MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Watch: Chicago Police Officer's Fatal Shooting of Laquan McDonald

Officer Jason Van Dyke charged with murder.

Chicago was given until Wednesday to release the footage, but they decided this evening, following a press conference, to release the dash cam video that shows Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke shooting Laquan McDonald, 17, dead during a confrontation on the street in October, 2014. Van Dyke was charged with murder earlier today for pumping 16 bullets into McDonald.

Apparently so many folks attempted to access the Chicago Police's website to see the video that the site crashed. Fox 10 in Phoenix was able to get through. They uploaded the video on YouTube. I've embedded it below. There is no sound, but it's still pretty disturbing. The confrontation starts at about 5 minutes in:

As was detailed in coverage before the video's release, McDonald was clearly walking away from the officers, not toward them or lunging aggressively when Van Dyke opens fire. Then he falls almost immediately to the pavement, not moving at all as the officer keeps shooting.  Reuters has more on the current situation here

Photo Credit: Chicago Police

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Terr||

    That is very disturbing.

  • DEG||

    I shouldn't have watched it.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Agreed...

  • gaoxiaen||

    I can't find any information about what he actually did, other than carrying a knife.

  • Adans smith||

    I did not watch it.I do not want to see a man murderd.The one in South Carolina and the boy in Cleveland were just too much for me. Too many of these in the last few years.

  • IceTrey||

    The cop steps TOWARD the guy. Completely unreasonable. He'll get off of course.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I expect he was charged with 1st degree because it is too much and provides a ready excuse for the jury to acquit him.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yep.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Jesus.

    I know that we've seen a lot here on Reason. Some pretty terrible police behavior. But this is up there with Kelly Thomas as the worst I've seen. This is murder. Absolute, pre-meditated, cold blooded murder.

    Yet, just like with the murder of Kelly Thomas, I don't exactly find myself confident that the cop will be convicted of murder.

  • DEG||

    The cops will show up and intimidate the jury like the Fullerton cops during the Kelly Thomas trial, and the prosecutor might very well throw the case too.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Horrible. He better end up in jail. I'm sure on policeone they are screaming about it being a "good shoot".

  • Just say Nikki||

    According to the CNN report I just saw, the officer who shot Laquan McDonald fired his gun just 6 seconds after arriving on the scene.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Proof that cops sign up to use their weapons.

  • IceTrey||

    They straight up Tamir Riced him. Drive right up on him and then claim he had to shoot because he was so close.

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    "HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!"

  • Ted S.||

    He was going to go all the way around the world and come at them from the other side.

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    A military style flank attack?!

  • Ted S.||

    That's discipline by cop standards.

  • ||

    When the SPD officer shot the woodcarver hobo, I believe he started shooting within 4 seconds of exiting his vehicle.

    It appears to be something like that.

  • ||

    It's too bad we don't see more to see if the perp was belligerent. Still, it sounds as though the cop went off a tad too quick. Later in the video you can hear him say, "I'm alright".

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    They're not gonna get murder 1 off that video. Sorry.

  • IceTrey||

    Of course not because the all white jury will let him off just like the Thomas case.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Is this going to be more of that bullshit where they purposefully over-charge the guy so he gets off? It's at least manslaughter.

    Don't know what they are going to argue was going on in his head when he gunned the guy down though.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Yep. You got a black yute on PCP swinging a knife around. At least one of the people on the jury is going to think that deserves the death penalty.

  • Jerryskids||

    I believe there were 7 other officers on the scene and none of them fired - gonna be tough to argue that "any reasonable cop" would have feared for his life under the circumstances. (Not that making the argument itself will be tough, just the keeping a straight face while making the argument part.) Of course, I've already seen the defense attorney making the "if you've never worn the badge you have no right to judge" argument - hey, asshole, you're standing in front of a courthouse where there are people who've never worn the badge but their whole job is to judge, that's why they're called judges. And what about the guy you're defending? Has that cop ever been a strung-out junkie stealing car stereos to get a fix? I don't think so, so what right does the cop have to judge the junkie?

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    Yep.

    The trial is going to play out more or less like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W9ge3viyEM

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

  • ThomasD||

    I disagree. They might not have gotten murder off the first, or even second shot, but he clearly kept firing after the kid was flat on the ground.

    I suspect some of those 'multiple gunshot wounds' will prove to be caused by bullet fragments from missed shots striking the pavement first.

    Given that the kid never attempted to get off the pavement any potential threat ceased to exist once the kid hit the ground.

  • ||

    OT: But at least some student start to fight back.

    Princeton students try to make stand for academic freedom

    This is a good read, the person who wrote the letter did a good job (surely some privileged white boy) but I fear that these students will be ignored, even if they are a majority, even if they are a large majority. Unfortunately, the faculty and the administrators are fully on the side of the idiots even if it destroys they themselves.

  • Ted S.||

    Princeton students need to point out that the Peter Singers of the world are evil.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Whaaaat the fuck

    That was on my birthday.

    Also, it's really really really really horrible. Yet I doubt the cop will be convicted.

  • sarcasmic||

    Can't watch because I know nothing else will happen. Well, other than the cop getting a long paid vacation, back pay if he is terminated in the mean time, a medal, a commendation, and a promotion once he is acquitted.

  • Careless||

    Well, other than the cop getting a long paid vacation

    He's no longer being paid, apparently

  • sarcasmic||

    So he'll be rehired with back pay.

  • Just say Nikki||

    As of today, it will be an unpaid vacation.

    Until the back pay, that is.

  • straffinrun||

    After further review, the call on the field stands.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    OK, this doesn't look good for the cop at all, he's no officer Wilson defending his own life.

    But I have a point about media criticism, a point about "civil unrest," and a point about the rights of the accused.

    (a) The Reuters article only gave the cop's side in the form of his lawyer saying he'd be acquitted. The reporter sought out an outside commenter, but it was a professor who was critical of the police - perhaps rightly so, but the reporter could also have sought out someone to maybe say what there is to be said in the cop's favor. Otherwise it was all spin for the prosecutor and the authorities - since in this context the cop is no longer "the authorities" but the defendant. Crime reporting tends to be rigged for the authorities, and maybe it's poetic justice that this time the alleged criminal is a cop, etc., etc., but after making these obvious points, the media needs to get its act together. They need to make sure that when someone's accused of a crime, and everyone's baying for his blood, they get some balance, especially given the risk of poisoning the jury pool.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    (b) The constant quotes from the mayor and officials, the family lawyer of the guy who was shot, the local pastors, about keeping all demonstrations peaceful, seem to carry a sting in the tail - "we're doing the best we can to avoid violence, but if this cop gets off we can't guarantee civic peace!"

    And there's this quote from the prosecutor:

    "Alvarez also said prosecutors moved up the timing of the charges ahead of the release of the video.

    ""With release of this video it's really important for public safety that the citizens of Chicago know that this officer is being held responsible for his actions," she said." Now, the reference to public safety seems to allude to the possibility of riots if the officer isn't "held responsible."

    Nice city you got there, jury pool. Pity if you ruined everything by letting this guy off.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    *c) Then there's the grand jury issue. It seems the prosecutor didn't use a grand jury.

    What about the 5th Amendment guarantee that you can't be put on trial for "a capital or otherwise infamous crime" unless a grand jury accuses you first?

    This issue used to be considered settled: The states were exempt from this federal constitutional requirement based on a limited interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the McDonald case, and Justice Thomas' concurrence in particular, re-opened the issue: Shouldn't the states be bound by *all* the Bill of Rights, not just those parts the Supreme Court justices happen to like?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Here's the scorecard of which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states - technically, whether these rights have been "incorporated" against the states via the 14th Amendment:

    1st Amendment: Fully incorporated.
    2nd Amendment: Fully incorporated.
    3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated.
    4th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
    5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment.
    6th Amendment: Fully incorporated. [sic - not incorporated as to jury unanimity]
    7th Amendment: Not incorporated.
    8th Amendment: Incorporated with respect to the protection agains "cruel and unusual punishments," but no specific Supreme Court ruling on the incorporation of the "excessive fines" and "excessive bail" protections.

