Chicago Officer Charged With First Degree Murder

[The Emerald Dawn]

The officer charged has close to 20 misconduct complaints against him. Including using racial slurs and excessive force. And yet nothing was done.

OK, that's a problem.

Really? I mean, that's not even enough strikes to get you out of a baseball game. Clearly he needed 8 or 9 more chances.

[Gauthier]

The officer charged has close to 20 misconduct complaints against him. Including using racial slurs and excessive force. And yet nothing was done.

Now hold on, let's not jump to conclusions.

Maybe he has a Black Friend™.

[USS Monitor]

Shooting a perpetrator sixteen times would be perfectly acceptable if it took sixteen shots to stop them. Fourteen shots after he was on the ground is just obscene. With this guy's record, I'm amazed this didn't come sooner.

Yeah, especially the part where he reloaded. If you have time to reload without ducking for cover while you do it, you don't need to keep shooting.

[Kazarogkai]

There is a difference between shooting to neutralize a target, and shooting them 16 times. I would hate to see a repeat of Ferguson where a murderer went free.

This case and Ferguson are not the same. Brown attacked the police officer beforehand and tried to steal his firearm. In any officer's mind, stealing, or even attempting to steal, an officer's firearm automatically escalates the situation. As the officer was without a taser, there was really other option if Brown tried to attack him again, which he did.

With McDonald, I am aware in the article sourced in the OP stated that McDonald was armed with a knife, but did nothing with the knife that could have harmed any officer in any way. Therefore the discharge of the firearm, let alone the sixteen shots that were fired, were unnecessary and unreasonable.

Is it murder? No. Murder implies premeditation and I doubt that the officer that shot McDonald was driving around specifically to look for McDonald to kill him. You know what they charge people for negligent death? Manslaughter. McDonald's death was not an accident but nor was it premeditated and that means that a charge of manslaughter should be brought against the officer that killed him.

However, given that the police tried to cover it up and the record of police officers actually making it to trial, I wouldn't hold my breath. The fact that the department paid the family off before the officer was even charged leads me to suspect that a proper course of justice won't be found here.

Premeditation is not required for a second degree murder charge last time I checked, only that it be unjustifiable and with intent to kill.

Unloading an entire magazine of bullets and shooting a man on the ground clearly indicate intent, you do not shoot a man on the ground without the intention of him dying.

[Kazarogkai]

Something that happens far too often tbh, I can't count how many times I've heard of a cop firing a full magazine at someone when they're down after 2 or 3 shots.

I really can't quite grasp what it is with American police and their aggression. In New Zealand (with a population of 4.5 million people, basically the same as either Kentucky or Louisiana), the police have shot dead three people so far this year, two of whom were armed. In Kentucky, 17 people have been shot dead. The figure rises to 24 in Louisiana.

What is with the massive discrepancy in how many are killed? Is it because firearms are more prevalent? Is it because crime rates are higher?

Crime rates are higher, higher population density + higher urbanization rate, higher poverty rate, Worse social services, etc.

The usual suspects.

[Eisarn-Ara]

Personly I hope for the worst riots yet, Chicago is currupt as fuck, though I doubt it since it's so close to TGing. That and I like watching dumb black people set fire to there homes. It's an early Christmas for me, just watched protesters attack a wall of bicycle and bike cops. If shit starts getting real, I'm recording it and I'll post it for you guys.

I live in Southernmost-Illinois & dude, I gotta say, the sheer level of bullcrap we have to put up with that boils over from Shitcago and effects the rest off the state (Pontiac and southward till you hit KY) makes me sincerely hope your "hopes" are dashed because anything that goes wrong in that godsawful city slaps my chunk of the state.

Though, as a slight addendum in relation to what this post was of mine was originally going to be, Ms. O'leary's cow did nothing wrong.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

^This.

Nobody's perfect and that goes for police same as any other people, but when there's a cover-up, then you can't just say, "Oops, our bad," and leave it at that. A shooting can be as simple as one guy (or girl, but it seems like it is usually guys) just having brainfart and making a wrong move in the heat of the moment, but a cover up shows a much deeper problem with the department culture.

The officer charged has close to 20 misconduct complaints against him. Including using racial slurs and excessive force. And yet nothing was done.

That's pretty fucked up.

After doing some research, I think the cop should definitely be tried, but maybe not under a charge of first degree murder. Now, perhaps misconduct in the line of duty and second degree murder would be more applicable charges.

[GreatestBanks]

I think this is fine. The officer commenced murder, and he was charged with it. This is, in my opinion, the most recent cop-racial incident where police had it dead wrong.

[Trollgaard]

The officer shot the teenager 16 time? What the hell?

If he's found guilty throw the book at him, geeze, that is ridiculous!

[The Serbian Empire]

Finally, a cop who is being charged with the offense they did.

[Napkiraly]

I think this is fine. The officer commenced murder, and he was charged with it. This is, in my opinion, the most recent cop-racial incident where police had it dead wrong.

