Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke has been charged with first-degree murder in his shooting of Laquan McDonald, 17, on Oct. 20, 2014. The videotape below challenges a claim that Van Dyke was defending himself or others in shooting McDonald 16 times. While McDonald was armed with a knife, he was walking away from the officers. There are defenses that can be made but the videotape presents a considerable hurdle for defense counsel.
Two of the most notable aspects of the videotape is that only McDonald felt the need to fire among the various officers and he did so within seconds of getting out of his car upon his arrival at the scene. The teen was 12 to 15 feet away when he was shot.
While I believe that there was a strong basis for criminal charges, the use of first degree murder may prove more difficult for the prosecutors who could end up with a lesser offense. The most obvious defense is that Van Dyke is entitled to use lethal force for his own protection as well as the protection of the public. McDonald was armed with a knife and suspected of committing a robbery prior to the shooting. He was allegedly trying to break into vehicles at a trucking yard and he was accused by a witness of threatening him with the knife. Police reported that he had punctured a tire of a police car and struck the vehicle’s wind shield. He then took the police on a foot chase for nearly a half-mile as police tried to corral him and protect the public. McDonald also had PCP in his system and was acting erratically. Van Dyke could argue that when McDonald again turned to flee, he presented a danger to society as well as the officers.
Under Tennessee v. Garner, “deadly force…may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.” Thus, the Supreme Court rejected the prior fleeing felon rule when the felon did not pose an immediate threat to society. Under Graham v. Connor, this is determined according to an “objective reasonableness” standard but a calculus that considers the split second decision-making in such circumstances.
In this case McDonald appears to pull up his pants and then slows to a brisk walk. He then veers away from two officers who are emerging from a vehicle and drawing their guns. The shooting occurs almost immediately when the officer leaves the car. A 3-inch knife was recovered from the scene.
Van Dyke emptied all of his 16 round from his 9-mm. weapon into the teenager. The shooting lasted 14 to 15 seconds and McDonald was on the ground for 13 of those seconds.
watch some of those youtube videos of gangbangers shooting each other with the key word “Chiraq” in them and you will see why cops have an itchy trigger finger there
We saw the cops behavior because:
(1) There was a video;
(2) Somebody went to court and spent a lot of money/heartache;
(3) There was (for once) a judge who understands the Bill of Rights.
Still took more than a year to release the video and the cop was only charged to defuse the situation.
How many times has something like this happened but was never publicized because the three required elements didn’t exist?
There is a huge silent majority that fundamentally likes and respects cops – but that trust is slowly eroding as the public becomes aware of just how often cops abuse their power.
I am becoming more aware of people pushing back – witness the shooting of the dog Geist in SLC. The owner is spending big dollars and energy to punish the cop who wrongfully shot his dog (look at the donations from the public to fund his legal case – there is a lot of outrage).
It is up to cops if they reform or get reformed.
BarkinDog
But under Tennessee v. Garner the police officer has a duty to shoot if the fleeing felon poses a threat to the officers or to others.
The guy was walking, not sprinting. It wasn’t a serious effort to escape, it was more like “who me?” posturing.
Joseph Jones
I think there’s a problem for police, and this is it. Even if a cop witnesses someone commit a major felony (apparently not the case here), if the perp is escaping, the perp’s back to the cop, the cop simply has to intercept the perp, tackle him,
Comments like this discredit those who advocate accountability of law enforcement and a reform of its culture. It’s crazy to expect cops to disarm someone armed with a knife without using weapons to force the disarming. Cops aren’t James Bond and life isn’t a movie.
Excellent review of the relevant issues by Darren.
I would only add that
1. the the Mayor of Chicago withheld the video until after his reelection.
2. The city has been Democrat-run for 85 years.
3. The city has among the highest murder rates in the US.
4. The Mayor used to work for the President.
The DA, Anita Alvarez, who has shown her incompetence many times, sat on this for a year. That is another crime.
I am fine with the initial shooting, but once he is down, he should be controllable. Still, he was under PCP which can make you superman.
Justice Jones did not read the law as stated in Tennessee v. Garner and quoted by JT in the article.
The cop was overboard. Particularly when he kept shooting after perp was on the ground. But under Tennessee v. Garner the police officer has a duty to shoot if the fleeing felon poses a threat to the officers or to others. Under Tennessee v. Garner, “deadly force…may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.”
