[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE

Pinguinite You have mail..

What did Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom talk about in Mexico? I have an idea


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: That Laquan McDonald Shooting In Chicago: A Counter-Take
Source: VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/posts/chicago-shooting-a-counter-take
Published: Nov 27, 2015
Author: John Derbyshire
Post Date: 2015-11-27 21:38:05 by Bridge at Remagen
Keywords: None
Views: 15219
Comments: 70

Here (with a hat tip to Countenance Blog) is an interesting counter-take on the 2014 Chicago shooting of Laquan McDonald.

I expect every police officer in the country has been taught a defensive doctrine called the Tueller Drill. The Tueller Drill was developed by Salt Lake City Police Officer Dennis Tueller, who among other things was a firearms instructor for his department.

Dennis trained uniformed police officers who were armed with pistols and who regularly encountered violent suspects armed with impact weapons, particularly knives.

{snip}

That begged the question, then, of what distance became the threshold at which an impact-weapon armed attacker did constitute an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm such that the officer would be justified in using deadly force. Was that distance 5 feet? 10 feet? 15 feet?

{snip}

After running a great many empirical tests, Dennis found that the distance that an impact-weapon armed attacker could cross from a standing start in 1.5 seconds was not just 5 feet, or 10 feet, or 15 feet. Rather, such an aggressor could consistently cross a distance of 21 feet, a full 7 yards, in the 1.5 seconds it would take the typical officer to draw his holster and engage that aggressor with aimed fire.

Laquan McDonald Video Not Dispositive of Police Criminal Misconduct

Posted by Andrew Branca, LegalInsurrection, November 25, 2015

Here’s a police training video displaying two officers testing this in the gym.

Branca also has a video he describes as

And in case that exercise wasn’t sufficiently convincing on how effective a knife can be against even a prepared and well-armed police officer, here’s a video of an actual confrontation between an aggressive and motivated knife-wielding attacker and several armed police officers, some of whom were armed with long guns. (CAUTION: Not all of these officers survive the encounter, and there’s plenty of blood, so if you’re sensitive to such things you may wish to defer viewing.)

You can watch it here.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Bridge at Remagen (#0)

That begged the question, then, of what distance became the threshold at which an impact-weapon armed attacker did constitute an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm such that the officer would be justified in using deadly force. Was that distance 5 feet? 10 feet? 15 feet?

{snip}

After running a great many empirical tests, Dennis found that the distance that an impact-weapon armed attacker could cross from a standing start in 1.5 seconds was not just 5 feet, or 10 feet, or 15 feet. Rather, such an aggressor could consistently cross a distance of 21 feet, a full 7 yards, in the 1.5 seconds it would take the typical officer to draw his holster and engage that aggressor with aimed fire.

Which begs the question,"WTF was the cop doing waiting around to be charged before he draws his gun?

If you THINK you MIGHT need a gun,you need to have your hand on it RIGHT NOW, Maybe not pointing it as your potential attacker,but in your hand and ready to use.

Which is one reason I started carrying short-barreled revolvers when I moved to a big city. I could have my hand on my gun inside my coat pocket if I were suspicious of anyone,and they would never be the wiser unless I shot them through the pocket.

This has the additional advantage of the cops not being able to charge you with pointing a gun (assault/intimidation) at anyone because the guy can't describe what kind of gun you have if you don't take it out and wave it at them.

You can't shoot through a coat pocket with a autoloader without the gun jamming.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-27   22:12:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: sneakypete (#1)

In America, the left would be griping if the knife wielding attacker did not get taken to the hospital first in the video at the link.

jeremiad  posted on  2015-11-27   22:48:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Bridge at Remagen (#0)

You can argue that the first shot was justified though many will still argue that the perp was escaping, not menacing directly. You can even argue the second shot might be justified.

It's the last 14 shots when the perp is already on the ground and the knife is not in his hand that will convict this cop. And they won't have to look far to find jurors to convict on the last 14 shots.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   2:42:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Bridge at Remagen (#0)

Rather, such an aggressor could consistently cross a distance of 21 feet, a full 7 yards, in the 1.5 seconds it would take the typical officer to draw his holster and engage that aggressor with aimed fire.

Van Dyke already had his gun drawn and trained on McDonald, so this Tueller Drill is irrelevant.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-11-28   4:20:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: TooConservative (#3) (Edited)

"You can argue that the first shot was justified ... You can ev even argue the second shot might be justified."

