Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« In Memoriam | New Gallery at 523 South Main »

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

City City Presses Criminal Charges Against Cop Who Kicked a Cooperating Juvenile

Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Undercover Seattle police officer James Lee broke the law when he rushed into a convenience store last fall, encountered a 17-year-old boy with his hands up, and then proceeded to kick him repeatedly in the chest and groin, say charging documents filed today by the Seattle City Attorney's office. (Read our coverage the incident here.) This is video of the incident:

Officer Lee is charged with fourth-degree assault and faces up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine. Police Chief John Diaz requested that the Washington State Highway Patrol investigate the incident in February. Citing Seattle's assault law, City Attorney Pete Holmes says in a statement, "When the force used is not reasonable under the circumstances, the officer must be held accountable.”

County prosecutors attempted to charge the juvenile suspect with first-degree attempted robbery but he was later acquitted. The juvenile then sued the city, arguing that the officer used “unjustified and excessive force,” seeking $450,000 or a jury trial.

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

WTF?!?!?!?
Kick, and you'll be charged with assault. Shoot to kill, and the Establishment rallies around you and you walk scot free.
Fuck these fucking fucks.

Posted by Sir Vic on April 13, 2011 at 3:21 PM

But if this cop would have shot and killed the 17yr old for no reason at all, then pressing charges against him would be just out of the question, right?

Posted by aiff on April 13, 2011 at 3:21 PM

@1 & @2,

Ironically enough...

Posted by Eric Arrr on April 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Hmmm...the rules under which a SPD officer can be charged with a crime do seem byzantine and capricious. What I am more confused about thought is this Washington State Petrol. Is that some sort of locally produced fuel?

Posted by danindowntown on April 13, 2011 at 3:36 PM

@4,

What saved Birk's hide from criminal prosecution was a statutory defense that specifically applies to homicide situations. In this instance, that defense was unavailable to the officer, on account of, well, his not killing the poor kid.

Posted by Eric Arrr on April 13, 2011 at 3:38 PM

@5 And the fact that no camera caught the actual murder.

Posted by I Got Nuthin' on April 13, 2011 at 3:46 PM

#6 nails is.

The fact that there was always going to be reasonable doubts as to what Williams did or didn't do was what fizzled that case.

Posted by Mr John on April 13, 2011 at 3:55 PM

@5, @6,

Yeah, true that.

Posted by Eric Arrr on April 13, 2011 at 4:43 PM

@7- I don't think "reasonable" describes any doubts anyone might have had.

Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings

on April 13, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Setting aside all worries about those who weren't charged for other crimes, I AM SO GLAD HE'S BEEN CHARGED FOR THIS ONE.

I mean, whew.

Posted by gloomy gus on April 13, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Are you people thick or something? John T Williams was armed and failed to comply with a direct order from a police officer. This kid did not have a weapon and he cooperating with the officer. Criminal charges were filed in this case because there was evidence of an actual crime.

Posted by Ken Mehlman on April 13, 2011 at 8:11 PM

@11: Failure to Obey an Officer is a misdemeanor. (RCW 46.61.022)

Last time I checked, the punishment for misdemeanor offenses is not death.

Posted by Captain Wiggette on April 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM

@12 Sure, but the fact that John T Williams had a weapon and didn't drop it when ordered to do so weighs pretty heavily in the shooters favor.

Posted by Ken Mehlman on April 13, 2011 at 9:08 PM

No, Ken, it wasn't a weapon. It was a legal carving knife. Only shit-my-pants-there's-a-scary-non-white-person cowards like you & Birk would refer to it as a weapon.

And what evidence there was clearly shows that Mr. Williams had no time to comply with Birk's order before he was shot. Why you continue to beat that dead horse is beyond me. Oh, wait-- you're a conservative nut case. Never mind.

Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on April 13, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Can't wait to see what the The Guardian and Richard O'neill have to say about this.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on April 14, 2011 at 10:59 AM

@15,

SPOG's statement is here.

Somebody really needs to call O'Neill out for all the falsehoods in that statement. Eddie Fucking Haskell, that guy.

Posted by Eric Arrr on April 14, 2011 at 2:03 PM

@13: Not according to the Seattle Police Department investigation, or to common sense.

It's not illegal to carry a weapon. In fact it's perfectly legal to open-carry a firearm in Washington State, no license required.

In other words, you think citizens should simply be executed on the street without warning or notice from the police for following the law while walking down a sidewalk?

Posted by Captain Wiggette on April 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM