How fickle our electorate can be

It can be amusing to see just how quickly we, the voters of Chicago and Cook County, can turn on the political people we elect.

FOXX: Legal savior, now demonized

Almost as though all we really want to do on Election Day is “throw da bums out,” rather than try to judge public officials on their merits and pick the best qualified people.

IT MAKES ME think that just about three years ago, the public sentiment was such that people were looking for an excuse to dump State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez from office. The popular sentiment amongst many was that anybody with sense would choose Kim Foxx to be the county’s head prosecutor.

Sure enough, Foxx won the Democratic primary of 2016. Very few people were the least bit upset to see Alvarez depart – with some wishing she could have suffered something much more severe as part of public officials being prosecuted for the shooting death of a black teenager by a Chicago cop.

But now? How times change!

Foxx is finding herself demonized for the fact that the state’s attorney’s office decided to drop the criminal charges that had been filed against actor Jussie Smollett.

POLICE SUPERINTENDENT EDDIE Johnson is “furious.” Soon-to-be former Mayor Rahm Emanuel says he wants Smollett to have to reimburse Chicago for the cost of the police investigation (some $130,000) against him.

ALVAREZ: Will her legacy change?

Many pundits are going about saying that Foxx will have to take the blame for the failure of Chicago’s law enforcement community to get a criminal conviction of sorts against Smollett.

Heck, some people are going about speculating that even the now-demonized Alvarez wouldn’t have let Smollett walk away unprosecuted – and capable of going around saying he’s the victim of police incompetence.

People already are gunning for Foxx to be dumped from office when she faces re-election in 2020. From reformer looking out for the protection of the people to corrupt hack. It took her just a couple of years. She may never be capable of shaking this stain from her public persona.

WHICH IS SOMETHING we probably ought to keep in mind when it comes to other political posts.

PRECKWINKLE: Once progressive, now a hack

Take mayor, for instance.

Toni Preckwinkle went through her time as alderman and as Cook County Board president with something of a “goo goo” reputation, and was supposed to be the political progressive amongst the 14 candidates who tried becoming mayor in this year’s election cycle.

But when Preckwinkle made it to the run-off stage of the electoral process against a candidate so much like herself, Preckwinkle’s experience made her the “political hack.” Opponent Lori Lightfoot has tried to claim her inexperience in electoral office merely means she hasn’t had the chance to become tainted by it all.

PRECKWINKLE IS BEING demonized now with the issues that her challengers in the 2016 county board presidency campaign tried unsuccessfully to use against her. We’re hearing now more about that pop tax the county tried imposing a few years ago. That issue’s time has come.

LIGHTFOOT: How long 'til electorate turns on her?

Of course, this trend is ongoing. So perhaps before we get all absorbed in the notion of Lori our government savior who’s going to shine a light on everything, keep in mind that it could easily shift gears and voters will rant and rage about how they could ever have been silly enough to think Lightfoot deserved election.

Perhaps her lack of experience, once she has to go up against the political powers-that-be will be such that the electorate will turn on her. It will be intriguing to see how quickly that shift happens, and just what the issue will be that will sway the electorate against her.

Not that I’m feeling all that much sympathy for any of the candidates. Or even for the government that is supposed to represent our interests. For the fact is that we usually get a government of the quality of the people whom we elect. Which means we tend to “get” what we deserve come Elections day.

  -30-

It won’t be easy to lock up Jason Van Dyke and ‘throw away’ key, it seems

It seems like not all that long ago that a Cook County jury returned the verdict that turned one-time Chicago cop Jason Van Dyke into a convicted killer, albeit one of the second degree.

VAN DYKE: A legal break? Or justice!?

Remember the elation that some people made a point of showing that day, marching through the streets of downtown Chicago to literally make it clear they were ecstatic at the thought that a white cop was off to prison.

IN THEIR WILDEST fantasies for something close to a life prison term. Something that would show what an outrage it was that he thought he could claim self-defense and “just doing his job” to justify the multiple gunshots he fired at a teenage boy – one who happened to be black.

Some went so far as to claim it was evidence that “justice” had been served against a “killer cop.”

While others, I’m sure, sat and stewed at the very thought that a police officer was being punished for doing his job – which on occasion requires use of physical force.

That was then. This is now!

FOR THE SUPREME Court of Illinois came down with a ruling Tuesday that I’m sure will infuriate the masses who were marching in the streets last year.

Basically, they backed up the way that Judge Vincent Gaughan handled the sentencing. Which basically was to give him a light prison term on the second-degree murder conviction, while ignoring all the aggravated battery charges that the jury piled on to their decision.

Those charges, all 16 – one for each pistol shot Van Dyke fired at his youthful assailant, were the ones that were supposed to add up to so much prison time that we’d literally have Van Dyke agonizing at the thought of decade upon decade in prison before finally dying.

Except, perhaps, for those ghoulish types whose idea of humor would be to have Van Dyke use a bed sheet to hang himself in his cell.

THAT DOESN’T SEEM in the cards.

For the Supreme Court rejected a request by the Illinois Attorney General’s office to reject the just-over-six-year prison term that Gaughan handed down.

They wanted the almighty Supreme Court to force Gaughan to resentence him in a way that would be more in keeping for those who want to see Van Dyke killed like a killer cop. Which now just ain’t a gonna happen!

The reality is that while I’m sure there are still legal motions that could be attempted on the off-hopes that a law clerk might be swayed enough to tell his judge to consider the merits of such an appeal, the point is they’re going to be long-shots.

WE MAY HAVE to accept the fact that the legal merits of the Van Dyke case are resolved. Now it’s just a matter of Van Dyke “doing” his time – which with time off for good behavior will come to about three years. He’s going to have something resembling a life left after he is released.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that the separation will turn out to be too much for the Van Dyke family – which may well be permanently fractured. That is something we will have to wait and see for ourselves.

I’m also sure that Van Dyke, now being held in a prison facility in upstate New York himself will think he’s suffering amply – his case is so notorious there isn’t a prison facility in Illinois capable of holding him without constant repeats of that beating incident while in a cell in Danbury, Ct., got national notoriety.

While others, I’m sure, will forevermore claim his fate is still better than the one Laquan McDonald suffered – an eternal rest in death at a Forest Park cemetery. A suburb whose residents likely would have freaked out and called for the cops if the teenager had ever set foot there while alive.

  -30-

The issue that won’t die; Van Dyke fate

Former Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke may now be a convicted felon sentenced to serve a few years in prison (although Illinois Corrections Department officials still won’t say exactly which one) for the death of a teenager – but the racially-tinged shooting incident won’t wither away.

VAN DYKE: Case lingers on

For it seems that both the special prosecutor who oversaw the criminal case AND the Illinois attorney general’s office are considering legal maneuvers that could try to force a new prison sentence to be imposed.

SOMETHING, PERHAPS, CLOSER to the 18 to 20 years that prosecutors sought from Judge Vincent Gaughan, rather than the 6-year, 9-month sentence (of which he’s already done 3 months in the Rock Island County jail) that could see him released in a little over three years time.

Van Dyke was found guilty last autumn on a charge of murder in the second degree (implying there was some mitigating factor that could sort of justify the killing) and multiple counts of aggravated battery.

Literally one count for each of the 16 shots that Van Dyke was found to have fired at Laquan McDonald. Which theoretically could have resulted in prison time for each shot and could have added up to something close to 100 years of time,

In my own (admittedly non-law school educated) mind, that combination of charges never made sense. They conflicted with each other, and the real question to me about the sentencing that took place last week was how would Gaughan manage to reconcile the mismatch.

McDONALD: Means more in death than life

HE WOUND UP doing so by basing the sentence for Van Dyke off the second-degree murder charge and ignoring all those additional charges that could have brought about the lengthy, life-like prison term that the activist types eager to see imposed on a white cop for killing a black male who hadn’t even reached the age of maturity back on that October 2014 night that he was shot to death because he was acting erratically (his mind was messed up on illicit drugs that night) while walking around the neighborhood near a Burger King franchise.

It seems the legal minds wishing to appease those activists are wondering if the Illinois Supreme Court could issue a mandamus order – which essentially would say Gaughan screwed up and emphasized the wrong criminal charge.

Which could result in a resentencing with results more satisfactory to those people who back in autumn marched through the streets of downtown Chicago in celebration of the fact that a “cracker cop” got what he deserved by being found guilty.

RAOUL: Will he take on appeal?

We’ll have to see if Joseph McMahon (the special prosecutor brought in from suburban Kane County) or newly-elected state Attorney General Kwame Raoul wants to take on this issue – or is willing to accept the prison time that Van Dyke already must serve.

SOME WILL SAY that Van Dyke is now a former cop with a criminal record – which pretty much ruins him for any type of life he had hoped to live. They’re likely to think that prolonging this legal argument only stirs up more resentment amongst the city’s populace.

Although others will think the resentment lingers for as long as Van Dyke gets a penalty less severe than their imaginations have concocted.

This may be the real harm of the racist policies that were considered legitimate in our society in the past – they’ve created so much anger that it’s almost like we’re going to need white people to suffer unjustly in order to balance things out.

Which would only serve to ensure these racial tensions linger amongst us for decades to come – particularly fed on by nitwits in support of the Age of Trump we now live in who may well want to think that the only victim in this whole affair is Van Dyke himself!

OF COURSE, THERE will be others eager to keep the memory of this incident alive. Consider that newly-elected state Rep. Anne Stava-Murray, D-Naperville, is enhancing her reputation as someone eager to draw attention to herself by ticking off the sensibilities of political people around her.

STAVA-MURRAY: Wants McDonald Act

Stava-Murray introduced as her first bill ever a measure creating the Laquan McDonald Act. A measure applying only to Chicago and creating procedures by which we could have recall elections for mayor and alderman in Chicago and state’s attorney in Cook County.

It really does come across as an attention-grabber from the freshman legislator who already has indicated she’s not seeking re-election in 2020 – and instead will challenge Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., for his post on Capitol Hill. It certainly isn’t about necessary changes to the law – the electorate dumped Anita Alvarez as state’s attorney back in 2016 and Rahm Emanuel didn’t even try to seek re-election, largely because of public disgust over what happened to Laquan.

As though we’re supposed to forever remember Laquan, and not think of that silly clown and his mediocre hamburgers every time we hear the phrase “McDonald” in the future.

  -30-

Everybody upset w/ Van Dyke verdict

I suspect there was a moment, however brief, of joy when Judge Vincent Gaughan said “81 …,” giving people the impression that a former Chicago cop convicted of the shooting death of a 17-year-old black teen was about to put the 40-year-old cop away to rot in prison for life.

VAN DYKE: Nearly 7 years

But then, Gaughan continued with “… months,” not years.

AS IN GAUGHAN decided that his prison term will only last a period of just under seven years – of which he’s already served three months in the county jail out in Rock Island, Ill.

Considering that the family of Laquan McDonald came out and said Friday that they thought a prison term of at least 20 years was essential for Van Dyke to be properly punished.

And, in fact, prosecutors themselves made a recommendation of an 18- to 20-year prison term for Van Dyke.

But Gaughan ultimately chose to concoct a prison term based off the fact that Van Dyke was found guilty of a second-degree murder charge, and not to factor in all those additional counts of aggravated battery with a firearm – which in theory could have made for a prison term of nearly 100 years possible.

“A JOKE AND a slap in the face,” along with a slew of obscenities, was the reaction of McDonald’s family to the prison sentence after the sentence was handed down following a day-long sentencing hearing that occurred Friday.

McDONALD: Gone nearly as long as Van Dyke

But Gaughan made a point of saying he figured “100 percent” of people were going to be offended by his sentence. I don’t doubt that, because Van Dyke’s family made emotional pleas saying they have already suffered severely by the loss of Jason to incarceration for any length of time.

As it was, they argued that a sentence of probation would have been appropriate. Which I don’t doubt was an idea of great offense to the McDonald family. As it was, Laquan’s uncle read a letter into the record on Friday that was written as though it was crafted by McDonald himself.

Telling us that he was trying to make something of his life, give up his drug addictions, and that Van Dyke, by firing the 16 shots into his body, deprived him of that opportunity.

GAUGHAN: Upset 100 percent of people

THERE IS ONE thing that has to be conceded – it could have gone much worse for Van Dyke. He’ll be about 46 years old when he is released from prison. In short, he has a chance to put together a “rest of his life.” Even though I don’t doubt he’ll view the next six or so years as the most hellish experience he’ll ever have to endure.

It’s not going to be a pretty experience for a law enforcement officer. But some people see this whole Van Dyke ordeal as being about making police suffer.

If anything, they’re even more upset by the ruling earlier this week that three police officers facing criminal charges for filing false reports about what it was Van Dyke did to McDonald were NOT guilty.

There are those who wanted Van Dyke to rot in prison, and see a complete crackdown on the Chicago Police Department. Anything short of that is going to cause them to feel nothing but contempt for our legal system.

THEN AGAIN, THERE probably is nothing that would please those individuals. Some people get way too hung up on the concept of retribution. Even though what we as a society ought to be trying to do is figure out the way to move beyond this incident.

McCARTHY: Would win be seen as police victory?

Because the reality of the whole affair is that there’s nothing that can be done to bring Laquan McDonald back to life. There’s nothing that will restore the type of life that Jason Van Dyke had, or will protect his family from the harm they’re suffering as a result of what happened on that October night of 2014.

Of course, there could be one coming blow in the near future that would further “rub it in” the very notion that law enforcement is protecting itself, and NOT the public. What happens if Garry McCarthy somehow wins the mayoral election of February and run-off of April?

For McCarthy was the police superintendent who lost his job because of Van Dyke’s actions. Would the people eager to protect the police image be strong enough to make him our city’s mayor?

  -30-

Just what constitutes Justice?

VAN DYKE: What will be left of life?

I can already hear the rants from people who fear that justice (or is that Justice! with a capital “J”) won’t be served in coming weeks.

The would-be defendants whom some are eager to see prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law (if not beyond the extend, with the mythical “book” being thrown at them) are none other than Alderman Edward M. Burke and former police officer Jason Van Dyke.

BURKE: Does he still have a political life?

VAN DYKE, OF course, is the white police officer who was found guilty last year of criminal offenses in the 2014 shooting death of a teenager who happens to be black.

While Burke is the long-time alderman named in a criminal complaint suggesting that he went too far in terms of shaking down a business that wants to remodel a Gage Park neighborhood Burger King franchise.

The very franchise, in fact, where Laquan McDonald, the black teenager, was shot nearby on that night in ’14 when he didn’t stop fast enough to satisfy Van Dyke’s concerns.

It seems that federal prosecutors would like to strengthen their criminal case against Burke by getting a grand jury to indict him on some sort of charge – perhaps something far more significant than he currently faces.

WHICH IS WHY attorneys were in court this week. In theory, prosecutors had until Friday – the next scheduled court date – before they would have to put up or shut up, so to say. Instead, an extension was granted. May 3 is now the significant date.

A fact that will anger those people so eager for a Burke criminal conviction that they dream of it being the factor that knocks him out of the running for the Feb. 26 municipal elections.

Legal notoriety? Or is all publicity good?

Even if the 14^th Ward aldermanic race stretches to an April 2 run-off (which is very likely), it means the elections will be over before we know exactly what will become of Burke on the criminal justice front. He could easily wind up being re-elected before actual charges are known.

It will complicate the desires of those who just want Ed Burke out of office – and really don’t care much about the specific details. It sort of makes it easier for Burke to focus on campaigning for re-election if actual criminal charges are theoretical.

AS FOR FRIDAY in court, it now means nothing for Burke. But for those eager to see criminal justice action that day, the focus will be solely on Van Dyke.

For he’s the one found guilty of second degree murder and multiple counts of aggravated battery with a firearm. Theoretically, he could get multiple sentences for each charge that could have a minimum of 96 years in prison.

A sentence that would appease those people eager to see a cop go to prison for what they will forevermore see as a racially-motivated slaying. But prosecutors admitted this week there is a way to interpret the sentencing guidelines so that Van Dyke could theoretically get 15 years of actual prison time.

At age 40 now, he’d be 55 upon release. Which would still allow him a chance to have some life left in freedom – even though it will be his aging years, as the rest of what’s left of his youth would be spent in prison somewhere.

IT WILL BE interesting to see how Judge Vincent Gaughan interprets the law in this case. I have no doubt everybody’s going to be outraged – from those who want Van Dyke to get some form of probation up to those who want him to get a lengthy, demoralizing prison term then want him to die at the hands of his fellow inmates.

GAUGHAN: Expected to impose sentence Friday

Which is a sick attitude to have, but it is one that becomes all too common amongst the general public. The very reason why we don’t let public sentiment play too much of a role in criminal cases.

Similar to those who would like to see Ed Burke get hauled off to the pokey, so to speak, as punishment for all the ideologically-motivated acts he committed throughout his 50 years in the City Council.

Public sentiment all too often leads to rash acts that, in and of themselves, are an injustice.

  -30-

EXTRA: Guilty, to the second degree!

A Cook County criminal court jury went with a "guilty" verdict Friday on a charge of murder to the second degree against Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke, which is an offense that theoretically could result in a probation sentence.

Van Dyke at the 'moment' of truth, as viewed on CLTV. Photo by Gregory Tejeda

Yet they also returned "guilty" verdicts on all the counts (16) of aggravated battery for each gunshot fired by Van Dyke against teenager Laquan McDonald. Those are charges that include mandatory prison time for each shot fired that could pile up into a significant sentence (hundreds of years) in a state correctional institution.

SO WHAT SHOULD we think? Personally, I'm confused. Did the jury think they were giving him a break; while wielding a wrathful hammer instead? Some are already expressing disgust at what they think was an attempt to issue a compromise verdict, rather than a truthful one.

I'm sure people will continue to quibble over this outcome for years to come. After all, it was so significant that the live TV reporting on the verdict caused the game show "Jeopardy" to be pre-empted, amongst others. A fact that I'm sure peeved certain people even more than the verdict itself.

We'll hear again from the court on Oct. 31. Will it be "Trick or Treat" for Van Dyke? Let the protests begin!

  -30-

Will Van Dyke be bold enough to ‘take the stand’ to defend his conduct?

It’s a standard question going into a criminal trial – will the defendant testify in his own case.

Van Dyke is one of many thousands of criminal defendants to pass through this nearly-century-old building

There are those who think Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke desperately needs to give his perspective of the happenings of Oct. 20, 2014 – the night he killed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.

