And yes, Jimmy, I was forced to post the video again, because Muck Ficon made his dumb comment.
Has he answered that question yet?.....excessiveness? OK. See how that goes in court.
Printable View
And yes, Jimmy, I was forced to post the video again, because Muck Ficon made his dumb comment.
Has he answered that question yet?.....excessiveness? OK. See how that goes in court.
DRK....it seems like you're living vicariously through your brother. YOU ARE NOT A COP. I hope he doesn't go to work every day with your mindset....it's dangerous.
And again, convo goes off course with this type of crap.
Just stop engaging with me on this stuff, Muck. If you want to discuss it, pm me. Don't post.
If I answer questions, I'm a dick. If I don't answer, I'm a pussy. Never ending cycle. I know a fuck ton more about this case than you. Educated on all angles. Don't start acting like there is something wrong with my mindset just because you aren't informed.
There is something wrong with your mindset, we're not acting. Whether it was legal or not, 16 shots is excessive especially when the person was laid out on the floor after the second shot. When any other person is shot 16 times they all it a crime of passion. It shows you were doing it out of anger. If you are the kind of dick who shoots someone 16 times because you know it is "technically" legal, then you shouldn't be a cop. I think that is what we are all trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
::my head hurts::
Gallo,
So....he killed him..."harder"?....
Investigators didnt know what to charge him with
IPRA didnt know what to charge him with
The States Attorney, Anita Alvarez, didnt know what to charge him with
The Feds didnt know what to charge him with
BUT!!!!
A gentleman from a Poker Forum called Poker Fraud Alert, by the name of Muck Ficon has miraculously come up with a charge of "Excessiveness".
case closed
I promise, I wont post anymore in this thread after this (Note: Oops...I fibbed)Quote:
Originally Posted by El GalloThere is something wrong with your mindset, we're not acting. Whether it was legal or not, 16 shots is excessive especially when the person was laid out on the floor after the second shot. When any other person is shot 16 times they all it a crime of passion. It shows you were doing it out of anger. If you are the kind of dick who shoots someone 16 times because you know it is "technically" legal, then you shouldn't be a cop. I think that is what we are all trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
There is something wrong with your mindset, we're not acting.
my "mindset" is likely the defense his attorneys will use. Are you telling me VanDyk chose an incompetent attorney?
Whether it was legal or not, 16 shots is excessive especially when the person was laid out on the floor after the second shot.
You, me and the tree can ALLLL say, 16 shots is "excessive", because none of us know the specifics of the laws, his training, and what he is allowed to do under those circumstances (I said specifically...I know a lot, but wouldnt even come close to claiming Im an expert, but when cops with legal backgrounds explain in detail what is happening in the case, I am going to confidently claim that I know more than you or Muck here)
When any other person is shot 16 times they all it a crime of passion.
No..."THEY" arent saying that. Who is They?
It shows you were doing it out of anger.
So...you are now speculating as to what was in his head. Sorry...not speculating..you are somehow inferring that you KNOW what was in his head.
If you are the kind of dick who shoots someone 16 times because you know it is "technically" legal, then you shouldn't be a cop.
So...now you are speculating that you know he did it because he knew that he could get away with it...sorry again...you arent speculating...you are SURE that he did this because he knew he could get away with it, because you somehow have access to his thoughts........
I think that is what we are all trying to say.
If anyone else agrees with all of that, please feel free to come out and agree
You know what your brother told you. Educated on all angles? You are a wannabe cop DRK..you have admitted you are biased lol. Since when is being biased considered "informed"? Go back to your police scanner Deputy Dipshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muck FiconYou know what your brother told you. Educated on all angles? You are a wannabe cop DRK..you have admitted you are biased lol. Since when is being biased considered "informed"? Go back to you police scanner Deputy Dipshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
...and you go back to placing your cranium firmly up your rectum, sir.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
your entire defense of this guy for the last 6 months has been that he was acting based on his training and his actions were totally in line with proper protocol, and that he was a good cop for doing so. like that was literally the crux of your entire argument for months, this is how the police are trained to handle these situations when facing a dangerous armed suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTalkthis has to be the dumbest thing you have ever posted on this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
all of the sudden you now expect his defense to change from him being a highly skilled officer that legally used his skillset based off years of training to neutralize an armed threat in a legal manner...to a hot shot cop that ignored his training and the safety of himself/his fellow officers and tried to shoot the weapon out of suspects hand like he was don johnson on miami vice...and you think that is somehow a more defensible position?
i think i'll go ahead and stick with my original sentiment.
Comments
DRK Star: so, you are saying that someone, in fear of his life from someone armed with a weapon, wouldnt be trying to "end the threat" by trying to shoot the weapon out of his hand?
is that what he was trained to do? you still think he deserves to be a cop, and that he is good at his job if this is what actually happened?
how does your brother feel about this?
edit for drk's rep comment:
just when i thought it couldn't get any dumber.
so since he can't hit center mass he decided to aim for a significantly smaller, nearly impossible to hit, off-center target? that is your next jump in logic from a criminal defense perspective?
did your criminal defense attorney buddy tip you off to this masterful defense position?
I said I would stop posting in this thread, so what do you guys do?.....you keep on asking questions.
make up your minds. Do you want the thread to die, or do you want responses?
common sense would dictate that when someone responds/posts in the thread they expect a response back. also are expected to believe that you will actually quit posting in the thread based off your previous history of saying that you were taking your ball and going home, followed up by hours and pages of tilt shit-posts hours later?Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
Thanks for the quick photoshop guys!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTalk
From a LEGAL standpoint:
If he is charged with doing something ILLEGAL, and he found not guilty of those charges, why should he lose his job? He is therefore deemed innocent, and should be able to go back to work.
However, if you are asking ME my PERSONAL opinion on this, based on what I had heard from a few people, I think the shooting was excessive, and he may have muttered a few things he shouldnt have, after the fact, and then I would look to see if there were any serious LEGIT complaints in his past that would require me to remove him from duty. I could possibly see this happening, and I wouldnt argue that much. If its proved that he didnt follow the laws and/or training, yes, he should absolutely lose his job. Serve jail time?...depends on what the charge would be that sticks.
I wish you would just watch that video, so I dont have to keep repeating myself. I wasnt there, and the video clears a lot up.
Cop had EVERY RIGHT, AS I SEE IT, to shoot him there. And if the cop felt that his life was in danger (which as it was explained to me, it absolutely was), he should follow his TRAINING and shoot until the threat is ended. Now...who makes the determination that the threat has ended? Was he still armed? Yep. Was the cop still in danger? (depends on how they want to defend this, and depends on how the prosecution steers this case). TBD. If the cop was still in danger, because the guy was still a threat, because he had a dangerous weapon in his hands, is the cop allowed to shoot anywhere except center mass. "Excessive" as Muck described doesnt technically, legally come into play (unless one of you can explain to me WHICH BULLET killed him, which no one can/has been able to), so therefore, if you dont know what bullet killed him, deeming every "extra" bullet "excessive", you cant say this. He didnt die until he was in the Amber Lamps, much later.
If the cop shot him once, and he died, would any of you complain? LaQuan resisted the commands of the police, attacked a cop with a knife, slashed a cop car tire, strongly appeared to be under the influence of PCP, was armed with a weapon (was NOT WALKING AWAY from the officer) and was approaching an officer and was within a dangerous distance of the cop and wouldnt put down the weapon when told to numerous time. Those are facts.
Let them debate why he shot him the amount that he did (keeping in mind, the actual odds of him hitting him are like 1 out of every 4 shots, so hitting him 16 times was incredibly, incredibly rare.
Is he going to get in trouble for not shooting at center mass? Did he suffer from "tunnel vision", where you just look at the sight and just keep pulling the trigger, and fall into a type of trance, as you shoot to protect yourself? Let those attorneys do battle. Try to prove this was premeditated for 1st degree.....how?
Anita Alvarez, the states attorney, who finally filed the charges, about a year later, after coming under all kinds of pressure to do so, just recused herself from this last week, and is letting others try this case. That will delay it even further.
And Rahm, by opening his big mouth and publicly being biased against the CPD, affected this case, and now the defense attorney can petition to get this case out of the Chicago area due to public bias, and then he can get it sent to a BENCH trial, as opposed to a jury trial, where in a Jury trial, you are facing the jurors, and who knows how that could go. But in a BENCH trial, a judge gets to listen to facts and laws, and will use those to rule on the case, which puts this in favor of VanDyk being found Not Guilty.
For Muck Ficon:
"Your Honor....officer Van Dyk killed him 'excessively'...we demand justice!!
So, he could have just killed him and that would have been OK, legally, but you are suing because he REALLY REALLY Killed him?
"Yes, Your Honor". It was excessively excessive killing."
<judge looks through his lawschool notes>
Uh....
FIN
Im kind of being a smart ass there, because, I think many of us would think that once the guy gets shot, and goes to the ground, many of us would say "THREATS OVER"...let him sit there.
Its up to the officer(s) on the scene to describe what happened at that moment. Once you are in fear for your life, and the determination that you can use lethal force, what took place for the next few seconds, and what was going through VanDyk's mind, and what was the training, and what was he allowed to do. Court will be fascinating. He apparently has a very good attorney for this defense (Im not sold on him being the best attorney for it though), but which ever side moves first with their argument for something, will dictate how the chess game goes from there, more than likely. Its by no way an easy case.
