And yes, Jimmy, I was forced to post the video again, because Muck Ficon made his dumb comment.
Has he answered that question yet?.....excessiveness? OK. See how that goes in court.
And yes, Jimmy, I was forced to post the video again, because Muck Ficon made his dumb comment.
Has he answered that question yet?.....excessiveness? OK. See how that goes in court.
DRK....it seems like you're living vicariously through your brother. YOU ARE NOT A COP. I hope he doesn't go to work every day with your mindset....it's dangerous.
Originally Posted by Baron Von Strucker
I have had Issues with credit cards in Europe
And again, convo goes off course with this type of crap.
Just stop engaging with me on this stuff, Muck. If you want to discuss it, pm me. Don't post.
If I answer questions, I'm a dick. If I don't answer, I'm a pussy. Never ending cycle. I know a fuck ton more about this case than you. Educated on all angles. Don't start acting like there is something wrong with my mindset just because you aren't informed.
There is something wrong with your mindset, we're not acting. Whether it was legal or not, 16 shots is excessive especially when the person was laid out on the floor after the second shot. When any other person is shot 16 times they all it a crime of passion. It shows you were doing it out of anger. If you are the kind of dick who shoots someone 16 times because you know it is "technically" legal, then you shouldn't be a cop. I think that is what we are all trying to say.
We pray for understanding as we all occasionally request back door action by accident, when we tried to call an electrician. It happens, it simply happens.
::my head hurts::
Gallo,
So....he killed him..."harder"?....
Investigators didnt know what to charge him with
IPRA didnt know what to charge him with
The States Attorney, Anita Alvarez, didnt know what to charge him with
The Feds didnt know what to charge him with
BUT!!!!
A gentleman from a Poker Forum called Poker Fraud Alert, by the name of Muck Ficon has miraculously come up with a charge of "Excessiveness".
case closed
I promise, I wont post anymore in this thread after this (Note: Oops...I fibbed)There is something wrong with your mindset, we're not acting. Whether it was legal or not, 16 shots is excessive especially when the person was laid out on the floor after the second shot. When any other person is shot 16 times they all it a crime of passion. It shows you were doing it out of anger. If you are the kind of dick who shoots someone 16 times because you know it is "technically" legal, then you shouldn't be a cop. I think that is what we are all trying to say.
There is something wrong with your mindset, we're not acting.
my "mindset" is likely the defense his attorneys will use. Are you telling me VanDyk chose an incompetent attorney?
Whether it was legal or not, 16 shots is excessive especially when the person was laid out on the floor after the second shot.
You, me and the tree can ALLLL say, 16 shots is "excessive", because none of us know the specifics of the laws, his training, and what he is allowed to do under those circumstances (I said specifically...I know a lot, but wouldnt even come close to claiming Im an expert, but when cops with legal backgrounds explain in detail what is happening in the case, I am going to confidently claim that I know more than you or Muck here)
When any other person is shot 16 times they all it a crime of passion.
No..."THEY" arent saying that. Who is They?
It shows you were doing it out of anger.
So...you are now speculating as to what was in his head. Sorry...not speculating..you are somehow inferring that you KNOW what was in his head.
If you are the kind of dick who shoots someone 16 times because you know it is "technically" legal, then you shouldn't be a cop.
So...now you are speculating that you know he did it because he knew that he could get away with it...sorry again...you arent speculating...you are SURE that he did this because he knew he could get away with it, because you somehow have access to his thoughts........
I think that is what we are all trying to say.
If anyone else agrees with all of that, please feel free to come out and agree
Last edited by DRK Star; 05-10-2016 at 06:33 AM.
You know what your brother told you. Educated on all angles? You are a wannabe cop DRK..you have admitted you are biased lol. Since when is being biased considered "informed"? Go back to your police scanner Deputy Dipshit.
Last edited by Muck Ficon; 05-10-2016 at 06:38 AM.
I have had Issues with credit cards in Europe
You know what your brother told you. Educated on all angles? You are a wannabe cop DRK..you have admitted you are biased lol. Since when is being biased considered "informed"? Go back to you police scanner Deputy Dipshit.
...and you go back to placing your cranium firmly up your rectum, sir.
your entire defense of this guy for the last 6 months has been that he was acting based on his training and his actions were totally in line with proper protocol, and that he was a good cop for doing so. like that was literally the crux of your entire argument for months, this is how the police are trained to handle these situations when facing a dangerous armed suspect.this has to be the dumbest thing you have ever posted on this site.
all of the sudden you now expect his defense to change from him being a highly skilled officer that legally used his skillset based off years of training to neutralize an armed threat in a legal manner...to a hot shot cop that ignored his training and the safety of himself/his fellow officers and tried to shoot the weapon out of suspects hand like he was don johnson on miami vice...and you think that is somehow a more defensible position?
i think i'll go ahead and stick with my original sentiment.
Comments
DRK Star: so, you are saying that someone, in fear of his life from someone armed with a weapon, wouldnt be trying to "end the threat" by trying to shoot the weapon out of his hand?
is that what he was trained to do? you still think he deserves to be a cop, and that he is good at his job if this is what actually happened?
how does your brother feel about this?
edit for drk's rep comment:
just when i thought it couldn't get any dumber.
so since he can't hit center mass he decided to aim for a significantly smaller, nearly impossible to hit, off-center target? that is your next jump in logic from a criminal defense perspective?
did your criminal defense attorney buddy tip you off to this masterful defense position?
Last edited by RealTalk; 05-10-2016 at 10:36 AM.
