He was most likely drunk. When I had to deal with him he was always intoxicated.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

From what I understood of the reports, the only thing that aggravated the SPD fellow to pull on and murder that man was his lack of IMMEDIATE and perfect compliance with his verbal orders.
And that was caused by his hearing disability.
My impression was that he turned partly sideways in confusion, no threatening gestures of any kind at all, and was blazed down while he was still in a state of confusion.

I am pretty confident that this was the conclusion of the investigations. The only item that caused it not to be tried as a black and white murder of a stranger walking down the sidewalk was that the guilty party was a police officer at the time.

Wait now... One point I was wrong about in the first sentence- The SPD fellow had already drawn his firearm before he even attempted verbal contact with the hard of hearing woodcarver.
You know what is more amazing than a police officer who makes a life and death error of judgement?
The fact that there are other people who can and will take a black and white situation like this one and try to paint the murder as anything but wrong. Try to justify it... Point to the penknife... or to the deafness as if this was the victim's fault... point to the stresses of the job of being SPD.

Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can make a terrible, terrible mistake.
But to make the conscious effort to bolster that mistake as if it was justified- That's mind blowing.

Deaf, wearing headphones, and at least in the past had a history of public intoxication.

All good reasons to come up behind him and shoot him...

Minor update: noticed this from an article today



Not a reason to shoot him, but it sounds like he has behaved similarly in the past. Surprised he wasn't shot trying to grab the officer's pistol.

NO matter how you do this, you can't justify this.

The state police should be doing the Inv on this . I am a big LE supporter but this is inexcusable . But the union will cover for them

Uhh, so you know we're talking here about the wood carver, and I think the cop should have been charged with murder?

I'm not trying to justify anything, despite how much your imagination might run wild.

Part of the blame game I mentioned earlier....

Instead of addressing the actions, they sling poo..

Does anyone ever stop to think a police officer or any other person of power would dare spice a report to make himself look like a victim? I'm sure some of you do or know of other folks that just go blaming the world for shit that happens.


What do they tell you in boxing if you're a shorty and fighting a bigger person? Get the fuck in. Don't give them a chance to charge that 2 and hit you like no tomorrow at the end of their range. Same with rocks, pretty sure if I rush a fucking retard in the middle of a throw, I'm not going to be fatally injured.

Pussy ass motherfuckers is what it comes down to.

The court records are blaming someone?

My imagination???

In another post in this thread, you basically implied it was ok to shoot at a fleeing rock thrower...... I should have commented then, but I didn't. But that was bullshit, just like your last post here is bullshit.

OK, your last post.

1. Yes, I know we are talking about the Deaf Woodcarver.

2. WHAT THE FUCK is a deaf guy gonna do with headphones? What part of deaf, do YOU not understand?

3. You mentioned "past history of intoxication" What fucking difference does that make? IN other words..... He's been trouble in the past, so lets just go ahead and off him. He's scum, and we are all better off.

4. Yes, I remember you saying that particular officer should have been charged. But you didn't say that in the above referenced post, and (the whole post) lead me to believe that you were trying to justify the Deaf Woodcarver shooting.

My imagination, huh? No...... Nope. Try again.

His prior history holds no bearing on why the cops should/ should not shoot.

I implied it might be ok (at least looking at the RCWs) but there were a bunch of open questions which I listed out. I also said just looking at the video, it doesn't look so good. But we don't know what we don't know.



So, you're upset because I mentioned the deaf woodcarver was wearing headphones.
I don't know exactly how deaf he was, but the police report and autopsy mentioned he was wearing headphones.
I have no idea why he was wearing headphones. Or if he could hear what music was playing.
Or if he was listening to Hendrix. I just know he was deaf, and was wearing headphones, and had a history of public intoxication.

I don't make this shit up, and I am sorry that reality doesn't agree with your imagination. Again.



kf7mjf asked if he was drunk. I said he had a history of public intoxication, with the police. Whether Birk knew him or not I don't know.

Again, your imagination is filling in something I didn't say. I was giving more information, without making a commentary on the victim.

Someone who is deaf, wearing headphones and maybe intoxicated (I can't remember what the autopsy said on that) is not going to respond to a verbal command all that quickly, if at all.

I think Birk should have been charged and locked up.



I have absolutely no idea where you get this from. Every time I mention the woodcarver, I say Birk should have been charged.

Your imagination just continues to fill in stuff that isn't on the page. You should write a fiction novel.