View Full Version : Chicago Riots In 3...2...1...
Dash Cam footage doesn't look like a good shoot. Definitely isn't going to fly with the OBLM crowd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix2N6_jLAgA
I'm surprised it's as peaceful as it is after I viewed the footage.
Bad shoot and I find it more than interesting Obama's best friends took over a year to press charges and only then after a freedom of information request made it clear it would be exposed.
This couldn't possibly happen in such a progressive, we'll run city!
FYI: Save yourself 5 minutes. Nothing remotely interesting happens until around 4:55 into the video.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bad shoot and I find it more than interesting Obama's best friends took over a year to press charges and only then after a freedom of information request made it clear it would be exposed.
This couldn't possibly happen in such a progressive, we'll run city!
He was up for re election and it was going to be close. Had to wait until after the election to release this particular video.
Serious Question: What automatically makes it a 'bad shoot'?
Did the subject not have a knife? Was the subject not under the influence of drugs? Was his behavior not erratic?
Are you certain he posed no threat given his proximity to the other officers?
FWIW PCP and Ketamine can make a person appear stumbling drunk but they feel no pain and can be violently triggered.
There should have been other tools in play but as it stands it could've ended poorly for the officers.
Stabbed is stabbed.
Could he not have just dropped the knife? Not been high? Stayed home?
It's a roll of the dice. Every day.
Would it have made people feel better if the officer did absolutely nothing?
Without passing judgment of any kind on anyone else's opinions, many I would consider informed; I'd like to know what anyone else would've done knowing that no matter what happens it is always your fault.
Leaveammoforme
11-25-15, 17:38
The atmosphere inside that Tahoe must have been pretty pumped up based on the driving. I didn't see calm/collected aggressive driving. I saw erratic/almost 'freaking out' driving as if he was trying to evade someone.
The Tahoe then pulls up within the danger zone of a knife, heart pounding they bail out and this happens.
It looks like such a bad shoot it makes me wonder if the LEO ND'ed the first shot. Then maybe he just went with it and fired another 15 times. Geez.
Serious Question: What automatically makes it a 'bad shoot'?
He was on drugs, had a knife and had just attacked a police car slashing it's tires. He had previously been breaking into vehicles. None of that will matter. He was walking away when shot and that is all anyone will care about, that and the fact that it was a white cop who shot him.
This is about race, that means it's automatically a bad shoot.
diving dave
11-25-15, 17:43
Without audio it only tells part of the story...How many shots were fired when he hit the deck? If the Officer is unloading on the guy when he's on the ground, with a knife, theres a problem. At the same time, I see the guy is armed with a deadly weapon, distance to Officers getting out of the their cruiser is pretty close...A suspect could cover that distance and be on top of you in a second...It all boils down to does the Officer fear for his life or that of others...Guess the guy should have dropped the knife, but there I go injecting common sense into a subject that sees very little these days.
Dist. Expert 26
11-25-15, 17:45
I agree with Firefly. Unless you've been in the position of facing an armed individual on PCP you really can't understand what the officers were thinking.
That being said they should have gone for a taser first. If/when that didn't work escalating to deadly force is definitely not out of the question. First degree murder seems a little ridiculous though. There are people who kill children and get lesser charges.
What makes it a bad shoot in my view, 16 rounds, most of which were shot through him into the ground after he was already down.
I don't know the CPD rules regarding the use of deadly force, but he didn't appear to be threatening anyone and was just strutting away from the officers with his knife. A Monday morning QB could easily argue less force was required to stop that threat.
Just my opinion and I am not an LE, so take my amateur opinion as worth exactly what you paid for it.
Serious Question: What automatically makes it a 'bad shoot'?
Did the subject not have a knife? Was the subject not under the influence of drugs? Was his behavior not erratic?
Are you certain he posed no threat given his proximity to the other officers?
FWIW PCP and Ketamine can make a person appear stumbling drunk but they feel no pain and can be violently triggered.
There should have been other tools in play but as it stands it could've ended poorly for the officers.
Stabbed is stabbed.
Could he not have just dropped the knife? Not been high? Stayed home?
It's a roll of the dice. Every day.
Would it have made people feel better if the officer did absolutely nothing?
Without passing judgment of any kind on anyone else's opinions, many I would consider informed; I'd like to know what anyone else would've done knowing that no matter what happens it is always your fault.
I dont think the initial shots are bad shoot. Armed suspect not following verbal commands, supposedly slashed a cruisers tires prior to this meeting... quickly turing... I wouldn't have an issue with dindunoffin getting lit up. 16 shots in 14 seconds almost evenly distributed between front and back = no thought process from the shooter aside from shoot till the gun dont shoot no more. The items that sent things over the edge for me are the shots at the suspect after he was down and not moving. Towards the end you can see the puffs of the ricochets as he is shooting at a downed suspect. IMO that dog dont hunt.
Agree 100% that this would never have happened had dindunoffin not gotten high, walked around with a knife and followed initial commands. However, all that doesn't absolve the cop of his errors either.
diving dave
11-25-15, 17:53
I agree with Firefly. Unless you've been in the position of facing an armed individual on PCP you really can't understand what the officers were thinking.
That being said they should have gone for a taser first. If/when that didn't work escalating to deadly force is definitely not out of the question. First degree murder seems a little ridiculous though. There are people who kill children and get lesser charges.
Using a taser do try to deal with a guy holding a knife is a great way to get yourself stabbed. Unless you can put a large object between you and the suspect. Sometimes tasers work great, other times they dont. I used it a number of times and had about a 80% success rate.
Dist. Expert 26
11-25-15, 18:01
Using a taser do try to deal with a guy holding a knife is a great way to get yourself stabbed. Unless you can put a large object between you and the suspect. Sometimes tasers work great, other times they dont. I used it a number of times and had about a 80% success rate.
The taser my brother carries has a range of 25 ft. if I'm not mistaken, and since he was walking away from the car with the dashcam that officer could have conceivably used his taser.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not on the side of the BLM idiots. I'm just trying to be objective here. If the officers felt that a taser was out of the question then I fully support their use of deadly force.
Dealing with an armed mental subject is a tricky situation. The police could not just let the young man walk away given his behavior and the fact that he was armed. A Taser is not an option when dealing with a subject armed with an edged weapon. Bumping him with the squad car is considered deadly force.
Regardless of whether the shooting was justified or not, you can count on an increase in violent crime in Chicago due to more cautious police response.
Tasers are not magic. If the probes do not properly connect, it doesn't work. If you can't transition in time, it can go bad.
And even then, Tasers are less lethal. Not non-lethal.
Excited Delirium is very real and if someone is really doped up they can still die.
Shooting a guy on the ground looks bad, but to me that is indicative of officer's fear response. I don't think it was malicious as much as making sure he didn't jump back up in a knife charge.
Soft body armor does not protect from puncture or knives.
It's not as easy as people think.
I agree with Firefly. Unless you've been in the position of facing an armed individual on PCP you really can't understand what the officers were thinking.
That is completely irrelevant to the racist motivated agenda that is at work here.
That is completely irrelevant to the racist motivated agenda that is at work here.
The City of Chicago played right into the hands of BLM by waiting one year to release the findings of the shooting investigation. Three to four months would be a reasonable amount of time to complete the investigation and deal with the aftermath.
https://news.vice.com/article/graphic-footage-shows-chicago-cop-facing-murder-charge-spray-teen-with-bullets
"Van Dyke shot McDonald 16 times, emptying his gun and preparing to reload, prosecutors said on Tuesday. Van Dyke has repeatedly said through his lawyer and his police union that the shooting was justified because he felt threatened by McDonald, who was allegedly stealing radios prior to the encounter.
According to court documents filed by the prosecution, Van Dyke spent 13 seconds firing as McDonald lay motionless on the street.
He was reportedly prepared to fire into McDonald's motionless body before another officer convinced him to lower his weapon. Van Dyke had already logged 18 civilian complaints for a variety of allegations, including claims of misconduct and excessive force. The city paid out more than $500,000 to settle the complaints."
If the above exert is true this guy is a shit bag, and gives cops a bad name. The shoot may have been justified by the letter of the law, but it certainly was not necessary. The way it went down was absolutely not necessary.
Just do the the fact this guy cost the city 500K he should be gone.
Dist. Expert 26
11-25-15, 18:23
That is completely irrelevant to the racist motivated agenda that is at work here.
No argument there. It baffles me each and every day that LE agencies are willing to sacrifice good officers for fear of being called racist by a group every bit as radical as the KKK at its peak.
Its been mentioned in other threads, but at some point people are going to get sick of the BLM BS and the backlash isn't going to be pretty.
In all fairness, you can complain about any officer about anything.
People have been complained on for, not joking, being "too professional". Whatever the city or department decided to do with the complaints lay on their heads, not the officers.
The officer may have merely been pro-active and it upset people or he could've been a real dud.
But viewing this shooting on its own renders anything else non-germane.
T2C is correct, expect much more delayed response times as well as understaffing. It would be almost safer in such atmosphere to just allow violent crime to occur, do a report, take photos, issue a warrant and call it a day.
That's not the kind of police people really want.
Which officer shot, the driver or the passenger?
How much longer will cops even get involved anymore? Seems all the other cops got the memo ("black man not directly threatening me, not my problem") but not this one. Now I am sure he wishes he too just let him walk down street....
Using a taser do try to deal with a guy holding a knife is a great way to get yourself stabbed. Unless you can put a large object between you and the suspect. Sometimes tasers work great, other times they dont. I used it a number of times and had about a 80% success rate.
We don't know if the officer's had a TASER available. IMHFO this is what TASERS are made for - the officers had lethal cover, more than enough that someone should have been thinking TASER, but as I said we don't know if they even had one.
I think this is a pretty sketchy use of force for several reasons - first and foremost there was no one immediately endangered by the person, he was walking angling away from the officers, I certainly didn't see any citizens within immediate jeopardy range of the idiot. At the point the officer fired the elements required to use deadly force to apprehend someone/prevent escape wasn't present, so that leaves in defense of self or others, I'm not seeing that either. Apparently neither does the State's Attorney:
"It is my determination that this defendant's actions -- of shooting Laquan McDonald when he did not pose an immediate threat of great bodily harm or death, and his subsequent actions of shooting Laquan McDonald while he lay on the ground after previously being struck by gunfire --- were not justified and they were not a proper use of deadly force by this police officer," Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez said to announce charges against the officer.
I think Chicago may be in for a negligent retention lawsuit over this one:
City officials themselves haven't been immune to criticisms.
There are questions about what was done to address the 20 allegations against Van Dyke compiled by the Police Accountability Project at the University of Chicago's Law School. They accused the officer, who'd been on the force for 14 years, of things like verbal abuse and excessive force. Not once did the police department find fault with Van Dyke.
