Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DA says police shooting was justified (4 cops, 1 mentally ill woman with knife)
The Times-Tribune (Scranton PA) ^ | 6/16/2009 | David Singleton

Posted on 06/16/2009 11:17:30 AM PDT by Born Conservative

The four police officers who went to Brenda Williams' apartment the evening of May 28 were ready to wrap up, awaiting only the completion of a citation charging the North Scranton woman with disorderly conduct before calling it a night.

Then Ms. Williams emerged from her kitchen holding a knife with a wooden handle and an 8-inch blade, and suddenly everything changed.

Within seconds, as the 52-year-old woman ignored commands to drop the weapon as she moved toward one of the officers, three of them fired, fatally wounding Ms. Williams in what Lackawanna County District Attorney Andy Jarbola ruled Monday was a justifiable response to the threat she presented.

"In light of the facts that were presented to me by the state police, it is my opinion the officers involved - their actions - were justified and that no criminal charges will filed be against them," Mr. Jarbola said at a news conference at which he released the findings of the investigation.

If the long-awaited disclosure took some of the mystery out of what happened inside Ms. Williams' second-floor apartment at 1501 N. Lincoln Ave., it is not likely to end the questions about how the Police Department handled what started out as a harassment call involving a mentally ill woman.

Attorney William Mikita Jr., who represented the Williams family, said he disagrees with Mr. Jarbola's conclusion that the shooting was justified.

"We've got one officer making the determination that she's not a threat to herself and minutes later, she's dead," Mr. Mikita said. "How does something like that happen? Did they lose control of the scene?"

Referring occasionally to a diagram of Ms. Williams' apartment and photos from the scene posted on a wall at his Spruce Street office, Mr. Jarbola spent nearly an hour outlining the circumstances that led to the shooting and how he reached his determination.

For the first time, the four officers who were at Ms. Williams' apartment - and who have been on administrative duty since the incident - were identified.

Cpl. Robert Stanek, who was the supervisor at the scene, is a 16-year police veteran, Mr. Jarbola said. Officer James Smith, who had had previous contact with Ms. Williams, has been with the department for 11 years. The other two, Officers Jason Knoch and Eric Jordan, have been on the force for just over a year.

The district attorney also revealed Ms. Williams was shot five times, including two lethal wounds to her abdomen and another potentially fatal wound that severed the femoral artery in her right leg. She had a sixth wound from falling on the knife.

According to Mr. Jarbola, Officers Smith and Jordan were the first to respond, going to Ms. Williams' apartment shortly after 10 p.m. after a neighbor complained Ms. Williams had been harassing her and her fiance.

Officer Smith had responded to a similar call two days earlier, on May 26, when he learned Ms. Williams had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic who had possibly stopped taking her prescribed medication, Mr. Jarbola said.

When a nude Ms. Williams retreated back into her apartment after answering the door, the officers entered and found the woman underneath the covers in her bedroom. She appeared agitated and annoyed, yelling and cursing at the officers.

Around 10:40 p.m., Officer Smith contacted the Communications Center and requested an ambulance for a possible involuntary commitment of Ms. Williams under Section 302 of the state's mental health law. The law permits the involuntary commitment of individuals who are deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Around the same time, Officer Smith requested Cpl. Stanek be notified of the situation. Emergency medical technicians arrived at 10:45 p.m., and Cpl. Stanek and Officer Knoch came about 15 minutes later, around 11, Mr. Jarbola said.

At that time, the EMTs told state police, Ms. Williams "was pacing around the apartment nude, She was agitated, screaming and cursing at everyone," he said.

After a discussion with the other officers in the apartment's living room, and with no evidence Ms. Williams posed a danger to herself or others, Cpl. Stanek made the decision there would be no 302 commitment and instructed Officer Knoch to write up a citation for disorderly conduct instead. The EMTs were also released.

"They were basically waiting for the citation to be written, and they were going to leave," Mr. Jarbola said.

That's when Ms. Williams emerged from her bedroom and went to her kitchen at the other end of the apartment, he said. The officers heard her rummaging through the kitchen, and one suggested she may be getting a knife.

