Day Four into Williams Inquest: Civilian Witnesses Say Williams Was Not a Threat

Comments

1
I'm going to nitpick here... please ignore if you don't care about word usage.

Still here? OK... "altercation" does not mean what you think it means. It means a quarrel, an argument, a noisy, heated verbal confrontation. An altercation does not include physical violence. Based on the witness testimony, this wasn't an altercation... there was no exchange of words or arguments, only a few orders yelled and then bullets.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar…

End nitpick.
2
When Sirgeas said that Birk yelled twice, I interpreted that as two distinct series of utterances, too far away to hear clearly. That's consistent with the "Hey Hey Hey" followed by "Put down the gun. Put down the gun. Put down the gun." Also, 5 shots in succession would be easy to mistake as 3. Given how much eyewitness testimony varies (it's actually pretty unreliable and only really useful when several people have strong commonalities in their view of events) this is a really consistent account.
3
According to these eye-witnesses, Birk shot Williams in the back.

If the physical evidence proves otherwise, do we discount all of their memories?

She didn't remember seeing Williams turn his head to acknowledge the officer or turn to confront him, as Birk testified.


Ford: Did you ever see [Williams] turn all the way around?
Sirgeas: No. He looked over his shoulder.
Ford: Turn partially around?
Sirgeas: No.
Ford: Do anything aggressive?
Sirgeas: No. He was walking downtown. He never changed his speed.
4
@3 He was shot in the side, and one shot through the cheek, which would be consistent with him looking over his shoulder when he was shot. Nice try though.
5
Please don't nitpick someone's English and cite fucking Websters.

/nitpicking
6
From what I've read so far, it seems pretty clear that Birk had already drawn his gun before he started yelling at Williams. (Did Birk himself say so? An earlier post on Slog seems to imply that he did.)

If Birk had already drawn his gun, that means he was thinking about using it. And as we've been told repeatedly in this news cycle, when police officers shoot, they are trained to shoot to kill.

So despite Birk's statement that he thought this encounter would end with a conversation rather than a death, the very fact that he had his gun in his hand indicates that he was contemplating shooting Williams dead from the moment he exited his patrol car. Reasonable inference?
7
I mostly withheld judgement until reading the witness statements (see my comments in the day 2 article).

Now I have enough information to be much more comfortable thinking that the use of lethal force was not necessary at the time and place that Birk used it.

Hopefully he at least loses his job. I'd like for charges to be filed against him, but I'm being realistic here - from what I've read, the WA laws shield officers from on-the-job criminal charges quite thoroughly.
8
@6: in the video from his squad car camera it is clear that Birk had drawn his gun barely after getting out of the car (as he is crossing in front of it).
9
@7 exactly the problem: the police protect EACH OTHER from being rightly brought to justice while MURDERING the populace. he murdered that guy. protecting him is criminal. we'd be safer with NO police.
10
Hasn't it been confirmed that there is wide spread usage of steroids within the SPD? Shouldn't Officer Birk be tested for these drugs? I bet all my money this was a product of roidrage.
11
"As I was getting on the bus, helicopters were going over and I realized he… more than tasered the guy."

So this witness thinks tasers make gunshots?
12
@4 "He was shot in the side, and one shot through the cheek"

Ford: Did he turn at all. before he was shot?
Sebring: No.


Nice try though...
13
@4 -- Wait, if he was shot in his side, then how come two eyewitnesses said he didn't turn at all?

And what are you going to do when it turns out he wasn't shot in his side? All you know so far is what William's attorney released to the press.

Will you change your opinion if he wasn't shot in the side? Will you consider you might be wrong if it turns out he was hit three times in a tight pattern in his chest?

Or will inconvenient facts suddenly become unimportant when they no longer fit your pre-conceived notions.
14
@10 -- It's a well-known fact that all Seattle police officers snort two or three lines of coke an hour. If they want to make it up through the ranks, they have to smoke crack through the preserved skull of a murdered minority.

Chief Diaz personally shoots up the tears of the oppressed. Google it. It's totally true.
15
@7: while I think the "thin blue line" mentality certainly exists, you can thank the State Legislature for the laws that are on the books.

Who is "we?" I'm confident that I'm quite a lot safer with police existing. Your mileage may vary.
16
Er, @9
17
Face it, knives of the kind he had are still legal, regardless of anything else said.

Unless you're not white, of course.
18
For all the police officers who are reading or contributing to this comment thread, please don't get the wrong impression. Most people who are expressing their outrage, dismay, amazement, horror, etc., at the shooting of John T. Williams don't hate cops. They just think that in this case, this particular cop seems to have screwed up pretty bad.

Isn't it a good idea to rid SPD of any unstable characters who drive around looking for trouble and then get themselves into nutty situations that lead to tragic consequences? I think it is.

I had just left 24 Hour Fitness downtown about 15 minutes after this shooting. Walking down Howell toward Boren, I saw all the police cars with their lights flashing and I knew something bad had happened. Later, when I saw the news, I was pretty freaked out.

The idea that a cop can just decide somebody looks weird and then walk up and shoot the weirdo dead -- whereupon the cop's buddies crowd around and say, "You did the right thing" -- makes me feel really, really uncomfortable about walking the streets of Seattle.

SPD will be much better off, and the people of Seattle will be much safer, once you fire the trigger-happy bullies.

That is, of course, if any such bullies happen to be on the force right now.
19
@13, in re.

@4 -- Wait, if he was shot in his side, then how come two eyewitnesses said he didn't turn at all?

And what are you going to do when it turns out he wasn't shot in his side? All you know so far is what William's attorney released to the press.


I've got your inconvenient facts right here:
Autopsy Report
20
I might not speak autopsy, but I am pretty sure:

Perforating gunshot wound of right chest
a. Entrance wound: Right chest above nipple


means the bullet went in through the front of his chest above his nipple.

I'm pretty sure:

Perforating gunshot wound of right forearm
a. Entrance wound: Proximal anteromedial right forearm


means on the inside of the right forearm as one would expect a shot entering the arm of a man facing his shooter.

I'm not sure if your statement is in support of mine, Arrr, but the autopsy report you cited certainly agrees with what I said.
21
@8 -- I watched the video a few times and I could see that Birk was holding something, but I couldn't tell what it was. My friend watching with me was sure it was a gun. I withheld judgment on that point.

@20 -- Where is the autopsy report posted? Can you give us the link?
22
Sorry, I see the autopsy link is posted. So all the wounds are on the right side of the body, and in particular there's an entry wound on the right side of the chin and an exit wound on the left side of the chin. So Williams' face was turned partly away when he was shot -- maybe in profile to the shooter?

I'd like to hear from an expert. But it sounds like Williams wasn't facing Birkin when he was shot. More of a sideways posture, like the way some of the stand-ins are situated in those pictures in Det. Mudd's PowerPoint slides.
23
@20, did you actually read the autopsy? Because if you did, you would have read that all the wounds enter the right side of his body, and all travel towards the left side, which gives a crystal clear picture that Williams was shot standing sideways, or slightly angled at the officer... LIKE SAY, IF HE WAS TURNING AROUND TO SEE WHY THE HELL SOMEONE WAS YELLING AT HIM.

Christ. I really hope you're a police shill- otherwise you're just dumber than a box of rocks.

24
@23: six shooter in long-time shill for SPD.

@six-shooter: given that SPD's preliminary internal finding was that the shooting was unjustified (they are waiting until the inquest is complete before releasing the final) and your seemingly willful misreading of the autopsy report, I suggest you find another point to argue here.

Just out of curiosity what would it take for you to decide that Birk fucked up here? How much more would it take to convince you?

25
crap: *is a
26
Of course I'm a shill for the police. Why else would I waste my time arguing with you?
27
I did read the autopsy. I'm not an expert.

Are you suggesting the only interpretation of the autopsy is Williams was turning toward Birk? Are you suggesting the autopsy couldn't also suggest Birk was slightly to the right of Williams instead of facing him directly? Doesn't the autopsy seem to suggest William's right arm was raised toward Birk?

Am I living on another planet? On my planet, the only way to shoot someone in the chest above their nipple is if they are facing toward you. Maybe not squarely toward you, maybe a little to your right, but definately not sideways.

BTW, I believe Birk fucked up. I've never suggested he is the model of police behavior. I think he put himself into a stupid situation. I think he got cocky and disregarded police procedure.

I knew Williams. I wouldn't have snuck up behind him. I would have probably laughed had Williams turned around and threatened me.

I don't think Birk set out to murder anyone. I don't think Birk had anything against Williams or Natives anymore than he probably had against anyone else who made his job difficult or frustrating.

