Chicago Police Officer Convicted of Murder

[San Lumen]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke was convicted of second degree murder in the shooting of Laquan McDonald. The suspect was holding a small knife. He did not attack the officers and simply ignored them as they pulled up to him. He was shot and fell to the ground. Officer Van Dyke then emptied all sixteen rounds of his gun while Mcdonald was on the ground.

In my view this was a rare instance of justice prevailing when it comes to police officers being held accountable for their actions. There was no excuse for the actions Van Dyke took and he now faces a minimum of six years in prison. He should have tried to engage the suspect first not immediately shoot him nor was there any reason to shoot him sixteen times.

What's your take NSG? Was this a just verdict?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

It is hardly rare that police are held accountable for their actions. It is often misconstrued as such.

[San Lumen]

It is hardly rare that police are held accountable for their actions. It is often misconstrued as such.

It sure doesnt seem like they are.

[Marcianus]

It is hardly rare that police are held accountable for their actions. It is often misconstrued as such.

Once, you get off of CNN, and start thinking for yourself and stop listening to the Anti-Police propaganda the left is pushing, you will find the opposite.

[San Lumen]

It is hardly rare that police are held accountable for their actions. It is often misconstrued as such.

Once, you get off of CNN, and start thinking for yourself and stop listening to the Anti-Police propaganda the left is pushing, you will find the opposite.

What is the anti police propaganda? For the record I am not anti police and have tremendous respect for the job that they do.

[Loben]

Once, you get off of CNN, and start thinking for yourself and stop listening to the Anti-Police propaganda the left is pushing, you will find the opposite.

What is the anti police propaganda? For the record I am not anti police and have tremendous respect for the job that they do.

i doubt that very much.

[San Lumen]

What is the anti police propaganda? For the record I am not anti police and have tremendous respect for the job that they do.

i doubt that very much.

What brings you to that conclusion?

[Loben]

i doubt that very much.

What brings you to that conclusion?

i dont owe you an answer.

[Lord Dominator]

Very interesting article there, seems like the case was fairly open-and-shut. Wonder what caused the length of the trial

[Marcianus]

Once, you get off of CNN, and start thinking for yourself and stop listening to the Anti-Police propaganda the left is pushing, you will find the opposite.

What is the anti police propaganda? For the record I am not anti police and have tremendous respect for the job that they do.

Nothing really, except for the continuous lies and hatred the left and especially Black Lives Matter pushes on the police, the many attacks against the police in response to the often times fabricated stories, and the same, cliche police shooting story of an Unarmed black man shot by white cop. (like that story has been done to death by the media, makes me lose belief in these lies the media is pushing.)

[San Lumen]

What brings you to that conclusion?

i dont owe you an answer.

You made the accusation therefore defend it.

What is the anti police propaganda? For the record I am not anti police and have tremendous respect for the job that they do.

Nothing really, except for the continuous lies and hatred the left and especially Black Lives Matter pushes on the police, the many attacks against the police in response to the often times fabricated stories, and the same, cliche police shooting story of an Unarmed black man shot by white cop. (like that story has been done to death by the media, makes me lose belief in these lies the media is pushing.)

all total rubbish. Care to provide a source for your outlandish claims? Van Dyke's actions were total unjust and uncalled for. He is guilty of murder.

[Xelsis]

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.

[Marcianus]

i dont owe you an answer.

You made the accusation therefore defend it.

Nothing really, except for the continuous lies and hatred the left and especially Black Lives Matter pushes on the police, the many attacks against the police in response to the often times fabricated stories, and the same, cliche police shooting story of an Unarmed black man shot by white cop. (like that story has been done to death by the media, makes me lose belief in these lies the media is pushing.)

all total rubbish. Care to provide a source for your outlandish claims? Van Dyke's actions were total unjust and uncalled for. He is guilty of murder.

Well, looking at the footage for the shooting, before Ronald McDonald gets shot, you can clearly see him holding an object as he's walking away, which he turns towards the officers, and does a cool little spin and got shot. So in that situation, the officers saw a weapon, and shot in fear of their life. Though, I do agree, they shouldn't have shot him, and instead used better means to apprehend him, and Dick Van Dyke here should be punished for killing somebody instead of dealing with the situation better.

[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.

so he was wrongly convicted in your view?

[San Lumen]

You made the accusation therefore defend it.

all total rubbish. Care to provide a source for your outlandish claims? Van Dyke's actions were total unjust and uncalled for. He is guilty of murder.

Well, looking at the footage for the shooting, before Ronald McDonald gets shot, you can clearly see him holding an object as he's walking away, which he turns towards the officers, and does a cool little spin and got shot. So in that situation, the officers saw a weapon, and shot in fear of their life. Though, I do agree, they shouldn't have shot him, and instead used better means to apprehend him, and Dick Van Dyke here should be punished for killing somebody instead of dealing with the situation better.

His name was Lachlan and he didn't rush at the officer with the knife. there was no reason whatsoever to shoot him. and the officers name was Jason.

[Xelsis]

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.

so he was wrongly convicted in your view?

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.

[Marcianus]

Well, looking at the footage for the shooting, before Ronald McDonald gets shot, you can clearly see him holding an object as he's walking away, which he turns towards the officers, and does a cool little spin and got shot. So in that situation, the officers saw a weapon, and shot in fear of their life. Though, I do agree, they shouldn't have shot him, and instead used better means to apprehend him, and Dick Van Dyke here should be punished for killing somebody instead of dealing with the situation better.

His name was Lachlan and he didn't rush at the officer with the knife. there was no reason whatsoever to shoot him. and the officers name was Jason.

You must be new to puns?

[Loben]

Well, looking at the footage for the shooting, before Ronald McDonald gets shot, you can clearly see him holding an object as he's walking away, which he turns towards the officers, and does a cool little spin and got shot. So in that situation, the officers saw a weapon, and shot in fear of their life. Though, I do agree, they shouldn't have shot him, and instead used better means to apprehend him, and Dick Van Dyke here should be punished for killing somebody instead of dealing with the situation better.

His name was Lachlan and he didn't rush at the officer with the knife. there was no reason whatsoever to shoot him. and the officers name was Jason.

he had a knife......

[Infected Mushroom]

i doubt that very much.

What brings you to that conclusion?

For one thing this is perhaps the 5th op you’ve made where you hope to see a specific police officer figuratively shot down

[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.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

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

[Kowani]

so he was wrongly convicted in your view?

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.

[Marcianus]

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?

[San Lumen]

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.

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?

[Marcianus]

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?

Not sure when he said police can do no wrong. All he said was that the officer was brave for confronting someone with a knife. Could I insist you with some good eyes, sir?