McDonald Shooting: Justifiable ? Or Not ?

[Stephanie]

They should be asking for Emmanuel resignation. He let that city be taken over by protestors while they sat back and watched from the sidelines

 

[Claudette]

All that matters is the cop is white and the kid is black

Yup and the cop has already been arrested for murder.

His superiors are covering their asses and could care less about what happens to him. God forbid they have a race riot in Chicago. Emanuel will shit his pants. Better to sacrifice the cop.

How many blacks kill blacks in Chicago every week?? Don't hear any of that on the news. All you hear now is a white cop killed a black.

The Police are supposed to be protecting the US citizens (whether they be black, white or whatever) and are paid for it by your tax dollars. They swore to protect.

The blacks that killed other blacks that you speak of are just your run of the mill criminals. Why should your run of the mill crime be top news? It happens all the time and everywhere, however, police killing an innocent citizen is not something that should ever happen.

Wow, do you really need this spelled out to you?

Oh so the cop isn't a run of the mill criminal??

Blacks kill blacks each and every day in America and the only time you hear about a black death is if a white kills a black.

If the cop had been black you wouldn't hear word one about the killing.

Do YOU really need it speed out for you??

No, the cop is not a run of the mill criminal. He's worse. He not only killed another human being, but he also broke his 'vow to protect' as a Police officer.

Cops usually don't kill innocent citizens - even if they're uncooperative. They swear to protect citizens, so whenever something like this DOES happen, it is huge news and it's actually worse than if your run of the mill criminal kills someone.

I'm not focusing on the fact that the cop was white and the victim is black, that is something you racists focus on.

Oh so pointing out the obvious makes me a racist??

Good to know.

 

[bucs90]

Not. The first shots maybe legally justified. Morally...a police supervisor would say a taser could easily have been tried (although the Taser Corporation strongly discourages using a taser vs a knife because he could fall on the knife and die).

But the shots after he was downed? Not justified. Cop threw himself under this bus. Sucks for all the other Chicago cops whose reputation he just wrecked.

 

[Claudette]

Not. The first shots maybe legally justified. Morally...a police supervisor would say a taser could easily have been tried (although the Taser Corporation strongly discourages using a taser vs a knife because he could fall on the knife and die).

But the shots after he was downed? Not justified. Cop threw himself under this bus. Sucks for all the other Chicago cops whose reputation he just wrecked.

Oh I agree but no one would have said a word if the cop had been black.

Seems the only deaths they want to hear about are white on black.

 

[Iceweasel]

All that matters is the cop is white and the kid is black

Yup and the cop has already been arrested for murder.

His superiors are covering their asses and could care less about what happens to him. God forbid they have a race riot in Chicago. Emanuel will shit his pants. Better to sacrifice the cop.

How many blacks kill blacks in Chicago every week?? Don't hear any of that on the news. All you hear now is a white cop killed a black.

The Police are supposed to be protecting the US citizens (whether they be black, white or whatever) and are paid for it by your tax dollars. They swore to protect.

The blacks that killed other blacks that you speak of are just your run of the mill criminals. Why should your run of the mill crime be top news? It happens all the time and everywhere, however, police killing an innocent citizen is not something that should ever happen.

Wow, do you really need this spelled out to you?

Police have no obligation to put themselves in harm's way to protect you, sorry. I know it's a slogan on some cop cars but it isn't the law.

It was a bad shooting, a taser would have been more appropriate. But what if the cop was black, would it be different? Why is racism always the default assumption with so many? How do you know it would be different if the kid was white or Asian?

 

[Iceweasel]

Not. The first shots maybe legally justified. Morally...a police supervisor would say a taser could easily have been tried (although the Taser Corporation strongly discourages using a taser vs a knife because he could fall on the knife and die).

But the shots after he was downed? Not justified. Cop threw himself under this bus. Sucks for all the other Chicago cops whose reputation he just wrecked.

Oh I agree but no one would have said a word if the cop had been black.

Seems the only deaths they want to hear about are white on black.

Exactly, just as I was typing. It's really about fanning the flames of racism and getting the most mileage possible from every event involving a white cop and a black.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, the law requires the least necessary form of force to have a suspect comply. Shooting 16 times into a suspect walking away clearly violates that.

Two, the judge ordered the release of the video.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Everyone seems to be saying that the shooting by Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke of Laquan McDonald was unjustified.
I'm not so sure about that. Reviewing the video, it looks like the the kid WAS a threat to the cop. Through the whole video, the kid has his left hand in his pocket. No one can know if he has a gun in his left hand, inside that pocket. Suddenly, he spun around and took his hand out of the pocket. That's the way shooters do it (to conceal the gun behind their body just as they shoot)

What if the kid had a gun in that left hand and fired it ? (which the cop couldn't see). We'd now have a dead cop. Let's remember the cop has only a second to think, the kid engaged in a very threatening movement, when he suddenly turned around, and his hand was still in his pocket at the time of the turnaround.

The number of shots fired, does seem to be excessive, but let's not forget the stakes involved here for the cop, as we safely watch the video, that if anything goes wrong with this. Those stakes are his life.

I would be interested to see videos of other encounters similar to this, where a suspect with hand in pocket suddenly turns about and fires a gun, killing a cop. Then everyone says the cop should have shot him.

Haven't seen the video. But will comment on media's painting a picture about it prior to their seeing it was inappropriate and prejudicial. That the city paid out a $5 mil settlement can also explain their charging the officer with murder. Be hard to explain how they agreed paying out so much was the right thing to do if they didn't also agree with charging the officer.

As to number of shots fired, that's just how every officer is trained. I received that same training when working security - empty your weapon. Logic being, that under combat stress you're not shooting accurately so the more shots you fire, the greater the chance you'll actually hit the target. If you feel justified to fire at all, you're not firing to wound, you're firing to kill.

 

[Claudette]

Everyone seems to be saying that the shooting by Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke of Laquan McDonald was unjustified.
I'm not so sure about that. Reviewing the video, it looks like the the kid WAS a threat to the cop. Through the whole video, the kid has his left hand in his pocket. No one can know if he has a gun in his left hand, inside that pocket. Suddenly, he spun around and took his hand out of the pocket. That's the way shooters do it (to conceal the gun behind their body just as they shoot)

What if the kid had a gun in that left hand and fired it ? (which the cop couldn't see). We'd now have a dead cop. Let's remember the cop has only a second to think, the kid engaged in a very threatening movement, when he suddenly turned around, and his hand was still in his pocket at the time of the turnaround.

The number of shots fired, does seem to be excessive, but let's not forget the stakes involved here for the cop, as we safely watch the video, that if anything goes wrong with this. Those stakes are his life.

I would be interested to see videos of other encounters similar to this, where a suspect with hand in pocket suddenly turns about and fires a gun, killing a cop. Then everyone says the cop should have shot him.

Haven't seen the video. But will comment on media's painting a picture about it prior to their seeing it was inappropriate and prejudicial. That the city paid out a $5 mil settlement can also explain their charging the officer with murder. Be hard to explain how they agreed paying out so much was the right thing to do if they didn't also agree with charging the officer.

As to number of shots fired, that's just how every officer is trained. I received that same training when working security - empty your weapon. Logic being, that under combat stress you're not shooting accurately so the more shots you fire, the greater the chance you'll actually hit the target. If you feel justified to fire at all, you're not firing to wound, you're firing to kill.

I agree. The military is trained that way as are most LEO's. Problem is no one knows this and see his actions as over the top.

 

[protectionist]

I agree. The military is trained that way as are most LEO's. Problem is no one knows this and see his actions as over the top.

I agree with you and Delta4Embassy. The whole thing looks like another throw the cop under the bus to avoid rioting, and the settelment is right in line with that. What I find weird is that everyone's talking about the number of bullets fired. I don't think you can justify a 1st degree murder charge just for shooting a lot of bullets at an already dead body. And even after the first few shots, can you be absolutely sure (from 50 feet away) that the guy is dead, and doesn't have a gun ?

The murder charge must be coming from the decision to shoot at all, and from the video it looks like the cop has a good case for self-defense. The kid had all the appearance of a suspect who might be armed and was about to shoot. Is a cop supposed to die in order to find out ? I'm sure that's not the training cops receive.

I'd say any trial on this should be moved far away from Chicago, to a neutral location, where there is little likelihood for rioting, and the jury would not have that worry going into their decision-making.

