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: 15357
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 38.
#3. To: Bridge at Remagen (#0)
You can argue that the first shot was justified though many will still argue that the perp was escaping, not menacing directly. You can even argue the second shot might be justified. It's the last 14 shots when the perp is already on the ground and the knife is not in his hand that will convict this cop. And they won't have to look far to find jurors to convict on the last 14 shots.
The high-on-PCP-knife-wielding perp posed a threat to the police officers and everyone in the area. If he wasn't stopped and then stabbed some citizen, you'd be demanding that heads roll. The use of force was justified. "It's the last 14 shots when the perp is already on the ground and the knife is not in his hand that will convict this cop." Maybe. Someone on this forum said that, once the decision to use deadly force has been made, the number of shots fired is irrelevant. It looks as though you've decided that two shots are the max for a knife-wielding perp high on PCP. Really? If the perp was killed with t two shots instead of 16 shots, you'd feel better? (On the video, the cop w walked up and kicked the knife away. If it was not in his hand it was right n next to it.)
You can say that until the jury convicts this cop. Whatever floats your boat. But he will be convicted and there will be very few who will disagree with that verdict. To you, there seems to be no such thing as excessive force. Ever. That is an extreme position held by a very tiny minority.
I am aware of the concept of excessive force. But in this case the cop used deadly force. And you've already agreed it was justified. Now you've invented a new standard -- excessive deadly force. That makes sense to you?
I said the first shot could be argued in court as justified, perhaps even the second shot (since it appears the shootee might have still been on his feet until the second shot). That is not the same as saying all 16 shots are justified. Since this case was so suppressed from the public and media until very recently, we do not have enough facts yet from just the video and the autopsy diagram. Given your novel doctrine that if-one-bullet-is-justified-then-16-bullets-is-automatically-justified, would you agree that if one bullet is justified, then 10,000 bullets are equally justified? Of course not. You're making a silly and legally futile argument and I think you know it. In this case, the jury will conclude that the intent of the last 14 bullets was to execute the shootee, not apprehend him or protect the cop or the public. You just don't like that so you make perverse and repulsive arguments so you don't have to admit this was murder and excessive force. Unless the shootee was wearing a FitBit-type smartwatch, we are unlikely to determine which shot(s) were the fatal ones but it would be most common with so many shot that death occurred as a result of blood loss than of a hit to vital organs. The autopsy will reveal a lot more. PCP or not, this cop was a pretty lousy shot (or a murderer) to need 16 shots at that range. Also, I'm not convinced that these were safely fired shots as it appears to me that there may have been bystanders in the line of fire. So again, we get back to training and proper firearms use and a sensibility of restraint in deadly force. A private citizen is far more entitled to a shoot-until-your-gun-is-empty policy than any cop is. A cop's duty is to use minimal force to apprehend a suspect and deliver them alive for trial.
There was no audio. Van Dyke could have fired 8 times before McDonald hit the ground. I don't know. Maybe 6. Maybe 10. Maybe once. "Given your novel doctrine that if-one-bullet-is-justified-then-16-bullets-is-auto automatically automatically-justified, would you agree that if one bullet is justified, then 10,000 bullets are equally justified?" We use a 500-pound bomb to kill one terrorist, don't we? Are you saying that's not justified because it's (to use your new term) "excessive deadly force"? "PCP or not, this cop was a pretty lousy shot (or a murderer) to need 16 shots at that range." Darren Wilson fired a total of twelve bullets at Michael Brown. Only half found their target and only one (the last) was fatal. But you say Van Dyke should only have been allowed one shot. Maybe two. Because you know better.
That is not civilian policing. Don't confuse (yourself between) the two. Irrelevant and ridiculous. You're just tossing stuff at the wall, hoping to make something stick. I have to wonder how that strategy has worked for you in real-life applications, given that it only makes you more unpopular and unconvincing in online discussions. You have a certain history with this sort of thing. In short: all 16 bullets hit the shootee. You can find details on the body and descriptions of all these wounds at the full autopsy report. Invisible Institute: Official autopsy of Laquan McDonald (linked to SquareSpace.com where the PDF is stored) It's striking how few center-mass and head shots were fired. After the second shot, the body was pretty flat on the ground and the cop was not very far away from him. Remarkably bad marksmanship for a cop. I think the average member of LF could do as well (I think I could and I'm no gun whiz) and some LF members like pete or (insert list of LF gun guys like GI or red or Bob or Don or Gary et cetera) could do much better than this cop did in delivering stopping shots and knowing when to stop shooting. Really, a lousy shooting overall. And a murderous one. [pinging nolan in case he wants the autopsy material]
16 for 16. And a bad hit is better than a well-placed miss. "It's striking how few center-mass and head shots were fired." But you would only allow two shots.
There are no replies to Comment # 38. End Trace Mode for Comment # 38.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: TooConservative (#3)
(Edited)
"You can argue that the first shot was justified ... You can ev even argue the second shot might be justified."
#13. To: misterwhite (#5)
Maybe. Someone on this forum said that, once the decision to use deadly force has been made, the number of shots fired is irrelevant.
#16. To: TooConservative (#13)
"To you, there seems to be no such thing as excessive force."
#18. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland, nolu chan, sneakypete, Don (#16)
But in this case the cop used deadly force. And you've already agreed it was justified.
#24. To: TooConservative (#18)
"since it appears the shootee might have still been on his feet until the second shot)."
#29. To: misterwhite, sneakypete, nolu chan (#24)
We use a 500-pound bomb to kill one terrorist, don't we?
Darren Wilson fired a total of twelve bullets at Michael Brown. Only half found their target and only one (the last) was fatal. But you say Van Dyke should only have been allowed one shot. Maybe two. Because you know better.
#38. To: TooConservative (#29)
"Really, a lousy shooting overall."
Replies to Comment # 38.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]