Chicago Police Officer Convicted of Murder

[Infected Mushroom]

I would acquit the officer. He was brave for trying to confront a knife wielder in the name of law and order.

do you honesty believe police officers can do no wrong? It was perfectly acceptable to shoot him sixteen times even after he was on the ground? Are you freaking serious?

He could have stood back and stabbed if not shot enough. The officer didn’t know whether or not the criminal was on hard drugs/major painkillers.

And understandably, the officer was scared and reasonably overreacted a little.

[Xelsis]

The punishment was both extreme, and in blatant violation of the spirit of the law and is an injustice to the jury decision, even if agreed with, which turned down first-degree murder for second degree, essentially stating that there were mitigating factors, the likely one that Van Dyke held the belief that the shooting was justified, but it was not.

I could, perhaps, see a low-level convictions for Van Dyke as reasonable, but a life-in-prison sentence is rather frankly ridiculous. The defense, in their closing statements, made the rather compelling point that McDonald was the author of his own destiny. Van Dyke did not go out and hunt down and shoot a man, he was called to the scene because of McDonad's burglary and alleged attempted stabbing. He did not, as the defense stated, have the option to retreat as a normal citizen would have, as an officer, he was obligated to stand his ground, while McDonald, armed with a knife, was close enough to harm or kill him before he could bring him down. CPD states that an assailant with a knife inside twenty-one feet has the advantage over one with a gun, and McDonald was estimated at c. 15 feet away.

The specific point raised by the prosecution, that is perhaps the strongest, was that if McDonald drops the knife-which he was ordered to do more than thirty times-it is over. No shooting, no death. It ends there. But, he did not. He continued to brandish the knife, and it cost him his life.

Perhaps the shooting was not justified, though in the circumstances, a very compelling case can be made that it was. Even if it is believed that it was not justified, it boggles the mind that an officer responding to a crime and shooting a knife-wielding man who was within lethal range and refused to put down the weapon would be charged so heavily that the only option in sentencing, unless some legal loophole is found, is life in prison.

I agree with most of what you said, bit 16 rounds just seems excessive, especially when the other guy's on the ground.

I would not wholly disagree with you. It was, ultimately, excessive. I would not say, however, that it was without at least possible justification. Van Dyke, essentially, after he began firing, emptied the gun, and testified that he believed McDonald was attempting to get back up,and potentially attack.

We do not know for sure-the footage is limited, and we do know that McDonald had PCP in his system. The case made, and one that I do not think is wholly unreasonable, is that an officer does not fire to kill, but to end the threat, and Van Dyke fired to do so, continuing firing when it seemed the threat was still present. One-shot instant-kill handgun rounds are not a certainty in real-life as in Hollywood, one can take quite some time to bleed out, and can remain a threat in that time. (Indeed, some reports indicated that McDonald did not pass until on his way to the hospital despite the sixteen shots)

I think that Van Dyke's actions were not ideal, but, if criminal at all, should not have risen above the lowest of levels given the extreme mitigating circumstances.

[San Lumen]

do you honesty believe police officers can do no wrong? It was perfectly acceptable to shoot him sixteen times even after he was on the ground? Are you freaking serious?

He could have stood back and stabbed if not shot enough. The officer didn’t know whether or not the criminal was on hard drugs/major painkillers.

And understandably, the officer was scared and reasonably overreacted a little.

well he could have found out or used non lethal force. There was no reason to shoot him sixteen times after he fell to the ground.

Why would you have acquitted him?

[Marcianus]

do you honesty believe police officers can do no wrong? It was perfectly acceptable to shoot him sixteen times even after he was on the ground? Are you freaking serious?

He could have stood back and stabbed if not shot enough. The officer didn’t know whether or not the criminal was on hard drugs/major painkillers.

And understandably, the officer was scared and reasonably overreacted a little.

Well, if the officer was scared and "overreacted" just because some random dude with a knife walked towards him, and he shot him a whole bunch of times, even after he was on the ground, then Van Dike shouldn't be a police officer.

