Welcome To aBlackWeb

Murderous Pig found guilty of murder of Laquan McDonald..

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/laquan-mcdonald-shooting-jason-van-dyke-trial.html

Why Chicago Is Closely Watching the Trial of the Officer Who Shot Laquan McDonald


CHICAGO — Almost four years ago, a white Chicago police officer fatally shot a black teenager named Laquan McDonald on a busy roadway. His death roiled this city, leading to upheaval in the police department, demonstrators in the streets and murder charges against the officer, Jason Van Dyke.

Officer Van Dyke’s long-awaited trial is underway, with opening arguments possible on Monday, and Chicagoans are watching intently. Here are some of the reasons this case is so significant:

Laquan McDonald was shot 16 times
Officer Van Dyke kept shooting even after Laquan, who was 17, twisted and collapsed onto the street. The sheer quantity of bullets incensed many Chicago residents who thought that one shot was too many, and that 16 seemed incomprehensible. A police dashboard-camera video made that number visceral, as shot after shot struck Laquan’s crumpled body.

The shooting began after Laquan was reported breaking into vehicles in a trucking yard on Oct. 20, 2014. When officers arrived, Laquan, who was holding a 3-inch folding knife, walked away. As a growing number of officers began following him, he was said at one point to have “popped” the tires of a police cruiser, apparently with his knife. The officers followed from a distance for several blocks and radioed for the help of a colleague with a Taser.

Then Officer Van Dyke arrived. He jumped out of his police cruiser with his gun drawn and started shooting within seconds as Laquan moved slightly away from him. The officer said later that he feared for his safety and that of other officers.

The video showed clouds of debris for about 15 seconds as bullets struck the teenager’s writhing body. Audio on the camera malfunctioned, and no voices or gunshots could be heard. Of at least seven other officers on the scene, none fired their guns.

The video was kept secret for 13 months
The public didn’t get to see the video until November 2015, and it only came out then after a judge ordered the city of Chicago to release it. Before that, city officials had turned down requests for the images and lawyers for the city had waged a fight when they were sued for access under public record laws.

Critics of Mayor Rahm Emanuel found the timing suspicious, and suggested that the city had a specific reason for keeping the video under wraps: Mr. Emanuel was running for re-election in early 2015, and facing a competitive political climate that forced him into a runoff that April. Mr. Emanuel has denied those accusations, and city officials said the video was withheld because of the criminal investigation of Officer Van Dyke.

[Read more about the case, and how it has affected Chicago, here.]

For weeks after the footage was released, protesters marched through downtown chanting “16 shots and a cover-up” and demanding that Mr. Emanuel resign.

Laquan was killed about two months after the police shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., touched off tense protests and started a national conversation about police tactics. Laquan’s death, by contrast, drew little immediate notice and only cursory local news coverage.

That changed more than a year after Laquan’s death, when the judge ordered that the video be made public. Hours before its release, prosecutors charged Officer Van Dyke with murder.

No Chicago police officer has been convicted of murder in nearly 50 years
In a city where police officers have been involved in dozens of controversial shootings without facing charges, the case against Officer Van Dyke has taken on added significance. Relations between the police and residents, especially black residents, have long been troubled, and some people see the trial as a rare test of whether an officer can ever be held accountable for taking a life.

Around the country, even when officers are charged, cases often end without convictions. Recent trials in Milwaukee, St. Paul, Cincinnati and St. Louisresulted in acquittals or mistrials. A Chicago officer was last convicted of murder for an on-duty shooting in 1970, according to The Chicago Tribune.

At trial, officers frequently say that they feared for their life or someone else’s when they fired their weapon, and Officer Van Dyke has indicated that he’ll put forward a similar defense.

Police officers have wide latitude to use deadly force, and the Supreme Court has allowed them do so when they have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to themselves or another person.

“It’s hard to overcome an officer’s subjective belief that he needed to use deadly force,” said Jeffrey Urdangen, a longtime Illinois defense lawyer and the director of the Center for Criminal Defense at Northwestern University’s law school.

Still, some officers are convicted of murder, including last month in Texas, and the video of Laquan’s death could give prosecutors an advantage. Officer Van Dyke’s lawyers would have to convince jurors that Laquan was the aggressor that night.

“That’s a tall order for the defense, in my view,” Mr. Urdangen said.
 
Only one black person was chosen for the jury
Race is central to this case. During jury selection last week, each side accused the other of excluding people based solely on skin color. Prosecutors said defense lawyers unfairly removed black people from the jury pool; Officer Van Dyke’s lawyers said the prosecution wrongly excluded white men.

In the end, of 12 Chicago-area residents chosen for the jury, six appeared to be white, three Hispanic, one black and one Asian. The twelfth juror appeared to be white or Hispanic. (Almost one-quarter of people in Cook County, which includes Chicago, are black, and about 40 percent are white.)

It had been unclear until Friday whether a jury would even hear the case. Officer Van Dyke’s defense lawyers tried and repeatedly failed to get the trial moved out of Cook County, where police-community relations are strained, to a suburban or downstate county with a higher proportion of white people and more reverence for law enforcement.

“There’s people out there, especially in Chicago,” said Alan Tuerkheimer, a jury consultant, “who think there’s this code of silence, that police officers look out for each other, that they use excessive force.”

Police officers charged with crimes often prefer that judges — not juries — hear their cases, but Officer Van Dyke’s lawyers ultimately chose to have a jury. They had the option of putting the case before a judge, but that decision would have put the verdict in the hands of Judge Vincent Gaughan. He is viewed as a mercurial jurist, having briefly jailed Officer Van Dyke earlier this month and repeatedly threatening to hold Daniel Herbert, the lead defense lawyer, in contempt.

Judge Gaughan, who is expected to finish swearing in the jurors on Monday morning, rejected each side’s claim that the other was wrongly screening jury candidates based on race.

Prosecutors used four peremptory strikes on white men, including one who has a pro-police bumper sticker on his vehicle and another who is in the process of becoming a Chicago police officer. Defense lawyers used five peremptory strikes on people who are not white, including a black man who serves as a church elder and a black woman who was filling out her jury questionnaire when she was told that her son had been shot.

Chicagoans are worried about the aftermath of an acquittal
Ahead of this trial, fears about what might happen afterward have been widely discussed — by defense lawyers, by members of Laquan’s family, in newspaper headlines, even by Officer Van Dyke himself.

The Rev. Marvin Hunter, Laquan’s great-uncle, who remembered the teenager as a joyful young man who liked to joke around, said the family wanted Officer Van Dyke to be convicted, but also wanted any protests to be peaceful. “I’m concerned about riots and violence,” he said.

Officer Van Dyke’s defense team has also made an issue of the potential for unrest, and has asked potential jurors if they would fear the consequences of a not-guilty verdict.

“Jurors will be reluctant to listen to the evidence and render the appropriate verdict knowing the ramifications if Mr. Van Dyke is found not guilty,” Mr. Herbert said in a recent court filing.

This case has changed Chicago
Laquan’s death overturned this city’s leadership, causing or contributing to the downfalls of a Chicago police superintendent, the prosecutor who waited more than a year to bring charges and, now, the mayor.

Mr. Emanuel, once one of the country’s most powerful big-city mayors, announced a day before jury selection in the Van Dyke case that he would not seek a third term as mayor. His staff has said that the decision had nothing to do with the trial; still, Laquan’s death left its mark on the mayor’s nearly eight years in office.

The case against Officer Van Dyke has led to policy changes here. All patrol officers have been equipped with Tasers and body cameras, rules for when officers can shoot have been tightened and, on Thursday, city officials agreed to a court-enforced consent decree that would require an overhaul of the Police Department.

Trust in the Chicago police remains elusive, though, and new police shootings continue to lead to protests. Activists say that even if Officer Van Dyke is convicted of murder, which could lead to a life sentence in prison, systemic problems remain unsolved.

“I don’t think the buck stops with one officer going to jail,” said William Calloway, who has helped organize protests outside the courthouse, “not when you have hundreds of police shootings through the years.”
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...van-dyke-trial-opening-statements/1333832002/

Unnecessary' killing or lawful response? Opening statements in murder trial of Chicago police officer

CHICAGO – Prosecutors told jurors Monday that Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke saw a "black boy" with the "audacity" to ignore police commands and fired a barrage of bullets.

"We are here today because the defendant shot Laquan McDonald 16 times," special prosecutor Joseph McMahon told jurors as opening statements began in the highly anticipated murder trial. "It was completely unnecessary."

Van Dyke's lead attorney countered that the officer was confronting an “out-of-control individual who didn’t care about anyone.”

“The evidence is going to show in this case that Jason Van Dyke is not a murderer,” defense attorney Daniel Herbert said. “The evidence is going to show a scared police officer who was fearful of his life and others and acted within his training.”

The October 2014 shooting death of the 17-year-old McDonald – captured in a chilling police video that was eventually made public – became a touchstone in the larger conversation about policing in African-American communities.

Police were called to Chicago’s southwest side Oct. 20, 2014, on reports of a suspect breaking into trucks and stealing radios. They found McDonald with what they say was a knife with a 3-inch retractable blade.

Immediately after the shooting, a police union spokesman told reporters that the teen lunged at officers with a knife, and Van Dyke had fired in self-defense.

Van Dyke told investigators that he feared for officers’ lives. Several other officers at the scene backed the account.

Police dashboard camera video of the shooting – footage the city was forced by court order to make public 400 days after the incident – appeared to show that McDonald, holding a small knife, was walking away from officers toward a chain-link fence when Van Dyke fired his service weapon.

McMahon showed the video to the jury.

Van Dyke opened fire within six seconds of exiting his police vehicle, he told jurors. Within 1.6 seconds, he said, McDonald was on the ground, "never to get up again."

Still, he said, Van Dyke continued to fire at McDonald for another 12.5 seconds.

Herbert, who waved McDonald's knife at one during his opening statement, countered that Van Dyke "didn’t know if they were lethal gunshots.”

“He didn’t know if Laquan McDonald had the ability to get back up and attack him," the defense attorney said.

McMahon acknowledged that McDonald slashed the tire and slammed his knifed in the windshield of a police vehicle.

Herbert said the officer followed the law and his training.

On the night before the shooting, he told the jury, police received a report that McDonald had tried to take a woman’s vehicle, but she declined to pursue charges.

Herbert said a truck driver who confronted McDonald as he was breaking into vehicles before police arrived said the teen was menacing and tried to stab him. The driver threw rocks and his cellphone at McDonald to protect himself, Herbert said.

“They want you to go into the final minutes of a two-hour movie without knowing the context,” Herbert said.

One witness called by prosecutors Monday was Officer Dora Fontaine, whose initial statement to investigators seemed to have been contradicted by the police video.

She told investigators after the 2014 shooting that she heard officers repeatedly order McDonald to drop the knife, and that McDonald "raised his right arm toward Officer Van Dyke, as if attacking Van Dyke," according to police documents released by the city.

But Fontaine, who has been been given immunity by prosecutors, testified that she had only witnessed McDonald making "swaying" movements with the knife prior to the shooting.

Officer Joseph McElligott, one of the first two officers to encounter McDonald before the shooting, testified that he might have told McDonald 30 times over several minutes to drop the knife.

But McElligott, who stayed about 15 to 20 feet away from the teen throughout the episode, said he never felt he was in danger.

He said he didn’t shoot in part because he heard over police radio traffic that officers equipped with a taser were on their way.

“We were trying to buy time to get a taser,” McElligott said. “He didn’t make any direct movement toward me, and I felt my partner was protected where he was at by the vehicle.”

On the day the video was released, Van Dyke was charged with murder, aggravated battery and official misconduct.

The moment was a reckoning for the city and its police department.

The release of the graphic video set off weeks of mostly peaceful protests. The county prosecutor, Anita Alvarez, accused by activists of taking too long to charge the officer, was voted out of office. And local and federal authorities launched investigations of the police department.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who had argued against releasing the video until the investigation was completed, saw his standing in the city’s sizable African-American community plummet.

Emanuel announced this month that he wouldn’t seek a third term in office. He insists the Van Dyke trial did not impact his decision.

In the lead-up to the trial, Van Dyke’s defense team insisted that the officer could not get a fair hearing in Chicago. They argued that intense and largely negative media coverage had tarnished his name and tainted the potential jury pool.

Before the opening statements Monday, Herbert argued that moving the trial to another county, or bringing a jury from another county to Chicago, was the best way to ensure Van Dyke a fair proceeding.

"It is impossible for a (Chicago jury) to be fair and impartial given the inflammatory and negative publicity, as well as the threat of violence if they vote not guilty in this case," he said.

He compared the prosecutors to Pontius Pilate, willing to sacrifice oneperson to appease the many: They want to serve "Cook County residents a head on a plate."

Police officers in Chicago and elsewhere charged with serious offenses often choose to have a bench trial – meaning the judge hears the case and decides their innocence or guilt.

Van Dyke has opted for a jury trial.

The 12-member jury is made up of eight women and four men. Seven are white, three are Hispanic, one is black and one is Asian.

Cook County, which includes the 5.2 million residents living in Chicago and its inner-ring suburbs, is 42.3 percent white, 25 percent Hispanic, 24 percent black and 7.7 percent Asian.

Several months after losing her 2016 reelection, Alvarez, the county prosecutor, agreed for the sake of continuity that a special prosecutor be brought in to handle the case. Kane County, Illinois state's attorney Joseph McMahon was brought in to serve as the special prosecutor.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...d-chicago-police-officer-trial-jason-van-dyke

Laquan McDonald death: jury shown video of black teen shot 16 times by police officer

Jason Van Dyke faces two counts of first-degree murder over the death of McDonald, 17, in October 2014


Video of the shocking moment when a white police officer shot Laquan McDonald, a black teenager, 16 times was played to a Chicago jury on Monday at the start of a murder trial.

Jurors saw the police dashcam footage that captured the final seconds of McDonald’s life as Jason Van Dyke, a Chicago police officer, began shooting within six seconds of stepping out of his squad car.

The special prosecutor Joseph McMahon opened the prosecution’s case by telling the jury that “under very special circumstances” a police officer can legally shoot a person.

“A police officer has the legal right to use force and even deadly force but only when it is necessary. What was necessary that night [of] October 20 2014 was the arrest of Laquan McDonald; but it was not necessary to kill Laquan to do so.”

He told the jury they were in court today and Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder because “not a single shot was necessary or justified”.

McMahon counted off the shots, repeatedly hitting the table in front of him with a finger for emphasis. He said: “In total, this defendant decides to shoot Laquan McDonald not once, not twice, but three, four, five, six, seven eight. He’s only half done. Nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 15, 16 times in total – 16 gunshots into the defenceless body of Laquan McDonald.”

McMahon described police answering a 911 call after McDonald was reportedly seen attempting to break into a truck.

He described how the first police officers on the scene kept a distance from McDonald after spotting him walking. An autopsy would later show that McDonald, who was carrying a 3in bladed knife, had the drug PCP in his system.

McMahon said: “This defendant gets out of his vehicle. From the moment he gets out of his vehicle, six seconds later he pulls the trigger …1.6 seconds after the defendant starts to shoot Laquan McDonald, Laquan McDonald is knocked to the ground, never to get up again.

“For the next 12.5 seconds, the defendant continues to pull the trigger of the gun over and over until he empties the entire clip.”

Van Dyke’s partner got out of the car and kicked away the knife. The prosecutor said: “What is the defendant doing? He attempts to reload with 16 more, until his partner stops him and says, ‘We got this’.”

Van Dyke faces two counts of first-degree murder, one charge of official misconduct and 16 counts of aggravated battery, one for each shot fired.

Defence lawyer Daniel Herbert began his opening statement by describing Van Dyke making breakfast for his children, “kissing his beautiful wife” and reporting for his “tour of duty”.

Herbert said: “Jason Van Dyke is not a murderer, had no intention of going out to kill Laquan McDonald. Jason Van Dyke never knew Laquan McDonald. The evidence is going to show that he was a scared police officer, fearful for his life and others and he acted within his training.”

The prosecution argued that McDonald was not on trial and that the officer who shot him had no knowledge of the drugs in his system, nor his troubled childhood and family background. But the defence told the jury that before he died, McDonald had been on “a wild rampage through the city for 24 hours” including attempting to attack someone with a knife.

“The government wants you to look at just the video, the final chapter, without reading the rest of the book, the final two minutes of a two-hour movie, without showing you the context,” Herbert said.

He told the jury: “If the decision to shoot was lawful, there is no crime.”

He said Van Dyke had reason to believe McDonald was going to hurt someone and that he was in fear when he made the decision to shoot.

Herbert said: “What happened to Laquan McDonald is a tragedy. It’s a tragedy, it’s not a murder and that’s what the evidence is going to show.”

McMahon, for the prosecution, emphasised the racial element of the case by saying Van Dyke “saw a black boy walking down the street towards a chain-link fence and having the audacity to ignore the police.”

Herbert, in his opening remarks, said: “The government wants you to think this is a racial issue, because that’s more inflammatory. Race has absolutely nothing to do with this.”

Police officer Joseph McElligott, who had been first on the scene and followed McDonald on foot, testified that he had his gun drawn but never threatened to shoot. He said: “He seemed really out of it. He just kept walking away from us.”

Van Dyke entered the Leighton criminal court building at about 7.45am before any protesters arrived. He was surrounded by a security detail and one report said he was wearing a bulletproof vest under his suit.

Seven protesters arrived about 8.30am, marching as they chanted: “From the slave catchers and the KKK to the killer cops of today, convict Van Dyke and throw him in jail. The whole damn system is guilty as hell.”

Van Dyke is the first Chicago police officer to face trial for killing someone on duty in 50 years. The graphic video – released the day Van Dyke was charged – led to months of protests and political upheaval.
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ld-jason-van-dyke-trial-a-20180917-story.html

Two officers at scene of Laquan McDonald's shooting offer crucial testimony on first day of Van Dyke's trial


Chicago police officers trailed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald for more than half a mile, keeping their distance and buying time.

Even after McDonald punctured the tire of a squad car with a small folding knife, no one threatened to shoot him. Walking slowly down Pulaski Road, McDonald was pinned in by a construction fence to his right and surrounded by a half-dozen squad cars and 10 armed police officers. There was nowhere for him to go.

“We were trying to buy time to have a Taser,” Officer Joseph McElligott testified Monday in a hushed Cook County courtroom. “(McDonald) didn’t make any direct movement at me, and I felt like my partner was protected for the most part inside the vehicle. … We were just trying to be patient.”

McElligott was one of two patrol officers to offer crucial testimony during the first day of fellow Officer Jason Van Dyke’s trial. He is charged with first-degree murder in the October 2014 shooting of McDonald — the first time in decades that a Chicago police officer has stood trial for murder in an on-duty fatality. Police dashboard camera video of Van Dyke shooting McDonald 16 times as the teen appeared to walk away from police roiled the city on its court-ordered release more than a year after the incident.

The defense told jurors McDonald was responsible for his own death, having engaged in a “wild rampage” in the 24 hours leading up to the shooting. It also promised the evidence would show Van Dyke was in fear for his safety and others when he pulled the trigger.

Neither officer, however, seemed to back that account when they took the witness stand.

In addition to McElligott’s testimony, Officer Dora Fontaine told the jury she arrived at the scene seconds before Van Dyke opened fire. She testified McDonald made no attempt to stab anyone nor did he make any aggressive movements. She heard shots, saw McDonald spin and fall to the ground. Van Dyke was still firing at McDonald as he lay in the street, she said.

Fontaine never drew her weapon.

The case has long been racially fraught because Van Dyke is white and McDonald was black. On Monday, special prosecutor Joseph McMahon wasted no time alleging that race was a motivating factor in the shooting, saying just minutes into his opening statement that the fact that McDonald was African-American was one of the only things Van Dyke knew about the teen when he decided to shoot.

“What he did know, what he did see, was a black boy walking down the street … having the audacity to ignore the police,” McMahon said.

When Van Dyke arrived on the scene that night, he began shooting within six seconds, firing all 16 bullets and even attempting to reload while McDonald lay motionless in the street, McMahon said.

McMahon then counted each shot for the jury, pounding the lectern for emphasis each time.

“The defendant tries to shoot Laquan McDonald, not once, but twice, three, four, five, six, seven, eight — and we’re only halfway done — nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 times,” he said.

In his opening remarks, Van Dyke’s lead attorney, Daniel Herbert, bristled at the suggestion that race was a factor, telling the jury the fact that McDonald was black had “absolutely nothing” to do with Van Dyke’s decision to open fire.

Van Dyke’s attorneys have argued the shooting was a clear-cut case of self-defense, painting McDonald as an out-of-control, violent teen who was high on the dangerous hallucinogenic PCP and posed a threat to officers and civilians. Herbert said the evidence will show McDonald had been on a “wild rampage” across Chicago in the hours before the shooting — although he offered few details.

As Van Dyke and his partner were heading to the scene, the “threat level is going up,” particularly after McDonald took off running toward a more populated area on Pulaski, Herbert said. He even suggested that police had a duty to shoot McDonald to prevent him from running into a busy Dunkin’ Donuts across the street.

But the testimony of McElligott and Fontaine appeared to poke holes in the claim that Van Dyke was in fear for his life or anyone else’s that night.

Fontaine, who received immunity from state and federal prosecutors in exchange for her testimony, told the jury she saw McDonald “swaying” the knife back and forth as he walked down the street. Dashcam video played during her testimony showed Fontaine and her partner pulling up to the scene just before McDonald was first shot.

“I hear, ‘Drop the knife! Drop the knife!’ ” testified Fontaine, adding that McDonald never charged toward the officers or attacked anyone.

The jury did not hear that the city inspector general recommended Fontaine be fired for earlier saying she heard Van Dyke and his partner that night, Officer Joseph Walsh, repeatedly order McDonald to drop the knife, even though the dashcam video showed she didn’t exit her car until after Van Dyke began firing. Superintendent Eddie Johnson ultimately did not seek her firing, saying the evidence against her was insufficient. It was uncertain what, if any, discipline was sought.

McElligott, testifying in uniform and appearing nervous on the stand, said he and his partner responded to the original 911 call from a truck driver who’d spotted McDonald attempting to break into vehicles in an industrial lot at 41st Street and Kildare Avenue.

McElligott said they found McDonald walking on 40th Street. After McDonald displayed a knife, he got out of his squad car and drew his gun, ordering the teen to drop the weapon. McDonald just kept walking, and McElligott followed him on foot at a distance of about 10 to 15 feet while his partner drove their squad car beside the officer.

As dispatchers sent out a request for a Taser over the radio, McDonald continued walking past the Greater Chicago Food Depository, where surveillance cameras captured McElligott shining a flashlight on McDonald as they walked. The teen occasionally turned around to display the knife at his side, but McElligott said he never felt he or his partner was threatened.

When his partner twice tried to cut off McDonald with the squad car to block him from going farther, the teen stabbed the tire and scraped the windshield with the knife, McElligott said. McDonald then began to run, and other responding squad cars cut off McElligott from McDonald.

Shortly afterward, McElligott heard at least 10 gunshots in succession. As he got closer, he saw McDonald lying in the street and Van Dyke nearby with his gun still in his hand.

“He was looking like in shock,” McElligott said.

The long-awaited trial kicked off in Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan’s packed courtroom after months of wrangling and three days of jury selection. Among the spectators were Van Dyke’s wife, Tiffany, and his father, Owen, 77. Seated next to Van Dyke’s family was the Rev. George Clements, an African-American Catholic priest who is well-known for his involvement in the civil rights movement.

Several members of McDonald’s extended family were present, but his mother, Tina Hunter, was not in the gallery for Monday’s testimony. She could be a witness in the case.

Van Dyke, dressed in a dark suit and tie, kept his hands folded in front of him on the defense table through much of Monday’s testimony, looking on without visible emotion.

The first day of the trial of Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke on Sept. 17, 2018. (Chris Walker/Chicago Tribune)

Outside the Leighton Criminal Court Building, a few protesters chanted slogans and carried signs demanding Van Dyke be found guilty in the video-recorded shooting that led to months of protests, political upheaval and wholesale changes at the Police Department. None of the demonstrators were present when jurors arrived at the courthouse.

Despite the fireworks in court in the months leading up to the trial, Monday’s opening day was largely understated. In his brief, workmanlike opening statement to the jury, McMahon said police officers have the authority to fire their weapons in very specific situations, but this was not one of them. Holding up the 3-inch blade that McDonald carried that night, McMahon suggested the teen could have — and should have — been subdued with a Taser.

“Not a single shot was necessary or justified,” he said. “There is a Chicago police Taser unit on its way and not a single pedestrian in sight.”

By the time McDonald ran onto Pulaski Road, he was corralled on all sides by five police squad cars and 10 armed police officers on the scene, McMahon said. A 7-foot construction fence cut off any escape to the teen’s right.

When Van Dyke arrived on the scene, he began shooting within six seconds, McMahon said. McDonald was knocked to the street within 1.6 seconds of the shooting, but Van Dyke fired for an additional 12.5 seconds until his gun was emptied.
 
McMahon also told the jury that Van Dyke began to reload his weapon after shooting McDonald — evidence that only a short time earlier the defense had unsuccessfully tried to block the jury from hearing. Van Dyke did not stop reloading until his partner told him to stop.

In his opening statement, Herbert cautioned jurors that the now-infamous dashcam video does not tell the full story, in part because it didn’t capture how the incident unfolded from Van Dyke’s perspective.

“What happened to Laquan McDonald was a tragedy,” he said. “It’s a tragedy. It’s not a murder.”

Herbert told jurors that the defense has re-created a video to show Van Dyke’s perspective. At one point, he picked up the brown-handled knife McDonald had on him and started swinging it in a stabbing motion, imitating what Herbert said was McDonald’s attempt to kill the man who’d initially called 911 on him.

With a close-up of a Chicago police squad car on the screen, zoomed in on the words “we serve and protect,” Herbert said that Illinois law governing police use-of-force justified Van Dyke’s actions that night.

“Police officers have a duty to protect the public, to protect people from potential harm, and that’s what we have here, ladies and gentlemen,” he said.

He also painted Van Dyke as an upstanding citizen who made breakfast for his family, kissed his wife goodbye and completed a “honey-do” list before reporting for duty on the night of the shooting.

"What he didn’t know at that time was that his life was going to change forever," Herbert said.
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ld-jason-van-dyke-trial-a-20180912-story.html

Van Dyke's partner, testifying under immunity, says shooting video doesn't accurately depict what he saw

Toward the end of his testimony at Jason Van Dyke’s murder trial Tuesday, indicted former Chicago police Officer Joseph Walsh stepped off the witness stand and walked in front of the jury box.

He then performed his version of events leading up to Laquan McDonald’s shooting. Playing the role of the 17-year-old victim, Walsh swung an imaginary knife behind his back and then up to about shoulder height. The teen, he told the Cook County jury, then turned his head toward the officers, looking at them with “a stare and a focus beyond us.”

Walsh’s message was clear: The infamous video did not accurately depict what happened that night.

The dramatic re-enactment, done at the defense team’s behest, didn’t match the police dashboard camera video that has made national headlines and sparked citywide protests. While depicting McDonald’s actions, Walsh also took much longer than the six seconds it took Van Dyke to open fire after exiting his vehicle.

Yet he did not waver from the account he has given from the beginning.

Walsh, who faces his own criminal trial on charges he conspired to cover up what really happened that night, was given immunity from prosecution, so whatever he testified to Tuesday — as long as it was truthful — could not be used against him in his own case.

Speaking in a clear and unapologetic tone, Walsh hit many of the key points delivered in the defense team’s opening statement just a day earlier. The video, he said, did not accurately show what Van Dyke saw as McDonald walked down Pulaski Road with a knife. The officers believed McDonald posed a genuine threat to public safety. And all of this was McDonald’s fault.

More than that, his testimony underscored how difficult it is to prosecute a police officer in a shooting when other officers at the scene back up his account. Three officers at the scene that night have testified in the trial’s first two days, and all three have been unwilling to condemn Van Dyke’s actions, even though none of them fired their guns that night.

Prosecutors have made the strategic decision to call the officers — and it possibly backfired with Walsh. During his hourlong testimony, Walsh was given the chance to repeatedly contradict the shooting video — the prosecution’s strongest piece of evidence.

“My position, my angle was totally different,” he said of the video.

Law professor Richard Kling, who was in the courtroom for Walsh’s testimony, said he was surprised prosecutors didn’t hammer Walsh more after he insisted the video did not reflect his perspective. He said they should have taken Walsh through the video frame by frame, forcing him to note in each moment where McDonald’s arms were and that they never appeared to be raised.

“They could’ve asked, ‘I understand you had a different perspective, but (McDonald’s) arm is still his arm, right?’” said Kling, a defense attorney and a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. “ ‘His arm is still connected to his shoulder?’ For whatever reason they didn’t do that.”

Chicago police Officer Joseph Walsh, left, with attorney Tom Breen is seen following a hearing at the Leighton Criminal Courts Building in Chicago on July 10, 2017.

Walsh, like the two on-scene officers who took the witness stand Monday, did acknowledge some crucial elements of the prosecution case. He testified he and Van Dyke knew nothing about McDonald’s troubled past at the time of the shooting and that the teen’s background could not have factored into any decisions they made in those few seconds.

Walsh also told the jury that McDonald made no aggressive acts while he was being followed by police, but the officer testified he was concerned the teen would enter the nearby Burger King or Dunkin’ Donuts and injure people inside.

Walsh testified he and Van Dyke watched McDonald’s movements before stopping their car on Pulaski Road. Van Dyke, who was the passenger, immediately began to exit the squad car, but Walsh said he told him to stay in the squad car. It was only the second time the two men had partnered together and their shift had started less than an hour earlier.

“I told him not to get out because Laquan McDonald was too close,” Walsh said.

Van Dyke, 40, a veteran of nearly 13 years with the Police Department at the time of the shooting, faces two counts of first-degree murder, 16 counts of aggravated battery and one count of official misconduct for the October 2014 shooting. If convicted of first-degree murder, he faces the possibility of up to life in prison.

Police dashboard camera video released by court order more than a year later showed Van Dyke opening fire within six seconds of exiting his squad car as McDonald, holding a knife, appeared to walk away from police, contradicting reports from officers at the scene — Walsh included — that the black teen had threatened officers with the weapon.

The graphic video, released the same day that Van Dyke was charged and suspended without pay, led to months of protests and political upheaval.

In the moments immediately following the shooting, none of the Chicago police officers offered any aid to McDonald or checked the severity of his injuries. Cook County Sheriff’s Officer Adam Murphy, who was patrolling with a partner that night, arrived at the scene and approached McDonald.

“At that time, I observed that the subject was gasping for air,” Murphy said. “I put on rubber gloves and attempted to give first aid.”

Dashcam video played for the jury showed Murphy donning a pair of blue latex gloves. He testified that he stood just a few feet away from McDonald but didn’t touch him.

“I just kind of bent over, looked at him, told him I heard the ambulance and that help was on the way,” Murphy testified. “He was gasping for air and gurgling.”

A Chicago police officer with a Taser responded from about 4 miles away but arrived on the scene less than a minute after the shooting, jurors learned Tuesday. The infamous shooting video shows the officer’s speeding squad car, its lights flashing, pulling up to the shooting scene on Pulaski Road, but McDonald was already lying in the roadway.

On Monday, the first officer to encounter McDonald that night with his partner said they had called for a Taser after McDonald displayed a knife. As they waited for about 10 minutes, they followed McDonald for several blocks — until Van Dyke showed up and fatally shot McDonald within seconds.

"We were trying to buy time to have a Taser," Officer Joseph McElligott testified Monday. "... We were just trying to be patient."

In a blow for the prosecution Tuesday, Judge Vincent Gaughan rejected its attempt to enter into evidence a slow-motion, enhanced video of the shooting that aimed to show where the bullets hit McDonald. The judge told jurors to disregard the testimony from the FBI video analyst who created it because he had no expertise in ballistics.
 
In his testimony Tuesday, Walsh confirmed that he drew his gun at the scene, but he said he was startled when Van Dyke fired his gun. He said he never shot even though he believed McDonald still posed a threat while he was writhing on the street.

"I was confident Officer Van Dyke took necessary action to save himself and myself," he said.

In arguments Monday before the trial’s start, the defense said that Walsh would have shot his gun except that Van Dyke was in his line of fire. Walsh, however, did not go that far in his testimony. He said the two briefly crossed paths when Walsh backpedaled away from McDonald, but he never said he considered firing his own weapon.

Walsh and two other officers face a scheduled November trial on charges they created “police reports in the critical early hours and days” following McDonald’s shooting “that contained important false information in an attempt to prevent or shape any criminal investigation,” an indictment handed down last year alleged.

Jurors were told that Walsh faces charges of obstruction of justice, official misconduct and conspiracy in another court. They also were informed about the immunity agreement.

Walsh testified under “use immunity,” which means nothing he said on the stand could be used against him as long as he was truthful. The legal experts contacted by the Tribune said that while it was conceivable prosecutors could try to use Walsh’s testimony to bring new perjury charges, it was unlikely.

If prosecutors had not granted Walsh immunity, he likely would have made it clear he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, keeping him off the witness stand altogether. Longtime criminal defense attorney Steve Greenberg said it looks particularly bad when prosecutors put on witnesses they think are going to lie.

“They didn’t have to call him at all, especially if they knew he was going to say that the shooting was justified,” Greenberg said.

Walsh, on the force since June 1998, previously has given much the same account as Van Dyke and said the shooting was necessary.

After a lengthy investigation, however, the city’s Office of Inspector General found Walsh made numerous false statements and material omissions in his interview with police and the Independent Police Review Authority, the city agency that investigated police-involved shootings at the time.

“Walsh’s actions embody the 'code of silence' that has no legitimate place in CPD,” the report concluded.

The jury was not told about the inspector general’s finding because references to the Police Department’s alleged cover-up have been largely barred during the trial.

Walsh resigned from the department after the inspector general recommended his dismissal in 2016. But his testimony suggested he still feels close ties to the job, as he introduced himself to the jury as “Officer — former Officer Joseph Walsh.”

At one point during his testimony, Walsh circled himself in a still image from the dashcam video at the prosecutor’s request. When asked to circle “the defendant,” he wrongly circled McDonald.

“Sorry,” he said.

Toward the end of the questioning, Walsh agreed with a suggestion by Van Dyke’s attorney, Randy Rueckert, that nothing would have happened to McDonald if he had dropped the knife when ordered to do so. If the teen had raised his arm above his head and surrendered, the gesture “possibly” would have been resolved peacefully, too, he said.

“Someone had to stop this guy, correct?” Rueckert asked.

“Yes,” Walsh answered.
 
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/18/chicago-cops-reluctantly-testify-against-one-of-their-own/

Chicago cops reluctantly testify against one of their own

Prosecutors seek to chip away at the “blue wall of silence” in case where officer shot man 16 times


CHICAGO (AP) — The Chicago police officers clearly do not want to be in court testifying against a colleague accused of murder, with one of them so uncomfortable he couldn’t bring himself to point to the man on trial, something witnesses are routinely asked to do.

But one after another — whether they want to or not — officers at the scene the night of Oct. 20, 2014, when white officer Jason Van Dyke emptied his gun into black teenager Laquan McDonald are being called to testify, as prosecutors seek to chip away at the “blue wall of silence” long associated with the city’s police force and other law enforcement agencies across the country.

None of the officers has criticized Van Dyke in testimony over the first two days of his trial, but each has bolstered the contention by prosecutors that what Van Dyke did was “completely unnecessary.” Van Dyke’s attorneys say he feared for his life and acted according to his training.

Those testifying in Van Dyke’s murder trial have included his partner that night, Joseph Walsh, one of three officers indicted on charges that they conspired to cover up what happened to protect Van Dyke. While video released more than a year after the shooting shows McDonald veering away from officers, Van Dyke and others on the scene initially said the 17-year-old had lunged at them with a knife.

Walsh, who is no longer on the force, acknowledged Tuesday that he “could have” fired, before answering, “Yes,” to the question of whether he chose not to. But he also defended his partner’s actions, saying he was “confident officer Van Dyke took necessary action to save himself and myself.” And he maintained that he saw McDonald raise his right arm to swing it “in our direction,” even though video of the shooting that played as he spoke doesn’t show that. He maintained that he had a different vantage point.

Another witness, officer Joseph McElligott, was so reluctant to testify that prosecutors finally gave up trying to get him to point to Van Dyke after he was asked the routine question of whether he knew the defendant.

According to some experts, Walsh’s testimony — and that of other officers — represents a shift in the landscape for a police force that the U.S. Justice Department in January 2017 described as having a “pervasive cover-up culture.”

“The fact that you have officers forced to testify is a huge moment,” said Matt Topic, an attorney who waged an ultimately successful legal battle to force the city to release the video of the McDonald shooting in 2015.

