This morning, in the Court of Justice, the criminal case initiated by the Public Prosecutor against the two police officers M.V. (38) and R.G.D. (29) was addressed. Two courtrooms were used so that everyone could follow the proceedings. In the main courtroom were the victim’s family, the officers, and the Police Commissioner. In another courtroom, the case was broadcast via video for the public.
Several family members of the victim were dressed in black shirts, each with a photo of Ayden and the words: “Justice for my son Ayden C.J. Lanoy.”
Pursuit Ends with Ayden Being Shot
The prosecution presented charges against M.V. and R.G.D., alleging complicity in the killing of Ayden Lanoy on February 9, 2025, by intentionally firing at the vehicle he was in. Alternatively, the prosecutors charge them with complicity in attempted murder, and as a further subsidiary, complicity in causing serious injury.
Today, the Judge asked critical questions to officers M.V. and G.R.D. He reviewed the events of the night of February 8–9, 2025, when there were incidents at Calibra, an assault in San Nicolas, and a hospital incident. The police dispatch sent M.V. and G.R.D.’s patrol to the Lekker Bar to check that everything was under control. On returning via Palm Beach, M.V. and G.R.D. observed the Toyota driven by Lanoy moving without lights at the rear. M.V. drove the patrol car to follow it. After passing Super Food, the Toyota turned right and then suddenly left toward Bubali. The patrol had lights and sirens on and was using the microphone to signal the vehicle to stop. R.G.D. said he also saw the vehicle and instructed it to pull over via microphone. He assumed the driver might have been under influence. The Judge noted that technical investigation shows only one rear light was working, which could mislead a driver.
No High-Speed Chase
The pursuit continued, and M.V. testified that he increased speed. R.G.D. said that from one roundabout to another, Lanoy had increased speed. The Judge noted that the investigation shows the vehicle did not exceed 80 km/h, so it was not moving at high speed.
Why Draw a Firearm?
The chase continued to Madiki Kavel. At 5:10 a.m., the Police Central instructed the patrol to stop the pursuit if safety was at risk. The Judge asked M.V. and R.G.D. why they pursued the vehicle. M.V. explained that because the driver did not want to stop and the way he drove, he considered him suspicious. When the vehicle reached a dead-end street at house 136 in Madiki, M.V. said he blocked the street and saw a man moving inside the car. He got out of the patrol car and saw the vehicle heading in his direction, prompting him to take a shooting stance.
The Judge asked R.G.D. who stated he also drew his weapon along with M.V. He said the vehicle reversed and increased speed toward M.V., prompting him to draw his weapon. He emphasized that the vehicle could have turned away and no one’s life was at risk.
Could Another Alternative Have Been Used?
According to R.G.D., at that moment he considered the car a weapon. The Judge asked if there were other alternatives instead of drawing their firearms. R.G.D. said he saw no other option. The Judge reminded the officers that regulations stipulate they must be cautious when firing at a vehicle.
The Judge asked M.V. if it would have been better to remain in the patrol car and observe the driver. M.V. said he believed the driver would exit the vehicle and run. Despite this, he got out of the patrol car. He did not know the exact moment he drew his weapon but said he felt threatened when the vehicle started moving and drew his firearm. The Judge emphasized that M.V. was involved in another shooting case and knew he should not draw his weapon without proper cause. M.V. stated everything happened so quickly that he did not think. R.G.D. also testified that everything happened very fast, and he did not think. He said he saw the vehicle moving in M.V.’s direction.
20 Shots Fired at the Vehicle
The Judge established that M.V. fired 3 times and R.G.D. fired 17 times at the vehicle. The Judge asked M.V. about his aim and intent. M.V. said he fired at the hood of the car because he considered it a threat to his life. The Judge asked if his intention was to eliminate Lanoy. M.V. said no. The Judge noted that even if aimed at the hood, it would not stop the vehicle. He emphasized that police are humans, and in high-stress situations, it is expected that officers react quickly but should avoid panicking.
The Judge asked R.G.D. why he fired 17 times. R.G.D. said he saw the car moving fast and heard a shot (from M.V.). He did not know M.V. had drawn his weapon. R.G.D. stated that he observed M.V. and did not pay attention if M.V. drew his firearm. He assumed the shots came from the car. The Judge noted that R.G.D. declared to the Landsrecherche that he had a blackout and only stopped firing when the bullets were exhausted.
The next session of the trial will continue on Monday, February 23, 2026.