There's also the fact a jury decided against Van Dyke and his partner for using excessive force in July 2007 against a black man, awarding that man $350,000. (A judgment was later entered for $180,000. A separate lawsuit against Van Dyke, also for excessive force, was dismissed.)
At this point, even taking in the somewhat deceptive compression that dash cams sometimes give, I don't think the prosecutor is wrong in charging the officer, murder one might be a little high, though.
diving dave
11-25-15, 18:54
It looks ugly no matter what...Use of force issues usually are. I dont put alot of weight into prior complaints about the Officer. I worked with a few who were hard chargers, very proactive and like to put bad guys in jail. Going hand in hand with that are the whiners who resist arrest, fight, then complain afterwards that they "didnt do nothing".....I saw it time and time again. Not to say there are not asshole Officers, there are. I'm just glad I'm retired from all this bullshit now!:rolleyes:
T
Shooting a guy on the ground looks bad, but to me that is indicative of officer's fear response. I don't think it was malicious as much as making sure he didn't jump back up in a knife charge.
Agree that I dont think it was premeditated murder. Shooting a guy on the ground who isnt moving and has a contact weapon goes a bit further than looks bad. In the eyes of most folks it is bad. Most likely not bad enough for the murder 1 charge, which will of course cause a second riot.
Undertsand fear resonse, but that doesnt absolve you of responsibility for your actions.
Graham factors people. Pretty much any significant use of force incident is going to look ugly, lethal especially. The dash cam video only shows one point of view. What info did the LEO know prior to the shoot? What was the perp saying, if anything? Lot of variables that haven't been discussed yet.
Despondent guy with a knife, immediacy of threat to the LEOs, not listening to verbal commands, resisting arrest, and attempting to flee, on top of being reported to be on PCP, and whatever other factors may/may not be present.
Point is situation was going to end badly for someone and the LEOs can't just follow the knife wielding guy down the street for 20 mins trying to talk him into giving up.
Contact weapon is a blunt object.
Knife is stabbing weapon.
Contact weapon is a blunt object.
Knife is stabbing weapon.
My bad. You still have to be within contact distance with a knife, unless youre good at throwing the thing. Still dont see much justification for shooting at a man down and unmoving. Its not like he had a suicide vest on and was reaching for a detonator or a gun. Sorry, the guy should have stopped shooting once the guy was on the deck. This is why he is going to go to jail. The political climate will only add years.
I wasn't trying to be sardonic. Momentum is not your friend versus knife charge. I can understand wanting to make sure he stayed down once committing to the shot.
I'm more afraid of getting stabbed than shot. That's me. I say this having seen several stab homicides. It's a gruesome thing.
I see your rationale, and respect it, but you don't want to take chances with being stabbed.
He was on drugs, had a knife and had just attacked a police car slashing it's tires. He had previously been breaking into vehicles. None of that will matter. He was walking away when shot and that is all anyone will care about, that and the fact that it was a white cop who shot him.
This is about race, that means it's automatically a bad shoot.
was he walking away, or walking perpindicular to the cops?
Isn't there some "21 foot" rule/guideline? He seems to be about that distance.
Not a great shoot, but I agree he doesn't appear to be a threat at the time he was shot.
This is out of my lane, and I have no idea if it was a good or bad shoot.
But the Black Lives Matter should change their name to Only Black Lives Matter (And Only When A White Person Kills A Black Person).
Otherwise they would care about all the blacks killing each other, and the insane amount of blacks killing and raping whites.
At this point, even taking in the somewhat deceptive compression that dash cams sometimes give, I don't think the prosecutor is wrong in charging the officer, murder one might be a little high, though.
That is my issue with the case. It would seem that murder 2 or voluntary manslaughter are the appropriate charges.
I seldom watch the news because all too often, it infuriates me.
Last night I heard a fairly well reasoned statement for why they are protesting these killings vs. the numerous other killings they "could" be protesting in Chicago.
Something to the effect that you expect thugs to be thugs, you don't expect the police to be thugs, when they are in positions of trust.
You may disagree, but it is the best reasoning I've heard up to this point and it was one of the male protesters interviewed on the street. Even if it makes the tacit, potentially incorrect, blanket assumption that the cops are acting as thugs when responding to criminal activity.
As I've stated, in this case I think excessive force was used but not murder 1.
ETA: I'm under no illusion they are all there for this reason.
Mauser KAR98K
11-25-15, 22:53
Watching the video, just right before the shoot you can see McDonald straighten is line back towards the officers. Also noted him running and suddenly walking while producing the knife in his right hand. I'm sure the officer in the car with the dash cam radioed that in. (At least I hoped he did).
The shoot in my eyes, and knowing what knives can do, was justified...until the anchor shots. It's like the brief case scene in Collateral. Vince was "justified", until the anchor shot.
We are going to see how crafty the DA is with the murder 1, and I believe they could prove it.
BoringGuy45
11-25-15, 23:03
1st degree murder is a bit ridiculous. Unless there's more going on, I can't see how they're going to say that this shooting was premeditated or showed wanton cruelty. I highly doubt they could even get a 2nd degree murder conviction from this. My guess is they're going to hold automatic life without parole over his head in hopes that he pleads to voluntary manslaughter.
People on drugs tend not to die as easily as people not on drugs in certain cases.
I, for one, welcome the new era of LE work where the police let whatever happens happen.
Active shooter? Sorry guy. Can't help.
Kid kidnapped? Take a quality 3x5 to the milk carton people or just accept it.
Guy running around with a knife? Well, that'll learn ya to be microagressive. Just stay further than 7 yards away from him.
Oh, he's chasing you now and he has a hard-on? Well, that'll learn ya to keep up on cardio.
Riots happening? Well, spraypaint "Black Owned" on the boarded up windows, make sure your insurance is up and hope for the best.
Your pretty wife raped and murdered? Well....should've married a gross fat chick. Time to hit up OKCupid or Eharmony and try again.
A buncha Arabic looking guys in all black with AKs doing gangster mess at a grade school?
Call the State Dept. They'll send someone right out.
None of the above is worth prison time, lawyer's fees, or grief. Just wait til it's over, do a cursory report, collect a check.
Why not?
Something to the effect that you expect thugs to be thugs, you don't expect the police to be thugs, when they are in positions of trust.
I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the issue of race and the inherent racism of the group itself.
Now if a bunch of people formed a group to address the problem of police "corruption", "thuggery" or "general incompetence" I'd complete support them. There are probably thousands of LEOs in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, New Orleans and every other major city that need to be removed from the job and in many cases prosecuted. Because this isn't something that is exclusive to race or gender, the problem is they made it race specific and they not only ignore "black on black" crime committed by thugs but they are silent on "black on white" crime committed by black LEOs.
So they can take the "cops aren't supposed to be thugs" rationale and **** off, because it isn't about cops or thugs, it is about racism...and not the kind of racism they are talking about.
So here is the test, if this was Atlanta and a white meth head did exactly the same things and a black LEO shot him for the same stated reasons and under exactly the same conditions...how many people would be outraged? Would it even make the news? Would we even know about it? How many of us here would pretty much be "one more dead tweaker, thousands more to go..." How many of us would buy the black cop a beer?
I wish there was sound. Is there any other cruiser video?
Moose-Knuckle
11-26-15, 02:15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIyrtH_nE68
AND . . . nobody gave two shits (except the "gun violence" spin) that the 40th BLACK child was murdered in Chiraq for the year this month at the hands of fellow BLACKs.
But hey let's all get out our torches and pitch forks over a white LEO who shoots an ARMED, HIGH ON PCP, suspect that was not complying with verbal commands and was in the commission of committing crimes when fellow citizens called 911 to report him.
One of the more laughable things I have read about this story is some are taking issue that little sweet Laqaun McDonald's knife only had a 3" blade. I surmise they forget the damage a dozen Muslims did with 1" bladed box cutters . . .
AND . . . nobody gave two shits (except the "gun violence" spin) that the 40th BLACK child was murdered in Chiraq for the year this month at the hands of fellow BLACKs.
But hey let's all get out our torches and pitch forks over a white LEO who shoots an ARMED, HIGH ON PCP, suspect that was not complying with verbal commands and was in the commission of committing crimes when fellow citizens called 911 to report him.
One of the more laughable things I have read about this story is some are taking issue that little sweet Laqaun McDonald's knife only had a 3" blade. I surmise they forget the damage a dozen Muslims did with 1" bladed box cutters . . .
And of course we all remember the Gilbert Collar protests and riots. No?
Gilbert Collar, a white, unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs was shot and killed Oct. 6, 2012, by Officer Trevis Austin, who is black, in Mobile, Alabama. Despite public pressure for an indictment, a Mobile County grand jury refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.
The circumstances mirror those of the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, a black unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs by Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, in Ferguson.
Critics also note there has been no rioting or sustained protest in Mobile, even though the slightly built Collar, unlike Brown, never touched the officer and, because he was naked when he was shot, was more obviously unarmed.
Doesn't look like a bad shoot to me, 21 foot rule and all. They weren't pumping rounds into him while he was laying there. The officers did what most trainers teach. Follow them down to the ground. Hard to MMQB this one with officers arriving from different directions 9 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock in relation to the dashcam video and 6.
I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the issue of race and the inherent racism of the group itself.
Now if a bunch of people formed a group to address the problem of police "corruption", "thuggery" or "general incompetence" I'd complete support them. There are probably thousands of LEOs in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, New Orleans and every other major city that need to be removed from the job and in many cases prosecuted. Because this isn't something that is exclusive to race or gender, the problem is they made it race specific and they not only ignore "black on black" crime committed by thugs but they are silent on "black on white" crime committed by black LEOs.
So they can take the "cops aren't supposed to be thugs" rationale and **** off, because it isn't about cops or thugs, it is about racism...and not the kind of racism they are talking about.
So here is the test, if this was Atlanta and a white meth head did exactly the same things and a black LEO shot him for the same stated reasons and under exactly the same conditions...how many people would be outraged? Would it even make the news? Would we even know about it? How many of us here would pretty much be "one more dead tweaker, thousands more to go..." How many of us would buy the black cop a beer?
Agree with you on all counts. As to your question, I guess you never heard that it is impossible for blacks to be racist. So the answer to your test is Zero! :)
I continue to think this dash-cam and body-cam crap is a very bad idea and an invasion of privacy. People aren't used to seeing this stuff.
Doesn't look like a bad shoot to me, 21 foot rule and all. They weren't pumping rounds into him while he was laying there. The officers did what most trainers teach. Follow them down to the ground. Hard to MMQB this one with officers arriving from different directions 9 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock in relation to the dashcam video and 6.
Seriously? The guy hits the deck at 5:34. Last visible impact is at 5:47. I dont believe anyone else fired. Doubtful that anyone other than BLM has an issue with the initial shooting. Pumping rounds into a guy on the ground not posing a threat isnt legal.
Doesn't look like a bad shoot to me, 21 foot rule and all. They weren't pumping rounds into him while he was laying there. The officers did what most trainers teach. Follow them down to the ground. Hard to MMQB this one with officers arriving from different directions 9 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock in relation to the dashcam video and 6.
I don't know...he "only" had a knife and was a black child who graduated high school.
I'm sure if he broke bad and stabbed the officer in the chest then it would've merely been in self defense.
Bad shoot. Hope the officer gets the needle. So tired of these young, promising lives extinguished by cops making permanent life and death decisions in matters of moments.
I am sure that kid was going to be somebody great.
Let em all run wild. Every PD im America should surrender its position to make room for more midnight basketball
Seriously? The guy hits the deck at 5:34. Last visible impact is at 5:47. I dont believe anyone else fired. Doubtful that anyone other than BLM has an issue with the initial shooting. Pumping rounds into a guy on the ground not posing a threat isnt legal.
Exactly. The proper, professional, and legal thing to do would be to shoot once or twice and take their word for it that they are dead or no longer wanting to fight.
He only had a knife.
Watching the video, just right before the shoot you can see McDonald straighten is line back towards the officers. Also noted him running and suddenly walking while producing the knife in his right hand.
Towards the officers? When?
http://i.giphy.com/90ixYbnbSjtg4.gif
Doesn't look like a bad shoot to me, 21 foot rule and all. They weren't pumping rounds into him while he was laying there.
You can't be serious. 16 rounds in 14 seconds. He hit the deck in the first 3 seconds. Watch the dust, or mist, puffing up way late while dude's on the ground. Watch the entire video.
The officers closed in on the guy, he didn't lunge, or anything of that nature. The initial shoot may be justified due to proximity but putting rounds into a downed subject is not.
Exactly. The proper, professional, and legal thing to do would be to shoot once or twice and take their word for it that they are dead or no longer wanting to fight.
He only had a knife.
No the proper, professional thing to do is shoot the suspect when he poses a threat. When the threat is no longer there you stop shooting and assess the situation. He had a knife. That means getting back up and closing the distance before he can hurt you. This cop had an on switch and was sorely missing an off switch. His off switch was running out of ammo. I am not aware of any other officer shooting to begin with, much less continuing to shoot for some 10 seconds while the guy was on the deck.
Who was the guy a threat to when on the ground? Was anyone within reach that could have been hurt? Unless there is something missing from the video the answer to the questions is no one, therefore there was no fear for serious injury or death for anyone and the justification for the use of lethal force was no longer present. The professional thing to do then is to stop shooting.
Doesn't look like a bad shoot to me, 21 foot rule and all.
The whoever taught your use-of-force classes was negligent in their duties.
You, like so many others, are taking the 21 foot rule completely out of context. Folks hear something from another officer, or a trainer who doesn't understand the concepts of what they are teaching, just regurgitating what they've been told, and these folks, who have misplaced confidence in their buddy or the trainer, take it as gospel. There is no evil intent, it is just the way it is.
As I said in an earlier post, I think, based on the video, even taking into consideration the limitations of patrol car video, this was not a legally justified use of force. I've known officers who real bad wanted to shot someone, and did at the first opportunity they had. Both were barely within the bounds of legality, in both cases someone who didn't need to die, at that moment, died. This case looks the same.
We are supposedly living in a country where we operate under the rule of law, one of the rules is police aren't supposed to use lethal force unless it is necessary. The rules we operate under do not allow 'preemptive strikes' - as I said, the guy shot was probably going to do something that would result in a justified use of lethal force - it just had not happened at the time he was shot. Ergo, based on the video, he should not have been shot.
At the time the officer fired, there was no immediate necessity to act, no officer, or citizen, was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.
I get that we all want to be on the officer's side, but in this case, the only legit questions are - 1) why so long to charge? and 2) why charged with the premeditated murder?
Doesn't look like a bad shoot to me, 21 foot rule and all.
What??? "21 foot rule" doesn't apply with gun drawn, gun ready, aiming at suspect, etc. C'mon. Do you really think a guy can close 21 feet on you before you can twitch your finger 1/2"??
You go hand to hand with a guy with a knife if you want to.
Tasers would've been nice, unsure if they were available.
Curious what M4Cers who have been stabbed before think.
It's a near life experience. Even more fun if it were with a hypodermic needle.
I agree. Officer should've just got back in his car and drove away.
What??? "21 foot rule" doesn't apply with gun drawn, gun ready, aiming at suspect, etc. C'mon. Do you really think a guy can close 21 feet on you before you can twitch your finger 1/2"??
Action is always faster than reaction. Always...
Action is always faster than reaction. Always...
Sure it is.
How much faster though??
Not 21' vs 0.5"
Are you saying the officer was justified?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure it is.
How much faster though??
Not 21' vs 0.5"
Are you saying the officer was justified?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll try to find the Force Science Institute study to get the exact data figures to post unless someone else comes up with them. It's an issue of observing the action, mentally processing it, and then acting. So its not as simplistic as just pressing your trigger finger to the rear.
As to the shoot I'd say more info still needs to be released, especially what was seen or heard from the officer's point of view immediately prior and at the time of the shoot.
It looks like a good shoot up until the point where the threat was stopped and the guy was put down, after that not so much. But I want to hear from the officer's POV on that.
Also to the 21 ft thing. A knife may be an impact weapon and for it to be used as such distance has to be covered. But if the bad guy decides to throw it at you that distance all of a sudden increases markedly. It's a judgment call.
Sure it is.
How much faster though??
Not 21' vs 0.5"
Are you saying the officer was justified?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Given that my fat, no ACL, busted Achilles, compressed disk ass can close 21' in a second or so, plus average reaction times to visual stimulus is around .75 seconds plus the fact that handguns suck at stopping someone in their tracks plus the fact that many LEO seem to lack firearms competence (16 rounds no vital areas hit in this instance) = someone with a knife can mess u up good and even kill you before your rounds stop him. Add PCP and the equation tilts even more against the defensive person. This is why IMO there is an argument to be made for the initial shots to down the guy. Assuming the dramatic turn wasn't in reaction to being shot but rather being screwed up that is. Once he is on the deck he no longer poses a threat and the situation needs to be reassessed. 10 seconds past being on the deck, not moving = something is wrong with the ONE guy still shooting.
As for why now: elections and settlements. The city didn't want the video released for political reasons. The family didn't want the video released. The only reason why it was released was cause some reporter sued to have it made public. Wonder what motivation was behind that??
I'll try to find the Force Science Institute study to get the exact data figures to post unless someone else comes up with them. It's an issue of observing the action, mentally processing it, and then acting. So its not as simplistic as just pressing your trigger finger to the rear.
As to the shoot I'd say more info still needs to be released, especially what was seen or heard from the officer's point of view immediately prior and at the time of the shoot.
It looks like a good shoot up until the point where the threat was stopped and the guy was put down, after that not so much. But I want to hear from the officer's POV on that.
Also to the 21 ft thing. A knife may be an impact weapon and for it to be used as such distance has to be covered. But if the bad guy decides to throw it at you that distance all of a sudden increases markedly. It's a judgment call.
Given that my fat, no ACL, busted Achilles, compressed disk ass can close 21' in a second or so, plus average reaction times to visual stimulus is around .75 seconds plus the fact that handguns suck at stopping someone in their tracks plus the fact that many LEO seem to lack firearms competence (16 rounds no vital areas hit in this instance) = someone with a knife can mess u up good and even kill you before your rounds stop him. Add PCP and the equation tilts even more against the defensive person. This is why IMO there is an argument to be made for the initial shots to down the guy. Assuming the dramatic turn wasn't in reaction to being shot but rather being screwed up that is. Once he is on the deck he no longer poses a threat and the situation needs to be reassessed. 10 seconds past being on the deck, not moving = something is wrong with the ONE guy still shooting.
As for why now: elections and settlements. The city didn't want the video released for political reasons. The family didn't want the video released. The only reason why it was released was cause some reporter sued to have it made public. Wonder what motivation was behind that??
The problem with the Force Science 21' rule, is that it has been so perverted/corrupted, that many (and many here) don't understand what it even is at it 's core. Even force science attempts to correct the massive misunderstanding regarding the "rule"
Link: http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/print/fsnews17.pdf
Quote from link:
1. MISINTERPRETATION. “Unfortunately, some officers and apparently some trainers as well have ‘streamlined’ the 21-Foot Rule in a way that gravely distorts its meaning and exposes them to highly undesirable legal consequences,” Lewinski says. Namely, they have come to believe that the Rule means that a subject brandishing an edged weapon when positioned at any distance less than 21 feet from an officer can justifiably be shot.
For example, an article on the 21-Foot Rule in a highly respected LE magazine states in its opening sentence that “a suspect armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat.” The “common knowledge” that “deadly force against him is justified” has long been “accepted in police and court circles,” the article continues.
Statements like that, Lewinski says, “have led officers to believe that no matter what position they’re in, even with their gun on target and their finger on the trigger, they are in extreme danger at 21 feet. They believe they don’t have a chance of surviving unless they preempt the suspect by shooting.
“However widespread that contaminated interpretation may be, it is NOT accurate. A suspect with a knife within 21 feet of an officer is POTENTIALLY a deadly threat. He does warrant getting your gun out and ready. But he cannot be considered an actual threat justifying deadly force until he takes the first overt action in furtherance of intention–like starting to rush or lunge toward the officer with intent to do harm. Even then there may be factors besides distance that influence a force decision.
“So long as a subject is stationary or moving around but not advancing or giving any indication he’s about to charge, it clearly is not legally justified to use lethal force against him. Officers who do shoot in those circumstances may find themselves subject to disciplinary action, civil suits or even criminal charges.”
emphasis added.
So many people incorrectly quote the "21 foot rule" and think it means that a guy with a knife within 21 feet of you is a deadly threat..
He MAY be a deadly threat IF (if if if) the officer's firearm is holstered and the officer is unaware that the suspect has bad intentions.
People should really stop spreading the misinformation.
You go hand to hand with a guy with a knife if you want to.
I don't intend to. If you advance at me with a knife, from the distance portrayed on the film, you will be told to 'drop it or you'll be shot,' I'll move to create distance and put something between us, LIKE A FVCKING PATROL SUV, if it gets to the point that I need to shoot, we will see if the thousands of rounds I've expended punching rounds into the area of the jugular notch actually pay dividends. I'm not a street thug, a fear biter, or unprepared. I use my head for more than a hat rack.
Where in my post did I say it was a hard rule? It's all about totality of circumstances, reasonableness, etc.
Also those aren't the data figures I was seeking so my bad on that if I wasn't clear. I was speaking in generalities pertaining to observation and reaction times. Doesn't matter if it's a guy drawing a weapon on you a person with a knife.
I'll try to find the Force Science Institute study to get the exact data figures to post unless someone else comes up with them. It's an issue of observing the action, mentally processing it, and then acting. So its not as simplistic as just pressing your trigger finger to the rear.
As to the shoot I'd say more info still needs to be released, especially what was seen or heard from the officer's point of view immediately prior and at the time of the shoot.
It looks like a good shoot up until the point where the threat was stopped and the guy was put down, after that not so much. But I want to hear from the officer's POV on that.
Also to the 21 ft thing. A knife may be an impact weapon and for it to be used as such distance has to be covered. But if the bad guy decides to throw it at you that distance all of a sudden increases markedly. It's a judgment call.
Oh, snap.
The Tueller Drill, given wings by the Calibre Press video 'Surviving Edged Weapons' presupposes an officer, caught with their weapon holstered, surprised by a sudden knife assault. It measures the time an officer needs to get his thumb out of his ass, draw the weapon and fire. For an unprepared officer, that distance is 21 feet. In this case the officer was 'prepared' AND THE SUSPECT DIDN'T CHARGE HIM. Those are some key things you might want to consider in making decisions off the '21 foot rule.'
You might also consider, since you, have several times espoused 'Graham factors people' that Graham also points out that "[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," - which pretty much throws force continuums and the 21-foot rule under the bus.
I'm pretty sure I've read every synopsis of an officer killed in the last 25 years, do not recall ever seeing one where the officer was killed by a thrown knife.
What the heck, if that's the hill you want to die on, have at it, it's your hill.
I haven't said anything about making decisions off of the supposed 21 foot rule in this case. Others have brought that into the discussion at hand. All I've said is that proximity may have been a factor. I wasn't on scene when it went down and not enough information has been released yet regarding other potential variables.
Not sure how CPD is actually taught, but Ive always interpreted the 21' rule as:
Stationary attacker within 21' of a victim with knife out = justification to get a gun out and be ready to engage.
Attacker with knife in hand within 21' of a victim AND moving towards said victim = justification for lethal force.
Assuming that the dramatic turn right before falling was the result of the criminal making an aggressive move toward someone (another officer) then IMO the initial rounds that knock him to the ground can be justified. I'll even give he benefit of the doubt for maybe a second or so of rounds after the fall as reaction times can vary. 10 seconds after being on the deck and not moving, I find difficult to excuse.
I seriously doubt the officer is being charged for the initial acts, but rather his actions during the 10 seconds the guy was on the deck and not moving.
I'll try to find the Force Science Institute study to get the exact data figures...
I'm not slighting you in the least but there are more than a few reputable sources that discount the Force Science Institute's "science." Interesting article and some food for thought. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?_r=0)
A former Minnesota State professor, he says his testimony and training are based on hard science, but his research has been roundly criticized by experts. An editor for The American Journal of Psychology called his work “pseudoscience.” The Justice Department denounced his findings as “lacking in both foundation and reliability.”...
Dr. Lewinski, who grew up in Canada, got his doctorate in 1988 from the Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, an accredited but alternative Cincinnati school offering accelerated programs and flexible schedules. He designed his curriculum and named his program police psychology, a specialty not available elsewhere...
Because he published in a police magazine and not a scientific journal, Dr. Lewinski was not subjected to the peer-review process. But in separate cases in 2011 and 2012, the Justice Department and a private lawyer asked Lisa Fournier, a Washington State University professor and an American Journal of Psychology editor, to review Dr. Lewinski’s studies. She said they lacked basic elements of legitimate research, such as control groups, and drew conclusions that were unsupported by the data.
“In summary, this study is invalid and unreliable,” she wrote in court documents in 2012. “In my opinion, this study questions the ability of Mr. Lewinski to apply relevant and reliable data to answer a question or support an argument.”...
New videos released. 40 minute compilation of 5 different dash-cam recordings. http://abc7chicago.com/news/warning-new-dash-cam-video-from-night-of-laquan-mcdonald-shoooting/1099911/
ETA - Abbreviated news version with commentary. http://abc7chicago.com/news/new-video-shows-officers-pursuit-of-laquan-mcdonald/1099885/
The technical legalities of a case like this are way out of my area of expertise. I can't debate those.
For me the question is: Was deadly force justified? If it was then why does it matter if he shot once or sixteen times? It was either okay to kill the guy, or it wasn't. I don't see the logic in saying that a little bit of deadly force was perfectly fine, but adding some more deadly force somehow makes this murder one. Dead is dead. If it was okay to kill the man, what difference does it make if the officer killed him a little or killed him a lot.
For the sake of discussion, with what I have read here about this case, it seems to me that deadly force was justified. I could truly not care less if the man was white, black, green or purple.
Further, recommending the use of a Tazer against a large, obviously agitated man, openly committing multiple felonies, and clearly flaunting a large knife, seems very very foolish to me. If I were in that situation and had a choice, I would not be reaching for a Tazer.
Because if you drop someone who was a threat, and they are alive but not a threat, you can't just execute them.
Seriously?
Not passing judgment either way on this one, but in general, that's why. It's not number of rounds, it's timing.
For me the question is: Was deadly force justified? If it was then why does it matter if he shot once or sixteen times? It was either okay to kill the guy, or it wasn't. I don't see the logic in saying that a little bit of deadly force was perfectly fine, but adding some more deadly force somehow makes this murder one. Dead is dead. If it was okay to kill the man, what difference does it make if the officer killed him a little or killed him a lot.
I believe the issue is when the rounds were fired. After dude drops, from the initial shots, you're not supposed to keep pumping rounds into him if he's not a threat.
Because if you drop someone who was a threat, and they are alive but not a threat, you can't just execute them.
Seriously?
Not passing judgment either way on this one, but in general, that's why. It's not number of rounds, it's timing.
I understand that this is the general consensus. I'm saying I don't agree with it in a philosophical sense.
When confronted with a situation that calls for deadly force, I was trained to shoot to kill. All the LEOs that I know tell me they were trained to do the same. There is no guarantee that after a shot or two that lands him on the ground, a bad guy is not going to jump up and take a lunge at me with his knife. Was that officer supposed to wait and see if that happened? How many war and LEO stories do we see where lots and lots of shots fail to put a bad guy down or keep him down. I have in my possession a Pittsburg case that was studied and reported on by the FBI of a young white male, not on drugs or alcohol, who was shot 33 times, and still fought off 4 officers who were trying to cuff him when they caught him re-loading his only magazine so he could continue shooting at them.
My point and my opinion is, that once a bad guy gives an officer, or a civilian for that matter, justification for deadly force I don't mind if the good guy pumps a lot of rounds into said bad guy. Just because he was on the ground does not necessarily mean he was not a threat. How many times have you been knocked down in a fight, even when you weren't on PCP, and gotten back up to continue fighting?
In other words: IF deadly force was not justified, then one shot was too many. IF deadly force was justified, then I don't think 16 shots was too many.
For the sake of discussion: I don't see 16 shots at a knife wielding felon who is high on PCP and acting very erratically and agitated, the same as the cop walking up and delivering a "coup de gras" to the head of a lifeless bad guy, which is how I would define an "execution".
I understand that this is the general consensus. I'm saying I don't agree with it in a philosophical sense.
How would you want this to go down if it were your son jacked up on drugs acting a fool? You're going to sit there an tell me you'd want the police to pump sixteen rounds into him? -Didn't think so.
Don't tell me it wouldn't be your kid either, kids from all sorts of backgrounds do stupid crap all the time, I know this to be fact and I'm sure the officers in this forum would back me up on this minor point.
How would you want this to go down if it were your son jacked up on drugs acting a fool? You're going to sit there an tell me you'd want the police to pump sixteen rounds into him? -Didn't think so.
Don't tell me it wouldn't be your kid either, kids from all sorts of backgrounds do stupid crap all the time, I know this to be fact and I'm sure the officers in this forum would back me up on this minor point.
He shouldn't have chose to get jacked up on PCP and engage in illegal activity in the first place?
Not making excuses for the 17 year olds actions but his backstory sounds like he had a rough go of it. (http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1119435/more-than-bullets-killed-laquan-mcdonald-teenage-chicago-police-shooting-victim)
Twice, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services removed him from his mother’s care — once when he was 2 years old and again when he was 5 — because of abuse allegations leveled at the mother’s boyfriend.
As is too often the case, McDonald was allegedly sexually molested in two different foster homes, according to a source familiar with his juvenile court record.
“DCFS never did anything in terms of following up on the sexual abuse,” the source said.
A spokesman for the Department of Children and Family Services acknowledged that McDonald was a ward of the state at the time of his death. The agency confirmed that the youth was the subject of two abuse investigations — one in 2000 and another in 2003...
Just a couple of days before McDonald’s deadly encounter with the Chicago officer, DCFS had given custody of McDonald and his sister to an uncle.
“The uncle had a live-in girlfriend, and the sister had spent the night away from home,” said the source familiar with this case. “When she came back the next morning, the girlfriend wouldn’t let her back in the house.
“DCFS came and took the sister and was trying to take Laquan. For the third time, he was made a ward of the state. It was a pretty upsetting thing.”
McDonald’s mother was trying to regain custody, but the issue was still up in the air at the time of his death...
I read the delay in this case coming to light was also due to police tampering with evidence and lying on the initial report about what happened.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
How would you want this to go down if it were your son jacked up on drugs acting a fool? You're going to sit there an tell me you'd want the police to pump sixteen rounds into him? -Didn't think so.
I expect any child of mine to take responsibility for their actions, as I do.
No one wants to see their kid, or any young man, get shot by police. But if my son conducted himself in that way, I would not be surprised at the outcome, and I would have no problem figuring out who to blame for the tragedy.
Not making excuses for the 17 year olds actions but his backstory sounds like he had a rough go of it. (http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1119435/more-than-bullets-killed-laquan-mcdonald-teenage-chicago-police-shooting-victim)
This is real sad and all, but is this relevant? If you are not making excuses for him, then what does this backstory have to do with anything.
I had a real tough childhood too. Broken home, bad neighborhood, lots of abuse… Does that mean something if I decide to go on a felonious rampage with a lethal weapon in hand?
Forgive me. I feel bad that any kid has a rough childhood. I can relate. Doesn't excuse bad behavior as an adult.
I understand that this is the general consensus. I'm saying I don't agree with it in a philosophical sense.
When confronted with a situation that calls for deadly force, I was trained to shoot to kill. All the LEOs that I know tell me they were trained to do the same. There is no guarantee that after a shot or two that lands him on the ground, a bad guy is not going to jump up and take a lunge at me with his knife. Was that officer supposed to wait and see if that happened? How many war and LEO stories do we see where lots and lots of shots fail to put a bad guy down or keep him down. I have in my possession a Pittsburg case that was studied and reported on by the FBI of a young white male, not on drugs or alcohol, who was shot 33 times, and still fought off 4 officers who were trying to cuff him when they caught him re-loading his only magazine so he could continue shooting at them.
My point and my opinion is, that once a bad guy gives an officer, or a civilian for that matter, justification for deadly force I don't mind if the good guy pumps a lot of rounds into said bad guy. Just because he was on the ground does not necessarily mean he was not a threat. How many times have you been knocked down in a fight, even when you weren't on PCP, and gotten back up to continue fighting?
In other words: IF deadly force was not justified, then one shot was too many. IF deadly force was justified, then I don't think 16 shots was too many.
For the sake of discussion: I don't see 16 shots at a knife wielding felon who is high on PCP and acting very erratically and agitated, the same as the cop walking up and delivering a "coup de gras" to the head of a lifeless bad guy, which is how I would define an "execution".
Most officers aren't trained to shoot to kill, they are trained to shot to stop. The reality is that a shot that stops someone immediately is more than likely to be fatal, but that is not the desired outcome.
Under our rule of law, force is used by police to protect and to apprehend for adjudication in our legal system. Not to kill, and not to punish.
There is no guarantee that after a shot or two that lands him on the ground, a bad guy is not going to jump up and take a lunge at me with his knife.
This is true, so you maintain your distance and cover him down, IF he starts to get up you give him verbal commands, IF he doesn't obey and begins to assault you again, you would be justified in firing again.
Was that officer supposed to wait and see if that happened?
Yes, assuming there was an actual threat that justified firing, once the subject was going down he should have quit firing, the threat that caused him to fire in the first place was eliminated.
How many war and LEO stories do we see where lots and lots of shots fail to put a bad guy down or keep him down.
More that fail to put him down than those where he reanimates and engages. There is a difference between being a soldier and being an LEO, the rules don't cross deck.
For the sake of discussion: I don't see 16 shots at a knife wielding felon who is high on PCP and acting very erratically and agitated, the same as the cop walking up and delivering a "coup de gras" to the head of a lifeless bad guy, which is how I would define an "execution".
Let's be a little more precise 'knife carrying' describes what I saw more accurately than 'knife wielding.' If the felon who is high on PCP charges me, he will get shot at my cadence, until he begins to fall to the ground, I'd imagine that would be 5 to 7 shots. If you aren't a good shot, I can see a mag dump on the guy as he ADVANCES. This guy NEVER advanced. He was walking at a slight angle away from the officer, who shot him as he moved past him.
Actually, without my little opinions about it:
Does anyone know if these Chicago Officers had tasers or bean bags? I would think as large as their department is that they would.
Nothing is 100%, but it could've gone better with that option. If it failed, cover officer could've pitch hit.
Overall, it's too late. What's done is done. No matter what happens, the officer is in a deep hole now.
I would like to think that when he started his shift, he probably didn't think that could happen.
Anything can happen. The system may be wrong, the entirety of Chicago may be a zoo, and I'm certain that there is a lot of hypocrisy abounding.
But at the end of the day, when you tool up. You kind of are on your own. Hopefully you've prepared enough to fall back on something positive. Fear, anger, "adrenalin rush", and such are luxuries you can't afford in this job. You'll pay with either life or livelihood.
Kinda corny but I'll say it: "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi seeks not these things"
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 03:06
So first round = good shoot, second through sixteenth round = racist murderer.
A question for you all, if a male of military age high on PCP and armed with a lethal cutting instrument broke into your home and posed a threat of serious bodily injury and or death to you and your family would your shoot him just once or would you mag dump center mass?
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 03:13
Most officers aren't trained to shoot to kill, they are trained to shot to stop. The reality is that a shot that stops someone immediately is more than likely to be fatal, but that is not the desired outcome.
Under our rule of law, force is used by police to protect and to apprehend for adjudication in our legal system. Not to kill, and not to punish.
While I understand where you are coming from, as to the bold part let's take a page from our anti-gun friends. Why are LEOs not trained to "shoot the knife out of his hand", "shoot him in the leg", etc. are all common responses from those that have no idea what it is to engage a violent/potentially violent individual(s).
A bullet to one of the critical anatomical structures is almost a guaranteed kill shot, those regions on range targets that civilians and LEO practice shooting bear to mind.
Eurodriver
11-27-15, 07:32
. If I were in that situation and had a choice, I would not be reaching for a Tazer.
Then you would be charged with murder, your family would face death threats, and Spike Lee would post their home address.
Good luck with that.
This is the new reality LE faces. Choose to play the old game if you want. You can get stabbed or charged. I'd choose stabbed. At least when you've got a stab wound you won't face a murder charge...yet.
Towards the officers? When?
http://i.giphy.com/90ixYbnbSjtg4.gif
You can't be serious. 16 rounds in 14 seconds. He hit the deck in the first 3 seconds. Watch the dust, or mist, puffing up way late while dude's on the ground. Watch the entire video.
The officers closed in on the guy, he didn't lunge, or anything of that nature. The initial shoot may be justified due to proximity but putting rounds into a downed subject is not.
That video that's slowed down is much better. Now I see what y'all are saying.
This is real sad and all, but is this relevant? If you are not making excuses for him, then what does this backstory have to do with anything... Doesn't excuse bad behavior as an adult.
The same way people would come out saying Officer Friendly was such a swell guy prior to doing whatever "bad deed" he was accused of in the news. 17 years old is not an adult by definition.
BLM is a hate group.
By leftist standards that's O.K.
I hope all who can, move out of Chicago and let the savages kill each other.
Uh oh, can't mention black on black killing.
My bad.
Mauser KAR98K
11-27-15, 09:42
That video that's slowed down is much better. Now I see what y'all are saying.
Just before he is shot, his direction changed. Look at the traffic lines. With the officers closing and that brief change in his direction, it could look to them that us was getting ready to lunge at the closest officer.
It still doesn't excuse the anchor shots once the suspect is on the ground.
Just before he is shot, his direction changed. Look at the traffic lines. With the officers closing and that brief change in his direction, it could look to them that us was getting ready to lunge at the closest officer.
It still doesn't excuse the anchor shots once the suspect is on the ground.
Direction changed due to being shot
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
So first round = good shoot, second through sixteenth round = racist murderer.
A question for you all, if a male of military age high on PCP and armed with a lethal cutting instrument broke into your home and posed a threat of serious bodily injury and or death to you and your family would your shoot him just once or would you mag dump center mass?
Lone intruder? Shoot as fast and accurate as possible until down, then cover and call police after reloading. I'm not going to have target practice on someone who is not an immediate threat. You can't get up before I put you back down, a gun is a different story.
Direction change: he was walking across the street then started closing distance by walking parallel to lines 2 or 3 steps before shot, then flinch and spin.
So first round = good shoot, second through sixteenth round = racist murderer.
A question for you all, if a male of military age high on PCP and armed with a lethal cutting instrument broke into your home and posed a threat of serious bodily injury and or death to you and your family would your shoot him just once or would you mag dump center mass?
Pretty much yes to your first statement. When the threat ceases to be a threat you cant keep shooting.
If anyone broke into your home and you shot them and there was video evidence that you shot them after they were down and not moving and posing a threat to anyone you would be under the jail already. You might be able to account for a few rounds while he is falling and maybe even after he hits the deck as youre just some poor schmuck with no training, but after that even you are going to be in deep doo doo for shooting at a stationary person with no ability to hurt you.
Close to 10 seconds of shooting at the guy occurred with him on the ground and not moving. Who was he a threat to?
sandsunsurf
11-27-15, 12:22
Although I wasn't there, generally speaking I agree with the general statement that the first shot or shots are reasonable, the rest are not. Furthermore, it is absolutely NOT 1st degree murder. There is no premeditation nor malice. IMO, it's charged that way for one of two disparate reasons- either so he is found not guilty because of the lack of evidence of 1st degree (good for officer) or for political reasons and over-charging to force a plea bargain.
Here's an example of 1st degree murder (intent, malice and premeditation): http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Homeless-Man-Veteran-Man-Attacked-Robert-Barnes-Philadelphia-Gas-Station-Attack-354681221.html#
I'll pull it from the state code because they sometimes vary. Apparently Illinois is kind of rough, from a you don't want to perform homicide point of view:
(a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:
(1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or
(2) he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another; or
(3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony other than second degree murder.
From what i see in the Illinois statute premeditation/malice aforethought is an aggravating factor, not an element of the crime.
Intent to kill or do great bodily harm is pretty broad. and Second degree is mitigated by factors that may be relevant.
§ 9-2. Second degree murder.
(a) A person commits the offense of second degree murder when he or she commits the offense of first degree murder as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of Section 9-1 of this Code and either of the following mitigating factors are present:
(1) at the time of the killing he or she is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by the individual killed or another whom the offender endeavors to kill, but he or she negligently or accidentally causes the death of the individual killed; or
(2) at the time of the killing he or she believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code, but his or her belief is unreasonable.
(b) Serious provocation is conduct sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person.
(c) When evidence of either of the mitigating factors defined in subsection (a) of this Section has been presented, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove either mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence before the defendant can be found guilty of second degree murder. The burden of proof, however, remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of first degree murder and, when appropriately raised, the absence of circumstances at the time of the killing that would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code.
(d) Sentence. Second degree murder is a Class 1 felony.
Article seven is Justifiable use of force. It's too much to look through right now and I don't know if the police are under a different part. I'd say, after the indictment, maybe it's up to the defense to argue (a)(2).
This is the new reality LE faces. Choose to play the old game if you want. You can get stabbed or charged. I'd choose stabbed. At least when you've got a stab wound you won't face a murder charge...yet.
You'd rather be carried by six than tried by 12?
I can't say that I'm with you there.
I don't believe this for one second. No way are you, or anyone else for that matter, going to stand there and let some criminal run over and stab you so that Spike Lee doesn't think you are a bad guy and LE doesn't charge you with a crime for self-defense. I'm not buying it.
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 15:52
This is the new reality LE faces. Choose to play the old game if you want. You can get stabbed or charged. I'd choose stabbed. At least when you've got a stab wound you won't face a murder charge...yet.
So you're "okay" with being murdered?
Like the old bumper sticker reads; "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" . . .
Edit: Bullet dog and I must have been typing at the same time.
So first round = good shoot, second through sixteenth round = racist murderer.
A question for you all, if a male of military age high on PCP and armed with a lethal cutting instrument broke into your home and posed a threat of serious bodily injury and or death to you and your family would your shoot him just once or would you mag dump center mass?
I'd shoot until there was no longer a threat. If that is one shot, fine. If I have to re-load and mag dump three times, then so be it.
The same way people would come out saying Officer Friendly was such a swell guy prior to doing whatever "bad deed" he was accused of in the news. 17 years old is not an adult by definition.
I see what you are saying. That non-sense doesn't fly with me in either direction. Officer Friendly here was/is no saint, and neither is Mr. Slash-the-cops-tires-and-carry-a-big-knife-around man.
If this guy had been allowed to go on his merry way, and then murdered someone, would he not be tried as an adult? Close enough for me. A 17 year old with a knife is just as capable of killing a cop, or me, as an 18 year old.