The high-on-PCP-knife-wielding perp posed a threat to the police officers and everyone in the area. If he wasn't stopped and then stabbed some citizen, you'd be demanding that heads roll. The use of force was justified.

"It's the last 14 shots when the perp is already on the ground and the knife is not in his hand that will convict this cop."

Maybe. Someone on this forum said that, once the decision to use deadly force has been made, the number of shots fired is irrelevant.

It looks as though you've decided that two shots are the max for a knife-wielding perp high on PCP. Really? If the perp was killed with t two shots instead of 16 shots, you'd feel better?

(On the video, the cop w walked up and kicked the knife away. If it was not in his hand it was right n next to it.)

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   8:26:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Willie Green (#4)

"Van Dyke already had his gun drawn and trained on McDonald, so this Tueller Drill is irrelevant."

But McDonald was closer than 21 feet. You left that out.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   8:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: misterwhite (#6)

It doesn't matter.
Van Dyke's weapon was already drawn and aimed at McDonald.
And McDonald never made a move toward Van Dyke.
Van Dyke simply emptied his full clip into McDonald and murdered him in cold blood.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-11-28   8:36:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Willie Green (#7)

"And McDonald never made a move toward Van Dyke."

Neither did he drop the knife as ordered. Why not, unless he intended to use it? McDonald was on the move and posed a threat.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   8:43:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: sneakypete, Bridge at Remagen, GrandIsland (#1)

I noticed the cop only stopped shooting to reload. Other cops made him stop shooting before opening fire with a fresh magazine again. Of course, the cop might realize that his best defense in any wrongful death suit would be to insist that he perceived the shootee as an active threat so a very clever cop might know that his best bet with a jury is to fire and keep firing and behave as though the shootee poses a serious ongoing threat to the cop or bystanders. This kind of thinking probably does lead to many of these police shootings where they fire once or twice and the perp is helpless on the ground and they just keep shooting. It also eliminates many wrongful death suits and deprives a jury of a sympathetic live shooting victim to tell them tearful tales of how they got shot up by a cop. There is some incentive to make any shooting an automatic fatality, no matter what. This can also apply in many states to shootings by private individuals.

I suspect that my suspicions in this shooting are not exactly Breaking News, that many people think about these issues.

I assume he was using a Glock 9mm, .40, or 10mm with a 15-round clip and had a round in the chamber too. That would be the most common gun choice for American PDs. I would like to know what gun and mag he was using. Just curious.

I presume a Glock by default because it is so popular and has some key contracts to supply federal agencies and the military but other brands like Sig Sauer and even H&K are popular with PDs. And they have factory-made 15rd mags too, just as Glock does.


[a little later...]

I found these links detailing the current Chicago PD officially approved handguns interesting. A few brands there I didn't expect.

ChicagoPolice.org: Department Approved Semiautomatic Pistols and Ammunition

ChicagoPolice.org: Department Approved Revolvers and Ammunition

So my question is mostly answered; I thought I would share the results if anyone else was interested. We all know that metro PDs like Chicago or Balitmore or NYC or LA have a plethora of police regulations but relatively few of us have ever encountered these directly, to see the actual current policy positions of a major PD.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   8:45:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#8)

McDonald was on the move and posed a threat.

There was nobody else in the immediate vicinity so McDonald did not pose a threat requiring use of deadly force. He could've been subdued with a taser... or multiple tasers since there were multiple cops on scene.

Frankly, I'm disappointed the other cops didn't tase & handcuff Van Dyke after he murdered McDonald... instead, they let that crackpot sociopath hide behind his badge for a full year.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-11-28   8:56:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Willie Green (#10)

"There was nobody else in the immediate vicinity so McDonald did not pose a threat requiring use of deadly force."

He was on the move. He refused to stop. He refused to drop the knife. He was high on PCP.

What. The cops supposed to just let him go on his merry way?

"He could've been subdued with a taser... or multiple tasers since there were multiple cops on scene."

No one on the scene had a taser. Now what, Einstein?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   9:20:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: TooConservative (#9) (Edited)

"Of course, the cop might realize that his best defense in any wr wrongful death suit ..."

The parents already received $4.9 million in a wrongful death suit. The cop is being charged with murder.

