View Full Version : SPD release dashcam video. (Wood carver OIS)
This is a follow up to an old thread that got closed, hopefully this one doesn't. Seattle PD has released the dash cam video of the officer involved shooting that led to the death of a local Seattle man. If you'd like to read the original thread it's located here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61530
Dashcam video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=956_1292627716
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-19-10, 08:56
Lady on the street says WTF!
Does it sound like he came at him? No, it sounds like he was just standing there with a knife and got shot by a trigger happy cop, but, no comment from me either way hehe. Its a tough job.
Littlelebowski
12-19-10, 09:34
Doesn't sound like the guy menacing him with it nor does it look like the guy was agitated.
Lady on the street says WTF!
She barely seemed phased at all.
Doesn't sound like the guy menacing him with it nor does it look like the guy was agitated.
The deceased is simply walking across the crosswalk in the beginning of the video. He appears to be whittling his piece of wood with a small knife while walking. Worth stopping him for? I don't know their SOP but it seemed pretty harmless to me.
The_Biased_Observer
12-19-10, 10:38
I see some are claiming the deceased was deaf.... That pretty much explains what happened.
Deaf guys don't respond well to surprise commands. Plus.....
Young cops fresh out of training are programmed to think that knives are automatic shoot scenarios within certain distances.....
I'm pretty sure the shooting was ruled unjustified.
But, what has happened to officer Ian Birk? Is his trial pending?
I'm pretty sure the shooting was ruled unjustified.
But, what has happened to officer Ian Birk? Is his trial pending?
It was ruled unjustified in the prelim investigation but I don't know the current status http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013160320_shooting15m.html.
That cop didn't give him a chance from the looks of it.
CarlosDJackal
12-19-10, 11:41
From what I can tell, the Officer may have over reacted to the sight of some guy walking around whitling. But then again, since all I have to go by is the audio recording, and I was not there to look into the subject's eyes, I could not realistically say anything as fact.
Too bad this was not on video. This where a personal video camera would have been very useful. I also wonder if a Taser could have resulted in a different outcome. Either way, this was a tragedy for everyone involved.
John_Wayne777
12-19-10, 11:41
The video seems pretty useless as far as determining what happened.
From what I can tell, the Officer may have over reacted.
How are officers trained to deal with potentially deaf individuals? The deceased was deaf in 1 ear and was wearing headphones at the time of the incident.
GLOCKMASTER
12-19-10, 11:47
How are officers trained to deal with potentially deaf individuals? The deceased was deaf in 1 ear and was wearing headphones at the time of the incident.
First of all you have to know the person is deaf prior to deciding how to deal with them and it's not like deaf people walk around with signs hanging around their necks letting folks know they are deaf. Of course this all takes place in seconds.
Belmont31R
12-19-10, 11:51
That cop didn't give him a chance from the looks of it.
He was not even facing the officer when shot. Autopsy report said he was shot in the back/side.
Sounds to me the guy just kept walking, and due to not hearing the officer (deaf in one ear and wearing headphones) kept on walking when the officer was yelling at him. Since he kept on walking he was shot. Obviously we don't see what was off camera but based on witnesses and the autopsy he was not facing the officer and was basically just minding his own business. He wasn't waving the knife around at people and hadn't threatened anyone.
Birk, 27, who joined the department in July 2008, remains on routine paid leave.
Isn't that nice?
First of all you have to know the person is deaf prior to deciding how to deal with them and it's not like deaf people walk around with signs hanging around their necks letting folks know they are deaf. Of course this all takes place in seconds.
I realize that. It still doesn't answer my question.
GLOCKMASTER
12-19-10, 11:55
Belmont got a link to the autopsy or the report with the witness statements? The original article reported one witness stated:
"It was rapid succession of five or six shots, straight to the chest. It was point blank," said one witness who wished to remain anonymous.
GLOCKMASTER
12-19-10, 11:57
I realize that. It still doesn't answer my question.
I think it answered part of it.
If time or the situation allows and you know the person has a hearing disability, our people are required to contact someone who can interpret for the individual.
-The prelim says shooting was unjustified.
-victim was not facing officer when shot.
-the knife was found folded on the ground.
Ian Birk will pay for his mis judgement.
Belmont got a link to the autopsy or the report with the witness statements?
I realize that this is from the man's family's attorney. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013160320_shooting15m.html
Williams was struck by four bullets on the right side of his body, indicating he was not facing the officer at the time the shots were fired, the attorney representing the Williams family has said.
Belmont31R
12-19-10, 12:12
Belmont got a link to the autopsy or the report with the witness statements? The original article reported one witness stated:
"It was rapid succession of five or six shots, straight to the chest. It was point blank," said one witness who wished to remain anonymous.
John T. Williams, the woodcarver fatally shot by a Seattle police officer Aug. 30, was struck by four bullets on the right side of his body, indicating he was not facing the officer at the time the shots were fired, the attorney representing the Williams family said Tuesday.
"There's nothing looking like he was facing toward him," Seattle attorney Tim Ford said of Williams' position as the officer fired. "It was all right side."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013082467_shooting06m.html
http://www.nwcn.com/news/washington/Man-shot-4-times-in-side-by-Seattle-police-lawyer-says-104414219.html
The autopsy on a woodcarver shot and killed by a Seattle police officer in August shows the man was not facing the officer during the shooting.
The Seattle Times got a copy of the autopsy which reveals John Williams was hit by four bullets on his right side.
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-100610-woodcarverautopsy,0,6644568.story
Some witnesses told police that Williams did not act in a threatening manner.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/25965277/detail.html
We also read eight witness statements that are part of the motion. They told investigators they never saw Williams turn around or approach Officer Birk. Another said Williams appeared "unaggressive" and that the "level of danger did not seem to warrant five fatal shots to the chest".
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-dash-cam-pictures-of-wood-carv-111610,0,3848317.story
Army Chief
12-19-10, 12:21
Is some greater purpose going to be served by continuing this discussion, or are we simply waiting for it to turn contentious so it can be shut down to the mutual dissatisfaction and frustration of all concerned?
Something bad happened. A good guy was involved. We don't have all of the facts. What kind of answers do we really expect to find here? I'm not saying this to be difficult; I'm saying it because there just doesn't seem to be much of anyplace to go with a thread like this one.
AC
My sister heads up a feel-good that helps the chronically homeless.
The vast majority of those people have some very serious mental issues; paranoia, schizophrenia, heavy drug and alcohol use...many times they're trying to self medicate.
In any case, the guy might have been deaf or not, he could have been in his own world and not been able to acknowledge the officer....hell, he could have thought that the officer was a Replicant mutant Nazi George Bush that was coming to suck his brains......WE DON'T KNOW.
Probably never will.
It's a damn shame that it happened.
I don't know what endlessly Monday morning quarterbacking officer involved shootings on the internet accomplishes though.
Belmont31R
12-19-10, 12:32
Is some greater purpose going to be served by continuing this discussion, or are we simply waiting for it to turn contentious so it can be shut down to the mutual dissatisfaction and frustration of all concerned?
Something bad happened. A good guy was involved. We don't have all of the facts. What kind of answers do we really expect to find here? I'm not saying this to be difficult; I'm saying it because there just doesn't seem to be much of anyplace to go with a thread like this one.
AC
No offense intended but is there some purpose in shutting down threads left and right on a constant basis? Whats the point of contributing to a discussion if they are just going to get shut down unless its about "what are you drinking for the holidays" or what type of dog you have. If its going to be policy to shut down any decent topics then close GD down for good or just relabel it "boring shit discussion". Again not trying to be crass or rude about it but its pretty frustrating to be having what is seemingly a good discussion, and come back to it a little bit later to see it locked with " its all been said" or something like that. I used to be able to see the little lock button, and 9/10 I could know who locked it based on the content without even looking. I realize you guys are trying to keep things from getting out of hand but theres quite a few of us on here who can keep things civil.
One thing I never like to do is to make judgements on the actions of an officer from such a poor vantage point. Sure, we saw this individual walk across the street, but none of the actually officer contact was visible. That and the audio microphone is attached to the officer, and unless you are right up on the contact at close range the mic will not pick up the contact's voice. So, from this video we cannot see what the deceased did or didn't do to cause him to be shot, and we likely cannot hear the voice of the deceased as he may have been beyond the audio capabilities of the officer's mic.
That being said, if a guy was talking down the street with a pocket knife and didn't appear to be using it menacingly, then I would probably do no more than watch him to make sure there weren't any problems.
We don't have all of the facts.
Key components have already been laid out.
Belmont31R
12-19-10, 12:46
One thing I never like to do is to make judgements on the actions of an officer from such a poor vantage point. Sure, we saw this individual walk across the street, but none of the actually officer contact was visible. That and the audio microphone is attached to the officer, and unless you are right up on the contact at close range the mic will not pick up the contact's voice. So, from this video we cannot see what the deceased did or didn't do to cause him to be shot, and we likely cannot hear the voice of the deceased as he may have been beyond the audio capabilities of the officer's mic.
That being said, if a guy was talking down the street with a pocket knife and didn't appear to be using it menacingly, then I would probably do no more than watch him to make sure there weren't any problems.
His own department ruled it unjustified based on the information they had, and they are awaiting the decision to prosecute him criminally or not.
If you read some of the linked articles his own departments review board looked at the autopsy report, witness statements, their training staff, and others. The video doesn't show the shooting but you can get a pretty good image of what happened based on the totality of the evidence.
Is some greater purpose going to be served by continuing this discussion, or are we simply waiting for it to turn contentious so it can be shut down to the mutual dissatisfaction and frustration of all concerned?
My intention wasn't to stir the pot. I was just posting a follow up to a thread that was closed.
CarlosDJackal
12-19-10, 13:18
From what I can tell, the Officer may have over reacted
How are officers trained to deal with potentially deaf individuals? The deceased was deaf in 1 ear and was wearing headphones at the time of the incident.
Sorry, I should have expanded the first sentence of my post (which I have). WHat I meant is that he may have overreacted to the sight of a man walking around with a knife he was clearly using to carve something.
While I am not suggesting that he not address the issue, I know I would have. I can only base my opinion on what was in the video and the supporting audio. I saw an Officer that went into overdrive fright from the get go.
But this is just pure speculation on my part. But one based on my own experiences. I have made this same mistake when I was newly badged and in the process created a high-stressed situation right off the bat.
As I said, this is just my opinion based on the limited information we have available. I could be way off track on everything. Regardless, this is still a tragedy all around.
This is a follow up to an old thread that got closed, hopefully this one doesn't. Seattle PD has released the dash cam video of the officer involved shooting that led to the death of a local Seattle man.
Can't make any comment based on vid/radio. I give the benefit of the doubt to the LEO on the scene who made a split second decision to fire vs the alternative of getting sliced n diced. Body language, eyes, etc, all have an effect on split second decision making. He must have seen something that had him go to lethal force. Too bad cam didn't capture it to support/disprove the events.
This gent has had regular run ins with the police, and has made specific threats toward them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqCela8bgdM&feature=related
One more time: stupid is supposed to hurt. It's not TV, it's not a 'fair fight' nor should it be. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, do what the cop tells you to do, unless you are planning to fight, and "win" or lose, deal with the results of your actions.
If a review board judges it not justified, then so be it. I was not there, and have not seen all the evidence, so I can't make that call.
Army Chief
12-19-10, 13:21
No offense intended but is there some purpose in shutting down threads left and right on a constant basis? Whats the point of contributing to a discussion if they are just going to get shut down unless its about "what are you drinking for the holidays" or what type of dog you have. If its going to be policy to shut down any decent topics then close GD down for good or just relabel it "boring shit discussion". Again not trying to be crass or rude about it but its pretty frustrating to be having what is seemingly a good discussion, and come back to it a little bit later to see it locked with " its all been said" or something like that. I used to be able to see the little lock button, and 9/10 I could know who locked it based on the content without even looking. I realize you guys are trying to keep things from getting out of hand but theres quite a few of us on here who can keep things civil.
Normally I would just send a courtesy PM, brother, but your questions are probably worth fielding in a more public fashion.
First, absolutely no offense was taken, and we know each other well enough to realize that a great many of us have very positive histories of involvement with each other, and will always seek to give each other the benefit of the doubt, even when we may not agree.