  • Notorious UGCC||

  • dantheserene||

    Of course, the plain language of the 14th incorporated all of them until the Slaughterhouse clusterfuck.

  • Just say Nikki||

    There are no capital crimes in IL.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "capital *or* otherwise infamous"

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Illinois law says you don't need a grand jury. See my comment above.

    But what about the 14th Amendment?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    some analysis:

    "...a crime is made ''infamous'' by the quality of the punishment which may be imposed. ''What punishments shall be considered as infamous may be affected by the changes of public opinion from one age to another.'' Imprisonment in a state prison or penitentiary, with or without hard labor, or imprisonment at hard labor in the workhouse of the District of Columbia, falls within this category. The pivotal question is whether the offense is one for which the court is authorized to award such punishment; the sentence actually imposed is immaterial. When an accused is in danger of being subjected to an infamous punishment if convicted, he has the right to insist that he shall not be put upon his trial, except on the accusation of a grand jury. Thus, an act which authorized imprisonment at hard labor for one year, as well as deportation, of Chinese aliens found to be unlawfully within the United States, created an offense which could be tried only upon indictment. Counterfeiting, fraudulent alteration of poll books, fraudulent voting, and embezzlement, have been declared to be infamous crimes."

  • Notorious UGCC||

  • Just say Nikki||

    Well, I guess he has a point if he wants to make a thing of this in every single case with potential state prison time that doesn't involve a grand jury. That's going to be a lot of work.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a step.

    And of course the plea-bargain system makes much of the Constitution moot anyway.

  • Jerryskids||

    But there's also the little issue of the city almost immediately offering a $5 million settlement without being prompted - that's some pretty good evidence that they know they're deep in in shit pile.

  • Seamus||

    The courts have not held the 5th amendment's grand jury guarantee to be one of the "libert[ies}" incorporated into the 14th amendment's due process clause, so it's not binding against the states.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Yes, you've just defined the problem.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    The courts also approve taking your house and giving it to Pfizer.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, he'll get off. The prosecution will do everything they can to raise reasonable doubt.

  • Zeb||

    "we're doing the best we can to avoid violence, but if this cop gets off we can't guarantee civic peace!"

    Given recent events, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable statement. Not that that makes it a good situation.

  • IceTrey||

    From were Brown turned and came back towards Wilson he made it 21 feet. The audio of the shots lasts 6.5 seconds with a 3 second pause. That means Brown moved 21 feet in 3.5 seconds. That is 4 mph. For someone as tall as Brown that was a walk. 21 feet is about 8 steps. No way was Brown "charging full speed" as Wilson said. Also Wilson was outside with plenty of room to maneuver, not cornered. He could have backpedaled, dodged or even turned and ran away. He knew backup was on the way. He was armed while Brown was not. If he was so fearful for his life in those circumstances he's a straight up coward and should never have been a cop.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    They were in the middle of the street. The guy was walking down the centerline at a brisk pace. The cops arrived, immediately drew their weapons and I presume issued orders. The guy appears to ignore them, keeping the same pace, but veering to his right to keep the same distance between himself and the cops. His intent appeared to be to get past the cops, to not let them interrupt whatever he was up to. He was still facing forward, at a 90 degree angle to the approach of the police, when he was hit by the bullets. I did not see any movement of his hands, as if to brandish a weapon. Without the sound, I cannot tell what he or the officers were saying.

  • GILMORE™||

    Jesus Christ, not again.

  • BigT||

    "That means Brown moved 21 feet in 3.5 seconds. That is 4 mph"

    You assume constant speed. It could be a few fast steps and then stop.

  • IceTrey||

    A few fast steps is not a "full charge" such as to cause one to fear for their life.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    Fer chrissakes.......

