[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: That Laquan McDonald Shooting In Chicago: A Counter-Take
Source: VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/posts/chicago-shooting-a-counter-take
Published: Nov 27, 2015
Author: John Derbyshire
Post Date: 2015-11-27 21:38:05 by Bridge at Remagen
Keywords: None
Views: 15351
Comments: 70

Here (with a hat tip to Countenance Blog) is an interesting counter-take on the 2014 Chicago shooting of Laquan McDonald.

I expect every police officer in the country has been taught a defensive doctrine called the Tueller Drill. The Tueller Drill was developed by Salt Lake City Police Officer Dennis Tueller, who among other things was a firearms instructor for his department.

Dennis trained uniformed police officers who were armed with pistols and who regularly encountered violent suspects armed with impact weapons, particularly knives.

{snip}

That begged the question, then, of what distance became the threshold at which an impact-weapon armed attacker did constitute an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm such that the officer would be justified in using deadly force. Was that distance 5 feet? 10 feet? 15 feet?

{snip}

After running a great many empirical tests, Dennis found that the distance that an impact-weapon armed attacker could cross from a standing start in 1.5 seconds was not just 5 feet, or 10 feet, or 15 feet. Rather, such an aggressor could consistently cross a distance of 21 feet, a full 7 yards, in the 1.5 seconds it would take the typical officer to draw his holster and engage that aggressor with aimed fire.

Laquan McDonald Video Not Dispositive of Police Criminal Misconduct

Posted by Andrew Branca, LegalInsurrection, November 25, 2015

Here’s a police training video displaying two officers testing this in the gym.

Branca also has a video he describes as

And in case that exercise wasn’t sufficiently convincing on how effective a knife can be against even a prepared and well-armed police officer, here’s a video of an actual confrontation between an aggressive and motivated knife-wielding attacker and several armed police officers, some of whom were armed with long guns. (CAUTION: Not all of these officers survive the encounter, and there’s plenty of blood, so if you’re sensitive to such things you may wish to defer viewing.)

You can watch it here.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 37.

#1. To: Bridge at Remagen (#0)

That begged the question, then, of what distance became the threshold at which an impact-weapon armed attacker did constitute an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm such that the officer would be justified in using deadly force. Was that distance 5 feet? 10 feet? 15 feet?

{snip}

After running a great many empirical tests, Dennis found that the distance that an impact-weapon armed attacker could cross from a standing start in 1.5 seconds was not just 5 feet, or 10 feet, or 15 feet. Rather, such an aggressor could consistently cross a distance of 21 feet, a full 7 yards, in the 1.5 seconds it would take the typical officer to draw his holster and engage that aggressor with aimed fire.

Which begs the question,"WTF was the cop doing waiting around to be charged before he draws his gun?

If you THINK you MIGHT need a gun,you need to have your hand on it RIGHT NOW, Maybe not pointing it as your potential attacker,but in your hand and ready to use.

Which is one reason I started carrying short-barreled revolvers when I moved to a big city. I could have my hand on my gun inside my coat pocket if I were suspicious of anyone,and they would never be the wiser unless I shot them through the pocket.

This has the additional advantage of the cops not being able to charge you with pointing a gun (assault/intimidation) at anyone because the guy can't describe what kind of gun you have if you don't take it out and wave it at them.

You can't shoot through a coat pocket with a autoloader without the gun jamming.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-27   22:12:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: sneakypete, Bridge at Remagen, GrandIsland (#1)

I noticed the cop only stopped shooting to reload. Other cops made him stop shooting before opening fire with a fresh magazine again. Of course, the cop might realize that his best defense in any wrongful death suit would be to insist that he perceived the shootee as an active threat so a very clever cop might know that his best bet with a jury is to fire and keep firing and behave as though the shootee poses a serious ongoing threat to the cop or bystanders. This kind of thinking probably does lead to many of these police shootings where they fire once or twice and the perp is helpless on the ground and they just keep shooting. It also eliminates many wrongful death suits and deprives a jury of a sympathetic live shooting victim to tell them tearful tales of how they got shot up by a cop. There is some incentive to make any shooting an automatic fatality, no matter what. This can also apply in many states to shootings by private individuals.

