments, based at least partly on seniority. And that, he said, can put the least experienced officers in some of the toughest situations.



"With few exceptions," Alpert said, "you don't tend to find the older, more senior officers on the midnight shift in the high-crime areas. So what happens is that you put young officers in harm's way and expect them to do the best job, which is ridiculous."

---------------------

The manner in which the Seattle Police Department answers the many questions the public has regarding this incident will go a long way in either diminishing the perception of a "Blue Wall of Silence". A timely response would help too as the longer it goes on the more people will believe one exists.
 
Last edited:

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
The manner in which the Seattle Police Department answers the many questions the public has regarding this incident will go a long way in either diminishing the perception of a "Blue Wall of Silence". A timely response would help too as the longer it goes on the more people will believe one exists.

I agree with this statement. It is well reasoned and makes sense to me.

Any delay following the conclusions of fact will erode confidence amongst the native community in particular.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Any delay following the conclusions of fact will erode confidence amongst the native community in particular.

This incident is being played on British Columbia news outlets as well as the Seattle media. John Williams was a member of a BC based tribe. You might say that this is becoming an "International Incident".
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
No, I don't think you're stupid.

I think "unbalanced, mildly paranoid, and confrontational" are better descriptors.

You're laughing maniacally about an argument on the internet.

Bwahahahahahahaha!! Nice try at evasion. It was ridicule. You know it, I know it, and most readers know it.

But, keep talking. We're getting through your facade.

Your antagonism toward someone for voicing criticism against the clearly indefensible Blue Wall of Silence laid down some nice brackets, even though his criticism was misplaced.

In an earlier thread you said you never violated anyone's rights, but felt compelled to clarify it as anyone's 2A rights. Yet, you know as well as I most police encounters involve 4A and 5A rights, not 2A. Yours was an empty, meaningless comment. But, why make it, except to mislead? When I called you on it, you made some throw-away reply, rather than substantively address my concern. Boy, was that a confession by omission.

Too, you seem easily annoyed. My, what a difference from the air of calm reasonableness you cultivate.

So, keep talking. And, whatever you do, don't take responsibility for misreading my initial comment in this thread, nor your side of the discussion that followed.
 
Last edited:

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
Boy, was that a confession by omission.

Paranoid personality disorder is a recognized disorder in the DSM-IV characterized by a pervasive, long-standing suspiciousness and generalized mistrust of others.

Those with the condition are hypersensitive, are easily slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions to validate their prejudicial ideas or biases. They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. Their incapacity for meaningful emotional involvement and the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience.

Too, you seem easily annoyed.

Amused, not annoyed. I'm enjoying the fact that I can have reasonable discourse with the balance of the folks here, and we even disagree about some things - except you. My dad taught me to rank annoyances from one to ten. Ten is being shot.

You would be a one.

So, keep talking.

Thank you for the invitation from Virginia. Beautiful state, my uncle lives there up near Front Royal.

One of my fellow super moderators on an LEO site is from there, and I like him a lot he's a bright guy.

I avoid the politics there since I don't live there. I also avoid the forum.

Hey, it's Friday - have a great weekend.
 
Last edited:

maclean

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
378
Location
, ,
This incident is being played on British Columbia news outlets as well as the Seattle media. John Williams was a member of a BC based tribe. You might say that this is becoming an "International Incident".

That doesn't increase my level of concern, to be honest.

I worry about American citizens and opinion, of which there is plenty to be concerned about already.
 
Top