    Even Eric Holder's DoJ investigation found that Wilson's account was the only one consistent with the evidence, and that the "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative was bullshit. Give it a rest.

  • IceTrey||

    No, the DOJ found there was not enough evidence to bring federal civil rights charges which are the only kind of charges they can bring. I never said anything about hands up but nice attempt at obfuscation.

  • Terr||

    I wonder how many cops are going to show up to intimidate the jury stand in solidarity with their brother at the trial.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Hitler?

  • sarcasmic||

    Well, I just watched the video. Nothing else will happen. The deceased was armed with a knife, and as everyone knows someone with a knife is an immediate deadly threat to anyone within twenty feet. So the officers had every reason to fear for their lives. Additionally he failed to obey the police, and that right there shows that he was a deadly threat to the entire community. Kudos to shooting him as he continued to grasp for his knife while continuing to threaten the officers from a deadly prone position. He could have killed them all. At least the brave officers went home safely to their families. This could have been a tragedy had that quick thinking officer not neutralized this deadly threat. I mean, that criminal could have killed them all with his knife before rampaging across an entire neighborhood. If anything, the other officers at the scene should hang their heads in shame for allowing this deadly threat to go on as long as it did. They are the ones who should be fired.

  • sarcasmic||

    The prosecutor rests his case.

  • Jordan||

    Any word on whether the other cops will be charged with anything? It's not clear from what I've read, but I'm guessing they fabricated bullshit stories to cover this up like the murderer did.

  • sarcasmic||

    All cop stories are fabricated.

  • ant1sthenes||

    If you want to stop this shit, those are the guys you have to go after. You might be able to hide murder behind a bullshit claim of self defense, but that doesn't fly for obstruction. And the guys that do murder do so confident that there are people willing to lie to cover it up.

  • sarcasmic||

    There are only two kinds of cops: criminals and accomplices. The ones that have yet to commit criminal acts cover for their buddies because if they don't then their buddies may not cover for them when it is their turn. That and any cop who doesn't cover for a criminal cop will find themselves hearing crickets if they ever call for backup. Anyone who doesn't play the game will quit or be forced out.

  • ant1sthenes||

    If we ever had an FBI that actually wanted to do something about this sort of shit (not likely, since they're all part of the knight class), they could just require departments to have the other officers speak to FBI agents after a shooting like this and affirm the information on their police reports, and then charge the whole lot of them for lying to investigators.

  • Zeb||

    I think that would be a great job for the FBI. As you say, probably won't happen since the FBI agents are also part of the same privileged class as the cops.

  • dantheserene||

    The FBI is utterly reliant on local cooperation, which would end as soon as they tried this the first time.

  • Jordan||

    Oh, and Obama just wants to remind everyone that government is us. So, Laquan Macdonald actually committed suicide, and anyone who thinks differently is a racist teabagger.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Me too, given the deletion of 86 minutes from that McDonald's surveillance video near the site of the shooting. Honestly, I don't think the officer gets charged if he stopped shooting after McDonald dropped to the ground. It's the added impacts into a guy that's just lying there, not trying to get up, that are going to hang him. The other officers not joining in the fun is going to look bad too.

    Turn towards officers while wielding a knife, while you're within 20 feet of them, and they've told you to drop the weapon and comply, and you've been acting like a shithead before this? You're going to probably get shot, and it'll be found that you deserved it.

    The Oscar Grant and, needless to say, Kelly Thomas videos bothered me much more than this one. Tamir Rice too. I don't see how they get anything past manslaughter, but I'm hardly an expert. In this legal climate, who knows?

  • ||

    War on cops my fricken ass.

  • Zeb||

    They're working on it.

  • Brian||

    Heroes.

  • Brian||

    I really like the first line from the linked reuters article:

    A white Chicago policeman was charged on Tuesday with murdering a black teenager, a prosecution that was speeded up in hopes of staving off a fresh burst of the turmoil over race and police use of deadly force that has shaken the United States for more than a year.

    Get that? They're not moving swiftly and aggressively against the cop out of a sense of justice or decency.

    They're afraid that their might be "racial turmoil".

    Too bad he wasn't white, I guess.

  • sarcasmic||

    Which means it will simply be a show trial to appease the mob a bit, but still let the officer get back pay and a promotion.

  • Zeb||

    I doubt that will appease the mob much. But I suppose if they drag out the trial long enough the mob might get bored and move on to something else.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I haven't heard an update about the 'rough riding' in a while. What's going on there?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but: How Chicago tried to cover up a police execution

    “The real issue here is, this terrible thing happened, how did our governmental institutions respond?” Kalven said. “And from everything we’ve learned, compulsively at every level, from the cops on the scene to the highest levels of government, they responded by circling the wagons and by fabricating a narrative that they knew was completely false.” To him this response is “part of a systemic problem” and preserves “the underlying conditions that allow abuse and shield abuse.”

    The details are not surprising.

  • bacon-magic||

    Funny that they didn't release anything until after Obama's boy Rahm was re-elected. This cop needs to be charged and so does the corrupt Chicago(redundant) government. Hell, I'm from Illinois, and really wish Chicago would secede from the Union.

  • John||

    OT. God Ezra Klein is an obsequious retard.

    http://twitchy.com/2015/09/18/.....right-now/

  • hurts_donut||

    http://tinyurl.com/jts3esx

    Its a shame that any of us even know this guy's name. Between this and the constitution is "like 100 years old and is outdated", he should be shunned by anyone with a semi functional brain.

  • Idle Hands||

    his wife is kind of cute in a certain way.

  • hurts_donut||

    The only thing I can give the guy is that he has a hell of a work ethic. I'm sure he has made a lot of money and that's hard to do when you are collecting small bills left on your Ikea dresser from Democratic Senators frantically tucking their button up shirts behind their Dockers twill belts trying to get to the Uber driver that is waiting outside of Ezra's apartment building stoop and as the door closes the last thing Ezra sees is the evening twilight casting a shadow of the window shades against the wall and the soft illumination of his Kool 100 as he takes a drag.

  • Zeb||

    No shit.

    Stories made up of twitter posts are weird. But sometimes awesome:

    OMG I WANT TO FUCK THIS TWEET SO HARD IN THE ASS.....

  • salliewilson514||

    I just got paid $6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that's cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,

    www.OnlineCash9.Com

  • block30||

    Why aren't non-lethal weapons employed like pepper spray or a taser (if one must use anything at all)? I'm not understanding why its the gun that is selected first.

  • Professor Woland||

    Because an "I once taxed a guy on PCP" story won't win you as much admiration from your fellow constables as an "I once shot a guy sixteen times while he was walking away" story.

  • Professor Woland||

    tazed, damnit!

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    Well, government...

  • bacon-magic||

    Taxed is worse...

  • Gray Ghost||

    The original two officers on scene requested a guy with one. Shooty McShooterson and his partner showed up, and they didn't have one either. Not that it mattered, very soon after. Even if they had one, I'm told that it often won't do shit, as is often the case when trying to incapacitate the intoxicated. Especially if the intoxicant has analgesic properties, like PCP.

    It also doesn't work very well from far away, if the target's moving. Evidently it's difficult to hit the guy with both probes, hard enough for the probes to get a good purchase on the guy if he's far away.

    In short, while cops would rather use it than shoot a guy, it's not something you can rely upon to incapacitate a deadly threat, which a guy is when he's holding a knife, acting erratically, and inside of 21 feet.

  • hurts_donut||

    I know the cops like to pop off but your last sentence is what I agree with the most. You start acting erratically inside 21 feet with a knife in your hand, I don't know what anyone expected was going to happen. You can close 20 feet real quick and a knife is no joke when it comes to bodily harm or death. I'm just finding it hard to get worked up about this one, maybe I'm wrong.

