[ad_1]
Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke looks at the closing statements of the prosecution at his first-degree murder trial for Laquan McDonald's shooting death.
Antonio Perez / AP
hide the legend
activate the legend
Antonio Perez / AP
Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke looks at the closing statements of the prosecution at his first-degree murder trial for Laquan McDonald's shooting death.
Antonio Perez / AP
Lawyers from both sides presented their case to the jury on Thursday in the murder of Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke in the murder of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.
Van Dyke, 40, faces charges of first degree murder, grievous bodily harm and professional misconduct in the shooting death of October 20, 2014 in the southwestern part of the city.
Prosecutors: "It's a first degree murder"
Prosecutors said Thursday that the jury could also sentence the officer suspended for second-degree murder, resulting in a minimum sentence of probation.
But Attorney General Joseph McMahon told the jurors the case and urged them to sentence Van Dyke for the most serious charges.
"That's Jason Van Dyke who is shooting 16 bullets in Laquan McDonald's flesh – this is not justified, it's not necessary, it's a first degree murder," said McMahon.
McMahon, as he had done in his opening statements at trial, again implicated racism and Van Dyke shooting at "a kid" simply for ignoring authority.
"We are here because Jason Van Dyke has not attached enough importance to Laquan McDonald's life to do anything other than shoot him," McMahon said.
A few minutes before the jury began to receive instructions, McMahon attacked the defense case. He pointed out that Van Dyke had testified that McDonald was alive and was trying to get up while the officer was still firing – a direct contradiction from defense experts who claimed that the first shots would have been fatal.
Earlier in her speech, Assistant Attorney Jody Gleason emphasized that "no reasonable police officer" would think that a deadly force was needed in the case of McDonald's.
"It's not the Wild West here, where an officer can use lethal force and shoot an individual, then try to justify it later," she said.
Gleason has complied with the points that prosecutors have tried to return home – every shot has contributed to McDonald's death. She again insisted that an officer equipped with a Taser was 45 seconds away and that Van Dyke had waited only six seconds before opening fire.
"[Van Dyke] watched McDonald for six seconds, six seconds, before making the irrevocable decision to shoot him, not once, but 16 times, "said Gleason.
Defense: McDonald's as a "monster"
Van Dyke's lawyer, Dan Herbert, used his latest arguments to dig holes in the "unprecedented" case of the prosecution. Referring to the fact that McDonald was carrying a knife with a three-inch blade, Herbert pointed out to the jury that a knife was a lethal weapon and that McDonald's would still be alive if he had followed police orders and dropped the weapon.
Herbert insisted that the infamous video of the dashcam was not from Van Dyke's point of view and emphasized the testimony of Van Dyke's partner, who stated that the shooting was necessary.
Herbert also attacked "overzealous prosecutors" for hinting that Van Dyke was motivated by race: "Do you see any evidence that race has anything to do with this case?" evidence, you use arguments, "he said.
He compared McDonald's to a monster movie character and reminded the jury that the teenager had attacked a truck driver and had cut off the tire of a police vehicle moments before the murder.
"When a monster turns around and looks at the victim, the music starts playing," said Herbert.
He added that Van Dyke may not have known that McDonald was involved in the PCP on illegal drugs, but that the officer could recognize that the teenager had been "defeated". Herbert cited the testimony of drug addiction expert James O'Donnell during the trial, that the PCP may cause "rabies, aggression, violent behavior".
Herbert ended his 55-minute argument by showing the jury the law and reminding them that Van Dyke had the power to fire on McDonald's because the teenager had become a fugitive criminal after he broke up in trucks in a nearby car park.
The testimony of Van Dyke
Earlier this week, Van Dyke went to the witness stand and admitted to having shot McDonald's, while claiming that the teen was approaching him with a knife. Prosecutors said that Van Dyke did not need to film McDonald's – let alone 16 times – and repeatedly showed the jury a video of the camera that seems to show the teenager's attention. away from the agent.
The shooting drew national attention in November 2015, when a judge ordered city officials to broadcast police video showing the policewoman in white showing the white officer firing at the ### 39, black teen. The political fallout lasted for months: the first police officer was sacked, the local state's lawyer was removed from his duties and the US Justice Department discovered that Chicago police officers were poorly trained .
After nearly three years of preliminary hearings, the racially motivated trial began on 5 September with the selection of the jury. It took about a week to find 12 jurors and five substitutes. The eight women and four men who will decide the fate of Van Dyke seem to be composed of seven whites, three Hispanics, an African-American and an African-American.
The jury should start deliberating on Thursday afternoon and could spend the weekend and beyond, if necessary.
This is a story in development. Check back for updates.
For more on the trial, listen WBEZ's "16 Shots" podcast.
Source link
