Chicago Officer Charged With First Degree Murder

[Gauthier]

Murder 1 is a charge that has a really uptight and stringent requirement of proof to convict on. So either they somehow got proof that wasn't destroyed, or they're pitching the case like the Black Sox to get the cop off on a technicality.

[Napkiraly]

Murder 1 is a charge that has a really uptight and stringent requirement of proof to convict on. So either they somehow got proof that wasn't destroyed, or they're pitching the case like the Black Sox to get the cop off on a technicality.

The actions of the police officer combined with Illinois' definition of First Degree Murder makes it seem like it's a rather apt charge.

[Ostroeuropa]

Murder 1 is a charge that has a really uptight and stringent requirement of proof to convict on. So either they somehow got proof that wasn't destroyed, or they're pitching the case like the Black Sox to get the cop off on a technicality.

The actions of the police officer combined with Illinois' definition of First Degree Murder makes it seem like it's a rather apt charge.

Apparently it might depend on which bullet killed the guy.
It could be attempted murder if it's one of the initial shots that killed him, since those were arguably legitimate rounds fired, but the illegitimate use of lethal force that follows them is an illegal attempt to murder somebody.
That it didn't work because the suspect died of legally inflicted wounds is irrelevant if that is the case.

If it wasn't the legitimately fired rounds that killed him, but the illegitimate ones, it is a murder.

[New Grestin]

I feel like I should just have a little "ding" sound effect for every time the authorities show themselves to be untrustworthy.

The only problem is that I wouldn't be able to sleep with all the dinging.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I feel like I should just have a little "ding" sound effect for every time the authorities show themselves to be untrustworthy.

The only problem is that I wouldn't be able to sleep with all the dinging.

I'm thinking something like this on infinite loop.

[Renewed Dissonance]

EDIT: (TL;DR what Yumyumsuppertime said on the previous page)

As to the murder, I'm confused as to how it could be first degree. That requires premeditation. This seems far more like second degree murder.

It depends on the legal definition of the specific jurisdiction. In Illinois:

A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:

(1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or

(2) he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another; or

(3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony other than second degree murder.

(http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/il ... d=11500000)

Note that, under this definition, "premeditation" can take place in mere seconds (assuming "premeditation" is even required under Illinois law; I haven't read the entire law I quote above)

I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that the prosecution will argue that the point where the officer advances on the already fallen suspect ("the defendant takes at least one more step towards him") and continues firing as the point where the first degree murder takes place. The prosecution will likely argue that once Laquan fell to the ground injured, the threat to the officer was less than enough to justify continued lethal force. But, the officer, with intent to inflict death and/or great bodily harm, with, we can reasonably assume, the knowledge that his actions would create a strong possibility of doing so, continued to fire.

Thus, murder in the first degree under the law of the State of Illinois.

[Renewed Dissonance]

Murder does not imply premeditation, only first degree murder does. Which is why I'm wondering why they're charging the guy with first degree murder, as they'll have to prove that it was all premeditated.

No, the prosecution only has to demonstrate how the officer's action constitute first degree murder as defined under Illinois state law. They have an excellent case (see my post immediately above).

Under Illinois state law, sitting down and making a long complicated plan is an aggrivating factor, but does not appear to be a requirement for first degree murder.

[Napkiraly]

Murder does not imply premeditation, only first degree murder does. Which is why I'm wondering why they're charging the guy with first degree murder, as they'll have to prove that it was all premeditated.

No, the prosecution only has to demonstrate how the officer's action constitute first degree murder as defined under Illinois state law. They have an excellent case (see my post immediately above).

Under Illinois state law, sitting down and making a long complicated plan is an aggrivating factor, but does not appear to be a requirement for first degree murder.

Yes, I and others went through all of that in the past few pages.

[Renewed Dissonance]

Yes, I and others went through all of that in the past few pages.

Yeah, I know. My first post has been suitably amended.