In this case, I have no dog in the fight, but have seen enough contentious debate (here, and behind the scenes) on these LE-versus-the-public themes to know that once they pick up inertia, people get agitated, everybody ends up unhappy, and the civility of the boards takes a nosedive. I don't think that you do this. I know that I don't do this. I'm not even sure that I would level the charge at any of our regular members, but the point is that we're experiencing a great deal of site growth, and we are seeing a corresponding increase in confrontational posting behaviors.
Obviously, none of us want to foster an environment in which threads like these digress into affronts and personal conflicts. Different staffers have different ways of dealing with this, but I loathe infractions and strong-arming, so I will generally just interject a post (like that above) to let folks know that the thread is being watched. If that doesn't keep the train on the tracks, I will tend close threads before they reach the point where individuals have to be singled out for negative attention, suspensions or worse. What may be less visible is that I will try to re-open those same closed threads a day or two later after the furor has died down, and any overtly offending posts have been pruned or omitted.
I totally understand the collective angst on the part of guys who welcome discussions on controversial topics, but what else can we really do? Should last night's blacks-versus-whites thread have been allowed to head to the full-boil that seemed to be just around the corner? Should we facilitate a free-fire zone where every cop who stumbles can be given a virtual autopsy by people who lack any first-hand knowledge of the events described? Should we allow TOS transplants to descend upon valueless threads like pirannahs? Should we permit the mindless "me too" set to run free on our boards?
These are rhetorical questions, and I advance them with no particular agenda or emotional involvement. I just think that you have to step back for a moment and ponder what is really to be gained by developing threads (like this one) that will inevitably divide the camp. Many members and staffers are law enforcement officers. Many members and staffers are freedom-loving patriots who are chafing in response to expansions or abuses of civil authority. Add an unfortunate situation like this one, where an LEO apparently made a highly-questionable call, and you've got spark, air and fuel. When these things flashover, we all get burned -- and for what?
I can only speak for myself, but it's true that I will tend to err on the side of caution in these situations because I dislike the heavy-handed approach to dealing with my fellow members. The only other choice is to deal a bit more aggressively with the threads themselves, and while I can count the number of threads that I have permanently closed on one hand (with several fingers to spare), the purpose of this kind of intervention is to protect -- not to punish. I apologize if it feels some other way, but this is a hard balance to strike on a forum like this one, particularly when we're dealing with an influx of new members who are bringing some questionable posting practices with them when they arrive.
Appreciate you airing your thoughts here, and I hope that, even if you find that you cannot agree, you can at least understand where I'm coming from, and why I tend to respond in the way that I do.
This thread is still open. I'm simply asking that we strive to keep it that way by keeping things on-azimuth.
AC
Who knows what was going through the policeman's mind at the time. Perhaps he held a very valid subjective apprehension. However, the legal standard imposes the concept of reasonableness on an officer's actions, so if the policeman's apprehension was not objectively reasonable, then his goose is cooked.
I think that all of us know that a series of violent incidents can really put a person on edge and make them more likely to respond quickly and decisively in the face of perceived danger, even if the hypothetically "reasonable person" would not.
And perhaps we can tie this in with a related thread. Is there any word on whether the officer used steroids, and if so could the steroid use be to blame for his actions which at this time do not seem reasonable?
Finally, as pitiful as the situation of a homeless person may be, I really cannot shed a tear for him because as mentioned many of them are bonkers (or drunk or both) and dangerous. Like that recent story of a homeless guy who murdered a Chinese restaurant owner to get the guy's wallet.
Should last night's blacks-versus-whites thread have been allowed to head to the full-boil that seemed to be just around the corner?
What happened to that thread anyway? I was looking for it and was not sure if it is gone or if I just can't recall what it was called.
Army Chief
12-19-10, 13:51
What happened to that thread anyway? I was looking for it and was not sure if it is gone or if I just can't recall what it was called.
Still on the boards (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=69335) ... just not active at the moment.
AC
Army Chief
12-19-10, 14:01
My intention wasn't to stir the pot. I was just posting a follow up to a thread that was closed.
Didn't read anything negative into your intentions, and in your defense, I was not aware of the other thread -- nor of its untimely demise.