Van Dyke is the first Chicago police officer in decades to be charged with murder for an on-duty shooting. He’s pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder, aggravated battery and official misconduct.

To Phil Turner, a former federal prosecutor who is now a defense attorney in Chicago, the blue wall of silence isn’t weakening so much as video evidence is revealing the truth. He points out that some officers are testifying only because they would otherwise be held in contempt of court. He sees police using video as key — not because it will make officers reluctant to lie to cover for their fellow officers but because it renders those lies “irrelevant.”
“If they refuse to talk, who cares, they’ve got the video,” he said.

Topic agrees that video has been important in Van Dyke’s case.

“All of those officers had to know there was dashcam video and still they felt safe enough to provide a narrative that wasn’t true,” he said.

Dora Fontaine is the only officer to challenge statements attributed to her in police reports about the shooting. She arrived as Van Dyke was firing 16 bullets into McDonald. Fontaine testified Monday that she saw the knife in McDonald’s right hand, but she did not see him raise his arm or charge at the officers.
Officer McElligott, who also testified Monday, was responding to reports that someone was breaking into vehicles in a trucking yard when he encountered McDonald.

McElligott said that even after McDonald stabbed the tire of his squad car, he didn’t think it was necessary to fire his weapon. Instead, he and his partner were waiting for an officer to show up with a Taser to use on McDonald.

“We were just trying to be patient,” he told the jury.
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...e-joseph-walsh-trial-0919-20180918-story.html

Van Dyke's partner tried to help — but only made him look more guilty



As testimony in the trial of Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke got underway this week, I was prepared to credit the contention of the defense that Van Dyke’s shooting and killing of Laquan McDonald was legally justifiable.

The shooting was not necessary. Not proportional. Not wise. Not comforting. But despite the awful images on the dashcam video of Van Dyke firing 16 bullets into McDonald as McDonald was angling away from him, technically, by the book, it was what police call a “good shoot.”

A serious hindrance to keeping an open mind about this was that, in the immediate aftermath of the 2014 shooting, Van Dyke and numerous other officers on the scene gilded their accounts of the shooting to make McDonald seem more threatening than he actually was.

They said McDonald was advancing on the officers, waving his knife at them. They said he raised the arm holding the knife, menacing them as they attempted to retreat. They said Van Dyke had to keep shooting until his gun was empty because McDonald was trying to get up, perhaps to attack them.

All lies. And the dashcam video of the incident proves it.

Why would they lie if what actually happened was a legal use of deadly force?

Common sense tells you they believed it was a bad shoot, and they were trying to cover for their fellow officer.

But maybe they were wrong.

Maybe, I thought, factual testimony, stripped of the incriminating grotesque exaggerations and blatant misrepresentations, would show that Van Dyke did what the law allows him to do.

There was some indication Monday that we might see such testimony. Officer Dora Fontaine, who had initially told investigators that McDonald had “raised his right arm toward officer Van Dyke as if attacking,” testified under a grant of immunity that no, in fact, she’d not seen McDonald do any such thing.

But Tuesday morning, any hope this trial will not be infected by falsehoods evaporated with the testimony of former Officer Joseph Walsh, Van Dyke’s partner that night.

Walsh, called to the stand by prosecutors, is facing his own trial on obstruction of justice, conspiracy and official misconduct charges related to his conduct in the aftermath of the McDonald shooting. He testified under a grant of limited immunity, meaning that as long as he told the truth, nothing he said could be used against him.

Those of us watching the trial from our desks were frustrated when Judge Vincent Gaughan cut the live video and audio feed of the trial at Walsh’s request, but journalists’ dispatches from the courtroom showed Walsh doubling down on the exaggerations and distortions.

Walsh testified that he “reasonably believed” that McDonald, behaving erratically and, armed with a 3-inch knife, was headed into a nearby Dunkin’ Donuts. This he said, would have posed a danger to “people in there.” But, in fact, McDonald was angling away from Dunkin’ Donuts when Van Dyke shot him and was blocked from the store by arriving police cars.

Walsh said he saw McDonald raise his arm to shoulder level and swing it, “rounding” toward the officers in a threatening manner.

The dashcam video shows no such movements. McDonald’s arms were swinging at his side from the time Walsh and Van Dyke exited their police SUV until, just seconds later, McDonald twisted to the pavement after Van Dyke shot him. Walsh’s astonishing explanation: “My position, my angle was totally different” from the position of the dashboard camera.

Walsh also said that even when McDonald was in his death throes on the ground, his body riddled with bullets, he remained a threat to the officers because the knife was still in his hand and he was still “moving.”

In other words, Walsh insisted that a guy with a tiny knife in his hand, twitching as he bled out in the middle of the road, was still a danger to a crew of armed cops.

Maybe jurors are buying into these absurdities and misrepresentations. Maybe the truth that emerges through the thicket of deception will set Jason Van Dyke free. Or, maybe the idea that this was a “good shoot” is getting harder to believe by the day.
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...nald-jason-van-dyke-trial-20180921-story.html

Prosecutors rest case after expert testifies Van Dyke wasn't justified in shooting Laquan McDonald

Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke was not justified in shooting Laquan McDonald once — let alone 16 times — as he walked down the street armed with a knife, an expert witness told jurors Thursday shortly before the prosecution rested its murder case.

The testimony by former FBI agent Urey Patrick bolstered the prosecution’s position that there were other ways to apprehend the 17-year-old that night as McDonald distanced himself from officers on the scene.

The risk posed by McDonald “did not rise to the necessity of using deadly force to stop it,” testified Patrick, who relied on the infamous police dashcam video of the shooting to reach his conclusions.

“He never said anything to anybody, never made any threats, never made any move towards the police officers confronting him,” said the expert on deadly use of force by police. “Here in this video he’s walking away from them.”

It marked a strong finish for the prosecution after sparring much of the previous day with the defense over which bullets killed the Chicago teen and how quickly he died.

Wrapping up their case on the fourth day of testimony — more quickly than many expected — prosecutors walked Cook County jurors moment by moment through the graphic video with Patrick and a second witness.

McDonald’s mother, Tina Hunter, who attended the trial Thursday for the first time since testimony began this week, bowed her head while the video played multiple times, but she could still hear the witnesses narrating her son’s death in detail. She began to quietly weep and buried her face in a tissue as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, sitting with the family, put his arm around her and gently rubbed her back.

Hunter, who has never spoken publicly about the shooting, left the Leighton Criminal Court Building without commenting.

Van Dyke, 40, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder, 16 counts of aggravated battery and one count of official misconduct in McDonald’s death. Prosecutors have argued that Van Dyke had no legal justification for opening fire because the teen posed no threat, but Van Dyke’s attorneys have attempted to paint McDonald as an out-of-control, violent person who disobeyed police commands to drop the knife while high on PCP.

In the minutes before the shooting, other police officers had called for a Taser unit to help apprehend McDonald and tried to corral him with their squad cars. Patrick praised those efforts, telling the jury that the other officers responded in a manner proportional to the risk posed by the teen.

“He is a risk. There’s no question. He’s been noncompliant, and he is armed with a knife. But there is nobody within reach of him, and he is moving away from the only people on the scene who could be imminently in reach of him,” he said.

Even if McDonald posed an imminent threat at one point, that threat had ended by the time he had been shot and fell to the street, testified Patrick, who has taken the stand as an expert witness across the country. In police-involved shootings, he said, officers will continue shooting usually for a second or a second and a half before they are “capable of recognizing” that the threat has ended.

Prosecutors have previously established that McDonald fell to the pavement less than two seconds after he was first shot but that Van Dyke continued firing for about another 12 seconds, emptying his 16-shot semiautomatic gun.

“Mr. McDonald went down very suddenly, very hard,” Patrick said. “He is at this point clearly incapacitated.”

Despite an intense cross-examination by lead defense attorney Daniel Herbert, Patrick remained steadfast in his position that McDonald did not pose a threat that justified Van Dyke firing his gun.

Still, the defense may have gained some ground when Patrick, the author of a widely respected book on the use of force in policing, said the fact that other officers did not shoot had no bearing on whether Van Dyke was justified. Prosecutors frequently have reminded jurors that Van Dyke was the only one of 10 officers on the scene to shoot.

Herbert also suggested for the first time during his questioning that Van Dyke may have believed McDonald had a gun since he pulled his pants up at one point by the waistband. But Patrick said he didn’t find that a reasonable conclusion given the video and radio traffic before the shooting. Indeed, Van Dyke never raised that concern with investigators after the shooting, according to previously released city records.

Before Patrick testified, an FBI ballistics expert helped shore up for the jury where and when the bullets from Van Dyke’s gun were striking McDonald in the video taken from a police dashboard camera.

Since the video has no audio, the expert, Scott Patterson, told the jury he had to rely on visual cues to determine when each shot was fired. He said his analysis was further complicated by the flashing lights of the squad car behind Van Dyke that made it difficult to see muzzle flashes and the slide of Van Dyke’s pistol kicking back to indicate a shot.

Patterson, an FBI ballistics expert, testified that a slowed-down version of the video depicted several key moments, including Van Dyke’s partner, Joseph Walsh, flinching and ducking as the first shot was fired, indicating that he “wasn’t ready for a projectile to be fired.”

