Jury convicts Chicago police officer of murder in 2014 of black man

No it's not.

Ok. So what is the basis for your belief that the conviction will be overturned on appeal?
Because they guy was a threat.

I’m going to help you. This is a website that discusses the reasons for an appeal. Grounds for Criminal Appeal

Did Van Dyke have a crappy lawyer? That might be grounds, but I don’t think so. Was evidence improperly included or excluded? Perhaps, but what impact could it have had? The most damning evidence was the police video. Do you think the Appeals Court will overturn the conviction because it wasn’t fair the cops own video was used against them?

So what grounds will the conviction be overturned on? I don’t like it isn’t enough by the way.
 
No it's not.

Ok. So what is the basis for your belief that the conviction will be overturned on appeal?
Because they guy was a threat.

Ok, we covered the reasons for an appeal in the previous answer. So the question now is was the Defense allowed to present that argument? Yes. That is obvious. They based the entire defense on that argument. They had an expert on the use of force who sounded stupid presenting the argument. They had Van Dyke testify and present the argument. So the facts were presented, and rejected.

This is the problem. When you use force, you are supposed to use it as needed, in other words, let’s use shooting someone as an example.

The legal principle is Shoot to Stop. It is recognized and accepted by pretty much everyone. Now, what does it mean to Shoot to Stop. You shoot because you believe the guy is a threat. Ok. Fine. But what Van Dyke did was not shoot to stop. She shot, and continued shooting. Long past where he could justify his actions as a reasonable use of Force to stop a threat.

This is where the old training came in very handy. You see, in the old days we were taught to shoot, shoot, assess. In other words, fire two rounds, and then see if you needed to shoot again. If no more shots are needed to stop the threat, then stop shooting.

Van Dyke shot five times and Laquan went down. The threat ended. Honestly, if Van Dyke had stopped shooting then he would have been able to justify it as a necessary action. He had shot to stop the threat. But Van Dyke did not stop shooting. The threat was stopped, the shooting was not. More than two thirds of the shots were after Laquan was on the ground, and unresponsive. Possibly already dead. Definitely already wounded, and possibly mortally wounded absent serious medical attention immediately. Van Dyke would have “gotten away with it”.

But the shooting when Laquan was on the ground, the eleven slow shots to the already seriously, possibly mortally, possibly dead young man on the ground went well beyond justified, beyond even excessive, into gratuitous carnage. Now, with the gratuitous additional shots, the argument that it was justified, and he shot to stop the threat goes up in smoke.

But beyond that, let’s look at it from a Tactical standpoint. Van Dyke emptied his pistol into a single threat, a vast majority of the rounds fired after the threat had stopped. What if there had been two or three potential hostile individuals? Van Dyke would run out of ammunition before he got to number three. That was another reason for the Shoot Shoot Assess technique. It allowed you to husband your ammunition to allow for additional threats that needed to be stopped.

So Van Dyke was not only a bad guy in murdering Laquan, a fact established by the Jury, but a bad cop for emptying his weapon when it was not needed and leaving himself, and fellow officers open to additional attacks that he would be unable to respond to because of his poor fire discipline.

Now, Van Dyke is looking at years in Prison, perhaps as few as six, and perhaps as many as thirty. His family is going to be left with the stigma, and the unpleasant action of visiting him in Prison, unless the wife is wise enough to Divorce him and move on with her life, and with a name change to give the kids a better chance at a future than the child of a convicted murderer.

Now, why do you think Van Dyke will have the conviction overturned on appeal again? There is one very narrow possibility. I’ll give you time to try and think of it. It is unlikely to work, but it is an actual possibility that leaves one small open window for a successful appeal and a retrial of the case.
 
Because the guy was a threat.

Nope. That was covered in replies 61 and 62 above. I told you there was one narrow. Try again.
Replies 61 and 62 prove nothing. Try using them in court.

Sigh. I linked to a legal advice website.

Here is another link. The Basis for a Criminal Appeal - FindLaw

So show me something that says you are right. A case must have been ruled on before based on the principle. “I don’t like it.”

I’ll quote a bit about it for you below.

Assuming that there was more than merely harmless error, there are four basic grounds for appeal:

  1. The lower court made a serious error of law (plain error);
  2. The weight of the evidence does not support the verdict;
  3. The lower court abused its discretion in making an errant ruling;
  4. The claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

So post your link to proof or call me a troll for daring to post truth with support.
 
Sigh, Uhmm, uh, sheesh, sigh, the internet links prove nothing. Perhaps one day you can pop your head out and realize that.
 
Sigh, Uhmm, uh, sheesh, sigh, the internet links prove nothing. Perhaps one day you can pop your head out and realize that.

OK. So you have no evidence that it wasn’t fair has ever been used successfully as a reason for an appeal. Fine. Now, who isn’t living in the real world?

If you ask I’ll tell you the one thin possibility that I saw in the news reports. There are possibly more, but one slim one I saw. Oh, it wasn’t that “he was justified”. That argument was destroyed by the Jury who rejected the defense. And would not be considered by the Appeals Court according to EVERY thing I have ever read. (Reading is a good way to learn things instead of just obstinate beliefs unsupported by evidence).
 
Sigh, Uhmm, uh, sheesh, sigh, the internet links prove nothing. Perhaps one day you can pop your head out and realize that.

OK. So you have no evidence that it wasn’t fair has ever been used successfully as a reason for an appeal. Fine. Now, who isn’t living in the real world?