All OK, Jumpmaster.
AC
Belmont31R
12-19-10, 14:43
Can't make any comment based on vid/radio. I give the benefit of the doubt to the LEO on the scene who made a split second decision to fire vs the alternative of getting sliced n diced. Body language, eyes, etc, all have an effect on split second decision making. He must have seen something that had him go to lethal force. Too bad cam didn't capture it to support/disprove the events.
This gent has had regular run ins with the police, and has made specific threats toward them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqCela8bgdM&feature=related
One more time: stupid is supposed to hurt. It's not TV, it's not a 'fair fight' nor should it be. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight, do what the cop tells you to do, unless you are planning to fight, and "win" or lose, deal with the results of your actions.
If a review board judges it not justified, then so be it. I was not there, and have not seen all the evidence, so I can't make that call.
No one but the LEO who did the shooting said the guy was posturing or trying to fight. The autopsy says he was not even facing the LEO when he was shot.
Also kinda hard to hear LEO commands if you're deaf in one ear and have headphones on. Or is perfectly normal legal activity justification for deadly force? Especially if one is not under the mindset they are doing anything wrong it can take seconds for your brain to kick in, and realize what exactly is happening. 4 seconds from when the LEO said to drop the knife to the 1st shot is not a lot of time when you are minding your own business. Maybe he finally heard the LEO, and turned wondering WTF was going on. Since the officer was reportedly 10ft away from him the LEO could have thought he was turning to attack him. If someone is behind you yelling at you whats the first thing you would do? Turn to see what is going on and who is yelling at you? Most of our "info" comes from our eyes so its natural to want to face where you think info is coming from. That would explain the shots in the side especially since he was right handed, and would have the knife in his right hand.
Sounds like you already made up your mind giving the benefit of the doubt to the LEO and talking about getting sliced n diced or shooting as well as talking about bringing a knife to a gunfight. Unless you have other information the only person accusing the dead of doing anything threatening is the LEO, and so far quite a few witnesses have said he didn't do anything threatening.
John_Wayne777
12-19-10, 14:51
ArmyChief is making a lot of sense, folks.
Sounds like you already made up your mind giving the benefit of the doubt to the LEO
Yup. Until I see further details, benefit of the doubt goes to the LEO on the scene. And I know from your prior posts, it would not matter what the LEO did, you will still make the same comments about LEOs. Therefore, we have nothing to say to each other in this thread/on this topic.
Good luck. ;)
Littlelebowski
12-19-10, 16:52
Yup. Until I see further details, benefit of the doubt goes to the LEO on the scene. And I know from your prior posts, it would not matter what the LEO did, you will still make the same comments about LEOs. Therefore, we have nothing to say to each other in this thread/on this topic.
Good luck. ;)
It was ruled unjustified by his own department. What more do you need?
VooDoo6Actual
12-19-10, 17:11
Wow, just wow.
It was ruled unjustified by his own department. What more do you need?
The facts without hyperbole and obvious anti LEO bias. Has an official decision been made?
His shield was taken because a civilian firearms review board determined the shooting was unjustified while an investigation takes place. My understanding is,the FRB has to take place within 7-30 days of a shooting, according to SPD policy.
http://www.seattle.gov/police/public...SPD_Manual.pdf
I don't believe an official ruling exists, and it wouldn't be the first time an LEO gets thrown under the bus due to public pressure, etc regardless of the reality of the shoot.
An LEO with a good record vs, guy in that vid I posted above. Yup, really tough choice for me to decide who I would rather see go home safely...not.
It's these stories that makes me happy I'm not an LEO because no matter what they do, arm chair ninjas who simply don't like LE come out of the woodwork.
Do i think a full investigation is warranted due to the nature of this shoot? Yes, but beyond that, I''ll give benefit of the doubt to the LEO.
If he fu&% up, it should come out in the details. I'd still rather have that LEO on the job then the guy he took out walking around if given the choice however.
Th entire even sucks: person lost his life (who may or may not have intended to harm LEO) by what may be a mistake made by the LEO, who may lose his job or worse.
Are LEO supposed to identify themselves verbally at all?