[Infected Mushroom]

He could have stood back and stabbed if not shot enough. The officer didn’t know whether or not the criminal was on hard drugs/major painkillers.

And understandably, the officer was scared and reasonably overreacted a little.

well he could have found out or used non lethal force. There was no reason to shoot him sixteen times after he fell to the ground.

Why would you have acquitted him?

Because I support the police, not knife wielding criminals high on drugs

[San Lumen]

He could have stood back and stabbed if not shot enough. The officer didn’t know whether or not the criminal was on hard drugs/major painkillers.

And understandably, the officer was scared and reasonably overreacted a little.

Well, if the officer was scared and "overreacted" just because some random dude with a knife walked towards him, and he shot him a whole bunch of times, even after he was on the ground, then Van Dike shouldn't be a police officer.

I agree someone like him should not have been on the force. Can you please get his name correct? His name is Jason Van Dyke

[San Lumen]

well he could have found out or used non lethal force. There was no reason to shoot him sixteen times after he fell to the ground.

Why would you have acquitted him?

Because I support the police, not knife wielding criminals high on drugs

Therefore police can do no wrong in your view and should never be held accountable for their actions?

[Marcianus]

Well, if the officer was scared and "overreacted" just because some random dude with a knife walked towards him, and he shot him a whole bunch of times, even after he was on the ground, then Van Dike shouldn't be a police officer.

I agree someone like him should not have been on the force. Can you please get his name correct? His name is Jason Van Dyke

Again, puns, for Christ sake!

[Xelsis]

In brief summary-a youth with a knife, already possessing a criminal record, high on PCP, as per the autopsy, was, according to witness testimony, committing burglary, and allegedly attempted to stab a man. Police responded, and he attacked a squad car with the knife, slashing the tires. Additional officers, including Van Dyke, showed up. McDonald was ordered to drop the knife, refused to do so, walked at an angle in Van Dyke's direction, though not directly at him, and, 12-15 feet away, within the lethal range for a knife-wielding attacker, was shot and killed.

One can accuse Van Dyke of acting too quickly-though he was within lethal range of a knife-wielding man refusing to drop the weapon. You can argue that he continued firing for too long-though he was still facing an armed man who he believed he saw was trying to get up.

What one cannot do, however, is consider McDonald wholly innocent in the situation.

He drops the knife, he goes home alive, period.

He didn't, and it ended up costing him his life.

Well, looking at the footage, McDonald burger was quite a bit away from the officer when he turned and attempted to walk towards the cop. Quite long enough time to grab a taser out or, maybe, not shoot him a whole bunch of times?

Van Dyke did not have a taser and, as noted, a police officer does not have the option of retreat that a civilian has.

He could have stood back and stabbed if not shot enough. The officer didn’t know whether or not the criminal was on hard drugs/major painkillers.

And understandably, the officer was scared and reasonably overreacted a little.

well he could have found out or used non lethal force. There was no reason to shoot him sixteen times after he fell to the ground.

Why would you have acquitted him?

He did not have a taser. Nonlethal force was not available, and the sixteen rounds were not all fired after he fell to the ground.

As was testified by the defense, a gunman of Van Dyke's level of training can fire six times in one second. McDonald took one-point-five seconds to fall, approximately. As was also testified, there is an additional delay of up to one and one-half seconds for the mind to process such a motion in a high-stress situation.

That is enough time for eighteen shots. He fired only sixteen.

It is highly likely that at least one of the shots, and likely multiple, were fired when he was on the ground-but these were fired, according to his testimony, when it appeared that the knife-wielding McDonald was attempting to get back up.

To portray it as simply shooting away sixteen times at a harmless person on the ground is inaccurate.

[Infected Mushroom]

Because I support the police, not knife wielding criminals high on drugs

Therefore police can do no wrong in your view and should never be held accountable for their actions?

Where did I say this?

[San Lumen]

Therefore police can do no wrong in your view and should never be held accountable for their actions?

Where did I say this?