Forgive me for sympathizing with the guy who puts his life on the line in the service of his community over the guy who would sooner spit at me than lend me a hand.
28
20: You might not 'speak autopsy', but I'm pretty sure any mildly competent person (no inferences in your case) can figure out using a dictionary that;

3. Perforating gunshot wound of right chest.
a. Entrance wound: Right chest above nipple.
b. Involving: The lungs and heart.
c. Exit wound: Left axilla

means that the bullet entered the chest on the right side, travelled through the chest, and exited in the left axilla (armpit). Unless that bullet completely disregarded the laws of Physics, Williams was probably facing almost at right angles to Birk at the time the bullet struck him.
Regarding you assertion that an entrance wound on the inside of the right forearm means that Williams was facing Birk; I'm not sure how your arms articulate, but with mine, the inside faces the centreline of my body. Regardless, the autopsy states that the bullet entered the inside right forearm toward the front and middle, and exited the outer upper right arm. As I'm no autopsy expert either, I won't comment on what this means in terms of Williams' position (no doubt it will be explained in the hearing), except to note that all four of the bullets entered Williams' body from the right side.

P.S. For someone who claims not to 'speak autopsy', you exhibit great confidence when you assert that "the autopsy report you cited certainly agrees with what I said."
29
six shooter: "I believe Birk fucked up. I've never suggested he is the model of police behavior. I think he put himself into a stupid situation. I think he got cocky and disregarded police procedure."

Fair enough. That's really all I wanted to know and it totally squares w/what two SPD officers have told me privately (one saying "he totally fucked up." And another saying something along the lines of: "It's a mess and now we have to clean it up").

I appreciate your honesty on that and, whether you believe it or not, sympathize with your sympathy.
30
@27: Six Shooter, you can interpret & turn anything into the way you want to perceive it. Someone else looking at the same thing could read it totally differently. Unless you were there and you saw it, don't tact like you know. The Firearms board found it unjustified, bottom line, long before any witnesses testified.
31
Unless that bullet completely disregarded the laws of Physics, Williams was probably facing almost at right angles to Birk at the time the bullet struck him.


Would you stake someone's career and freedom on that probably?

Look, I can't say enough that I don't know what these autopsy reports mean. All I'm questioning is the blanket assumption Williams wasn't in at least some manner facing Birk.

Here's why I think it's important: If Williams was turned away from Birk when Birk shot Williams, then there is no question Birk discharged his weapon inappropriately.

If Williams was in the act of turning toward Birk from some distance when Birk shot him, then I guess we need to know how fast Williams was turning and if Williams was also advancing toward Birk.

If Williams was mostly turned toward Birk and Williams held an open knife in his hand he refused to drop, then I am inclined to believe Birk when he says he felt he was in danger.

Look, I'll go on the record: I want to believe Birk was justified in shooting Williams. I don't want to believe our police officers are bad at their jobs or that they intentionally murder people. That's my bias.

The alternative is just too horrible for me to accept right now, so please bear with my passion for questioning those second-guessing him.
32
"all the wounds enter the right side of his body, and all travel towards the left side, which gives a crystal clear picture that Williams was shot standing sideways..."

Or that Birk walked/ran up alongside his right side, and John never turned at all - like both the witnesses said.

In any event BIRK PUT HIMSELF inside what he calls the 21-foot danger zone. HE made the choice to move into the zone where, according to him, shooting was -necessary- if John made -one wrong move-.
33
wait, when did any witness say Birk walked / ran alongside his ride side?

Agreed Birk put himself in a bad situation and did not react well. I believe we've already covered that.
34
Can we all agree the eye-witness testimony is worthless? At best we get from it:

1. Birk and Williams were there
2. Birk shot Williams
3. Everything happened quickly
35
Would you stake someone's career and freedom on that probably?


Yes. On what basis would you accept the word (eye witness testimony) of the shooting police officer over the provable physical laws of our part of the universe?
If I shoot you such that the bullet enters your body on the right side, travels a straight line through lungs and heart and exits on the left side, what is the probability that it was fired from anywhere other than from your right side?

Look, I'll go on the record: I want to believe Birk was justified in shooting Williams. I don't want to believe our police officers are bad at their jobs or that they intentionally murder people. That's my bias.

The alternative is just too horrible for me to accept right now, so please bear with my passion for questioning those second-guessing him.


