I'm 95% pro L.E , but this whole shooting smelled of BAD COP. I take it he's going to be wearing the Shield again? Shooting is not justified, but no charges???


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014235279_policeshooting16m.html

Yeah, makes you wonder if a taser would have solved the perceived problem. He seemed like a high strung hothead in the interview I saw.

that guy deserves way more than a slap on the wrist. He shot the man 4 times! the guy didn't even make a move! twisted system.

There was a good reason why Sheriff Taylor never gave Deputy Barney Fife any bullets for his gun.

the blood alcohol level of the indian was 0.18, interesting little factoid, the cop proabably could smell him and took the easy way out.

Just the way the cop sauntered towards the wood carver, It gave me the impression he thought a lot of himself. Cops say that tasers are not used when the Perp is armed with a knife or Gun, they consider that deadly force towards them. Wood carver is minding is own business and he's almost completely deaf, doesn't hear the demands and POW! The wood carver was a full blown detox drunk that prolly weighed 90lbs with a 3" knife, might of been opened might not have been.

bad enough that you have to watch out for bad guys now you have to watch out that the cops don't shoot you. seems to be a big city problem

What a joke. Hopefully the Feds charge him. Not that this should have anything to do with color but if that is the only way so be it.

Just another scared of the dark, traumatized little punk that instantly got the largest johnson in the city once a badge was placed on his chest. No one was ever going to pick on or not listen to him again. Gives all good cops bad name.

Hopefully a lesson for others like him that they better have more of a reason than a mean face and a closed knife to shoot someone multiple times.

Not only shooting him under those circumstances, but discharging your firearm in a very crowed area during that time of day seems to be in itself not worth the risk.

Most all Cops do a GREAT job under some serious stressfull situations and I appreciate and thank them all.

I am not surprised he was not charged with murder. The findings of the inquest indicate a prosecutor would have had a tough time proving murder. I am a bit surprised he was not charged with manslaughter in light of the inquest results. The article I read said he will probably lose his badge. Seattle Police have been losing a lot of trust with all the stuff going on recently. This won't help.

Agree that the guy is a disgrace to good cops. The story seemed bad from the start and then got worse with more evidence and first-hand witness accounts. He actually just made cops' jobs harder.

A few years ago an officer around here was shot. The statement by the commanding officer says it all, "This is different, this was one of us.".

As long as they view themselves as special and different from the rest of the population, we will always have a problem.

I doubt the officer meant to kill him for nothing, but rather just over reacted. I remember an officer coming to my school saying he had never drawn a gun in 30 years. Now they pull them in almost every circumstance. If the department pulls a gun a 20,000 times a year, there is a good chance someone will make a mistake. Thats human. Unf

I I hope no one ever gives you a gun. It may have been an overeaction when the first bullet went off, but the last three were more than basic human nature. And what if he didn't shoot? at most he would have been mildly cut.

There's a big difference between people who want to be in that position of power, and people who should be. Thats the problem.

If he didn't have a badge and did the same thing, he'd be in fuckn prison.

I watched the video.

The time between "Drop Your Weapon!!" and "BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!"

was about .0001 seconds. --And all the shots were in his back.

Pretty easy call for any logical person to conclude that this cop was some trigger-happy POS looking for any excuse to plug some poor bastard.

Murder..plain and simple. Unfortunately the law rarely applies to the other side of the "thin blue line".

Bingo. It's no secret that cops like to kill. If a cop kills a "criminal" they are heroes. If an ordinary man kills a cop, they have essentially killed a god based up media emotion and law.

Cops started being held on the same level as saints around the start of the war on drugs if it helps to make any sense to anyone.

Fuk the police. To serve and protect my ass.

Travesty for sure...not only did a half deaf, fully drunk, peaceful geriatric carrying a pocket knife get killed, but it basically gave precedent to allow Seattle cops the right to kill anybody they see fit. I mean for fuk sake, if there were ever a case to use non-violent force, this was it.

Strange, isn't it, that just last year we felt concerned/sorry for LE for getting mowed down in coffee shops?

Ike

The latest In Vouge for shooting Perps is... "He was trying to run me over in his car" that one's getting a little old.

Sounds like you're ok...... :>)

What did you expect? They shot a guy up in Everett 8 times in the back while he was sitting in his car, drunk but no real threat. The other cop said he heard the shooter say, Thats enough of this!

Bang,Bang,Bang,Bang,Bang,Bang,Bang,Bang!

Still an Everett cop, pretty sad.


Fishy

Nice avatar.

This started out as a fairly well informed and intelligent conversation.

Unfortunately it quickly degraded into an ignorant conspiracy theory rant. I was sad to see that.