I STATE THAT as a fact beyond dispute; McDonald is dead and buried and not going to have the life his parents would have dreamed for him because of Van Dyke’s actions.

Which is why this entire trial is not about what Van Dyke did – but why!

Because we do give our police significant authority to use force, including deadly force, in the performance of their jobs. Which is why defense attorneys have tried to present the image of a McDonald who was strung out on drugs to the point where he was out of control.

Which made that knife he was waving about a very deadly weapon to anybody who happened to be near him.

IT’S CLEAR FROM the four days of testimony that prosecutors presented that they want us to think of this as an open-and-shut case. Van Dyke fired multiple gunshots into McDonald’s body and he died. So now, Van Dyke must go to prison.

But life is never that clear-cut, even though all of us want to believe life’s questions can all be answered with “yes” or “no.”

So when the Van Dyke defense begins its work come Monday at the Criminal Courts building, the big issue will be whether Van Dyke himself will take the stand and submit to questions about what he did that night in ’14.

VAN DYKE: Will he be able to clear his name?

Van Dyke has the legal right to refuse to say anything. He can’t be forced to take the stand and submit to questions. We require prosecutors to prove their own cases – and do not permit them to intimidate people into testifying against themselves.

IN FACT, MANY criminal cases do not result in a defendant taking the stand. I have seen countless trials in which a defendant does not put up any defense – with attorneys arguing that prosecutors so clearly failed to prove their case they don’t feel the need to say or do anything for the record.

And yes, it has worked, because the burden of proof is on prosecutors to show their case is legitimate. I’m sure Van Dyke would like to think he falls into that category.

But there are people who want to hear Van Dyke’s own words about that night. It’s almost as though they’re a group of “Ricky Ricardos,” telling Van Dyke’s “Lucy” to “splain” himself and what he was thinking when his reaction four years ago to encountering McDonald was to pull out his pistol and fire 16 shots into Laquan’s body.

But if he does that, he also opens himself up to questioning from prosecutors, who with their “yes” or “no” mentality will be more than willing to put pointed questions to him meant to make Van Dyke appear to be mean and vindictive.

IN FACT, I have seen criminal trials where prosecutors are so demanding of a “yes” or “no”-type answer that they refuse to allow the elaboration of detail usually required to get at the whole truth of a situation.

Despite the claims of legal officials that our judicial system is meant to elicit truth, my own experiences in covering courts throughout the years have led me to believe the reality is that prosecutors and defense attorneys are given the chance to present their own versions of what they want us to believe happened – then we leave it up to that mythical “jury of our peers” to decide which version we believe.

Will police reputation escape taint?

So does Van Dyke have enough faith in his memory of what happened that night that he’ll be willing to submit to prosecutorial questions meant to trip him up? Will his take on the events sway anyone who has spent the past four years developing their own impression of what they believe happened that night?

Or will it become more fodder for the cynics of our society that this trial – which is progressing much more quickly than I would have expected – was “rigged” from the beginning?

  -30-

Do we really give police officers this much authority to use physical force?

Perhaps it is only appropriate that on the first day of activity in the criminal trial of police officer Jason Van Dyke, attention was brought to the concept that the alleged criminal activity was captured on video.

Serving and protecting us? Or harassment?

Let’s be honest – if that video from a police officer’s own camera didn’t exist, it’s very likely that there would be no trial and Van Dyke would have spent the past four years continuing to work his beat and be one of the officers allegedly enforcing the laws for the people of Chicago.

WHEN OPENING STATEMENTS were made Monday at the Criminal Courts building (Judge Vincent Gaughan ultimately rejected all notions of moving the trial outside of Chicago), special prosecutor Joseph McMahon emphasized the video and the number of shots (16) from his pistol that Van Dyke fired into the body of Laquan McDonald.

In a touch of hamming things up a bit, McMahon literally pounded his fist on a lectern to do a count-down of each shot, and even emphasized the point when the eighth shot was fired – so as to imply that Van Dyke wasn’t even close to finishing his gunfire at that point.

Almost as though he thinks (and wants the jury to believe) that everything else is irrelevant, and we all ought to just issue the “guilty” verdict right now – saving us all time and hassle by carting Van Dyke off to prison right now.

But the legal process instead will be spending the next few weeks trying to establish whether there was any justification for the police officer’s actions.

WHICH ACTUALLY MADE another remark McMahon made all the more interesting.

He tried to summarize the incident of Oct. 20, 2014 (the night McDonald died) as one where Van Dyke saw, “a black boy (McDonald was 17) walking down a street with a chain-link fence with the audacity to ignore the police.”

But the reality is that we do give police significant authority to stop people. While they’re supposed to have “probable cause” to justify their actions, the reality is that it really doesn’t take much to give a cop the ability to question someone they find suspicious.

