Seattle officer shoots man with knife

[Mapnapkin]

Maybe the deceased didn't respond to the officer's commands because he couldn't hear/understand them. People who knew him allege that he was deaf in his left ear and also had a propensity for wearing headphones.

If you have a knife in your hand and a cop is yelling at you, do have to actually hear him with both ears to understand why he yelling at you.

Don't really have to be a rocket scientist to know that a cop will be uncomfortable if you are wielding a knife.

A knife can be more dangerous than a bullet, can cause a bigger wound than a bullet.

Three questions:

Was the suspect armed with a deadly weapon? (I would say yes)

Was the suspect a threat to the officer or another person? (We don't really know the answer)

Was the proper force used to STOP the threat? (I would say yes, if the suspect was a threat.)

I Agree, so does Washington state law.

You need 4 things to shoot someone dead.

Means - does the attacker have the means to harm you (or someone around you)

Opportunity - in this case it would be range was the person in range of you.. (not across the street for example)

Intent - do you know the person is going to; burglar, arson, rob, rape or kidnap
OR
I.D.O.L. - imediate defense of life (yours or someone around you)


Will we ever know for certain if he had all these.
Thats what we have to find out

 

[amlevin]

If you have a knife in your hand and a cop is yelling at you, do have to actually hear him with both ears to understand why he yelling at you.

Don't really have to be a rocket scientist to know that a cop will be uncomfortable if you are wielding a knife.

A knife can be more dangerous than a bullet, can cause a bigger wound than a bullet.





I Agree, so does Washington state law.

You need 4 things to shoot someone dead.

Means - does the attacker have the means to harm you (or someone around you)

Opportunity - in this case it would be range was the person in range of you.. (not across the street for example)

Intent - do you know the person is going to; burglar, arson, rob, rape or kidnap
OR
I.D.O.L. - imediate defense of life (yours or someone around you)


Will we ever know for certain if he had all these.
Thats what we have to find out

What you say is correct, especially your last sentence.

This is where I believe everyone has some questions. IFMr Williams was sitting on a wall, whittling on a piece of wood, then what was so "threatening" about that which caused the officer to institute the contact to begin with? What "crime" was being comitted, or about to be comitted? Did the "carver" escalate the situation or did, as some accounts claim, the officer? Other questions need to be answered as well. Will this investigation, or for that matter any investigation where the investigating agency has a stake in the outcome, be impartial.

Isn't that like letting the Oil Companies investigate who was at fault for an oil spill?
Like airlines investigating themselves as to the cause of an accident?
Like letting a driver perform his own investigation in a fatal accident?

We may hear an explaination but will it be something we can trust? Do we trust the "Press" to be that watchdog? In this incident, the Native American community? Somehow, I feel that there has to be someone, or some group, that is totally neutral to coax the facts from the fiction.

Will there be a Coroner's Inquest?

 

[Mapnapkin]

Will this investigation, or for that matter any investigation where the investigating agency has a stake in the outcome, be impartial.

Here's the part I may be naive. Doesn't Internal Affairs handle this type of thing.
Do they have the reputation of the police department as their main interest.
I ask because I honestly don't know.

 

[amlevin]

Here's the part I may be naive. Doesn't Internal Affairs handle this type of thing.
Do they have the reputation of the police department as their main interest.
I ask because I honestly don't know.

That's the issue for many. If SPD's "Internal affairs" dept. handles it, and the reputation is what's at stake, then the possible bias is for the officer to be found "justified". I don't mean to impune their honesty or motives, it always falls to the perception. Anytime an agency is tasked with investigating themselves there will always be the question of impartiality.

Our justice system is formed so that evidence is gathered by independent parties (the Police), presented in court by another party (the Prosecutor), and then rebutted by the Defendant's Attorney. These facts are then evaluated by a Jury in order to determine what is the truth. That works well as long as the one being investigated isn't from the police or prosecutors team.

Many believe that incidents such as this should be investigated by totally independent parties whether it is by Police from multiple departments as has been done here in Snohomish County or at least overseen by an impartial party.

To make the situation even more interesting, it has a major political component. Advocacy groups for Alcoholics, Homeless, Native Americans, and who knows, maybe even "Wood Carvers", will be holding their rallies and grabbing their TV time. All the more reason to have the investigation be in the form of an Inquest or by an outside agency.

I don't care much for the ACLU but I offer this paragraph from their civilian review board sample model that was posted on the ACLU Florida site:

"It is appropriate that in conferring the police with powers, particularly the power to use lethal force, that civilians have a role in determining the standards by which they are policed. And an independent civilian review board affords citizens with an opportunity to engage in that role by providing a venue through which to air grievances, express concerns, and voice recommendations.

"It is important to note that for a civilian review board to be truly effective, it must be independent. That is, it must conduct an independent investigation of complaints and not a civilian review of an investigation conducted by a police internal affairs bureau, which would result in the illusion of oversight without the reality. The integrity of the civilian review board will derive from direct civilian review of police conduct, not a civilian review of police review. "

Again, I don't agree with a lot of ACLU actions but note emphasis on "independent" and how it should be a direct review of conduct, not a review of the police review.

To make the outcome of John Williams death investigation more acceptable to the public it needs to be based on that unbiased review that can only come from outside the political environ's of City Hall or the Police Department.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

That's the issue for many. If SPD's "Internal affairs" dept. handles it, and the reputation is what's at stake, then the possible bias is for the officer to be found "justified". I don't mean to impune their honesty or motives, it always falls to the perception. Anytime an agency is tasked with investigating themselves there will always be the question of impartiality.