If you ask I’ll tell you the one thin possibility that I saw in the news reports. There are possibly more, but one slim one I saw. Oh, it wasn’t that “he was justified”. That argument was destroyed by the Jury who rejected the defense. And would not be considered by the Appeals Court according to EVERY thing I have ever read. (Reading is a good way to learn things instead of just obstinate beliefs unsupported by evidence).
I have never claimed to have any evidence. I wasn't there to see it. You are obviously obsessed with this case so let's hope he appeals and wins and gives you a stroke. Take care libby.
 
Jury convicts Chicago police officer of murder in 2014

Van Dyke is the first Chicago police officer to face a murder charge for an on-duty incident in decades. His conviction could quell any possible unrest of the kind that has occurred in other cities in recent years when white officers have been cleared of charges in the shooting deaths of black men.

"This is historic for Chicago and police misconduct cases around the country. The jury did what they could with the evidence," said Reverend Janette Wilson of Rainbow PUSH Coalition, a Chicago-based civil rights organization.

Jury convicts Chicago police officer of murder in 2014 shooting of black teen
---------------------------------------------------------

LOL, finally.

Well, one out a thousand ain't bad :rolleyes:
 
Sigh, Uhmm, uh, sheesh, sigh, the internet links prove nothing. Perhaps one day you can pop your head out and realize that.

OK. So you have no evidence that it wasn’t fair has ever been used successfully as a reason for an appeal. Fine. Now, who isn’t living in the real world?

If you ask I’ll tell you the one thin possibility that I saw in the news reports. There are possibly more, but one slim one I saw. Oh, it wasn’t that “he was justified”. That argument was destroyed by the Jury who rejected the defense. And would not be considered by the Appeals Court according to EVERY thing I have ever read. (Reading is a good way to learn things instead of just obstinate beliefs unsupported by evidence).
I have never claimed to have any evidence. I wasn't there to see it. You are obviously obsessed with this case so let's hope he appeals and wins and gives you a stroke. Take care libby.

But without any evidence, by your own admission, you are certain Laquan was a threat. Besides his being Black, what made you think he was a threat?
 
Sigh, Uhmm, uh, sheesh, sigh, the internet links prove nothing. Perhaps one day you can pop your head out and realize that.

OK. So you have no evidence that it wasn’t fair has ever been used successfully as a reason for an appeal. Fine. Now, who isn’t living in the real world?

If you ask I’ll tell you the one thin possibility that I saw in the news reports. There are possibly more, but one slim one I saw. Oh, it wasn’t that “he was justified”. That argument was destroyed by the Jury who rejected the defense. And would not be considered by the Appeals Court according to EVERY thing I have ever read. (Reading is a good way to learn things instead of just obstinate beliefs unsupported by evidence).
I have never claimed to have any evidence. I wasn't there to see it. You are obviously obsessed with this case so let's hope he appeals and wins and gives you a stroke. Take care libby.

But without any evidence, by your own admission, you are certain Laquan was a threat. Besides his being Black, what made you think he was a threat?
Having a knife, refusing to put it down refusing to stop. Any imbecile should realize he was a threat. If not stopped and he stabbed someone else, then your kind would still want the cop blamed for that.
 
Sigh, Uhmm, uh, sheesh, sigh, the internet links prove nothing. Perhaps one day you can pop your head out and realize that.

OK. So you have no evidence that it wasn’t fair has ever been used successfully as a reason for an appeal. Fine. Now, who isn’t living in the real world?

If you ask I’ll tell you the one thin possibility that I saw in the news reports. There are possibly more, but one slim one I saw. Oh, it wasn’t that “he was justified”. That argument was destroyed by the Jury who rejected the defense. And would not be considered by the Appeals Court according to EVERY thing I have ever read. (Reading is a good way to learn things instead of just obstinate beliefs unsupported by evidence).
I have never claimed to have any evidence. I wasn't there to see it. You are obviously obsessed with this case so let's hope he appeals and wins and gives you a stroke. Take care libby.

But without any evidence, by your own admission, you are certain Laquan was a threat. Besides his being Black, what made you think he was a threat?
Having a knife, refusing to put it down refusing to stop. Any imbecile should realize he was a threat. If not stopped and he stabbed someone else, then your kind would still want the cop blamed for that.

But the other cops said he wasn’t a threat. So were they wrong?
 
Sigh, Uhmm, uh, sheesh, sigh, the internet links prove nothing. Perhaps one day you can pop your head out and realize that.

OK. So you have no evidence that it wasn’t fair has ever been used successfully as a reason for an appeal. Fine. Now, who isn’t living in the real world?

If you ask I’ll tell you the one thin possibility that I saw in the news reports. There are possibly more, but one slim one I saw. Oh, it wasn’t that “he was justified”. That argument was destroyed by the Jury who rejected the defense. And would not be considered by the Appeals Court according to EVERY thing I have ever read. (Reading is a good way to learn things instead of just obstinate beliefs unsupported by evidence).
I have never claimed to have any evidence. I wasn't there to see it. You are obviously obsessed with this case so let's hope he appeals and wins and gives you a stroke. Take care libby.

But without any evidence, by your own admission, you are certain Laquan was a threat. Besides his being Black, what made you think he was a threat?
Having a knife, refusing to put it down refusing to stop. Any imbecile should realize he was a threat. If not stopped and he stabbed someone else, then your kind would still want the cop blamed for that.
Too bad for you a predominantly white jury that consisted of your intellectual superiors thought you were an idiot and found him guilty of a crime.
 
Laquan McDonald as a heroin addict deserved killing on general principle. Too bad a good man, the officer, had to be sacrificed on the please don't riot altar. Now blacks will have to have a celebration riot.
I am looking forward to the day you run into your great officer that shoots you!
 

Forum List

Back
Top