Trying to walk away from the police can be construed as resisting arrest. And if McDonald really was carrying a knife (as has been reported), that may well make this an “open-and-shut” case of a police officer being justified in using force – which would make the case one of justifiable homicide.

NOT THE “MURDER” that many have spent the past few years decrying the death of McDonald as being.

Now I’m not in the courtroom to see any of this. I don’t doubt that the jury is going to manage to offend some people – no matter how they choose to interpret any of this. I don’t expect anyone will be satisfied by the ultimate outcome of this trial.

I suspect the eventual verdict will offend the beliefs of everybody who wants to think this is a clear-cut case.

In reality, there is only one definitive “fact,” Jason Van Dyke did fire 16 shots from his weapon that killed Laquan McDonald.

THE REST OF the story? We’re going to get an up-close lesson as to just how much force police are allowed to use in the act of doing their jobs; which amount to that old cliché about “serving and protecting” the public.

On the one hand, we wouldn’t be issuing police officers those pistols and other countless weapons if we didn’t expect there would be circumstances upon which they would have to use them.

Then again, we do need to have some sense of restraint – otherwise our “protectors” would be nothing more than the official city-sponsored goon squad. Certainly not something anybody with sense would want to see.

Where is the “line” between force and abuse? That question really is the key to comprehending everything that we’ll see and hear during the trial’s coming weeks.

  -30-

Would Chicago be better off if Van Dyke were to get a bench trial?

Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer about to go on trial for a 2014 shooting death of a teenager, has until Friday to decide whether he wants his fate determined by a jury of his so-called peers, or by a judge.

GAUGHAN: Will he, or jurors, decide fate?

I can’t help but think we as a society would be better off if he were to get a bench trial – as in letting a judge decide his fate based solely on the merits of the law.

IT’S NOT THAT I have all that much faith in the mindset of the judiciary. It’s more that I suspect there’s no way any group of individuals will be capable of putting aside their emotions with this case.

We’re more likely to avoid offending the sensibilities of our society if we put this case into the hands of a judge.

Not that we can avoid offending people. When it comes to Van Dyke and the death of Laquan McDonald, there are going to be people who will be grossly offended – no matter how the case is resolved.

As things stand going into Friday, a 12-member jury has been picked, and officials say they expect four alternates who could be called upon if one of the dozen jurors winds up having to withdraw could be chosen soon.

WHICH IS WHY Judge Vincent Gaughan has given Van Dyke and his legal counsel until Friday to make the decision – jury trial, or bench trial?

If Van Dyke ultimately decides on a bench trial, then the outcome will be solely up to Gaughan. All of the jurors who have thus far been chosen will be dismissed – and they won’t ever have to make a decision on what should become of the cop who got captured on video firing 16 shots into McDonald’s body.

VAN DYKE:A decision to make by Friday

Defense, of course, sees this as a case of the teenager wielding a knife while walking down the street and behaving in ways that made it seem as though he was a threat to the public.

It’s apparent that Van Dyke took actions that resulted in McDonald’s death; although police officers are given authority to use deadly force on the job. Which makes this a trial solely about determining the line between justifiable homicide and murder.

IT’S SAD THAT this is going to become a race-tinged case. There already are those upset that the 12-member jury apparently has seven white people, three Latinos, one Asian and ONLY one black person.

The trial hasn’t even begun, and we’re already getting the accusations that defense attorneys went out of their way to eliminate as many black people from jury consideration as possible.

I don’t care if all four alternates wind up being African-American; we’ll get the claims that a group of white people refused to administer justice against a white cop. Although there will be others who will rant and rage about the notion of Van Dyke being prosecuted BECAUSE he’s white.

They’ll think acquittal is the only possible outcome that won’t be a travesty.

THAT IS WHY I’d prefer this to be a bench trial. Even though I’m sure the masses of Chicagoans who have taken an interest in this case will be prepared to decimate the legal reputation of Gaughan if he doesn’t ultimately rule in their favor with regards to Van Dyke. I actually have more faith in a judge to make such a decision than so-called civilians, and to understand the nuances of "the law" than some individual who likely is peeved that his/her life is being disrupted for a few weeks by being called upon for jury duty,

McDONALD: Chgo gets to relive his death

Because for every person determined to think Van Dyke is being unjustly prosecuted, there are also masses determined to believe that the only reasonable outcome is for Van Dyke to be brutalized while serving a prison term.

This truly is an ugly trial; one that will bring out all the nasty elements of our society. A part of me thinks we’d have been better off if Gaughan had accepted the suggestions that this trial venue be transferred to somewhere else.

It also makes me all the more grateful that my own name didn’t get called for consideration of jury duty because (with two uncles who served as Chicago police officers) I honestly don’t know how I’d have handled the questioning over whether I could be impartial in deciding between the gun-wielding cop or the knife-wielding teen.

