FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Or wait until they see an actual weapon.

That's how you end up with dead cops. And that is never the acceptable outcome when they're doing their job.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Cuff him when they had him lying face down with his hands on his head.

Or wait until they see an actual weapon.

That's Ben's point though - when he was lying face down was a long time before "in that moment." If you wait until you see an actual weapon, it may be far too late.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's how you end up with dead cops. And that is never the acceptable outcome when they're doing their job.

That line of thought means you could shoot anyone with their hands in their pockets walking around. I mean they could theoretically have a gun.

Also Arizona is an open carry state. Not a crime to have a gun on you.

[dubb93]

Jesus, I’m normally pro cop but that is bad. They had so many opportunities to take that guy yet they decided he needed to do the fucking Macarena while whistling show tunes and let him know if he missed the beat they would kill him. Dude clearly lost it around the time Joe hero told him he was going to kill him.

Someone needed to be accountable here. As a father I don’t know if I could watch that and know that justice wasn’t done.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

That's Ben's point though - when he was lying face down was a long time before "in that moment." If you wait until you see an actual weapon, it may be far too late.

And my point is that when you have the guy in this position and proceed to make the situation more dangerous, your intentions are clear that you're not interested in taking him into custody alive.



They had many opportunities to apprehend him and chose to continue with pointless commands waiting for an opportunity to shoot.

Officers who add this to their weapons are not interested in peaceful resolutions.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That line of thought means you could shoot anyone with their hands in their pockets walking around. I mean they could theoretically have a gun.

It’s true though. I’ve had interactions with youth that don’t realize that the #1 priority of police is to go home at the end of a shift. There is a large percentage of youth in this country that believe a cop should be willing to take a bullet before they kill an innocent, which will never happen. All that said that is bad. They needed to take that guy prior to asking him to dance down the hallway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That line of thought means you could shoot anyone with their hands in their pockets walking around. I mean they could theoretically have a gun.

Also Arizona is an open carry state. Not a crime to have a gun on you.

It is, however, actionable to fail to obey a lawful command by a sworn officer.

You fuck up -- and this guy did, by presenting himself as a likely threat -- then that can go very badly for you.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That line of thought means you could shoot anyone with their hands in their pockets walking around. I mean they could theoretically have a gun.

Also Arizona is an open carry state. Not a crime to have a gun on you.

The call was a man pointing a rifle from a motel window, open carry or not, that will put you in a bad spot with law enforcement here.

Like I said in my post, the handling of the situation was atrocious and the Mesa PD, who again have had probably more complaints then any department in the state, have a culture issue as I stated. They could have contained the suspect without the added theatrics and avoided the shooting.

Your analogy about the hands in pockets is apples and oranges. Knowing he had a weapon, not knowing where it is or if he has others means you don't wait until it is pointed at you to shoot, otherwise odds are you take a bullet too. The law in this case left no room to convict the officer once he went for his waist band, it is sad, but that is how it is.

The entire scrutiny in this case should be focused on what led up to the shooting and how poorly the officers handled it. Unfortunately, that part is not subject to criminal charges. That piece can only be used to discipline/fire the officers and for the victims survivors in civil suit.

[JPhillips]

At this point they had no evidence a crime had been committed other than a phone call saying someone was pointing a gun through a window.

There are officers and departments that escalate tensions and when that happens, people get shot. The acceptance of that from some in law enforcement and their supporters needs to end.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At this point they had no evidence a crime had been committed other than a phone call saying someone was pointing a gun through a window.

There are officers and departments that escalate tensions and when that happens, people get shot. The acceptance of that from some in law enforcement and their supporters needs to end.

Tamir Rice would like to say a few words, oh wait he can't.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At this point they had no evidence a crime had been committed other than a phone call saying someone was pointing a gun through a window.

There are officers and departments that escalate tensions and when that happens, people get shot. The acceptance of that from some in law enforcement and their supporters needs to end.

If someone is pointing a gun from a hotel window are you going to take the chance it will not become an active shooter situation?

I don't think that everyone is accepting what happened, just pointing out facts and how they fall under law. The verdict can still be correct based on the application of the law, even when the actions of the police are questionable at best. You know there are times shitty policing and civilian idiocy can be mutually inclusive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A lot of situations occur that result in people getting shot just as they richly deserved. The denial of that from some criminals and their supporters needs to end.

Fixed that for you.

[molson]

I work very closely with police officers in a red, gun-happy law-and-order state and that officer's behavior, even without the shooting, would not have gone over well with his supervisors or the AG's office.