In every post regarding a cop faced disciplinary action or criminal charges you defend their actions therefore it is logical to assume you believe police are infallible and can do no wrong

[Mikoyansk]

He could have stood back and stabbed if not shot enough. The officer didn’t know whether or not the criminal was on hard drugs/major painkillers.

And understandably, the officer was scared and reasonably overreacted a little.

well he could have found out or used non lethal force. There was no reason to shoot him sixteen times after he fell to the ground.

Why would you have acquitted him?

Have you ever dealt with a guy that's on PCP? You might not know it initially, but the representation of them almost becoming The Hulk is not entirely inaccurate. I've seen it take 4-6 county and state cops to wrestle a guy down to the ground after a taser hit...yes, tasers don't work great on people on PCP.

As for "non-lethal force", he had a knife, a lethal weapon, in his possession well inside the known and if-not-totally-then-close-to-proven 21 foot lethality radius of a knife wielding attacker. No officer in their right mind is going to yank a taser, even if they had one which this officer didn't. And let's be honest, this is Chicago...he's got a knife in his hand, well what if he's got a gun? Someone tases him and misses or whiffs him with it, what's to say he's not going to go into his pants for a gun. It's safer to be in Afghanistan as a soldier than it is to be a human being anywhere in Chicago, I'm thinking the cops have a little reason to be on edge.

[San Lumen]

well he could have found out or used non lethal force. There was no reason to shoot him sixteen times after he fell to the ground.

Why would you have acquitted him?

Have you ever dealt with a guy that's on PCP? You might not know it initially, but the representation of them almost becoming The Hulk is not entirely inaccurate. I've seen it take 4-6 county and state cops to wrestle a guy down to the ground after a taser hit...yes, tasers don't work great on people on PCP.

As for "non-lethal force", he had a knife, a lethal weapon, in his possession well inside the known and if-not-totally-then-close-to-proven 21 foot lethality radius of a knife wielding attacker. No officer in their right mind is going to yank a taser, even if they had one which this officer didn't. And let's be honest, this is Chicago...he's got a knife in his hand, well what if he's got a gun? Someone tases him and misses or whiffs him with it, what's to say he's not going to go into his pants for a gun. It's safer to be in Afghanistan as a soldier than it is to be a human being anywhere in Chicago, I'm thinking the cops have a little reason to be on edge.

That does not justify shooting him sixteen times

[Xelsis]

Have you ever dealt with a guy that's on PCP? You might not know it initially, but the representation of them almost becoming The Hulk is not entirely inaccurate. I've seen it take 4-6 county and state cops to wrestle a guy down to the ground after a taser hit...yes, tasers don't work great on people on PCP.

As for "non-lethal force", he had a knife, a lethal weapon, in his possession well inside the known and if-not-totally-then-close-to-proven 21 foot lethality radius of a knife wielding attacker. No officer in their right mind is going to yank a taser, even if they had one which this officer didn't. And let's be honest, this is Chicago...he's got a knife in his hand, well what if he's got a gun? Someone tases him and misses or whiffs him with it, what's to say he's not going to go into his pants for a gun. It's safer to be in Afghanistan as a soldier than it is to be a human being anywhere in Chicago, I'm thinking the cops have a little reason to be on edge.

That does not justify shooting him sixteen times

If a man with a knife, who you shot, appears to be getting back up, what, exactly, are you supposed to do? Wave?

[San Lumen]

That does not justify shooting him sixteen times

If a man with a knife, who you shot, appears to be getting back up, what, exactly, are you supposed to do? Wave?

Not brutally murder him. The solution is not always to kill.

[Scomagia]

The murder conviction is functionally irrelevant. Second-degree murder carries a sentence of four to twenty-five years, probationary.

What matters is that he was convicted on sixteen counts of aggravated battery. Despite the fact that the shots were fired in a single instance, the prosecution charged a count for each bullet, and got a conviction on each bullet.

The mandatory minimum sentence for each short is six years, and they must be served consecutively-that is, a ninety-six year minimum.

First-degree murder, which was charged, but which the jury did not convict him of, has a minimum sentence of twenty years.

