Chicago releases dash-cam video of fatal shooting after cop charged with murder

What you have had this cop do to stop the threat to the community that he is sworn to protect? He asked the PCP riddled punk to drop the knife. Should have he tried to take the knife? let the kid go on his way to the local convenience store? wait for the kid to rush him? Most self defense teachers will tell you that a a person with a knife within twenty feet of you can stab you before you can stop them and a person on PCP is even harder to stop so if this cop felt that this guy was about to rush him he had to shoot him until he was dead. Not just down but down and dead.

It doesn't take a trial to make a person a criminal and not all people convicted by trial are criminals.

So what Constitutional right are you talking about that gives this punk to take PCP and addle his brain so that he is a danger to the public. Do you disagree with drunk driving laws??

Reasonable fear is easily determined by 12 reasonable people??

 

I and anyone else not obviously handicapped can make the same move in the comfort of their own home. In fact I can do it with both arms wrapped around my waist. Your assertions are utter nonsense.

 

how would you through the knife with your hands behind your back? post your flat footed backhanded knife throwing, physics defying, 180 degree motion of aggression, for comparison

 

The SCOTUS has ruled that use of force must be in equal context to the threat. However, the SCOTUS has also failed to define "reasonable" in the context of use of force. It has allowed the PD to decide what reasonable is - apparently, reasonable is executing a civilian armed with a knife, which is not illegal, btw - who is not attacking any officer, or even close enough to an officer to affect damage with a short stabbing weapon - which I might add, is not illegal to carry.

Keeping and bearing arms is not exclusive to firearms. Moreover, threatening? Leaving the situation is not a threat, the PD however has been empowered by the shadowy definitions of the SCOTUS to deem it as such, thus the lack of indictments by grand juries - the law is RIGGED to the benefit of the state, not the public.

Thankfully, this is beginning to change, but at what cost?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/police-force-supreme-court-kingsley/398861/

If a cop cannot distinguish a knife from a gun they do not have the correct brain function to be trusted as a police officer. Goal posts much? A gun is different then a knife, so taking a bullet or a thrown knife by a suspect who is stoned out of his mind? Are you kidding? This is the level of arbitrary idiocy we're at now?

Sudden turn? From how far? Dude, you've got nothing.

Irrational, presumptuous and without evidence. Care to continue making claims on something you clearly admit you don't have evidence for?

Without a trial by a jury of his peers, you absolutely cannot make this claim. No court found him guilty of anything, and never will - he's dead, thanks to the false justice system creating an impossible loop hole for officers to murder without recourse. So no, you cannot say with any, any solidity he's a criminal. You can't even prove the constitutionality of drug laws that prohibit the use of a substance that was in his system, let alone debate me on the 2nd amendment, which allows all men to keep and bear arms - even those YOU disagree with.

 

AGAIN
Where does the Constitution say you have a right to use deadly force against a police officer who is attempting to lawfully arrest you? Use any force? Make moves which appear to be threatening moves. Where has the SCOTUS ruled that if the threatening suspect is using a knife then the police may not use guns they must use knives?

And BTW a gun is not illegal either, but if a police officer commands you to drop the one in your hand and you refuse and make a threatening motion with it he will most likely use his to stop you. And yes an officer can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon who is a threat to the community if he gets away. The suspect does NOT have to be charging at the officer.

Thankfully, this is beginning to change, but at what cost?

Oh just stop it, no one at that distance at night can confirm with any certainty. A long piece of metal is a long piece of metal.

yes it was a sudden turn at between 13 and 14 feet away, I got the tape.

What are you disputing in the statement

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
We have no audio to determine exactly when the first shot is fired. So far no testimony from the other officers as to when exactly it was fired. We do see a purposeful turn in the suspects part and the the jerking reaction as be is hot and then drops.

THEN comes the problematic shots after the suspect is on the ground.

Sure we can, the two shooters in San Bernidino died as criminals, they had no trial. Billy the Kid died as a criminal he had no trial. John Dillenger died as a criminal he had no trial. The trial is for the purpose of punishment. You come up and hit me over the head with a hammer for no cause I have every right to call you a criminal. This guy died after failing to obey the lawful order of a police officer to drop a deadly weapon and submit to an arrest, that is a crime.

And do point me to the case where drug laws were declare unconstitutional.

 

Again, the 4th amendment. Again, what threatening move? Again, what's your basis? The video? There is no threatening move, not even remotely close. Agitprop and nonsense will not save your utter BS argument.

In order to "threaten" the officer the suspect has to actually do something threatening. Walking away is not a threat, in any sense of the defintion, on any continent.

Baloney. You can tell for sure if it is a gun or knife. The way their held is entirely different, and we expect, since we're paying for these gestapo, that they would be trained to know the difference.

13-14 feet away, and it was threatening how? To me, it looks like he was shot and it turned his body. Care to prove me wrong? Moreover, even IF it was determined it wasn't due to the shot, how is it threatening? So what, I break wind and can be executed because a cop fears for his life due to my jerky movement while farting? Give it a rest.

The entire premise of your argument, since you admitted we don't have the audio, leading anyone who reads this to conclude you're simply forming an uninformed opinion on the matter.

Wrong. Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.

All I have to do is point to alcohol. It required a constitutional amendment to outlaw in prohibition. Why is it that a constitutional amendment was necessary to refuse a consumable to consumers when it came to alcohol, but none for any other outlawed intoxicant?

Thus, we can easily conclude that any drug laws are inherently unconstitutional based strictly on case law. Have they been challenged? Sure, none have succeeded, most likely due to the massive criminal tax imposed that the states collect on via citation and fines.

Any statute or ordinance or law that supercedes the constitution is unlawful, and we as citizens of the union have a duty to outright ignore those laws.

The founders in their wisdom wrote the constitution to prevent the exact type of miserly police state nonsense we have now. The governments exercise too much power via unconstitutional means, by arbitrary and unlawful ordnances and statutes, drug laws and war included.

 

Please elaborate. Where does the 4th amendment give you the right to resist a lawful arrest and make threatening moves against a police officer.

Yep as already explained.

A weapon in hand an a threatening move is all it takes. And

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

— Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]

You weren't there and no you can't.

With a deadly weapon and refusing to comply to an arrest............you betcha. But your having to resort to your absurd juvenile hyperbole only shows the lack of intelligent rebuttal.

So what evidence do you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the first shots occurred before the suspect turned?

Only to be sanctioned by the state. Was Billy the Kid a criminal? Was John Dillinger? Baby Faced Nelson? The shooters in San Bernadino?

The 18th didn't prohibit the consumption of alcohol.

Still waiting, show me the SCOTUS had declared them unconstitutional.

Please quote the part where they acknowledge a right to brandish a deadly weapon and resist a lawful arrest.

 

Give it a rest. You did the same thing with Garner, and we all know how that turned out. As for this little charade, the 4th protects us from unreasonable search and seizure - your life being one of those things protected.

What stopped this gestapo scum from at least ATTEMPTING an arrest?

The man executed a civilian within 6 seconds of exiting his vehicle. You don't see any problem with this? No nonlethal detainment was tried - that leads me to conclude it was UNREASONABLE to shoot him when you've tried practically nothing but verbal commands.

Not seeing it. I see your bogus explanation, but no proof of threatening movements of any kind. Care to show me where in the video where I can see an explicitly threatening move that telegraphs the intent to do bodily injury or damage?

Again, undefined "reasonable" that I've already addressed, which has now gone undisputed for multiple posts.

Yes, I can. I can tell it is not a firearm. Firearms are not the same as 3 inch knives, and the sheer fact that the agent of the state doesn't know the difference is reason enough to deem him unfit for service.

Blah blah. Blind acceptance of police state aggression duly noted.

The fact that his movement is similar to the jerky motion of someone being shot, which unfortunately the police have given us MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF IN THE LAST WEEK ALONE.

So you're not OK with the state defining what a criminal is, but you're ok with the agents of the state executing "criminals". Are you serious?

Show me why a consumable was outlawed with constitutional amendment, but the rest weren't please.

Brandish a deadly weapon?

Please define deadly weapon.

 

ROFL yes we do, no charges brought I was correct.

This wasn't a search and seizure it was an attempted lawful arrest of a criminal suspect. Learn the difference.

They were attempting an arrest, DUH.

a civilian within 6 seconds of exiting his vehicle. You don't see any problem with this?[/QUOTE]

I already told the problems I see, do keep up.

Doesn't have to be when the person is brandishing a deadly weapon and failing to comply with the arrest and makes a threatening motion.

It became unreasonable after the suspect fell to the ground.

I have no obligation to keep repeating myself.

Your claim has been that deadly force can only be used if the suspect is approaching the officer, I proved that was false.

No you can't and no one can from the video. A firearm 3" barrel can easily be mistaken for a 3" knife blade especially at night, especially when the suspect is moving with it it his hand. Stop being obtuse.

Your hyperbole dismissed.

No it is not, his turning motion is quite different from the moments he takes bullets.

So you're dodging the question

Was Billy the Kid a criminal? Was John Dillinger? Baby Faced Nelson? The shooters in San Bernadino?

Show me where alcohol consumption was made illegal by the 18th Amendment else withdraw the claim. Not going to engage in your wack-a-mole dodges.

Are you now trying to deny he had a knife in his hand?

If you are ignorant of what constitutes a deadly weapon I can't help you and have no desire to.

 

I already told the problems I see, do keep up.



Doesn't have to be when the person is brandishing a deadly weapon and failing to comply with the arrest and makes a threatening motion.



It became unreasonable after the suspect fell to the ground.



I have no obligation to keep repeating myself.



Your claim has been that deadly force can only be used if the suspect is approaching the officer, I proved that was false.



No you can't and no one can from the video. A firearm 3" barrel can easily be mistaken for a 3" knife blade especially at night, especially when the suspect is moving with it it his hand. Stop being obtuse.



Your hyperbole dismissed.



No it is not, his turning motion is quite different from the moments he takes bullets.



So you're dodging the question

Was Billy the Kid a criminal? Was John Dillinger? Baby Faced Nelson? The shooters in San Bernadino?



Show me where alcohol consumption was made illegal by the 18th Amendment else withdraw the claim. Not going to engage in your wack-a-mole dodges.



Are you now trying to deny he had a knife in his hand?



If you are ignorant of what constitutes a deadly weapon I can't help you and have no desire to.[/QUOTE]

still waiting for the video of that spinning move. post it MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

If you haven't watched the video yet you have no business trying to discuss the issue and if you are not going to respond to my post then I will assume you have no rebuttal and no sense in further reading of your post.

 

CNN reports, the reports of six officers does not match video. will they be charged with a crime?

 

There's a reason when someone says they took PCP we HAVE to restrain them for their safety and ours.

Ask an officer what a taser will do to someone spazzing out on PCP hint hint, nothing. It just pisses them off.

Then he has a knife, so yeah he got shot.

 

So those on PCP have nerves that defy the laws of physics?

 

Yes, drugs can render a taser ineffective.

I watched three Sheriffs hit the same guy with three different tasers and he still beat the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of one of them. He was on meth, another drug that can cause people to become quite psychotic/violent.


Lawa of physics.. In what way does it defy the laws of physics?

You do understand the brain controls the body yes? So when certain drugs are administered it can cause some very strange things to happen. One of them being the ability to basically become shock proof.

Another example of this is the ooze of a tree frog in SA, it allows people to hold electric eels that would other wise kill them.

 

The brain controls the body through electrical impulses. A taser causes muscles to contract by overpowering the electrical impulses from the brain. No amount of any mind altering drug is going to effect the electrical impulses from a taser. Only a misuse of a taser can cause it to fail, such as one or both of the probes not attaching to the target or hitting a low muscle density area making it easier for the target to remove a probe. You cannot become shock proof.

That ooze, if it's true, must act as an insulator against the electric eel. You're going to need a lot of ooze and hundreds of frogs - better off just using clothes.

 

Nope, 3 Burns with a blunt stick dipped in the substance.

