The past 18 months have seen a slew of police murders of unarmed civilians—many of them African American—captured on video. Black journalists in particular have talked about how this affects them in the performance of their duties, as well as how it may be numbing to those who view the videos. For some of us, murder captured on video will always be jarring. But even the legal documents associated with such cases can be jarring.
Take, for example, the case of Johannes Mehserle. Mehserle is the former Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) cop convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Oscar Grant on January 1, 2009. Just prior to the start of the trial his attorney prepared a brief for the court making requests to be ruled on by the judge. On the first page of his motion, he asks the court to require the prosecution not to refer to Oscar Grant, who was shot in the back while face down, as a victim since that “ … assumes a crime has been committed.” In the following pages Mehserle’s attorney also requests the court to mandate that Mehserle, who resigned his position before being questioned by BART’s investigators, be referred to as Officer Mehserle, thus retaining the privilege and “respect” of a law enforcement officer; and to not refer to Grant’s slaying as a “murder.”
“Legally” and technically correct and proper? Yes. Callous and vulgar? Absolutely.
The proffer for bail for Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer charged with murder in the death of Laquan McDonald, also appears to be a run-of-the-mill legal brief. Written with less legalese than many legal papers, it’s pretty much a straight recitation of the facts of what happened to McDonald, thus providing the rationale for the state’s attorney’s request of no bail for Van Dyke.
But it’s the simple recitation of the facts that is the most chilling.
- The dispatcher who alerted police stated McDonald had a knife and asked if any available units had Tasers. None responded that they had Tasers, but several responded that they were nearby or en route.
- One squad car says that McDonald popped the tires on their car, but they did not murder him in the street.
- The document states that two businesses in the area had video of the incident but that they were not helpful. The document does not state that police officers later erased video of the shooting.
- The document states that, per the dash cam, McDonald is walking away from Van Dyke. It does not state that the video shows McDonald lunging at or striking at Van Dyke. Because he wasn’t.
- Van Dyke was on the scene for less than 30 seconds before he opened fire on McDonald
- Van Dyke began firing at McDonald approximately six seconds after he exited his vehicle
- From the time of his first shot to the last one, approximately 14 to 15 seconds transpired.
- McDonald was laying on the ground for 13 of the 14 to 15 seconds that Van Dyke was shooting at him.
- Van Dyke was the only one of eight officers on the scene who fired at McDonald.
- Van Dyke emptied his 9-millimeter gun clip into McDonald and began to reload.
- Van Dyke did not resume firing at McDonald because another officer told him to stop; the officer heard McDonald struggling to breathe and decided that was a good time kick the knife out of McDonald’s hands. The officer didn’t want to get shot.
- Of the 16 bullets that hit McDonald, only two can definitively be said to have hit him while he was standing—one in his right upper leg and one in his right lower back. The video clearly shows McDonald spinning around to face Van Dyke and then falling. The first shot was in his back.
- The officers who first encountered McDonald, prior to when Van Dyke and his partner entered into the equation, did not see a need to use force against McDonald.
These are the facts of this case. You can view the copy of the proffer here.
The Illinois State’s Attorney prepared this document on November 24, 2015. Thirteen months, millions of dollars, numerous protests, one erased tape, and one lawsuit later, the video was released and Jason Van Dyke was taken into custody and charged with murder
This entire affair is sickening, disgusting, horrendous, and outrageous.
Those are the additional facts of this case.