A frankly ridiculous legal ploy in the charges that ramps up the charge far beyond what it would have been even for first-degree murder in a case in which that was rejected.

That's SOP as far as prosecution goes. They always stack the deck.

[San Lumen]

The murder conviction is functionally irrelevant. Second-degree murder carries a sentence of four to twenty-five years, probationary.

What matters is that he was convicted on sixteen counts of aggravated battery. Despite the fact that the shots were fired in a single instance, the prosecution charged a count for each bullet, and got a conviction on each bullet.

The mandatory minimum sentence for each short is six years, and they must be served consecutively-that is, a ninety-six year minimum.

First-degree murder, which was charged, but which the jury did not convict him of, has a minimum sentence of twenty years.

A frankly ridiculous legal ploy in the charges that ramps up the charge far beyond what it would have been even for first-degree murder in a case in which that was rejected.

That's SOP as far as prosecution goes. They always stack the deck.

What?

[Xelsis]

If a man with a knife, who you shot, appears to be getting back up, what, exactly, are you supposed to do? Wave?

Not brutally murder him. The solution is not always to kill.

In which case you would never have become a police officer.

"The solution is always not to kill" does not function particularly well when taking that stance leads to another killing you, or others.

EDIT: I misread the order of your words here. In that case, again, I ask the question-what would you have done? "Brutally murder" is a nice aggressive phrase added on, but you have a gun, he has a knife, and it looks like he is getting up to use it on you. You don't have a taser. You can't run, you're a police officer. What do you do?

[Loben]

If a man with a knife, who you shot, appears to be getting back up, what, exactly, are you supposed to do? Wave?

Not brutally murder him. The solution is not always to kill.

so let him get up, its ok! hell maybe let him have a go at stabbing you in the neck!
fair is fair?

[Scomagia]

Seems like justice was served, to me. He was absolutely wrong to shoot the kid sixteen fucking times.

[Scomagia]

That's SOP as far as prosecution goes. They always stack the deck.

What?

What isn't clear?

[Xelsis]

Seems like justice was served, to me. He was absolutely wrong to shoot the kid sixteen fucking times.

I'll ask the same question-the man with a knife who you just shot seems to be getting up. He is close enough that, he can charge and stab you. You don't have a taser. You're a police officer, you can't retreat. What do you do?

[Scomagia]

Seems like justice was served, to me. He was absolutely wrong to shoot the kid sixteen fucking times.

I'll ask the same question-the man with a knife who you just shot seems to be getting up. He is close enough that, he can charge and stab you. You don't have a taser. You're a police officer, you can't retreat. What do you do?

I get your point. I really do. But there is a middle ground between completely unloading and doing nothing. Unlike many others who will respond to this thread, I don't have an anticop bias. He did wrong and deserved to be punished. I will completely agree that charging an individual count of assault for each round was preposterous. That doesn't mean he wasn't criminally culpable, however.

[Xelsis]

I'll ask the same question-the man with a knife who you just shot seems to be getting up. He is close enough that, he can charge and stab you. You don't have a taser. You're a police officer, you can't retreat. What do you do?

I get your point. I really do. But there is a middle ground between completely unloading and doing nothing. Unlike many others who will respond to this thread, I don't have an anticop bias. He did wrong and deserved to be punished. I will completely agree that charging an individual count of assault for each round was preposterous. That doesn't mean he wasn't criminally culpable, however.

I don't actually disagree about the middle ground.

My overall take on the matter would be than Van Dyke overreacted-but the reaction was based on justifiable context.

[Scomagia]

I get your point. I really do. But there is a middle ground between completely unloading and doing nothing. Unlike many others who will respond to this thread, I don't have an anticop bias. He did wrong and deserved to be punished. I will completely agree that charging an individual count of assault for each round was preposterous. That doesn't mean he wasn't criminally culpable, however.

I don't actually disagree about the middle ground.

My overall take on the matter would be than Van Dyke overreacted-but the reaction was based on justifiable context.

Manslaughter would have been appropriate, I think. /Notalawyer