Mr. Jarbola said Ms. Williams, who was 5 feet, 7 inches tall and weighed about 194 pounds, then returned from the kitchen through the dining room, holding a knife in front of her as she walked into the living room. The officers drew their weapons and ordered her to drop the knife, but she refused and headed directly toward Officer Smith, who moved backward through her bedroom door.

She was 2 to 5 feet from Officer Smith when the officers fired - Officer Smith from just inside the bedroom, and Officer Knoch and Sgt. Stanek from another doorway to her right, Mr. Jarbola said.

It is still unclear who fired first, but Officers Smith and Knoch each fired twice and Cpl. Stanek once, he said. Officer Jordan, who could not see Ms. Williams from where he was standing, did not discharge his weapon.

The time that elapsed between Ms. Williams going to the kitchen and the officers opening fire was less than 30 seconds and probably "more like 10 to 15 seconds," Mr. Jarbola said.

The district attorney said law enforcement officials are allowed to use deadly force under Pennsylvania law "when there is an imminent threat of death of serious bodily injury to themselves or others" - a condition he said was met when Ms. Williams advanced on Officer Smith with the knife.

Mr. Jarbola said he could not speak to the issue of whether the officers were complacent in allowing Ms. Williams to go to her kitchen unsupervised.

"She's not under arrest. It's in her own home," he said. "The officers - I don't know - they could have assumed she was going to the bathroom."

Police Chief David Elliott, who received a copy of the state police report late Monday afternoon, called the four officers "good cops" who have never had any type of disciplinary issues in the time he has been chief.

With the completion of the state police investigation and Mr. Jarbola's review, the department will now conduct its own internal review "to make sure we followed the correct procedures and whether there is anything we could have done differently," he said.

In the meantime, three of the four officers have seen psychologists and have been cleared to return to duty, he said. The fourth had an appointment Monday.

"These officers just took someone's life. Mentally, it can take a toll on you," he said.

Mr. Mikita, the attorney who represents Ms. Williams' family, did not rule out the possibility that the family will file a civil suit, but he said they will need to review all the evidence before making that decision.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: brendawilliams; scranton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: No Surrender No Retreat
Thank you for the true projection concerning your persona. I presume you think of yourself as a “anti-law enforcement crusader” out to rescue all the poor criminals from the evil tentacles of the law.

Of course that's what you think, because you are so insecure,as already established. However, I'm extremely pro-cop. So much so that I really, really detest the bad apples.

As for myself, I am retired now basking in the ambience of the good life. I as a LEO in my career treated all with whom I came in contact with firm, but fair. I used my discretion wisely and never had a complaint lodged against me. I was well liked in all the various ethnic communities because I treated everyone the same. Criminals and fools will always hate the police for we are the enemy to them.

Taking you at your word, why in the world would you stain that by defending a little petty tyrant who is creating problems where they don't exist and trying to impress the world with his badge? It makes no sense. Good cops should be the first to condemn this sort of behavior.

When one has a different opinion other than your’s does not mean they are a racist. It is called choice. Choice is a selection/discrimination or preference.

Making racist comments are racist. Not have differing opinions.

If the admin moderator feels my posts you alleged are racist, then he or she will take the appropriate action.

And they did.

Last of all you were the one who called me Racist Trash after I made the comment what you would supported had the trooper been black and the Sr. EMT white. I know your type of character and you will always be anti-law enforcement/anti-authority.

You said a fair amount more than that, and I'm all for calling people on the carpet whatever their skin tone. But I will not take the kind of crap you were dishing out.

In closing, I think you must have had some bad dealings with law enforcement in your history. Reasonable sane and prudent people know that there like any other profession in life, there will be a few unworthy to uphold the position.

I've seen some bad cops, although my personal experiences have been pretty good. I have a very clean record except for some tickets in my youth that I richly deserved. Twice I've given police officers back up when they were outnumbered. You accuse others of being very jaded and bent by a world view, by your jaded world view won't allow you to even consider that people who disagree with you here aren't cop haters and aren't anti-law.

81 posted on 06/17/2009 4:29:43 PM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Hey you are not the brightest bulb in the pack. It is apparent you hide behind the constitution when it fits you little twisted agenda.

Jacksonville has a high crime rate and you must stay at home shivering in fear using the computer as a bully pulpit as an aegis against the barbaric hordes banging at your single-wide’s door.