"would be to insist that he perceived the shootee as an active threat"

He WAS an active threat. That's why the cop f fired in the first place. And you concede he was justified in f firing.

Seems to me your only problem is the number of shots fired -- as t though you know exactly how many it takes to stop someone high on PCP.

Does a anyone know why the cop fired 16 times? Has the cop said why he fired 16 times? D D D Don't you think you know thew answer before you accuse him of murder?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   9:33:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite (#5)

Maybe. Someone on this forum said that, once the decision to use deadly force has been made, the number of shots fired is irrelevant.

You can say that until the jury convicts this cop. Whatever floats your boat.

But he will be convicted and there will be very few who will disagree with that verdict.

To you, there seems to be no such thing as excessive force. Ever. That is an extreme position held by a very tiny minority.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   9:45:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#12)

He WAS an active threat. That's why the cop f fired in the first place. And you concede he was justified in f firing.

I conceded that the first shot might be justified, even perhaps the second shot. They had that many cops on-scene and no one had a shotgun with bean bags or a taser? Really?

The shootee had also not assaulted anyone or killed anyone. He was menacing the police/public with a knife in an effort to escape.

Seems to me your only problem is the number of shots fired -- as t though you know exactly how many it takes to stop someone high on PCP.

After the second shot when the shootee is not moving on the ground and the knife is no longer in his hand, any jury in any state will conclude that the purpose of the remaining 14 shots was to execute the shootee, not render him harmless to the police/public.

You can make all your usual mealy-mouthed excuses for police massacre events but this cop is going to be convicted, probably of second-degree murder.

I would like to see a deep probe of the agencies and outside contractors who provide police training, to uncover where this doctrine of unlimited firepower originates. Not in general, but exactly where did this particular cop get his training and what firearms doctrine he was trained in, and how closely did he adhere to that training and to Chicago PD firearms doctrine.

These kinds of shootings are common enough that I have come to suspect bad training from private police training companies or from state police barracks (who do training in some states for other PDs) or from on-staff armorers and trainers at big-city PDs.

There is some bad police training out there or we would not have so many of these kinds of shootings which all too often seem to be conducted in such a way as to guarantee the shootee will not survive to testify in court or lodge a civil rights complaint or sit before a jury in a wrongful shooting or excessive force civil suit.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   9:55:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#11)

No one on the scene had a taser. Now what, Einstein?

Then just like the EIGHT other officers on the scene, Van Dyke could've held his fire until someone with a taser DID arrive. Maybe Van Dyke and the other officers would have had to shoot McDonald 30 seconds later anyway.... But when Van Dyke emptied his clip, it was unnecessary.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-11-28   9:55:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: TooConservative (#13)

"To you, there seems to be no such thing as excessive force."

I am aware of the concept of excessive force. But in this case the cop used deadly force. And you've already agreed it was justified.

Now you've invented a new standard -- excessive deadly force. That makes sense to you?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   9:57:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Willie Green, Too Conservative (#15)

The other officers had radioed for a taser and were chasing McDonald through the yards and down the street when Van Dyke pulled up to block him.

"Maybe Van Dyke and the other officers would have had to shoot McDonald 30 seconds later anyway"

Geez Louise. I got Too Conservative saying that if McDonald was killed by two shots instead of 16 it would have been fine by him, and now you're saying if he would have been shot 30 seconds later it would have been fine by you.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   10:06:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland, nolu chan, sneakypete, Don (#16)

But in this case the cop used deadly force. And you've already agreed it was justified.

I said the first shot could be argued in court as justified, perhaps even the second shot (since it appears the shootee might have still been on his feet until the second shot). That is not the same as saying all 16 shots are justified.

Since this case was so suppressed from the public and media until very recently, we do not have enough facts yet from just the video and the autopsy diagram.

Given your novel doctrine that if-one-bullet-is-justified-then-16-bullets-is-automatically-justified, would you agree that if one bullet is justified, then 10,000 bullets are equally justified?

Of course not. You're making a silly and legally futile argument and I think you know it.

In this case, the jury will conclude that the intent of the last 14 bullets was to execute the shootee, not apprehend him or protect the cop or the public. You just don't like that so you make perverse and repulsive arguments so you don't have to admit this was murder and excessive force.

Unless the shootee was wearing a FitBit-type smartwatch, we are unlikely to determine which shot(s) were the fatal ones but it would be most common with so many shot that death occurred as a result of blood loss than of a hit to vital organs. The autopsy will reveal a lot more.

PCP or not, this cop was a pretty lousy shot (or a murderer) to need 16 shots at that range.

Also, I'm not convinced that these were safely fired shots as it appears to me that there may have been bystanders in the line of fire. So again, we get back to training and proper firearms use and a sensibility of restraint in deadly force. A private citizen is far more entitled to a shoot-until-your-gun-is-empty policy than any cop is. A cop's duty is to use minimal force to apprehend a suspect and deliver them alive for trial.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   10:23:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: TooConservative (#14)

"any jury in any state will conclude that the purpose of the remaining 14 shots was to execute the shootee"

And the purpose of the first two? Warning shots that hit the perp by accident? I pretty sure that the Chicago Police Department trains to shoot to kill. Hence the term, "deadly force".

As to the jury, I thought they had to wait for the evidence and testimony before they arrive at a verdict. YOU might think McDonald was executed but that's based solely on ... nothing. Prejudice? Bias? Certainly not on any facts.

When McDonald was on the ground, I saw his hands and arms moving. Perhaps Van Dyke did also. Didn't you? Was he going for a gun? Perhaps he kept firing because the threat hadn't ended?

Perhaps Van Dyke only remembers the first shot. After that it was a blur. Or he thought he only fired once or twice then ran out of ammo. Or the magazine jammed. Which is why he tried to reload. Or he doesn't remember firing at all.

Are you going to convict on FIRST DEGREE MURDER if those scenarios existed? Premeditated murder? Intentional execution beyond a reasonable doubt?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   10:24:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: misterwhite (#17)

The other officers had radioed for a taser and were chasing McDonald through the yards and down the street when Van Dyke pulled up to block murder him.

Geez, dude, just admit it.

I know there is no police shooting, however awful, that you won't defend but I have to wonder how you can look at yourself in the mirror.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   10:27:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#19)

When McDonald was on the ground, I saw his hands and arms moving. Perhaps Van Dyke did also. Didn't you? Was he going for a gun? Perhaps he kept firing because the threat hadn't ended?

You should join the police . Then you can live out your fantasy of Killing black people.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-28   10:34:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: misterwhite (#17)

and now you're saying if he would have been shot 30 seconds later it would have been fine by you.

I said "maybe."
It all depends on what McDonald's actions might have been.
However, that is just hypothetical speculation...
All that we finally know for sure is what actually happened...
and that Van Dyke's use of deadly force was unjustified.

Willie Green  posted on  2015-11-28   10:36:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#19)

blah-blah-blah...silly arguments...blah-blah-blah...repulsive arguments akin to defending Hitler...blah-blah-blah-blah-blah

Uh-huh.

When McDonald was on the ground, I saw his hands and arms moving.

He was clearly immobilized. Even if already dead, anyone should know that a dying central nervous system commonly twitches the body and limbs and tries to gasp for breath. So a little movement in a downed suspect is not an excuse to bring out 25 machine guns to empty them into the body on the principle of you-can-never-be-too-safe.

Perhaps Van Dyke only remembers the first shot. After that it was a blur. Or he thought he only fired once or twice then ran out of ammo. Or the magazine jammed. Which is why he tried to reload. Or he doesn't remember firing at all.

Police are not entitled to such convenient memories. When you put on the badge, you are held to a higher standard. If you're pleading the cop is incompetent or mentally ill or has PTSD, then make (up) that argument instead of the one you're blathering on about.

Are you going to convict on FIRST DEGREE MURDER if those scenarios existed? Premeditated murder? Intentional execution beyond a reasonable doubt?

I already said I thought a second-degree murder conviction is the likely outcome. Even one of the heavier manslaughter charges, depending on Illinois criminal law. First-degree murder typically requires pre-planning and intent to murder. So if the shooter-cop happened to say on the radio or to another cop in his car that "I am going to just kill that sumbitch right now", that might constitute a first-degree murder charge, given that he was safe in a vehicle and the shootee was not attacking police/public with his knife. Second-degree murder generally has intent to kill but no pre-planning. And manslaughter is just a wrongful death charge covering a gamut of accidents and criminal carelessness.

Given his legal interest, nolu might be more aware of IL laws but maybe it's a little early to get down in the weeds with IL criminal law and the use of deadly force by police in IL.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   10:38:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: TooConservative (#18)

"since it appears the shootee might have still been on his feet until the second shot)."

There was no audio. Van Dyke could have fired 8 times before McDonald hit the ground. I don't know. Maybe 6. Maybe 10. Maybe once.

"Given your novel doctrine that if-one-bullet-is-justified-then-16-bullets-is-auto automatically automatically-justified, would you agree that if one bullet is justified, then 10,000 bullets are equally justified?"

We use a 500-pound bomb to kill one terrorist, don't we? Are you saying that's not justified because it's (to use your new term) "excessive deadly force"?

"PCP or not, this cop was a pretty lousy shot (or a murderer) to need 16 shots at that range."

Darren Wilson fired a total of twelve bullets at Michael Brown. Only half found their target and only one (the last) was fatal. But you say Van Dyke should only have been allowed one shot. Maybe two. Because you know better.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   10:39:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: TooConservative (#20) (Edited)

"I know there is no police shooting, however awful, that you wo won't defend"

Had McDonald stopped and dropped the knife, THEN was shot, I wouldn't defend that shooting.

Feel better?

Is there any scumbag criminal that YOU won't defend?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   10:42:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: A K A Stone (#21)

Did you see the video? Were his arms and hands moving?

Yes they were. Shut up.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   10:45:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#26)

I saw the murder. I saw you supported it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-11-28   10:47:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: TooConservative (#23)

"anyone should know that a dying central nervous system commonly twitches the body and limbs and tries to gasp for breath."

You know he was dying? Doctor?

According to you, he was only shot twice before he hit the ground. But he was dying. You say. While sitting in your armchair at home.

"When you put on the badge, you are held to a higher standard."

That may be, and I would certainly hold them to that higher standard when it comes to the USE of deadly force. And we both agree the USE of deadly force was justified.

I'm simply offering possible defenses to the NUMBER of shots fired in the heat of the moment.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   11:04:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: misterwhite, sneakypete, nolu chan (#24)

We use a 500-pound bomb to kill one terrorist, don't we?

That is not civilian policing. Don't confuse (yourself between) the two.

Darren Wilson fired a total of twelve bullets at Michael Brown. Only half found their target and only one (the last) was fatal. But you say Van Dyke should only have been allowed one shot. Maybe two. Because you know better.

Irrelevant and ridiculous. You're just tossing stuff at the wall, hoping to make something stick. I have to wonder how that strategy has worked for you in real-life applications, given that it only makes you more unpopular and unconvincing in online discussions. You have a certain history with this sort of thing.

In short: all 16 bullets hit the shootee.

You can find details on the body and descriptions of all these wounds at the full autopsy report.

Invisible Institute: Official autopsy of Laquan McDonald (linked to SquareSpace.com where the PDF is stored)

It's striking how few center-mass and head shots were fired. After the second shot, the body was pretty flat on the ground and the cop was not very far away from him. Remarkably bad marksmanship for a cop. I think the average member of LF could do as well (I think I could and I'm no gun whiz) and some LF members like pete or (insert list of LF gun guys like GI or red or Bob or Don or Gary et cetera) could do much better than this cop did in delivering stopping shots and knowing when to stop shooting.

Really, a lousy shooting overall. And a murderous one.

[pinging nolan in case he wants the autopsy material]

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   11:24:12 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: misterwhite (#25)

Had McDonald stopped and dropped the knife, THEN was shot, I wouldn't defend that shooting.

No one has yet determined exactly when the knife came out of his hand but the shooter was told to stop shooting when he tried to reload and at least one of the other cops pointed out he no longer had the knife in his hand. It was not a dark street, visibility was pretty good. If the other cops could see the knife was not in his hand, so could the shooter-cop.

Is there any scumbag criminal that YOU won't defend?

Plenty. My posting history is clear enough. I've sided with the cops in a lot of controversial shootings, often taking their side very early on as a case becomes prominent. I can't say whether my ratio of siding with the cop or shootee is 50:50 or 60:40 but it would be in that range, I think.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   11:28:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite (#28)

And we both agree the USE of deadly force was justified.

