A black teen running down the road was shot sixteen times by a Chicago police officer. He had PCP in his system and a small knife on his person. At no point did he seem to make any threatening moves toward any of the multiple police officers who were on the scene that night. Here we are, months later, and we are seeing the video for the first time.
Once again, we are having a discussion about a police officer shooting a black person to death in the street. The LaQuan McDonald case has been one with its own share of controversy – like the alleged deleting of 86 minutes worth of video from a surveillance camera in the area – but there are very familiar patterns here: A teen was on the street, committing a minor crime, and was killed by a police officer. That police officer was today charged with first degree murder.Now, the timing of the release of the video isn't a coincidence given the resurgence of #BlackLivesMatter on campuses nationwide and "safe space" riots - the independent journalist, going with my gut, knew that the content in the video would result in a protest and aid in the current racial tension that has plagued the month of Novemeber. The timing is also chilling because it's the anniversary death of Tamir Rice who was killed by a Cleveland Ohio cop who mistook Rice's Airsoft gun for a real one. Protesters, oddly, blocked the Manhattan Bridge in NYC in his memory. In cases of McDonald and Rice, the #BlackLivesMatter have a case for highly questionable police brutality - but not so much with Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown.
What I don't like are rogue journalists who stoke the fire that take advantage of the vulnerability of America, especially if it's about race relations. This is not to say that McDonald's case should never have been reopened, but if the journalist really cared about the case and not about raising more havoc, then he would've requested release of the video months prior this November. He needed the perfect storm and Yale University and Mizzou gave it to him.
The other thing I don't like is the corruption to protect Officer Jason Van Dyke. Due to this video being released he is just recently been charged for first degree murder. He should've been charged last year. That's Chicago for you. The video said it all and to wait an entire year for justice for McDonald's death is absolutely unacceptable.
I don't agree with #BlackLivesMatter, but I do agree with them that procedures to deal with armed suspects, or suspects that resist, need to be re-evaluated. It's shared responsibility: the black culture puts these young men into questionable positions and the corrupt police department teaches the officers to "shoot" when triggered. The irony.
The video showed that McDonald brandished a small knife, but did not charge at the officers. He may have disobeyed their orders to put down the knife or to stand still, but that still doesn't call them to lethally shoot him. Shoot to kill is just dumb protocol.
Which brings to another point: Why do officers shoot to kill? Common sense would tell me to teach the officer to not shoot these body parts (A) the head, (B) chest and (C) abdomen unless it's absolutely necessary. These necessary cases would be if (A) if the suspect has a hostage, (B) if the suspect is engaging in a shootout with the cops, and (C) if the suspect charges at the cop - whether he has a weapon or not.
Whatever is being taught at the police academy needs to be questioned. Something isn't right. The police have great responsibility and just because they serve & protect does not mean they are protected for poor decisions.
If I had the opportunity, I'd stand with the Chicago protesters arm-in-arm.
"With great power comes great responsibility." - Uncle Ben, Spider-Man
3 comments :
Which brings to another point: Why do officers shoot to kill? Common sense would tell me to teach the officer to not shoot these body parts (A) the head, (B) chest and (C) abdomen unless it's absolutely necessary. These necessary cases would be if (A) if the suspect has a hostage, (B) if the suspect is engaging in a shootout with the cops, and (C) if the suspect charges at the cop - whether he has a weapon or not.
You're misunderstanding the relationship that cops and guns are supposed to have (whether they have it is another thing entirely).
The rule for cops is that they don't draw guns unless they are willing to use it, and they should ONLY, ever, be willing to use it to save lives - their lives or other lives, with other lives gaining priority. The reason you aim at the chest in such cases is that the chest is big. By the time your gun is out, play time is over. Your goal is to hit the target with enough bullets that they stop being a threat. That's it. That's the goal. And the easiest way to make that happen is to aim for the biggest part of the body.
Aiming for an arm or leg is 1) Very hard 2) Might lead to killing the subject anyway, and 3) Doesn't always work immediately. The fact is, the subject is a threat. They need to be stopped. And your job is to make that happen. THAT is why cops are taught to shoot at the chest and to keep shooting until the subject stops moving.
@ malcolm:
Good point about the "largest target." It hadn't really occurred to me that when aiming a gun the chest is the easiest target and the area innately aimed at.
The rule for cops is that they don't draw guns unless they are willing to use it, and they should ONLY, ever, be willing to use it to save lives - their lives or other lives, with other lives gaining priority. The reason you aim at the chest in such cases is that the chest is big. By the time your gun is out, play time is over. Your goal is to hit the target with enough bullets that they stop being a threat.
Which I agree, as noted in the paragraph which you quoted.
But I still have issues though with it. In the case of McDonald, which is getting huge media attention (just today it was front page news in the Chicago Tribune, as well as a couple of other times in the past weeks) I think, if we apply that theory, is faulty in such situations. My own understanding of the case is that he did not charge at the cops or threw his knife at them.
Oh, I am no apologist either. I forget the name of the guy who died after selling cigarettes illegally, but I was specifically on the record at the time saying that the cops were completely in the wrong in that situation. Indeed, it was one of those situations where I was honestly surprised that people ever disagreed with me. It seemed obvious to me.
I'm just saying: You shoot for the chest. Always. Because if you draw your gun, that means you are willing to kill if necessary.
Not only that, let's say a suspect dives for a gun on ground. If I shoot his arm, he can still dive for that gun. If we hit him in the chest until he stops moving...he stops moving. That is your priority at this point.
Post a Comment