Seattle Police Release Dashcam Video Of Woodcarver's Shooting

[revjen45]

and they think we the people having guns in dangerous.
any one want to bet this murderer doesn't even see a day prison?

It's never murder when when the Only Ones do it.

 

[Redcap]

Well good, now that i have your attention and you arent trying to defend Mr Williams or his "rights" which he would have had almost none of, we can get to a couple issues.

First of all i wouldnt "shoot him for just standing there". dont take everything i say so literal. It was said to bring attention to the fact that Mr Williams doesnt appear by his arrest and conviction record to have ever done anything "innocently". You dont get arrested 100+ times by being an "innocent civilian".

Also you guys on her surprisingly seem to have a 1st grade education when it comes to rights. There are very few "inalienable rights", the rest of them you can alienate very quickly by commiting various felonious or even misdemeanor crimes. Once a person commits those crimes, they no longer have rights like law abiding citizens. So quit trying to compare yourself to a criminal unless you are one. (BTW he was released from prison 2 weeks earlier for Felony indecent exposure)

As far as shooting someone through a doorway, i'm surprised no one bit on that statement. How many of you who have taken concealed carry permit classes, were told by your instructor that it is legal (in oregon, but NOT California) to shoot someone THROUGH A DOORWAY if they are attempting to enter your house unlawfully?

Yes i watched the dashboard clip with the sound intentionally turned off first. I knew the shooting was not on the tape so i wanted to see the body language of the Officer as he walked across the screen. I didnt see a cop walking with any intent to shoot anyone, as a matter of fact IMO, other than his hand on his gun which ALL cops do in ANY instance where they are approaching ANYONE, the officer appeared to be completely at ease as he approached mr Williams. It appeared to me that he was not expecting anything to happen and was caught off guard possibly by a non threatening gesture that he misread as threatening.

Just because the (career criminal) died doesnt make him an instant saint.

It doesn't instantly condemn him either.

 

[elsullo]

Loooooong ago I had an uncle who kept getting arrested for "Indecent Exposure". Basically, he kept getting cited for pi$$ing on the parking lot wall of his favorite tavern when he went to drive home. The coppers were always lurking there on Friday nights.

Pi$$ing in public is legally considered indecent exposure. Homeless drunks do it fairly routinely, and if they are very drunk maybe where people could see them do it. I suppose that if you did it at Seattle's Pike Place Public Market where a lot of people could see you that it might get to a felony level? I don't know anything about Mr. Williams other than what I have read in these posts. I just don't think that being a homeless drunk with a long record of minor offences is a capital crime........................elsullo :huh:

 

[ZigZagZeke]

First time i've even seen this thread, thats why i didnt post earlier...

Really Zigzag???
first of all, if mr dropmypantsinpublic was on parole or probation,(which sounds highly likely) he has NO 4th amendment rights.... and before you give your "opinion" on whether he does or not, why dont you look up the supreme court ruling on the matter.
And as far as cleaning your fingernails with your knife, did you also spend the last 25 years assaulting, raping, resisting arrest, and dropping your pants in public too?

For your information I've been to law school and read more USSC decisions regarding the 4th than you might think. All that is beside the point though, because the cop had NO WAY of knowing what the victim's record or propensities were, and even if he did, he has no legal basis for acting on prior behavior. He's a cop, not a judge and jury.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

"Also you guys on her surprisingly seem to have a 1st grade education when it comes to rights. There are very few "inalienable rights", the rest of them you can alienate very quickly by commiting various felonious or even misdemeanor crimes. Once a person commits those crimes, they no longer have rights like law abiding citizens."

Sorry, one doesn't give up his constitutional rights because of prior convictions. If one is on parole there is an AGREEMENT in place that you will submit to certain procedures like searches and random drug tests. You're actually pretty ignorant of how the law actually works.

And once more, the victim wasn't wearing a license plate. The cop had no way of knowing his past criminal history without first seeing his identification, which he hadn't done.

 

[mattg521]

1stklass
Without reviewing the entire thread I don't recall anyone defending the character of the victim here nor canonizing (interesting term isn't it) him as a saint.
Rather almost everyone seemed to be condemning the actions of the cop.

Suggesting the execution of a person is an interesting use of hyperbole to "get everyone's attention".