The bottom line I consider you a demented self-rightous fool who thinks your a tough main in your alice in wonderland existence.

Well I do hope things workout for you at your bath house job.

F&Y,
NSNR
Last transmission over and out!


82 posted on 06/17/2009 5:00:39 PM PDT by No Surrender No Retreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: No Surrender No Retreat

Check your Internet connection again, you’re still coming in weak and stupid.


83 posted on 06/17/2009 6:59:07 PM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

““Shoot to wound” is by definition an illegal use of force as well as an immoral one. You either shoot to kill or you do not shoot.

Putz.”

Again, thanks Officer Expert. Your desire to shoot first and always typifies precisely “why” we have too many Barney Fifes wearing a badge ... and not enough peace officers.


84 posted on 06/18/2009 7:07:08 AM PDT by mgc1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 556x45

“Well, when the only tool you have is a hammer then thats what you learn to apply to all ‘problems’.”

Agreed. Too eager to shoot someone, some dog, some thing and the worst part is their ability to shoot straight is collectively pathetic often requiring multiple officers firing tens of rounds each on one subject.


85 posted on 06/18/2009 7:08:51 AM PDT by mgc1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative

“Officer Smith had responded to a similar call two days earlier, on May 26, when he learned Ms. Williams had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic who had possibly stopped taking her prescribed medication, Mr. Jarbola said.”

And this didn’t move Social Services into action...why ?

Never call the police to deal with mentally disturbed people unless you’re willing to risk them being killed.


86 posted on 06/18/2009 7:17:39 AM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mgc1122

Yes, and couch potatos like you think what you see on tv is real and can be duplicated by every day human beings that make up our police forces.

It’s not like cops, lawyers, military men and philosophers haven’t been thinking this through for eons, but we all have to drop what we know about the physical universe and do it your way because you saw it done in a movie.

Putz.


87 posted on 06/18/2009 7:51:14 AM PDT by Valpal1 (Always be prepared to make that difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

“It’s not like cops, lawyers, military men and philosophers haven’t been thinking this through for eons, but we all have to drop what we know about the physical universe and do it your way because you saw it done in a movie.

Putz.”

ROTFLMAO ... please tell me you’re not a real cop. Just another keyboard LEO wannabe.


88 posted on 06/18/2009 8:20:21 AM PDT by mgc1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Let me spell it out for you. A gun is a deadly weapon. If you use it, you’d better be sure that lethal use of force is justified and necessary or you are engaged in an illegal use of force.

Looks like people should take care of psychotic loved ones themselves vice calling the police then. As normal people understand how to use weapons that can be lethal like, baseball bats and guns, in less than lethal ways.

Following your logic to its natural end, shouldn't police officers walk up and deliver a head shot after every shooting, just to ensure that they haven't "illegally shot someone"?

A reasonable person might conclude that although a psychotic man with a knife might justify lethal force, the situation by definition does not require it, and that lethal weapons do not require lethal use.

Answer me this. Let's say that one of your family loved ones has a psychotic incident and is wielding a machete at the neighbor kids. If a policeman is driving by and stops, would you want that your psychotic relative be have their legs shot or that the officer shoot them in the head? Lethal force is justified, but is it required. Your assertion that it must be both or neither is not at all logical.

89 posted on 06/18/2009 9:33:57 AM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
say that one of your family loved ones has a psychotic incident and is wielding a machete at the neighbor kids. If a policeman is driving by and stops, would you want that your psychotic relative be have their legs shot or that the officer shoot them in the head? Lethal force is justified, but is it required. Your assertion that it must be both or neither is not at all logical.

I would expect that officer to shoot to stop the threat, period. I would expect him to shoot at the center mass of my loved one's body in order to stop the threat he/she would be presenting to the kids. Deliberately aiming at someone's limbs (arms or legs) is stupid for multiple reasons. One, limbs are in motion at a greater speed and more angles than the torso, vastly increasing the chance of missing and the shot going wild. Also "winging" them does not necessarily stop the threat. Intentionally wounding someone with a lethal weapon opens up a huge vista for the trial lawyers association creative lawsuit division to sue.