Instead of making statements and asking leading questions based on what you want to believe, try making statements and asking questions with a factual basis.

Can we all agree the eye-witness testimony is worthless?


Because it doesn't accord with what you "want to believe"? No, I don't agree to that. Remember, Officer Birk's testimony is as much eye witness testimony as anyone else's.
36
just want to make a comment about this comment:
"Forgive me for sympathizing with the guy who puts his life on the line in the service of his community over the guy who would sooner spit at me than lend me a hand."
I, for one, do not appreciate this particular police officer and do not feel he is a benefit to our community if he did indeed screw up, which all evidence points to.
Your comment may apply to 99% of police officers in Seattle, but it does not apply to this one.
37
@35 --

OK, let's ditch Birks eyewitness testimony along with the other eye witnesses. Have you already read the Seattle Times articles containing reports from an eye witness that said Williams turned toward Birk? How about the Fire Department officer who saw an open knife on the scene?

Open Knife: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
Eyewitness: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…

Now lets consider the autopsy expert who suggested Williams raised his right arm toward Birk. How could he do that if he wasn't facing Birk? Or the fact that the same expert couldn't deny Williams was facing toward Birk?

Arm Raised: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
Open Knife:

I will try to overcome my sympathy for the police officer. How about I just pretend he's like any other defendant on trial and give him the benefit of assuming he's innocent unless he's proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

If I shoot you such that the bullet enters your body on the right side, travels a straight line through lungs and heart and exits on the left side, what is the probability that it was fired from anywhere other than from your right side?


If you faced me and I stood slightly to your right while facing you, you could stab me with a knife. I could draw a straight line from above your right nipple, through your heart and lungs, and out your left side.

Wait, that is unless your nipples hang under your right underarm. OK, you're right. I am assuming William's nipple is halfway between his midline and the right side of his chest. You've got me on the bullet if William's nipple is under his arm.

Remember, if Williams could have stabbed Birk from where he was standing, AND Williams acted like he might have stabbed Birk, Birk had cause to defend himself.

38
@35 -- What are the chances the bullets didn't follow follow straight lines?
39
@35 -- Let me ask you another leading question: At what point during the day do you think Birk decided to murder Williams?

* Do you think he woke up that morning and thought to himself "I'm going to shoot the first injun I see today?"
* Do you think he got chewed out that morning at roll call and was so pissed he decided to go out and teach someone a lesson they'd never forget?
* Do you think he saw Williams walk in front of his squad car and thought "that injun didn't give me the respect I deserve, so I'm going to kill him?"
* Or maybe it was something different. Maybe for a long time Birk has been wet powder waiting for the right spark to set him off and Williams just happened to be that spark when he didn't follow Birk's orders right away.
40
OK, let's ditch Birks eyewitness testimony along with the other eye witnesses.


Let's not. Let us instead consider the eyewitness testimony and compare it to the physical evidence, and assess the witness' veracity based on how well their statements agree with the observed facts.


Now lets consider the autopsy expert who suggested Williams raised his right arm toward Birk. How could he do that if he wasn't facing Birk? Or the fact that the same expert couldn't deny Williams was facing toward Birk?


Once again assuming your arms articulate in the normal way, please stand upright and raise your right arm so that your right hand is level with your right shoulder. Now move your arm so that it is projecting directly away from you in front of your body (if it is not already doing so), then keeping your arm extended, level and at the height of your shoulder, rotate it from your shoulder to the right. You should notice that it is pointing in a direction other than the one that the rest of your body is facing. Keep trying until you firmly understand what this signifies; that it is possible to extend your arm in a direction other than the one in which you are facing.

Next, stand in front of a mirror and with your arm still extended and level with your shoulder, position your right hand so that the palm is facing away from you, with your fingers extending upwards. If you have followed instructions correctly, you should see yourself giving a "stop" hand signal. if your arm is projected from your shoulder level and to the right, you will see a possible reason for William's to have his arm raised when he was shot by Birk that has nothing at all to do with using a knife in an offensive manner. In fact it may have been an unconscious act of defense against the police officer who, moments later, shot him dead.

I will try to overcome my sympathy for the police officer. How about I just pretend he's like any other defendant on trial and give him the benefit of assuming he's innocent unless he's proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?


It would be nice if the judicial process was that fair.

