Chicago Police Officer charged with murder in shooting 17 year old black kid 16 times [Video]

[DRK Star]

Tell me what you think the cop did wrong, and WHY its wrong.

the cop, adrenaline fueled <I HAVE NO IDEA>, drove himself to the scene<YES>, pulled his gun and shot 16 times<YES>. he has many other options at his disposal to take him out without shooting 16 times<NO HE DID NOT. HE HAS A GUN AND MACE (NO ONE IN THAT SITUATION WILL USE MACE AS ITS WORTHLESS ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER REASONS HE AND MAYBE OTHERS DID NOT WANT TO GET ANY CLOSER TO HIM. THE LAW ALLOWS HIM TO USE DEADLY FORCE IN THAT SITUATION AND THE LAW DOES NOT SAY HE CANT SHOOT 16 TIMES. IT DOES HOWEVER DEFINE WHAT IS "EXCESSIVE", NOW ITS UP TO PEOPLE TO DETERMINE, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, IF HE WAS EXCESSIVE>, nobody else felt the need to shoot one time<IF YOU WERE AWARE OF THE LAYOUT OF ALL THE POLICE AND BYSTANDERS ALL AROUND, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF ANOTHER COP SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SHOT OR NOT, BUT KEEP IN MIND, MANY COPS LIKELY HAD OTHER COPS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AND WOULD HAVE RISKED SHOOTING PEOPLE/COPS OVER THERE HAD THEY MISSED>, that's what the cop did wrong.

why it's wrong, he's not the executioner<AGAIN, HE IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO USE DEADLY FORCE. IF THE PERSON DIES, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU SUE THE COP FOR>, he shouldn't be making that decision<THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HIS JOB IS...TO DETERMINE WHEN TO USE DEADLY FORCE, WHEN ITS NECESSARY. IF THE GUY DID NOT HAVE A KNIFE, THINGS WOULD HAVE GONE DIFFERENTLY, AS THEY ARE TRAINED TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS BASED ON THE SITUATION. THEY WERE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, FOR ALMOST 20 MINUTES APPARENTLY, TO USE DEADLY FORCE, BUT TRIED NOT TO UNTIL ONE OF THE OFFICERS DEEMED IT NECESSARY>. especially and CLEARLY not in the right state of mind<YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING OR MAKING THAT CLAIM, AND THAT IS FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE>, which most cops aren't<DID YOU JUST MAKE A CLAIM THAT MOST COPS ARENT IN A"RIGHT STATE OF MIND"?>. I'm sure this guy has a history of being unstable at best<HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE THIS CLAIM?!!> and should be charged with murder in the first degree<I DONT THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVEN TO CHARGE SOMEONE AND GET A 1ST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE, BUT EVERYONE INVOLVED IS HIGHLY DOUBTING THIS WILL STICK>, he wanted this guy dead and had time to think about it. <HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY MAKE THIS STATEMENT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT STATE OF MIND HE WAS IN?> but keep the crickets coming sir.

Hopefully you can read what I wrote and understand where your thought process has "strayed". You are making blind assumptions where you cant possibly know the scenario or status. Im not trying to be an ass here...Im trying to show you how these things go from a LEGAL standpoint. Whether or not you feel he was "murdered", the law feels differently. Dont read what I typed with some heated up passion...read it from a legal perspective.

I could be completely wrong, because they may have some mystery evidence that no one is aware of at all, but I can tell you from a Chicago Police perspective, 1st degree is silly. She would have to have some evidence like paperwork that he wrote up or something on tape saying "Im going to kill someone today". It has to be premeditated. The audio wasnt on in the cars, apparently, so that rules that out. If the cop knew this kid (I guess thats always a chance, especially if he has arrested the same kid a bunch of times in the past...maybe that took place, and words were exchanged?...) that could be used. THIS is what is puzzling to so many...there just doesnt seem to be a realistic reason to charge him with this, so why does she?