Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Jason Van Dyke (Murderer)

#1

Jesus Christ … 6 Years? Bastard will do 3 or less. They’ll put him in a good old boy’s camp style prison setting … protect him the entire time.

He flat out executed that young man, and the crooked justice system has hid his murder behind the badge. The dirty tarnished bloody Chicago badge. His brothers in hate that support him should waste away in a prison along with that Judge. A total bias crock of [BLEEP]. She (Judge Domenica Stephenson) failed her job, she failed to protect us, she failed what she was supposed to stand for … Justice.   She failed herself.  Worse of all … She failed her parents.

Justice was not served, it was mocked. Any one of us “civilians” would have committed the same murder Van Dyke did, we would get life, or death (however you see judge it). Tell your children to get a job in law enforcement (especially in Chicago), it will allow them to kill at will getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

I don’t know anything about Laquan McDonald as a human, and I don’t need to. What I do know is Jason Van Dyke did not either, and he still murdered him. The Chicago Police department is equally guilty of killing him in cold blood. Without video, they would have whitewashed it. None of us would know that Laquan McDonald did NOT charge them with a tiny little knife (like they testified to in court). Video has allowed us to see the truth. Van Dyke “had” to reload to continue shooting the kid already dead on the ground. What threat is a kid with 10 bullets already in him? He executed him with 16 bullets, and his buddies tried to help cover it up at the expense of their own morals. I am sure their parents integrity is worth more than their own children's. I do feel sorry for the parents of the Killer Thug Land Cops ... they don't deserve the the tarnish their children brought home.

How the hell can Judge Vincent Gaughan be able to sleep at night? Probably on top of a mattress filled with cash. Maybe his career would have been over had he held Van Dyke to the same standard that all people should be "Judged" by. Right there is dirty, nasty politics for you.

The cops couldn't even use their most fake and useful charge to vindicate their violent gang like actions. Resisting Arrest. Nope, just kill him instead, and pay the Judge off with votes.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2
(This post was last modified: 01-21-2019, 09:28 AM by The Drifter.)

I just watched the video of it, it does seem to be in cold blood. The victim in this case mad no aggressive moves and was just shot

You can see the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix2N6_jLAgA
Me sarcastic? No couldn't be. I am much too dim witted to grasp the quaint subtleties of such potent mockery!!!
Reply

#3

You can still see bullets hitting him when he is down. Why keep shooting him? 16 bullets hit him out of two clips. There was no reason to shoot him to begin with. Taser him, and beat him silly like normal cops would do.
Reply

#4

I wish there were a test for cowardice you could give people before they become cops.

Cowards afraid of their own shadows shooting because they can't handle the situation.
Reply

#5

The funny thing is the cops can get away with more due to your 'freedom' of carrying a weapon.

Not going to get shot by a British cop.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6

I think what this cop did is awful.
I don't think six years is the right sentence. But I also don't think locking people up for life is the answer either.
For premeditated murder, I certainly agree with the death penalty.
Life in prison I think should be reserved for people who have repeatedly committed crimes, that we haven't been able to rehabilitate.
But for a guy like this, who didn't plan to do what he did, but just acted despicably, I'd say 10 to 15 is about right. I think it is appropriate to give him a second chance at free life.
frankly I'm glad there was a trial and a conviction in the first place. usually these cops get away with it.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#7

(01-21-2019, 08:54 PM)lastonealive Wrote: The funny thing is the cops can get away with more due to your 'freedom' of carrying a weapon.

Not going to get shot by a British cop.

Just shut up. Please.
Reply

#8

Sensitive souls
Reply

#9

(01-21-2019, 08:54 PM)lastonealive Wrote: The funny thing is the cops can get away with more due to your 'freedom' of carrying a weapon.

Not going to get shot by a British cop.

How do you write "non sequitur" upside down? I want you to be able to read it.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#10

(01-21-2019, 10:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: I think what this cop did is awful.
I don't think six years is the right sentence. But I also don't think locking people up for life is the answer either.
For premeditated murder, I certainly agree with the death penalty.
Life in prison I think should be reserved for people who have repeatedly committed crimes, that we haven't been able to rehabilitate.
But for a guy like this, who didn't plan to do what he did, but just acted despicably, I'd say 10 to 15 is about right. I think it is appropriate to give him a second chance at free life.
frankly I'm glad there was a trial and a conviction in the first place. usually these cops get away with it.

That was my first thought. 6 years is not enough, but it's rare that a cop is sentenced at all, so this is actually a step in the right direction.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#11

There is good and bad in every sector of society. I also don’t think it’s fair to judge and call the guy a coward. Unless you’ve filled the shoes your opinion means squat. In this situation the cop got a little less prison time than deserved but perhaps they took into account the totality of impact to his life moving forward. Either way, at least this situation got the deserving attention and was judicially addressed.
[Image: Ben-Roethlisberger_Lerentee-McCary-Sack_...ayoffs.jpg]
Reply

#12

(01-22-2019, 09:46 AM)B2hibry Wrote: There is good and bad in every sector of society. I also don’t think it’s fair to judge and call the guy a coward. Unless you’ve filled the shoes your opinion means squat. In this situation the cop got a little less prison time than deserved but perhaps they took into account the totality of impact to his life moving forward. Either way, at least this situation got the deserving attention and was judicially addressed.

How is it not cowardice to shoot a guy in the back who was 20 feet away from any officer?
Reply

#13

(01-22-2019, 10:03 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote:
(01-22-2019, 09:46 AM)B2hibry Wrote: There is good and bad in every sector of society. I also don’t think it’s fair to judge and call the guy a coward. Unless you’ve filled the shoes your opinion means squat. In this situation the cop got a little less prison time than deserved but perhaps they took into account the totality of impact to his life moving forward. Either way, at least this situation got the deserving attention and was judicially addressed.

How is it not cowardice to shoot a guy in the back who was 20 feet away from any officer?

Police officers are charged with not only defending themselves but the community-at-large. Technically speaking a potential perpetrator doesn't have to demonstrate himself to be a direct threat to the police officer he can theoretically be a threat to Society at large or civilians. In this particular case you had somebody walking with a knife out down the street not a bang police command this wasn't a case where someone was unlocking their own door and drop their wallet. In this particular instance I have a hard time finding the mens rea for any type of criminal misconduct.

Police officers are given weapons by the community to protect us from threats. In the event that someone demonstrates poor judgment or even fatal judgment in the execution that particular charge then it makes sense to remove that charge not necessarily challenges him criminally for a lapse in judgment no matter how severe. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to make sure that certain accent repeat it again if you remove someone from the Force then they're not going to have to interact with suspects and make lethal snap decisions about the safety of the community at large with a potentially armed suspect. So for the longest time I have been against the idea of charging and Prosecuting police officers criminally when it can be demonstrated that however flawed their judgment was that it was based on some perception of discharge of Duty as opposed to a personal Vendetta drug deal gone wrong or some type of premeditation.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#14

(01-22-2019, 10:19 AM)jj82284 Wrote:
(01-22-2019, 10:03 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: How is it not cowardice to shoot a guy in the back who was 20 feet away from any officer?

Police officers are charged with not only defending themselves but the community-at-large. Technically speaking a potential perpetrator doesn't have to demonstrate himself to be a direct threat to the police officer he can theoretically be a threat to Society at large or civilians. In this particular case you had somebody walking with a knife out down the street not a bang police command this wasn't a case where someone was unlocking their own door and drop their wallet. In this particular instance I have a hard time finding the mens rea for any type of criminal misconduct.

Police officers are given weapons by the community to protect us from threats. In the event that someone demonstrates poor judgment or even fatal judgment in the execution that particular charge then it makes sense to remove that charge not necessarily challenges him criminally for a lapse in judgment no matter how severe. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to make sure that certain accent repeat it again if you remove someone from the Force then they're not going to have to interact with suspects and make lethal snap decisions about the safety of the community at large with a potentially armed suspect. So for the longest time I have been against the idea of charging and Prosecuting police officers criminally when it can be demonstrated that however flawed their judgment was that it was based on some perception of discharge of Duty as opposed to a personal Vendetta drug deal gone wrong or some type of premeditation.

JJ82284
For the most part I agree with you, but in this case the officer was charged correctly.  An officer is supposed to use enough force to "stop the action".  In this case, when the suspect went down after the first shot the officer should have stopped.

TrivialPursuit,
According to the reports that I have seen the suspect was not shot in the back.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

#15
(This post was last modified: 01-22-2019, 12:40 PM by jj82284.)

(01-22-2019, 12:18 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(01-22-2019, 10:19 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Police officers are charged with not only defending themselves but the community-at-large. Technically speaking a potential perpetrator doesn't have to demonstrate himself to be a direct threat to the police officer he can theoretically be a threat to Society at large or civilians. In this particular case you had somebody walking with a knife out down the street not a bang police command this wasn't a case where someone was unlocking their own door and drop their wallet. In this particular instance I have a hard time finding the mens rea for any type of criminal misconduct.

Police officers are given weapons by the community to protect us from threats. In the event that someone demonstrates poor judgment or even fatal judgment in the execution that particular charge then it makes sense to remove that charge not necessarily challenges him criminally for a lapse in judgment no matter how severe. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to make sure that certain accent repeat it again if you remove someone from the Force then they're not going to have to interact with suspects and make lethal snap decisions about the safety of the community at large with a potentially armed suspect. So for the longest time I have been against the idea of charging and Prosecuting police officers criminally when it can be demonstrated that however flawed their judgment was that it was based on some perception of discharge of Duty as opposed to a personal Vendetta drug deal gone wrong or some type of premeditation.

JJ82284
For the most part I agree with you, but in this case the officer was charged correctly.  An officer is supposed to use enough force to "stop the action".  In this case, when the suspect went down after the first shot the officer should have stopped.

TrivialPursuit,
According to the reports that I have seen the suspect was not shot in the back.

True.  At the same time I think that in 99% of cases of excessive force even in cases where lethal force was used that the first and most appropriate action should be that the officer be removed from the force and not put in that situation again.

Not in the above case you're absolutely right continued fire or worst reloading a weapon for someone that's clearly down probably crosses the line into a form of criminal culpability but I would not put it in the same criminal culpability as first-degree or premeditated murder.
Reply

#16

(01-22-2019, 10:19 AM)jj82284 Wrote:
(01-22-2019, 10:03 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: How is it not cowardice to shoot a guy in the back who was 20 feet away from any officer?

Police officers are charged with not only defending themselves but the community-at-large. Technically speaking a potential perpetrator doesn't have to demonstrate himself to be a direct threat to the police officer he can theoretically be a threat to Society at large or civilians. In this particular case you had somebody walking with a knife out down the street not a bang police command this wasn't a case where someone was unlocking their own door and drop their wallet. In this particular instance I have a hard time finding the mens rea for any type of criminal misconduct.

Police officers are given weapons by the community to protect us from threats. In the event that someone demonstrates poor judgment or even fatal judgment in the execution that particular charge then it makes sense to remove that charge not necessarily challenges him criminally for a lapse in judgment no matter how severe. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to make sure that certain accent repeat it again if you remove someone from the Force then they're not going to have to interact with suspects and make lethal snap decisions about the safety of the community at large with a potentially armed suspect. So for the longest time I have been against the idea of charging and Prosecuting police officers criminally when it can be demonstrated that however flawed their judgment was that it was based on some perception of discharge of Duty as opposed to a personal Vendetta drug deal gone wrong or some type of premeditation.

There were no bystanders in LaQuon's immediate vicinity.  He did not pose such an imminent threat to society at that moment to possibly justify use of a firearm by an officer.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#17

(01-22-2019, 01:52 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-22-2019, 10:19 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Police officers are charged with not only defending themselves but the community-at-large. Technically speaking a potential perpetrator doesn't have to demonstrate himself to be a direct threat to the police officer he can theoretically be a threat to Society at large or civilians. In this particular case you had somebody walking with a knife out down the street not a bang police command this wasn't a case where someone was unlocking their own door and drop their wallet. In this particular instance I have a hard time finding the mens rea for any type of criminal misconduct.

Police officers are given weapons by the community to protect us from threats. In the event that someone demonstrates poor judgment or even fatal judgment in the execution that particular charge then it makes sense to remove that charge not necessarily challenges him criminally for a lapse in judgment no matter how severe. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to make sure that certain accent repeat it again if you remove someone from the Force then they're not going to have to interact with suspects and make lethal snap decisions about the safety of the community at large with a potentially armed suspect. So for the longest time I have been against the idea of charging and Prosecuting police officers criminally when it can be demonstrated that however flawed their judgment was that it was based on some perception of discharge of Duty as opposed to a personal Vendetta drug deal gone wrong or some type of premeditation.

There were no bystanders in LaQuon's immediate vicinity.  He did not pose such an imminent threat to society at that moment to possibly justify use of a firearm by an officer.

I never said it was justified.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#18

(01-22-2019, 08:37 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(01-21-2019, 08:54 PM)lastonealive Wrote: The funny thing is the cops can get away with more due to your 'freedom' of carrying a weapon.

Not going to get shot by a British cop.

How do you write "non sequitur" upside down? I want you to be able to read it.

You don't agree that cops may be jumpier/more aggressive due to potential carrying of weapon of suspect?
Reply

#19

(01-22-2019, 08:17 PM)lastonealive Wrote:
(01-22-2019, 08:37 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: How do you write "non sequitur" upside down? I want you to be able to read it.

You don't agree that cops may be jumpier/more aggressive due to potential carrying of weapon of suspect?

No.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#20

oh. So why do you think cops shoot so many then?
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!