I think the job of police officer is generally way, way more difficult than people generally assume, and that the available training, especially in the poorer states, is much more sparse than people assume. But I think the thing people would really be surprised by, is that 99% of the mistakes I see from inexperienced officers are based around not being forceful enough, taking too long to make decisions, trying too hard to be polite, etc. It's the rare inexperienced officer that compensates for his insecurities by being more verbally or physically abusive. (there's probably a few more than that that develop those traits with experience, in an law enforcement environment that tolerates it). It just makes the job more difficult. And obviously that 1% stands out and and can become national news when they fuck up, and a bad culture that tolerates that kind of thing can produce more fuckups. And the reality is, with the limiting training available, it's impossible to completely weed out ALL of the officers like this. Especially when applications are down across the board. It's difficult to know how officers will react in tense moments, and it's even more difficult to fire them when you see a problem. But the problem on that end is generally not with the law enforcement supervisors, who from my experiences, want to fire quickly and often, but from the lawyers who, somewhat justifiably, are concerned about paper trails and liability and legal battles over terminations.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It is, however, actionable to fail to obey a lawful command by a sworn officer.

You fuck up -- and this guy did, by presenting himself as a likely threat -- then that can go very badly for you.

Cross your legs, keep your hands up, and crawl toward me are contradictory commands.

They played Simon Says with him for like 10 minutes. At some point you're going to get a command wrong. They had multiple opportunities to cuff him and chose not to because they were not interested in that.

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Your analogy about the hands in pockets is apples and oranges. Knowing he had a weapon, not knowing where it is or if he has others means you don't wait until it is pointed at you to shoot, otherwise odds are you take a bullet too. The law in this case left no room to convict the officer once he went for his waist band, it is sad, but that is how it is.

No it's not. Anyone in that state can carry a gun at any time. Anyone an officer comes across or sees on the street could have a weapon on them. If the argument is that the theoretical possibility that a gun exists out of sight gives justification to shoot, then it would apply to much more than this.

My point is these self-defense claims would never fly with the average citizen. If you or I shot someone because we thought maybe they had a gun, we'd be in jail. We'd have to see the gun, likely even see it aimed at us.

As an officer, you should have to meet a similar burden of self-defense. You should have to either see a weapon or see what can be construed as a weapon before using deadly force. I know we've propped up this false claim that being an officer is extremely dangerous. But it's really not when you remove vehicle deaths. And if someone feels it is too dangerous, they should find a safer career path.

Demand more from your law enforcement. Wannabe Rambos who couldn't make it a week in basic don't belong.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No it's not. Anyone in that state can carry a gun at any time. Anyone an officer comes across or sees on the street could have a weapon on them. If the argument is that the theoretical possibility that a gun exists out of sight gives justification to shoot, then it would apply to much more than this.

My point is these self-defense claims would never fly with the average citizen. If you or I shot someone because we thought maybe they had a gun, we'd be in jail. We'd have to see the gun, likely even see it aimed at us.

As an officer, you should have to meet a similar burden of self-defense. You should have to either see a weapon or see what can be construed as a weapon before using deadly force. I know we've propped up this false claim that being an officer is extremely dangerous. But it's really not when you remove vehicle deaths. And if someone feels it is too dangerous, they should find a safer career path.

Demand more from your law enforcement. Wannabe Rambos who couldn't make it a week in basic don't belong.

I agree with you on all your points about law enforcement training and how they overreacted, this was handled poorly, but the law is the law. I am stating how the law applies here. Don't bitch at me, bitch at the folks that make them.

And I live in this state, so I know the gun laws, I own a gun and it is still apples and oranges. If I choose to open carry (Which I don't) I am free to do so and if I am not doing anything wrong I have nothing to fear. If my gun is concealed and I state where it is and keep my hands in plain sight, I have nothing to fear.

If I waive my gun around and someone thinks I am unstable, or a risk to their safety and calls the police. The police show up and I have put my gun away in my car, they order me down and even though they don't see a gun and I reach for my waistband then guess what? I am putting my life in hands of a complete stranger, and cop or not, I have no idea what his last call was, what his mind set is, how new he is to the job, how competent he is in his job, has he ever faced this scenario before, etc, etc, then I am playing with fate and have to hope one of them doesn't have an itchy trigger finger.