 

[1stklass]

Mr Niceguy... "He confronted a non violent law abiding person who did not threaten or pose a threat to him or anyone else in any way, got overzealous, and decided to fire without consideration for the circumstances or repercussions."

Sorry, but Mr Williams was neither a non violent nor law abiding citizen.

Trlsmn #1..."I think you are ignorant of the fact that police cannot pull over or stop people as they see fit, police must have a reason, look to your bill of rights. The United States is not a police state, the police are here to enforce laws, when no law is broken they have no right to stop anyone."

Again, if Williams was on parole or probation, he has probably given up those rights.

#2"There is no law against having an open knife and whittling wood in Seattle so the cop was wrong."

Right on the first part Trlsmn. wrong on the second. he had 2 reasons to legally stop Mr Williams, can anyone tell me the second???

#3"The officer caused the situation to happen not the whittler."

Again 2 reasons..

#4"You fail at the legal definition of "causation", even after I provided a link to give the definition."

Someone PLEASE find the second reason giving the officer causation.

#5"Sure but you don't seem to acknowledge the fact that the deceased was well within his rights to carry the knife in the fashion he was carrying the knife."

Refer to answer on #1

#6"You seem to also gloss over the fact that the officer had no legal cause to approach the deceased in the fashion he approached the deceased, thus the legal definition of "causation"."

Refer to answer on 1, 2, 3, and 5.... find the second reason...

Zigzagzeke.."Sorry, one doesn't give up his constitutional rights because of prior convictions. If one is on parole there is an AGREEMENT in place that you will submit to certain procedures like searches and random drug tests. You're actually pretty ignorant of how the law actually works."

yes Zeke, i thought i made it clear that you only give those rights up while you are ON probation or parole. My ignorance of the law isnt as great as you think.. Now whether you actually practice law or like most people on these threads trying to prove they know what they are talking about.... googling, copying, and pasting, doesnt mean you really know anything about the 4th amendments.

"And once more, the victim wasn't wearing a license plate. The cop had no way of knowing his past criminal history without first seeing his identification, which he hadn't done."

And this last assumption by you is what makes me really doubt that you ever finished any of your law classes.
How do you know that the officer was unfamiliar with mr williams, OR his past criminal history??? With a history like Mr williams had i'm sure most if not all of the police assigned to that district knew him very well.

Elsullo... According to a some newspaper stories, his most recent indecent exposure occurred at the drunk home he was living in with a female employee of that home. Not pissing in public.

And Mattg.. What is wrong with suggesting the execution of a career criminal??? it seems to be ok to suggest executing, hanging with a long rope, or several other methods of punishment for the officer, when we still dont know what he saw or experienced that led up to him firing those shots..

 

[North Bender]

1stclass: ... yawn

 

[Redcap]

Mr Niceguy... "He confronted a non violent law abiding person who did not threaten or pose a threat to him or anyone else in any way, got overzealous, and decided to fire without consideration for the circumstances or repercussions."

Sorry, but Mr Williams was neither a non violent nor law abiding citizen.

Trlsmn #1..."I think you are ignorant of the fact that police cannot pull over or stop people as they see fit, police must have a reason, look to your bill of rights. The United States is not a police state, the police are here to enforce laws, when no law is broken they have no right to stop anyone."

Again, if Williams was on parole or probation, he has probably given up those rights.

#2"There is no law against having an open knife and whittling wood in Seattle so the cop was wrong."

Right on the first part Trlsmn. wrong on the second. he had 2 reasons to legally stop Mr Williams, can anyone tell me the second???

#3"The officer caused the situation to happen not the whittler."

Again 2 reasons..

#4"You fail at the legal definition of "causation", even after I provided a link to give the definition."

Someone PLEASE find the second reason giving the officer causation.

#5"Sure but you don't seem to acknowledge the fact that the deceased was well within his rights to carry the knife in the fashion he was carrying the knife."

Refer to answer on #1

#6"You seem to also gloss over the fact that the officer had no legal cause to approach the deceased in the fashion he approached the deceased, thus the legal definition of "causation"."

Refer to answer on 1, 2, 3, and 5.... find the second reason...