  • Meerkatx||

    If only someone would invent a gun that fired something like a bean bag that could knock down someone inside of 20 feet of the shooter.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    What fun is that ?

  • Zeb||

    If he was walking away, he wasn't much of a deadly threat and presumably would soon be outside of the magical 21' perimeter.

    In any case, while that may be a reasonable general standard for self defense, I say the police should have to be more sure of a threat before using deadly force than an ordinary citizen. If your job involves going out of your way to approach possibly dangerous situations, you should have to be pretty sure of the danger of a situation before acting as if your life is immanently threatened.

  • Gray Ghost||

    You and I, Zeb, would be fine letting McDonald walk away from us. We're not cops, we've no obligation to arrest him, and frankly, we'd be stupid to try and do so. For the cops, OTOH, it's their job to arrest guys who've been threatening people with knives, destroying others' property with same, and who are walking down the middle of the street intoxicated. To arrest him, the cops have to close with him, as the officer immediately to the left of McDonald is trying to do at 5:32 on the video, by stepping towards him. There's more than enough PC for them to arrest him. McDonald doesn't get to walk away.

    If McDonald wanted to not get shot, all he had to do was drop the knife and---slowly---show an empty left hand to the officers. (In theory, anyway: ask Erik Scott how it works when cops are shouting conflicting commands at you.) I wouldn't have shot McDonald at that point, but I don't think it's unlawful that Van Dyke did so. I would've shot him had McDonald turned towards me, but I think McDonald's turn to the left is caused by his reaction to getting shot by the first bullet.

    What is unlawful is continuing to dump the magazine into a criminal that, although still armed, isn't in a position to immediately threaten death or serious bodily injury to someone else. I'm not saying that cops need to have split-second reflexes, but shooting a guy 10 or seconds into him just laying there is on the other side of the line.

  • Gray Ghost||

    FWIW, the '21 foot' or Tueller rule really only applies to a situation where, the shooter's weapon is holstered, and the guy with the edged weapon is facing the shooter. In that case, the edged weapon attacker is going to be able to stick the shooter before the shooter can draw and fire into the attacker's center of mass.

    In Van Dyke's case, his weapon is pointed at McDonald, and McDonald isn't facing or moving towards Van Dyke. The rule I've heard of in that situation is that anyone within 7 feet or so can lunge and stick you before you can get a shot onto them and stop them. Not that handguns are great at stopping people anyway, though McDonald certainly went down like a dropped sack of potatoes. Knives are really, really dangerous. Even three-four inch folding knives.

    Sure would've been great if they could've OC'd him, tased him, or been able to get a beanbag round on him. Even better if McDonald had dropped the knife and complied with the officers' commands.

  • Derpmaster General||

    Processes were followed. Mainly the lie for your cop buddies process.

  • hurts_donut||

    This guy was armed with a knife? I haven't been following this too closely.

  • kV||

    Well, it was a "three-inch folding knife." No more details from the cops. I'm sure if it were a Bowie knife or something that could reasonably be expected to kill an armed officer (with many other armed officers around him), we'd see images of the actual knife splashed all over the news, courtesy of the police.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Well, apparently Canada's ambitious plan stemming from trudeaus campaign promise just got whacked in the forehead by the 2x4 of reality.

    They're scaling it back, aka, extending the deadline. Sorry for the lack of link because it's pure audio but the text lede just indicates the awesome plan is moving forward. Only in the audio does it mention the whoopsy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's okay because they are still letting those people in. I just hope they don't stop at 25,000. MOAR

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Again, the issue is the timeline.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Oh, I also found the linguistic gymnastics interesting where they essentially say that fighting-aged males might get the old pass-over in the vetting process.

  • Rich||

  • hurts_donut||

    I watched the video. Can someone explain to me what the bitch about this situation is? If the guy was armed with a knife and got within 20 feet or so of the cops......what exactly is the problem?

  • Derpmaster General||

    He's moving away from the police and they got that close to him, not vice versa.