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 16:15
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the mental illness of legalese and the magical round count that makes a shoot either legal self-defense or first degree murder.
It reminds me of the Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, where they prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body, aka hollow point bullets. So it's cool to kill and maim enemy combatants with depleted uranium rounds, white phosphorus, atomic bombs, napalm, etc. but it's unethical to shoot them with a freaking hollow point.
Several years ago there was an African-American city council woman in Dallas that pushed through some bovine feces that DPD couldn't use "big bullets" her words (.40S&W/.45ACP) because they kill "their children" to easily but it's cool to kill them with 9mm.
(hits head into brick wall repeatedly)
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 16:16
I see what you are saying. That non-sense doesn't fly with me in either direction. Officer Friendly here was/is no saint, and neither is Mr. Slash-the-cops-tires-and-carry-a-big-knife-around man.
If this guy had been allowed to go on his merry way, and then murdered someone, would he not be tried as an adult? Close enough for me. A 17 year old with a knife is just as capable of killing a cop, or me, as an 18 year old.
I'm not up on IL law, but in TX a seventeen year old is a legal adult.
At one point in time the .357 was protested against as a duty round. Before my time, but it was towards the twilight of the revolver era.
Or...they could teach their 'children' not to get shot by not committing violent crime. I'm sorry, but Darvenius Daniels and Tarvarus Thompson aren't entitled to anything. Maybe, just maybe if they got real jobs and didn't try to be 'authentic' all the time....these things would never happen.
I don't think the number of rounds fired are as big of an issue as the number of rounds fired after the suspect hit the pavement.
I am glad I don't live in Chicago anymore.
5 shots in the 1st sec might be okay. Sitting back and taking 30 seconds to carefully place 5 or 10 shots in the head of a downed person is just wrong. I don't see what's so hard about this. Is it reasonable to be in fear for your life when someone is out, laying on the ground with a knife and your 10 feet away? You shoot when your in fear of life of harm.
5 shots in the 1st sec might be okay. Sitting back and taking 30 seconds to carefully place 5 or 10 shots in the head of a downed person is just wrong. I don't see what's so hard about this. Is it reasonable to be in fear for your life when someone is out, laying on the ground with a knife and your 10 feet away? You shoot when your in fear of life of harm.
Because some people see what they want to see so what may seem glaringly obvious is totally invisible to some
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
5 shots in the 1st sec might be okay. Sitting back and taking 30 seconds to carefully place 5 or 10 shots in the head of a downed person is just wrong. I don't see what's so hard about this. Is it reasonable to be in fear for your life when someone is out, laying on the ground with a knife and your 10 feet away? You shoot when your in fear of life of harm.
LE doesn't have to be in fear for their life to shoot someone justifiably.
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 18:01
5 shots in the 1st sec might be okay. Sitting back and taking 30 seconds to carefully place 5 or 10 shots in the head of a downed person is just wrong.
If you are referring to the video posted by the OP in post one of this thread the fireworks start at 5:32 and cease at 5:48. That is sixteen seconds not thirty and it equals to one shot per second. In order to get "5 shots in the 1st sec" the LEO in question would have to be an exhibition shooter on the level of Jerry Miculek.
The suspect was still armed until 5:53 when a LEO kicked the knife out of his hand. We don't have audio in that video but we can assume the suspect was given multiple verbal commands to drop the knife, lay on the ground, etc. once he hit the ground he was still armed and a possible threat.
To borrow a page from Hilary, what difference at this point does it make if he was killed with the first round or the sixteenth? If it can be proven that he was killed with the first round and the LEO kept shooting into his corpse then that falls under abuse of a corpse not murder unless we are at a point in this country where you can murder someone after they are already dead.
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 18:04
I don't think the number of rounds fired are as big of an issue as the number of rounds fired after the suspect hit the pavement.
I am glad I don't live in Chicago anymore.
I would think and hope the issue is why did the officer in question open fire to begin with instead of deploying less lethal Tazer/beanbag/etc. but instead we are judging him on the number of rounds fired. We might as well judge him on bullet type and caliber while we are at it.
I was not referring to the video, I was presenting 2 clear cut cases on opposite ends of the spectrum to clearify my point.
0.2 sec splits are not world class when talking-knife-is- a-threat distances.
Focus on bullets... Informs intent.
Difference between merely stopping threat and shooting a lump of meat on the ground for 13 seconds.
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 18:31
I was not referring to the video, I was presenting 2 clear cut cases on opposite ends of the spectrum to clearify my point.
0.2 sec splits are not world class when talking-knife-is- a-threat distances.
Ah, okay gottcha.
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 18:34
Focus on bullets... Informs intent.
Difference between merely stopping threat and shooting a lump of meat on the ground for 13 seconds.
I think as others said on page one this particular LEO probably acted out of fear, that does not excuse any malice or criminality on his part.
The problem is the "race issue". In all reality had the suspect been White/Asian/Latino the LEO would have still fired when he did. The spin by the mayor of Chicago/the DA/Obama/BLM/ well be this suspect was murdered because of the color of his skin.
Edit to add: IF bullets form intent then the Feds really should regulate LE caliber selection and magazine capacity. After all larger calibers and larger magazine capacity are clearly intended to kill more effectively.
Moose-Knuckle
11-27-15, 18:37
double tap
I really do see the concern of "overkill", but he likely was dead before he hit the ground. Given his, God forgive me, Moonwalker spin before collapsing. For clarity sake, he was still slightly twitching and bobbing his head a bit but I don't think his wounds wouldve been survivable anyway. It sort of is hair splitting.
In fact, I actually would venture given his moonwalker spin and how hepped up he was; he had a spine shot.
Still, I do want to put it out there that he could have put the knife down well before guns were drawn. I don't think that is getting stressed enough.
I would think and hope the issue is why did the officer in question open fire to begin with instead of deploying less lethal Tazer/beanbag/etc. but instead we are judging him on the number of rounds fired. We might as well judge in on bullet type and caliber while we are at it.
Unfortunately, some of the public mistakenly believe a Taser is a viable option to control a person armed with a deadly weapon. We don't know if a shotgun loaded with bean bag rounds was available to the officers on scene and I suspect it is very unlikely. Use of a motor vehicle has been suggested, which would be considered application of deadly force. If the armed subject was crushed to death instead of shot to death, it would be more palatable to the public.
We cannot see what other officers and witnesses on scene saw at the time of the shooting, so we don't have all the facts or completely understand the perception of the officer who fired at the armed subject. A video of a lethal force incident is not going to look favorable to the shooter unless you see the violent individual firing a handgun or rifle at the person who shoots them. When people have a significant amount of time to analyze a shooting incident that takes a few seconds, opinions about the shooter are often unfavorable. The number of rounds fired while the armed subject is considered to be a lethal threat should not be an issue. Once the armed subject is no longer perceived to be a lethal threat, people viewing the video expect to see the shooter stop. It will be interesting to learn through testimony why the officer felt the need to keep firing.
Using the Taser to control a subject armed with an edged weapon is discussed just about every time a LEO engages them with a firearm. it has happened a few times in our area. I cannot think of anyone with first hand experience with this type of situation who would recommend the Taser.
At first I wasn't sure why it took one year to release the findings of the shooting investigation, which lead people to believe the incident was going to be covered up. Earlier this week the media in our area reported the family of the armed subject received a $5,000,000 settlement from the City of Chicago, so most likely the delay was due to the civil court process.
It will be interesting to hear what comes out in court testimony.
Dist. Expert 26
11-27-15, 19:12
I agree with the likelihood that he was dead or dying before he hit the ground. The officer should have stopped shooting, but I really don't think it made a difference either way. It's not like he shot the guy in the leg then walked over and executed him.
I agree with the likelihood that he was dead or dying before he hit the ground. The officer should have stopped shooting, but I really don't think it made a difference either way. It's not like he shot the guy in the leg then walked over and executed him.
May as well.....finishing shots on a person lying motionless are the same whether 7yds away or standing over them.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, some of the public mistakenly believe a Taser is a viable option to control a person armed with a deadly weapon. We don't know if a shotgun loaded with bean bag rounds was available to the officers on scene and I suspect it is very unlikely. Use of a motor vehicle has been suggested, which would be considered application of deadly force. If the armed subject was crushed to death instead of shot to death, it would be more palatable to the public.
We cannot see what other officers and witnesses on scene saw at the time of the shooting, so we don't have all the facts or completely understand the perception of the officer who fired at the armed subject. A video of a lethal force incident is not going to look favorable to the shooter unless you see the violent individual firing a handgun or rifle at the person who shoots them. When people have a significant amount of time to analyze a shooting incident that takes a few seconds, opinions about the shooter are often unfavorable. The number of rounds fired while the armed subject is considered to be a lethal threat should not be an issue. Once the armed subject is no longer perceived to be a lethal threat, people viewing the video expect to see the shooter stop. It will be interesting to learn through testimony why the officer felt the need to keep firing.
Using the Taser to control a subject armed with an edged weapon is discussed just about every time a LEO engages them with a firearm. it has happened a few times in our area. I cannot think of anyone with first hand experience with this type of situation who would recommend the Taser.
At first I wasn't sure why it took one year to release the findings of the shooting investigation, which lead people to believe the incident was going to be covered up. Earlier this week the media in our area reported the family of the armed subject received a $5,000,000 settlement from the City of Chicago, so most likely the delay was due to the civil court process.
It will be interesting to hear what comes out in court testimony.
Many reports the delay was due to the alleged coverup. The civil settlement was paid without a trip to civil court a month after the video was uncovered.
http://chicagoreporter.com/how-chicago-tried-to-cover-up-a-police-execution/
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Dist. Expert 26
11-27-15, 19:23
May as well.....finishing shots on a person lying motionless are the same whether 7yds away or standing over them.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
There is absolutely a difference. The additional shots were fired in a panic/frenzy, not a methodical manner. I'd wager to bet that there isn't even a semblance of a grouping.
Many reports the delay was due to the alleged coverup. The civil settlement was paid without a trip to civil court a month after the video was uncovered.
http://chicagoreporter.com/how-chicago-tried-to-cover-up-a-police-execution/
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
It's interesting the family was paid $5,000,000 in March of 2015 and it only came to light in our local media this week.
What is the date the family was paid the $5,000,000? I did not see it in the article.
Correct, no date listed in the article.
It just sets time line of events and says city approved the payout a month after the autopsy made available so that would be March.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Correct, no date listed in the article.
It just sets time line of events and says city approved the payout a month after the autopsy made available so that would be March.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I revised my post after rereading the article.
What concerns me most is how this incident will be used to tarnish the reputations of thousands of good LEO and cause an even greater divide between some LEO and the public.
I revised my post after rereading the article.
What concerns me most is how this incident will be used to tarnish the reputations of thousands of good LEO and cause an even greater divide between some LEO and the public.
There are some who blame some of those good officers for the existence of the bad ones since the bad apples typically exhibit a pattern of behavior well before getting caught on video.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I think as others said on page one this particular LEO probably acted out of fear, that does not excuse any malice or criminality on his part.
The problem is the "race issue". In all reality had the suspect been White/Asian/Latino the LEO would have still fired when he did. The spin by the mayor of Chicago/the DA/Obama/BLM/ well be this suspect was murdered because of the color of his skin.
Edit to add: IF bullets form intent then the Feds really should regulate LE caliber selection and magazine capacity. After all larger calibers and larger magazine capacity are clearly intended to kill more effectively.
I didn't say forms intent, INFORMS. you intend the act.
I never said malice. Consider the definition of murder in Illinois.
You only have to intend to kill someone. That's it. There's no discussion of
Look at it this way:
Murder in illinois requires these relevant elements:
1) Unlawful Killing
2) Intent to kill, or knowledge actions will result in death
The argument isn't whether 16 shots should be scrutinized.
First, was this a lawful killing? You'd have to look through section 7 to really hash that out, but you'll probably find the phrase "reasonably believed" thrown out a lot. As in... would a reasonable officer have made the decision to shoot the guy until dead.
Second, did he intend to kill the person? And by kill, intend to pull the trigger with the knowledge that the guy would die.
When I say 16 shots in 15 seconds informs intent, I mean... after the guy is on the ground and 13 seconds pass with an officer continuing deliberate fire, I think a prosecutor could make an argument that intent to kill was present.
It's not about whether 1 shot was enough, or 10, or 15 to kill. it is not about the size of the bullet or whether they were hollow or ball. It's whether he had the STATE OF MIND to kill, through his repeated ACTS of pulling the trigger.
Whether or not he acted out of FEAR is a mitigating factor, one that can argue him down to murder second if he BELIEVED to be in danger but was UNJUSTIFIED in believing it. As in... there's a man with bullets in him lying in the ground. I'm scared, and still shoot until the slide locks.
This is assuming the killing was not lawful. I have no idea what the lawyers are doing or what evidence they have. I don't know CPD procedure and whether he followed it, which may inform whether or not it was lawful. I am unsure if Police are covered under section 7 or have their own statute regarding use of force. I don't know whether "race issue" is why he shot or not. I have no clue what a white/black/latino/asian cop would have done. I know what THIS guy did. And I know there's at least enough evidence to bring an indictment. Will it stick? Who knows.
"race" in the media may influence whether the indictment was brought, but woe to the attorney who thought he could bring it to trial if there's no evidence to support murder. I was three blocks from the Thompson center when this stuff began. I get it. People are upset. "cause he was black" is not going to be an argument in court.
Once again, I said nothing about malice. Illinois law considers that an aggravating factor, but not necessary for murder first.
Moose-Knuckle
11-28-15, 02:17
Still, I do want to put it out there that he could have put the knife down well before guns were drawn. I don't think that is getting stressed enough.
Categorically agree with you.
Unfortunately, some of the public mistakenly believe a Taser is a viable option to control a person armed with a deadly weapon. We don't know if a shotgun loaded with bean bag rounds was available to the officers on scene and I suspect it is very unlikely. Use of a motor vehicle has been suggested, which would be considered application of deadly force. If the armed subject was crushed to death instead of shot to death, it would be more palatable to the public.
We cannot see what other officers and witnesses on scene saw at the time of the shooting, so we don't have all the facts or completely understand the perception of the officer who fired at the armed subject. A video of a lethal force incident is not going to look favorable to the shooter unless you see the violent individual firing a handgun or rifle at the person who shoots them. When people have a significant amount of time to analyze a shooting incident that takes a few seconds, opinions about the shooter are often unfavorable. The number of rounds fired while the armed subject is considered to be a lethal threat should not be an issue. Once the armed subject is no longer perceived to be a lethal threat, people viewing the video expect to see the shooter stop. It will be interesting to learn through testimony why the officer felt the need to keep firing.
Using the Taser to control a subject armed with an edged weapon is discussed just about every time a LEO engages them with a firearm. it has happened a few times in our area. I cannot think of anyone with first hand experience with this type of situation who would recommend the Taser.
At first I wasn't sure why it took one year to release the findings of the shooting investigation, which lead people to believe the incident was going to be covered up. Earlier this week the media in our area reported the family of the armed subject received a $5,000,000 settlement from the City of Chicago, so most likely the delay was due to the civil court process.
It will be interesting to hear what comes out in court testimony.
Great post, agree with everything in there. As for the timing of the release of the dashboard video I thought it had to do more with the mayoral election than anything.
In his own words . . .
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel
I have no idea if the City of Chicago attempted a "cover-up", it would stand to reason they would want to settle with the family out of court aka public record and let this thing not go critical mass like Ferguson or Baltimore. In the end they only made matters worse by doing that.
Moose-Knuckle
11-28-15, 02:29
I didn't say forms intent, INFORMS. you intend the act.
I never said malice. Consider the definition of murder in Illinois.
You only have to intend to kill someone. That's it. There's no discussion of
Look at it this way:
Murder in illinois requires these relevant elements:
1) Unlawful Killing
2) Intent to kill, or knowledge actions will result in death
The argument isn't whether 16 shots should be scrutinized.
First, was this a lawful killing? You'd have to look through section 7 to really hash that out, but you'll probably find the phrase "reasonably believed" thrown out a lot. As in... would a reasonable officer have made the decision to shoot the guy until dead.
Second, did he intend to kill the person? And by kill, intend to pull the trigger with the knowledge that the guy would die.
When I say 16 shots in 15 seconds informs intent, I mean... after the guy is on the ground and 13 seconds pass with an officer continuing deliberate fire, I think a prosecutor could make an argument that intent to kill was present.
It's not about whether 1 shot was enough, or 10, or 15 to kill. it is not about the size of the bullet or whether they were hollow or ball. It's whether he had the STATE OF MIND to kill, through his repeated ACTS of pulling the trigger.
Whether or not he acted out of FEAR is a mitigating factor, one that can argue him down to murder second if he BELIEVED to be in danger but was UNJUSTIFIED in believing it. As in... there's a man with bullets in him lying in the ground. I'm scared, and still shoot until the slide locks.
This is assuming the killing was not lawful. I have no idea what the lawyers are doing or what evidence they have. I don't know CPD procedure and whether he followed it, which may inform whether or not it was lawful. I am unsure if Police are covered under section 7 or have their own statute regarding use of force. I don't know whether "race issue" is why he shot or not. I have no clue what a white/black/latino/asian cop would have done. I know what THIS guy did. And I know there's at least enough evidence to bring an indictment. Will it stick? Who knows.
"race" in the media may influence whether the indictment was brought, but woe to the attorney who thought he could bring it to trial if there's no evidence to support murder. I was three blocks from the Thompson center when this stuff began. I get it. People are upset. "cause he was black" is not going to be an argument in court.
Once again, I said nothing about malice. Illinois law considers that an aggravating factor, but not necessary for murder first.
No I know you didn't say malice, that was me I wasn't quoting you there and my bad on the "informs" part. No harm no foul.
Good post as well. Will be an interesting trial for sure. As T2C alluded to there is a ton of evidence we don't have access to and we're all MMQB from sixteen seconds of shooting footage at this point.
Eurodriver
11-28-15, 10:31
You'd rather be carried by six than tried by 12?
I can't say that I'm with you there.
I don't believe this for one second. No way are you, or anyone else for that matter, going to stand there and let some criminal run over and stab you so that Spike Lee doesn't think you are a bad guy and LE doesn't charge you with a crime for self-defense. I'm not buying it.
I'd rather be dead than in a prison cell for life while my family is harassed and threatened. That's where I plant my flag in the ground.
Many people survive stabbings. Van Dyke will not survive his sentence.
...there is a ton of evidence we don't have access to and we're all MMQB from sixteen seconds of shooting footage at this point.
It would be helpful if the police hadn't erased 86 minutes of footage from the Burger King surveillance videos...
It would be helpful if the police hadn't erased 86 minutes of footage from the Burger King surveillance videos...
Wasn't too hard to find it after I looked....
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Alvarez-Addresses-Missing-Minutes-From-Security-Video-in-Laquan-McDonald-Case-353209051.html
Video from 9:13PM to 10:39PM is missing, yet there is no sign of tampering?
Wow who to believe.....?
If you are referring to the video posted by the OP in post one of this thread the fireworks start at 5:32 and cease at 5:48. That is sixteen seconds not thirty and it equals to one shot per second. In order to get "5 shots in the 1st sec" the LEO in question would have to be an exhibition shooter on the level of Jerry Miculek.
The suspect was still armed until 5:53 when a LEO kicked the knife out of his hand. We don't have audio in that video but we can assume the suspect was given multiple verbal commands to drop the knife, lay on the ground, etc. once he hit the ground he was still armed and a possible threat.
To borrow a page from Hilary, what difference at this point does it make if he was killed with the first round or the sixteenth? If it can be proven that he was killed with the first round and the LEO kept shooting into his corpse then that falls under abuse of a corpse not murder unless we are at a point in this country where you can murder someone after they are already dead.
It does not take an exhibition level shooter to get 5 hits in one second at that range when pointed in. I routinely see Bill Drills (6 shots) from the holster in the 2-3 second range, which includes reaction time. Sub 2 second Bill Drills are rarer, but not JM level uncommon. What it requires is a disciplined shooter, which this officer was not.
I wonder what impact the Tueller Drill and any knowledge of the infamous Cook Co., IL shootout (if any) informed this officer's decisions? The suspect was well within the 21ft rule and acting erratically. Regardless, he should've stopped shooting once the suspect was on the ground. Belay that, he should've stopped shooting once the suspect fell out of his sights. It's one thing to drive down a gun wielding perp, quite another on a knife wielding one. If he's falling to the ground, how's he going to cut you unless he gets back up?
The problem we have in America now is the incorrect focus on race. It should never matter what color the subject is, but whether accepted law enforcement doctrine is adhered to. If the doctrine isn't followed, apply individual corrective action and move on. If the doctrine is no longer accepted, review the doctrine and make the necessary changes.
As it is right now, no doctrine change short of offering the dangerous subject a cute fluffy bunny is going to appease the BLM crowd. As I'm unaware of any cute fluffy bunny launchers ready for off the shelf adoption, we're at an impasse. Sadly, that's exactly where people like Obama want us to be. So the only important question is "Where do we go from here?" :confused:
Race keeps coming up because the media highlights keep painting the picture that use of force is dished out differently based on race. Obviously, that surface level view overlooks the fact that each and every shooting should be reviewed as unique since the people and circumstances are different. A good example would be the nutcase I n Colorado who was just taken alive after actually shooting and killing people when police had clear shots on him but we're ordered to stand down. There's already chatter going about comparing how that was handled to how the Chicago situation was handled. In short, race keeps coming up because there are more situations hitting the media where whites are taken alive and blacks taken dead. Wanna make the race issue go away, show videos showing white criminals being shot down rather than apprehended. Until that happens it's hard to argue with people who are emotionally invested into the issue.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Or people of every race could just stop doing hood sh** that by way of their own actions puts them in on the receiving end of lethal force at the hands of the police.
