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: 15394
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
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: misterwhite (#17)
Geez, dude, just admit it. I know there is no police shooting, however awful, that you won't defend but I have to wonder how you can look at yourself in the mirror.
You should join the police . Then you can live out your fantasy of Killing black people.
I said "maybe."
Uh-huh. 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. 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. 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.
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.
Had McDonald stopped and dropped the knife, THEN was shot, I wouldn't defend that shooting. Feel better? Is there any scumbag criminal that YOU won't defend?
Did you see the video? Were his arms and hands moving? Yes they were. Shut up.
I saw the murder. I saw you supported it.
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.
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]
No one has yet determined exactly when the knife came out of his hand but the shooter was told to stop shooting when he tried to reload and at least one of the other cops pointed out he no longer had the knife in his hand. It was not a dark street, visibility was pretty good. If the other cops could see the knife was not in his hand, so could the shooter-cop. Plenty. My posting history is clear enough. I've sided with the cops in a lot of controversial shootings, often taking their side very early on as a case becomes prominent. I can't say whether my ratio of siding with the cop or shootee is 50:50 or 60:40 but it would be in that range, I think.
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. You go far beyond that, as you have in every bad-shooting case that I can think of.
16 for 16 is "lousy"?
At the end of the shooting, what did the cop kick away? A cigarette butt?
A few bits stand out from the autopsy info. So toxicology revealed no cocaine or liquor or other opiates. Apparently, they tested him later for PCP or have other evidence of PCP intoxication. I notice in the autopsy diagram and in the autopsy report, the numbering of the bullets does not indicate the order in which they were fired. Strangely, the autopsy report says: DaVita.com > Kidney disease education > Overview > Living With CKD > What's It Like To Live With One Kidney? C'mon, I know you guys used to watch Quincy reruns! Here is the original big-band-bikini-babe Quincy theme to refresh your memory.
Fine. We agree that a court would find it to be a justified shooting. Better?
We don't have full info and no access to the depositions of bystanders and other police at the scene. Not that that will slow you down a bit. You take presumption of innocence too far. But only for police, never anyone else. And you don't like it when someone points it out.
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.
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.
How can they tell the order the bullets were fired? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
... 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.)
Has there ever been an officer involved shooting where a jury made such a decision?
Ah. NOW you want to wait for testimony and evidence.
Wishful thinking.
Just a formality before issuing his predetermined guilty verdict.
From the diagram, I surmised they roughly went from head to toe starting on the front side. I think they may have discovered at least one other bullet hole from the side or behind when they flipped the body. Or so it seemed. The video of the event may make it possible to determine which shots hit first. If I had to bet, I would say the neck shot was first. I also noticed how many shots to the arms which would seem to indicate this shooter had poor weapon control. You probably noticed the fence on the right of the video, the backdrop for all the shots the cop fired at the shootee. I have to wonder what was in the line of fire behind that fence. A shot to the shootee's neck and the graze wound on his head indicate the cop was shooting over his shooting horizon and might well have been shooting at houses/cars/people in the distance. I recently caught a guy shooting a deer rifle over the horizon (and missing!) so it made me more attentive to shooting backdrops.
A group shooting can create reasonable doubt. And there were jurisdictional issues in the Diallo case as I recall it.
In this instance, it isn't all that significant that it was a cop instead of a private citizen except that a cop has a much higher duty to preserve human life, act with minimum force, apprehend instead of executing a suspect. A civilian has a better excuse if they say "I panicked and emptied my magazine on him". It is somewhat ticklish though. If one of the first two bullets fired was determined to be the fatal shot (let's say if this guy had a fatal head wound but fell at an angle where the cop couldn't see the head wound and the gaping hole in his head). In that case, you would only evaluate whether the first shot (or two) was justified under police policy and state law. However, the shooter fired 14 bullets once the perp was on the ground. Since there was a serious neck wound (not declared the fatal injury), a head graze, and a lower-right-back entry wound which apparently didn't hit any vital organ (because Laquan was born without a left kidney apparently), then you do open the question as to whether it is reasonable to assume it was the sheer number of bullets fired that caused enough blood loss to kill him, likely in combination with the rather serious neck injury. Or to believe that the minor injuries occurred first and the most serious ones -- like the neck injury -- came later in the shooting event and not as one of the first two shots when the shootee was still on his feet. The entry points for a few of these wounds are suggestive too. Look at the diagram and the autopsy report for shots in the back. That isn't such a good fact for the shooter's defense lawyer to explain away. You never look good with multiple shots in a dead boy's back. Anyway, those are my thoughts from skimming through the rather long autopsy report I linked to above. You guys might notice things in there that I don't but it has a lot of precise anatomy terms. Not real light reading. Anything on the video that can determine which bullets struck first and whether they were the primary/fatal injury could change the outcome of the trial considerably, either way.
