When John T. Williams was fatally shot by Officer Ian Birk on August 30, he had a blood alcohol level of .18, testified Dr. Aldo Fusaro, a medical examiner with the King County Medical Examiner’s Office, on Friday afternoon. Attorney Ted Buck, representing Office Birk, emphasized that Williams’ BAC was over twice the legal driving limit of .08 (Williams was on foot). Buck’s motives were pretty clear to me—he seemed to be trying to reinforce the idea that Williams was a drunk. But this is an odd tactic coming from Buck. If Williams were drunk, that seems to weaken Birk’s testimony that he was an immediate threat. Drunks aren’t known for their heightened reflexes.
Then again, Fusaro says that Williams wasn’t that impaired. “In the realm of things, [Williams’ BAC was] not all that high,” he testified.
I expected to hear more detailed questioning about Williams reported hearing loss—which was mentioned on day two of the public inquest:
Attorney Ted Buck: Did the Medical examiner’s report mention hearing problems?
Detective Jeff Mudd (lead homicide investigator): “We looked specifically for that item and we did not see that.”
But Williams’ deafness wasn’t called into question at all. Instead, attorney Miranda Young, who’s representing the King County Prosecutor’s office—which could press criminal charges against Birk—explored through her line of questioning the explosive damage done by Seattle Police Department bullets. The bullets are designed to mushroom on impact. The jury saw images of what they did to Williams when they entered the right side of his body. We saw pictures of the bullet extracted from Williams’ heart. It was horrifying; It resembled a piece of popcorn.
Fusaro stated these bullets are “manufactured to slow down and not exit,” apparently so they won’t travel straight through someone and hit someone else. Of course, the other thing that happens with expanding bullets is that they cause more damage to the person they hit. They’re not designed to come out cleanly.
Young: “Does that mean that if it mushrooms more, it may cause more damage in the body?”
Fusaro: “It may mean that.”
Fusaro also stated that Williams was shot “through both ventricles of the heart,” and that, not shockingly, Williams would likely not have survived if he had gotten immediate medical aid.
Buck also asked about Williams’ tattoos—specifically, he asked Fusaro to speculate on why Williams would have them. Fusaro said that he imagined people get tattoos for a variety of reasons. Buck then asked why Williams was wearing “a belt but not through any of his belt loops.” These questions seemed to me like a poorly-executed attempt to distract from the graphic images of the bullets and what they’d done to Williams’ body. But it didn’t work. It’s hard to erase a picture of someone’s heart with bullet holes through both ventricles.
The inquest continues tomorrow.
Past posts on the inquest, chronologically: people praying for murder charges, protests outside the courthouse, the first day of testimony, the second day revealing that witnesses never saw aggression toward the officer, Officer Birk on the stand, followed by inconsistencies in Birk’s testimony, witness testimony that Williams was not a threat on day four, and SPD testimony that carrying closed knives in public can get you shot. Stay tuned.
Expanding bullets are explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convention FYI.
Hague Conventions, excuse me. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/…
That being said, I understand why police use them in regards to safety of people not being shot, but to say “It may mean that” is disingenuous as their increased lethality has been recognized and codified in international treaties for over 100 years.
And remember that the “legal limit” is set so because that’s the lowest detectable level of alcohol in one’s bloodstream. So “twice the legal limit, omgz!” is really bullshit on the prosecutor’s part.
Guess I should be glad I wasn’t shot the times I missed a belt loop.
Morons. Each and every one of you.
They are normal hollow point bullets that all agencies use. Nothing is out of the norm with that information.
This piece of news trash is nothing but sensationalist propoganda designed to add drama and imagery.
EVERY BULLET YOU FUCKING MORONS DOES THE SAME FUCKING THING.
Christ. I’m not sympathetic to the SPD’s actions in this case, but this is pure tripe on the part of the Stranger. What a fucking rag this place has become. It is no wonder your readership is fleeing elsewhere.
why on earth would it matter why williams had tattoos? its 2-k-fucking-11, tattoos are not a blanket representation of a person, and you cant possibly judge the character of someone simply because they have them. how are they trying to even make that argument??
unless you are gucci mane in which case getting an ice cream cone face tattoo is an accurate representation of how fucking awesome you are.
There is a legal limit on how high your BAC can be for walking down the street? Why is .08 even mentioned? It is irrelevant in the discussion.
Thank you @8. Unless Williams was driving, there was no “legal limit”
What Andy said @8. .08 is the legal BAC limit IF YOU ARE DRIVING. John was walking.
I knew Mr. T (as we called him in the field). He had knuckle tattoos that said L O V E. God… good thing he was murdered… he must have been in one of those wood carving street gangs.
“EVERY BULLET YOU FUCKING MORONS DOES THE SAME FUCKING THING.”
No it doesn’t. As you said, hollow-point bullets expand. Soft-point bullets also expand. There are many other bullets that are neither.
@8, Right, ‘legal limit,’ what is that even supposed to mean? Legal limit for driving perhaps, but there is no ‘legal limit’ for what you’re allowed to consume.
The fact remains that Williams was breaking no laws. And even if he were breaking public intoxication laws (which are vague and selectively enforced), it’d be hard to tell, given that a seasoned alcoholic like Williams likely had a tolerance that makes ‘legal limits’ seem like a whistle-wetting to the average social drinker.
