TRACKING THE WILKINS SHOOTING

If you just started following the story of the death of Alameda County Narcotics Task Force Agent Willie Wilkins case over the past couple of days, then it’s probably your impression that this is a terrible tragedy, nothing more. Wilkins was the undercover police officer shot and killed, apparently mistakenly, by rookie officers Tim Scarrott and Andrew Koponen late Thursday night, January 11th. At the time of his death, Wilkins was supposedly apprehending a car robbery suspect near 91st Avenue and B Street. Reading the latest news accounts, you would have to conclude that at best Wilkins’ killing was an unavoidable mistake, at worst it was Wilkins’ own fault.

But something in this story doesn’t track right, and it begins with the first newspaper reports. In its initial story on the shooting, the Chronicle quoted Oakland Police Lt. Paul Berlin of the homicide detail as saying that he allowed Scarrott and Koponen to leave the scene without being interviewed because they were "traumatized" and needed time to "collect themselves."

To put this in perspective, imagine that the Oakland police find a man shot dead in his living room. The man’s wife and son are sitting on the couch, both holding weapons that have recently been discharged. They acknowledge doing the shooting, but say they’re too upset to talk. Imagine then, police officers backing out the door, saying, "Our bad. We’ll come back when you have a chance to collect yourselves." Doesn’t track, does it?

According to the Tribune, District Attorney and Oakland police investigators did not talk to Scarrott and Koponen until the afternoon of Saturday, the 11th, almost two full days after the shooting. The two officers appear to have been quite busy in the interim. By Friday the 12th they had hired an attorney, Mike Rains, who was already giving out their side of the story to the Tribune. They were too traumatized to talk to their superiors in the police department, but not too traumatized to talk to a lawyer?

That’s not the only thing that doesn’t set right. A week after Wilkins’ death, a "semi-official" story is emerging in the daily press based upon interviews with police officials and Rains. According to this story, Wilkins’ called into police dispatch that he was in pursuit of a stolen vehicle. Looking for the same stolen car, Scarott and Koponen came upon Wilkins chasing the auto theft suspect on foot. Again according to the released stories, Scarrott and Koponen did not recognize Wilkins as a police officer, and thought that he was a private citizen threatening another citizen with a gun. But a fourth officer coming on the scene apparently did recognize Wilkins, supposedly shouting something like, "That’s Willie!" Scarott and Koponen either did not hear the fourth officer or did not understand the meaning of that shout. "Both officers gave command to the individual with the gun to drop it," Lt. Berlin is quoted in the Chronicle as saying. "(Wilkins) looked at the officers and then looked at the suspect and took a step toward the suspect." In other words, Wilkins was at fault. The two rookies shot him dead.

Questions emerge. Is it standard police procedure for undercover officers to take non-undercover calls? Did Wilkins indicate to the dispatcher that he was not in police uniform and, if so, did the dispatcher relay that information to Scarott and Koponen? From what direction was Wilkins shot? If both Scarrott and Wilkins actually did shout for Wilkins to drop his gun, was he given enough time to identify himself as a police officer? And finally, if "an internal investigation is continuing," as Lt. Berlin indicated to the Chronicle last week, why did he say at the same time that Scarott and Koponen "acted according to department policy"? Only in Alice in Wonderland does the conclusion precede the investigation.

No. This one doesn’t track right.