Posted on 11/25/2015 11:57:19 AM PST by IChing
Is your husband a cop?
Another person with nothing but a personal attack.
And there’s nothing like getting flak when I’m over the target.
Thanks for posting the link.
Is a subject who is commanded to stop but doesn’t stop under control?
Is a subject with a hand in the pocket who is commanded to show his hand under control?
Is a person wielding a knife within striking distance and is commanded to drop the knife, but doesn’t, under control?
The defense will also bring up the subject being on PCP.
The guy is going to jail for life. The city settled for 5 million. The guy had 18 complaints, including a previous one that cost the city 350k. He should have been fired a long time ago.
Good cops are going to get killed because of loons like that guy.
Possum?...so you shoot him on the ground after pumping a couple rounds in the guy? Seriously, you can’t defend trigger happy idiots like that. He had 18 previous complaints, one that cost the city 350k to settle. He should have been kicked off the force a long time ago.
Good cops are going to get killed because of loons like that guy."Good cops" protect loons like this guy.
Why bother having a trial?
I believe the shooting was entirely according to police doctrine. Remember those cop shows where the leading character cops adroitly disarm a dangerous but confused suspect ? Uh uh. Not doctrine.
A lot of this is because of biological dangers, such as biting, or who knows what kind of contamination. Today’s cops are taught to avoid all physical contact. It comes down to obey or be killed, and this is what they are taught.
In this case, if there was one cop who opened fire ahead of the others, it is because, IMO, he was the one who OBEYED doctrine, in contrast to the others who hesitated based on humanitarian sympathies, that he wasn’t REALLY a threat and he wasn’t charging at me.
Doctrine says that he WAS a threat and he WAS NOT complying, so deadly force was the immediate indication.
Maybe I’m all wrong on this, but I don’t see how.
You do realize that if it can take as little as 5 seconds to "achieve" doesn't mean that it has ever been legally proven or even attempted.
The hysteria is so bad that one of the TV bimbo lawyers blurted out that "premeditatin" could be achieved in only a couple of seconds.
Good luck proving that.
Not too sharp. Try putting 2 and 2 together for the answer. Hint: Look in the most obvious place. Who is he?
You’ve never had training in the 21-foot rule, that’s plain.
Get acquainted with the fundamental difference in character between law enforcement officers, who have a “duty to act” — that is, to actively seek out, confront, apprehend, and overcome lawbreakers and threats, and that of security guards, which is moreover the duty to retreat/defend.
To the point, LEOs must sometimes aggressively act to confront/bring about a situation wherein deadly force winds up being necessary, even though it is the last resort to resolve the situation, whereas those doing guard/security duties are primarily required to hold to post limits, not seek out such situations beyond limited orders, and not pursue, etc., except in extraordinary circumstances.
Anyhow, I tend to concur with you as to the outcome of the case, but not necessarily on its merits, more along the lines of the nature of the likely jury pool.
As for DoD mission security forces, military police (the USAF academy I went through trains the Marine MPs), special deputy U.S. marshal, presidential and cabinet-level protective details, and an array of civilian-sector environments/roles where armed use of force training and duties are concerned, I’ve worn all those hats over the last 34 years.
But don’t feel bad about the 21-foot rule thing. I myself hadn’t really been thoroughly acquainted with/trained on it until about 8-9 years ago.
“why it took a whole year for this to come out”
Chicago Politics- Rahm was in tight re-election cycle. If released earlier would have possibly elected his opponent.
“How long were they in vehicle pursuit? 5 or 10 minutes?”
Cops were in vehicles- Laquan was on foot abusing vehicles
If you refer to the chart in the Chicago PD model, you will see that a resistor who is evading rather than confronting falls into a different force category than an aggressor who is, well, aggressing and thus likely to cause harm. Control measures for the evading resister do NOT include firearms or impact munitions. It seems like common sense to me, but the chart actually spells this out, so the officer is bound to this as the policy under which he was obligated to act.
Now I agree the defense is going to try to put the subject into the aggressor category, and him having a knife certainly helps them do that. The problem is, at the time the first rounds were fired, he’s evading, not lunging at the officer. He looks like he’s literally just trying to casually walk past them. It’s probably the PCP.
So if I’m sitting on the jury, of course I’ll be told about the 21 foot rule, but I’m having a hard time looking at that video and buying that he was, at the moment of the first shot, aggressing. It just didn’t look like that to me. More like drug induced random cockiness combined with an overall pattern of avoidance. I’m just telling you how it looked to me. That’s a lot for the defense to overcome, because I’m sure I’m not alone in perceiving his movements that way. The jury’s perception matters.
Furthermore, let’s say the jury gives Van Dyke the benefit of the doubt on the first few shots. Once McDonald is on the ground, there’s much better argument for him being under control. I watched that segment of the video frame by frame. Once he collapses, there is a period of some head and hand movement, then that stops, and stays stopped for a while, and then there are some new shots bouncing off the pavement making little dust clouds. For all the world it looks like Van Dyke is shooting a man already dead, or at minimum totally passive. So I think the defense has a rough time getting past that.
Now here’s another way it can get really interesting. Let’s back up to the first shots. Once the officer has breached his duty of care and overstepped a lethal force boundary, the possibility exists that the subject is now *entitled* to defend his own life, and the right of persons being wrongfully attacked to defend their own lives against even the police has been established in a long line of case law. So the prosecution could argue that even if he was pulling a gun at that point, the officer had effectively waived his immunity through his initial use of excessive force under both the PD policy and the reasonable officer doctrine.
Bottom line, all of this could have been mitigated upstream. It really didn’t have to go this way. Obey or be killed is NOT the rule. There is no case law to support such barbarism. Human life matters too much. The thresholds for lethal force have been carefully marked out to protect people to the extent possible, without putting innocent others at risk. Even being on PCP is not an excuse to end the life of a vandal, except to prevent an even greater harm.
Peace,
SR
Its proved often. It is the law is in oklahoma whether we agree with it or not
So if I’m sitting on the jury, of course I’ll be told about the 21 foot rule, but I’m having a hard time looking at that video and buying that he was, at the moment of the first shot, aggressing. It just didn’t look like that to me. More like drug induced random cockiness combined with an overall pattern of avoidance. I’m just telling you how it looked to me. That’s a lot for the defense to overcome, because I’m sure I’m not alone in perceiving his movements that way. The jury’s perception matters.
...
It might be a judge rather than a jury. Some of these accused police are choosing a bench trial rather than a jury and being exonerated. Whoever it is, they’ll have to consider a lot more than what you are bringing up. I disagree about the subject evading, but that’s going to be decided at trial, not here on FR. One of the things the judge or jury will have to do is place themselves in the position of the officer at the time, considering the totality of circumstances.
Placing yourself in your safe desk chair, watching a video on Youtube isn’t the standard established by the Supreme court.
All of your experience failed you, and that is the reason why the cop does the perp walk.
The video doesn’t actually show the officer aiming his weapon and firing it at the decedent. Rather, the decedent seems to come abreast of the officer, who is not in the frame, a flurry of shots is fired in a second or less, and the decedent drops. It does not appear that more shots were fired after he fell. That says the cop could have reasonably feared for his life and been justified in firing, the Illinois standard for use of lethal force being reasonable fear of death or Great bodily harm.
Look at the video. It doesn’t appear that and shots were fired after the decedent was dropped. Remember, “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
If the autopsy report showing the wounds has them numbered in the order of shots, then the first four bullets hit him in the front of his upper body, which would mean he had turned toward the accused. It will all come out at trial.
However, the press has already convicted the officer and the majority of his life is ruined regardless of the outcome.
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.