Chicago Police Officer charged with murder in shooting 17 year old black kid 16 times [Video]

[Gordman]

I haven't totally been following along, and I don't know if this was posted yet or if it really has any bearing, but...

http://www.tmj4.com/news/national/he...ve-been-fooled


Heard audio of Chicago shooting? You may have been fooled






CHICAGO (AP) — Hours after the city of Chicago released audio-free dashcam video of a white officer shooting a black teen 16 times, a 35-second excerpt with sound appeared online.

Viewers could see and supposedly hear Officer Jason Van Dyke firing nine rapid shots at Laquan McDonald, pausing for nearly 10 seconds, then firing seven more as McDonald lay on the ground.

This video, which garnered nearly half a million views on social media, added further fuel to already simmering suspicions that police were covering something up, given Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder on Nov. 24 — more than a year after the shooting.

But experts, city police and an Associated Press analysis concluded the video is bogus.

Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio and video forensics expert with 32 years in the field, examined it at his lab and concluded: "It's fake. Hands down."

Here are some reasons why he and others are convinced the audio is doctored:

GUN SHOTS

The gunfire sounds seem to match up with parts of the video, including with dust or dirt puffing into the air as bullets strike McDonald or the ground. But the shots sound more like synthesized drums than the rippling crack of the 9mm gun that, according to the charges against him, Van Dyke used.

The shots also don't sound as they should if recorded by dashcam-system microphones, Primeau said, because they don't reverberate or vary in frequency as they should. It's likely, he said, that the same sound was used for all the shots in the video. "The frequency decay of the gunshot, timbre or sound of the gunshot, as well as duration of the sound are almost identical," he said.

VOICES

The sound of officers speaking over their radios is also suspect, Primeau argued, citing sections where exactly the same words and sounds are duplicated and dubbed in. If a microphone picked up the sound of shots, he said, you'd expect it to also capture the voices of officers shouting at McDonald or each other.

At places in the video, officers also appear to move their mouths but there's no corresponding sound on the suspect video, said Primeau, who also serves on the executive committee of the American Board of Recorded Evidence.

POLICE WEIGH IN

Chicago Police Department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said its in-house experts also determined the audio is not authentic. The "garbled talking in the background apparently does not match this incident," he said in a statement. And, he said, "this type of recording would not be possible from the in-car camera system" that Chicago police use.

To make clear that police bias didn't influence that finding, Guglielmi has said the department would send the questionable audio-video clip "to an independent third-party to validate the findings of our forensic team."

WHO POSTED THE VIDEO?

That's not at all clear. The original source used the handle "Daily News Hub" to post it on YouTube — a handle that had posted no prior videos and that linked to a Twitter profile with only one tweet from June 2014. The owner of the accounts did not respond to requests for comment.

[delaware]

2 shots in the leg would have drop him. no reason to kill him

[jacosta24]

I agree with the Godfather.
He spells like shit but I agree.

[JimmyG_415]

Should we start a new thread?
This is a new case, same shit, Chicago cop shoots black guy in the back.

Alvarez already cleared the cop.
She is going down too, the only reason she filed charges vs Van Dyke was the video was coming out w/in hours.
She is in someone's pocket.



No charges against Chicago police officer who shot Ronald Johnson

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/us/chi...onald-johnson/

After Alvarez and McCarthy gave their account, in a separate news conference attorney Michael Oppenheimer accused them of presenting an "infomercial" full of information, but none that conclusively demonstrated that Hernandez was justified in shooting Johnson.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________



This bet is still open.

Im going to nap it out though. There is too much ignorance on your part, and I just dont have the fucks to give any more. Well ran dry.

Since we all have it so wrong what are you willing to put money on?
He is not going to do any time at all?

And what is the over under of how many cops/Chicago officials lose their job?

[SysOp]

Tell me what you think the cop did wrong, and WHY its wrong.

the cop, adrenaline fueled, drove himself to the scene, pulled his gun and shot 16 times. he has many other options at his disposal to take him out without shooting 16 times, nobody else felt the need to shoot one time, that's what the cop did wrong.

why it's wrong, he's not the executioner, he shouldn't be making that decision. especially and CLEARLY not in the right state of mind, which most cops aren't. I'm sure this guy has a history of being unstable at best and should be charged with murder in the first degree, he wanted this guy dead and had time to think about it. but keep the crickets coming sir.