:applauseQuote:
Originally Posted by El GalloThere is something wrong with your mindset, we're not acting. Whether it was legal or not, 16 shots is excessive especially when the person was laid out on the floor after the second shot. When any other person is shot 16 times they all it a crime of passion. It shows you were doing it out of anger. If you are the kind of dick who shoots someone 16 times because you know it is "technically" legal, then you shouldn't be a cop. I think that is what we are all trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
DRK: "No 16 shots werent necessary, but its not illegal and odds of all 16 hitting him are astronomical."
Only one of these three things is true.
White people......such a pain in the ass amiriteQuote:
Originally Posted by El GalloYour brother is a cop, you think 16 shots was justified and you are voting for Trump... Those are the 3 points I madeQuote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
"Comments
DRK Star: that makes no sense"
DRK, don't be silly. If it were legal he wouldn't be charged with murder. And the odds of him hitting all 16 shots aren't "astronomical". If I remember correctly he dropped him with the 1st shot and then shot him 15 more times while he was basically immobile. If anything it would have been impossible for a trained marksman to miss any of those shots (unless he was missing on purpose)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rum dick
"DRK, don't be silly. If it were legal he wouldn't be charged with murder."
"And the odds of him hitting all 16 shots aren't "astronomical".
Google: Police Hit Ratio Statistics
they are astronomical for him to make contact with all 16 shots, at night, from that distance. Like lottery numbers is what I was told. Under stress, at night, 1 out of 4 bullets hitting, but he hit all 16. No cop will tell you that is normal. All police who commented couldnt believe those numbers. That is why some "tunnel vision" defense may come into play, where he could say, once my life is threatened, and I have the right to defend myself with lethal force, I just aim and pull the trigger, until I am not in fear any more, and Im essentially not counting trigger pulls and just "in the zone".
"If I remember correctly he dropped him with the 1st shot and then shot him 15 more times while he was basically immobile."
You are incorrect. Watch the video. First shot likely spun him around, I believe. More shots after that, until he went down. Cant remember...3-4?
"If anything it would have been impossible for a trained marksman to miss any of those shots (unless he was missing on purpose)"
You are watching too many movies. How often do you think these guys discharge their weapons? How often are those targets moving? Now how often are they under life or death stress? At night. These are not "skilled marksmen". Yes, they practice. They have to. These are not snipers...they are cops. Its not John Wick out there with a badge...its some goofy-haired pollock.
99 problems but readin this thread aint one.
haven't seen derek spin this much since someone outed his tags lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKDANIELS
I just keep checking back to see if anyone made another photoshop request. So confusing.
ok dragons lets see derek in his feather boa next to the 2 other chaps in the pic he posted
and here i thought all along that he WAS the lorax..
are you serious or do you really not understand that the use of excessive force is illegal? if not, please google "excessive force" and "section 1983"Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeare you serious or do you really not understand that the use of excessive force is illegal? if not, please google "excessive force" and "section 1983"Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
Go ahead and locate for me the section that would apply to what happened.
good reading for you
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2015...t-are-they-now
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeare you serious or do you really not understand that the use of excessive force is illegal? if not, please google "excessive force" and "section 1983"Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers. According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security.
maybe i'm not understanding what you intended to say. in the post i quoted, you said that you believed what the officer did was excessive, but not illegal. my point is that by definition, excessive force is illegal. did you mean to say that the officer's actions were not excessive or do you actually think that an officer is free to use excessive force without breaking the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK StarQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
Go ahead and locate for me the section that would apply to what happened.
good reading for you
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2015...t-are-they-now
ah, sorry.
If Im speaking as just some dumb ginger, strolling down the street, and I watch that video, I say to myself HOLY SHIT!!! That looks excessive as hell! Gallo and I were both like WTF when we watched and discussed it.
but then, I was informed of what comes into play in these situations (which 99.99% of the public is clueless about) and it makes more sense as to why the states attorney didnt know what the hell to charge him with, and why they likely surpressed it as long as they could because the public wouldnt understand, and Rahm wanted to be re-elected, and Anita wanted to be re-elected (since it was released, she lost her re-election to a very pro BLM, cop hating worthless black woman, who wants to prosecute cops to the fullest, yet let all criminals go).
Dont think they need something to charge him with, just to charge him. Rahm is doing everything he can to put the ails of the city all on other people's shoulders. He wants to run for president. He needs all this crap that is going on in Chicago to go away and get swept under the rug. They probably charged him with 1st degree because they either have some incredibly amazing dirt on the guy that no one knows about yet, like some secret recording, OR, they know they wont get it and they will say they gave it the old college try, he will be found not guilty and blacks will burn this fucking city down, and then no one is focused on Rahm. Rahm will then pay off the black civil leaders so that they march with him and stand together at a podium and talk about healing the city, and major overhauls on Police, and the blue code, and reform, and blah blah blah. My gut is telling me it will be this, and race relations will continue to be set back.
BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEE
Requesting a photoshop of drk's brother chasing 'nita down the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Dragons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEh943bpw7Q
Blake,
If it is any consolation, they dropped the charges on Nita for "Excessive Chins".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakeQuote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star