It's just common sense. Yeah, these cops were dicks for the way they handled it. They could have covered him, had two of the five advance and secure him and we all go home. But sometimes by the time you see the gun it's too late and unfortunately that is used as a viable defense for the one cop that pulled the trigger too quick.

Best I can tell you is maybe go on a ride along sometime. It's not an easy job and that doesn't excuse this, or discount the "rambos" that are given badges that should never wear one. But this is a mistake that the best of cops could have made, meaning pulling the trigger in response to an action that could have resulted in one of them not going home and they have a second to make that choice. It sucks, but like it or not, justice for this man will only be coming via the civil route.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I agree with you on all your points about law enforcement training and how they overreacted, this was handled poorly, but the law is the law. I am stating how the law applies here. Don't bitch at me, bitch at the folks that make them.

And I live in this state, so I know the gun laws, I own a gun and it is still apples and oranges. If I choose to open carry (Which I don't) I am free to do so and am not doing anything wrong I have nothing to fear. If my gun is concealed and I state where it is and keep my hands in plain sight, I have nothing to fear.

If I waive my gun around and someone thinks I am unstable, or a risk to their safety and calls the police. The police show up and I have put my gun in my car, they order me down and even through they don't see a gun and I reach for my waistband then guess what? I am putting my life in hands of a complete stranger, and cop or not, I have no idea what his last call was, what his mind set is, how new he is to the job, how competent he is in his job, has he ever faced this scenario before, etc, etc, then I am playing with fate and have to hope one of them doesn't have an itchy trigger finger.

It's just common sense. Yeah, these cops were dicks for the way they handled it. They could have covered him, had two of the five advance and secure him and we all go home. But sometimes by the time you see the gun it's too late and unfortunately that is used as a viable defense for the one cop that pulled the trigger too quick.

If you scream contradictory commands at someone for 10 minutes, they're at some point going to screw up. They are telling him to leave his hands in the air or they will shoot him and simultaneously telling him to crawl which is a physical impossibility.

My issue is I don't think these officers wanted to take him in alive. I think they wanted to shoot him from the start. There is no other explanation for why they continued to play these silly games with him well after they had him in a position where they could cuff him.

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Best I can tell you is maybe go on a ride along sometime. It's not an easy job and that doesn't excuse this, or discount the "rambos" that are given badges that should never wear one. But this is a mistake that the best of cops could have made, meaning pulling the trigger in response to an action that could have resulted in one of them not going home and they have a second to make that choice. It sucks, but it or not, justice for this man will only be coming via the civil route.

I'm not calling all cops rambos, just the cop that shot and the cop that gave the commands (the one that ran off like a pussy to the Philippines). If you're putting stuff like that on your rifle, you shouldn't be an officer. You're in it for the wrong reasons.

It's not a mistake the best of cops can make. The cop who made it had a poor record as it was and was the only one who fired his weapon. It appears the other cops with rifles in that hallway were not psychopaths or quivering pussies.

[molson]

I'm not sure if this officer was a psychopath, emotionally unstable, or just really sucked as his job, but good officers move FAST. That's the #1 difference between good, experienced officers and crappy and/or inexperienced officers. I've seen that a million times in training scenarios. Even if the guy was armed, the officer has a much better chance of getting out of there without getting hurt if he gets the guy down and gets on him ASAP, even if that leads to the suspect getting a little roughed up.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It is, however, actionable to fail to obey a lawful command by a sworn officer.

You fuck up -- and this guy did, by presenting himself as a likely threat -- then that can go very badly for you.

Punishment of death? I may have missed something in this thread, but did the dead guy actually break a law? It's not illegal to not follow a cop's order unless the cop's order is lawful. Was that the case here?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My issue is I don't think these officers wanted to take him in alive. I think they wanted to shoot him from the start. There is no other explanation for why they continued to play these silly games with him well after they had him in a position where they could cuff him.

I agree with most of that, poorly handled and setting things up for a bad outcome. But all five officers had this mindset? Cops don't go to work thinking, "Man, I hope I get to shoot someone today" Shitty cops may shoot prematurely, or act too aggressively, panic or just plain fuck up. But saying it is pre-meditated is a strong statement.

Again, go do a sit training course if available in your area, or go out for a couple of hours. I am not denying there are terrible cops out there, but you would get a deeper understanding for how difficult it is to make snap judgments like this.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure if this officer was a psychopath, emotionally unstable, or just really sucked as his job, but good officers move FAST. That's the #1 difference between good, experienced officers and crappy and/or inexperienced officers. I've seen that a million times in training scenarios. Even if the guy was armed, the officer has a much better chance of getting out of there without getting hurt if he gets the guy down and gets on him ASAP, even if that leads to the suspect getting a little roughed up.

