they had to wait till AFTER li'l ram won the election... and the 1st Deg charge is prolly overcharging him so he will be acquitted unless they bring lesser charges behind it
Posted on 11/25/2015 11:57:19 AM PST by IChing
In the latest high-profile racial railroading of a white policeman for obvious political reasons, it has taken authorities over a full year to decide to charge Chicago cop Jason Van Dyke in the fatal shooting of black 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.
The obviousness of the racial/political theater here is largely due to the fact that the timing of the ridiculous charge — first degree murder — being suddenly announced after all these months, so transparently coincides with the sudden FOIA public release of a police dashcam video of the shooting which, to the untrained eye, looks pretty bad.
The video in question has been in the possession of the authorites this entire time. If it was a bad shoot, especially if so bad as to amount to first degree murder, they should have charged him long ago, apart from the racially ginned-up public and media hysteria wrought by release of the video, no?
As for allegations about the incident itself, there are some gray areas, and some clear-cut lines.
Officers were attempting to apprehend McDonald, who was later determined to have had PCP in his system, after he had been rampaging around the area and using a knife to not only break into cars and other property, but also slashed the tire of a police car in an initial attempt to arrest him just moments before he encountered Van Dyke and other officers.
The video shows that McDonald was not “walking away from†the officers, as many are insisting; he was walking briskly abreast of them and turning toward them(4:45), his left hand inside his pocket and swinging the knife in his right hand.
Most police officers are trained on the “21-foot ruleâ€(also known as the Tueller Drill), the distance at which an officer’s “reactionary gap†(the time it takes the officer to recognize the threat, reach, draw, aim, and fire on the subject) puts his own life in jeopardy from a subject with an edged weapon.
Here’s a very good demonstration of the 21-foot rule:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM
It has been proven over and over again (unfortunately not only in training drills but in many cases where officers have been murdered/gravely wounded) that an agile subject with an edged weapon can suddenly, as rapidly as 1.5 seconds, close a distance of up to 21 feet to fatally stab/slash a victim, even kill or seriously wound a trained police officer armed with a gun.
That’s LESS time than it takes an officer to recognize the threat, reach, draw, aim, and fire on the subject — the “reactionary gap.†1.23 seconds is the fastest closing time of the 21-foot distance measured.
I played the video over and over at various speeds, and the taser wires are visible well before McDonald shows any kind of reaction(indicating that the taser may not have functioned immediately or properly), and he actually turns toward the officers(4:45) as he walks briskly abreast of them with the wires attached, swinging the knife in one hand, with his other hand in his pocket.
Then, it looks like the gunfire is what brings him down, because you can see dust/debris kicked up as the rounds hit the concrete around/under McDonald’s body when he falls.
If Van Dyke believed the taser did not function, it can be argued that he legitimately perceived McDonald (who had just slashed a police car’s tire with the knife) to be an imminent deadly threat within the 21-foot reactionary gap.
That perception wouldn’t mean that he necessarily HAD to shoot McDonald, but it would definitely mean he’s not guilty of murder.
The 21-foot rule has come under scrutiny and criticism in recent years/months, and I predict it will (as “stand your ground,†as misapplied as it was, in the Zimmerman case) be the centerpiece of this case.
Not guilty.
Oh, and by the way, as for the number of shots fired, the official answer is that once deadly force is deemed justified, the number of shots is really moot — although we all know that the public, media, and jurors can imagine that there can be some kind of “excessive†force beyond deadly force.
I have no idea what that means, but thanks.
In many cases it does tell the whole story, and many cases the defendant was prosecuted based on video, so you're wrong. Any evidence, video or otherwise is better than no evidence. I'll keep repeating this if you like.
Back to detective school for you.
In my previous post I said that they used a tazer but that it had no affect. Correct word is effect.
Except it appears there was an imminent threat.
Your minimum response is two rounds is a minimum.
Many instructors teach to keep on shooting until the threat is down and no longer a threat.
they had to wait till AFTER li'l ram won the election... and the 1st Deg charge is prolly overcharging him so he will be acquitted unless they bring lesser charges behind it
I’ll keep repeating this if you like.
...
No need. You’ve already proved you can’t back up your claim.
“Scroll down to the part that it talks about malice a forethought.”
I think they will have difficult proving malice in this case. They officer can clearly make the claim that he believed he was protecting innocent other officers.
That is not malice. That is what makes a shooting justified.
To me it looks like the first shot causes him to spin around and the second shot drops him.
Video has told the whole story in many criminal cases. You're wrong once again. What the press does or what people do after viewing video is another entire story. If you want to ban video, or ban viewing it, go ahead and give it a shot.
Whatever happened to net guns? Don’t work or not steroid enough?
Agreed. I wouldn’t be surprised if the second shot was the fatal one. He went limp instantly. (IMHO)
LOL
No, Rahm didn’t want it to get out before his reelection cause he didn’t want Blacks mad at him. A judge released it, not him, this is bad for him.
This is the Chicago PD’s Use of Force Model:
AE is, apparently, correct, though I would use the term proportional response, i.e., an officer is allowed to enter the fray at the level he needs to, he doesn’t have to walk through each lower level if the situation warrants going immediately to some higher level.
But notice the objective is control of the subject. When you’ve got control, you don’t take it any further. If you do, the reasonableness standard will be applied, which, as I noted earlier, is an objective standard, and therefore NOT dependent on the officer’s personal opinion of his own danger, but the reasonableness of his judgment.
Furthermore, notice that even the amount of tissue damage is to be weighed in the decision. This is not a standard that would be applied to a relative amateur, a private CC carrier, so yes the standard is different, in that even though the design of the law is to give the police the ability to do their job, nevertheless they have to be even more careful than the rest of us in the application of lethal force. If an officer cannot walk that walk and chew that gum at the same time, he or she does not deserve to wear the badge of trust we give them.
Peace,
SR
Important to remember that LEOs have the duty to act, to make the arrest or confront/terminate the threat, whereas private c.c.w. citizens and even security officers do not.
So you have the expertise to be able to state that the definition for deadly force and its application (by both DoD and the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security standards) significantly differs from local police? It doesn't.
Guess who trains the Marines for embassy duty for arresting and applying deadly force on embassy grounds? Federal special agents. The only difference in the deadly force taught for guard duty in the infantry is the baton, the mace and the handcuffs that are issued for embassy duty. That's it. The rest is paperwork.
So deadly force has been preached into my soul for 20 years. I know what it is, how it is applied, and I can tell you the cop is going to jail because he misapplied it. It is only a question of what he pleas to, or is found guilty of. My money is on manslaughter because it's a misapplication of deadly force, so it likely won't meet the standard for Murder 1 or 2.
If you want to ban video, or ban viewing it, go ahead and give it a shot.
...
I never said it should be banned.
All you have as backing for your assertion is personal attacks, repetition of the same unsupported claim, and putting words in my mouth.
Ouch!
“My money is on manslaughter because it’s a misapplication of deadly force, so it likely won’t meet the standard for Murder 1 or 2.”
Yes, that is what I would bet on as well. Manslaughter. I do not see it fitting Murder 1 or 2.
Probably tunnel vision on the part of the officer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.