Chicago Cop Indicted For 1st Degree Murder......

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...53037121.html#

The Chicago Police Chief and Mayor Rahm Emanual just called for calm as they prepared to release the video showing the whole episode.

Hopefully their calls will be heeded.

16 rounds is a little excessive, would they overlooked it if he had only shot him 3-4 times?

16 rounds is a little excessive, would they overlooked it if he had only shot him 3-4 times? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

No, they wouldn't. an unjustified use of deadly force is just that .. the number of bullets isn't relevant. police Internal Affairs has always tended to "protect their own", which if the facts say the action was not warranted is wrong.

the officer reportedly was on scene less that 30 seconds including getting out of his vehicle. without the video it's pointless to speculate at present what happened. it has been reported that the victim had a knife and hallucinogens in his system. witnesses say he was backing away, well witnesses have given incorrect and/or conflicting reports before i.e. Ferguson. when the video comes out we'll have a better idea of what might have compelled the officer to shoot. as for how many shots? many times the adrenaline takes over. it doesn't mean it was a bad decision not does it make it a good one either.
just once the shooting started, it's hard for cops to "stand down" just like it is in combat.

well the video is out and i've watched it. i think the officer overreacted. the suspect was not close enough even with a knife to be a threat to the officer and he appears to move away before the officer fires.

if he had as many at sixteen gunshot wounds as has been reported, that's beyond excessive. all the officers on scene essentially unloaded on this kid once the first officer shot at him. that's a knee jerk reaction and without any return fire was outside of the training these officers should have received in such a situation.

here it is... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix2N6_jLAgA

well the video is out and i've watched it. i think the officer overreacted. the suspect was not close enough even with a knife to be a threat to the officer and he appears to move away before the officer fires.

if he had as many at sixteen gunshot wounds as has been reported, that's beyond excessive. all the officers on scene essentially unloaded on this kid once the first officer shot at him. that's a knee jerk reaction and without any return fire was outside of the training these officers should have received in such a situation. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Here's the deal. Even though this kid wasn't an immediate threat to the officers he was a threat to society in general. They still needed to get him detained. I am sure they were trying to get him to drop the knife and surrender, but he failed to do so. As we all know the end result was shots were fired and this kid was killed. Initially the shooting was justified. What makes it unjustified was the moment the kid was down and no longer a threat to anyone the officer continued firing shots. Number of shots fired really isn't a determining factor either. Officers are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized. The idea that once an officer starts firing shots it's hard to stop cause he's in some sort of mode isn't going to fly. Officers are actually instructed to fire shots at targets and then seize firing upon the sound of a whistle to practice restraint when an armed suspect is no longer a viable threat. This is unfortunate for this officer he's going to face some serious legal battles.

Jim

That cop deserves every bit of punishment that the Law can dish out.

Here is another case that no Mayor, Police Chief, or President has mentioned, but is equally dispicable. Watch as this piece of human shit shoots the man coming to a ladies aid, and then aims at the man's head as the gun jams twice. What do you do with an animal such as this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2443030

Here's the deal. Even though this kid wasn't an immediate threat to the officers he was a threat to society in general. They still needed to get him detained. I am sure they were trying to get him to drop the knife and surrender, but he failed to do so. As we all know the end result was shots were fired and this kid was killed. Initially the shooting was justified. What makes it unjustified was the moment the kid was down and no longer a threat to anyone the officer continued firing shots. Number of shots fired really isn't a determining factor either. Officers are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized. The idea that once an officer starts firing shots it's hard to stop cause he's in some sort of mode isn't going to fly. Officers are actually instructed to fire shots at targets and then seize firing upon the sound of a whistle to practice restraint when an armed suspect is no longer a viable threat. This is unfortunate for this officer he's going to face some serious legal battles.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

And he'll be playing right into the " Black lies matter " Dindu Nuffin narrative. Wonder if Al Sharptongues government provided plane broke the sound barrier getting their to boost odummer and the In-Justice department's narrative that ALL cops are racist hunters of the ghetto gang ? FALEW !

This officer is going to do 10 years on the inside.

He deserves life.

The media isn't shooting all these people. Cops are. Enough already. Shoot the fucker in the leg once. That might get him to rethink his position. Instead, he made Swiss cheese out of that kid.

Fuck him.

Here's the deal. Even though this kid wasn't an immediate threat to the officers he was a threat to society in general. They still needed to get him detained. I am sure they were trying to get him to drop the knife and surrender, but he failed to do so. As we all know the end result was shots were fired and this kid was killed. Initially the shooting was justified. What makes it unjustified was the moment the kid was down and no longer a threat to anyone the officer continued firing shots. Number of shots fired really isn't a determining factor either. Officers are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized. The idea that once an officer starts firing shots it's hard to stop cause he's in some sort of mode isn't going to fly. Officers are actually instructed to fire shots at targets and then seize firing upon the sound of a whistle to practice restraint when an armed suspect is no longer a viable threat. This is unfortunate for this officer he's going to face some serious legal battles.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

here's the deal. your first statement shows the cops overreacted.

"Even though this kid wasn't an immediate threat to the officers .."

of course the cops simply can't let this guy go because he is a threat overall. also, if police are training in a similar way to the military, they shoot in short controlled bursts. regardless they exceeding any and all training by basically unloading on the kid. 3 plus cops unloading like that is excessive. that's why he ended up with 16 rounds in him.

do the Chicago PD issue tasers? if so then they could have used a taser as a first option. the range of a taser, a police/military grade one, is 25 feet. with proper backup, and by backup i mean armed backup,

if the Chicago Pd does not issue tasers, which i find unlikely, they should. they overreacted. they could have shot to disable, they shot to kill.

and i don't give a shit about charges being brought, if not justified, just to appease a bunch of thugs and race baiters like Al Sharpton. if the evidence had showed the cop was justified, then if the dindu nuffins run riot, call out the National Guard on them.

that was one of the mistakes Nixon in Missouri failed to do. since Obama's gay bathhouse buddy Rahm Emanuel is Mayor of Chicago you know he'll never ask the Illinois Governor for that type of assistance. he wants the riots. of course the Governor can send in the Illinois National Guard no matter what Emanuel says. what's he going to do? send the Chicago SWAT team up against the Illinois National Guard? even Emanuel wouldn't dare. and if he did, he'd be put in prison for it.

here's the deal. your first statement shows the cops overreacted.

"Even though this kid wasn't an immediate threat to the officers .."

of course the cops simply can't let this guy go because he is a threat overall. also, if police are training in a similar way to the military, they shoot in short controlled bursts. regardless they exceeding any and all training by basically unloading on the kid. 3 plus cops unloading like that is excessive. that's why he ended up with 16 rounds in him.

do the Chicago PD issue tasers? if so then they could have used a taser as a first option. the range of a taser, a police/military grade one, is 25 feet. with proper backup, and by backup i mean armed backup,

if the Chicago Pd does not issue tasers, which i find unlikely, they should. they overreacted. they could have shot to disable, they shot to kill.

and i don't give a shit about charges being brought, if not justified, just to appease a bunch of thugs and race baiters like Al Sharpton. if the evidence had showed the cop was justified, then if the dindu nuffins run riot, call out the National Guard on them.

that was one of the mistakes Nixon in Missouri failed to do. since Obama's gay bathhouse buddy Rahm Emanuel is Mayor of Chicago you know he'll never ask the Illinois Governor for that type of assistance. he wants the riots. of course the Governor can send in the Illinois National Guard no matter what Emanuel says. what's he going to do? send the Chicago SWAT team up against the Illinois National Guard? even Emanuel wouldn't dare. and if he did, he'd be put in prison for it. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The decision to fire upon the suspect initially is not a case of overreacting. He was armed, he had committed several property crimes and he was behaving unusual. It wouldn't have been a good idea to bum rush the guy in hopes to disarm him somebody certainly would have been stabbed. So it was a deadly force encounter from the start. It became unjustified when the officer(s) continued to engage even though the suspect was no longer a threat. You can call it overreacting if you wish. I think it's a training issue.

Jim

This officer is going to do 10 years on the inside.

He deserves life.

The media isn't shooting all these people. Cops are. Enough already. Shoot the fucker in the leg once. That might get him to rethink his position. Instead, he made Swiss cheese out of that kid.

Fuck him. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Gotta agree with Assup. This cop should not draw another free breath. What is wrong with these people?

The decision to fire upon the suspect initially is not a case of overreacting. He was armed, he had committed several property crimes and he was behaving unusual. It wouldn't have been a good idea to bum rush the guy in hopes to disarm him somebody certainly would have been stabbed. So it was a deadly force encounter from the start. It became unjustified when the officer(s) continued to engage even though the suspect was no longer a threat. You can call it overreacting if you wish. I think it's a training issue.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

i didn't say bum rush him. i said taser him, which can be done up to 25 feet away with military/police grade tasers.

No, they wouldn't. an unjustified use of deadly force is just that .. the number of bullets isn't relevant. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The number of rounds fired, plus he was in the process of recharging his weapon when fellow officers intervened, is relevant to this state of mind.

An officer's standard when using a firearm is defensive, whether merely drawn, pointed, and/or fired. Once a person is neutralized as a threat there is no longer a justification to fire at the person.*

If he takes the stand to testify (whether before a grand jury or otherwise) the officer will be (or should be) examined on training as well as the weapons he employed (and had available to use, but didn't) in the incident for which he is testifying ... which by the way includes the type of ammunition used and the number of rounds fired.

Unfortunately, killings like this one add fuel to the fire and paint all LE in the minds of the public, whether they hate police or otherwise.

*I suspect the "average" officer doesn't count when firing and does not give an accurate accounting of rounds fired from statements made. Counts are difficult at times, but are extrapolated from remaining live rounds in the weapon, brass on the ground, rounds recovered, and other officers nearby. But I'm talking about 2-6 range of discharges in a heated situation.

Do you think the officer was overcharged LL?