another officer charged with murdering a black man

[JakeStarkey]

This is as open and shut as the murder in North Charleston.

Another cop is going to spend life in prison.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't disagree with the charge, but there's certainly a lot of black people that think they can commit crimes in this country. A serious problem.

 

[Spinster]

Given the times and the location, if I were a cop trying to protect the city from someone acting irratic, possibly high on PCP, I might be inclined to shoot, maybe not to kill, but rather to secure the situation. Wouldn't want the job of being a cop today for any amount of money: completely thankless job.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This is as open and shut as the murder in North Charleston.

Another cop is going to spend life in prison.

I agree. The cop should do serious time. He'd best choose solitary.

 

[BlueGin]

Given the times and the location, if I were a cop trying to protect the city from someone acting irratic, possibly high on PCP, I might be inclined to shoot, maybe not to kill, but rather to secure the situation. Wouldn't want the job of being a cop today for any amount of money: completely thankless job.

I agree. Infact... In my state cops are quitting the police force and they are having a hard time replacing them.

I'm surprised there are even folks left willing to be in law enforcement.

 

[PredFan]

Serious time?

The man was irrational and unpredictable, and armed. Should he have shot? Maybe not but they will have a difficult time proving that the cop intentionally killed the man.

Fired? Yes, certainly. Jail? It depends on the circumstance which we may not know. But serious jail time? No.

 

[MikeK]

Given the times and the location, if I were a cop trying to protect the city from someone acting irratic, possibly high on PCP, I might be inclined to shoot, maybe not to kill, but rather to secure the situation. Wouldn't want the job of being a cop today for any amount of money: completely thankless job.

There are many cops who do the job for the salary and benefits and are not looking for thanks. And if the job is approached with a willingness to do it properly and with a reasonable level of intelligent adherence to the rules, they get though the days and retire with a comfortable pension (in most cases).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, he intentionally shot to kill a suspect who had turned away from them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Serious time?

The man was irrational and unpredictable, and armed. Should he have shot? Maybe not but they will have a difficult time proving that the cop intentionally killed the man.

Fired? Yes, certainly. Jail? It depends on the circumstance which we may not know. But serious jail time? No.

Watch the tape. The guy with the knife is on the ground, disabled. He is no threat. There is a significant pause, and then cop shoots him a few more times.

I have no sympathy for drug-addled thugs with knives, but that cop is likely off to a long jail term.

 

[TNHarley]

Cop deserves the charge. I didn't have a problem with it until he CONTINUED shooting.
I guess he probably would have been sued just the same if the kid lived, though..
No fuckin way I would be a cop.

 

[PredFan]

Serious time?

The man was irrational and unpredictable, and armed. Should he have shot? Maybe not but they will have a difficult time proving that the cop intentionally killed the man.

Fired? Yes, certainly. Jail? It depends on the circumstance which we may not know. But serious jail time? No.

Watch the tape. The guy with the knife is on the ground, disabled. He is no threat. There is a significant pause, and then cop shoots him a few more times.

I have no sympathy for drug-addled thugs with knives, but that cop is likely off to a long jail term.

I just found out this morning that supposedly, the cop shot him 16 times. Ok, I have a problem with that "fact", but assuming it was true, then I can't see it as a simple case of a cop over reacting in a situation with an armed perp. If it's true then this cop needs to be in prison.

The problem is that how does a cop shoot a guy 16 times? No pistol that I know of has a 16 round magazine. He would have had to stop, eject the empty mag, and reload a full one. Something seems fishy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Clarity is lacking, but apparently that is precisely what he did.

 

[PredFan]

Clarity is lacking, but apparently that is precisely what he did.

That takes time though. Pull the trigger 8 times, click, press the mag release, reach down and unbutton the mag holder, grab the full mag, insert the full mag into the gun, retract the slide, pull the trigger 8 times.

What are the other cops doing in this time? Isn't someone trying to stop the other cop? I still smell fish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cop had a weapon with 16 rounds.

 

[MikeK]

Cop deserves the charge. I didn't have a problem with it until he CONTINUED shooting.
I guess he probably would have been sued just the same if the kid lived, though..
No fuckin way I would be a cop.

Why?

There were several other cops there before vanDyke arrived. They didn't shoot because there was no immediate need to and so they are having absolutely no problems. Would you have used deadly force under the same circumstances as vanDyke did? If not, why the negative assessment of the job?

The question is not whether vanDyke's action was wrong, which it obviously was. The question is why he did what he did. And it's an important question.

 

[TNHarley]

Cop deserves the charge. I didn't have a problem with it until he CONTINUED shooting.
I guess he probably would have been sued just the same if the kid lived, though..
No fuckin way I would be a cop.

Why?

There were several other cops there before vanDyke arrived. They didn't shoot because there was no immediate need to and so they are having absolutely no problems. Would you have used deadly force under the same circumstances as vanDyke did? If not, why the negative assessment of the job?

The question is not whether vanDyke's action was wrong, which it obviously was. The question is why he did what he did. And it's an important question.

meh IDK the angle of the footage doesn't do the end any justice...

 

[MikeK]

meh IDK the angle of the footage doesn't doing the end any justice...

I have no idea what any of that means.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

21ST CENTURY LYNCHING
17 YEARS OLD, SHOT 16 TIMES... HORROR... Cop Emptied Pistol And Reloaded... Contradicts Police Story... Officer Charged With Murder... Marchers Clash With Police... More Protests To Come...

How Chicago Tried To Cover Up A Police Execution... WHY? Video Sat In Secret For 400 Days... Burger King Says Police Deleted Security Footage... Cop Had History Of Citizen Complaints... Chicago Tribune: 'Come On. What Does It Take To Flag A Problem Cop?'... 99% Of Complaints Lodged Against Chicago Police In 2015 Went Nowhere... A Department Rotten To Its Core...

 

[MikeK]

The reason why the upper echelons of state and local governments avoid prosecuting cops who clearly are guilty of excessive force, or in this example cold-blooded murder, is the power of police unions. The F.O.P., with more than 300,000 members nationwide, combined with many individual local police unions, such as New York City's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, wield a substantial level of political influence in establishing rules governing police conduct ("Procedure.")

I can remember when in New York City a police officer was required to actually see a weapon in an adversary's hand, or to have some clearly definable cause to believe he was in immediate risk of death or injury, before his use of deadly force (the gun) was justifiable. Owing to some police deaths and injuries over the years that rule has been effectively altered. Now a cop may use deadly force when he believes his life is threatened.

At first glance this revised requirement for the use of deadly force appears to be reasonable, as it would be if every cop in America were ethical, honest and irreproachably moral. But what about the predictable percentage of cops who are not ethical, or honest, or moral -- and those who are psychopathic and simply like to hurt people? What should be expected from enabling them to casually commit first degree murder by simply claiming it was done in the interest of self-defense? Simply stated, this rule is a virtual license to kill.

Nonetheless it is the new rule and it is supported by legislation which the police unions were able to quietly promote. Consequently, if the command structure of a given police agency decides to punish a cop for using excessive force they can expect an un-official but union-sanctioned and protected "job action" in the form of both reduced summons activity, which cannot be identified as deliberate but will seriously affect revenue input, and failure to respond promptly to reported criminal activity. In other words, if a cop is punished their colleagues will simply stop performing their duties -- and without specific evidence to prove they are deliberately retaliating their unions will protect them in court against any punitive action by management.