[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.  

[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.