Birk shot a man dead and has been manufacturing pretext ever since. It’s obvious. And if this ‘evidence’ is what the defense has to cling to, then it’s apparent that they know he’s guilty as fuck, too.
@13, et al, that was my edit–I threw it in just as a point of reference for people who aren’t familiar with BAC levels. His BAC isn’t relevant, as many of you have stated, because Williams was walking, not driving. I’ve updated the post to reflect this.
@6: Regarding hollow-point bullets
No, all bullets do not do the “same thing”. Even if you are not a violence geek, the fact that there is an additional descriptor here – “hollow point” – suggests that simply calling these rounds “bullets” isn’t sufficient.
“Full Metal Jacket” is a popularly-known reference to another type of round. One which displays different characteristics upon entering the human body.
The practical point of the issue is that the kinetic energy of the bullet is fixed. Some of it is used to displace the air it is moving through. The rest is imparted into whatever it flies into. If you design a bullet not to pass through a human body cleanly, what you’ve done is figure out a way for the aerodynamics of the bullet to change once the flying-through-the-air part is done, and the tunneling-through-a-body part begins. Hence, hollow-points mushrooming upon impact.
Anyway – your contention is patently untrue. For just a glimpse at the amount of time this sort of thing has been studied, check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_b…
@6 — The Stranger and Cienna seem to be kicking everyone else’s butt on coverage. Their bias against Birk sucks, but they are getting long comment threads and more information out faster than anyone else.
@4, you are a strong contender for Slog’s coveted Made-Up Fact of the Day Award:
Was Ian Birk subjected to a blood test after the incident? He seemed coked up on that video.
17: Amen.
By the way, how many tattoos does Birk have?
@2 non-jacketed bullets are less likely to penetrate walls into nearby residences, etc. thereby reducing injuries to innocent bystanders. http://www.theboxotruth.com/
And they’re also more likely to mame/kill victims of activist police officers. Apparently this was met with some protest in the 70s. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/arc…
@17 Yes
And drunk people aren’t exactly known for reasonableness. It’s kinda hard to argue that drunk people are inherently safer to police. But it’s beside the point and didn’t seem to play a factor in the shooting.
And you can’t detect hearing problems in an autopsy, detective.
@ Asparagus!,
Those conventions are only meant for use in war, I think.
Hang on, aren’t you all the same folks who say weed is so much safer than booze and doesnt lead to all the violence associated with booze? I guess you’re gonna pretend you’ve never made that argument now for this known, drunk and often violent native.
Only double the limit by 4pm? Must have been a slow day for Mr. T.
“This dead woodcarver has a hearing problem.”
“No it doesn’t. HELLO, POLLY! HELLO!”
Gloomy gus: Chalk it up to one of those things I learned long ago when my memory was a tad sharper. What I actually recall (faulty or not) is that many years ago the FAA tested pilots to 0.08%, which was the then-minimum detectable amount (implying if the FAA could test to an even lower number, it would). The State used to allow 0.12%, but after some sensational DUI cases lowered the allowable BAC for drivers to 0.08% many years ago. Also implying that, if the State could detect a lower number and prosecute motorists for it, it would.
And hey, I won something today! Yay, me!
@25, But WA state can and does prosecute motorists for lower levels, and has for years. Anything over a .02% is enough for a minor (or a truck/bus driver with a specialized license) to be charged with DUI. Or were you just talking about how things supposedly used to be? In which case I still think there may be some problems with your memory, because the level was .10%, not .12%.
@25, I’m curious to learn why you suppose something that can be measured at exactly 0.08% can’t be measured any lower. It’s possible you have a problem with more than just your memory.
@23 He wasn’t violent at the time. Nothing indicates he did anything threatening or aggressive in this case. It doesn’t matter if John was drunk during the day, that’s not illegal and is never a justification to shoot someone. There are plenty of ways to contain a drunk, especially if you have a radio and can call for backup. Why did Birk get out of the car and approach John in the first place?
If Williams was acting inappropriately and walking with a knife, Birk had cause to stop and question him, even if the knife turned out to be legal and Williams was not driving or publically intoxicated.
His attorney is trying to establish two things: 1. Cause for the stop and 2. Cause for Williams’s aggressive behavior.
@28 —
I’m not sure that statement has been established as fact in the inquest.
If the hearing problems were due to a mechanical problem, you could present evidence to that point.
No one associated with the case has ever suggested (to my knowledge) that Williams was deaf. His family and lawyer have suggested he had trouble hearing (or was maybe deaf) in one ear. They haven’t proven this or introduced any testimony go back it up in the inquest yet (as far as I know).
The jacket / mushroom question goes to the trajectory of the bullets once they entered Williams’s body. Did they travel in a straight path? Can we base Williams’s orientation toward Birk from the autopsy’s entrance and exit wounds.
The tattoos and belt without belt-loops questions seem odd to me. I don’t know why he asked. I know some of Buck’s examination has been toward witnesses perceptions of Williams: was he Native American? Did you assume he was Native American? Do you know anything about where he’s from / his family?
He may be trying to defend his client against charges of racism or profiling.
@21: Sure you can. Well, certain kinds of hearing problems. Not all of them, so any findings would be inconclusive.