He also noted the “plumes” of debris — not “puffs of smoke” as some have said — that were kicked up where bullets were hitting the roadway after McDonald fell, in some cases after passing through his body.

Patterson said the visual evidence shows that about 14 seconds passed between shots being fired by Van Dyke. McDonald fell to the pavement 1.6 seconds after the first bullet was fired, he said.

During Patterson’s testimony, jurors also were shown a video of a “rate of fire” test conducted by the FBI that generally mirrored the conditions of McDonald’s shooting. When that test shooter fired 16 bullets within 14 seconds from a distance of about 10½ feet — as Van Dyke did — it resulted in a “deliberate” and “methodical” rate of fire, Patterson said.

“He was taking his time to aim each shot,” Patterson testified.

On cross-examination, Herbert tried to raise doubt in the jury’s mind about the competence of Patterson’s testimony. He noted that not even Patterson could say from his analysis of the dashcam video that every bullet hit McDonald or where it struck.

The jury, though, heard Wednesday from Cook County’s chief medical examiner that each of the 16 shots struck McDonald. Jurors also were shown photos of 24 entrance and exit wounds on the teen’s bullet-riddled body.
 
The prosecution ended its case by calling Chicago resident Jose Torres, the last of its 24 witnesses. Torres, who witnessed the shooting while driving his son, Xavier, to the hospital, testified that he had an unobstructed view of McDonald as the teen walked down the street. His son gave similar testimony earlier in the week.

McDonald, the elder Torres told jurors, had his hands to his sides and was walking away from officers in the seconds before the shooting. The officers shouted at McDonald, who turned his head and looked at them before gunfire erupted, Torres said.

Torres testified that he heard more gunshots fired after McDonald had fallen to the street than when he was standing up. He wasn’t sure how many bullets were fired, Torres said, but it was “enough to upset me.”

“Why the f are they still shooting him when he was on the ground?’” he recalled himself asking out loud.

Torres stood his ground on cross-examination even as Randy Rueckert, one of Van Dyke’s lawyers, suggested that a squad vehicle had pulled in front of his vehicle, blocking his view of the shooting.

“You’re confusing me,” Torres fired back after Rueckert peppered him with questions about how many police squads he saw that night and their direction of travel. “I don’t understand what you’re trying to get to.

“There was no other vehicle in my line of sight,” he continued. “I had a clear view of Laquan McDonald.”

Rueckert did not follow up with evidence to support the suggestion that Torres’ view had been blocked and quickly ended his questioning.

Even though they were witnesses to McDonald’s killing, Torres and his son were shooed away from the scene by police and never gave a statement that night, the Tribune has previously reported.

Torres contacted the city agency that investigates police shootings after hearing news reports in which police claimed McDonald had lunged at officers with the knife. In an interview with the city’s Office of Inspector General, Torres said he reached out because he had two sons close to McDonald’s age and felt like justice was being subverted.

“I couldn't live with myself,” Torres told investigators. “If something like that would happen to my kids, I would wish somebody would come forward and say something.”

Jurors were not told about Torres’ efforts to call city officials’ attention to the shooting.

After the prosecution rested, Herbert argued outside the jurors’ presence that the state had not met its burden of proof and asked Judge Vincent Gaughan to toss out the case entirely — a routine request that rarely is granted.

The defense argued that prosecutors had not proved anything about Van Dyke’s state of mind when he fired his weapon, and regardless that the officer’s gunfire was legal because McDonald was fleeing a lawful arrest. Prosecutors countered by saying it was clear that Van Dyke knew he could cause harm to McDonald when he fired.

“The defendant was not justified in firing any of the 16 rounds,” prosecutor Joseph Cullen said. “Each time he fired, it became even less necessary.”

Gaughan swiftly denied the defense’s request.

After Gaughan announced his decision, Van Dyke’s wife, Tiffany, began crying in the courtroom. Van Dyke, who had been smiling after court recessed for the day, saw her weeping and walked into the gallery to comfort her. He was heard explaining to her that it’s very rare for judges to acquit defendants in the middle of a trial and that the ruling was not an indication of the jury’s eventual verdict.

The couple, both wearing bulletproof vests, left the courthouse a few minutes later holding hands.

Van Dyke’s attorneys will begin presenting their self-defense case Monday.
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-police-cover-up-20180817-story.html

The Van Dyke trial is about 1 cop firing 16 shots. But broader issues of police cover-up and official silence loom large.

Jurors in the murder trial of Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke watched this past week as his partner on the night of the shooting, Joseph Walsh, stepped down from the witness stand and demonstrated how he said Laquan McDonaldmenaced police with a knife.

Before that dramatic moment Tuesday, the panel was told in a few brief words that Walsh, who has resigned from the department, was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, official misconduct and conspiracy.

But jurors did not hear then and are not expected to learn during the ongoing trial of the specific allegations underlying those charges: that Walsh was part of an effort by police to cover up the details of McDonald’s death.

While Van Dyke’s trial is tightly focused on whether he was justified in shooting at McDonald 16 times, the broader question of whether the police closed ranks to protect a fellow officer will resound after his fate is decided, in part because Walsh and two other officers are scheduled for trial in the alleged cover-up in November.

But beyond the actions of the low-ranking cops at the scene, officers in the department’s higher ranks either justified the shooting or took little action after viewing chilling dashcam video of McDonald’s shooting, raising questions as to whether the top brass participated in or enabled the code of silence that critics say pervades the department.

For example, just days after the shooting in October 2014, then-Deputy Chief Eddie Johnson watched the video during a meeting with other top department officials and raised no concerns as to whether the shooting was justified, according to sworn testimony from a colleague. About a year and a half later, Mayor Rahm Emanuel promoted Johnson to superintendent.

Officials in the mayor’s office, meanwhile, prevented the public from promptly learning the harsh details of what happened.

Then-Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton negotiated a $5 million settlement with McDonald’s family before any lawsuit was filed, and the agreement restricted the video’s release while a criminal investigation into the shooting was underway. City officials fought for more than a year to keep the video under wraps before a judge forced its release.

Controversy over the shooting and the alleged police cover-up has pushed the Emanuel administration into enacting policy changes aimed at stronger discipline and greater transparency in the Police Department, including the wide rollout of body cameras.

But civil rights advocates say department policy still is not strong enough. Though a recently submitted draft of a consent decree that would mandate court-overseen reforms includes provisions taking aim at officer collusion and dishonesty, advocates want further changes that could close off opportunities for the code of silence to survive.

“In the absence of a consent decree that’s got strong provisions, that has the right independent monitor, something like the Laquan McDonald case could easily happen again,” said Sheila Bedi, a Northwestern University law professor and attorney involved in the litigation over the decree.

The city’s widely criticized handling of McDonald’s shooting continues to shape Chicago’s political and legal landscapes, and it is likely to figure prominently in the race to succeed Emanuel, who announced just before Van Dyke’s trial started that he would not seek re-election.

Several candidates played key roles in the shooting’s aftermath, including former police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, who relieved Van Dyke of his police powers but did not take other strong action. Days after the video finally was released, Emanuel fired McCarthy.

McCarthy told the Tribune that he warned Emanuel about the shooting two days after it happened.

“The 16 shots I knew was going to be a problem, and that’s what I told the mayor,” McCarthy said in a recent interview. “(Emanuel) really was unfazed by it, kinda went on to the next topic.”

Emanuel spokesman Adam Collins did not directly address a question about Emanuel’s purported conversation with McCarthy but touted the city’s efforts at reform.

Defending their own
In the hours after Van Dyke shot McDonald on Oct. 20, 2014, on Pulaski Road near 40th Street, the officer reported that the teenager had advanced on him, swung the knife and attacked him. Van Dyke also said he backpedaled before the shooting and that McDonald appeared to be trying to get up from the street as the officer kept firing.

Van Dyke’s narrative of the shooting was reinforced by colleagues who corroborated his account of McDonald as a dangerous aggressor. But there was a piece of evidence that clashed with those accounts — video from the dashboard camera of a police vehicle that captured the incident with a clarity rare in police shootings.

The Emanuel administration fought attempts to pry the video loose and kept it hidden until a judge ordered its release in November 2015. The footage showed that McDonald veered away from officers in the moments before the shooting and that, after being hit, the teen lay nearly motionless on the street as the officer pelted him with more rounds. Prosecutors say Van Dyke fired for about 15 seconds.

The footage of the white officer shooting the black teenager sparked heated protests in Chicago that were rooted in long-standing tension between the police and African-Americans, and Van Dyke was charged with murder.

A year and a half later, prosecutors charged three more cops — former Detective David March, Officer Thomas Gaffney and Walsh — in the alleged cover-up.

Retired police Detective David March, left, leaves the Leighton Criminal Court Building in 2017 with his attorney James McKay. March faces charges alleging a cover-up in the shooting of Laquan McDonald. (Nancy Stone/Chicago Tribune)

Prosecutors alleged that the officers coordinated their efforts with Van Dyke and others by writing virtually identical reports to make it appear that the shooting was justified. Among the many claims of the police noted in the indictment, it cites Walsh’s contentions that McDonald swung the knife and appeared to be trying to get up as Van Dyke continued to shoot him. The indictment alleges that March, the detective, submitted a report saying the video was “consistent with the accounts of all of the witnesses.”

The officers have pleaded not guilty.

In addition to the criminal cases, city Inspector General Joseph Ferguson conducted a disciplinary investigation that found a broad effort to justify the shooting. His recommendations led the department to move to fire five other officers who were at the scene — Van Dyke, Sgt. Stephen Franko and officers Janet Mondragon, Daphne Sebastian and Ricardo Viramontes.

But the tendency to defend the shooting extended well above the patrol cops at the scene, as some higher-ranking officers believed it was justified, according to a trove of records of Ferguson’s investigation obtained by the Tribune.

The top brass, meanwhile, saw the police video almost immediately but took little dramatic action.

Two days after the shooting, McCarthy huddled with other top officers and watched the footage. Neither McCarthy nor anyone else suggested that the shooting might have been unjustified, though McCarthy did express concern about the number of shots, a colleague told disciplinary investigators.

McCarthy told the Tribune that the purpose of the gathering was not to discuss whether the shooting was justified but to consider department policy and officer tactics.

The former superintendent said he took little action beyond relieving Van Dyke of his police powers because disciplinary investigations are largely delegated to civilian oversight officials and he didn’t want to interfere in their ongoing inquiry. McCarthy said he didn’t even look at police reports from the shooting whose accounts differed from the scene captured on video.
 
Johnson, who at the time was a deputy chief, watched the video at a different meeting with other top police officials, this one some 10 days after McDonald died. One officer who was in the meeting, Lt. Osvaldo Valdez, later told disciplinary investigators that no one raised any concerns.

“There was never no question whether·the shooting was justified,” Valdez said under oath. “Everyone agreed that Officer Van Dyke used the force necessary to eliminate the threat, and that’s pretty much it.”

Now superintendent, Johnson declined through a spokesman to comment and referenced a past statement in which he disputed Valdez’s characterization of the briefing without offering details. Collins said Johnson, who has led Emanuel’s bid to reform the department, “has long since proven his commitment to reform and to rebuilding the bonds of trust with residents.”

Civil rights advocates have complained that higher-ranking cops involved in the case exited the force while those in the lowest ranks faced official consequences.

For example, the inspector general’s office found that Eugene Roy was “incompetent in the performance of his duties” and recommended in August 2016 that he be fired. Roy had supervised the investigation into the shooting as the commander of the Area Central detective division, and he was promoted to deputy chief and then chief of detectives after McDonald’s death.

Johnson never acted on the recommendation against Roy, who was nearing the department’s mandatory retirement age. Roy retired a month later.

An attorney who represents both Roy and Valdez declined to comment on the disciplinary investigation, citing decorum orders in the pending criminal cases.

One of the cops who faces trial in November excoriated the actions of the top brass in a sworn statement to disciplinary investigators, complaining that higher-ranking officers were promoted while he faced potential disciplinary consequences.

“No one voiced any reservations or concerns to me regarding this incident or this investigation,” said March, the lead detective on the case. “I was informed that the entire command staff concurred with the findings and conclusions of my investigation.”

The inspector general’s office has alleged that March was the “critical touchstone” of the cover-up and that he parroted the officers’ false reports. March, who has resigned, could not be reached for comment.

A swift settlement
Beyond the Police Department, top Emanuel administration officials were promptly made aware that the shooting could pose a problem.

On Dec. 8, 2014, Scott Ando — then the head of the now-defunct Independent Police Review Authority — sent an email to Janey Rountree, City Hall’s deputy chief of staff for public safety. The email linked to a news release in which two local watchdogs suggested video might contradict claims that the officer’s life was in danger.

The next morning, top city attorney Patton emailed Emanuel’s chief of staff, senior adviser and others with an update on the McDonald situation.

“I have again asked our lawyers to be on the lookout for a complaint in that matter and to notify us immediately if and when a complaint is filed,” Patton wrote.

In early March 2015 — as Emanuel was in the last weeks of his mayoral race against Jesus “Chuy” Garcia — the McDonald family’s lawyers formally approached the city about a settlement.

That same month, police officers including Valdez met with the Police Department’s lawyer and Tom Platt, then the city’s deputy corporation counsel and now Metra’s director of litigation. The group watched the video, and no one expressed concerns about the justification for the shooting, according to Valdez.

“It was very apparent that they were more concerned with the perception — or how that video would be perceived,” Valdez said.

Platt could not be reached for comment.

Late in March 2015, lawyers for McDonald’s family sent the city’s attorneys a letter threatening a lawsuit and mentioning the discrepancies between the video and the official reports. Days before the election, the lawyers reached an agreement in principle on the settlement.

A week after Emanuel’s re-election, the City Council made the rare move of approving a settlement without a lawsuit ever being filed. The agreement included a provision restricting the release of materials related to the case while a criminal investigation was ongoing.

In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times after he resigned in 2017, Patton said he recommended the settlement so a lawsuit wouldn’t interfere with the criminal investigation of an action he believed “constituted a murder.”

But at a Finance Committee meeting before the vote, Patton told the aldermen that Van Dyke was acting within the scope of his employment.

In his interview with the Tribune, McCarthy accused Patton of orchestrating a cover-up by glossing over the potentially criminal nature of the shooting to the City Council in order to secure the settlement quickly.

“You ever hear of City Hall moving that fast on anything? Try to get a permit for a parade and see how long that takes,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy’s statements on the McDonald scandal have changed in tone in recent months. In comments at the City Club of Chicago in 2016, he said Emanuel had no control of the timeline for the criminal investigation into the shooting and said, “The mayor did not have the capacity to prevent that video from going out.”

Patton forwarded Tribune questions to City Hall. Collins described McCarthy’s narrative about Patton as a “ridiculous theory” and noted that the former superintendent had previously defended City Hall’s approach to the video. He said Patton had been “straightforward” about the shooting.

Breaking the code
The allegations of a cover-up in the McDonald case add to a long history of similar accusations.

Nonetheless, faced with consistent questioning as to whether Chicago police abide by a code of silence, the Emanuel administration has given conflicting responses.

As the crisis deepened in 2015, the mayor acknowledged the code in a contrite speech. But in a deposition in March 2018, Johnson said he was unaware of a code of silence. Meanwhile, lawyers from Emanuel’s Law Department, tasked with defending against lawsuits alleging police misconduct, have denied the code of silence’s existence.

But the U.S. Department of Justice found unequivocally that officers observed the code in its damning January 2017 report, which painted the police force as needlessly violent, poorly trained and badly supervised. The Justice Department found a “pervasive cover-up culture among CPD officers, which the (disciplinary authorities) accept as an immutable fact rather than something to root out.”

“I don’t know how anyone who’s been paying attention, who’s read our report, could think there’s any question” that the code exists, said Christy Lopez, a former Justice Department lawyer who helped lead the federal investigation in Chicago. “It’s sort of silly to continue to argue about it.”

In the aftermath of the McDonald scandal, the Emanuel administration introduced a new policy mandating the release of footage of police shootings within three months. The policy, however, has not always functioned as advertised, as the courts have blocked the release of videos of shootings that led to criminal charges.

The department also has released video selectively. The day after the fatal shooting of Maurice Granton Jr. in June, the department released footage that officials said showed Granton with a gun before he was killed. A month and a half later, the Civilian Office of Police Accountability released body-camera video that painted a more complete picture, showing Granton was trying to scale a fence, with no gun visible in his hand, when an officer fired.

The officer reported that Granton had shot at him, and police recovered a gun, though a lawyer for the dead man’s family said it was 20 to 25 feet from where he fell.

Collins defended the video policy, saying it is “light years from the decades-old city policy of not releasing any evidence, including video evidence, until after criminal proceedings were complete.”

The Emanuel administration and the office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan submitted a proposed consent decree this month that would guide sweeping changes to the department — an effort that differs from unsuccessful past attempts to reform the force in that a judge will have the authority to enforce change.

The draft of the decree includes several portions taking aim at official secrecy and officer collusion. For example, it calls for disciplinary action for officers who interfere in investigations or collude with other cops, and it requires the department to ensure that cops who witness a shooting don’t talk with each other before they are interviewed by investigators.

But civil rights advocates have called for further reforms. For example, some advocates want to eliminate the department policy of keeping disciplinary investigators from talking to cops who shoot people for at least 24 hours afterward.

Advocates said the code of silence’s elimination must be a top priority.

“Unless you’re able to address the code of silence, it’s going to be impossible to make the broad culture change that you need to make there,” Lopez said.
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-jason-van-dyke-trial-young-activists-20180829-story.html

Young activists on Jason Van Dyke: 'This trial means everything'

When city officials released the dash cam video in 2015 that showed Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke fatally shoot 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, a coterie of young, black activists called a meeting on the Near West Side.

That cold, November evening, a few dozen mostly college-aged organizers gathered in rows of chairs at a storefront art gallery in the University Village neighborhood with hangdog expressions, trying to process the footage. After a short time, they stormed into the street, chanting as they marched toward downtown. With a convoy of unmarked police cars following close behind, protesters surrounded the motorcade, locked hands and began shouting “16 shots!” — a reference to the number of times the black teen was struck by the white officer’s gunfire — a chant that would become a rallying cry at future demonstrations calling for police reforms.

In the nearly three years since, these fledgling activists, galvanized by the recent phenomena of police-involved fatalities caught on video, became known for their unabashed strategies: targeting the Magnificent Mile on the busiest shopping days of the year, picketing Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Ravenswood home and engaging in nose-to-nose faceoffs with police officers.