A reasonable person might conclude that although a psychotic man with a knife might justify lethal force, the situation by definition does not require it, and that lethal weapons do not require lethal use.

You need to study up on force theory. If lethal force is justified, it is by definition, necessary. If it is not required, it is by definition, not justified. You can't use a lethal weapon in a non-lethal manner without serious civil and legal ramifications for excessive use of force. That's how it works in real life no matter how silly Hollywood gets with movie plots.

90 posted on 06/18/2009 2:05:05 PM PDT by Valpal1 (Always be prepared to make that difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
I would expect that officer to shoot to stop the threat, period.

You expect so very little of the police. How very, very sad.

God I hope that you aren't an LEO. Your ideas on "the requirement" to use lethal force are not only illogical, they constitute de facto murder of the insane.

91 posted on 06/18/2009 4:28:18 PM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

What is illogical is to believe that there is such a thing as non-lethal use of lethal force or that officers can be trained to “shoot to incapacitate”.

It would simply result in more shootings, more injuries and maimings, more deaths and more lawsuits.


92 posted on 06/18/2009 6:37:24 PM PDT by Valpal1 (Always be prepared to make that difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

You shouldn’t have a gun either.

I hope you never get the chance kill a crazy person, who needs help, not a bullet.

Exactly what do you think “to protect and to server” means?

Having the justification for lethal force, does not require someone with far greater capability to use lethal force. Its a moral issue.

If a crazy person has a baseball bat they do not require killing.

Once again, I hope to hell that you are not an LEO.


93 posted on 06/19/2009 6:23:55 AM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Having the justification for lethal force, does not require someone with far greater capability to use lethal force. Its a moral issue.

Your statement assumes crazy people are also stupid and incompetent. They are neither. They are just as able and competent to use a baseball bat in lethal manner as a sane person. The only difference is their perception of necessity and motivation, i.e. they are not necessarily perceiving and responding to the same universe we are (particularly during a psychotic episode) which makes them unpredictable. The psychotic may not even be attacking you, but the demon on your shoulder that you do not see or hear. They may believe they are saving you.

But you will have no way of knowing that, will you? Assuming that you are smarter, faster and more capable may just end up with your head being a lump of mush. And assuming you can talk or reason with a psychotic is another ignorant assumption, a huge risky maybe.

The problem is not the cops, the problem is a mental health system that leaves these troubled ill people out living on their own with insufficient supervision to make sure they are taking their meds and without protection from predators.

The chronically mentally are preyed upon and suffer far more violence than they dish out but that doesn't mean we should tie the police's hands when dealing with them. We'll just end up with dead cops to go with the dead mentally ill person.

Every time a mentally ill person dies in a confrontation with the police, they get endlessly second guessed and blamed. But the blame lies with us as a society for not bothering or caring to create and fund an intelligent and comprehensive system for housing and treatment. Instead we have "community health" plans that basically sets them up to be beaten up for their disability checks and food stamps on a monthly basis.

As for what I think "protect and serve" means, it means protecting the community from the individual. Sucks, but there it is, when you present yourself as a disturbance and a threat to the community, bad things can result.

The tragedy is that we keep placing the mentally ill and the police in a conflicting and incompatible relationship and expecting it to turn out differently.

94 posted on 06/19/2009 7:43:06 AM PDT by Valpal1 (Always be prepared to make that difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
What you profess is not good sense, it is not a time honored principle, it is not morally defendable.

It is a rule written to protect the lowest common denominator of a policeman from his own incompetence.

"Don't pull a gun unless you are going kill someone with it." Assumes that the user is too stupid to escalate their response. Incapable of decent marksmanship. Stupid enough to wait too long to bring their gun to the ready. And not to be trusted to not shoot someone if they have a loaded weapon in their hand. When I investigate something suspicious in one of my properties I do so with my gun in my hand. It provides more time to think, not less. The same practice is true in the U.S. military when dealing with varying levels of threats (not including war). Weapons are selected, armed, and set to fire. Self-defense is always an option, but lethal force is never a must. Somehow the military is able to arm a missile against an aircraft acting in a hostile manner without feeling that they are obligated to then fire it.

