How Should Police Stop A Knife-Swinging Laquan On PCP?

Misadventures in Diversity ^ | 11/25/15 | Donald Joy

[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 rule”(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.

[AlaskaErik]

At my agency minimum response with the handgun was two rounds to center mass. Most departments would have similar policy.

[AlaskaErik]

Any instructor who advocates shooting until the threat is down should be avoided. I would hate to defend that in court. You don’t shoot until he’s down. LEOs should be following department guidelines. No department I know of advocates emptying your magazine. In my department minimum response was two rounds to center mass, lower your weapon and make sure there were no other threats and that your target was neutralized, and then reengage if necessary. Too many officers these days don’t do what they were trained to do.

[libstripper]

Looking at the video, I didn’t see any shots fired after he went down, the shots that were fired being fired in a second or two before he fell. Also. As a safe, cheap experiment, I urge you to tap your forefinger as fast as you can and count the taps while somebody times you to ten seconds. I’ve done it to see what the maximum rate of fire I could get out of a semi-auto is. Comes out to about 360 rounds per minute, or 6 rounds a second,a bit short of the 16 rounds that were allegedly fired by the defendant.

[dragnet2]

Well, I guess thats what he gets for abusing vehicles.

[dragnet2]

Video never tells the whole story, and thats the problem with these cases that are tried in the press and by lynch mobs.

Video has told the whole story in many criminal cases. Any evidence is better than none. So 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.

I never said it should be banned.

No, but you clearly complained about it. Would you support new laws regarding video in these cases?

[IChing]

Andrew Branca (do you even know who he is?) backs me up on every single aspect/point in my analysis of this case, a case which your last post grossly mischaracterizes as to what actually happened:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/11/laquana-mcdonald-video-simply-not-dispositive-of-police-misconduct/

Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense who was instrumental in the controversy over the Zimmerman case, posted his analysis at least 7 hours after I wrote/posted mine.

He missed the taser wires, though.

[IChing]

I had to post a different video of the shooting at the blog site of my post, because the initial video was taken down or blocked access by the YouTuber who posted it. Hence, the times of where I cite the taser wires as visible, and when McDonald turns toward the officers, are different on the edited site post than in the text posted here, because I could not find a YouTube video with the exact same time points.

[kiryandil]

Tough debating a blowhard, ain't it?

I give the debate to you, Salvavida. You're much more credible, nad your posts don't foam and spray spittle. :)

[Secret Agent Man]

not in this case,’but in general you dont assume danger is over because a guy appears to be down.

[Springfield Reformer]

I disagree about the subject evading, but that’s going to be decided at trial, not here on FR.

Then why express any opinion about it at all?  I'll tell you why. It's what we do. :)

Placing yourself in your safe desk chair, watching a video on Youtube isn’t the standard established by the Supreme court.

For one thing, my chair is NOT safe.  Very old, and I fear one day it will give out when I'm least expecting it. :)

But I also wish to point out I never said watching the video somehow relates to a SCOTUS standard of any kind.  Wherever did you get that idea?

However you can't separate video evidence from the "totality of the circumstances."  Granted, you need other supporting evidence, but the whole point of rigging police with video equipment is to improve the court's understanding of controversial events just like this.  As an attorney, I have seen first hand how testimony of remembered events can be greatly distorted by both sides.  A physical record of an event can be a strong help in reducing, if not completely eliminating, that distortion.

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.

What you are reciting here is some sort of "empathy standard," not the "reasonable officer" standard of Graham v Conner.  In other words, no, you do NOT place yourself on the scene and ask yourself whether you would have done the same. Rather, you construct an ideal "reasonable officer," place that officer into the scene, and ask whether he/she would have done the same as Van Dyke. To get that reasonable officer, you have to look at training, departmental standards, temperament, etc., and as we've already established, Officer van Dyke could be arguably well outside those Chicago PD policy parameters.

BTW, folks here are I think being overly reliant on the 21 foot "rule." It's hard to see how that rule would apply where it's main assumption isn't true. In the video, the officers appear to have already drawn and aimed their weapons.  Their response to a threat would be a mere fraction of a second, not the full unholsteing time implied by the rule. Therefore the subject would have to be nearly on top of them to get within the threat range envisioned by the rule, er, guideline.