We do not agree. I say it may be justified in court and have said so repeatedly. You keep insisting that I have "agreed" with you that it is justified.

I'm simply offering possible defenses to the NUMBER of shots fired in the heat of the moment.

You go far beyond that, as you have in every bad-shooting case that I can think of.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   11:31:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: TooConservative (#18)

"this cop was a pretty lousy shot"

16 for 16 is "lousy"?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   11:52:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: TooConservative (#30)

"and at least one of the other cops pointed out he no longer had the knife in his hand."

At the end of the shooting, what did the cop kick away? A cigarette butt?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   11:54:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: All, misterwhite, nolu chan, redleghunter (#29)

A few bits stand out from the autopsy info.

01-01 BENZOYLECGONINE Hospital Specimens ELISA Negative
01-01 ETHANOL Hospital Specimens 60 Negative
01-01 OPIATES Hospital Specimens ELISA Negative

So toxicology revealed no cocaine or liquor or other opiates. Apparently, they tested him later for PCP or have other evidence of PCP intoxication.

I notice in the autopsy diagram and in the autopsy report, the numbering of the bullets does not indicate the order in which they were fired.

Strangely, the autopsy report says:

Genitourinary System: The left kidney is absent. The capsule of the right capsule strips with ease to reveal a smooth and lobulated surface. The cortex is of normal thickness with well?demarcated corticomedullary junctions. The calyx, pelvis and ureter is unremarkable. The urinary bladder contains approximately 200 mL of clear yellow urine. The mucosa is gray, smooth, and unremarkable. The prostate gland is unremarkable externally.
Perhaps being born with only one kidney is more common than I think. But I see no mention in the autopsy that Laquan was a kidney donor so I assume he was born with only one. Only bullet #15 could have destroyed the left kidney and they would have mentioned that the kidney was destroyed in the autopsy, not just note the kidney was "absent".

DaVita.com > Kidney disease education > Overview > Living With CKD > What's It Like To Live With One Kidney?
About one in 750 people is born with only one kidney. The medical term for this condition, which is more common in men than women, is renal agenesis. Usually it’s the left kidney that is missing. Because it is possible to be healthy with one kidney, some people don’t find out they have one missing until it’s discovered on an X-ray or sonogram. (In another condition called renal dysplasia, the second kidney is present but does not function properly.)

C'mon, I know you guys used to watch Quincy reruns! Here is the original big-band-bikini-babe Quincy theme to refresh your memory.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   11:55:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: TooConservative (#31)

"We do not agree. I say it may be justified in court and have said so repeatedly."

Fine. We agree that a court would find it to be a justified shooting. Better?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   11:55:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#33)

At the end of the shooting, what did the cop kick away? A cigarette butt?

We don't have full info and no access to the depositions of bystanders and other police at the scene. Not that that will slow you down a bit.

You take presumption of innocence too far. But only for police, never anyone else. And you don't like it when someone points it out.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   11:57:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#35)

We agree that a court would find it to be a justified shooting. Better?

We don't agree.

A jury may find that first shot justified but still convict him of 1st- or 2nd-degree murder or manslaughter (or whatever the IL equivalents are).

You don't seem to grasp that the first shot could be justified and that the remaining shots could constitute murderous intent. That is the crux of this case, IMO.

You keep trying to insist that the first shot was unquestionably justified when it is not clear that it is. But the other shots are what will likely influence the jury when they convict him. Those show a bad intent, an intent by the shooter-cop that the perp, even once rendered helpless, was not going to be allowed to survive the shooting. The fact that he was reloading to shoot the perp even more is even more damning.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-11-28   12:02:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: TooConservative (#29)

"Really, a lousy shooting overall."

16 for 16. And a bad hit is better than a well-placed miss.

"It's striking how few center-mass and head shots were fired."

But you would only allow two shots.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   12:02:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: TooConservative (#34)

I notice in the autopsy diagram and in the autopsy report, the numbering of the bullets does not indicate the order in which they were fired.

How can they tell the order the bullets were fired?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-11-28   12:11:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: TooConservative (#37)

"A jury may find that first shot justified ..."

... but then convict him of "excessive deadly force". A dangerous precedent, isn't it? Any cop shooting more than once could face first degree murder charges according to your definition.

(A side note: Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times. Four officers were charged with second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. Not guilty.)

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-28   12:16:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 70) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com