Discussion: Prosecutor Releases Video Of White Chicago Cop Fatally Shooting Black Man In Back

Discussion for article #243504

Police are absolutely “domestic terrorists”…literally. They routinely, with impunity, kill black citizens in order to instill fear and terror among an entire segment of society. They want “those people” to live in constant fear that a bullet could be on the way at any time; all designed to keep minorities in their place.

6 Likes

Well they seem to usually get off scot free when they shoot a black person so for the ones that don’t care, they can just shoot them till dead, do a little bit of paperwork, have a brief internal interview, then get back to driving around looking for an open donut shop.

EDIT: Sometimes they don’t wait to get cleared and/or do it on their own time…oh wait he didn’t mean to shoot it, it shot off while he was polishing it…wait that was his dick…never mind…

1 Like

I’m waiting to see the day when a citizen shoots and kills a cop, and gets off for self-defense. Seems like we’re rapidly approaching that day. The comment that LEO’s are domestic terrorists is spot on. They intentionally commit acts of violence to assert their authority and pacify a terrorized population.

1 Like

Whereas a bunch of white guys in Nevada actually point their guns at the feds, nothing happens. Now, clearly, the young man should have put down his gun if he did, in fact, have one, but to kill him with impunity while in case after case of white guys strutting around with guns, no one is shot or even arrested has only one explanation, and that is the deeply racist nature of our law enforcement infrastructure. It goes beyond the “goodness” of individuals to the overwhelming cultural narratives that control behavior.

6 Likes

Tupac Shakur shot two cops and walked due to a self defense claim. There are dozens of examples of people shooting police and successfully claiming self-defense. Indiana even has a law on the books that makes it specifically legal to shoot cops to defend yourself or your property.

"(i) A person is justified in using reasonable
force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the
force is necessary to:

(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;

(2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s
unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or
occupied motor vehicle; or

(3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s
unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in
the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the
person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the
person has authority to protect"

Well…how do I say this. You can also be guilty and Black. In this case the asshole had a gun and refused to drop it. It’s Chi Town he knows how that goes down. The police do have a responsibility to protect the public…and a guy with a gun is a threat to the public.

He’s Black. A Cop killed him. But it’s nothing like the other case. In that case the Cop murdered the guy.

This isn’t the end of city-withheld recordings. There’s at least one more that CPD and the city have withheld claiming that the release would cause unrest. Last time I checked, the protests of the McDonald murder were peaceful. Some merchants Downtown are pissed because the protesters blocked their stores, but there’s been no violence.

It’s time for some people to grow up.

Except I just watched the video a few times and didn’t see a gun OR Johnson turn. He was running away.

Police should have no ability to control what the camera records, visual, or audio, no ability to turn it off, no ability to delete, etc.
Dashcams should store an encrypted backup that cannot be accessed without a court order or subpoena from citizens or media, and all data should be required to be backed up to a secure, audited storage facility and kept indefinitely.
Storage does not cost much anymore, backups can be done automatically and time-stamped via wireless to prevent tampering with chain-of-custody, etc.
This is all trivial and inexpensive with current tech.

Nothing you cite gives authority to use deadly force. It says reasonable force. You got a cite to where specifically deadly force is reasonable?

1 Like

So , ’ throw-away ’ knives , guns , and tazers , now police edited videos .

I don’t need to cite that. It’s common law. There are situations where deadly force is reasonable, and situations where it is not. Whether a person is allowed to use force is a question of law. In this case, the law says that under some circumstances force can be used against public servants. What amount of force is considered reasonable is a question of fact and would go to a jury.

To me, whether he turned or not doesn’t matter. The only question that matters to me is whether or not he was armed. He clearly wasn’t obeying police orders. He was clearly running toward a public park. If he was armed at the time, that would complete the “danger to the public” trifecta for me. I expect and even demand that police use force in that situation.

That’s nice, but your opinion doesn’t trump CPD procedure. In an age of CCW and Open Carry, police can’t just fire on someone because they are armed. Look at what happened in Cleveland and Beavercreek- a man and a boy gunned down for having Airsoft guns. The Police didn’t bother to establish if the weapons were real or a threat before firing. BTW, the official CPD story is Johnson was armed and turned to fire at Officer Hernandez. Hernandez fired because he was in fear of his life, so whether Johnson turning or not matters to you, it did to Hernandez. The Officer didn’t fire his weapon to protect the public, he says he did it to protect his life. No turn, no reason to be in fear and use deadly force.

No, he wasn’t obeying police orders. Yes, he was running towards Washington Park. IF he was armed, and that’s one question here. Was Johnson armed and was he a treat that required deadly force?

See above. The Police cannot use deadly force just because they feel like it. The Police cannot use force just because they feel like it. Departments are supposed to have guidelines that outline when officers can use force, and even how much force.

There a few other questions that remain unanswered in this case. Why didn’t the DA’s Office interview Officer Hernandez? Why were other officers on-scene allowed to view the dash cam video BEFORE writing their reports on the shooting? Why did it take the DA of a year to make a decision on this case? If the City thought this was a a justified shooting, why did it and CPD fight the release of the recordings?

1 Like

The police cannot use deadly force just because they feel like it.

1 Like

The hell you say. In Texas, California, and most if not all the other states it’s codified, and if you read the statutes you will find no support whatever for what you proclaim.

So you just argued with me and the end result was that you repeated everything I said? Of course the cops can’t shoot someone just because they are armed. But if they are armed, disobeying lawful commands to stop, and running toward a public park, then I expect and demand that police use whatever force is necessary to end the threat to the public.

Since 2 of these 3 things definitely occurred, the only question I have remaining is whether he was carrying a weapon. Police claim he was armed. Witnesses claim he was armed. A gun was recovered from the scene. The video appears to me to be inconclusive. Absent some other evidence, I’m going to have to believe what the witnesses said.

All the other questions you’ve asked are policy questions. Those are fine if you want to debate them, but they are not material to the question here. The central question is whether this was a justified shooting. My answer so far is “yes.”

Your skipping over the idea of what constitutes a threat. That’s an important step. Having a weapon, disobeying the police and running away do not necessarily constitute a threat to anyone else and a justified police shooting. What if the person is legally armed? Deaf? All of those types of things can turn the situation into an unjustified shooting. Shooting someone in the back doesn’t exactly leave a lot of space for determining what constitutes a threat. He wasn’t threatening anybody else. If he turned and pointed that weapon, then he’s screwed. Walking/running away is not a threat.

And the rules for reasonable force by law enforcement are codified law in some variation of the model penal code.

Actually no. You said you expect and demand the police use force in those situations. I said they don’t have to. Rahm spoke before the City Council this morning and said that Police deal with armed individuals all the time and the situations get defused without deadly force. So your argument is running from the police and disobeying their orders is enough to use deadly force?

Yes I did ask some serious policy questions, and if you want to operate from a position of the ends justifying the means, great, but please don’t run a police force near me. I understand that there are times that the police have to use deadly force, but I expect that since we grant those citizens the right to stop, detain, arrest and to use force, they will follow proper procedures so the rest of the citizenry can hold them accountable if they do wrong.

Again, Officer Hernandez said he fired because was afraid for HIS life, not anyone who may have been in the park. He got out of the car in fear for his life? Remember, he fired within a couple of seconds of getting out of his car.

1 Like

The person I saw in that video was not a deaf man out for a jog. It was a person running toward a park carrying a firearm in their hand. (Assuming, at this point, that the hazy object in the video is indeed a handgun.) Not concealed on their ankle. Not in a holster. In their hand. The person had already scuffled with one cop who tried to arrest him. Sorry, I’m not buying that he may have been a deaf person who enjoys jogging with handguns in their hand. In fact, I can’t believe you are trying to even make that argument.