Your hypocrisy is stunning. What a crapweasel remark. You wanted to exonerate him before they finished reading the charges against him. Here's a clue: LF is not a Illinois criminal court in the city of Chicago. The shooter will receive presumption of innocence in such a court. But other venues can express all sorts of opinions on his guilt or innocence pretty freely. Because we do have freedom of speech.
I did notice a few other things in the autopsy. "Manner of death: homicide" sticks out. And yet, no charges were filed. That almost has to have been political. They have no more evidence to charge with now than they did last January. And that shooter got to carry a gun and badge in the interval. I think I read that the autopsy had been revised once already. The autopsy I linked to was made by an assistant medical examiner. It does surprise me that the chief medical examiner of Cook County did not conduct the exam himself in a police shooting. Maybe he was trying to keep his hands clean as Rahm pulled strings to defer any trial until after the election. At the top of report, it noted that "Investigator Daniel Kobel with the City of Chicago Independent Police Review Authority is present for the autopsy." So despite the ruling of homicide and presence of the (supposed) independent police review investigator, it still wasn't enough to charge the shooter until 11 months later? And then they decide to charge 1st degree murder which seems like a stretch unless there is some very damning evidence against this cop indicating he planned to just kill this kid no matter what.
Fine. Let's assume that. That means the perp was already dead when the other 14 shots were fired. You wanna charge Van Dyke with mutilating a corpse, be my guest. But first degree murder, no.
My mother loved watching Quincy. Good show. Yes all those old Hollywood TV series which tried to impress men that beyond prime out of shape, middle aged men of modest income, could seriously date the most beautiful women:) "I will praise You, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And I will glorify Your name forevermore. For great is Your mercy toward me, And You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol." Psalm 86:12-13
Anybody see the knife/gun showdown on the TV show Justified? It referenced an internet video, cant remember what the rule was called.
The coroner only has six choices: 1) Natural 2) Accident 3) Suicide 4) Homicide 5) Undetermined 6) Pending. Homicide simply means that one human being caused the death of another human being. It doesn't necessarily mean murder. "And yet, no charges were filed. That almost has to have been political." It WAS political, but not for the reason you think. There was a runoff election held on April 7, 2015 (which resulted in the re-election of incumbent mayor Rahm Emanuel). Had the charges and the video been made public, people say Emanuel wouldn't have been re-elected.
It's called the 21-foot rule (aka the Tueller Drill).
You wanna charge Van Dyke with mutilating a corpse, be my guest. But first degree murder, no. Ah. I think you see that the order of bullets fired could play a role in the verdict. There might also be more video on smartphones or even the possibility of recovering the video tapes that the police erased from the Burger King cameras. Another act that mitigates toward guilt in a coverup and in the shooting itself. Why erase those tapes if they showed it was a good shooting? But obviously, they didn't.
I don't know,but it sure seem like he had his plug pulled early. He went down like a sack of potatoes. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Say WHAT?????? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
It referenced an internet video, cant remember what the rule was called. Oh,yeah. The dummy actually believed it and went charging after the Marshall because he thought he could reach and stab him to death before he was shot. And IIRC,it's called the "21 foot rule",and was made famous by a part-time reserve cop named Maysad Ayoob,or something similar,who has never been in a gun fight in his life. BTW,LOVED that show! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Possible, but moot. No coroner will testify, under oath, the order of bullets fired. "or even the possibility of recovering the video tapes that the police erased from the Burger King cameras." Again, moot. None of those cameras were pointing at the scene of the shooting. "The missing video, all sides agree, would not have shown the actual shooting but attorney’s for McDonald’s family contend it could have shown events leading up to the shooting."
Yeah, it is. And your legal hypothetical is unprecedented to boot, as you just tacitly admitted.
Comments (61 - 70) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe other officers had radioed for a taser and were chasing McDonald through the yards and down the street when Van Dyke pulled up to
block murder him.
#21. To: misterwhite (#19)
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?
#22. To: misterwhite (#17)
and now you're saying if he would have been shot 30 seconds later it would have been fine by you.
It all depends on what McDonald's actions might have been.
However, that is just hypothetical speculation...
All that we finally know for sure is what actually happened...
and that Van Dyke's use of deadly force was unjustified.
#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
When McDonald was on the ground, I saw his hands and arms moving.
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?
#24. To: TooConservative (#18)
"since it appears the shootee might have still been on his feet until the second shot)."