Zigzagzeke.."Sorry, one doesn't give up his constitutional rights because of prior convictions. If one is on parole there is an AGREEMENT in place that you will submit to certain procedures like searches and random drug tests. You're actually pretty ignorant of how the law actually works."

yes Zeke, i thought i made it clear that you only give those rights up while you are ON probation or parole. My ignorance of the law isnt as great as you think.. Now whether you actually practice law or like most people on these threads trying to prove they know what they are talking about.... googling, copying, and pasting, doesnt mean you really know anything about the 4th amendments.

"And once more, the victim wasn't wearing a license plate. The cop had no way of knowing his past criminal history without first seeing his identification, which he hadn't done."

And this last assumption by you is what makes me really doubt that you ever finished any of your law classes.
How do you know that the officer was unfamiliar with mr williams, OR his past criminal history??? With a history like Mr williams had i'm sure most if not all of the police assigned to that district knew him very well.

Elsullo... According to a some newspaper stories, his most recent indecent exposure occurred at the drunk home he was living in with a female employee of that home. Not pissing in public.

And Mattg.. What is wrong with suggesting the execution of a career criminal??? it seems to be ok to suggest executing, hanging with a long rope, or several other methods of punishment for the officer, when we still dont know what he saw or experienced that led up to him firing those shots..

Keep digging.

 

[JohnWayne]

For your information I've been to law school and read more USSC decisions regarding the 4th than you might think. All that is beside the point though, because the cop had NO WAY of knowing what the victim's record or propensities were, and even if he did, he has no legal basis for acting on prior behavior. He's a cop, not a judge and jury.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

"Also you guys on her surprisingly seem to have a 1st grade education when it comes to rights. There are very few "inalienable rights", the rest of them you can alienate very quickly by commiting various felonious or even misdemeanor crimes. Once a person commits those crimes, they no longer have rights like law abiding citizens."

Sorry, one doesn't give up his constitutional rights because of prior convictions. If one is on parole there is an AGREEMENT in place that you will submit to certain procedures like searches and random drug tests. You're actually pretty ignorant of how the law actually works.

And once more, the victim wasn't wearing a license plate. The cop had no way of knowing his past criminal history without first seeing his identification, which he hadn't done.

You are mostly correct. Our opinions diverge on two point. First, not to conclude this officer did think this way, but it is possible, based on Terry he MAY have thought a crime was about to be committed based on a male carrying an open knife. I don't know that it is true and I don't know how often you see a guy walking downtown holding a knife in his hand. I can tell you if I were in a major city and saw a guy walking around with an open knife, I'd look twice, maybe even size up the target. A lot of crazies in Seattle.

Second, the license plate argument. Unless there is something missing, we have no way of knowing this officers knowledge base. He may have known this guy. Many officers tell me they know peoples name and even date of birth- one sight! IF he did know this guy, maybe he knew the guy was a nut or violent or wasn't.

It's impossible to tell what the justification is until the trial. If this guy's reason for doing what he did, shooting this guy is not legit, he'll do his time and be punished for his crime.

 

[JohnWayne]

"yes Zeke, i thought i made it clear that you only give those rights up while you are ON probation or parole. My ignorance of the law isnt as great as you think.. Now whether you actually practice law or like most people on these threads trying to prove they know what they are talking about.... googling, copying, and pasting, doesnt mean you really know anything about the 4th amendments."

Actually, you don't give up your rights while on Probation or Parole. You can exercise your rights while on either. If you do, however, you may have your probation or parole revoked and end up back in Jail/prison. Life is full of choices.

 

[BSG 75]

It's impossible to tell what the justification is until the trial. If this guy's reason for doing what he did, shooting this guy is not legit, he'll do his time and be punished for his crime.

What trial? Ian Birk has not been charged with any crime and no trial has been scheduled. He is on paid leave. It's not certain that he will ever stand trial. There will be an inquest where I expect he will state he was in fear of his life and that's why he shot Williams, and that will be enough justification for some here. He might be fired after the inquest and then his union will file a grievance to reinstate him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he never has to go to trial.