The latter sentiments are a perfect example of the disconnect between the public and legal matters such as law enforcements use of force, how criminal law works, and how carefully scrutinized the actions of any law enforcement officer are. The notion that renegade cops with itchy trigger fingers make up the majority of any police force is preposterous. I don't disagree that there aren't a few out there that shouldn't carry a credential and a gun to work, but they are FEW and far between and are usually weeded out of the system long before they have a chance to do harm. I think there are a lot of dickheads and power mongers in the field, but that is a different topic entirely.

Based on the "facts" that are known and generally agreed upon in this case, to me the shooting seems questionable. That having been said, I wasn't there and none of us in a place to accurately judge what happened.

Courts view these things based on what the officer knew at the time of the incident and what he is able to articulate as reasons for his action. The standard that case law has set to judge those actions is "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable."

Whether some use of force was appropriate will be determined, primarily, using the following factors:

1. The severity of the crime
2. Was the subject an immediate risk to themselves or others
3. Was the subject actively resisting arrest.
4. Was the subject fleeing to avoid arrest.

There are a number of other considerations as well, but those are the four primary factors that courts will look at to determine if use of force was appropriate. From there they explore whether the force applied was reasonable given the officers statements and the facts known at the time of the incident, in this case the shooting. Read up on Graham vs. Connor or Tennessee vs. Garner if you are interested in seeing where our current use of force policies and legal standards have come from.

Was some use of force appropriate in this case. Absolutely. Did the guy need to get shot? Again, I wasn't there. I haven't read the courts decision, nor do I think it is accurately reflected by the words of the reporter, given the language and tone.

Most LE officers are protected by something similar to what is called "qualified immunity" in the federal system, which basically says that they are not civilly or criminally liable for their actions if they were acting within their guiding policies or what they believed (in good faith) those policies to be at the time of their action.

I think proving "intent" for the purpose of criminal charges in a case like this would be virtually impossible, hence the current situation.

I guess you missed the part where I said 95% were great...I was being generous.

You went out of your way to make that clear Sol Duc. Cheers.

A few others have their heads lodged a little farther into the dark and smelly place.

Really? What about the one that just heard the case didn't come to that conclusion at all?

Careful BWP, if you push it any farther up there, it might not come back out.

Oh. I thought that when you said any...you meant, um, well, ANY.

You watch way too much television and have a sadly skewed perspective on reality.

By definition, truth doesn't change. There is only one.

Unlike conspiracy theories, which seem to sprout by the dozens and take a manner of shapes and sizes.

I am tapping out of this one. I am not defending this cops actions, right or wrong, just hoping we can all inform ourselves a little more completely before casting judgment.

C'mon Coley...I have the ultimate respect for all you LE guys (I know, you're not a cop); I have many friends that are WSP, County Sheriffs, and City cops. And no doubt about it, they have among toughest job in all of America.

Talking with them I am completely confident that 99% of all cops would have subdued this guy by just looking at him cross-eyed...lethal force, or even forceful force, was not necessary.

To me this was one small step away from killing a quadriplegic in a fuckn wheelchair. There is no justification, in any way, for the overzealousness of Mr. Ian Birk. He might only be 1% of the police force, but I'm glad his career of protecting citizens is finished....

Ike

Agreed.

I'm going to have to agree with Ike on this one...and the only times in my past that I was involved in cases involving the interaction of LEO's and citizens, I was defending the LEO's.

Coley's description of what is "reasonable" (which is THE standard) is spot on...but any interpretation of the facts that I have heard (yeah, I wasn't there, either, and I'm getting my facts secondhand, I'll admit) do not make the cop look good...in fact, they make him look downright bad.

He may have been having a bad day, he may have exercised poor judgment...and whether folks think it's fair or not, poor judgment will land you or me in jail, but not a cop...but from what I've seen and heard, his behavior was well over the line on the reasonable standard.

The fact that Seattle cops have long been given a free pass, coupled with the fact that the internal investigations have come down very split on this case ought to raise a few eyebrows, at the very least.

Fish on...

Todd

I think the answer for your question lays in the fact that WA has more police per capita than any other state, and OR is close behind.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted every year to support these paramilitary organizations (not to mention all of the federal grants they receive to fight "the war on drugs" and the "war on terror"), and to what effect? They don't stop crime and they kill innocent people.

The nicest a cop will ever be to someone is when they're writing them a ticket for several hundred dollars.

This one is kinda funny:







Not all seattle cops are bad, but too many are.

The top one bothers you?

The top one was more than appropriate, he should tazed the beetch!

He should have hit both those gals and then tazed them, before locking them up.

Fishy

I fixed it.

Thanks, makes me wonder how they got that shot or if the guy got shredded.

Fishy

This is what can happen when officers hesitate to use appropriate and reasonable force to get a situation under control.

http://policelink.monster.com/videos/videos/14724-deputy-kyle-dinkheller

GMAFB.

Apples to Oranges.