Or people of every race could just stop doing hood sh** that by way of their own actions puts them in on the receiving end of lethal force at the hands of the police.
But that's not realistic since we always have people who do good and those who do bad. So try focusing on some consistency when dealing out that lethal force.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
sandsunsurf
11-28-15, 13:04
.... A good example would be the nutcase I n Colorado who was just taken alive after actually shooting and killing people when police had clear shots on him but we're ordered to stand down.
I'm very interested in this. Did an officer or civilian die after officers decided NOT to act when they could have? And was that inaction caused my current media and BLM? The answers to these questions and the increase in violent crime in Baltimore and the like could very well be the first insight to our future in America.
But that's not realistic since we always have people who do good and those who do bad. So try focusing on some consistency when dealing out that lethal force.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Like what quotas?
I'm very interested in this. Did an officer or civilian die after officers decided NOT to act when they could have? And was that inaction caused my current media and BLM? The answers to these questions and the increase in violent crime in Baltimore and the like could very well be the first insight to our future in America.
Thats my point....Does it really matter? Guy is involved in an active shootout using a rifle having already killed one officer and shot 5-6 other officers and you're questioning whether the decision to NOT take the clear shot had anything to do with BLM or recent police shootings?
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Thats my point....Does it really matter? Guy is involved in an active shootout using a rifle having already killed one officer and shot 5-6 other officers and you're questioning whether the decision to NOT take the clear shot had anything to do with BLM or recent police shootings?
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I believe it's a matter of geography. Imagine how this would have been handled if the incident occurred in Chicago.
I believe it's a matter of geography. Imagine how this would have been handled if the incident occurred in Chicago.
Okaayyy.....so it's okay to handle it different in the inner city? It shouldn't matter what part of the country you're in, if you're killing people including cops you need to be put down immediately if the opportunity presents itself.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
If initial reports are to be believed (and they often aren't), then the Colorado situation went from AS to armed and barricaded, which would dictate a change in response. More so than the reporting, the fact that he was apprehended alive would indicate the situation had in fact changed.
I'm surprised it's as peaceful as it is after I viewed the footage.
Cop was charged so the people are satisfied....for now.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Okaayyy.....so it's okay to handle it different in the inner city? It shouldn't matter what part of the country you're in, if you're killing people including cops you need to be put down immediately if the opportunity presents itself.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
It's not OK. There should be consistency. You also cannot expect a LE agency to kill someone who drops their weapon and surrenders.
I'll bet that if the kid in Chicago dropped the knife and surrendered to police he would have lived to see another day.
It's not OK. There should be consistency. You also cannot expect a LE agency to kill someone who drops their weapon and surrenders.
I'll bet that if the kid in Chicago dropped the knife and surrendered to police he would have lived to see another day.
Looking for the link I came across earlier stating SWAT had a clear shot on the guy before he surrendered.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Cop was charged so the people are satisfied....for now.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
That isn't always the case. I'm sorta amazed this hasn't already gone full tilt. All the ingredients are there.
Moose-Knuckle
11-29-15, 03:07
Race keeps coming up because the media highlights keep painting the picture that use of force is dished out differently based on race. Obviously, that surface level view overlooks the fact that each and every shooting should be reviewed as unique since the people and circumstances are different. A good example would be the nutcase I n Colorado who was just taken alive after actually shooting and killing people when police had clear shots on him but we're ordered to stand down. There's already chatter going about comparing how that was handled to how the Chicago situation was handled. In short, race keeps coming up because there are more situations hitting the media where whites are taken alive and blacks taken dead. Wanna make the race issue go away, show videos showing white criminals being shot down rather than apprehended. Until that happens it's hard to argue with people who are emotionally invested into the issue.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
From page number two, post number forty of this thread . . .
And of course we all remember the Gilbert Collar protests and riots. No?
Gilbert Collar, a white, unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs was shot and killed Oct. 6, 2012, by Officer Trevis Austin, who is black, in Mobile, Alabama. Despite public pressure for an indictment, a Mobile County grand jury refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.
The circumstances mirror those of the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, a black unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs by Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, in Ferguson.
Critics also note there has been no rioting or sustained protest in Mobile, even though the slightly built Collar, unlike Brown, never touched the officer and, because he was naked when he was shot, was more obviously unarmed.
Of course this case and the one of the unarmed white guy shot and killed by a black motorist in FL around the same time the Trayvon Martin shooting was going critical mass don't fit the agenda.
Video claiming to have audio has been released
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Video claiming to have audio has been released
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Link?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://abcnews.go.com/US/person-arrested-university-chicago-threats-identified-student-nearby/story?id=35493066
Would all the dumb ass hate groups of both races just go ahead and have their race war so the rest of us can get on with our lives?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/person-arrested-university-chicago-threats-identified-student-nearby/story?id=35493066
Would all the dumb ass hate groups of both races just go ahead and have their race war so the rest of us can get on with our lives?
No shit. It's about as bad as being dragged into an actual shooting war over religion. And much like most religion, race doesn't actually exist beyond a human centric visual classification that comes with significant genetic exceptions.
But even if I didn't know that, I'd still know I wasn't a racist because I hate huge numbers of every grouping of humans. Skin pigment is the thing I find least troubling about Ben Carson and skin pigment is hardly endearing me to Hillary Clinton.
Right now I'd vote for a Arab Jewish female who is a practicing Buddhist if she was willing to strike racial classifiers from all Federal, state and county laws. Instead of that "coexist" crap, how about we just actually practice "equality."
You know if people wouldn't keep making race a thing, it would go away.
At the end of the day, nobody who matters really cares. I've known plenty of black birds in my day. Not once was it a thing. They were just normal chicks.
Still, America is bar none the best country in the world for black folks. I dare say even accounting for our growing pains as a young nation and Jim Crow, blacks have it better here than anywhere else to include Africa.
Racism will always exist, that's life. But I defy you to find a place safer and more accommodating.
I think our issue is A. We don't stress decency B. We do have over jumpy police, real talk. We do. Don't know how or why some of these new folks got so scary but jeez. C. People need to accept that violent criminals need to be put away. Be it in an 8 by 12 or 2 by 6.
The people in lower income areas have rights too and deserve safety. If they would cooperate more and if some of these jive cops would get over themselves; a lot could be better.
One positive thing to say about the recent protests in Chicago is that there is a hell of a lot less damage to private property than after the Chicago Bulls win a championship.
Is God cursing African-Americans for the fact that they disproportionately kill more children in the womb than any other race?
Is God cursing African-Americans for the fact that they disproportionately kill more children in the womb than any other race?
If you evaluated black on black crime in areas I worked you would determine that over 90 % of young black men were killed by young black men. We deployed a significant amount of resources in those areas for good reason.
Is God cursing African-Americans for the fact that they disproportionately kill more children in the womb than any other race?
Really, man? Really? Like really, really?
Is God cursing African-Americans for the fact that they disproportionately kill more children in the womb than any other race?
No, God doesn't cause harm any more... yet.
The high ratio of blacks aborted is from the racist design of planned parenthood, which is ironic because they support their own quiet holocaust, it's disgusting.
You know if people wouldn't keep making race a thing, it would go away.
At the end of the day, nobody who matters really cares. I've known plenty of black birds in my day. Not once was it a thing. They were just normal chicks.
Still, America is bar none the best country in the world for black folks. I dare say even accounting for our growing pains as a young nation and Jim Crow, blacks have it better here than anywhere else to include Africa.
Racism will always exist, that's life. But I defy you to find a place safer and more accommodating.
I think our issue is A. We don't stress decency B. We do have over jumpy police, real talk. We do. Don't know how or why some of these new folks got so scary but jeez. C. People need to accept that violent criminals need to be put away. Be it in an 8 by 12 or 2 by 6.
The people in lower income areas have rights too and deserve safety. If they would cooperate more and if some of these jive cops would get over themselves; a lot could be better.
Your a very perceptive man.
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-15, 02:10
You know if people wouldn't keep making race a thing, it would go away.
For some reason I never see white people/the media/ the government/ academia/ the judiciary make race a thing every time a white person is sexually assaulted and or murdered at the hands of non-whites. Given the data compiled by the FBI, black on white violent crime is prodigiously disproportionate.
Racism will always exist, that's life.
AND it comes in many forms, not just one . . .
Moose-Knuckle
12-01-15, 02:21
The high ratio of blacks aborted is from the racist design of planned parenthood, which is ironic because they support their own quiet holocaust, it's disgusting.
I've been wanting to put together a political sketch comedy troupe, one of the first stunts we'd pull would be to stage a "Black Lives Matter" protest with signs, t-shirts, and bullhorns outside of an abortion clinic.
Is God cursing African-Americans for the fact that they disproportionately kill more children in the womb than any other race?
Seriously, you have to stop.
So you are basically saying your god is a racist and blames black people indiscriminately as a group for the actions of other black people? Does that mean I have bad shit coming my way because Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer and Danny Rolling were white?
If that's really your god's plan, it sucks and he needs a better one. Is your god really so inept he can't individually smite bad people without collateral damage? And along those lines, why is your god cranking out violent feral humans like an out of control gumball machine. Is it really so hard for him to create everyone with a generally good disposition but still in possession of free will? Or is that just asking too much?
Also his plan to save the unborn looks like it was cooked up by Obama. Dipshit Dear didn't rescue any abortions that day. He did manage to rack up a decent cop, a mother of two was was NOT getting an abortion and an army vet. He didn't get any abortion doctors, he didn't get anyone in administration at Planned Parenthood, he didn't get the lobbyist who fund planned parenthood...he only got innocent people and that makes his actions among the most evil possible.
Is this really the best A Team your god has available to do the lords work?
AND it comes in many forms, not just one . . .
Didn't say it didn't, good buddy. Hence I deliberately didn't specify one or any race. Just people.
I, personally, like different looking people. It's variety. Aesthetics are kinda where it ends though. No group is any more 'special' than anyone else.
But tiptoeing on eggshells not to "offend" one group is lame. Nothing is sacred nor should it be just because you are a little darker or a lot lighter.
JMO
Also, I can only speak anecdotally but haven't really seen black women lining up to the abortion clinics.
Not saying it doesn't happen. Just not down here. Most black females down here see their pregnancies through, usually for religious reasons (and WIC).
I don't think or know if it makes them morally superior in any way, but there it is.
But ultimately it's a personal decision, none of my business, and not my place to comment on.
Looks like the riot is not going to happen so we are done with this thing, it's way off tracks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.