Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke arrives at the Leighton Criminal Courthouse in Chicago on Nov. 24, 2015. Antonio Perez/Chicago Tribune via Getty Images
On Tuesday, Chicago city officials released a long-awaited video from the October 20, 2014, shooting of teenager Laquan McDonald. The officer shoots the teen 16 times, continuing to fire well after the youth falls to the ground.
The release of the video, ordered by the judge, came hours after authorities charged Officer Jason Van Dyke with first-degree murder in the teen’s killing.
Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez described the 2014 video footage as “chilling” during a news conference hours before its release. “I have no doubt this video will tear at the hearts of all Chicagoans,” she said. “To watch a 17-year-old young man die in such a violent manner is deeply disturbing,” the prosecutor added.
Ms. Alvarez said several civilians witnessed the shooting. One motorist told authorities he never saw Mr. McDonald lunge at any officers or do anything else threatening before he was shot. Mr. McDonald also made no threatening motions while on the ground afterward, she said the motorist told authorities.
“The officer’s actions were not justified and were not a proper use of deadly force,” she told reporters.
The case marks the first time a Chicago police officer has been charged with first-degree murder for an on-duty fatality in nearly 35 years. He faces 20 years in prison if convicted.
The video shows Laquan McDonald carrying a small knife and walking away from officers. Officer Van Dyke opened fire from about 10 feet away. The video shows that the victim’s hand jerks out and his body spins around before he collapses to the ground. Officer Van Dyke keeps shooting for another 15 seconds after the teen falls.
(WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT)
The video is dramatically different than the initial police account of the shooting. Chicago police said at the time that McDonald was acting strangely and lunged at police before an officer fired.
Also attending the news conference was Superintendent Garry McCarthy and Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Mr. McCarthy urged calm.
“The officer in this case took a young man’s life, and he’s going to have to account for his actions,” Mr. McCarthy said. “People have a right to be angry; people have a right to protest.”
“We knew this day was coming,” he continued. “We’ve been prepared for this day coming for quite some time.” He would add, “We are not predicting doom and gloom… We are predicting protests.”
According to the Washington Post, Officer Van Dyke has a long history of misconduct. He has been accused “of misconduct 17 times before, according to data from the University of Chicago and the journalism non-profit Invisible Institute. The database, published less than a week before the announcement that Van Dyke would be prosecuted, details tens of thousands of complaints against Chicago police officers that weren’t previously made public. Fewer than five percent of the allegations resulted in disciplinary actions for the officers; none of the 18 complaints against Van Dyke led to a penalty.”
“We don’t have all of Van Dyke’s complaints but … the misconduct complaints from Van Dyke that we do have in our data tool show by and large excessive force and racial slurs. And he has largely operated with impunity and under a code of silence with the same huddle of officers again and again,” the Invisible Institute’s Alison Flowers told Chicago ABC affiliate WLS.
According to the Post, “The allegations against Van Dyke include 10 complaints of excessive force, including two incidents where he allegedly used a firearm, causing injury. He was also accused of improper searches and making racially or ethnically biased remarks. Four of the allegations were proven factual, but Van Dyke’s actions were deemed lawful and appropriate. In most of the other cases, there was either not enough evidence to prove or disprove the complaint or the allegation was proven unfounded.”
The information in the database comes from “reports spanning 2002 to 2008 and 2011 to 2015, which were released by the Chicago Police Department in response to Freedom of Information Act requests and a years-long legal battle over whether citizen complaints should be public information.”
The data confirms what we already know for the most part – that “it’s rare for any officers to be penalized, and white officers were half as likely as black ones to be disciplined for a complaint. More than 60 percent of allegations that resulted in discipline came from white citizens, even though they accounted for just 20 percent of complainants. (Black complainants were also much more likely to fail to file an affidavit, a necessary step in the investigation process, which may account for some of the disparity.)
“Regardless of race, it was extremely rare for allegations of any kind to be upheld — four percent of the 56,361 allegations were sustained. And it was even rarer for officers to be disciplined with more than a reprimand or a suspension of less than 10 days.”
Meanwhile, the Marshall Project reports that the likely defense will be the so-called “21-foot rule.”
“There is this 21-foot rule,” Dan Herbert, the lawyer for the officer Jason Van Dyke, told CBS Chicago. “It talks about how an individual is a significant threat to a police officer when they’re in that 21-foot boundary.”
However, as the Marshall Project reports, there is a lot of controversy about the applicability of the 21-foot rule and the man who devised it believes it “misleading and dangerous” to call it a “rule.”
“I have more than a mild disagreement with that term,” says Dennis Tueller, a retired lieutenant who was a firearms instructor with the Salt Lake City Police Department.
The article says, “The idea originated in a 1983 SWAT magazine article called ‘How Close is Too Close.’ In it, Tueller detailed field drills he conducted that showed that under normal conditions, it takes an officer one-and-a-half to two seconds to unholster his gun, aim, and shoot — and in that time, an attacker with a knife can cover about 21 feet. Since then, the concept has been incorporated into law enforcement training programs across the country and is often invoked in legal proceedings involving use of force.”
Mr. Tueller told the publication, “It can create confusion in the minds of some people, implying that there’s some rule that says someone further than 21 feet away, attacking aggressively, with a contact weapon — a knife or a club — you would not be justified in shooting. That just simply is not the case. I actually heard someone representing himself as a firearms instructor tell this to a class one time: if the guy is farther than 21 feet, and you shoot, that’s probably not going to be justified. Well that’s ludicrous. No one can keep a tape measure or a laser-measuring device in their eye. It’s kind of a sliding scale. It’s all based on reaction and response time.”
Instead, he said he prefers the term “reactionary gap.” He said, “How long does it take you to draw? It’s important for people to recognize this, because if you hesitate, your assailant can be on top of you before you even draw your pistol. And, conversely, I have been in a couple of confrontations, years after I wrote that article, where someone suddenly produced a knife well inside 21 feet, but I was in a position where I was able to draw and challenge, and my assailant surrendered and I didn’t have to shoot. Even though I would have been absolutely justified in doing so, legally, and I would have been within the parameters of what most people consider the ’21 foot rule,’ it wasn’t necessary to shoot.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“We knew this day was coming,” he continued. “We’ve been prepared for this day coming for quite some time.”
So much for transparency, community protection, and equality under the law.
““We don’t have all of Van Dyke’s complaints but … the misconduct complaints from Van Dyke that we do have in our data tool show by and large excessive force and racial slurs. And he has largely operated with impunity and under a code of silence with the same huddle of officers again and again,”
Excessive force and racial slurs ? And this man was still on the streets with a gun ?
““it’s rare for any officers to be penalized, and white officers were half as likely as black ones to be disciplined for a complaint.”
Still de minims ? Really ?
What does it take to get police officers with integrity? There were at least three other officers on the scene none of whom saw fit to intervene much less speak out about the perpetrator’s conduct, but rather chose to remain silent and cover up as did their superiors. Until this is somehow addressed I and a significant segment of the population will remain distrustful of any law enforcement officer. I am willing to accept that there will always be LEO’s who are criminals, but not the systemic acceptance of that behavior.
Paul Thober
I think your point is the most important one to be made. In my opinion, this particular cop is a murderer, and fortunately, he will now be dealt with by the system, as faulty as it may be. But, your more important point is why do other police officers tolerate criminals in their midst? What have “we” done wrong to create that kind of willingness to lie and cover up criminal behavior? Do we not pay cops enough to attract the best people for the job? Do we not educate them properly? Shouldn’t police officers, like teachers and doctors, be drawn to the higher ideals that motivate one to elect a profession of service – and also to the moral imperative to resist abusing power that goes with the job? Isn’t this an essential feature of a “good” person in this context?
Just as there are bad cops there’s also bad teachers and doctors. It happens in every profession. Just look at our politicians.
My point is not about outlier law enforcement criminals it is about the willingness of fellow officers and superiors of the admitedly small number of criminal LEO’s to not speak out or intervene and to cover up and stonewall. Had there been no video released to the press (and it was only released after an extended fight to not do so) this whole incident would have probably just gone away and officer Van Dyke would still be out there “serving and protecting”. If a doctor or a teacher witnesses a fellow doctor or teacher commit murder they generally do not idly stand by and then subsequently lie about the circumstances of said murder. This kind of behavior is not unique to law enforcement, but is far more pervasive than in other professions.
Don’t think Paul should be asked to answer those ?’s. That’s our (society’s) … these are “outliers” … not typical/frequent… perhaps that’s why they “stand out”.
I remember being on a murder scene, (next day) and the OIC had had a ‘3- martini lunch’ Wrong. Not anywhere near typical. He actually got thru it OK, and appreciated and acted on the forensic evidence we found.
It’s a “mixed bag”… we should always expect the best, fix stuff that needs fixing, and punish those who are the ‘bad’ kind of “outliers”. Perhaps forfeiture of any and all retirement benefits? May not be legal, but perhaps we should consider, as a “deterrent”…
An significant majority of PD folk I know, have interacted with, are great, some are marginal, and some are “bad eggs”…
Good example why body cams are essential for good police work. The more and more I read various accounts of encounters between police and alleged criminals, the more certain I become that police should wear body cams:
1. To protect the public from the police;
2. To protect the police from the public.
The only caveat I would add is that there needs to be a rule in place that requires the burden of proof on excessive use of force claims against law enforcement to shift from plaintiff to police officer in cases where somehow the video footage of what happened got “lost”.
There has been an interesting shift in the willingness of prosecutors to take on these cases. The next question will be the willingness of jurors to convict (if that conviction is justified).
I have a question related to this. For each one of these videos of a cop apparently over-reacting with deadly force, there should be as many of not more that show the results of a cop under-reacting and being injured or killed. Will those videos also be shown to the public, or will they be kept from the public for legal reasons? For example, the integrity of the potential investigation and trial of the suspect?
Frankly: For each one of these videos of a cop apparently over-reacting with deadly force, there should be as many of not more that show the results of a cop under-reacting and being injured or killed.
How about posting videos of police officers doing exactly what they’re supposed to be doing, and doing it well?
What we have now is a very morbid and dystopian version of ‘bloopers.’
Agree with that too. Seems reality is distorted if we only show the bad stuff.
I directed the data center of a large bank for several years of my career. I had this problem where the mainframe would go down for some reason and there was this call to take me out back and shoot me because of my failure to perform. Then we started delivering the metrics “percentage up-time”, and “mean time between failures”.
When things were working fine nobody would even consider what it took to keep it working fine. It was only the next failure that got attention. Those two metrics changed the relationship between me and my customers as they were given some greater context for which to derive opinions of good or bad performance.
I see the same or similar potential problem with the use of video and a media that will only sensationalize the bad stuff. It will cause a loss of perspective that 99+% of what goes on in policing is well-performed.
What we need to help supplement that is better data on policing overall.
Anonymous: “It will cause a loss of perspective that 99+% of what goes on in policing is well-performed.”
Care to offer a cite for that 99+% figure?
Thank you.
Just go here and consider the sheer number of police-to-public encounters.
Then consider that a high percentage of these encounters are with the dregs of society.
Now count all those media events that used to paint the picture of the cops.
How many encounters/transactions are Davis cops involved in, and what percentage of these are those that you would claim are not well-performed?
I think this is interesting:
Not a racial thing. Everyone that experienced force from the police felt it was excessive. It would be interesting to profile this group, but I would expect to find a high incidence of people afflicted with victim mentality.
The racial component would be in the “who” experiences the force rather than the experience itself.
When they did the study on searches for example they found that blacks were more likely to be searched and the searches were based on more flimsy evidence as they were far less likely to find anything in the black cars than the white cars
“How many encounters/transactions are Davis cops involved in, and what percentage of these are those that you would claim are not well-performed?”
What does it mean to be well-performed?
@Anonymous: Just as I thought; the 99+% is a BS number you made up. Thank you for the clarification.
Frankly, I disagree. You use the term victim mentality. I use the term post traumatic stress disorder. Frankly, have you ever been verbally and/ or physically threatened by an armed individual?
Once. And it was my fault because I lost my temper.
I was thinking about this question and coming to the conclusion that it is really THE question.
What is well-performed is what is done within protocol and law.
It seems to me that the left is arguing that the cops are not well-performing enough, but this is really a complaint about the protocol and law because 99+% of law enforcement transactions are done within protocol and law.
So why isn’t the left complaining to law-makers to change the law and local politicians to change the protocol… and instead only blaming cops by exploiting the few number of bad-performance instances?
The reason… is politics.
Ahhh, Frankly… (re: your 4:26 p post)… you now defend public employees? [except the compensation thing, of course]
I have no problem with public employees. I do think many are over-compensated, but that is not their fault. The problem is the system. It is a system that promotes performance mediocrity because there are no competitors to motivate constant improvement, and it is an environment of risk aversion… employees only following a strick interpretation of the copious rules.
So with the legislation it puts the responsibility back on the agency heads which then causes them to be involved in the decision-making instead of relying on line-level employees that have no discretion and can only follow the rules.
The problem is that the rules are always written by lawyers and they don’t cover all the “business” issues that can arise. So people slip by because of an incomplete set of rules.
Frankly (because you are)… you do probably don’t have enough info as what you might want, as to the reality of public employment in Davis (and other municipalities) has been/is like… let’s go “off-line” … hortensepierce@yahoo.com
I expect to be “off-grid” for a while, due to a medical procedure (no, not a brain transplant!), starting mid-next week.
I will miss you. I hope you get well soon.
There are about a thousand separate incidents of police brutality for every “good cop” video to be found on the internet. Why? Because the cops rule by domination and force, their will be done. The same cop that wont come to your house to take a malicious mischief or vandalism report or try to catch the miscreant, will shoot you, dead, just for questioning their “authority.” Like Bob Dylan said,”The cops don’t need you and man, they expect the same.”
With all due respect I think you are so wrong on this it really questions your ability to have any rational participation in this topic.
Frankly: “… it really questions your ability to have any rational participation in this topic.”
Mirror time? Time to re-visit first Amendment? Can the same be said of you on many topics?
Just asking, because I don’t agree with Biddlin’s logic, but your response is “UNDER the top”. [think “over the top”, but in very bent way]
Why not? Because it is no more interesting or edifying than when wdf1, Frankly or Dave Hart holds open the door for an elderly lady: It’s what you’re <em>supposed</em> to do! It doesn’t add anything to the discussion or enlighten in any way. It’s what we all <em>expect</em> from normal, reasonably adjusted humans.
Great stupid analogy. Since when is the old lady going to pose a risk to your safety.
Granted, there was no reason to shoot the guy 16 times. But if you watch the video the victim’s hand is in his pocket and he quickly spins then it looks like the first shot is fired. If that’s the case then the initial shots were justified. When on the ground the victim sticks his hand which looks like he might have a gun and trying to shoot and he’s then shot again. If you watch one of the officers walks up and kicks the victim’s hand which in my mind is proof that they thought he had a gun.
BP – This post is low, even for you. Laquan McDonald spun around when he was walking away and struck by the first bullet. The object kicked away was a knife in plain view. The state’s attorney could no longer avoid charging first degree murder after being forced to disclose this unambiguous, incriminating video. Codes of silence, cover-ups, and rationalizing indefensible police conduct in the face of clear evidence of wrongdoing is why such abuses continue with such alarming frequency.
That is much more plausible, given looking at the posting and CNN version of the footage, than BP’s theory. The officer, firing sixteen shots, and not even being proximate to the “suspect” strongly appears to be a cold/hot blooded murderer.
The PCP thing is interesting tho’… one of the two murder scenes I was called in to “survey” was due to a PCP user. Yet, the victim’s behavior is much less aggressive/violent than the perpetrator in that case.
Given the number of officers/vehicles present, the “red light” response, what was the reason that the individual was being sought? Have not seen that yet. “Behaving strangely” doesn’t account for the response.
Hope the officer, if found guilty of murder (appears to be wanton) is put in the general population of prison, with all inmates knowledgeable of the facts.
hpierce
“Hope the officer, if found guilty of murder (appears to be wanton) is put in the general population of prison, with all inmates knowledgeable of the facts.”
And I certainly hope not. Adding brutality to brutality does not serve anyone. What would be learned or gained by subjecting this individual more than any other to additional harm ? Is it not enough to protect the community from him ?
So, Tia, I’m hearing a disconnect between your posts saying Police should be held to a higher standard than others, and you are saying the officer, if found guilty, should be given preferential treatment in prison? Are you arguing against “transparency”?
You may well be “connecting dots” that are were not intended in my post. I only said that he should be treated as any other criminal, and only if he if fairly judged a criminal.
Never once did I propose “brutality”.
Did you guys actually watch the video with an open mind? The victim’s hand is in his pocket, he then spins quickly completely around and turns towards the cops. I can’t tell if he spun because he was shot or if he was shot after the spin, there’s no audio. So tell me how could the officers possibly know that he didn’t pull a gun during his spin? Then he extends his arm while on the ground which could’ve also represented an aggressive motion if he had a gun. 16 shots isn’t justifiable as I already stated. But any reasonable person can see why they fired in the first place if they shot him after he spun.
BP – Yes, but clearly you did not. You are making up facts to support your preconceived conclusion. No one ever offered the justification that McDonald was believed to have a gun. The cops’ and FOP’s story at the time was that it was self defense because McDonald lunged at them with a knife. This is unquestionably belied by the video.
“How about posting videos of police officers doing exactly what they’re supposed to be doing, and doing it well?”