There's really no comparison. This unfortunate police officer thought he would take the non-lethal route, god bless his soul. Sometimes it doesn't work when you're working with a paranoid delusional combat veteran.

That was horrific to watch. But in no way similar to the shooting under discussion. I wonder, did the officer die? Tragic to say the least.

That guy was in a bad situation and did hesitate to use appropriate force. But inappropriate force is what this discussion is about. If anything, it backs up the notion that there is right way and wrong way of enforcing the law. In both situations the officers failed to do what is right. And I agree, a mental disposition may have saved his life.

Pretty terrible for sure.

I wasn't trying to compare the two shootings but rather present an example of how things can go bad in these types of rapidly developing and extremely stressful situations.

Yes, the officer died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds, the last of which was inflicted at point blank range to the head.

Hope that POS is sitting on death row.

What have I said that makes you think I am defending the Seattle officer?

Name calling isn't very nice.

You didn't answer my question.

I haven't posted here in a long time...usually don't get sucked into the darkside. These types of threads do it though, if for no other reason that sometimes I can offer a cop perspective. Keeping in mind it is only mine and I don't necessarily represent....

I appreciate all of your thoughts on the subject. It is a very emotional topic and it should be.

There are cops that I have run into over the years in other jurisdictions and in my own agency that I could easily see would act with poor judgment. Like has been said before, they hopefully won't last in the career before that catches up to them. The best screening process in the world cannot eliminate all of that. Most cops I work with are very brave, honorable people and try to do the best job they can at all times.

Anyone who becomes a cop for the glory or attention is a fool. Most of the time it's the wrong kind and the best things you do for people are not noticed. You can only try to be fair and remember that you are just as special as everyone else in the world. If you are going to last in the job, you better get a thick skin.

I hate bullies with a badge. It's weak to use your position just to excersise power over people. Pretty soon those same azzholes start thinking they are better than everyone else.

Sometimes it's hard not to judge when you see the f'd up things people do to each other and to themselves. You have to careful not to paint everyone with that giant brush. Most people are OK or even better. Sometimes they may want to kill you. Sometimes you might have to kill to protect yourself or others.

That video of the cop getting killed only serves to point out that we are prone to use deadly force as a last resort to our detriment at times. We know that it is such a nightmare to go through a shooting review if it is questionable, you can hesitate at the wrong times. I never want to kill anyone and have managed to avoid it for 29 years. Sometimes just barely. If I have to for the right reasons, I don't plan on losing sleep over it. That's just emotional survival.

Honestly, some agencies don't support their people in those cases and ANY use of force is subject to an internal. That by itself can create a fatal hesitation. If you have selected and trained the right people and have properly supervised them, you should be able to trust them. People are people and they are not robots. You have a huge agency like Seattle PD and you can have a control issue. That's why there is supposed to be checks and balances.

I wasn't there and I don't know what the mind set of that officer was. I am glad he resigned. My personal opinion is that he was too eager to use force without looking at any other alternative. I hope he questions that decision for the rest of his life. He has to live with it now. I hope it makes him a better person for it, but if it turns him into a drunken "wood carver" , he will understand that people sometimes don't choose to be what they become.

Goinfishin,

Awesome post +1000

GF,
Well said from someone who potentially faces the zero sum choice of deadly force on a daily basis.

As for the subject officer, such things do tend to go full circle...

in due course....

+1, the world is round, this will get back to him somehow, some way, some day.

Great Post Goinfishin, I agree with your summation.

And BWP, Coley is the furthest guy from an asshole on this board. You need to take a step back and re-evaluate where he is coming from,....as well as yourself.

Really good post Goinfishin. Thanks for taking the time.

BWP calling Coley an azzhole is strong evidence that BWP was tipping the bottle too much.

The Seattle prosecutor gave an in depth explanation that should be easily understood by the lay person. Officer Burke's shooting of Williams was unjustified, but under WA state law Burke did not commit a crime as long as he was acting in the "good faith" of his position as an LEO. Burke's patrol car video is pretty condemning evidence - Burke rapidly closed the distance between himself and Williams, thereby increasing the risk to both, when Williams was not an immediate threat to anyone, and was apparently guilty of nothing more than public drunkeness. Less than 5 seconds passed between the time of Burke's first warning to Williams and his first shot being fired. Very bad judgement call on Burke's part, so the unjustified conclusion by the inquest jury is completely logical. But Burke's action doesn't fall within the definitions of murder or manslaughter - the latter specifically because of the way the law treats LEO situations. To argue for revising the legal treatment of LEOs would inevitably result in more outcomes like Officer Dinkheller's. Good decision on Burke's part to resign however. He probably should have done so sooner.

Sg

GF good post. I think you put this discussion into the right perspective.

