Inquest juror: Panel weighed viewpoints of 2 men in reaching findings

Inquest jurors who reached differing conclusions on the fatal shooting of woodcarver John T. Williams by Seattle police Officer Ian Birk tried to look at the confrontation from the viewpoint of each man, the presiding juror said Friday.

"We just can't make a blanket statement to say everything was right and everything was wrong," said Paul Ip, speaking a day after the eight-member jury issued its findings on the Aug. 30 shooting.

In an interview with The Seattle Times, Ip said the jury's approach to its task was reflected in its answer to two key questions: Did Birk believe Williams posed a threat, and did Williams pose an actual threat?

Four jurors found that Birk believed he faced a threat, while four answered "unknown." Four jurors concluded there was no actual threat, one found there was a threat and three others responded "unknown."

Ip, a Microsoft employee, said he answered "unknown" to both questions because he didn't know enough to make a clear choice.

He said he also answered "unknown" to the question of whether Williams was given sufficient time to comply after Birk ordered him to put down a knife he was carrying. Two other jurors joined Ip in voting "unknown," while four decided Williams didn't have sufficient time. One juror believed Williams had enough time to comply.

Ip said it was OK for the jury to have seemingly conflicting answers because Birk and Williams "might have been acting rightly from their point of view."

"There is room for a situation where both parties believe what they did was correct, but there still was a shooting," Ip said.

Birk, 27, shot Williams four times at Boren Avenue and Howell Street during a sidewalk confrontation. Williams, 50, a member of Canada's First Nations people, was carrying a knife and a flat piece of wood.

Birk testified during the inquest that he shot Williams after he didn't respond to three commands to put down the knife and displayed "pre-attack indicators." Birk fired about four seconds after the first of the commands.

Two witnesses contradicted Birk, saying they didn't see Williams do anything threatening. Other witnesses gave less definite accounts, although none described any aggressive actions on Williams' part.

Ip said no witness had a "clear view" of the shooting and none were paying absolute attention. He also noted none said they saw a knife.

Only Birk had a clear view of what Williams was doing just before the shots, Ip said, explaining that during deliberations jurors watched video from Birk's patrol car to help them determine the reliability of witness statements.

In addressing the 19 questions put to the jury, Ip said, jurors based their findings on what could be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard used in criminal cases.

While that standard is somewhat subjective, Ip said, it was more strict than using the lesser standard of probability of more than 50 percent. That so-called preponderance standard is typically used in civil cases.

The deliberations, he said, were civil and polite, with each juror expressing individual views on the questions as part of an effort to understand all perspectives and possibilities before making decisions.

In judging Birk's credibility, Ip said, there were a "lot of physical signs someone can give, but at the end of the day" he didn't know Birk well enough to interpret his demeanor.

Ip said he could only evaluate what Birk said and the circumstances.

He said he considered it a privilege to serve on the jury, even though it was stressful because of the "magnitude" of the case and the "repercussions down the road."

King County prosecutors will review the jury's answers and consider whether criminal charges against Birk are warranted. A decision is expected in mid-February.

Throughout their deliberations, Ip said, jurors did not view their job as deciding if Birk acted properly.

"That would be a much more difficult question to ask," Ip said. "If they did ask that, we may still be deliberating."

Steve Miletich: 206-464-3302 or smiletich@seattletimes.com