  -30-

One bit of truth to Van Dyke’s talk?

VAN DYKE: His life's on trial

Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer who will go on trial beginning next week for a 2014 shooting incident that left a teenager dead, is telling a selective story to the Chicago Tribune – trying to get out some sense of the perspective that he’s not a thug in need of being locked away from society for life.

He gave the one-time World’s Greatest Newspaper an interview, and the competition Chicago Sun-Times felt compelled to do a quickie rewrite. Many broadcast outlets also are feeling compelled to acknowledge Van Dyke’s thoughts.

SO WHAT SHOULD we think of the officer who admits he shot and killed Laquan McDonald back in October of 2014? It certainly isn’t his claim that he faces the possibility of life imprisonment for doing his sworn duties as a Chicago police officer.

What caught my attention was Van Dyke’s statement, during a 40-minute interview with the newspaper where his attorneys often interceded and kept him from more thoroughly answering questions, that he acknowledges the potential consequences to the city at-large.

Could there wind up being some sort of riot by people who are offended by whatever verdict of his so-called peers that a jury winds up arriving at?

“I’m very scared for it. It obviously weighs heavily upon my mind,” Van Dyke said.

SOME, I’M SURE, will think back to the days of 1968 – where the Democratic National Convention protesters were not the only ones who experienced violence that year.

It was also the year that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by a racist-motivated assassin – and many black neighborhoods across the nation wound up in flames. Including in Chicago, where there are parts of the city’s West Side that for years remained in rubble and where they never recovered from the damage.

Does Van Dyke think he could be the cause of a similar reaction if he winds up being acquitted of the criminal charges? I don’t doubt some people would be grossly offended – and I have heard some activist types speculate how they fear this trial is headed for acquittal.

Van Dyke makes Page One in worst way possible

As though they expect “the establishment” will be prepared to protect a police officer because his “victim” was just a young, black male – particularly one whom prosecutors seem eager to label as a violent troublemaker who brought his fate upon himself.

TO TELL YOU the truth, I’m inclined to think it’s the other side that could get ugly – although I’d like to think that all could wind up showing some sense of self-restraint.

For in this Age of Trump that our society is now in, there are people who will be eager to defend Van Dyke as a cop doing his duty. They’ll want to think any kind of punishment is improper – and evidence that our society is all awry and out-of-whack with common sense.

People often talk about how there are “two Chicagos,” one upscale and thriving while the other is a dumping ground for those individuals whom the elite don’t want near them.

Could it be that Van Dyke and one’s attitude towards his actions will merely wind up being yet another bit of evidence as to which Chicago faction one falls into?

EVEN VAN DYKE himself realizes he’s going to be remembered in our city’s history for reasons he likely would never have dreamed possible and probably wishes he could avoid at all costs.

There is, of course, the ironic part of Van Dyke feeling compelled to submit to a newspaper interview. Prosecutors and his defense attorneys will be looking to pick a jury from those individuals who paid absolutely no attention to what was said or written about the case.

Meaning his words technically won’t influence them when they decide his fate of “guilt” or “innocence.”

They’re more meant to influence the way the rest of us think when we make our snap judgments after the trial is over about just how stupid that jury could possibly be for the verdict they ultimately reach.

  -30-

Is this the calm before the storm?

VAN DYKE: Protector of the public?

The idea of August as being the summer doldrums gets reinforced all the more this year – what with the trial of the Chicago cop who faces criminal charges for the shooting death of a teenager back in 2014 finally scheduled to take place.

Come Sept. 5, the Cook County courts will finally get around to holding the trial that will decide the fate of officer Jason Van Dyke – the man who got captured on crude video firing 16 shots into the body of a 17-year-old who may, or may not, have been acting irrationally.

McDONALD: Could he have been a scholar?

THERE’S NO DOUBT that Van Dyke fired the shots that killed Laquan McDonald. The issue in this trial is going to be whether his actions were justified as part of his duties “to serve and protect” the people of Chicago.

Which is going to be a judgment call. It’s clear that no matter what, the public perspective will be such that Chicago will be seriously split. This verdict is going to leave the populace of Chicago seriously p-o’ed.

For every single person determined to believe this is an instance of a police officer committing cold-blooded murder, there’s going to be another individual wanting to believe that McDonald got what he deserved – and that perhaps we ought to be thinking of giving him a medal.

A concept that will seriously offend those who have been outspoken in their rhetoric that Van Dyke belongs in prison. They probably won’t be happy until they hear word that “inmate” Van Dyke was assaulted by fellow inmates while in prison.

THESE FACTIONS OF people are going to be going at each other once the trial gets underway. Which means we ought to regard the next few weeks of August as being the calm before the storm.