Repeating for repetition, making sure it sticks, doesn't hurt to verify, etc. The fact that there's at least 50 definitions of "first degree murder" in the United States doesn't seem to be a well known one, so...

[Ethel mermania]

The statue says nothing about imment harm. Firing till empty cwn be considered part of fight or flight. The OP article said he was reloading until he was told not to. If he reloaded and fired it would be an easier case.

It's funny that you think the law cares about natural biological reactions like Fight or Flight. I can tell you from experience, Judge, Lawyer, DA, the law does not give a shit if you suddenly had a shitton of adrenaline released in you and blacked out.

Sure, juries aren't the 'law' stated above. But, you can rest assured that the prosecutor will likely point out that Fight or Flight response isn't relevant as far as laws are concerned, and you can safely bet that jurors, who have a barely working knowledge of the law they're deciding on, are likely to listen to him.

Should the defense try to counter this, well, it won't help. Because the kid was walking away. The officer was in no danger what so ever. There was no reason for his body to trigger that response. Angry that some kid was ignoring him and walking away, a threat to no one while doing so? Sure. A reason for him to get pumped on adrenaline and lose control? Hardly justifiable. Even if you assume that is the case, then clearly this man should NOT be an officer, or having anysort of weapon at all. If someone merely walking away from him is enough to lose him control of his body, he should not be a cop, or a gunowner, or owner of any weapon, because he is legitimately dangerous and too volatile to be trusted with one.

It's fucking hilarious that you don't think state of mind of the assailant doesn't go into the determination of a murder charge.

[Trumpostan]

The coverup is standard MO for many PD's, I'm afraid. Cover for the bad cop at any price. Prosecutors go along because they need the friendly cooperation of the PD in many (future) cases. And this is exactly what BLM is all about. Systematic abuse that disproportionately targets black people. And they have the nerve to demand we all support our police force no matter what. Well guess what, I don't. Respect and support must be earned, and is not an automatic. Same with this whole 'support the troops' business. If I don't support the mission, why should I support the troops?

[Yedmnrutika Gavr]

i read somewhere that this officer had 18 civilian complaints O.o that is crazy that he was still allowed to work. this could be prevented if he were fired and found unfit to perform this duty for the public. but instead crony attitudes are pervasive in police states and they just cover it up and move on cause after all like you hear them say sometimes 'he was one of our own'

[Gauthier]

The coverup is standard MO for many PD's, I'm afraid. Cover for the bad cop at any price. Prosecutors go along because they need the friendly cooperation of the PD in many (future) cases. And this is exactly what BLM is all about. Systematic abuse that disproportionately targets black people. And they have the nerve to demand we all support our police force no matter what. Well guess what, I don't. Respect and support must be earned, and is not an automatic. Same with this whole 'support the troops' business. If I don't support the mission, why should I support the troops?

There's not supporting the mission, and then there's supporting the troops who have to do it anyways. Unless spitting on draftees coming home from Vietnam sounded like a great idea.

[USS Monitor]

The coverup is standard MO for many PD's, I'm afraid. Cover for the bad cop at any price. Prosecutors go along because they need the friendly cooperation of the PD in many (future) cases. And this is exactly what BLM is all about. Systematic abuse that disproportionately targets black people. And they have the nerve to demand we all support our police force no matter what. Well guess what, I don't. Respect and support must be earned, and is not an automatic. Same with this whole 'support the troops' business. If I don't support the mission, why should I support the troops?

There's not supporting the mission, and then there's supporting the troops who have to do it anyways. Unless spitting on draftees coming home from Vietnam sounded like a great idea.

"Support" generally implies more than just not spitting on people.

[New Chalcedon]

Murder does not imply premeditation, only first degree murder does. Which is why I'm wondering why they're charging the guy with first degree murder, as they'll have to prove that it was all premeditated.

Taking a page from Bob McCullough's playbook, deliberately throwing a case to get one of their own off the hook. By charging the asshole with Murder 1, they're guaranteeing that sufficient standards will not be met (with coverups, leaks and destruction of evidence if needs be) and so a jury will fail to convict.