Tasers have been proven to be ineffective against a The mentally ill and Drug users, good examples would be:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...37746c-cc94-11e2-8573-3baeea6a2647_story.html

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8109284 (""oblivious to pain" is repeatedly tasered, hit with batons and pepper sprayed by police in a McDonald's.")

 

I'm don't know what this is about

Quote from link "The Taser discharges two probes at different angles. If one or both probes miss the target, the Taser will not work. Given that both the officer and the threatening person may be moving when the Taser is deployed, misses occur frequently. Even if both probes hit the target, one or both can become dislodged by movement, rendering the Taser ineffective. If the probes hit fatty tissue or loose clothing, the effectiveness is reduced. Lastly, some people, especially the mentally ill and those under the influence of drugs, are unaffected by the Taser, no matter how unlikely The Post thinks this is."

The first few sentences in that extract is what I wrote. The last sentence has nothing to back it up - it's just his opinion

This link contains the quote "“The Taser was ineffective because the individual was high on PCP and oblivious to pain”.
Tasers do not rely on pain to bring someone down


Any drugs or mental health problems makes no difference on the effectiveness of a Taser. If the two probes are not far enough apart then not enough muscles will be effected to bring a target down. Whether someone is on drugs or not makes no difference. The old Tasers have been updated to include a higher power and effect sensory and motor nerves.

 

Rodney King was TASE'd three times and it did not subdue him.

 

But tests showed that he was not on PCP or meth which is what this debate is about. Also the Taser used was the old generation. New generation Tasers (and old) can still fail if contact is not good enough. Any drugs do not decrease the effectiveness of the Taser. So in fact your anecdotal example supports my argument - It's not the drugs that can cause the failure of the Taser, it is the application, or in perhaps some cases , it is the actual individual attributes. The best places to hit are the legs or the back. Anywhere else and the Taser may fail to bring a target down

 

I notice they always have the pictures of the guy who was shot in his HS graduation or in a coat and tie, or like Trayvon Martin, from 5 years ago when he was a child. They never show his mug shot from prior incidents, or his appearance at the time of the shooting.

Also, just once, can some of these protestors admit that the confrontation with the guy happened because the dead guy initiated a need for police to be involved in the first place? If this guy wasn't high on something and carrying a knife and hadn't just burglarized a car or had obeyed the officers, he would be alive today. If Michael Brown had not robbed a store, disobeyed an officer's commands to get out of the road, hit the cop and grabbed his gun he would be alive today. If Walter Scott had not run from the cops he would be alive. If Freddie Gray had not run from the cops he would be alive today.

Just stop with the sympathy to the thugs who were initially responsible for what happened.

 

No that is not what this thread is all about although it was a contributor to the events.

That being said depends on when the test was done and what PCP he may have use.

King was examined by physicians at two different hospitals on the night of this incident. Both physicians included in their diagnoses, "PCP influence." A toxicology test run on King subsequent to the incident showed no PCP in his system. There were, at the time of the incident, over 20 different formulations of PCP in common use in Los Angeles. The tox screen used on King checked for only the most commonly used variety.

When King's surviving passenger testified at the state trial, he said that he was terrified at King's behavior and also believed King was under the influence of PCP.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-le...at-was-given-to-Rodney-King-by-the-L-A-police

He reacted to the TASER's they just didn't put him down.

I think that has already been refuted.

 

But the only tests done stated that no PCP was in his system. Rest is just conjecture and who and where are these 2 physicians reports?.

From your link "The officers all noted that King appeared irrational, was sweating profusely despite a cool air temperature, had poorly coordinated muscular movement and an unfixed gaze. "

Your link then introduces PCP even though no evidence of PCP. Those symptoms are also symptoms of someone who has been drinking alcohol which was found to be present in his system.

From your link "and the TASER in use at that time was not as effective as those in current use. Sgt. Koon had a TASER (they were carried only by supervisors) and fired it at King, striking him in the torso. King's only reaction to the TASER was to say, "You're shocking me." He did not otherwise appear to be incapacitated."

So as I previously stated, the old Taser was not as effective and as I also stated, you need to aim at the back or the legs of a target.

Where?