  • ant1sthenes||

    There were also clearly still gunshots several seconds after he had collapsed to the ground and stopped moving.

  • Sevo||

    If the guy was armed with a knife and (the cops) got within 20 feet or so of (him)
    Do I smell tulpa?

  • Gene||

    I sounded like "good shoot" to me.

  • Gene||

    *it

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Every shoot is a "good shoot" to the cops.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Sorry, that was me. Was walking through the grass and stepped in dog crap. Tracked it in on my shoe.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The police lied is the problem.

  • Zeb||

    If the guy was armed with a knife and got within 20 feet or so of the cops......what exactly is the problem?

    That they shot someone who was walking away from them?

  • MokFarin||

    Because, in the real (non-cop) world, if you place yourself in danger and then kill to escape from it, you are guilty.

    "He's armed with a knife" was known to the police at the time from what I've read. Which means you don't roll your car up to 20 feet, get out, and then fire within 6 seconds of exiting the vehicle....and then get to claim "he was within 20 feet of us with a knife so it's a legit shoot!"

    But you end a life? That needs to be an iron clad situation with no shadow of a doubt with at least as strict a judgement as we give to citizens. In Chicago, if I shoot a guy running away from me because I saw he had a knife? I never see daylight again. Especially if I put myself into what would be considered "Self-defensible range." Self-defense laws almost always have a caveat that you need to make an exit if possible (usually excepting the home).

    See if I, as a civilian, walk up to a gang banger and punch him in the face, I don't get to claim self-defense when I shoot him thirty seconds later because "I was in fear for my life." No, I created the situation, so I am culpable. The officers were in the same situation: They were faced with a man with a knife who wasn't being aggressive with it and had requested a tazer team. They could have stayed in their vehicles until the situation escalated and they HAD to act.

    But no. They pulled up to him. They got out on him. Then they shot him. Because "Self-defense."

  • ||

    If the guy was armed with a knife and got within 20 feet or so of the cops......what exactly is the problem?

    The "Tueller Distance" is not some magical execution circle and the tactical logic actually works in the opposite direction of what you're asserting. That's the distance at which drawing your weapon and defending against an opponent with a 'contact weapon' becomes pointless. If you find yourself within 20 ft. of someone without your weapon drawn, your two courses of action are to engage without your weapon or flee/seek some other advantage. Outside that distance (and increasingly) it becomes a matter of how evenly matched your weapons are and the necessity of engagement.

    All of this is based on assumptions that don't conform to the reality of the situation (i.e. all parties are on foot, there are no obstacles, cover, impairment or other means of evasion, etc.). If you have a car and a gun and it's your job to apprehend someone armed with a knife and they end up dead at the scene, you failed, badly. If there's 4-6 of you with 2-3 vehicles, and an array of weapons both lethal and not; you really did something wrong.

  • GamerFromJump||

    I've said before and will again, the worst thing working against any sort of reform is that the hustlers successfully turned police violence into a "black thing". As long as people think it can't happen to *them*, the calls for reform will barely register on the hierarchy of priorities.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Normally, the system will defer to cops. Even bend over backwards for them.

    But from time to time, some official needs votes or needs to avoid "civil unrest." Then I wouldn't want to be a cop involved in a controversial shooting.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The "black thing" is a way of parlaying a real problem into the ONLY problem because to discuss the larger problem would be to call into question the very structures that the race baiters (baters?) intrinsically support: more government with an intrusive regulatory system bolstered by entrenched public sector unions with membership which remains beyond the reach of standard rules of accountability.

  • Sevo||

    More SF politics, this time with push-back.
    Kulaks and wreckers required to make good!