I suspect that my suspicions in this shooting are not exactly Breaking News, that many people think about these issues.

I assume he was using a Glock 9mm, .40, or 10mm with a 15-round clip and had a round in the chamber too. That would be the most common gun choice for American PDs. I would like to know what gun and mag he was using. Just curious.

I presume a Glock by default because it is so popular and has some key contracts to supply federal agencies and the military but other brands like Sig Sauer and even H&K are popular with PDs. And they have factory-made 15rd mags too, just as Glock does.


[a little later...]

I found these links detailing the current Chicago PD officially approved handguns interesting. A few brands there I didn't expect.

ChicagoPolice.org: Department Approved Semiautomatic Pistols and Ammunition

ChicagoPolice.org: Department Approved Revolvers and Ammunition

So my question is mostly answered; I thought I would share the results if anyone else was interested. We all know that metro PDs like Chicago or Balitmore or NYC or LA have a plethora of police regulations but relatively few of us have ever encountered these directly, to see the actual current policy positions of a major PD.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   8:45:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: TooConservative (#9) (Edited)

"Of course, the cop might realize that his best defense in any wr wrongful death suit ..."

The parents already received $4.9 million in a wrongful death suit. The cop is being charged with murder.

"would be to insist that he perceived the shootee as an active threat"

He WAS an active threat. That's why the cop f fired in the first place. And you concede he was justified in f firing.

Seems to me your only problem is the number of shots fired -- as t though you know exactly how many it takes to stop someone high on PCP.

Does a anyone know why the cop fired 16 times? Has the cop said why he fired 16 times? D D D Don't you think you know thew answer before you accuse him of murder?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   9:33:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#12)

He WAS an active threat. That's why the cop f fired in the first place. And you concede he was justified in f firing.

I conceded that the first shot might be justified, even perhaps the second shot. They had that many cops on-scene and no one had a shotgun with bean bags or a taser? Really?

The shootee had also not assaulted anyone or killed anyone. He was menacing the police/public with a knife in an effort to escape.

Seems to me your only problem is the number of shots fired -- as t though you know exactly how many it takes to stop someone high on PCP.

After the second shot when the shootee is not moving on the ground and the knife is no longer in his hand, any jury in any state will conclude that the purpose of the remaining 14 shots was to execute the shootee, not render him harmless to the police/public.

You can make all your usual mealy-mouthed excuses for police massacre events but this cop is going to be convicted, probably of second-degree murder.

I would like to see a deep probe of the agencies and outside contractors who provide police training, to uncover where this doctrine of unlimited firepower originates. Not in general, but exactly where did this particular cop get his training and what firearms doctrine he was trained in, and how closely did he adhere to that training and to Chicago PD firearms doctrine.

These kinds of shootings are common enough that I have come to suspect bad training from private police training companies or from state police barracks (who do training in some states for other PDs) or from on-staff armorers and trainers at big-city PDs.

There is some bad police training out there or we would not have so many of these kinds of shootings which all too often seem to be conducted in such a way as to guarantee the shootee will not survive to testify in court or lodge a civil rights complaint or sit before a jury in a wrongful shooting or excessive force civil suit.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   9:55:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: TooConservative (#14)

"any jury in any state will conclude that the purpose of the remaining 14 shots was to execute the shootee"

And the purpose of the first two? Warning shots that hit the perp by accident? I pretty sure that the Chicago Police Department trains to shoot to kill. Hence the term, "deadly force".

As to the jury, I thought they had to wait for the evidence and testimony before they arrive at a verdict. YOU might think McDonald was executed but that's based solely on ... nothing. Prejudice? Bias? Certainly not on any facts.

When McDonald was on the ground, I saw his hands and arms moving. Perhaps Van Dyke did also. Didn't you? Was he going for a gun? Perhaps he kept firing because the threat hadn't ended?

Perhaps Van Dyke only remembers the first shot. After that it was a blur. Or he thought he only fired once or twice then ran out of ammo. Or the magazine jammed. Which is why he tried to reload. Or he doesn't remember firing at all.