Their disruptive techniques have been credited with creating the political pressure that contributed to the firing of police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, the ouster of Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, and the announcement earlier this month by Emanuel that he would not seek a third term. Several of the organizers are running for office, including two for alderman and mayor.

Now, everything they’ve learned about activism is focused on Van Dyke’s first-degree murder trial, which they see as a litmus test of what constitutes excessive use of force for police officers.

“This trial means everything. The entire country is paying attention to Chicago right now,” said Kofi Ademola, an organizer with Black Lives Matter Chicago. “If justice isn’t found, I honestly don’t know what’s going to happen. I’m kind of afraid. I don’t know how people in communities are going to act. We don’t know how government and police are going to act. But (an acquittal) reinforces the idea that police almost have impunity and immunity to kill black and brown people.”

On Sept. 5, the first day of the jury selection process, about 100 protesters assembled on the lawn between California Avenue and California Boulevard, positioning themselves between the parking garage where jurors park and the Leighton Criminal Court Building.

Lead organizer William Calloway joins protesters outside the Leighton Criminal Court Building in Chicago on Sept. 5, 2018, as jury selection begins in trial of Jason Van Dyke in the shooting death of Laquan McDonald. (Jose M. Osorio / Chicago Tribune)

For community activist William Calloway, 29, of South Shore, the demonstration was the first step toward making good on his pledge to lead protests outside the courthouse during the trial.

“It’s been close to four years since the shooting happened. It’s been three years since (Van Dyke) has been charged. And we want justice. It’s time for him to face the music about what he did.”

Since that first day of the trial, the number of protesters outside the courthouse each day has dwindled to a handful. But that could quickly change when the verdict comes down. Van Dyke’s attorneys will begin presenting evidence Monday morning.

Calloway, who unsuccessfully ran for state representative earlier this year, has been hosting meetings to discuss how communities should prepare for all possible trial outcomes. In the past month, Calloway said he has grown increasingly worried about tensions with police turning violent, noting the clash between a crowd of about 200 people and officers following the fatal shooting death of Harith Augustus in July. There were reports of objects thrown at police and officers using batons against people in the crowd.

“That’s one street ... that turned up like that,” said Calloway, who sued for the release of the recordings in the Augustus shooting. “What if it happens like that across the city: Englewood, Austin, all these other neighborhoods. That could be a huge problem. I don’t want to see Chicago turn into Ferguson or Baltimore.”

If Van Dyke is acquitted, Calloway said protesters want to launch a national campaign, organizing demonstrations in other major cities.

“If he is acquitted, it’s not just going to be the South Side; it’s not just going to be the West Side,” Calloway said. “It’s going to be every side of this city that’s going to rise up, demand justice and shut this city down.”

By all accounts, emotions have been running high since the release of the video, which came more than a year after McDonald’s death and months after Emanuel had secured re-election. The videotape also appeared to contradict the narrative of responding officers, three of whom were later charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice and official misconduct.

Page May, 29, founder of black female empowerment group Assata’s Daughters, remembers joining a group who gathered to view the videotape of the McDonald shooting for the first time.

Information from police and the medical examiner’s office revealed McDonald was armed with a knife and under the influence of the psychedelic drug PCP. But many saw his death as an indictment of government agencies that failed repeatedly to help the troubled teen, who had been shuttled between foster homes after his mother was accused of neglect.

“I think that’s why Laquan resonated so much,” May said. “He was just walking down the street. He self-medicates for the trauma he’s has gone through, which is true of a lot of young people. He’s struggling. He’s trying to get back in school. He’s in and out of juvy. He’s doing the best he can. That could’ve been anyone.”

Days after the video was released, on Black Friday, about 1,000 protesters formed human barricades outside high-end stores on Michigan Avenue, obstructing many would-be shoppers from entering. On New Year’s Eve, throngs of young people gathered around Emanuel’s North Side home for the third straight day calling for his resignation and staring down the band of police officers standing guard near his front door.

In addition to protests that disrupted shoppers, they also launched dynamic opposition campaigns, perhaps most notably, ginning up resistance to former Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Avarez in the #ByeAnita crusade. Protesters blocked the entrance to her fundraisers and disrupted her speaking engagements. They overtook CTA train cars to persuade riders to vote her out. And they arranged for a plane to fly a banner with the hashtag over the city.

The younger generation says members see themselves as adding to Chicago’s rich history of activism, which has included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Fred Hampton, the chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party. But the new guard says bold, new techniques are necessary to call attention to issues like police brutality and longstanding social woes on the South and West sides.

And in what some see as a coming of age for these young activists, many are taking a different approach: running for political office.

Ja'Mal Green, center, an activist and one of many candidates for mayor, joins protesters outside the Leighton Criminal Court Building in Chicago on Sept. 5, 2018. (Jose M. Osorio / Chicago Tribune)

Ja’Mal Green, 22, one of the most outspoken critics of Emanuel, had previously made it his mission to personally unseat the mayor in his bid to become Chicago’s youngest ever mayor.

Now that Emanuel has announced he will not seek re-election, Green finds himself going up against other formidable challengers, including McCarthy and ex-Chicago Police Board president Lori Lightfoot. But Green, who has pledged to make reforms to the police department, said he feels he holds an advantage over candidates who had ties to city hall and the police department during the McDonald case.

“This case changed the path of everyone’s life,” Green said. “I wasn’t planning to be where I am today. I never expected to be an activist. The plan wasn’t to go and be the mayor either. Laquan McDonald’s case has shaped everyone in the activism community. My thing was, I felt obligated to make sure we have a voice, a seat at the table and someone to battle Rahm.”

Green isn’t alone.

At least three prominent activists have their eyes on separate, upcoming aldermanic races in wards on the South Side, including Jedidiah Brown, a 32-year-old pastor from South Shore and Lamon Reccord, 19, who has spoken out against neighborhood violence and police brutality.
 
During the Van Dyke trial, some activists are protesting, while others watch from the pews of the courtroom gallery.

Then, there are those like May who acknowledged the importance of the case, but plans to focus her efforts on remedying the conditions she feels led to McDonald’s death. Part of the solution is the city spending less on police and more on the South and West sides, she said.

“This is way bigger than Jason Van Dyke, though he very much matters,” said May, who is advocating against the construction of a $95 million police training facility.

“To me, the point wasn’t that Laquan was shot 16 times. It’s that this city failed him at every level. He had a harder life than he should’ve had and a shorter life than he should’ve had.”

While some activists say the verdict, whatever it might be, will serve as culmination of three years of organizing. Others, like Brown, say they believe it is only the beginning.

“It’s still in its infancy,” Brown said. “We’re still trying to cultivate our movement and find where we’re going next. I would say this is a test of if we’ve done proper preparing. I think our moment is about to gets its definition.”
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ald-jason-van-dyke-police-20180924-story.html

Police ready to expand hours, cancel days off when Van Dyke's trial for shooting McDonald nears end


Chicago police officials on Monday said they are prepared to expand shifts and cancel days off for the entire 12,000-strong department if widespread protests occur after a verdict in Officer Jason Van Dyke's murder trial for shooting Laquan McDonald.

Department officials said officers are prepared to have their usual 8 1/2-hour shifts extended to 12 hours a day, while days off would be canceled for other officers.

During an interview with the Chicago Tribune on Monday at police headquarters, Superintendent Eddie Johnson would not specify whether the department would wait until a verdict before instituting the measures.

"We'll monitor the court events, and as we get closer to the end of it, we'll make that decision," Johnson said.

The superintendent said the department has been doing "outreach" with community leaders and business owners throughout the South and West sides as well as downtown.

"This isn't the first time that as a city we've faced some challenging issues," said Johnson, flanked by several members of his command staff. "All the entities that I've spoken to, I'm not expecting any unrest at all. … We are prepared to escalate up if the need arises."

In the past, Johnson has noted that other major cities with controversial citizen deaths at the hands of police usually saw more unrest right after those incidents than following trials for officers criminally charged in those incidents.

The department has extended shifts and canceled days off many other times over the years for long summer holiday weekends to guard against violence on the South and West sides and for other large-scale festivals and protests downtown.

"We have an ability to ramp up our deployments or take them back down as the need requires," Johnson said. "But honestly speaking, you know, from what we're getting from people out on the street is that everyone understands this is our city. And we all have a responsibility to ensure that our city is safe.

"CPD, we have a responsibility to protect people's First Amendment right to protest in the event that comes to fruition," he continued. "But we also have a responsibility to keep the city safe, so we're prepared for any issues that might arise."

Johnson said officers will wear their regular uniforms and won't be equipped with riot gear such as helmets, ballistic shields and masks unless necessary. Additional officers would likely be out patrolling on horses and bicycles.

Deputy Chief Dwayne Betts said officers from some of the department's 22 patrol districts have been in touch with residents, community leaders and businesses in the neighborhoods about the trial. Betts said one of the West Side districts this week will be holding a meeting with the community about how to react no matter the verdict.

"We realize, too, that this is a very sensitive time for everyone,” said Betts, who oversees the department's community policing program. "… I think the commanders all have identified locations that they think might be a potential concern, so we can make sure we've got the resources there as well as talking to the leadership of those communities and let them know, too, that we need to all rally around safety."

Johnson acknowledged that police could be challenged by the speed of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, but he expressed confidence that his officers can adjust.

"Social media can be a good thing, but then conversely, it can push out false narratives of information," he said.
 
Back
Top