Now the perp in this situation did pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to others.
But that was curbed when he went down. To keep on shooting him after he was on the ground is beyond the Pale. Y’all know what Beyond The Pale is? It has to do with Sarah Palin.
@The Newspeak Post:
Thanks for the clarification, and yes I see it now in the article.
The news reports I have seen suggest that McDonald might very well have been a threat. But the attorneys for Van Dyke may have a problem with immediacy – the requirement the threat be imminent,
In the video I see a road with no civilians and officers more than an arms length away. Who knows how a jury will respond. But the distance from any person and movement away from the officers would seem to me to raise real problems for the defense.
As mentioned in the article, under Tennessee v. Garner, “deadly force…may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.”
Again I am not saying this officer was justified in his shooting I am just clearing up some misunderstandings about when it is and isn’t ok to use deadly force.
So if John the murdering psychopath just killed a room full of people, saw the cops coming, and decided to start running, the cops could (and should, perhaps) shoot him in the back.
“Lots of wrongs in there. Actually the Supreme Court said cops can shoot fleeing suspects in the back. Perfectly legal. You just have to have probable cause.”
This is worth some discussion.
It was my understanding that most jurisdictions require something that approximates ‘reasonable belief of imminent grave bodily harm or death’. To me, it seems pretty hard to get to ‘reasonable belief of imminent harm’ if the guy has his back turned and is moving away from the officer. I am no expert. But I have never read or heard of ‘probable cause’ used in the context of legal use of lethal force.
the US is a very violent nation – I lost count of the innocent Iraqis slaughtered. Violence is a way of life in the US. Being a cop doesn’t command respect any longer. I’d never be a cop, the way people talk and treat them it’s shocking. This guy too was hopped up on PCP, what’s wrong with a nation that no one notices or cares about their kids, their neighbors or fellow citizens – why weren’t his needs mental tended to?
We have plenty of money for wars and banks never enough to fix the ills of society. It wasn’t always like this.
As long as the banks hold sway this is just going to keep happening and will probably get worse. They have made us slaves and render many of us akin animals – the hunted and hunter.
Thanks to the corporate media I no longer trust black and white people.
Until I can safely leave the US I will never leave the house.
I have noticed that a lot of the above comments show an ignorance of what cops do and what happens when someone gets into a gunfight.
I’ll start this off by saying I don’t believe this was a “good shoot” as people say in law enforcement.
I’ll handle some of the comments above:Even if a cop witnesses someone commit a major felony (apparently not the case here), if the perp is escaping, the perp’s back to the cop..but the cop does not have legal status to kill or shoot the perp. I think that cops don’t get this. Plus they are lazy.”
Lots of wrongs in there. Actually the Supreme Court said cops can shoot fleeing suspects in the back. Perfectly legal. You just have to have probable cause.
Also, are cops lazy? I think they have one of the hardest jobs in the world. Does the whole world find out when you make a mistake at your job? If you make an egregious typing error do you go to prison?
“I’ve not shot my gun in years, but I could’ve hit that perp easily in the leg. He wasn’t even running.”
This is a very common myth, the myth of “shoot to maim.” Cops cannot shoot to injure. It’s either shoot to kill or don’t shoot at all.
“How can any of the shots be justified after he was on the ground?”
Easily and this is done all the time. When someone is shooting because they believe their life is in danger, as this officer probably did (wrongly), adrenaline kicks in and you lose all knowledge of how many shots you’ve made. This goes hand in hand with the auditory exclusion and tunnel vision that officers get in high intensity situations.
I cannot defend this guy’s actions but we need to learn more about what cops actually do before we start Monday morning quarterbacking.
I think that when people are frightened they will do all sorts of things. And if you arm them they will shoot people. And (some) Americans still accept that despite the gun control debate.
The issue here is one of self defence. Even one of mutual self defence. Just because someone is frightened doesn’t necessarily mean that their life is in any more danger than is “normal” for life in the US. The issue is about reasonable cause for self defence and an appropriate response. If a potential assailant is not advancing towards the presumed victim and is in fact trying to make an escape and is shot multiple times in the back for example the prosecution would argue that there was an intention to kill. Self defence implies just what the words imply and is inconsistent with an intent to kill a fleeing suspect.
This is yet another example of a probable avoidable death in what must have been a really frightening situation, and another endless example of how two lives can be ruined by guns.