The correct response to a person brandishing a knife, sane or crazy, is to pull your weapon and cover them, and assess the situation. When someone is 15-20 feet away with a knife, there is no reason for someone who considers themselves a trained professional to kill them. The police are supposed to be trained professionals, right? Supposed to be more concerned with public safety than their own, right?

Such police action is all the more inexcusable when there is more than one officer present. You're insisting that the person with the knife is going to suddenly leap 20 feet, get missed by three officers, and stab someone.

Again, you and other posters are proving why the public is less and less comfortable with police actions that have more to do with protecting themselves than serving the public.

Far too many LEO's are incompetent with their firearms and instead of providing more training, they are taught to shoot with less provocation. It makes perfect sense that a sane man with a knife might likely put it down if he has a gun pointed at him, thus there is a great reason to point guns at him (even if you don't shoot). For a person have a mental issue, you are their to serve and protect them too. Killing them should be the absolute last option. Your claim that purposely wounding someone isn't an option is silly. You can say that its not guaranteed to be nonlethal, you can say its more difficult, you can say that incompetent people shouldn't attempt it, but to say that its simply not an option for people who are supposed to be trained professionals is just nonsense.

95 posted on 06/19/2009 9:45:39 AM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Recommended reading to open your eyes.

http://www.forcescience.org/

The problem isn't what you don't know, it's what you know that just isn't so.

96 posted on 06/19/2009 10:54:20 AM PDT by Valpal1 (Always be prepared to make that difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
I looked at the site. There's nothing there of note except to point out that people with weapons are dangerous and that being a policeman is an occupation demands more than simplistic responses.

There is an old saying that the safest place for a ship is in harbor, but ships are not built to remain in harbor.

The same goes here. A policeman's #1 job should not be to keep themselves as safe as possible, it should be to protect and to serve. This mindset that it should be #1 to remain safe is why police remain outside during mass shootings, shoot people sleeping on train platforms and why they kill people with knives who could otherwise be subdued.

The idea that you should not take undue risk acknowledges that certain risk is to be taken.

This woman was paranoid schizophrenic and the police knew it. She was acting bizarre. The neighbors called the police because she was acting in a threatening manner. But instead of coming prepared to deal with the woman in a non-lethal manner, they appeared to expect her to act in a rational manner and then shot her when she acted in a manner that the neighbors had been complaining about. Why did they send four cops? One cop could shoot a 52 year old woman? They needed to be prepared to subdue a paranoid schizophrenic and Baker Act her. This woman was evil, she was sick. Sadly the police in this incident acted in such a manner that shooting her five times seemed reasonable. Does that department not have tazers or shotguns with nonlethals? A rational person would of course not attack four armed policeman. They relied on this as a logical defense, but it was illogical because they knew that she was not rational. You will say that the situation didn't allow time for nonlethals or whatever, but they created the situation and were in charge of it from the very beginning.

97 posted on 06/19/2009 1:04:10 PM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Your statement assumes crazy people are also stupid and incompetent.

Not at all.

1 They are neither. They are just as able and competent to use a baseball bat in lethal manner as a sane person. The only difference is their perception of necessity and motivation, i.e.

There is another very important difference. They are innocent. They are one of the people that police are supposed to serve and protect.

If the police are just going to shoot these people, like mad dogs, then people need to stop calling the police to help subdue them.

98 posted on 06/19/2009 1:11:29 PM PDT by SampleMan (Socialism enslaves you & kills your soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative

There is a financial consideration, in these times of deficit budgets.

In Huntington Beach, CA police shot a teenage girl, because she charged at them in a schoolyard with a knife.

The city settled a wrongful death lawsuit, apparently for $40 million.

There might ought to be some intermediate method, between having the cops turn and run, and having them fill the person full of lead.

The PD has shotguns, in car computer screens, dogs, helicopters, motorcycles...lots of technology.

How about some non-lethal methods for handling people that are mentally ill, on drugs, etc?

And then how about keeping those people locked up?

http://www.justicenewsflash.com/2009/01/13/huntington-beach-settles-40-million-police-shooting-lawsuit_20090113581.html


99 posted on 06/19/2009 1:27:51 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

US Air Force — WAF uniform.....


100 posted on 06/19/2009 1:39:22 PM PDT by Buddy B (MSgt Retired-USAF - Year: 1972)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson