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.
“Except somebody’s apparently started to use them for target practice now. Could make it interesting.”
If you are referring to the BLM protest where 3 men were shooting at a black crowd there is a great link interviewing “youths” attending the event that admit to attacking the people and they started shooting when they were swarmed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRhZL3QLtEQ
Some key quotes
“everyone started rushing them.”
“Someone punch one of them, POW”
“Then somebody hit someone again”
“So we start chasin’ them”
Language warning.
I was referring to legal definitions apart from this case.
in the coroner's report, If the shots are numbered in the order that the were fired the shots #1 & 2 would have been fatal and all others would have been irrelevant.
Article sums up the situation very well.
Too many folks that have never been involved in anything more dangerous than a pillow fight feel comfortable telling someone else how to handle a deadly force situation.
Based on training and policies and procedures. LEOs are very familiar with the minimum response concept. 16 rounds is a gross violation of that concept in this case.
We agree that premeditation does not apply if the defendant can successfully demonstrate self defense. Is that what you’re looking for?
That’s so he won’t get convicted. It’s a bullshit overcharge that no jury will convict him of.
Who said anything about accidental? Justified killing can be preceded by deliberate thought, but without the element of malice.
I encourage you to read the case of Jerome Ersland. A pharmacist robbed at gun point. The court has ruled that he originally shot under the terms of self defense. But subsequent shootings were not self defense and were in fact 1st degree murder. The legal definition of what constitutes self defense is a good thing for people to know. Especially to know when you are no longer acting in self defense, of yourself, or of anyone else.
LOL thanks
There is a mind set that says.... if you’re gonna shoot someone, be sure you kill them so they can’t sue you. I would say... more than that... make darn sure there’s not a video of you pumping additional rounds into them when they are clearly no longer a threat. If you want to argue self defense in court.
I was just clarifying that not all killing preceded by deliberate thought is murder. Malice is the critical element. Thanks.
Did you write the article?
4 White guys legally filming on a public street assaulted and chased because of the color of their skin.
Funny how the guys with masks on want the Crackers to take off their's.
Yes indeedy.
Boy, do you bull shit much? Of course whatever evidence is obtained will be used. But the fact is, video by itself has convicted tons of people.
...
So name one case where video was the only evidence at trial. You can’t, so you attack me personally.
I figured. I might not have 30 years of LE experience, but the verbatim description on your home page and “his” Twitter account added up. I’m also watching Sherlock Holmes right now, so I’m kind of an expert myself... :)
So I say, based on the training I received, no way was this recognized internally as a good shoot.
...
Police aren’t trained the same way as CCW holders. The law that apples to them is different, too.
affect=effect
Based on training and policies and procedures. LEOs are very familiar with the minimum response concept. 16 rounds is a gross violation of that concept in this case.
...
Is there a specific policy you can cite? The departmental policy of the officer in question would be good.
Ah, so that’s why I haven’t been hearing anything much about it. Thanks for the link!
Still, the Left is trying to instigate a violent confrontation.
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.