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.