#25. To: TooConservative (#20)
(Edited)
"I know there is no police shooting, however awful, that you wo won't defend"
#26. To: A K A Stone (#21)
#27. To: misterwhite (#26)
#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."
#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.
#30. To: misterwhite (#25)
Had McDonald stopped and dropped the knife, THEN was shot, I wouldn't defend that shooting.
Is there any scumbag criminal that YOU won't defend?
#31. To: misterwhite (#28)
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.
#32. To: TooConservative (#18)
"this cop was a pretty lousy shot"
#33. To: TooConservative (#30)
"and at least one of the other cops pointed out he no longer had the knife in his hand."
#34. To: All, misterwhite, nolu chan, redleghunter (#29)
01-01 BENZOYLECGONINE Hospital Specimens ELISA Negative
01-01 ETHANOL Hospital Specimens 60 Negative
01-01 OPIATES Hospital Specimens ELISA Negative
Perhaps being born with only one kidney is more common than I think. But I see no mention in the autopsy that Laquan was a kidney donor so I assume he was born with only one. Only bullet #15 could have destroyed the left kidney and they would have mentioned that the kidney was destroyed in the autopsy, not just note the kidney was "absent". Genitourinary System: The left kidney is absent. The capsule of the right capsule strips with ease to reveal a smooth and lobulated surface. The cortex is of normal thickness with well?demarcated corticomedullary junctions. The calyx, pelvis and ureter is unremarkable. The urinary bladder contains approximately 200 mL of clear yellow urine. The mucosa is gray, smooth, and unremarkable. The prostate gland is unremarkable externally. About one in 750 people is born with only one kidney. The medical term for this condition, which is more common in men than women, is renal agenesis. Usually it’s the left kidney that is missing. Because it is possible to be healthy with one kidney, some people don’t find out they have one missing until it’s discovered on an X-ray or sonogram. (In another condition called renal dysplasia, the second kidney is present but does not function properly.)
#35. To: TooConservative (#31)
"We do not agree. I say it may be justified in court and have said so repeatedly."
#36. To: misterwhite (#33)
At the end of the shooting, what did the cop kick away? A cigarette butt?
#37. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#35)
We agree that a court would find it to be a justified shooting. Better?
#38. To: TooConservative (#29)
"Really, a lousy shooting overall."
#39. To: TooConservative (#34)
I notice in the autopsy diagram and in the autopsy report, the numbering of the bullets does not indicate the order in which they were fired.
#40. To: TooConservative (#37)
"A jury may find that first shot justified ..."
#41. To: TooConservative (#37)
A jury may find that first shot justified but still convict him of 1st- or 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter
#42. To: TooConservative (#36)
"We don't have full info and no access to the depositions of bystanders and other police at the scene."
#43. To: Roscoe (#41)
"Has there ever been an officer involved shooting where a jury made such a decision?"
#44. To: misterwhite (#42)
NOW you want to wait for testimony and evidence.
#45. To: sneakypete, GrandIsland (#39)
How can they tell the order the bullets were fired?
#46. To: misterwhite (#40)
(A side note: Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times. Four officers were charged with second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. Not guilty.)
#47. To: Roscoe, sneakypete, (#41)
Has there ever been an officer involved shooting where a jury made such a decision?
#48. To: misterwhite (#42)
Ah. NOW you want to wait for testimony and evidence.
#49. To: All, nolu chan, misterwhite (#48)
#50. To: TooConservative (#47)
"If one of the first two bullets fired was determined to be the fatal shot ... the shooter fired 14 bullets once the perp was on the ground."
#51. To: TooConservative (#34)
#52. To: All (#0)
#53. To: TooConservative (#49)
(Edited)
"Manner of death: homicide" sticks out. And yet, no charges were fi filed. fi filed.
#54. To: Bridge at Remagen (#52)
#55. To: misterwhite (#50)
Fine. Let's assume that. That means the perp was already dead when the other 14 shots were fired.
#56. To: TooConservative (#45)
The video of the event may make it possible to determine which shots hit first. If I had to bet, I would say the neck shot was first.
#57. To: redleghunter (#51)
Yes all those old Hollywood TV series which tried to impress men that beyond prime out of shape, middle aged men of modest income, could seriously date the most beautiful women:)
#58. To: Bridge at Remagen (#52)
(Edited)
Anybody see the knife/gun showdown on the TV show Justified?
#59. To: TooConservative (#55)
I think you see that the order of bullets fired could play a role in the verdict.
#60. To: TooConservative (#47)
In this instance, it isn't all that significant that it was a cop instead of a private citizen
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]