Yet unfortunately if you go to certain articles covering this, you'll still see plenty of people defending what the cop did.

[GreatestBanks]

I think this is fine. The officer commenced murder, and he was charged with it. This is, in my opinion, the most recent cop-racial incident where police had it dead wrong.

Yet unfortunately if you go to certain articles covering this, you'll still see plenty of people defending what the cop did.

The cops, unlike in several other recent headlines(in my opinion at least, but that's for another time), had it wrong on this one.

[Costa Fierro]

Finally, a cop who is being charged with the offense they did.

First degree murder? That is going to be really hard to make those charges stick. If they went for manslaughter, their case would have more of a leg to stand on.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Finally, a cop who is being charged with the offense they did.

First degree murder? That is going to be really hard to make those charges stick. If they went for manslaughter, their case would have more of a leg to stand on.

Not really. Illinois First Degree Murder Statute.

(a) 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.

[Napkiraly]

Finally, a cop who is being charged with the offense they did.

First degree murder? That is going to be really hard to make those charges stick. If they went for manslaughter, their case would have more of a leg to stand on.

This is more than manslaughter. And considering what constitutes first degree murder in Illinois, it's an appropriate charge.

[Ethel mermania]

First degree murder? That is going to be really hard to make those charges stick. If they went for manslaughter, their case would have more of a leg to stand on.

Not really. Illinois First Degree Murder Statute.

(a) 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.

The justification is going to be an armed suspect who refused to obey a lawful police order to drop the weapon. I have to think a lessor charge would help get a conviction.

The cover up is the thing that can't get lost in the shuffle.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Not really. Illinois First Degree Murder Statute.

The justification is going to be an armed suspect who refused to obey a lawful police order to drop the weapon. I have to think a lessor charge would help get a conviction.

The cover up is the thing that can't get lost in the shuffle.

Except that the weapon is irrelevant, as nobody was in immediate danger from him holding it. The continuous shots while he was on the ground also support first-degree murder.

[MERIZoC]

You'd think people would learn not to cover these things up.

[Ethel mermania]

The justification is going to be an armed suspect who refused to obey a lawful police order to drop the weapon. I have to think a lessor charge would help get a conviction.

The cover up is the thing that can't get lost in the shuffle.

Except that the weapon is irrelevant, as nobody was in immediate danger from him holding it. The continuous shots while he was on the ground also support first-degree murder.

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.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've watched Justicars analysis of the shooting, i'll summarize.
(Justicar is an Ex-cop.)


The first two shots are arguably justified, as Laquan had a knife and was within 21 feet of the cop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM

Arguably justified = acquit.
That does NOT mean that the shoot was a good shoot. He concludes it was a bad shoot even for the first two shots, but that the usual "Well, it's pressure and heat of the moment" thing can mean you shoot where you may not necessarily need to, but it is JUSTIFIABLE to do so because there is potential lethal harm, and that it comes down to the individual cop and how spooked they are and such. TRAIN MOAR, but not jail/fire.

EVERY SINGLE SHOT after the first two, is unjustified.
The suspect was down at the time.

Had the suspect had a GUN, they would all be justified. A suspect on the floor with a firearm is still a lethal threat.
He had no gun, he had a knife, and was no longer upright and capable of charging to close the distance.

He says he isn't inclined to do so, but you can dismiss the third shot if you're feeling very, very charitable about reaction times.

This amounts to 14 or at LEAST 13 unjustified uses of lethal force when the suspect was no longer a threat.

HOWEVER!!!

It may not be a murder, and the prosecution may have fucked up very badly here by offering the defense a fairly watertight technicality.

IF the lethal shot was the first two bullets, it's not murder. It's ATTEMPTED murder. (Since the officer fired 14 unlawful lethal shots, none of which killed the target.).
IF the lethal shot was after the first two, it's murder.
If the prosecution CANNOT PROVE WHICH, they should have filed both charges and asked a jury to pick what they think fits the facts.
failing to do so has left the defense a technicality with which to obtain an acquittal.

[Big Brain City]

Time to unleash the rage of the people, however that may happen.

I've watched Justicars analysis of the shooting, i'll summarize.
(Justicar is an Ex-cop.)


The first two shots are arguably justified, as Laquan had a knife and was within 21 feet of the cop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM

Arguably justified = acquit.
That does NOT mean that the shoot was a good shoot. He concludes it was a bad shoot even for the first two shots, but that the usual "Well, it's pressure and heat of the moment" thing can mean you shoot where you may not necessarily need to, but it is JUSTIFIABLE to do so because there is potential lethal harm, and that it comes down to the individual cop and how spooked they are and such. TRAIN MOAR, but not jail/fire.

EVERY SINGLE SHOT after the first two, is unjustified.
The suspect was down at the time.

Had the suspect had a GUN, they would all be justified. A suspect on the floor with a firearm is still a lethal threat.
He had no gun, he had a knife, and was no longer upright and capable of charging to close the distance.

He says he isn't inclined to do so, but you can dismiss the third shot if you're feeling very, very charitable about reaction times.