[SysOp]

deleted from net

[Muck Ficon]

Tell me what you think the cop did wrong, and WHY its wrong.

the cop, adrenaline fueled, drove himself to the scene, pulled his gun and shot 16 times. he has many other options at his disposal to take him out without shooting 16 times, nobody else felt the need to shoot one time, that's what the cop did wrong.

why it's wrong, he's not the executioner, he shouldn't be making that decision. especially and CLEARLY not in the right state of mind, which most cops aren't. I'm sure this guy has a history of being unstable at best and should be charged with murder in the first degree, he wanted this guy dead and had time to think about it. but keep the crickets coming sir.

That's a good point. There were multiple officers on the scene at the time....no one else fired a shot. If the other officers thought one of their fellow officers was in danger...they would have fired also.

[DRK Star]

Tell me what you think the cop did wrong, and WHY its wrong.

the cop, adrenaline fueled <I HAVE NO IDEA>, drove himself to the scene<YES>, pulled his gun and shot 16 times<YES>. he has many other options at his disposal to take him out without shooting 16 times<NO HE DID NOT. HE HAS A GUN AND MACE (NO ONE IN THAT SITUATION WILL USE MACE AS ITS WORTHLESS ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER REASONS HE AND MAYBE OTHERS DID NOT WANT TO GET ANY CLOSER TO HIM. THE LAW ALLOWS HIM TO USE DEADLY FORCE IN THAT SITUATION AND THE LAW DOES NOT SAY HE CANT SHOOT 16 TIMES. IT DOES HOWEVER DEFINE WHAT IS "EXCESSIVE", NOW ITS UP TO PEOPLE TO DETERMINE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, IF HE WAS EXCESSIVE>, nobody else felt the need to shoot one time<IF YOU WERE AWARE OF THE LAYOUT OF ALL THE POLICE AND BYSTANDERS ALL AROUND, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF ANOTHER COP SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SHOT OR NOT, BUT KEEP IN MIND, MANY COPS LIKELY HAD OTHER COPS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AND WOULD HAVE RISKED SHOOTING PEOPLE/COPS OVER THERE HAD THEY MISSED>, that's what the cop did wrong.

why it's wrong, he's not the executioner<AGAIN, HE IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO USE DEADLY FORCE. IF THE PERSON DIES, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU SUE THE COP FOR>, he shouldn't be making that decision<THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HIS JOB IS...TO DETERMINE WHEN TO USE DEADLY FORCE, WHEN ITS NECESSARY. IF THE GUY DID NOT HAVE A KNIFE, THINGS WOULD HAVE GONE DIFFERENTLY, AS THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS BASED ON THE SITUATION. THEY WERE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, FOR ALMOST 20 MINUTES APPARENTLY, TO USE DEADLY FORCE, BUT TRIED NOT TO UNTIL ONE OF THE OFFICERS DEEMED IT NECESSARY>. especially and CLEARLY not in the right state of mind<YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING OR MAKING THAT CLAIM, AND THAT IS FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE>, which most cops aren't<DID YOU JUST MAKE A CLAIM THAT MOST COPS ARENT IN A"RIGHT STATE OF MIND"?>. I'm sure this guy has a history of being unstable at best<HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE THIS CLAIM?!!> and should be charged with murder in the first degree<I DONT THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVEN TO CHARGE SOMEONE AND GET A 1ST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE, BUT EVERYONE INVOLVED IS HIGHLY DOUBTING THIS WILL STICK>, he wanted this guy dead and had time to think about it. <HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE THIS STATEMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT STATE OF MIND HE WAS IN?> but keep the crickets coming sir.

Hopefully you can read what I wrote and understand where your thought process has "strayed". You are making blind assumptions where you cant possibly know the scenario or status. Im not trying to be an ass here...Im trying to show you how these things go from a LEGAL standpoint. Whether or not you feel he was "murdered", the law feels differently. Dont read what I typed with some heated up passion...read it from a legal perspective.

I could be completely wrong, because they may have some mystery evidence that no one is aware of at all, but I can tell you from a Chicago Police perspective, 1st degree is silly. She would have to have some evidence like paperwork that he wrote up or something on tape saying "Im going to kill someone today". It has to be premeditated. The audio wasnt on in the cars, apparently, so that rules that out. If the cop knew this kid (I guess thats always a chance, especially if he has arrested the same kid a bunch of times in the past...maybe that took place, and words were exchanged?...) that could be used. THIS is what is puzzling to so many...there just doesnt seem to be a realistic reason to charge him with this, so why does she?

[Muck Ficon]

the cop, adrenaline fueled <I HAVE NO IDEA>, drove himself to the scene<YES>, pulled his gun and shot 16 times<YES>. he has many other options at his disposal to take him out without shooting 16 times<NO HE DID NOT. HE HAS A GUN AND MACE (NO ONE IN THAT SITUATION WILL USE MACE AS ITS WORTHLESS ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER REASONS HE AND MAYBE OTHERS DID NOT WANT TO GET ANY CLOSER TO HIM. THE LAW ALLOWS HIM TO USE DEADLY FORCE IN THAT SITUATION AND THE LAW DOES NOT SAY HE CANT SHOOT 16 TIMES. IT DOES HOWEVER DEFINE WHAT IS "EXCESSIVE", NOW ITS UP TO PEOPLE TO DETERMINE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, IF HE WAS EXCESSIVE>, nobody else felt the need to shoot one time<IF YOU WERE AWARE OF THE LAYOUT OF ALL THE POLICE AND BYSTANDERS ALL AROUND, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF ANOTHER COP SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SHOT OR NOT, BUT KEEP IN MIND, MANY COPS LIKELY HAD OTHER COPS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AND WOULD HAVE RISKED SHOOTING PEOPLE/COPS OVER THERE HAD THEY MISSED>, that's what the cop did wrong.

why it's wrong, he's not the executioner<AGAIN, HE IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO USE DEADLY FORCE. IF THE PERSON DIES, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU SUE THE COP FOR>, he shouldn't be making that decision<THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HIS JOB IS...TO DETERMINE WHEN TO USE DEADLY FORCE, WHEN ITS NECESSARY. IF THE GUY DID NOT HAVE A KNIFE, THINGS WOULD HAVE GONE DIFFERENTLY, AS THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS BASED ON THE SITUATION. THEY WERE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, FOR ALMOST 20 MINUTES APPARENTLY, TO USE DEADLY FORCE, BUT TRIED NOT TO UNTIL ONE OF THE OFFICERS DEEMED IT NECESSARY>. especially and CLEARLY not in the right state of mind<YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING OR MAKING THAT CLAIM, AND THAT IS FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE>, which most cops aren't<DID YOU JUST MAKE A CLAIM THAT MOST COPS ARENT IN A"RIGHT STATE OF MIND"?>. I'm sure this guy has a history of being unstable at best<HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE THIS CLAIM?!!> and should be charged with murder in the first degree<I DONT THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVEN TO CHARGE SOMEONE AND GET A 1ST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE, BUT EVERYONE INVOLVED IS HIGHLY DOUBTING THIS WILL STICK>, he wanted this guy dead and had time to think about it. <HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE THIS STATEMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT STATE OF MIND HE WAS IN?> but keep the crickets coming sir.

Hopefully you can read what I wrote and understand where your thought process has "strayed". You are making blind assumptions where you cant possibly know the scenario or status. Im not trying to be an ass here...Im trying to show you how these things go from a LEGAL standpoint. Whether or not you feel he was "murdered", the law feels differently. Dont read what I typed with some heated up passion...read it from a legal perspective.

I could be completely wrong, because they may have some mystery evidence that no one is aware of at all, but I can tell you from a Chicago Police perspective, 1st degree is silly. She would have to have some evidence like paperwork that he wrote up or something on tape saying "Im going to kill someone today". It has to be premeditated. The audio wasnt on in the cars, apparently, so that rules that out. If the cop knew this kid (I guess thats always a chance, especially if he has arrested the same kid a bunch of times in the past...maybe that took place, and words were exchanged?...) that could be used. THIS is what is puzzling to so many...there just doesnt seem to be a realistic reason to charge him with this, so why does she?

Jesus Christ dude.....you posted this yesterday.............

Im going to nap it out though. There is too much ignorance on your part, and I just dont have the fucks to give any more. Well ran dry.

