Chicago police shooting

[OU812]

Cant see this ending any other way then guilty.

How can anyone justify emptying a clip into a guy??

Riots to follow.

[blairtruck]

5:10 is a good starting point. just driving up until then.

[FraserB]

Not really a cut and dry case. He was high on PCP and confronted the police with a weapon.

[Sentry]

They were probably right to drop the guy, the way he was hopping toward them with the knife... but to keep plugging him for another 20 seconds...

[gwill]

Originally posted by FraserB
Not really a cut and dry case. He was high on PCP and confronted the police with a weapon.

Guy had a tiny 3 inch blade.. The one police officer pulls up and within 15 seconds unloads his entire clip into the guy. Even after he's down he continues firing. There wasn't an immediate threat by the police officer.

It's interesting when police shootings happen that people immediately jump to the police officers defence in scenarios they shouldn't be defended at all.

Even the Sammy yatim shooting had the media praising the police officer yet he was also charged with murder.

Oh he had a tiny blade.. Better shoot him 16 times. Look he's down.. Better finish him off with 6-7 more rounds.

[spike98]

Originally posted by gwill


Guy had a tiny 3 inch blade.. The one police officer pulls up and within 15 seconds unloads his entire clip into the guy. Even after he's down he continues firing. There wasn't an immediate threat by the police officer.

It's interesting when police shootings happen that people immediately jump to the police officers defence in scenarios they shouldn't be defended at all.

Even the Sammy yatim shooting had the media praising the police officer yet he was also charged with murder.

Oh he had a tiny blade.. Better shoot him 16 times. Look he's down.. Better finish him off with 6-7 more rounds.

What does blade size have to do with it? Even a 2" blade can be lethal. One could argue that knives are also just as dangerous if not more inside of 20-30 feet. Have you ever shot a pistol?

Most of these "outrageous police brutality" claims have a few things in common....You have a weapon and dont comply, your going to get shot. I dont see how THAT isn't cut and dry.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by gwill


Guy had a tiny 3 inch blade.. The one police officer pulls up and within 15 seconds unloads his entire clip into the guy. Even after he's down he continues firing. There wasn't an immediate threat by the police officer.

It's interesting when police shootings happen that people immediately jump to the police officers defence in scenarios they shouldn't be defended at all.

Even the Sammy yatim shooting had the media praising the police officer yet he was also charged with murder.

Oh he had a tiny blade.. Better shoot him 16 times. Look he's down.. Better finish him off with 6-7 more rounds.

The only actions in question are the shots fired while the subject was on the ground. Using lethal force against a subject brandishing a knife in close proximity to officers is completely justified. Deploying a taser or OC spray would not be an acceptable response to the subject's actions.

Whether it has a 3" blade or a 30" blade, a knife is still a deadly weapon and a bulletproof vest does not provided good protection against stabbing. Deploying a taser or OC spray would not be an acceptable response to the subject's actions.

[killramos]

I would love to be a fly on the wall of an altercation between a mugger with a "tiny 3 inch blade" and the outspoken beyonders (not just this thread) who watch to many movies and think everyone with a gun and bare minimum training can kneecap a guy consistently under pressure.



Cops job is to go home to his wife and kids at the end of the night. I wouldn't let a spun out drug addict with a deadly weapon get in the way of that either. I don't particularly care how many bullets it takes to accomplish that task.

Don't want to get killed by a cop? Don't charge them with a deadly weapon. Can't control your actions when high on drugs? Don't get high on drugs.

Its not complicated people.

[FraserB]

Wasn't gwill saying a criminal should be allowed to defend his house with a gun in that other thread? Funny how when its a cop confronted by a guy with a knife who's high on PCP, he wants a different response.

[tirebob]

I collect pocket knifes and my sharpening skills are excellent. You can shave with all of my blades. One 3 inch blade razor sharp can do a serious amount of damage with a single swipe. I have no problem with someone getting shot when a dude is coming at you with a knife. Now the rest was a bit overkill though. Did they think he was the Terminator??

[JRSC00LUDE]

I can't speak for this shooting but regarding the blade i'm just curious. How far beneath the skin is your femoral artery? Jugular? Heart? Liver?

Here's a 2.5" blade, with a handle I can hold firmly in my fist while swinging a punch:





If I connect with your neck, you're likely dead. If I hammer fist it to your heart you're likely dead. If I get grappling with you and slice your femoral when we're grappling on the ground, you're likely dead. IMO, a 3" blade is far deadlier than a 12" blade, it can be used much faster and is much harder to defend against......

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by gwill
Look he's down.. Better finish him off with 6-7 more rounds.

How many shots are acceptable? 2" blade = 2 shots, while a 3" blade = 4 shots. "Good Sir how many inches is that blade you're threatening me with? I want to make sure I don't go over the allowable number"

[HiTempguy1]

First, apply a liberal application of

Second, it sure is going to be difficult to get people to become police officers in the 21st century, what with how badly everyone is vilifying them. You'd have to be nuts to go into that line of work.

In what other job are the people you deal with on a daily basis swinging a knife at you and high on PCP But since you handled the situation, here's a first degree murder charge for your hard work! And its not because you committed first degree murder, but because we can't stand up to a minority of protesting assholes, sucks to suck!

[zieg]

Stop calling it a 'clip'.

[Nitro5]

Thank God there is an uproar about this particular shooting in Chicago.

[killramos]

^ No kidding

[gwill]

First you don't get charged with murder as a police officer if the shooting is justified. This dude didn't attack anyone, he didn't make any advances towards the police, the officer that's charged pulls up and unloads non stop shots.

The police were not in any danger when the guy got shot. The suspect was actually turning away from the police cars as he got shot. The one officer was clearly trigger happy.

It's the same thing with the shooting in Toronto. The one officer got trigger happy... The guy was upset, had a knife which some people take as a justifiable reason to shoot someone. Just because someone holds a weapon doesn't give the police full right to shoot them. Especially when the guy with the knife isn't advancing towards you...

Like others pointed out In a home invasion you can't even shoot someone in your own home without getting charged. You need to match force with force. Why would the rules for shooting be different for the police?

[sexualbanana]

A number of issues come into play in this issue:

1) I'm trying to find context for the incident. What was the initial reason for chasing McDonald? Was it that he was brandishing a knife and acting erratically in public? Was he brandishing a knife and threatening other people? The video shows that he showed no immediate threat to civilians (didn't really see any in the vicinity) or the police, and so the use of deadly force doesn't seem to be required.

American police (don't know if Canada is any different) are constitutionally allowed to shoot under two circumstances, as established by the Supreme Court:
i) The defense-of-life standard - police can use deadly force if they are doing so to protect their life or the lives of a third-party;
ii) to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat to others.

The incident sort of breaches on both circumstances, so the use of deadly force may be justifiable. However....

2) Regardless, firing a total of 16 shots (all from the one gun) is excessive. And, when only two of the wounds on McDonald can be definitively linked to him standing, that means up to 14 more shots were fired while he was on the ground.

3) The initial police account lied about what happened and why he fired as many shots as he did. The initial claims were that McDonald lunged at the police and it forced Van Dyke to shoot. Court documents (and the video) now show that that was a lie. The documents even state that another officer on scene (Officer A in court documents) stated that after Van Dyke emptied his weapon, there was a brief pause as Van Dyke attempted to reload before he (Officer A) told him to stop so he could approach McDonald and kick away the knife. Granted, I don't know what (if there is any) protocol is on reloading your weapon, but I can't imagine that there is need to do it when you've subdued the lone suspect with numerous other officers behind you.

4) There are allegations of police cover-up. A District Manager at Burger King has been claiming for awhile that police deleted footage from their cameras. Claiming that he gave them access to his cameras during the initial investigation and when they left, 86 minutes of footage around the time of the shooting were missing. It's been unproven whether that is true or not.

5) Personally, I'm concerned about the release of the video before the trial of Van Dyke. First, it does nothing but incite the public. As much as I want to see transparency from the government and the police force in regards to public information, some things only need to be transparent to the investigators. At least until the investigation and trial have concluded.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by gwill
Like others pointed out In a home invasion you can't even shoot someone in your own home without getting charged. You need to match force with force. Why would the rules for shooting be different for the police?

It's an entirely different country. Very small difference really, almost a mere technicality.

And rules around police use of firearms are different than civilian use.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by killramos

Cops job is to go home to his wife and kids at the end of the night. I wouldn't let a spun out drug addict with a deadly weapon get in the way of that either. I don't particularly care how many bullets it takes to accomplish that task.

I'm going to disagree with you on this point. A cop's job (while they are on duty) is to protect the public interest. That includes those of suspects and criminals, as well as innocent civilians. If you are more concerned about your personal well-being than the constitutional rights of Americans, then you should not be in the police force.

Don't get me wrong, I know a couple officers personally, and I would never wish any harm come to them or their families. But police officers are held to an incredibly high standard because of the incredible amount of authority and responsibility they are entrusted with.

A parallel to this is the Kim Davis situation in Kentucky - she is the county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on account of her religious beliefs. As long as she is on-duty, she is a government employee first. Her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples prevents her from doing her job adequately and therefore she should not be employed as a government employee because she's no longer doing her job, and she's allowing her personal beliefs dictate her job performance. Similarly, if a police officer is more concerned about personal safety that the proper carriage of justice and enforcement, maybe they shouldn't be police officers anymore.

As I said, it's an incredibly high standard of expectation to bear for the police officers, and I'm probably being incredibly naive as to the personal vs public responsibility debate, but I would like to think that members of the police force do their jobs out of a sense of duty to protect the public rather than personal vanity.