Standard playbook for "prosecutors" these days. They work so closely with the cops that they don't dare antagonize them, so they become part of the thin blue line. Despite it famously being possible to indict a ham sandwich in America should the prosecutor want to, fewer than 2% of police-authored homicides end with an indictment.

In large part, this is because the traditional adversarial system - prosecution vs. defense - breaks down when the prosecutor is someone who may later have to work with the defendant - and will have to work with the defendant's buddies and colleagues on a daily basis, however the trial turns out. The de facto result is that the (dead) victim ends up on trial and the cop has two lawyers working to have them not indicted: their own and the prosecutor.

[New Chalcedon]

The coverup is standard MO for many PD's, I'm afraid. Cover for the bad cop at any price. Prosecutors go along because they need the friendly cooperation of the PD in many (future) cases. And this is exactly what BLM is all about. Systematic abuse that disproportionately targets black people. And they have the nerve to demand we all support our police force no matter what. Well guess what, I don't. Respect and support must be earned, and is not an automatic. Same with this whole 'support the troops' business. If I don't support the mission, why should I support the troops?

There's not supporting the mission, and then there's supporting the troops who have to do it anyways. Unless spitting on draftees coming home from Vietnam sounded like a great idea.

Actually, the whole "Spitting on Vietnam veterans" thing is a myth. Not one documented instance of it has ever been found, akin to the "stab in the back" myth that persisted after World War I in Germany.

Per NYU's review of The Spitting Image, the 1998 attempt by Jerry Lembcke to find any evidence that it had ever happened:

In this startling book, Jerry Lembcke demonstrates that not a single incident of this sort has been convincingly documented. Rather, the anti-war Left saw in veterans a natural ally, and the relationship between anti-war forces and most veterans was defined by mutual support. Indeed one soldier wrote angrily to Vice President Spiro Agnew that the only Americans who seemed concerned about the soldier's welfare were the anti-war activists.

[Shan Yue]

I feel like I should just have a little "ding" sound effect for every time the authorities show themselves to be untrustworthy.

The only problem is that I wouldn't be able to sleep with all the dinging.

You could turn off the tv, get away from singular one dimensional perspectives for a while, and gain back some perspective.
Or overlay another tone that signals for the peace officers who conduct their job without violating public trust. You certainly wouldnt sleep then.
Meanwhile, this particular officer should burn. It is simple training to learn how to disarm and subdue someone armed with a melee weapon without lethal force. I could understand a civilian unloading a gun on a knife wielding assailant out of fear and panick, but police officers should be at least a degree better comported than that.

[Mike the Progressive]

You know, I've said it like five million times.

Everyone hates it when the law is broken, this is true, but they get fucking furious at the cover up. If the police had done a thorough investigation and followed all the rules and procedures, there would not be demonstrators in the streets now. Because business was taken care of.

But they tried to cover it up. So here we are.

Having been in Chicago when #BLM did their "glorious" protest on Black Friday, I'm still trying to figure out something. How does blocking the entry way to an Apple and Disney store (both of which had nothing to do with the '16 shots and the coverup' by city hall) solve anything? How does screaming "16 shots and a coverup" at a bunch of tourists accomplish anything?

I get the frustration. The anger. I even get the protest. I wasn't sure how the blocking the entrance of stores fixed anything except make them seem like a nuisance. Fuck they were screaming that shit at some kid who was trying to get in the Disney store and she started crying. Nice day after Thanksgiving eh?

[The Emerald Dawn]

You know, I've said it like five million times.

Everyone hates it when the law is broken, this is true, but they get fucking furious at the cover up. If the police had done a thorough investigation and followed all the rules and procedures, there would not be demonstrators in the streets now. Because business was taken care of.

But they tried to cover it up. So here we are.

Having been in Chicago when #BLM did their "glorious" protest on Black Friday, I'm still trying to figure out something. How does blocking the entry way to an Apple and Disney store (both of which had nothing to do with the '16 shots and the coverup' by city hall) solve anything? How does screaming "16 shots and a coverup" at a bunch of tourists accomplish anything?

