But another witness, Jose Torres, told the court that as he watched Mr Van Dyke open fire on the teenager, he thought to himself: "Why the eff are they still shooting him when he was on the ground?"<doc-sep>Editor’s Note: Joey Jackson is a criminal defense attorney, partner at Watford Jackson, PLLC, and a legal analyst for CNN and HLN. The views expressed here are solely his. View more opinion articles on CNN. (CNN) — Almost four years after taking the life of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald in a hail of 16 bullets, police Officer Jason Van Dyke was held accountable by a Chicago jury. Friday, he was convicted of murder in the second degree. What that means is that the jury concluded that he acted unreasonably and without any lawful justification. The jury came to this conclusion after hearing testimony for more than two weeks, and after deliberating for more than seven hours. The critical legal issue was whether Officer Van Dyke was justified in killing the African-American teen back on October 20, 2014. They concluded that he was not. One could only wonder what Officer Van Dyke was thinking when he took McDonald’s life. Why did he jump out of his police cruiser and start firing his service weapon in the first place – much less six seconds after arriving upon the scene? Other officers at the scene stayed in their cars. Why didn’t he? No other officers discharged their firearms. Why did Van Dyke? What was his rush? Why didn’t he make an effort to de-escalate the situation? Why not allow McDonald more of an opportunity to comply? Why did he feel he was in danger when McDonald was so far away from him? Why did he shoot to kill when McDonald was not advancing toward him? These are just some of the many questions that apparently troubled the jury and led to Van Dyke’s conviction. The narrative spun by the defense was predicated upon a spirited attack on Laquan McDonald’s character that painted the deceased as a villain. Officer Van Dyke himself had pointed to what he characterized as McDonald’s bugged-out eyes that he never lost sight of, and that seemed to be “staring right through me.” Additionally, the defense highlighted the PCP that was found in McDonald’s system, his troubled youth and his failure to obey police commands to drop the knife before being shot. In doing so, the defense sought to put McDonald on trial, while arguing that Officer Van Dyke perceived him to represent a deadly and immediate threat. It was the standard police refrain: The officer feared for his life, and the victim was a really bad guy who failed to obey commands. That line of attack was about as commonplace as police shootings of African-American men – in Chicago and across the country. And alas, it failed. So too, did the defense fail to adequately explain why 16 bullets were necessary to end the supposed “threat” posed by the black youth. Notably, he was multiple feet away from Officer Van Dyke, with a knife, not a gun. The jury also held Van Dyke accountable for this misconduct as well. He was found guilty of 16 counts of aggravated battery – one for each shot. Officer Van Dyke did not do himself much good with his own testimony. His version of events includes the teen attempting to rise from the ground while still pointing the knife at the officers on the scene after being shot. Importantly, the dashcam video seems to tell entirely another story. Recognizing this, the defense attempted to shift the focus to Officer Van Dyke’s perceptions, and away from the facts. It even presented expert testimony to explain his level of anxiety, why his perceptions might differ from reality and how any inconsistent statements he made to authorities after the shooting were understandable and excusable. Van Dyke tried to explain this inaccuracy by saying he was “in shock.” Hmmm. And as to the knife, Van Dyke specified that McDonald raised it across his chest. The video, however, seems to show McDonald with both hands at his side. Van Dyke goes on to say that McDonald was still pointing the knife at him while on the ground. The video, however, shows McDonald lying motionless. That same video contradicts Van Dyke’s core contention that McDonald was approaching him at the time he was shot. To the contrary, the video shows him moving in a different direction. Officer Van Dyke made still more assertions in his testimony that just didn’t seem to square with the facts. For starters, he claimed that he and McDonald never lost eye contact. Yet, the encounter happened in the dead of night and McDonald was multiple feet away. Strange how he was able to see McDonald’s eyes so well, especially given his vivid description of what McDonald was doing with the knife. Common sense would suggest that’s what Van Dyke was focusing upon. The prosecution, for its part, pressed its theory that there was no immediate threat, and that the force used was grossly disproportionate to what the situation demanded. Nothing made that point more convincingly than the fact that there were about 10 other officers on the scene, and Van Dyke was the only one who used his weapon. Other officers provided testimony noting that they did not share Van Dyke’s fear nor safety concern. And that was damning. Get our free weekly newsletter Sign up for CNN Opinion's new newsletter. Join us on Twitter and Facebook The jury spoke volumes with its verdict. This time, the magic argument that an officer feared for his life and just had to shoot did not work. On these facts, it was hard to see how it would. Justice was served. Moving forward, may justice continue to be served whenever an officer dishonors their badge by failing to protect and serve.<doc-sep>CHICAGO — Officer Jason Van Dyke asked 12 jurors to trust his memory, not a widely circulated dashboard camera video, to know what really happened the night he shot Laquan McDonald 16 times. The jurors chose the video. On Friday afternoon, after less than eight hours of deliberating, the jury convicted Officer Van Dyke of second-degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm in the death of Laquan, a black teenager who was carrying a knife but veering away from the police. Most of the jurors stayed behind in the courtroom to speak to reporters after the verdict, as Officer Van Dyke, who is white, was booked into jail. They said they found the officer’s description of the Oct. 20, 2014, shooting to be contradictory, overly rehearsed and simply not believable. And they called into question officers’ tried-and-true strategy of providing tearful testimony to overcome damaging video evidence when charged in a shooting. “It seemed kind of like he was finally giving the play after they had been rehearsing with him for weeks,” said one juror, a white woman, who noticed Officer Van Dyke “staring at us, trying to win our sympathy” when he testified.<doc-sep>
[Read: Chicago awaited the verdict with a “sense of anxiety.”] For some residents, the trial became a proxy for years of anger over police mistreatment of black Chicagoans and over decades-old doubts about police accountability and transparency. They said they were relieved at the outcome and hopeful that it might force changes in policing and relations with city residents. Image A family photo of Laquan McDonald. The teenager was shot 16 times in the fatal encounter. Credit... via Associated Press Dashboard-camera video from a police car gave a clear view of the shooting, though the city for months resisted releasing the images and Chicagoans only saw it 13 months after it happened, on a judge’s orders. The fallout was significant: The police superintendent was fired, the local prosecutor lost her re-election bid, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced shortly before the trial began that he would not seek re-election next year. “That video had a profound effect upon this city, not just on policing but on politics, and not just in black and brown neighborhoods — it rippled across every neighborhood,” said Lori Lightfoot, a former president of the Chicago Police Board, an oversight agency, who is now running for mayor. “People saw it and just said, ‘Dear God, what happened?’ and ‘What do we need to do so that that never happens again?’” Police union leaders and supporters of Officer Van Dyke sharply criticized the outcome, and said it would have an instantly chilling effect on officers who were simply trying to do their jobs and stop crime. “This sham trial and shameful verdict is a message to every law enforcement officer in America that it’s not the perpetrator in front of you that you need to worry about, it’s the political operatives stabbing you in the back,” Chris Southwood, a state leader of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, said. Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, suggested that the verdict could affect policing beyond Chicago, particularly when officers confront residents carrying knives and knifelike weapons. “Departments will be taking a second look at how they train officers to deal with individuals with edged weapons,” Mr. Wexler said.