Agree totally.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I agree with most of that, poorly handled and setting things up for a bad outcome. But all five officers had this mindset? Cops don't go to work thinking, "Man, I hope I get to shoot someone today" Shitty cops may shoot prematurely, or act too aggressively, panic or just plain fuck up. But saying it is pre-meditated is a strong statement.

Again, go do a sit training course if available in your area, or go out for a couple of hours. I am not denying there are terrible cops out there, but you would get a deeper understanding for how difficult it is to make snap judgments like this.

When he ordered online and took the time to install his custom EP dust cover stating "You're Fucked" - You think he did this because...why?


When he was disciplined two weeks prior for drawing a weapon on a teenage girl during a traffic stop...what was he thinking?

I agree in the instant before the shot the dead guy acted improperly. But he was put into that situation by the trained LEO. I would even suggest that a trained LEO should have known he was intoxicated and have known he couldnt comply with the requests being made. The he intentionally made them so vague as to cause him to screw up so he could shoot him.

Watch it again. When dealing with the female he gives simple single commands and waits for her to respond. With the guy he repeatedly barks out two or three commands in rapid succession and tells him 3 times 'I am going to shoot you' further terrorizing the guy.

I've been racking my brain about how I would react in the dead guys place...especially if Id had a few drinks.

Or about what he could have done to ensure he stays alive. IF he doesn't pull up his shorts they trip him, he falls forward and they shoot because he lunged at them.

I think the only tjhing to do would be lay down, face down, hands straight out at my side and refuse to move. "I fear for my safety. I am not moving please detain me" I dont know what else to do.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

If someone is pointing a gun from a hotel window are you going to take the chance it will not become an active shooter situation?

I don't think that everyone is accepting what happened, just pointing out facts and how they fall under law. The verdict can still be correct based on the application of the law, even when the actions of the police are questionable at best. You know there are times shitty policing and civilian idiocy can be mutually inclusive.

I'm unclear on what they knew by the time the video starts. Did they any evidence other than a phone call? Did they know this guy had previously had a gun? Was he ever asked if he had a gun on him or in the room?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

When he ordered online and took the time to install his custom EP dust cover stating "You're Fucked" - You think he did this because...why?


When he was disciplined two weeks prior for drawing a weapon on a teenage girl during a traffic stop...what was he thinking?

I agree in the instant before the shot the dead guy acted improperly. But he was put into that situation by the trained LEO. I would even suggest that a trained LEO should have known he was intoxicated and have known he couldnt comply with the requests being made. The he intentionally made them so vague as to cause him to screw up so he could shoot him.

Watch it again. When dealing with the female he gives simple single commands and waits for her to respond. With the guy he repeatedly barks out two or three commands in rapid succession and tells him 3 times 'I am going to shoot you' further terrorizing the guy.

I've been racking my brain about how I would react in the dead guys place...especially if Id had a few drinks.

Or about what he could have done to ensure he stays alive. IF he doesn't pull up his shorts they trip him, he falls forward and they shoot because he lunged at them.

I think the only tjhing to do would be lay down, face down, hands straight out at my side and refuse to move. "I fear for my safety. I am not moving please detain me" I dont know what else to do.

All things I agree with. Please don't think I am defending either the two LEO's primarily involved. I am just trying to point out why the jury did not convict him and the moment of the shooting.

Any cop that mods his gun with you're fucked and The Punisher logo is a fucking liability waiting to happen and the cop ordering him through hoops is a fucking idiot and put him in the position to lose his life. It is to the benefit of all that neither is still on the force.

The ONLY reason I can see for them not detaining him where he was is the fear of another person in the room with the weapon. But with 5 officers on scene, three could have covered the open door while two took him into custody.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm unclear on what they knew by the time the video starts. Did they any evidence other than a phone call? Did they know this guy had previously had a gun? Was he ever asked if he had a gun on him or in the room?

Not sure TBH, but this many missing pieces is often the case on these kind of calls.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I agree with most of that, poorly handled and setting things up for a bad outcome. But all five officers had this mindset? Cops don't go to work thinking, "Man, I hope I get to shoot someone today" Shitty cops may shoot prematurely, or act too aggressively, panic or just plain fuck up. But saying it is pre-meditated is a strong statement.