The reason these incidents are news is because they are not the norm. If the norm was police murdering innocent civilians then the news would be when a cop did something right. I do not want the news to be incidents of cops doing their job correctly.
Re: BP’s defense of aw enforcement, no matter the circumstances:
“BP – This post is low, even for you.”
There is no justification for shooting this knife-wielding young man 16 times. Anyone who defends this murder is not right in the head. Obviously, they had more weapons than he had. They outnumbered him, too. The cop would have been safe in his car, or standing at a safe distance. When BP always sides with the murderer, there is only one conclusion to draw. Either he or his relatives are law enforcement, or he was the victim of a heinous crime. Otherwise, he is just trying to yank your chain. Ignore it. There is no excuse for this murder. None. It was totally 100% avoidable. Just like the death of Trayvon Martin and many others.
LOL, there you go again, just couldn’t help yourself heh?
Have a nice day Sisterhood, I’m spending mine with my loving family.
BP
LOL when you suggest people did not watch the murder with an open mind.
(I also celebrated the holiday with loved ones, several of whom are cops.)
Okay, guests are gone. Time to deal with your snarky comments.
Go back and read my posts again, this time slowly so you can try and comprehend what I actually stated.
Did you bother to read that I stated “Granted, there was no reason to shoot the guy 16 times”?
Did you read where I put ifs in my scenarios? I derived these ifs from watching the video several times. If the officer shot before McDonald spun then the officer has nothing to stand on. If the officer shot after he spun then I can see where the officer might have felt threatened because McDonald had his hand in his pocket.
So next time try and do your homework before you post.
Eric, shouldn’t the Grand Conspiracy have more culprits to arrest, rather than just ONE officer? If we get rid of the people COVERING the bad eggs, we might make some progress? you say nothing about that.
Another angle on this story:
Police Say They Had Nothing To Do With Missing Footage In Laquan McDonald Case
This is the reason I asked about WHO was going to handle all this video and audio, which the Chief and Now Chief assured me they were spending money on an in place system, which means they are not having a tech expert, or independent expert do this. They are letting the officers upload and download their own stuff, and after working at Sac DA and setting up the first digital lab there, I can assure you the people running have no clue or experience with it. So losses are inevitable.
I am also concerned about the lack of accountability of the officer’s leaders and supervisors. For years.
“We will handle it” does not give me much confidence, or transparency..
That seems to be the way things are done these days as evidenced by the erased and deleted IRS and Hillary Clinton emails.
[moderator] Please stay on topic.
For anyone who is truly interested in a balanced picture of police performance, I suggest that no more is needed than to broaden your reading and/or viewing habits. A 30 second Google search using “good cop behavior” brought up a series of Huffington Post articles on good policing including both stories and videos and a whole host of other references on line to exemplary police behavior. It is also possible to find on line vignettes and videos of police being abused by detainees and the public. It is out there. One has only to look rather than spin a tale of how the media only picks on cops.
Frankly
“ It will cause a loss of perspective that 99+% of what goes on in policing is well-performed.”
Biddlin
“There are about a thousand separate incidents of police brutality for every “good cop” video to be found on the internet. “
Statistics or evidence to support both of your claims would be appreciated.
I don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. These guys are scamming you seven ways from sunup and would kill you in a heartbeat to cover up their indiscretions, no evidence to the contrary. Their disability, retirement and moonlighting scams make the FFs’ look puny. If you want protection, you hire a private patrol or security or pack your own. Sorry, Frankly, but from a cost/benefit pov, these guys are a drain on the assets, morale and morals of the people.
Yeah… a self-appointed, private patrol person (packing his own) like Zimmerman… that worked out well. Right. Not.
hpierce
“I’m hearing a disconnect between your posts saying Police should be held to a higher standard than others, and you are saying the officer, if found guilty, should be given preferential treatment in prison? “
No disconnect. I do not believe that any of our prisoners should be treated inhumanely. Having an intimate knowledge of our current prison system, I do not think that it is fit for any human being. I would not turn any prisoner loose in the general prison population with his crime being known. This is not about transparency. It is about revenge.
Whether or not you intended to imply brutality, that is often what occurs when word of the reason for incarceration becomes widespread. I do not know if you are aware of that or not, but prisoners are particularly and often physically dangerous to those whose crimes they especially despise such as pedophiles or brutal cops.
Ok… not saying I agree, but AM saying, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
hpierce
“Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!’
Thanks for the smile, and right back at you with my best wishes !
T’was good… hope yours was the same.