I've been walking down the street, and been verbally addressed as the officer addressed the homeless guy ( HEY,HEY,HEY!). And 90% of the time, it resulted in me having to defend myself.
If the person calling me out had identified himself as an officer, I would have likely turned around with a different attitude.
Belmont31R
12-19-10, 19:05
The facts without hyperbole and obvious anti LEO bias. Has an official decision been made?
His shield was taken because a civilian firearms review board determined the shooting was unjustified while an investigation takes place. My understanding is,the FRB has to take place within 7-30 days of a shooting, according to SPD policy.
http://www.seattle.gov/police/public...SPD_Manual.pdf
I don't believe an official ruling exists, and it wouldn't be the first time an LEO gets thrown under the bus due to public pressure, etc regardless of the reality of the shoot.
An LEO with a good record vs, guy in that vid I posted above. Yup, really tough choice for me to decide who I would rather see go home safely...not.
It's these stories that makes me happy I'm not an LEO because no matter what they do, arm chair ninjas who simply don't like LE come out of the woodwork.
Do i think a full investigation is warranted due to the nature of this shoot? Yes, but beyond that, I''ll give benefit of the doubt to the LEO.
If he fu&% up, it should come out in the details. I'd still rather have that LEO on the job then the guy he took out walking around if given the choice however.
Th entire even sucks: person lost his life (who may or may not have intended to harm LEO) by what may be a mistake made by the LEO, who may lose his job or worse.
Um no...it was his own department that took his gun and badge.
Ian Birk, was ordered by Deputy Chief Clark Kimerer, who oversees the review board, to surrender his gun and badge,
Blue
So because someone is doing something lawfully, and a LEO interjects himself into the situation its automatically the citizen gets killed so the LEO can go home safely? What other lawful activities should LEO's be able to shoot citizens over because the citizen didn't react fast enough to "hey hey hey!"?
Green
So you'd rather see an LEO who was taken off the job by his own department back on the streets vs. a guy who was doing nothing wrong?
woodandsteel
12-19-10, 23:02
How are officers trained to deal with potentially deaf individuals? The deceased was deaf in 1 ear and was wearing headphones at the time of the incident.
Surprisingly enough, we just had training on dealing with deaf individuals. Unfortunately, what was covered in that training would not have been too helpful in this situation.
For one, the deaf find it socially acceptable to tap on their shoulder to get their attention. That would not be proper when the person in question has a knife.
Also, according to ADA, when questioning a deaf person, it is the responsibility of the service provider to arrange for an interpretor, if the deaf person requests it. Writing notes back and forth is not acceptable.
I have dealt with deaf people on occasion. Communicating is difficult, especially if the deaf person's primary language is ASL and not english.
I forgot about the earlier thread discussing this incident. And this thread came along too late. Otherwise, I would have brought this incident up during training to see what thoughts the deaf community may have on this. Especially, how to approach and still be tactiacally sound with an armed deaf person.
1. Unfortunately, what was covered in that training would not have been too helpful in this situation.
2. That would not be proper when the person in question has a knife.
3. Writing notes back and forth is not acceptable.
Glad we're back on topic with some informative info, thanks for your input and candor.
1. I completely agree with you I was mostly posing the question out of curiosity. I'm genuinely curious and by nature to tend to ask a lot of questions. How else are you going to get answers?
2. Again, absolutely agree as this would've put the officer in immediate striking range which isn't acceptable in, I believe, anyone's eyes.
3. That surprises me. If a translator isn't immediately available and the officer either needs immediate answers or the person needs to relay information in haste there aren't too many other options I can think of.
woodandsteel
12-20-10, 00:08
As far as number three is concerned, note writing can be used immediately, if not other option is readily available and information is needed right away. But, we are cautioned about note writing. ASL (American Sign Language) is a seperate language from English. It is very easy to misunderstand what is being written or asked.
If we need to question someone, either as a victim, witness or suspect, there are options available to us. In my state there is a statewide list of court certified translators available to come out 24/7. And there is money budgeted to pay for this service. I really had no idea that anything like this was available until just recently.
Granted, this would not have helped in this situation. This is just FYI.
The family received $1.5 million. (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/120993149.html)
Homeless guy family ? Where were they when he was homeless ?
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=69588
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.