I like to win my cases. So far, I'm having a seriously hard time seeing how I would pull that off for Officer Van Dyke.  

[Springfield Reformer]

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.

I disagree with your analysis on a number of points. First, the officers, when they are in the left edge of the video, are clearly aiming at the subject.  To accept your premise, one would have to assume they somehow decided to stop aiming right after they leave the image, and that would be most implausible.  

Furthermore, the subject's sudden turn to the left is accompanied by an upper body tilt backward, and the autopsy report shows three rounds hit his left arm and one hit his left chest. This is followed by a full spin then a limp collapse to the ground. Therefore it is plausible he did not even turn toward the officer until impacted by the munitions, leaving him in the resister category, not an aggressor.  

Additionally, if you watch the pavement behind and a little bit above him, after he has been downed, there are a number of small, distinct impact clouds resulting from gunfire.  I am not picturing how these are rounds that actually hit him, but as Van Dyke managed to leave 16 holes in him, it had to happen somehow, unless they came from other weapons, and we have no information to that effect.  Nevertheless, point is, yes, he was down, and still being fired upon.

As for " Illinois standard for use of lethal force being reasonable fear of death or Great bodily harm," that cannot be taken in isolation from the additional duties imposed on police officers, per training and policy, to minimize the use of lethal force where possible, and given the "totality of the circumstances," a "reasonable officer" more responsive to Chicago PD training and policy almost certainly could have avoided a shoot this problematic.

Peace,

SR

[Moonman62]

What you are reciting here is some sort of "empathy standard," not the "reasonable officer" standard of Graham v Conner. In other words, no, you do NOT place yourself on the scene and ask yourself whether you would have done the same. Rather, you construct an ideal "reasonable officer," place that officer into the scene, and ask whether he/she would have done the same as Van Dyke. To get that reasonable officer, you have to look at training, departmental standards, temperament, etc., and as we've already established, Officer van Dyke could be arguably well outside those Chicago PD policy parameters.

That's a good explanation of what I was trying to say. OTOH, the officer could arguably be within those standards, and the prosecutor knows it, thus explaining taking over a year to file charges.

BTW, folks here are I think being overly reliant on the 21 foot "rule." It's hard to see how that rule would apply where it's main assumption isn't true. In the video, the officers appear to have already drawn and aimed their weapons. Their response to a threat would be a mere fraction of a second, not the full unholsteing time implied by the rule. Therefore the subject would have to be nearly on top of them to get within the threat range envisioned by the rule, er, guideline.

Another good clarification on your part. The 21 foot rule is based on the subject only needing 1.5 seconds to close the 21 foot distance. From what I've read the subject may have been as close as 12 to 15 feet. That could mean a closing time of one second. That's not much even with a weapon drawn. There is also the possibility of the subject throwing the knife or having another weapon in the hand that couldn't be seen.

[IChing]

I’ve edited the post at the linked blog to omit remarks about taser wires. I now believe I and others at The Conservative Treehouse were mistaken in thinking taser wires are briefly visible, that it’s just a reflection on the pavement from the emergency lights of the police vehicle pulling up behind the vehicle VanDyke and the officer got out of.

[IChing]

Here’s disturbing video of a man with a knife, surrounded by cops armed with guns, who nonetheless succeeds in charging at, killing, and gravely wounding several of them before he is shot down, and continues to move around on the ground after that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye8PEcr1NNI

My understanding is that of the 5 cops present, he killed 2 and wounded 2.

[Salvavida]

Indeed it is tough. And it’s said so-called conservatives can’t exercise common sense.

[Oztrich Boy]

AIUI, under Illinois law, 2d degree applies only if there were mitigating circumstances. Difficult to see the prosecution conceding that at this sytge

[Oztrich Boy]

Illinois doesn't require lengthy premeditation, just intent and knowledge to kill or do great bodily harm. 16 deliberate shots, all hits makes that case

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/illinois-law/illinois-first-degree-murder-laws.html

[dr_lew]

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.

Well, how many "resorts" are there, that this is the last of ? It seems to me there are two. The first is DROP YOUR WEAPON X N. This demand being made with weapon drawn and aimed. If the subject does not comply, lethal force is the second resort, applied at the discretion of the officer. It's all very simple to me.