Ronald Frashour was just recently fired from the Portland Police Bureau for shooting (unarmed) Aaron Campbell in the back almost a year ago, but he has not been charged either. His union has filed a grievance contesting the firing. http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/fire-frashour-done/Content?oid=3053450

Johannes Mehserle was charged with murder for the shooting of (unarmed) Oscar Grant in the back in Oakland, CA after the incident was captured on video and widely disseminated on the Internet. He was found not guilty of murder but guilty of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to two years, less time served. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant

On 12/13/2010 Long Beach, CA police shot and killed a man sitting on a porch playing with a garden hose nozzle. Police did not identify themselves or issue any commands before shooting (unarmed) Doug Zerby after he allegedly pointed the garden hose nozzle in their direction. <broken link removed> Will there ever be a "trial"? Unlikely.

 

[JohnWayne]

What trial? Ian Birk has not been charged with any crime and no trial has been scheduled. He is on paid leave. It's not certain that he will ever stand trial. There will be an inquest where I expect he will state he was in fear of his life and that's why he shot Williams, and that will be enough justification for some here. He might be fired after the inquest and then his union will file a grievance to reinstate him, but I wouldn't be surprised if he never has to go to trial.

Ronald Frashour was just recently fired from the Portland Police Bureau for shooting (unarmed) Aaron Campbell in the back almost a year ago, but he has not been charged either. His union has filed a grievance contesting the firing. Fire Frashour? Done. | City | Portland Mercury

Johannes Mehserle was charged with murder for the shooting of (unarmed) Oscar Grant in the back in Oakland, CA after the incident was captured on video and widely disseminated on the Internet. He was found not guilty of murder but guilty of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to two years, less time served. BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 12/13/2010 Long Beach, CA police shot and killed a man sitting on a porch playing with a garden hose nozzle. Police did not identify themselves or issue any commands before shooting (unarmed) Doug Zerby after he allegedly pointed the garden hose nozzle in their direction. <broken link removed> Will there ever be a "trial"? Unlikely.

"It's not certain that he will ever stand trial." " I wouldn't be surprised" "Unlikely." But you don't know, do you?

Correct me if I'm wrong- Frashour, Mehserle were brought before people from those communities and tried- either trial jury or grand jury, right? Frashour was found 'no true bill' on criminal charges and Mehserle found guilty of the applicable crime. The two in Long Beach... just happened. Would you like them sent to the chair tomorrow?

Your argument is just a red herring.

 

[BSG 75]

"It's not certain that he will ever stand trial." " I wouldn't be surprised" "Unlikely." But you don't know, do you?

Just pointing out that you keep saying that Birk is going to trial

So, this conspiracy you think so highly of, tell me, how was this guy ever charged?

Because you know so much about this case, tell me why the guy is going to trial?

It's impossible to tell what the justification is until the trial. If this guy's reason for doing what he did, shooting this guy is not legit, he'll do his time and be punished for his crime.

when in fact he hasn't been charged and no trial is scheduled.

Correct me if I'm wrong- Frashour, Mehserle were brought before people from those communities and tried- either trial jury or grand jury, right? Frashour was found 'no true bill' on criminal charges and Mehserle found guilty of the applicable crime.

A grand jury proceeding is not a trial, only one side (the government) presents its case, so Frashour was not charged or tried.

Mehserle's case was so notorious that it couldn't be swept under the rug, so he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to two years, less time served.

The two in Long Beach... just happened. Would you like them sent to the chair tomorrow?

Your argument is just a red herring.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have not said anybody should be sent to "the chair" (which by the way isn't even used in California).

I'm not making any argument, just reporting facts and trying to clear up some misinformation about Officer Birk's status. :winkkiss:

 

[JRV]

You sound like a frustrated wannabe cop fanboy.

LOL yeah you found me out, Im heart broken I'm not a cop.

 

[mjbskwim]

Besides some on here fight like girls,or if they are girls like JH girls

 

[JohnWayne]

Just pointing out that you keep saying that Birk is going to trial





Smilies

when in fact he hasn't been charged and no trial is scheduled.



A grand jury proceeding is not a trial, only one side (the government) presents its case, so Frashour was not charged or tried.

Mehserle's case was so notorious that it couldn't be swept under the rug, so he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to two years, less time served.



Please don't put words in my mouth. I have not said anybody should be sent to "the chair" (which by the way isn't even used in California).

I'm not making any argument, just reporting facts and trying to clear up some misinformation about Officer Birk's status. :winkkiss:

Wait, so you are saying that the "government" presented its case and THAT is why Freshour was never charged? Why not just never send it to GJ? Wouldn't that have been easier? Why run the risk that some jury member might not go alone with the program?