Our justice system is formed so that evidence is gathered by independent parties (the Police), presented in court by another party (the Prosecutor), and then rebutted by the Defendant's Attorney. These facts are then evaluated by a Jury in order to determine what is the truth. That works well as long as the one being investigated isn't from the police or prosecutors team.

Many believe that incidents such as this should be investigated by totally independent parties whether it is by Police from multiple departments as has been done here in Snohomish County or at least overseen by an impartial party.

To make the situation even more interesting, it has a major political component. Advocacy groups for Alcoholics, Homeless, Native Americans, and who knows, maybe even "Wood Carvers", will be holding their rallies and grabbing their TV time. All the more reason to have the investigation be in the form of an Inquest or by an outside agency.

I don't care much for the ACLU but I offer this paragraph from their civilian review board sample model that was posted on the ACLU Florida site:

"It is appropriate that in conferring the police with powers, particularly the power to use lethal force, that civilians have a role in determining the standards by which they are policed. And an independent civilian review board affords citizens with an opportunity to engage in that role by providing a venue through which to air grievances, express concerns, and voice recommendations.

"It is important to note that for a civilian review board to be truly effective, it must be independent. That is, it must conduct an independent investigation of complaints and not a civilian review of an investigation conducted by a police internal affairs bureau, which would result in the illusion of oversight without the reality. The integrity of the civilian review board will derive from direct civilian review of police conduct, not a civilian review of police review. "

Again, I don't agree with a lot of ACLU actions but note emphasis on "independent" and how it should be a direct review of conduct, not a review of the police review.

To make the outcome of John Williams death investigation more acceptable to the public it needs to be based on that unbiased review that can only come from outside the political environ's of City Hall or the Police Department.

On many occasions, the CRB found fault with the officers actions, and because the chief has the final say, he pretty much ignored the CRB, and nixed the suggestions of reprimand/firing/training/etc etc... There is a long history of it @ SPD...

 

[amlevin]

On many occasions, the CRB found fault with the officers actions, and because the chief has the final say, he pretty much ignored the CRB, and nixed the suggestions of reprimand/firing/training/etc etc... There is a long history of it @ SPD...

What you say is true. However, if the CRB makes their findings public, and the Chief makes it a habit of ignoring, then it's up to the public to decide how much they want to take. At least there is an impartial opinion that the public can use to make up their minds on what they are going to accept from their Police Department.

On the matter of discipline, I lived in Denver when they had series of DPD issues. What caught their "unit" in the wringer was the inconsistency of their actions. One officer would be given days off and another fired for the same improper actions. Not just the Union, but the Court as well called them to task on it.

 

[Lord Sega]

Depends

Would it be wrong of me to point out that it is impossible to shoot someone with a knife? You have to shoot them with a gun. Or am I just grammar obsessed?

 

[amlevin]

Would it be wrong of me to point out that it is impossible to shoot someone with a knife? You have to shoot them with a gun. Or am I just grammar obsessed?

Maybe you could do both with this:

Allows one to keep fighting after shooting the 20 rounds this pistol carries (CZ75 SP-01). If you break the blade, you're not done yet. The pistol weighs just under 2# (28 oz) and makes a fair club.

 

[Leatherneck]

I would guess that they don't fit in the regular supertuck. Not without problems that is.

 

[ak56]

I would guess that they don't fit in the regular supertuck. Not without problems that is.

A SmartCarry would be even worse:uhoh:.

 

[Leatherneck]

Females only!

 

[Aaron1124]

From the friends and relatives I have in law enforcement, I've gotta say, most Internal Affairs are a joke. It's like the fox watching the hen house. One thing to note is they're employed directly to the Chief of Police, so they don't follow the typical "Chain of Command".

That brings me to wonder; who investigates the Chief of Police for suspicious activity? The Mayor's office? A PD from another jurisdiction?

 

[gogodawgs]

Burgess abruptly cancels meeting about citizen review

Seems as though the Council is avoiding a citizens review?

Times Reports

Seattle City Councilmember Tim Burgess scheduled a special "brown-bag" meeting of his Public Safety and Education Committee today. One of the things on the agenda: a review of the citizen-observer process the city uses to review police shootings.
The long-scheduled meeting was of particular interest this week, following the controversial police shooting last week of a Native American wood carver.
But Burgess apparently didn't want to talk about it.
When that portion of the meeting was about to start, Burgess abruptly canceled it, because one of the citizen observers, Rebecca Roe, was not there. Moments later, Roe showed up (right on time, at 12:45), but Burgess said the meeting had already been adjourned, and "we lost the Seattle Channel."
His staff offered to call the Seattle Channel and restart the meeting, but Burgess again insisted on postponing the discussion, saying that there wasn't enough time to get into it.
Roe went out to coffee with committee member Sally Bagshaw instead.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Seems as though the Council is avoiding a citizens review?

Times Reports

...of course...par for the course...

 

[amlevin]

...of course...par for the course...

They fear that the truth will bite them in the @ss.

Sure glad I don't live in Seattle. If I-5 didn't go right through the middle I'd avoid it entirely. Can honestly say I haven't spent a buck in Seattle in at least the last 5 years and have no immediate plans to change that.