Are you going to convict on FIRST DEGREE MURDER if those scenarios existed? Premeditated murder? Intentional execution beyond a reasonable doubt?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   10:24:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#19)

blah-blah-blah...silly arguments...blah-blah-blah...repulsive arguments akin to defending Hitler...blah-blah-blah-blah-blah

Uh-huh.

When McDonald was on the ground, I saw his hands and arms moving.

He was clearly immobilized. Even if already dead, anyone should know that a dying central nervous system commonly twitches the body and limbs and tries to gasp for breath. So a little movement in a downed suspect is not an excuse to bring out 25 machine guns to empty them into the body on the principle of you-can-never-be-too-safe.

Perhaps Van Dyke only remembers the first shot. After that it was a blur. Or he thought he only fired once or twice then ran out of ammo. Or the magazine jammed. Which is why he tried to reload. Or he doesn't remember firing at all.

Police are not entitled to such convenient memories. When you put on the badge, you are held to a higher standard. If you're pleading the cop is incompetent or mentally ill or has PTSD, then make (up) that argument instead of the one you're blathering on about.

Are you going to convict on FIRST DEGREE MURDER if those scenarios existed? Premeditated murder? Intentional execution beyond a reasonable doubt?

I already said I thought a second-degree murder conviction is the likely outcome. Even one of the heavier manslaughter charges, depending on Illinois criminal law. First-degree murder typically requires pre-planning and intent to murder. So if the shooter-cop happened to say on the radio or to another cop in his car that "I am going to just kill that sumbitch right now", that might constitute a first-degree murder charge, given that he was safe in a vehicle and the shootee was not attacking police/public with his knife. Second-degree murder generally has intent to kill but no pre-planning. And manslaughter is just a wrongful death charge covering a gamut of accidents and criminal carelessness.

Given his legal interest, nolu might be more aware of IL laws but maybe it's a little early to get down in the weeds with IL criminal law and the use of deadly force by police in IL.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   10:38:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: TooConservative (#23)

"anyone should know that a dying central nervous system commonly twitches the body and limbs and tries to gasp for breath."

You know he was dying? Doctor?

According to you, he was only shot twice before he hit the ground. But he was dying. You say. While sitting in your armchair at home.

"When you put on the badge, you are held to a higher standard."

That may be, and I would certainly hold them to that higher standard when it comes to the USE of deadly force. And we both agree the USE of deadly force was justified.

I'm simply offering possible defenses to the NUMBER of shots fired in the heat of the moment.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   11:04:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite (#28)

And we both agree the USE of deadly force was justified.

We do not agree. I say it may be justified in court and have said so repeatedly. You keep insisting that I have "agreed" with you that it is justified.

I'm simply offering possible defenses to the NUMBER of shots fired in the heat of the moment.

You go far beyond that, as you have in every bad-shooting case that I can think of.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   11:31:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: TooConservative (#31)

"We do not agree. I say it may be justified in court and have said so repeatedly."

Fine. We agree that a court would find it to be a justified shooting. Better?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   11:55:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#35)

We agree that a court would find it to be a justified shooting. Better?

We don't agree.

A jury may find that first shot justified but still convict him of 1st- or 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter (or whatever the IL equivalents are).

You don't seem to grasp that the first shot could be justified and that the remaining shots could constitute murderous intent. That is the crux of this case, IMO.

You keep trying to insist that the first shot was unquestionably justified when it is not clear that it is. But the other shots are what will likely influence the jury when they convict him. Those show a bad intent, an intent by the shooter-cop that the perp, even once rendered helpless, was not going to be allowed to survive the shooting. The fact that he was reloading to shoot the perp even more is even more damning.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   12:02:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 37.

#40. To: TooConservative (#37)

"A jury may find that first shot justified ..."

... but then convict him of "excessive deadly force". A dangerous precedent, isn't it? Any cop shooting more than once could face first degree murder charges according to your definition.

(A side note: Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times. Four officers were charged with second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. Not guilty.)

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28 12:16:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: TooConservative (#37)

A jury may find that first shot justified but still convict him of 1st- or 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter

Has there ever been an officer involved shooting where a jury made such a decision?

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-28 12:17:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 37.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com