-
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.
-
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.
No charges against seattle officer who killed woodcarver
- Thread starter gogodawgs
- Start date
Bobarino
Regular Member
We would have to have a definition of "restrains", but I don't think that would meet the criteria. I searched the WA Legislature site for a definition but I cannot find one.
Last edited:
joeroket
Regular Member
Bobarino
Regular Member
Thanks. I searched for the plural form. It appears that would meet the legal definition. It would take a massive crowd to pull off such an act of defiance. I doubt the city has enough people with the stones to do it. I'm open for other suggestions.
Bobby
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Taxpayers are going to pay out a lot of money in settlement for this shoot. It appears that there is a lot of politics in play here, I mean, SPD says the shoot was unjustified, and the prosecutor said they will not file charged because they don't think they could win a criminal conviction.
They both go into a room, the ruling that would result in a civil case, not criminal, ruled that Birk was not justified, while the criminal aspect of the case is ruled, well, basically by default, found to be justified. I think the prosecutor believes that Birk was unjustified, but realizes that a criminal case would be pointless.
Let's think about this for a moment, there are two witnesses (at least) that testified that Williams was not threatening. There is video footage that show Birk out of his car, approaching Williams, with gun drawn, the four shots are fired into the side of Williams...Birk doesn't identify himself as an officer, and Birk gives Williams not time to even turn around to see if he was the one being yelled at by Birk.
They both go into a room, the ruling that would result in a civil case, not criminal, ruled that Birk was not justified, while the criminal aspect of the case is ruled, well, basically by default, found to be justified. I think the prosecutor believes that Birk was unjustified, but realizes that a criminal case would be pointless.
Let's think about this for a moment, there are two witnesses (at least) that testified that Williams was not threatening. There is video footage that show Birk out of his car, approaching Williams, with gun drawn, the four shots are fired into the side of Williams...Birk doesn't identify himself as an officer, and Birk gives Williams not time to even turn around to see if he was the one being yelled at by Birk.
Last edited:
joeroket
Regular Member
I think you hit this nail right on the head.
Bobarino
Regular Member
If they DON'T fire him, well, one can only guess. It still eludes me that the shooting was found not to be justified, but it's ok anyway. Not justified = criminal in my book. What would happen to you or I killed someone, claimed self defense and was found unjustified? We'd go to jail. End of story.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
To me, that means the prosecutor is more concerned with looking good than actually doing his job. More concerned with his win/loss ratio, than justice.
Johnsmith1521
Regular Member
Open carry meet up in downtown Seattle???
Who would like to set up a meet up in a Starbucks downtown??? This I think would be a real test to see how SPD reacts to law abbiding citizens with guns drinking coffee... It would really be no diffrent then Mr. Williams walking down the street carving, minding his own business and not a threat to know one... This is just wrong!!! Me and my coworks have been talking about it today and everybody feels the same... It just gets my blood boiling, and people wonder why cops become targets for criminals...
I know and understand that they have a really, really tough job... But because of cops like this burk fellow, the good cops take the heat and sometimes they pay with thier lives...
Let do a meet up in downtown!!! Who's coming with me?!?
Who would like to set up a meet up in a Starbucks downtown??? This I think would be a real test to see how SPD reacts to law abbiding citizens with guns drinking coffee... It would really be no diffrent then Mr. Williams walking down the street carving, minding his own business and not a threat to know one... This is just wrong!!! Me and my coworks have been talking about it today and everybody feels the same... It just gets my blood boiling, and people wonder why cops become targets for criminals...
I know and understand that they have a really, really tough job... But because of cops like this burk fellow, the good cops take the heat and sometimes they pay with thier lives...
Let do a meet up in downtown!!! Who's coming with me?!?
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Someone will be rich from a wrongful death suit. Unfortunately, a man is dead who won't be coming into the money. And his killer 'could get fired.' He belongs in prison, but once again, gutless prosecutors kiss cop ass rather than act "for the people." What a surprise.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Yeah, the Lone Gunman did it.
amlevin
Regular Member
The Prosecutor referred specifically to:
Based on the two key elements of this part of the law the Prosecutor rightfully concluded that he wouldn't be able to get a conviction. All it would take in a criminal trial is one juror to "hang" the jury and the results of the Coroner's Jury/Inquest was pretty clear. There was not 100% agreement on the facts that were presented.
What really needs to be done is to take away the difference in how a Police Officer is treated when someone is killed. Either they don't get a special consideration when it comes to prosecution (absence of malice; good faith) or everyone gets that same "free pass", including ordinary citizens.
Nobody here agrees with the outcome but the issue is more with the law than the Prosecutor. Legislators need to give prosecutors a law that they can use to prosecute out of control or stupid police officers.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Why should that happen? A man was shot down on the street because he had a folded knife and piece of wood he was carving. Completely justified because the killer wore a badge. Would have been better if he was wearing a hood, too. After all, the killer said the man had a mean look on his face. Imagine that. Facing a murderous, out of control cop that was pointing a gun at him with every intent of taking his life, and he had the audacity to have a mean look on his face. Cop showed him, didn't he?
Vitaeus
Regular Member
Criminal conviction requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", call it 90% or more, your mileage may vary. Civil finding of fault requires "greater than 50%", this difference is where the cop ended up. There is no doubt he shot the man, but the prosecutor does not believe he has enough evidence to garner a conviction. This is the same place O.J. Simpson ended up, The city of Seattle is going to lose the civil case and end up paying for the officer's error. In this case the benefit of the doubt goes to the responsible party and it sucks. The officer is still never going to be hired by another Agency or even a security company, with this on his record.
This is good example of the concept that better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent man be punished, by the criminal justice system.
This is good example of the concept that better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent man be punished, by the criminal justice system.
Dave Workman
Regular Member
See related thread,m Seattle Gun Rights Examiner.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86972-NO-charges-in-Seattle-woodcarver-shooting
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86972-NO-charges-in-Seattle-woodcarver-shooting
skiingislife725
Regular Member
Birk resigns! Good riddance!
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
I wouldn't be surprised if that was a pre-negotiated deal.
No charges, if you voluntarily disappear.
Tomas
Regular Member
I grabbed a copy of the SPD Firearms Review Board report on Ian Birk's shooting of John Williams.
I put it here :arrow: http://tijil.org/Birk_Firearms_Review_Board.pdf
Lots of damning information to go over in that document.
There is no doubt that the entire blame for Mr. Williams death rests ENTIRELY in Officer Birks poor decision making and actions initiated entirely by Birk.
Mr. Williams was not at fault.
Of course now, with Birk resigning, the SPD can't even "punish" him... (AND he will be able to retain his pension, of course.)
Shame he will still be able to carry a firearm - probably even be able to become a police officer again - elsewhere.
I put it here :arrow: http://tijil.org/Birk_Firearms_Review_Board.pdf
Lots of damning information to go over in that document.
There is no doubt that the entire blame for Mr. Williams death rests ENTIRELY in Officer Birks poor decision making and actions initiated entirely by Birk.
Mr. Williams was not at fault.
Of course now, with Birk resigning, the SPD can't even "punish" him... (AND he will be able to retain his pension, of course.)
Shame he will still be able to carry a firearm - probably even be able to become a police officer again - elsewhere.
Last edited: