While I can't speak the nuances of the situation or the dept's exact policies on deadly force, the fact that the guy rammed 2 police cars and was endangering lives certainly should suggest it is the officers who deserve the benefit of any doubt. But nowadays the vile BLM activists are succeeding in changing the landscape, so that it is always the police who are at fault.
ofc we are told he was a “good kid”
every dangerous thug is a “good kid” doncha know....
BLM/Obama/Rahm/Hillary/Holder/Lynch will rue the day they started this. Whites will move out of Chicago and other Democrat cities and that will be that.
“He didn’t deserve to die.”
The facts say otherwise. Let’s not second guess Paul’s decision to put his life on the line.
Isn’t it SOP to put an officer on desk duty without badge or service weapon while an investigation is underway?
Otoh, he might not have been ramming cars had he not been chased.
How about we make cops lives easier? If a car’s stolen, how about issuing a report number and let the owner call the insurance company. PD turns it over to the tow companies, who can repo it in about 4 seconds flat. Low key. Easy Peasy. (Insurance companies do this anyway so jump-start the process) An 18yo isn’t going to be able to hide a Jag; he’d have probably dumped it before the night was up.
There wasn't any nuance or doubt - the unarmed perp was shot in the back and killed. The police superintendent, with 30 years experience, said there appeared to be a violation of police procedure and pulled the involved officers from duty. End of subject. