Chicago police shooting

[gwill]

He didn't charge at the police officer.. The officer showed up on the scene and within 15 seconds fired off 16 bullets.

Get your facts straight before you whine about an officer going home to his family... He murdered someone and now hides behind a badge.

[OTown]

duplicate post*

[gwill]

No it's not. I wrote it because the idiot quoted a post about suspects charging at officers.... That didn't happen in this case.

[OTown]

I meant my post was a duplicate/erroneous post.


Just so you know you dont have to charge at a cop to get shot. But hey, you're obviously a pro here and know what you're talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by OTown
I meant my post was a duplicate/erroneous post.

But hey, just so you know you dont have to charge at a cop to get shot. But hey, you're obviously a pro here and know what you're talking about.

The US Supreme Court already established the framework for police officers to use deadly force, as I noted in a post on page 2.

There are two circumstances where deadly force can be used:
1) If the suspect is posing an immediate threat to the officer or to an a third party; or
2) Deadly force can be used on an escaping suspect if there is reason to believe that he is a threat to the public.

Was he an immediate threat to the officers or to the public? There didn't seem to be anyone in close proximity, so probably not to any civilians. And he was walking away from police, so he posed no immediate threat to the officers.

Was there reason to believe that he was an immediate threat to the public if he were able to get away? Possibly. He was under the influence of PCP and he had a knife in his hand, so I'm not going to pretend that there was no potential for harm here. However, the problem is there were numerous other officers there. None of whom fired a shot. Van Dyke emptied an entire magazine into McDonald (2 while he was standing and the other 14 presumably while he was incapacitated on the ground) and, according to court records, had to be urged to stop by his partner to stop reloading his weapon.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by gwill
I see what your saying there... I would say yes and no. 1 bullet can kill a guy and it's still murder. IMO 16 bullets with half being after he hit the ground would make that worst. In a case where a suspect had lunged at an officer 16 shots may or may not be excessive.

Again though it doesn't really matter. Excessive is irrelevant. Once that officer pulled his gun and decided to fire 1 bullet or 1000 bullets the only issue is whether the decision to fire any bullets at all was the right one.

It's not like in court the judge will say "Listen if you had only fired 1 bullet that hit him in the head and killed him we could let you go, but you kept firing into his already dead body so that's why you're guilty"

During sentencing the number of bullets fired may come into play because there's an argument to be made about linking that to motive, or desire to kill, or hatred for the individual. But in terms of whether this is murder, the number of bullets simply doesn't matter.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by Sentry

Classic video by the way.

That and this american cop:


Love hearing the Crown Vic revving as it rips by.

That is a classc.. "Jesus Christ, man down.".

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Rocket1k78
Definitely not ok to unload a full mag on someone and shooting after hes down is very clear the cop was out of line.

Notwithstanding the shots fired while he was on the ground, police don't train to only fire a certain number of shots. They are trained to engage until the target no longer poses a threat to themselves or others. If that takes one round to a skinny crackhead or a full mag into someone jacked on PCP, it's the same thing.

As pointed out before, the ROE for police in the US has been tested at the highest level of the courts and allows them to shoot a suspect directly threatening their life, the life of others or even a fleeing suspect they believe to be a danger.

Originally posted by rx7boi
@ PD fighting to keep the video from being released.

Actions speak louder than words.

So what do the actions of the family tell you then? They didn't want it released either.

[Cos]

.

[ZenOps]

"Whaddya mean, you run faster with a knife, everyone runs faster with a knife"

[HiTempguy1]

^^^



Fps doug is never wrong!

[Rat Fink]

.

[FixedGear]

The guy was walking away from officers when he was shot 16 times. Lethal force was absolutely unnecessary. This was murder. The officer in question also has a long history of citizen complaints of excessive force.

[gwill]

But the guy had a knife... That makes it open season for police. No need to deescalate or use all their training. Most importantly an officers previous shady history would have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

None of that matters...

And shooting a body 16 times is not important... And let's ignore the fact the officer tried reloading to continue shooting.

no need to hold police accountable to their actions...

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by gwill
But the guy had a knife... That makes it open season for police. No need to deescalate or use all their training. Most importantly an officers previous shady history would have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

None of that matters...

And shooting a body 16 times is not important... And let's ignore the fact the officer tried reloading to continue shooting.

no need to hold police accountable to their actions...

You just love getting all worked up about the irrelevant issues here hey?

Officers previous "shady" history............Irrelevant.
Number of shots fired............Irrelevant.
Officer reloading to fire again...........Irrelevant.

The only relevant issue is whether the officers decision to use deadly force AT THAT MOMENT was within what the law allows. Anything other than that is just fluff CNN wants you to focus on so they get you all emotional and keep watching.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


You just love getting all worked up about the irrelevant issues here hey?

Officers previous "shady" history............Irrelevant.
Number of shots fired............Irrelevant.
Officer reloading to fire again...........Irrelevant.

The only relevant issue is whether the officers decision to use deadly force AT THAT MOMENT was within what the law allows. Anything other than that is just fluff CNN wants you to focus on so they get you all emotional and keep watching.

It doesn't appear to me (and admittedly not an expert) that the use of deadly force AT THAT MOMENT was warranted. I've pointed out numerous times already the framework by which law enforcement determines the lawful use of deadly force, and I think it's a stretch to believe that McDonald's judgement to use lethal force was necessary.

a) McDonald was walking away from police. Not running, not flailing, not fleeing, and he certainly wasn't lunging at the officers, as originally claimed. Therefore, it doesn't meet the first criteria of defense-of-self.
b) The video doesn't appear to show any bystanders or civilians in the immediate proximity. I could be wrong, but I don't see any. As a result, he posed no threat to any third parties. That is the second part of the defense-of-self standard, as set by the USSC, and the video demonstrates that McDonald's actions still don't satisfy that framework.
c) The second circumstance set by the same USSC judgement does allow the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect if the officers deem him to be a threat to third parties. This would be Van Dyke's defense. The problem, as I've already stated twice, is that, again, there were no civilians nearby and there were 7 other officers on the scene. None of whom believed that McDonald was enough of a threat to meet either standard set by the USSC and therefore did not warrant the use of deadly force.

Unfortunately, 16 shots does matter because it came from a single gun. It wasn't like two from each of the eight officers on scene which can happen very quickly in a span of two seconds if they were all fired simultaneously. That can be interpreted as eight trained officers agreeing there's a threat and acting in accordance with the established framework. 16 shots in 16 seconds is the generally accepted length of time it took for Van Dyke to empty his weapon. That is one person interpreting McDonald's actions as an extreme threat, while seven other officers disagreed.

[Isaiah]

@ gwill & sexualbanana: you're wasting your time. You've expained your points clearly and concisely several times. If he still doesn't get it then he doesn't want to get it.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
It doesn't appear to me (and admittedly not an expert) that the use of deadly force AT THAT MOMENT was warranted.

I agree. My (not an expert) opinion is that deadly force was not necessary in this particular situation

Unfortunately, 16 shots does matter because it came from a single gun. It wasn't like two from each of the eight officers on scene which can happen very quickly in a span of two seconds if they were all fired simultaneously. That can be interpreted as eight trained officers agreeing there's a threat and acting in accordance with the established framework. 16 shots in 16 seconds is the generally accepted length of time it took for Van Dyke to empty his weapon. That is one person interpreting McDonald's actions as an extreme threat, while seven other officers disagreed.

You can add the word "unfortunately" but it doesn't make things any more relevant. How many shots the officer fired is still irrelevant. The fact he was the only officer who fired is relevant this is an absolutely valid point. But that would be the case if he fired a single shot. An officer firing a single shot that kills a man while other officers chose not to is exactly the same as an officer who fires 1000 times while other officers choose not to. If he chose to use deadly force in error, and that leads to someone's death, it's in error regardless of the number of times he discharges that weapon.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Isaiah
@ gwill & sexualbanana: you're wasting your time. You've expained your points clearly and concisely several times. If he still doesn't get it then he doesn't want to get it.

There's nothing to "get"

- Officer chooses to discharge firearm.
- individual dies due to that decision.
- Is the decision to discharge weapon warranted?
- Yes? No wrong doing. - No? Guilty of Murder

[rob the knob]

where is the sound

looks like hip hop music put over top, the video

rat tat tat