    “Officials call on SF landlords to house Mission fire victims”
    […]
    “What they need most of all is housing,” said Ben Amyes, emergency services coordinator for the Human Services Agency. Amyes said that the agency is in the process of finding landlords who are willing to rent out empty apartments at below-market rate under what is known as the City’s Good Samaritan Occupancy Law.”
    http://blog.sfgate.com/inthemi.....e-victims/

    Which law says ‘I won’t cum in your mouth this time! Really! This time I’m serious! I promise! (he, he, he). And the comments make it clear no one is fooled.
    There is no reason to presume that *any* tenants in that area have been doing other than free-riding on the building owners for many years; I've got one at more than 20 years. And now, they'd really like another free ride for just two years, promise!
    I'll stick this in the AM posts tomorrow, since the east coast folks are checked out. But I'm happy to see the response; fuggidaboudit!

  • Intn'l House of Badass||

    Law enforcement is indistinguishable from organized crime.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Law enforcement is indistinguishable from organized crime.

    fixed

  • Reflections||

    Now you can stop pretending the police are hero's. You can not un train entrenched hatred and bigotry that has been handed down from one police generation to another. Imagine having the power to brutalize african americans with perverse pleasure with no consequences? An arrest does not mean punishment especially for police officers. The rigged system with law enforcement given special privileges to kill and are celebrated by his fellow brothers for his bravely and heroism. The worst part is how they try to tie black on black crime to police corruption and brutality.

  • Seamus||

    Van Dyke was charged with murder earlier today for pumping 16 bullets into McDonald.

    I thought Chicago had banned high-capacity magazines.

  • CGeary44||

    I don't know how Illinois's (?) murder laws are written, but this seems to me more like 2nd degree ("heat of the moment"-type) murder than 1st degree (premeditated). So maybe they are overcharging it to give the jury an out--basically throwing the case. Or maybe they're just playing to the crowd, now that everyone is going to see what actually happened.

    What does seem clear to me, though, is that the only reason they charged him with anything is that the video was ordered to be released. This whole situation has all the hallmarks of a coordinated cover-up. They circled the wagons to protect their own for as long as they could (including by destroying evidence, allegedly) in the hopes that it would all go away, and now that the facts have come out, they're going to pretend like the investigation has been by-the-book all along.

    This is just awful and you can't really help but conclude that this probably happens a lot more often than most of us like to believe is the case.

  • ||

    So it took them over a year to charge this guy? A nation of men people, a nation of men.

  • ant1sthenes||

    They wouldn't have charged him at all if a whistleblower hadn't let some journalist know that there was damning video.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Rahm needed to delay this as long as possible to get past his re-election.
    If this video had come out during the campaign does anyone think Chuy wouldn't be Mayor today?

  • Real American||

    the police are looking for a reason to kill you. Don't give them one. Live to see another day.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    In the "Old West" there was the saying "Some people just need killin'!"
    This drug-addled kid probably fit that description: If it wasn't then, it would be at some future point when he would have cost the lives of untold others.
    Another is that A-H who demonstrated his stare capabilities against a cop holding a line last night, all while being "filmed" - and broadcast - by Fox News. Of course, his Buds all High-Fived him when he was finally convinced by some woman from BLM that he was being shown on national TV for the fool he was, and turned away.

  • Win Bear||

    I see a guy with a weapon who apparently had just committed several felonies simply ignoring orders from police pointing guns at him and walking away. Apparently, nobody taught that guy that when police tell you to stop, you better stop immediately, and doubly so if they point guns at you.

    And this is in a city with a black plurality (whites are about 30% of the population), that is overwhelmingly run by Democrats, with kids educated in an education system created by Democrats, and with a police chief appointed by Rahm Emanuel. So, whatever is wrong with Chicago police was clearly caused by Democrats.

  • ChiReason||

    I'm genuinely curious, why would a respectable magazine magazine publish lies that can easily be debunked by the very video attacked to the article?

    "McDonald was clearly walking away from the officers, not toward them or lunging aggressively when Van Dyke opens fire. Then he falls almost immediately to the pavement, not moving at all as the officer keeps shooting."

    This is simply not true. McDonald clearly stops his angle away from police, stops, and begins to turn toward them when he is shot--if he hadn't been shot, he would have been faciiing them fully with his deadly weapon. And he's not moving at all on the ground?

    I expected more from Reason.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online