If you faced me and I stood slightly to your right while facing you, you could stab me with a knife. I could draw a straight line from above your right nipple, through your heart and lungs, and out your left side.

Wait, that is unless your nipples hang under your right underarm. OK, you're right. I am assuming William's nipple is halfway between his midline and the right side of his chest. You've got me on the bullet if William's nipple is under his arm.


From 9 feet? I must have long arms. And if you think you can stand "slightly to my right"(but mostly to my front) and (from 9 feet) shoot a bullet through the area of my breast above the nipple, through heart and lungs, and exiting in the left armpit, you must have long arms...
Further, you assume the nipple of a sick male alcoholic (and thus likely to be quite overweight) is "halfway between his midline and the right side of his chest". Looking at even my own portly frame I can see that my nipples reside far to the outside of midway on my breasts. You really must have interesting anatomy; can we look forward to seeing a picture of your forearms that have the insides facing forward, your (long, long) arms that don't articulate to the sides, and your nipples that reside halfway between the midline and right side of your chest...?

Remember, if Williams could have stabbed Birk from where he was standing, AND Williams acted like he might have stabbed Birk, Birk had cause to defend himself.


A shambling deaf alcoholic, with a closed, 3'' blade, from 9 feet, while in the act of turning, in the space of 4 seconds between first command and first shot?
Yes, obviously that's entirely reasonable. /sarcasm

What are the chances the bullets didn't follow follow straight lines?


From 9 feet, unless they hit something substantial I'd say virtually nil.
Do you have any reason for thinking the bullets didn't travel in straight lines?

Let me ask you another leading question: At what point during the day do you think Birk decided to murder Williams?


Is that what he did? I thought your assumption was that he acted in "self defense"?
Do you really think Birk is fit to be a police officer, let alone to be walking the streets a free man, if he needed to "defend" himself against a sick alcoholic "armed" with a folded 3" blade, when Birk himself is the person who put himself in the situation where he "needed to defend himself"?

At what point do you think Birk decided to murder Williams?
41
I don't think Birk decided to murder Williams. I think Birk made many, many bad judgments and bad decisions that morning that resulted in a terrible tragedy.

I think Birk will live the rest of his life knowing he killed a hopeless, helpless man for no other reason than he decided to disregard his training and underestimated the danger he put himself into.

I don't think he should go to jail. I'm pretty sure he shouldn't be a cop anymore. I don't think he murdered anyone.

Your statement above does a great job of creating the possibility Williams wasn't aggressive toward Birk.

A shambling deaf alcoholic, with a closed, 3'' blade, from 9 feet, while in the act of turning, in the space of 4 seconds between first command and first shot?
Yes, obviously that's entirely reasonable. /sarcasm


No: An aggressive, drunk alcoholic with a knife the officer believed was open from 9 feet while in the act of lunging toward the officer with his knife hand extended (in the space of 4 seconds after the first command).

If the above statement is even possibly true, a jury shouldn't find Birk guilty.

Did you read the testimony from the training officer about how quickly someone can close a 9 foot distance with a knife?

http://www.poam.net/blog/21-feet-way-too…
http://www.usadojo.com/articles/21-feet-…
http://www.allbusiness.com/public-admini…

So, for the benefit of the last two people who care about this thread, why don't you tell me what you think happened that day and what should happen to Birk?
42
Let's also clear up some other facts that have been released by Ford but not entered into evidence or substatiated in the inquest (yet):

1. Was Williams deaf?
2. Was Williams incapacitated? Was he intoxicated? Was he impaired beyond his ability to respond to a lawful order within 4 seconds?
3. Was Birk's order to drop the knife lawful and reasonable?
43
Oh, and I do have long arms. Thank you for noticing.
44
I don't think Birk decided to murder Williams. I think Birk made many, many bad judgments and bad decisions that morning that resulted in a terrible tragedy.


The point is, whether he decided to murder Williams or did as you believe, the difference will probably be impossible to prove.


I think Birk will live the rest of his life knowing he killed a hopeless, helpless man for no other reason than he decided to disregard his training and underestimated the danger he put himself into.

I don't think he should go to jail. I'm pretty sure he shouldn't be a cop anymore. I don't think he murdered anyone.


Then why should anyone else who kills another person go to jail? I'm sure they all regret it (when they get caught if not before).
You're pretty sure he shouldn't be a cop? What on earth would he have have to do to convince you?