[SysOp]

the cop, adrenaline fueled <I HAVE NO IDEA>, drove himself to the scene<YES>, pulled his gun and shot 16 times<YES>. he has many other options at his disposal to take him out without shooting 16 times<NO HE DID NOT. HE HAS A GUN AND MACE (NO ONE IN THAT SITUATION WILL USE MACE AS ITS WORTHLESS ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER REASONS HE AND MAYBE OTHERS DID NOT WANT TO GET ANY CLOSER TO HIM. THE LAW ALLOWS HIM TO USE DEADLY FORCE IN THAT SITUATION AND THE LAW DOES NOT SAY HE CANT SHOOT 16 TIMES. IT DOES HOWEVER DEFINE WHAT IS "EXCESSIVE", NOW ITS UP TO PEOPLE TO DETERMINE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, IF HE WAS EXCESSIVE>, nobody else felt the need to shoot one time<IF YOU WERE AWARE OF THE LAYOUT OF ALL THE POLICE AND BYSTANDERS ALL AROUND, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF ANOTHER COP SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SHOT OR NOT, BUT KEEP IN MIND, MANY COPS LIKELY HAD OTHER COPS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AND WOULD HAVE RISKED SHOOTING PEOPLE/COPS OVER THERE HAD THEY MISSED>, that's what the cop did wrong.

why it's wrong, he's not the executioner<AGAIN, HE IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO USE DEADLY FORCE. IF THE PERSON DIES, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU SUE THE COP FOR>, he shouldn't be making that decision<THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HIS JOB IS...TO DETERMINE WHEN TO USE DEADLY FORCE, WHEN ITS NECESSARY. IF THE GUY DID NOT HAVE A KNIFE, THINGS WOULD HAVE GONE DIFFERENTLY, AS THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS BASED ON THE SITUATION. THEY WERE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, FOR ALMOST 20 MINUTES APPARENTLY, TO USE DEADLY FORCE, BUT TRIED NOT TO UNTIL ONE OF THE OFFICERS DEEMED IT NECESSARY>. especially and CLEARLY not in the right state of mind<YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING OR MAKING THAT CLAIM, AND THAT IS FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE>, which most cops aren't<DID YOU JUST MAKE A CLAIM THAT MOST COPS ARENT IN A"RIGHT STATE OF MIND"?>. I'm sure this guy has a history of being unstable at best<HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE THIS CLAIM?!!> and should be charged with murder in the first degree<I DONT THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVEN TO CHARGE SOMEONE AND GET A 1ST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE, BUT EVERYONE INVOLVED IS HIGHLY DOUBTING THIS WILL STICK>, he wanted this guy dead and had time to think about it. <HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE THIS STATEMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT STATE OF MIND HE WAS IN?> but keep the crickets coming sir.

Hopefully you can read what I wrote and understand where your thought process has "strayed". You are making blind assumptions where you cant possibly know the scenario or status. Im not trying to be an ass here...Im trying to show you how these things go from a LEGAL standpoint. Whether or not you feel he was "murdered", the law feels differently. Dont read what I typed with some heated up passion...read it from a legal perspective.

I could be completely wrong, because they may have some mystery evidence that no one is aware of at all, but I can tell you from a Chicago Police perspective, 1st degree is silly. She would have to have some evidence like paperwork that he wrote up or something on tape saying "Im going to kill someone today". It has to be premeditated. The audio wasnt on in the cars, apparently, so that rules that out. If the cop knew this kid (I guess thats always a chance, especially if he has arrested the same kid a bunch of times in the past...maybe that took place, and words were exchanged?...) that could be used. THIS is what is puzzling to so many...there just doesnt seem to be a realistic reason to charge him with this, so why does she?

you sir are brainwashed and clearly fucked in the head, defending these guys til the bitter end. lol just because your brother is a cop doesn't mean they're all good people, is it that out of the realm of possibility that there are bad, outright dirty cops in this world?

[DRK Star]

you sir are brainwashed<NO, AND YOU CANT PROVE THAT EITHER WAY> and clearly fucked in the head<YOU HAVE NO PROOF, BUT ITS DEBATABLE>, defending these guys til the bitter end<IM PROVIDING FACTS...BECAUSE THE FACTS GO AGAINST YOUR OPINION/VIEWS, YOU VIEW THEM AS DEFENDING>. lol just because your brother is a cop doesn't mean they're all good people<?...WHERE HAVE I MADE A CLAIM OF ANYTHING LIKE THIS?...1. MY BROTHER IS A COP. 2. I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED COPS ARE ALL GOOD PEOPLE>, is it that out of the realm of possibility that there are bad, outright dirty cops in this world?<WHERE HAVE I EVER STATED THIS WAS NOT A POSSIBILITY?...IN FACT, BASED ON EVIDENCE AND ARRESTS, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY BAD COPS OUT THERE>

Come on, Sys. Do you not see where your statements are a bit "off"? You are making wild accusations again. I havent said or inferred any of those things. I just dont agree with YOUR VIEWS, but you are then inferring that YOUR VIEWS are FACTS, however the actual facts can be used to debunk your views.

[Muck Ficon]

you sir are brainwashed<NO, AND YOU CANT PROVE THAT EITHER WAY> and clearly fucked in the head<YOU HAVE NO PROOF, BUT ITS DEBATABLE>, defending these guys til the bitter end<IM PROVIDING FACTS...BECAUSE THE FACTS GO AGAINST YOUR OPINION/VIEWS, YOU VIEW THEM AS DEFENDING>. lol just because your brother is a cop doesn't mean they're all good people<?...WHERE HAVE I MADE A CLAIM OF ANYTHING LIKE THIS?...1. MY BROTHER IS A COP. 2. I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED COPS ARE ALL GOOD PEOPLE>, is it that out of the realm of possibility that there are bad, outright dirty cops in this world?<WHERE HAVE I EVER STATED THIS WAS NOT A POSSIBILITY?...IN FACT, BASED ON EVIDENCE AND ARRESTS, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY BAD COPS OUT THERE>

Come on, Sys. Do you not see where your statements are a bit "off"? You are making wild accusations again. I havent said or inferred any of those things. I just dont agree with YOUR VIEWS, but you are then inferring that YOUR VIEWS are FACTS, however the actual facts can be used to debunk your views.

No one knows the real facts. We are all basing our opinions on what we have seen. Quit thinking you have some sort of inside info because your brother is a cop. Shut it the fuck down dude. The more you post in this thread, the more you are embarrassing yourself.

[SysOp]

Come on, Sys. Do you not see where your statements are a bit "off"? You are making wild accusations again. I havent said or inferred any of those things. I just dont agree with YOUR VIEWS, but you are then inferring that YOUR VIEWS are FACTS, however the actual facts can be used to debunk your views.

debunk rofl. DEBUNK or EXPLAIN a juiced up officer going OFF and shooting a man 16 fucking times, do it.

explain why the man was shot 16 times with facts. ask your brother the protocol in this situation. explain SIXTEEN SHOTS.

[SysOp]

ROFL apparently according to drk star if you think this cop was excessive in his behavior and handling of this situation is a "bit off" lol this guy off his rocker more than delaware. start posting in all caps soon.

[DRK Star]

Come on, Sys. Do you not see where your statements are a bit "off"? You are making wild accusations again. I havent said or inferred any of those things. I just dont agree with YOUR VIEWS, but you are then inferring that YOUR VIEWS are FACTS, however the actual facts can be used to debunk your views.

debunk rofl. DEBUNK or EXPLAIN a juiced up officer going OFF and shooting a man 16 fucking times, do it.

explain why the man was shot 16 times with facts. ask your brother the protocol in this situation. explain SIXTEEN SHOTS.

Define "juiced up".

Im not sure why you used this word, but if you are inferring to adreniline, Im sure there are likely TONS of cases where the moment a cop is put in a similar situation where his life is at risk, his adreneline goes up. That doesnt constitute him as likely being "out of control" though, as its likely so common that its then ignored and training comes into play. He isnt a rookie and has worked that area for probably quite a while by now.

I dont know the terms that will be discussed, but there is a psychological state that will be argued where once the cop begins shooting, he continues shooting (you can argue "fear" or some other issues here...I dont know what they all entail, but its a legitimate defense apparently). Hopefully, by now though, you understand that essentially he shot him and kept on shooting him and the guy never dropped the knife, so one could theoretically (legally?) argue that he was in fear of his life (it can be legally argued that he was) and the kid was still considered a threat (didnt drop the knife). You can view this as murder if you wish, but again, this will be argued in court and there are cases they will likely cite where he is justified to do what he did. The laws and cases will be used to debunk these particular statements, in court.

You can also explain why he went to reload. They are trained to do that. You dont want to ever find yourself in a situation where you have shot all your bullets, and are now sitting there holding your dick in your hand. Its second nature. You hear an empty click, and you quickly load a new clip. Who knows...maybe he would have loaded a second clip and started shooting, but allegedly, one or more officers said something along the lines of stop, and he did. Will that be used? Probably. But its not that important, IMO, as you would have to prove he was going to actually load and shoot, as opposed to just loading, but then they would possibly ask him if he still considered the guy a threat as he was reloading, and it gets into a big psychological mess.



If this is pissing people off and you want me to stfu, let me know. Im trying to address his questions.

[DRK Star]

ROFL apparently according to drk star if you think this cop was excessive in his behavior and handling of this situation is a "bit off" lol this guy off his rocker more than delaware. start posting in all caps soon.

1. Is that a question? A sentence? Its a mess. I cant understand your point

2. Im tying in CAPS so that you can easily tell what I typed compared to when you typed. I also will occasionally type in CAPS to emphasize something important. If you have a preference so you can better understand something, Im open to suggestions.



Retype that question again, so it makes sense

[DRK Star]

and in FML news, the Chicago Police are hiring...this is not a joke.

and they arent getting many good candidates; this was my biggest fear all along. If you make ALL of them feel like shit, when its a small percentage of them who suck and might be assholes, and put ALL of their lives now in greater risk, what type of Cop are you going to get in the future?.....some shitty ones, because the smart guys will never want to become a cop now.


There are currently about 12,500 officers on the force.

Applications will be accepted through Dec. 16. A written exam will be administered in February.

McCarthy said the department is partnering with community and faith leaders to get the word out to young people about how to apply and what it takes to become a police officer. He said although it's a tough job, it's a very fulfilling profession.

"One of the most important things a person can do with their life is to be a police officer. You see the best and worst of humanity in the same day. But at the end of the day, it's probably the most noble thing that a person can do with their life," McCarthy said.

There will be a heavy focus on increasing diversity among the ranks this time around.

"We want all parts of the city to be represented in the Chicago Police Department, Emanuel said.

Historically, getting more minorities to take interest has been difficult. So the mayor said the new recruiting effort will engage potential candidates through more digital advertising.

"The effort this time is to use and modernize - 21st century communication - so we're recruiting people where they live, where they work, where they socialize, in a way that we had not done before," Emanuel said.

Mayor Emanuel also shared the new CPD recruiting campaign at the quarterly meeting of Safer Chicago.

"You have to have people who look like the people that you're policing in order to encourage cooperation," said Rev. Leon Finney of the Metropolitan Apostolic Community Church.

"The image of the Chicago Police Department has to change a little bit so people want to do that," said Shari Runner of the Chicago Urban League.

"We're concerned about the follow-through but we just remain optimistic that the city will do a better job of reaching out to the black community," said Jedidiah Brown of the Young Leaders Alliance.

Richard Harris, 27, an insurance broker from Englewood, said he applied to CPD in 2012, passed the written test and has been waiting ever since.

"My dreams and hopes are to be a Chicago police officer," Harris says. "I want to be an officer of change that would be accepted coming from that I've lived in these poor, stricken neighborhoods."

Harris has career options, but he is committed to a life of public service after growing up in public housing and in honor of a late uncle who was a police officer.

"I need to do this," he said. "I know he would be proud of me to serve our city of Chicago."

McCarthy said the starting salary would be around $47,000 a year with a benefits package that covers the entire family. After 18 months on the job, that salary increases to around $72,000 per year.

Chicago Public Schools graduates and the military will be given priority treatment, McCarthy said. An education reimbursement program is also available.

For more information, visit www.chicagopolice.org.

[Muck Ficon]

debunk rofl. DEBUNK or EXPLAIN a juiced up officer going OFF and shooting a man 16 fucking times, do it.

explain why the man was shot 16 times with facts. ask your brother the protocol in this situation. explain SIXTEEN SHOTS.

Define "juiced up".

Im not sure why you used this word, but if you are inferring to adreniline, Im sure there are likely TONS of cases where the moment a cop is put in a similar situation where his life is at risk, his adreneline goes up. That doesnt constitute him as likely being "out of control" though, as its likely so common that its then ignored and training comes into play. He isnt a rookie and has worked that area for probably quite a while by now.

I dont know the terms that will be discussed, but there is a psychological state that will be argued where once the cop begins shooting, he continues shooting (you can argue "fear" or some other issues here...I dont know what they all entail, but its a legitimate defense apparently). Hopefully, by now though, you understand that essentially he shot him and kept on shooting him and the guy never dropped the knife, so one could theoretically (legally?) argue that he was in fear of his life (it can be legally argued that he was) and the kid was still considered a threat (didnt drop the knife). You can view this as murder if you wish, but again, this will be argued in court and there are cases they will likely cite where he is justified to do what he did. The laws and cases will be used to debunk these particular statements, in court.

You can also explain why he went to reload. They are trained to do that. You dont want to ever find yourself in a situation where you have shot all your bullets, and are now sitting there holding your dick in your hand. Its second nature. You hear an empty click, and you quickly load a new clip. Who knows...maybe he would have loaded a second clip and started shooting, but allegedly, one or more officers said something along the lines of stop, and he did. Will that be used? Probably. But its not that important, IMO, as you would have to prove he was going to actually load and shoot, as opposed to just loading, but then they would possibly ask him if he still considered the guy a threat as he was reloading, and it gets into a big psychological mess.



If this is pissing people off and you want me to stfu, let me know. Im trying to address his questions.

Once he hit the ground, he was no longer a threat. The cop never gave him a chance to drop the knife, he was too busy emptying his clip into the kid. So Drk, here's a question you have been dodging. Why was he the only cop who fired when there were multiple other officers on the scene? No other officer fired a single shot. Here's the answer.....none of the other police viewed him as an imminent threat. Had he really made a move at any officer, or even postured like he was....every officer on the scene would have opened fire.

[SysOp]

ROFL apparently according to drk star if you think this cop was excessive in his behavior and handling of this situation is a "bit off" lol this guy off his rocker more than delaware. start posting in all caps soon.

1. Is that a question? A sentence? Its a mess. I cant understand your point

2. Im tying in CAPS so that you can easily tell what I typed compared to when you typed. I also will occasionally type in CAPS to emphasize something important. If you have a preference so you can better understand something, Im open to suggestions.



Retype that question again, so it makes sense

it's a statement, you don't understand it because what is becoming more clear throughout the thread, is that you are an idiot. and a sheep. good day sir

[DRK Star]

Muck, Im going to do the CAPS thing here.

Once he hit the ground, he was no longer a threat.<THIS, AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD, IS INCORRECT. IT WILL BE INTERPRETED AND ADDRESSED IN COURT WITH CASES AND LAW> The cop never gave him a chance to drop the knife<THIS IS INCORRECT, AS OFFICERS HAD BEEN TELLING HIM FOR ALLEGEDLY 20 MINUTES TO DROP THE KNIFE>, he was too busy emptying his clip into the kid. So Drk, here's a question you have been dodging. <I ACTUALLY HAVENT AND ADDRESSED PART OF THIS> Why was he the only cop who fired when there were multiple other officers on the scene <TAKE 5 PEOPLE AND STAND THEM ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. NOW TAKE 10 PEOPLE AND PUT THEM ACROSS THE STREET FROM THOSE PEOPLE. GIVE EVERYONE GUNS. NOW PUT THE BAD GUY IN THE CENTER OF THE STREET. WHICH PERSON CAN TAKE A SAFE SHOT WITHOUT PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET POTENTIALLY BEING IN THE WAY? NOW, THINK ABOUT WHO WERE THE CLOSEST PEOPLE TO HIM, WHO WOULD HAVE FELT THREATENED...NOW, WHICH OF THOSE PEOPLE HAD A CLEAR SHOT, WHERE NO ONE WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET...THAT WILL BE YOUR BEST GUESS>? No other officer fired a single shot. Here's the answer.....none of the other police viewed him as an imminent threat.<THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE ARGUED BECAUSE NO ONE WAS AS CLOSE TO THE GUY AS THE TWO GUYS WERE WHERE ONE OF THEM FIRED THE SHOTS> Had he really made a move at any officer, or even postured like he was....every officer on the scene would have opened fire.<THIS IS PAINFULLY INCORRECT, AS YOU WOULD HAVE A HIGH PROBABILITY, BASED ON WHAT I JUST TOLD YOU, OF SHOOTING OTHER COPS AND PEDESTRIANS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET FROM YOU. THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN COURT, AS FAR AS WHAT PEOPLE WERE STANDING WHERE AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING>

think about how many people had to go over all this crap already to determine what to do with it. We havent even discussed what happened prior to the video.