No, only one guy shot. The other guy played Simon Says until he screwed up. The other cops in that hallway didn't feel he was a threat.

I don't know if pre-meditated is the right word. It sure feels like something they wanted to happen. They had him on his stomach with his legs crossed and hands on his head. A perfect position to walk over and cuff him. The fact they didn't do that makes me think their motivation wasn't to end this peacefully. And the cops ever confusing commands and threats of execution to a man who was clearly not a threat seemed to only put themselves in a position where he might screw up and they could shoot him.

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Again, go do a sit training course if available in your area, or go out for a couple of hours. I am not denying there are terrible cops out there, but you would get a deeper understanding for how difficult it is to make snap judgments like this.

I'm sure it is difficult which is why the job isn't for everyone. Also why a police department and other cops should spot nutcases like the guy giving commands and the guy who shot and inform their superiors they have no business being on the force.

The problem with the "few bad apples" argument is that the "good cops" will cover for them. Even in this case the officers got together to omit important facts from the report. How would training help change that culture?

[Ryche]

They had far too many chances to end the situation without shooting before he finally made the motion that could be interpreted as reaching for something. None of them should be cops again.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The problem with the "few bad apples" argument is that the "good cops" will cover for them. Even in this case the officers got together to omit important facts from the report. How would training help change that culture?

This my friend is the crux of much that ails departments nationwide and it is so deeply ingrained I don't know that I have a good answer. I will say that any change starts at the top however and the Dallas PD offers a pretty good model of what changing that culture looks like.

[RainMaker]

DOJ press release: Atlanta police sergeant convicted for breaking a Walmart shopper's leg with his baton on suspicion of stealing a tomato. After finding a receipt, he filed a false report. pic.twitter.com/pv7kQ8XTnN

— CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) December 8, 2017

[I. J. Reilly]

Now I'm rethinking always saying no when the cashier asks me if I want my receipt.

[cuervo72]

I've wondered about that for places which give you the option of an e-mail only receipt.

[JPhillips]

Did Police in Georgia Force a Man to Cut Off His Own Dog's Head?

spoiler alert: yes

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Did Police in Georgia Force a Man to Cut Off His Own Dog's Head?

spoiler alert: yes

WTF, I'm not sure I even want to read about that.

[Butter]

Dog was shot to death as it was suspected of having rabies. Police wanted him to remove the dead dog's head for rabies testing, and threatened him with arrest if he refused.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Butter

Dog was shot to death as it was suspected of having rabies. Police wanted him to remove the dead dog's head for rabies testing, and threatened him with arrest if he refused.

Man, still fucked up, isn't that what Animal control is for?

[PilotMan]

It's completely fucked up.

The beheading should have been performed by either a veterinarian or a trained animal control officer, “not only to provide a good specimen, but also for the protection of the person who removes the head,” Georgia Department of Public Health spokeswoman Nancy Nydam said in an email to The Telegraph on Tuesday. “That person should have pre-exposure rabies vaccine.”

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Butter

Dog was shot to death as it was suspected of having rabies. Police wanted him to remove the dead dog's head for rabies testing, and threatened him with arrest if he refused.

Of *course* this happened in Crawford County.

[miked]

How often do you think this sort of thing happens?

Video shows officers handcuffing a shrieking 11-year-old at gunpoint - The Washington Post

My father-in-law chastised me for watching football, on account of those kneeling players. I reminded him that they are still playing the game and that I wished he held that same level of outrage that pedophiles can get 48% of the vote and the dozens of incidents that happen like this weekly.

[Drake]

If you're so easily intimidated that you need to pull a gun to feel safe from an 11-year-old girl, you might want to re-think a career in law enforcement.

[cuervo72]

Good Lord:

This 17-Year-Old Was Brutalized During A Police Encounter And His Family Want To Know Why

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I really want there to be a good explanation and/or justification for this but don't think there will be. It's pretty crazy what they said the cop did.

Chicago Releases 'Chilling' Video Of Cop Shooting Teen 16 Times

CNN)[Breaking news update, posted at 3:01 p.m. ET]
A jury has found Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke guilty of second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald in 2014. Van Dyke, who was also found guilty of 16 counts of aggravated battery, sat impassively, with his shoulders slumped, as the verdicts were read Friday. Van Dyke was found not guilty of official misconduct.

