I remember seeing video from Akihabara, Tokyo of a single police officer confronting the man who had just stabbed to death or run over a bunch of people. The cop stood about 20 feet from the perp who was holding a knife. He and other cops who showed up later managed to get the guy in cuffs and in a car without anyone getting hurt. I wish I could find that video.
My point is that in some places, usually NOT the USA, cops deal with these situations in a way where usually no one is killed. Why can’t that happen here?
PS: If anyone can find that clip I’d be glad. I can find plenty of stuff by searching Akihabara stabbing but last time I searched I couldn’t find the shot of a narrow street with a Tokyo cop on the right pointing a gun at the suspect on the left, who’s sitting against a wall.
Okay.
Sentence: 60 years
Actual time served: 17 years
Here’s how I got that, based on some searching of Illinois law and making a few assumptions as to how it is interpreted:
For second degree murder, the judge can give anywhere from 4 to 20 years.
However, he was also convicted of 16 counts of “aggravated battery,” and I am assuming this is considered “with a firearm”; for each of these, the judge can give anywhere from 6 to 30 years (yes, the battery sentence is longer than the murder sentence).
Also, all 17 of these have to be served consecutively, so that would be a minimum of 4 + 17 x 6 = 106 years.
However, since they all stem from the same incident, there is a maximum sentence of the total of the two longest maximum terms. In this case, it is 60 years, and since it is less than the minimum if all of the minimum sentences were served, it appears that the 60-year sentence is pretty much mandatory.
Furthermore, the judge does not have the right to suspend any part of the sentence, or sentence him to probation.
As for “time off for good behavior” and parole eligibility:
Since a gun was used, the maximum time off for good behavior possible is 15% of the sentence, or 9 years.
Parole - or “mandatory supervised release,” as it appears to be called in Illinois now - begins at 1/3 of the reduced sentence, so he becomes eligible in 17 years.
Of course, all of this is subject to “executive clemency” by the governor.
I would consider a beanbag round a reasonable start to resolving the situation. Certainly he tested positive for PCP after the fact but the police had no knowledge of that at the time. I also haven’t seen anything indicating that he was currently on a PCP high or if he still had traces from a trip three days ago.
To me, it’s one of the dividing lines between a functioning society and a war zone/police state/evil government: Can you be killed on the spot simply for seeming like one of the bad guys?
I never even hinted at letting him wander around brandishing a knife indefinitely. I suggested not killing him, when something less will do the job. You’ve set up a false dichotomy.
I believe this officer’s chief should be on trial for even having an officer who would try this. Chiefs of police need to be made to fear for their careers, if they are going to literally allow murder.
The chief did lose his job over this, you know, once the video became public, and the mayor needed to look decisive. Now the chief has drifted off to live a quiet life of…running for mayor of Chicago.
Using a taser or less-lethal munition is absolutely a reasonable protocol. Just have one cop use the less-lethal weapon while a second cop provides back up. If the less-lethal weapon fails and the assailant becomes violent, the second cop can use the lethal option.
So don’t let them get close to you. It’s not that hard. Especially when you are in a vehicle and they are walking in a different direction. McDonald wasn’t even moving towards the cop.
Here’s the thing: Cops have attracted a lot of criticism for putting themselves in jeopardy in a way that creates an excuse for them to shoot the suspect. One of their favorite tricks is to stand in front of a vehicle, so that any movement of the vehicle can be interpreted as ‘he’s coming right for us!’ The same is true of a knife. If a cop decides to stand his ground, the moment the suspect gets within 20 feet he gets to cite the ‘20 foot rule’ as justification for shooting the guy. Now, if the suspect is moving towards some civilians who cannot retreat, then the cop would have had greater justification to say that time was short and he had to act immediately.
In this particular case, the video shows the cop trying to jump out of the vehicle before it has even stopped. One account I heard claims the partner told him he was too close. The officer steps out of the vehicle, then he moves towards McDonald, and opens fire almost immediately. He made no effort to de-escalate the situation or look for a less-lethal alternative.
Moving TOWARDS the guy with the knife is the exact opposite of what you want to do if your goal is to avoid being stabbed. And from the articles I’m seeing, that weighed heavily on the jurors. They didn’t understand why he advanced towards McDonald, and they REALLY didn’t understand why he lied about it afterwards.
My take on it is that there are some cops who say, “I have to kill this person,” and there are some cops who say, “I get to kill this person.” I’ve met many young people, who actively want an ‘excuse’ or an ‘opportunity’ to commit state-sanctioned violence. Our media and many other aspects of our culture reinforce the message that ‘killing bad guys’ is a virtuous activity, and so a certain type of person is actively hoping for the day they get their chance to be a hero and shoot a ‘bad guy.’ I suspect this cop is one of those people who actively looked for an opportunity.