How will their reputation be altered?

Before the sides start going at each other with full force. Before the rhetoric gets ultra-ugly, and before things get said and done that manage to bring embarrassment to the public perception of Chicago.

I say full force because we got a little taste of what will be forthcoming this very weekend.

It was the Bud Billiken Parade, and the parade’s co-grand marshal, rap singer Vic Mensa, managed to ruffle the sensibilities of police. Mensa on Saturday carried a “Convict Jason Van Dyke” banner. Police officers on duty to maintain order during the parade gathered around him.

WORDS WERE SPOKEN between the two sides, and Mensa at one point taunted the police to arrest him. Daring them to make a national story out of the event by taking him into custody!

Police maintained enough professional restraint to avoid escalating the incident. But it is likely once the trial gets underway and we begin getting the daily dribble of testimony, we’re likely to learn something that offends the public sensibility to the point the outbursts will get out of control.

I’m not making a judgment, as the outburst could easily come from either side of those in our society who are going to take offense.

It could easily come from those people who are offended by the testimony that will be presented in the form of animation.

FOR IT SEEMS that the Van Dyke legal defense team wants to give us a very technical version of what happened – depicting some 5 of the 16 shots, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Even if relocated, Cook will get tainted by trial

Perhaps they think that an overly technical visual version of what happened will somehow make the incident seem less offensive and brutal.

Which is a concept that will offend those inclined to believe the worst about police and their brutality towards the people, particularly the segment that could never be described as Anglo in complexion.

I don’t know if it will become (I hope it doesn’t turn out to be) a race riot. But I suspect the next few months will provide anecdotes that will embarrass our city’s public perception – and we’ll all be very grateful come the arrival of 2019.

  -30-

Judge trying to keep a handle on what happens during the Van Dyke trial

The legal proceedings meant to ready the Cook County courts to decide the legal fate of Chicago Police officer Jason Van Dyke are taking a unique twist – largely because we don’t know exactly what is happening.

GAUGHAN: Not going to win popularity contest

Judge Vincent Gaughan closed off the hearings related to the legal case on Friday, and also indicated that at least one day’s worth of legal hearings to be held this week also will be closed off.

THERE ARE THOSE who are trying to spin this as a judge behaving like a control freak; although when I think about it I see a judge who’s trying to prevent this particular criminal case from becoming a legal circus.

Which is something that could all-too-easily happen, because of the nature of this particular case. This is the officer who’s facing criminal charges for the shooting death of a 17-year-old boy, Laquan McDonald.

The kind of people inclined to view police as some sort of criminal entity itself are hoping desperately that “justice” will prevail and that the corrupt, killer cop will wind up going to prison himself.

I don’t doubt there are some people who will only be satisfied if Van Dyke winds up in a maximum-security prison and winds up being assaulted by his fellow inmates.

WHILE THERE ARE other individuals who are inclined to believe that far too much is being made of the concept of police brutality and that they want a sense of law and order to prevail. They want a police officer to be rewarded for using a level of force necessary to deal with a dangerous official.

Which means that in the Van Dyke trial, there’s going to be efforts to bring out as much dirt about McDonald as possible. To create a sense that perhaps the officer wasn’t reacting crazily out-of-line when he fired 16 shots at the teenager.

That, according to the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, was the purpose of the Friday court hearing. Up to nine people who could provide testimony about the teenage boy and his history of bad behavior supposedly were called upon during a more-than-two-hour court hearing.

VAN DYKE: Cop? Or crook?

For his part, Gaughan said the need for secrecy is because the people who appeared in court could wind up facing public harassment IF it became known they said something that could be used favorably on behalf of Van Dyke.

HE’S NOT WRONG. There will be some people determined to ensure that only the most derogatory impression of Van Dyke comes out. They’re going to react hostilely toward any mention of McDonald’s criminal record. They’re going to consider all that irrelevant.

While the “law and order” crowd will want to view it as the only relevant bits of evidence.

Gaughan is in a position where he’s going to have to balance out these conflicting views. He’s going to be deciding now just how much of all this is truly relevant and ought to be permitted to come up during the eventual criminal trial that likely will take place some time this summer.

One mistake now, and we could wind up with the Van Dyke trial being tainted and overturned on appeal.

IT IS A case that likely will offend many Chicagoans, regardless of how it turns out and what verdict ultimately is rendered by the eventual jury that is picked to decide the officer’s fate.

McDONALD: How honest is this image?

Gaughan, I’m sure, knows he’s not going to win any popularity contests, no matter how he conducts himself during coming months.

In fact, my own belief is that the anger over this case is going to be intense whether conviction or acquittal is the ultimate outcome for Van Dyke.

It’s just a matter of which group is going to be screaming the loudest.

  -30-