I said I would stop posting in this thread, so what do you guys do?.....you keep on asking questions.
make up your minds. Do you want the thread to die, or do you want responses?
common sense would dictate that when someone responds/posts in the thread they expect a response back. also are expected to believe that you will actually quit posting in the thread based off your previous history of saying that you were taking your ball and going home, followed up by hours and pages of tilt shit-posts hours later?
Thanks for the quick photoshop guys!
From a LEGAL standpoint:
If he is charged with doing something ILLEGAL, and he found not guilty of those charges, why should he lose his job? He is therefore deemed innocent, and should be able to go back to work.
However, if you are asking ME my PERSONAL opinion on this, based on what I had heard from a few people, I think the shooting was excessive, and he may have muttered a few things he shouldnt have, after the fact, and then I would look to see if there were any serious LEGIT complaints in his past that would require me to remove him from duty. I could possibly see this happening, and I wouldnt argue that much. If its proved that he didnt follow the laws and/or training, yes, he should absolutely lose his job. Serve jail time?...depends on what the charge would be that sticks.
I wish you would just watch that video, so I dont have to keep repeating myself. I wasnt there, and the video clears a lot up.
Cop had EVERY RIGHT, AS I SEE IT, to shoot him there. And if the cop felt that his life was in danger (which as it was explained to me, it absolutely was), he should follow his TRAINING and shoot until the threat is ended. Now...who makes the determination that the threat has ended? Was he still armed? Yep. Was the cop still in danger? (depends on how they want to defend this, and depends on how the prosecution steers this case). TBD. If the cop was still in danger, because the guy was still a threat, because he had a dangerous weapon in his hands, is the cop allowed to shoot anywhere except center mass. "Excessive" as Muck described doesnt technically, legally come into play (unless one of you can explain to me WHICH BULLET killed him, which no one can/has been able to), so therefore, if you dont know what bullet killed him, deeming every "extra" bullet "excessive", you cant say this. He didnt die until he was in the Amber Lamps, much later.
If the cop shot him once, and he died, would any of you complain? LaQuan resisted the commands of the police, attacked a cop with a knife, slashed a cop car tire, strongly appeared to be under the influence of PCP, was armed with a weapon (was NOT WALKING AWAY from the officer) and was approaching an officer and was within a dangerous distance of the cop and wouldnt put down the weapon when told to numerous time. Those are facts.
Let them debate why he shot him the amount that he did (keeping in mind, the actual odds of him hitting him are like 1 out of every 4 shots, so hitting him 16 times was incredibly, incredibly rare.
Is he going to get in trouble for not shooting at center mass? Did he suffer from "tunnel vision", where you just look at the sight and just keep pulling the trigger, and fall into a type of trance, as you shoot to protect yourself? Let those attorneys do battle. Try to prove this was premeditated for 1st degree.....how?
Anita Alvarez, the states attorney, who finally filed the charges, about a year later, after coming under all kinds of pressure to do so, just recused herself from this last week, and is letting others try this case. That will delay it even further.
And Rahm, by opening his big mouth and publicly being biased against the CPD, affected this case, and now the defense attorney can petition to get this case out of the Chicago area due to public bias, and then he can get it sent to a BENCH trial, as opposed to a jury trial, where in a Jury trial, you are facing the jurors, and who knows how that could go. But in a BENCH trial, a judge gets to listen to facts and laws, and will use those to rule on the case, which puts this in favor of VanDyk being found Not Guilty.
For Muck Ficon:
"Your Honor....officer Van Dyk killed him 'excessively'...we demand justice!!
So, he could have just killed him and that would have been OK, legally, but you are suing because he REALLY REALLY Killed him?
"Yes, Your Honor". It was excessively excessive killing."
<judge looks through his lawschool notes>
Uh....
FIN
Im kind of being a smart ass there, because, I think many of us would think that once the guy gets shot, and goes to the ground, many of us would say "THREATS OVER"...let him sit there.
Its up to the officer(s) on the scene to describe what happened at that moment. Once you are in fear for your life, and the determination that you can use lethal force, what took place for the next few seconds, and what was going through VanDyk's mind, and what was the training, and what was he allowed to do. Court will be fascinating. He apparently has a very good attorney for this defense (Im not sold on him being the best attorney for it though), but which ever side moves first with their argument for something, will dictate how the chess game goes from there, more than likely. Its by no way an easy case.
There is something wrong with your mindset, we're not acting. Whether it was legal or not, 16 shots is excessive especially when the person was laid out on the floor after the second shot. When any other person is shot 16 times they all it a crime of passion. It shows you were doing it out of anger. If you are the kind of dick who shoots someone 16 times because you know it is "technically" legal, then you shouldn't be a cop. I think that is what we are all trying to say.
DRK: "No 16 shots werent necessary, but its not illegal and odds of all 16 hitting him are astronomical."
Only one of these three things is true.
White people......such a pain in the ass amiriteYour brother is a cop, you think 16 shots was justified and you are voting for Trump... Those are the 3 points I madeActually, im disappointed in Gallo here. He and I have discussed most of what he just commented on, and he made completely incorrect statements. I guess he isnt listening to me....
"Comments
DRK Star: that makes no sense"
DRK, don't be silly. If it were legal he wouldn't be charged with murder. And the odds of him hitting all 16 shots aren't "astronomical". If I remember correctly he dropped him with the 1st shot and then shot him 15 more times while he was basically immobile. If anything it would have been impossible for a trained marksman to miss any of those shots (unless he was missing on purpose)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