This amounts to 14 or at LEAST 13 unjustified uses of lethal force when the suspect was no longer a threat.

HOWEVER!!!

It may not be a murder, and the prosecution may have fucked up very badly here by offering the defense a fairly watertight technicality.

IF the lethal shot was the first two bullets, it's not murder. It's ATTEMPTED murder. (Since the officer fired 14 unlawful lethal shots, none of which killed the target.).
IF the lethal shot was after the first two, it's murder.
If the prosecution CANNOT PROVE WHICH, they should have filed both charges and asked a jury to pick what they think fits the facts.
failing to do so has left the defense a technicality with which to obtain an acquittal.

So now there's gonna be people mad and shit. Ah, fuck...

[Galloism]

I've watched Justicars analysis of the shooting, i'll summarize.
(Justicar is an Ex-cop.)


The first two shots are arguably justified, as Laquan had a knife and was within 21 feet of the cop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM

Arguably justified = acquit.
That does NOT mean that the shoot was a good shoot. He concludes it was a bad shoot even for the first two shots, but that the usual "Well, it's pressure and heat of the moment" thing can mean you shoot where you may not necessarily need to, but it is JUSTIFIABLE to do so because there is potential lethal harm, and that it comes down to the individual cop and how spooked they are and such. TRAIN MOAR, but not jail/fire.

EVERY SINGLE SHOT after the first two, is unjustified.
The suspect was down at the time.

Had the suspect had a GUN, they would all be justified. A suspect on the floor with a firearm is still a lethal threat.
He had no gun, he had a knife, and was no longer upright and capable of charging to close the distance.

He says he isn't inclined to do so, but you can dismiss the third shot if you're feeling very, very charitable about reaction times.

This amounts to 14 or at LEAST 13 unjustified uses of lethal force when the suspect was no longer a threat.

HOWEVER!!!

It may not be a murder, and the prosecution may have fucked up very badly here by offering the defense a fairly watertight technicality.

IF the lethal shot was the first two bullets, it's not murder. It's ATTEMPTED murder. (Since the officer fired 14 unlawful lethal shots, none of which killed the target.).
IF the lethal shot was after the first two, it's murder.
If the prosecution CANNOT PROVE WHICH, they should have filed both charges and asked a jury to pick what they think fits the facts.
failing to do so has left the defense a technicality with which to obtain an acquittal.

I ask not a CSI, but provided the scene was analyzed properly (won't hold my breath), we should be able to figure out which shots took place while standing vs those on the ground via angular entry.

We should also be able to figure out which bullet(s) were the killing ones.


As an aside, why are we not charging officers with destruction of evidence regarding the McDonalds footage?

[Ostroeuropa]

I've watched Justicars analysis of the shooting, i'll summarize.
(Justicar is an Ex-cop.)


The first two shots are arguably justified, as Laquan had a knife and was within 21 feet of the cop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM

Arguably justified = acquit.
That does NOT mean that the shoot was a good shoot. He concludes it was a bad shoot even for the first two shots, but that the usual "Well, it's pressure and heat of the moment" thing can mean you shoot where you may not necessarily need to, but it is JUSTIFIABLE to do so because there is potential lethal harm, and that it comes down to the individual cop and how spooked they are and such. TRAIN MOAR, but not jail/fire.

EVERY SINGLE SHOT after the first two, is unjustified.
The suspect was down at the time.

Had the suspect had a GUN, they would all be justified. A suspect on the floor with a firearm is still a lethal threat.
He had no gun, he had a knife, and was no longer upright and capable of charging to close the distance.

He says he isn't inclined to do so, but you can dismiss the third shot if you're feeling very, very charitable about reaction times.

This amounts to 14 or at LEAST 13 unjustified uses of lethal force when the suspect was no longer a threat.

HOWEVER!!!

It may not be a murder, and the prosecution may have fucked up very badly here by offering the defense a fairly watertight technicality.

IF the lethal shot was the first two bullets, it's not murder. It's ATTEMPTED murder. (Since the officer fired 14 unlawful lethal shots, none of which killed the target.).
IF the lethal shot was after the first two, it's murder.
If the prosecution CANNOT PROVE WHICH, they should have filed both charges and asked a jury to pick what they think fits the facts.
failing to do so has left the defense a technicality with which to obtain an acquittal.

I ask not a CSI, but provided the scene was analyzed properly (won't hold my breath), we should be able to figure out which shots took place while standing vs those on the ground via angular entry.

We should also be able to figure out which bullet(s) were the killing ones.


As an aside, why are we not charging officers with destruction of evidence regarding the McDonalds footage?

No idea. I was only discussing the shoot itself.
If the killing bullet can be determined, that will resolve the potential for a technicality.

[Kraylandia]

In this case, I support the cop being charged. What he did was disgusting.

[New Babylonia]

Except that the weapon is irrelevant, as nobody was in immediate danger from him holding it. The continuous shots while he was on the ground also support first-degree murder.

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.