GF, great post. I think most people commenting on this topic know that most cops are honorable and try to do a good job. But like every other profession, there are bad apples. I've known a lot of bad apple cops who only abuse their power and treat people like $hit. My town seems to have an unusually high proportion of them. Unfortunately the nicest officer I ever knew -- and had many conversations with -- was shot and killed a few years ago. I guess that's how it usually works.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040

In case you haven't read it, this is the RCW that Satterberg is trying to protect Birk under. Pay close attention to (3).
(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

Without malice and in good faith belief.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malice

Legal definition of "malice"
Again, section (3)
3. It is a general rule that when a man commits an act, unaccompanied by any circumstance justifying its commission, the law presumes he has acted advisedly and with an intent to produce the consequences which have ensued. 3 M. & S. 15; Foster, 255; 1 Hale, P. C. 455; 1 East, P. C. 223 to 232, and 340; Russ. & Ry. 207; 1 Moody, C. C. 263; 4 Bl. Com. 198; 15 Vin. Ab. 506; Yelv. 105 a; Bac. Ab. Murder and Homicide, C 2. Malice aforethought is deliberate premeditation. Vide Aforethought.

The RCW does not give a peace officer a right to shoot whoever he pleases without a reprimand and he can be held criminally liable for murder given that the he has acted in malice AND was not acting with "good faith belief"
I believe he is, at the least, subject to a manslaughter charge. But given that he had his gun drawn, that he did not identify himself as an officer before he discharged his weapon and that he shot him in the back and side according to autopsy, it would appear that he acted without "good faith belief" and with malicious intent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1VKo6-m27c

The video shows clearly Williams holding a block of wood that he was concentrating on while he crossed the street. Never in my life have I heard of someone killing their victim with a 3 inch carving knife, 10 feet away while they had their back towards them. Nobody could have thought by any measure that Williams was a threat and you can hear an eyewitness claiming nearly immediately that Williams had done nothing. The inquest has a very limited number of witnesses available, which is why you see the mixed results of the inquest jury. More evidence would be available in a criminal prosecution.

Satterberg's claim that he cannot prosecute is BS, and his claim that it would be fruitless only amplifies the public image of LEO's being above the law. Satterberg should have filed charges and let the jury decide, but instead, he decided to imagine himself as the jury and circumvent due process.

Goingfishin and fishpoleease, Interesting background and insight. Thanks and well said in both cases.

Interesting that you use the word "victim."

In this case, it seems appropriate. Having this happen just out of view of the video camera was probably the luckiest break Birk will ever have, next to not having many witnesses.

What was his reasoning for the stop/contact in the first place? Is it illegal to carve in public in Washington?

Rest assured there will be some civil litigation coming out of this one...

Fish on...

Todd

The downer with civil charges is that if Birk were forced to pay restitution, I believe (not certain) that he could escape through bankruptcy. The SPD (read TAXPAYER) would wind up covering the cost. I would assume that the SPD had some sort of insurance for something like this (like a malpractice type coverage) but I honestly don't know. Personally, I'd rather see Birk do some time. If it were someone in my family, I couldn't see closure without a sentence.
Of course the other possibility is that with the DOJ being in town, they could file under a civil rights charge. I'm not huge on federalism though, so I'm on the fence about the feds coming in to do the job that the King County prosecutor won't.

Here is what I find most disturbing. There appears to be a trend toward unwarranted force. Not just in the case of the wood carver. Example: when all those cops stood around while "homey" got stomped on by more than one cop......Anybody...Anybody....tell me what the justification is for such behavior???? "Homey" is handcuffed, on the ground, surrounded by cops........zero threat to anyone.....zero.

Every damn cop in that video should be out of a job. Not just the "stompers", but those who stood around "protecting and serving" as well.

I had the same thought seeing that one, and also seeing the officer storm into the cell and throw the woman around after she stuck her foot out of the door.

What is the justification for such behavior? I don't believe there is one.

In most places, folks that are in a profession that involves public protection (fire, ems, LE, etc) have a duty to act and/or are held to a standard of care and can be held liable (negligence) if they fail to intervene.

did you guys hear the lady? he had to explain to her why he shot the guy. Pretty nuts.

Sounds like ColeyG is agreeing this was a bad shooting?

yeah. chill out bwp. Coley G clearly said the shooting was not justified, and it seems to me that he is simply stating possible reasons for the guys irrational action.


I think

I muddied the waters on this thread, and for that I apologize.

I originally spoke up because I was bummed out by the broad swath comments made towards LE, such as:











Etc. etc.

I could have done a better job of prefacing my comments with the fact that in defending LE professionals as a whole, my intent was not to support the officer in question here. For that I apologize.

As for the video of officer Dinkheller, I shared that because it left a profound impact on me and I thought it was an appropriate reminder of the potential that these public servants face every day while protecting and serving.

Well, I think you're a azzhole, too, Coley...but it has nothing to do with this thread

Fish on...

Todd