 

[bucs90]

Everyone seems to be saying that the shooting by Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke of Laquan McDonald was unjustified.
I'm not so sure about that. Reviewing the video, it looks like the the kid WAS a threat to the cop. Through the whole video, the kid has his left hand in his pocket. No one can know if he has a gun in his left hand, inside that pocket. Suddenly, he spun around and took his hand out of the pocket. That's the way shooters do it (to conceal the gun behind their body just as they shoot)

What if the kid had a gun in that left hand and fired it ? (which the cop couldn't see). We'd now have a dead cop. Let's remember the cop has only a second to think, the kid engaged in a very threatening movement, when he suddenly turned around, and his hand was still in his pocket at the time of the turnaround.

The number of shots fired, does seem to be excessive, but let's not forget the stakes involved here for the cop, as we safely watch the video, that if anything goes wrong with this. Those stakes are his life.

I would be interested to see videos of other encounters similar to this, where a suspect with hand in pocket suddenly turns about and fires a gun, killing a cop. Then everyone says the cop should have shot him.

Haven't seen the video. But will comment on media's painting a picture about it prior to their seeing it was inappropriate and prejudicial. That the city paid out a $5 mil settlement can also explain their charging the officer with murder. Be hard to explain how they agreed paying out so much was the right thing to do if they didn't also agree with charging the officer.

As to number of shots fired, that's just how every officer is trained. I received that same training when working security - empty your weapon. Logic being, that under combat stress you're not shooting accurately so the more shots you fire, the greater the chance you'll actually hit the target. If you feel justified to fire at all, you're not firing to wound, you're firing to kill.

NO.....police are NOT trained to "empty your weapon" as you say it. Typically they train shooting clusters of anywhere from 1-3 shots then reasses the threat.

Any firearms instructor who teaches to just "empty your weapon" is a moron. You fire to stop the threat. If the threat is 1 foot away...you may have to fire all you got. Who knows. BUT good tactics would be fire 1-3 shots...MOVE and reasses as you move to a new position....fire again if needed....MOVE again. You don't just stand there in the open and "empty your weapon". Good way to get shot doing that because you are a still target.

 

[protectionist]

NO.....police are NOT trained to "empty your weapon" as you say it. Typically they train shooting clusters of anywhere from 1-3 shots then reasses the threat.

Any firearms instructor who teaches to just "empty your weapon" is a moron.

Have you had firearms training for police or licensed security ?

I can tell you your 1-3 shot is not right. What if Van Dyke had fired only one shot (as you suggest), and McDonald, only injured, pulled out a gun and fired at him, killing him ? What would we all be saying then ?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I agree. The military is trained that way as are most LEO's. Problem is no one knows this and see his actions as over the top.

I agree with you and Delta4Embassy. The whole thing looks like another throw the cop under the bus to avoid rioting, and the settelment is right in line with that. What I find weird is that everyone's talking about the number of bullets fired. I don't think you can justify a 1st degree murder charge just for shooting a lot of bullets at an already dead body.

The murder charge must be coming from the decision to shoot at all, and from the video it looks like the cop has a good case for self-defense. The kid had all the appearance of a suspect who might be armed and was about to shoot. Is a cop supposed to die in order to find out ? I'm sure that's not the training cops receive.

I'd say any trial on this should be moved far away from Chicago, to a neutral location, where there is little likelihood for rioting, and the jury would not have that worry going into their decision-making.

The 1st degree murder charge could be tactical to make an aquittal more likely. To prove 1st degree murder, you usually have to show that the accused's intent was always to kill someone. An officer's intent, but in rare instances involving other things like personal relationships, is never to kill a suspect. So disproving 1st degree murder should be fairly simple. 2nd or manslaughter could be more easily proven thus their decision to charge him with 1st. Both to placate the public, but also make aquittal easier.

Presumedly, they'll say that firing so many shots revealed the officer's intent was to kill the suspect. Yet, that's always the intent as his defense will surely mention. You're not trained to fire at the legs or arms, but center-mass where vital organs are. One shot or sixteen doesn't mean anything. You mean to kill with shot number one. So there's always the intent to kill who you're firing on. If he fired on the susbect when on the ground wounded that's irrelevant too. He was 'reverted to how he was trained' and emptying his weapon at a threat. That doesn't end until no more bullets come out of your weapon.

 

[Claudette]

I agree. The military is trained that way as are most LEO's. Problem is no one knows this and see his actions as over the top.

I agree with you and Delta4Embassy. The whole thing looks like another throw the cop under the bus to avoid rioting, and the settelment is right in line with that. What I find weird is that everyone's talking about the number of bullets fired. I don't think you can justify a 1st degree murder charge just for shooting a lot of bullets at an already dead body. And even after the first few shots, can you be absolutely sure (from 50 feet away) that the guy is dead, and doesn't have a gun ?