What is even more astonishing is that America stubbornly sticks to its guns despite all the evidence and thinks the anarchy on its streets is normal and an example of freedom and liberty for all.
What do we get? In this case a dead felon allegedly with a knife and a policeman charged with murder.
Is this Freedom? Or even Liberty?
Apparently yes…..
I don’t believe a 1st degree murder charge will fly in this case. A manslaughter by criminal reckless might be a more successful prosecution. I suspect this case will result in a hung jury at least the first time it goes to trial and a hung jury will be more likely if 1st degree murder is brought to them.
For me, and I will presume there were no more threats made by the suspect that he would throw the knife after he went down from the first shot or two (which is the only reason I would see otherwise) a better approach would be to flank him with two or more officers with one kicking out the knife from his hands, then cuffing him up and frisking him. If he tried to stab someone as they approached one of the cover officers could shoot him to protect themselves.
The are essentially three questions to be answered in this situation.
1) Did the suspect’s actions prior to the shooting indicate a significant and clear threat to the public or police? Given what I have read the answer for me is yes.
2) Was the shooting officer’s actions necessary to effect the arrest or protect the public? I’m on the fence for this one and I would have to see the entire case report to make a better judgment
3) Was the continuing fire against the suspect warranted. I don’t agree that it was after a certain number of shots. That is, unless it can be articulated that he posed a serious risk to officers involved.
I suspect that #3 was an aggravating factor in the decision of the prosecutor to charge the officer.
On the subject of filling a suspect with an entire magazine of rounds, there are times when it is necessary. The below video is one of them. In this video the suspect is pulled over for a routine and minor traffic violation. After a short period of time he emerges and immediately fires off what reportedly is an AK-47 at several officers. One or two of the officers are hit. The suspect is hit multiple times and is still menacing the officers and firing with the rifle.
The officers regroup, probably behind the car. The female officer (who has been shot) radios in for help while another officer tactically reloads his pistol then engages the suspect who is still pointing the rifle at them. Her partner fires seventeen times at him and the suspect drops half way through the volleys.
In my opinion the firing of seventeen rounds after the tactical reload was justified in all shots. The risk was too great that the suspect would have continued to fire. There is also an additional aggravating factor that the suspect did not go down even after being hit multiple times which could be indicative of wearing body armor or being completely jacked up on drugs.
So as a comparison to the video I am supplying as a justified use of an entire magazine +1 rounds against a homicidal rampaging suspect. I do not see the same situation with the shooting our host mentions.
Here is the video. Note: It is quite violent.
The cop must have thought the shooting was justifiable, as he knew there was a dash-cam recording his actions and he fired in front of witnesses. So it will be interesting to hear his rationale. The entire incident looks questionable, but the cops were approaching with sirens and lights flashing; multiple units, etc, so perhaps the cop’s actions were based on the info that he was given over the radio on the way to the scene. Thus there may have been justification to stop the perp by force if the cop was told that the perp was a serious threat to the public. However, I see no reason to continue to shoot once he was on the ground.
That Van Dyke guy’s life is over, whether he’s convicted or not. I know it seems wrong, but I feel bad for him.
I’ve not shot my gun in years, but I could’ve hit that perp easily in the leg. He wasn’t even running.
How can any of the shots be justified after he was on the ground?
The perp was walking home to get his gun, so it was self defense. /sarc off.
I think there’s a problem for police, and this is it. Even if a cop witnesses someone commit a major felony (apparently not the case here), if the perp is escaping, the perp’s back to the cop, the cop simply has to intercept the perp, tackle him, engage him, taze him, whatever, but the cop does not have legal status to kill or shoot the perp and claim some righteous reason later, if the cop perceives that shooting is the only successful or easiest method to “arrest” (stop and apprehend) the perp.
I think that cops don’t get this. Plus they are lazy. Who wants to run after some guy who lives on the street or gets into fights every day? I don’t!
Cops are also taught their first and foremost goal at the beginning of each shift, I think their bosses even state so every day, is to get back home safely after their shift. Unfortunately, if several innocent civilians have to die to insure this goal is met, too bad, at least from the cop’s perspective.
Cops have shot and killed deaf people and people having epileptic fits, and even people in diabetic shock, when the cop thought his life was in danger. It’s insane. I witnessed an incident where cops shot and killed a guy because they did not want to risk retrieving him from at attic.