[miami_fan]

Van Dyke trial: Officer found guilty of second-degree murder in Laquan McDonald killing - CNN

[RainMaker]

The whole story is crazy. Took a reporter to find the settlement and sue the city to release the dashboard footage to even get an investigation going. Lot of officers lied and the city tried to cover it up.

[miami_fan]

Having made a few trips to Chicago in the last year, I have followed this case very closely. All I can say is Thank God for the dashcam.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

All I can say is Thank God for the dashcam.

They were lucky to even get that. Most of the cops were purposely destroying or not turning on the dash cams. In fact, the reason you can't get audio on the one that came out is they would all throw the microphones in the glove compartment.

So this case doesn't happen if one of the cops happen to not break his dash cam and pulled up to the scene at the right time.

This is an interesting report on how prevalent the issue is.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...lice-dashcams/

[miami_fan]

I had heard rumors about this before but had not seen this particular investigation. Thanks

[Warhammer]

Simple way to stop it. Check the cars on a regular basis, if the cams are damaged, missing, etc. The cops are docked pay.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Simple way to stop it. Check the cars on a regular basis, if the cams are damaged, missing, etc. The cops are docked pay.

Unsurprisingly, they would have to take that up with the Fraternal Order of Police.

Fraternal Order of Police President Dean Angelo has called Escalante’s punishment of the rank and file over dashcam video disrepair an attempt to deflect blame away from the Police Department and City Hall.

“How they determine that it’s purposely caused damages, I’d like to know,” Angelo said last month. “How they can figure out what is mechanical or what is human error, I’d like to know.”

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Van Dyke trial: Officer found guilty of second-degree murder in Laquan McDonald killing - CNN

So, 2nd degree murder and aggravated battery doesn't constitute official misconduct. Sounds about right, given Chicago PD.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bronconick

So, 2nd degree murder and aggravated battery doesn't constitute official misconduct. Sounds about right, given Chicago PD.

From what I've read it sounds consistent with what the law states on official misconduct. The officer had to know he was committing a crime while doing it.

He was convicted of 2nd degree murder which in Illinois is just voluntary manslaughter. So if you convict someone of murder but thought they did it without malice, it would be inconsistent to also convict them of official misconduct (because then it would be 1st degree murder). Hope that makes sense.

Worth noting that a few other cops will be going on trial in a few weeks. They were part of the group that covered up the murder. Believe they have been charged with official misconduct, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. If you read their reports, it was clear they lied about the events. Will be interesting to see if they are convicted as well.

[Edward64]

I think there is enough evidence to give the benefit of doubt to the cops IMO.

The 7-8 shots is a lot of bullets for a guy to drop but there were 2 cops. I'm not a cop and haven't been trained as such but would think he would have been non-threatening by bullet 3-4. But then he did have drugs in his system.

Sounds as if babies' mother is in denial.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/03/us/sa...day/index.html

In announcing her decision not to file charges, Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert painted a picture of Clark as a troubled young man who had problems with his fiancée, Salena Manni.

But Manni said what happened in the days leading up to the shooting last year didn't matter.

"It's not about anything that happened before that," Manni said during a news conference Saturday after the DA's announcement. "It's about the officers who murdered him."
:
Two days before Clark was killed, Sacramento Police responded to a 911 call regarding possible domestic violence. According to Schubert, Manni told police Clark had assaulted her, and her injuries were photographed by officers.

On March 17, Schubert said, information gathered from Clark's phone shows Manni responded negatively to text messages in which he attempted to reconcile. Manni told Clark she would testify against him for the assault and that he would go to prison for the rest of his life, Schubert said.

"It is clear that they had a very tumultuous relationship," Schubert said. She added that Clark searched online for ways to kill himself with drugs and sent Manni a text message threatening suicide unless they fixed their family. The toxicology report indicated Clark had alcohol and multiple drugs in his system the night he was shot.

Manni said the officers' actions on the night Clark was killed are more important.

"What I feel the DA announced today was not about what happened on March 16, was not about what happened on March 17. It was what happened on March 18, when the officers murdered my fiancé," Manni told reporters. "That's what this is about."
:
About 20 shots are heard in the body camera recording. An officer says, "He is down. No movement. We're going to need additional units."

Schubert described Clark as taking a shooting stance and officers firing after they saw a flash of light that one believed came from a gun. A cellphone was found underneath Clark's body.

Clark was shot seven times, including three times in the back, according to the official autopsy released by the Sacramento County Coroner's office. An independent autopsy found that Clark was shot eight times, with six of those wounds in his back, according to a forensic pathologist retained by Clark's family.