Mehserle's case is a prime example of an officer screwing up. In that case, he thought he was shooting the guy with the taser. It went to GJ and they found merit in the case. He went to trial and was convicted. See, the system can work.

 

[BSG 75]

Wait, so you are saying that the "government" presented its case and THAT is why Freshour was never charged? Why not just never send it to GJ? Wouldn't that have been easier? Why run the risk that some jury member might not go alone with the program?

You asked to be corrected if you were wrong

Correct me if I'm wrong- Frashour, Mehserle were brought before people from those communities and tried- either trial jury or grand jury, right? Frashour was found 'no true bill' on criminal charges and Mehserle found guilty of the applicable crime.

so I did what you asked and pointed out that a grand jury proceeding is not a "trial", it is completely one-sided. There is no determination of guilt. So it isn't correct to say Frashour was "tried".

From your statements in this thread you seem to imply that an inquest, a grand jury proceeding, and a criminal trial are all "trials". They aren't. So it isn't accurate to say Frashour was "tried" or that Birk is "going to trial". It isn't just semantics, there is a big difference between an inquest or grand jury and a criminal trial. :winkkiss:

 

[JohnWayne]

That part is true but they both are a determination of facts. GJ in if a bill is true or not and a trial is a to determine guilt. In Frashour, the GJ looked at the facts and determined there was no merit to a criminal charge. So really, a GJ will determine if there is enough for a criminal case. Its not one sided because if it is, how would ANY cop be on trial?
I'm not too sure you understand what I'm trying to explain. Also, if you are interested in a bet, I will bet you that Birk will go to GJ and trial... Let me know about that bet.

 

[BSG 75]

That part is true but they both are a determination of facts. GJ in if a bill is true or not and a trial is a to determine guilt. In Frashour, the GJ looked at the facts and determined there was no merit to a criminal charge. So really, a GJ will determine if there is enough for a criminal case. Its not one sided because if it is, how would ANY cop be on trial?

It is one-sided because only the government (district attorney/police) presents evidence to a grand jury. That might be fine for the vast majority of cases involving a regular citizen accused of possible crimes, but when the case involves a LEO and only his fellow LEOs and the district attorney's office that his department works closely with is presenting evidence, no one should be surprised that the grand jury "determined there was no merit to a criminal charge". Despite declining to indict Frashour after the one-sided presentation, the grand jury was "outraged" by what happened.

After significant testimony in the Aaron Campbell case, study of the relevant laws,
and deliberation amongst ourselves, we the grand jury determined that we could not
indict Officer Ron Frashour on any criminal charge. That is not to say that we found
him innocent, agreed with his decisions, or found that the police incident at Sandy
Terrace was without flaw. What we found was that Officer Frashour's actions were
consistent with the relevant laws and statutes regarding the use of deadly force by a
police officer. After much discussion, we realized we could not indict for emotional
reasons, when the legal reason indicated otherwise. This was very difficult for us as
a grand jury, as our sympathies lie with the Campbell family and the mood of the
community. As a group, we are outraged at what happened at Sandy Terrace.

We know something went terribly, terribly wrong at Sandy Terrace and that Aaron
Campbell should not have died that day.

Aaron Campbell Grand Jury Letter

Perhaps if the grand jury had heard more than the government/police/DAs side of the story they would have been more than just outraged. But that is the system we have. <broken link removed> Plato asked.

Again, the Mehserle case was so notorious it had to go to trial.

I don't think it is in good taste to make bets on a tragic case like this, but I hope you are right about the outcome. I hope there is a real trial so more than just the government/police side will be heard.

 

[supergenius]

That video is absolutely disgusting and about on par with what I expected. Ive seen that guy bumbling around downtown on numerous occasions. Hardly did I get anything off of him other than he was just your average downtown hanger-round that carved (yes Ive SEEN him doing it) wood.

HARDLY the "threat" they were making him out to be. You can TELL just by the non alarmed state of the people around they didnt feel threatened in the least, but when the cop murdered him, and the first shots scared the bubblegum out of them. The first girl walking towards the camera when the first shot was fired kept going too... WTF?

The police need to seriously get their bubblegum together.