This morning in Court, the criminal case against officers M.V. and R.G.D. continued. They are suspected of fatally shooting Ayden G.J. Lanoy on February 9, 2025, after a pursuit.
It was understood that the Prosecutor demanded a 12-month suspended prison sentence for M.V. and R.G.D. The victim’s family was not pleased at all.
In the courtroom, several family members wore black shirts with Ayden’s photo on the front and the words on the back: Justice for my son Ayden C.J. Lanoy. In the upper section of the courtroom, many police officers were present to hear the Prosecutor’s demand and the defense arguments.
An increased number of CEA members were present downstairs in the courtroom. Five CEA members were there to maintain order and act if necessary.
The Prosecutor stated that there is a concise report from the National Criminal Investigation Department (Landsrecherche) with four photos forming part of the indictment. He began by saying: “No one is above the law. Especially those who work with the law,” referring to the two officers. He emphasized the need for an impartial and clear investigation in cases where police fatally shoot someone. Such clarity is essential in a community. The investigation was conducted by Landsrecherche, which falls under the Public Prosecutor’s Office and is independent from the police.
High Requirements for Firearm Use
The death of 19-year-old Ayden is tragic. The suspects are the two police officers. The question is whether they are guilty of Ayden’s death.
The Prosecutor stated that there are strict requirements for firearm use. The use of a police firearm is considered an extreme measure. Both officers are charged as co-perpetrators of manslaughter. The Prosecutor finds them guilty of manslaughter.
There are regulations outlining how police must act. The key question is whether they acted correctly and in self-defense. If so, they should be acquitted. If not, they are guilty and punishable.
Firing at a person violates that person’s physical integrity. By law, police may use force only when there is no other way to ensure safety. Officers must consider whether there are alternatives before using a firearm.
The Prosecutor stated that within 10 seconds, 20 shots were fired at the Toyota driven by Ayden Lanoy. He considers that an extremely short time to properly assess the situation.
Firearms may only be used in very limited or extreme situations — for example, when a suspect is armed or has committed very serious crimes.
Officer R.G.D. Fired the Fatal Shot
The officers pursued the vehicle because a rear light was not functioning. The chase ended in Madiki Kavel, a dead-end street. The officers fired 20 shots at the vehicle, and one person died.
Ayden died from a bullet that entered and exited his body, likely perforating a major artery and both lungs. Ayden’s mother cried during the Prosecutor’s statement. The judge briefly paused the hearing to ask if she was feeling okay. She said she was.
Police found 20 shell casings at the scene. M.V.’s weapon was missing three bullets, and R.G.D.’s weapon was missing an entire magazine. Seventeen bullets struck the vehicle. The fatal bullet was recovered and investigated by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI), which determined that R.G.D. fired the fatal shot. Five of the 17 shots were fired by him, including the deadly one.
The Prosecutor concluded that the officers did not intentionally seek to kill Ayden but fired to stop the vehicle. However, they took the risk that someone could die, especially given how close they were to the vehicle. Police training teaches officers to avoid shooting at moving vehicles because it does not effectively stop them and carries a high risk of death. The Prosecutor believes the officers took that risk.
Co-Perpetrators of Manslaughter
Both officers were on patrol together and are trained to act jointly. During the pursuit, they acted as a team. M.V. was driving, and R.G.D. handled the lights and microphone. R.G.D. instructed M.V. to block the vehicle at Madiki Kavel.
Both officers exited the patrol car with weapons drawn. M.V. fired three shots, and R.G.D. followed with 17 shots. Police are trained to act together without verbal communication.
The Prosecutor considers both officers co-perpetrators of manslaughter. In his view, it is not relevant who fired the fatal shot, although it was R.G.D.
Failure to Comply with Legal Regulations
The Prosecutor stated that the use of firearms escalated from a minor traffic violation. The circumstances were not severe enough to justify firearm use.
Ayden was not driving at high speed. The Prosecutor questioned whether M.V. could have moved aside. Ayden did not intend to drive into M.V. but to pass and escape.
Therefore, the Prosecutor concluded that there was no severe threat justifying firearm use and that the officers did not act according to legal regulations.
Not Acting in Self-Defense
Since they did not comply with regulations, the question is whether they acted in self-defense.
The Prosecutor believes they could have remained in the patrol car and waited for backup. There was no real threat to their lives. Ayden did not drive directly at M.V. but attempted to pass him.
Therefore, self-defense cannot be invoked. R.G.D.’s claim that he acted to defend his colleague is also rejected. The Prosecutor believes M.V. mistakenly believed his life was in danger.
The officers acted too hastily in firing at the vehicle.
Questions Defense Report
The Prosecutor questioned the defense’s expert report regarding shooting imagery, stating that there was insufficient explanation of the investigative methodology and that the report cannot be relied upon.
Regarding the civil damages claim of 166,507.89 florins, the Prosecutor approved part of the claim and declared part inadmissible.
12-Month Suspended Prison Sentence Demanded
The Prosecutor stated that the officers’ lives have also been affected. Due to their actions, Ayden will never turn 20. The incident affected the entire community. The officers have faced media attacks, which the Prosecutor considers unfair.
This was a very difficult case to evaluate. “We are not in the officers’ shoes,” he said. However, they made the wrong decision.
The Prosecutor demanded not an unconditional prison sentence, but a suspended one: 12 months suspended imprisonment with a 2-year probation period and 180 hours of community service.
He acknowledged that this may not satisfy the community, which expects much from the police. Officers must be properly trained in firearm use and handling difficult situations. Both officers should receive the same punishment.