I get the frustration. The anger. I even get the protest. I wasn't sure how the blocking the entrance of stores fixed anything except make them seem like a nuisance. Fuck they were screaming that shit at some kid who was trying to get in the Disney store and she started crying. Nice day after Thanksgiving eh?

I believe inconvenience is the goal, they want to do what they can to draw any attention to their movement.

[Mavorpen]

You know, I've said it like five million times.

Everyone hates it when the law is broken, this is true, but they get fucking furious at the cover up. If the police had done a thorough investigation and followed all the rules and procedures, there would not be demonstrators in the streets now. Because business was taken care of.

But they tried to cover it up. So here we are.

Having been in Chicago when #BLM did their "glorious" protest on Black Friday, I'm still trying to figure out something. How does blocking the entry way to an Apple and Disney store (both of which had nothing to do with the '16 shots and the coverup' by city hall) solve anything? How does screaming "16 shots and a coverup" at a bunch of tourists accomplish anything?

I get the frustration. The anger. I even get the protest. I wasn't sure how the blocking the entrance of stores fixed anything except make them seem like a nuisance. Fuck they were screaming that shit at some kid who was trying to get in the Disney store and she started crying. Nice day after Thanksgiving eh?

To be fair, they kind of helped the people at the Apple store. Now they had a reason to purchase superior products like the Samsung Galaxy Note 5 and Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge from Samsung™.

I was in no way paid to make this post.

[Iwassoclose]

I am more concerned about the cover up.

Find out who was on duty that night, and those who were responsible for picking up the video.

Each officer if I am to believe has to write a reflective journal at the end of their shift.

I hope the FBI or IA is already investigating this.

[Neutraligon]

You know, I've said it like five million times.

Everyone hates it when the law is broken, this is true, but they get fucking furious at the cover up. If the police had done a thorough investigation and followed all the rules and procedures, there would not be demonstrators in the streets now. Because business was taken care of.

But they tried to cover it up. So here we are.

Having been in Chicago when #BLM did their "glorious" protest on Black Friday, I'm still trying to figure out something. How does blocking the entry way to an Apple and Disney store (both of which had nothing to do with the '16 shots and the coverup' by city hall) solve anything? How does screaming "16 shots and a coverup" at a bunch of tourists accomplish anything?

I get the frustration. The anger. I even get the protest. I wasn't sure how the blocking the entrance of stores fixed anything except make them seem like a nuisance. Fuck they were screaming that shit at some kid who was trying to get in the Disney store and she started crying. Nice day after Thanksgiving eh?

They wanted to inconvenience people, specifically they wanted to inconvenience rich people.

[Gauthier]

Having been in Chicago when #BLM did their "glorious" protest on Black Friday, I'm still trying to figure out something. How does blocking the entry way to an Apple and Disney store (both of which had nothing to do with the '16 shots and the coverup' by city hall) solve anything? How does screaming "16 shots and a coverup" at a bunch of tourists accomplish anything?

I get the frustration. The anger. I even get the protest. I wasn't sure how the blocking the entrance of stores fixed anything except make them seem like a nuisance. Fuck they were screaming that shit at some kid who was trying to get in the Disney store and she started crying. Nice day after Thanksgiving eh?

I believe inconvenience is the goal, they want to do what they can to draw any attention to their movement.

Because the average person on the street tends to not give a shit about something that's not up in their faces.

[Zeinbrad]

I am more concerned about the cover up.

Find out who was on duty that night, and those who were responsible for picking up the video.

Each officer if I am to believe has to write a reflective journal at the end of their shift.

I hope the FBI or IA is already investigating this.

IA?

[Ifreann]

I am more concerned about the cover up.

Find out who was on duty that night, and those who were responsible for picking up the video.

Each officer if I am to believe has to write a reflective journal at the end of their shift.

I hope the FBI or IA is already investigating this.

IA?

Internal Affairs.