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.
Exactly. Once deadly force is decided, the number of shots is really moot. Oh, wait, it’s “excessive” to kill someone more than you already did....sheesh
Those are the facts.... regardless of what the author of the article says about it not mattering how many rounds were shot.
If the numbers on the coroner's report corespond to the sequence of shots fired then #1 & #2 were fatal. Everything else would be abuse of a corpse.
He was shot with a tazer. It had no affect.
I'm not aware of any post you did, and for those of us having been trained in deadly force (I was an infantryman and an embassy guard), the video speaks for itself. I didn't feel compelled to have to back shit up.
But here you go: The idiot didn't pose a threat warranting that shooting. Now his career is over and he will be doing the perp walk.
Right, so all intentional homicides are murder 1, huh?
If you intend to kill someone, and you then kill them.... in Oklahoma... you have met the requirement for premeditation. That’s the law... whether we like it or not... in Oklahoma. I realize you are a security extraordinary expert. But in Oklahoma... that’s the law. So in Oklahoma.... if you decide to kill someone, and then do it... you better have a darn good reason for doing so.
Nonsense. Legal definition is more precise. By yours, all intentional homicides, including self-defense, are murder 1. Sheesh.
Who knows.... maybe you and the author of this article are going to argue that the cop didn’t mean to kill someone.... he was just performing according to his training. I’m just saying.... he’ll need a good attorney to make that case.
Guy.. I know you’re the expert ... or so your profile says... I’ve got the jury instructions. It is what it is. Maybe you didn’t get to write the law in Oklahoma?
Self defense is justifiable. The cop will not get away with arguing self defense in this case.
” Someone has to police a violent and belligerent inner city population and I for one am willing to give the cops the benefit of the doubt.
Ditto !!!!
.
.
I generally agree when it ces to bad shots, but I don’t this time. Anyone who has seen people on PCP can attest to the incredible danger they present. Growing up in California in the eighties, I can know of many incidents where perps continued their berserk rampages after taking enough punishment to stop a horse.
The perp’s behavior and brandishing a weapon warranted the shot in my book. I see no reason for all the hand-wringing. He was a dangerous perp with a deadly weapon. What else do you require to shoot?
You and I with our carry and conceal could not shoot him in that situation. At least not based on what I saw in the video. We couldn’t claim self defense.
May I suggest reading the present article? It’s written by a former military policeman and sworn law enforcement officer with over 30 years of training and experience. Numerous others on other foums concur, btw. That is, in reply to your specific claim.
Scroll down to the part that it talks about malice a forethought. See how long it takes to establish premeditation. The law is sometimes different than what people may think it is... certainly different than what we may think it should be.
Read the last paragraph again. You missed something important.
The point is your imprecise language. Words have meanings.
Don’t know if it is the case, but I beleive most cops have tasers? Most I have known and do know carry them. Shoot the taser first, was that done?
The guy wasn’t charging them, was walking sideways and possibly away from them. Murder, clearly murder.
I don’t understand the riots and crap because they charged him with murder, and rightly so.
Or read about the legal definition of self defense. And what happens if the combatant withdraws from the fight.
The author of this article may be a decorated war hero, security expert whatever. But that doesn't mean he is giving good legal advice.
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.