The murder charge must be coming from the decision to shoot at all, and from the video it looks like the cop has a good case for self-defense. The kid had all the appearance of a suspect who might be armed and was about to shoot. Is a cop supposed to die in order to find out ? I'm sure that's not the training cops receive.

I'd say any trial on this should be moved far away from Chicago, to a neutral location, where there is little likelihood for rioting, and the jury would not have that worry going into their decision-making.

Yup and the fact that the family took that five million says a lot. Guess the money was more important than the death of that kid.

 

[protectionist]

They should be asking for Emmanuel resignation. He let that city be taken over by protestors while they sat back and watched from the sidelines

And that seems to be the case now as well. Looks like Chicago has another DeBlasio, governing with a "don't let any riots erupt" policy, no matter what the cost.

 

[protectionist]

Yup and the fact that the family took that five million says a lot. Guess the money was more important than the death of that kid.

This seems to be the new road to riches in America. Kid gets shot by cop. Threaten lawsuit. Get settlement.

 

[Iceweasel]

NO.....police are NOT trained to "empty your weapon" as you say it. Typically they train shooting clusters of anywhere from 1-3 shots then reasses the threat.

Any firearms instructor who teaches to just "empty your weapon" is a moron.

Have you had firearms training for police or licensed security ?

I can tell you your 1-3 shot is not right. What if Van Dyke had fired only one shot (as you suggest), and McDonald, only injured, pulled out a gun and fired at him, killing him ? What would we all be saying then ?

What kind of idiot would empty their weapon if they didn't have to? How do you know another threat won't suddenly appear? I can guarantee you there would be many more lawsuits if people were that well ventilated.

 

[bucs90]

NO.....police are NOT trained to "empty your weapon" as you say it. Typically they train shooting clusters of anywhere from 1-3 shots then reasses the threat.

Any firearms instructor who teaches to just "empty your weapon" is a moron.

Have you had firearms training for police or licensed security ?

I can tell you your 1-3 shot is not right. What if Van Dyke had fired only one shot (as you suggest), and McDonald, only injured, pulled out a gun and fired at him, killing him ? What would we all be saying then ?

Yes I have was with Atlanta PD for 8 years. There is no set number of shots. You shoot to stop the threat. If 1 shot does it fine. But you don't just "empty your weapon".

Glocks 22 .40 Cal can fire 16 shots. Very common police weapon. Go to any academy range. Course of fire will instruct students to fire 1 shot...2 shots...3 shots. I've seen a few cirriculums that have a 4 shot cluster.

NEVER have I seen any course of fire say "draw and fire all 16 rounds". That's just stupid. And it's bad training. If a highway trooper does that...and backup is 30 miles away....if just blew 16 of his 45 rounds and may have missed. Now reload. If he's trained to "spray and pray" his ammo....in a gun fight...he will burn through his 45 rounds very fast.

I don't know how military teaches.

But any police instructor who teaches to just "empty your weapon" without a pause to reasses should quit teaching.

 

[bucs90]

NO.....police are NOT trained to "empty your weapon" as you say it. Typically they train shooting clusters of anywhere from 1-3 shots then reasses the threat.

Any firearms instructor who teaches to just "empty your weapon" is a moron.

Have you had firearms training for police or licensed security ?

I can tell you your 1-3 shot is not right. What if Van Dyke had fired only one shot (as you suggest), and McDonald, only injured, pulled out a gun and fired at him, killing him ? What would we all be saying then ?

What kind of idiot would empty their weapon if they didn't have to? How do you know another threat won't suddenly appear? I can guarantee you there would be many more lawsuits if people were that well ventilated.

That's correct. Police don't train to just empty the whole weapon.

They train shooting clusters of anywhere from 1 to 3 shots...reasses... (ideally move to a new cover location)...and shoot again if necessary. That "reasses" may be nearly immediate....like a guy still charging with a knife and 3 shots failed...yeah...keep shooting!

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have all seen the vid by now. Protectionist's comments are ludicrous.

My two points above have completely stood the scrutiny.

Claudette would have taken the money in a heart beat, so understand her comments in the context of her personality.

Bucs90 is absolutely correct in his cluster fire comment, 1 to 3 shots and move and reassess.