Whether he is regretful or not, the fact is he had a responsibility to behave as a responsible, law abiding, well trained, well controlled member of society trusted to uphold and enforce the law, and instead he acted as a power crazy killer against an innocent, unarmed man, and then lied about (and continues to lie about) the circumstances. For that alone he should go to jail.

Your statement above does a great job of creating the possibility Williams wasn't aggressive toward Birk.


And so what? The possibility that he was aggressive toward Birk (in the 4 seconds between being hailed, turning around (or not) and being shot four times) completely justifies the use of deadly force against an unarmed, physically debilitated man?
Considering the certainty Birk's violent response, I'm sure you should have no problem applying the same standards to him...

No: An aggressive, drunk alcoholic with a knife the officer believed was open from 9 feet while in the act of lunging toward the officer with his knife hand extended (in the space of 4 seconds after the first command).


A tiny knife that Birk says he believed was open, held by a man that no eyewitness except Birk saw move in any fashion (let alone aggressively) toward Birk.

If the above statement is even possibly true, a jury shouldn't find Birk guilty.


You really think a jury should exonerate on the basis of the doubt inspired by the contradicted testimony of the defendant? I'm laughing my arse off here, and praying you aren't a defense lawyer.

Did you read the testimony from the training officer about how quickly someone can close a 9 foot distance with a knife?


Wow, I guess it was lucky that Birk had gun drawn before he even got into range of his own cruiser's video camera, let alone anywhere near Williams (of his own volition, I might add).
And how fortunate that Williams was not seen to move aggressively toward Birk by any eye witness except Birk (he claims), right before he gunned him down. It could have got really nasty if Williams had actually had his 3" knife open, and had actually attacked Birk as he states. He might have been seriously scratched...

So, for the benefit of the last two people who care about this thread, why don't you tell me what you think happened that day and what should happen to Birk?


Sure, and while I'me doing that, why don't you tell me why you think Birk should walk free after killing an unarmed man? Please try to base your justifications for Birk's actions on events that actually happened, based on physical evidence or the corroberated statements of independant eyewitnesses.

1. Was Williams deaf?

Does it bear substantially on the matter at hand? Can it be proved or disproved at this late stage?

2. Was Williams incapacitated?

According to Birk, he "walked funny".

Was he intoxicated?


He had alcohol in his system.

Was he impaired beyond his ability to respond to a lawful order within 4 seconds?


Is "Hey! Hey! Hey!" part of the lawful order? Was Birk required to identify himself as a police officer as part of that "lawful order"? Was he required to give notice of his intent to shoot Williams 2.2 seconds after first ordering him to drop the knife?

3. Was Birk's order to drop the knife lawful and reasonable?


Was Williams given reasonable time to respond before being shot 4 times?

Oh, and I do have long arms. Thank you for noticing.


They must be of the order of nine feet long if they can shoot a man through the right chest, heart, lungs and left armpit, while he is facing you from a distance of nine feet. And I assume you are left handed?
45
Boy, six shooter can stretch, can't he? Must be made of rubber. He's doing his best to defend his buddy, Birk, in any way possible. The bullet wounds suggest John may have been turning towards him at the time he opened fire. He was not shot in the back, he was not shot directly in the chest. He may have been turning to sit on that low wall that Birk ORIGINALLY CLAIMED he was sitting on, before his dash cam video became available for viewing by the public. Birk had previous run-ins with John, and maybe just didn't like him for reason such as otherwise stated, he didn't think John gave him due 'respect'. SPD are showing themselves to be nothing but COWARDS, and if a 'good' cop is DEFENDING the bad cops, or COVERING for them, that makes them JUST AS BAD, 'thin blue line' be DAMNED!
46
Why has no one mentioned that none of this would have happened if a SPD officer had not gotten out of his patrol vehicle, weapon drawn or not, to stop someone for daring to walk down a public street with a legal implement in his hand? It does not matter what JTW was carrying, knife, bat, iron pipe, in America we get to do that! We should not have to answer to the SPD for not breaking the law.
47
Why has no one mentioned that none of this would have happened if a SPD officer had not gotten out of his patrol vehicle, weapon drawn or not, to stop someone for daring to walk down a public street with a legal implement in his hand? It does not matter what JTW was carrying, knife, bat, iron pipe,or firearm in America we get to do that! We should not have to answer to the SPD for not breaking the law.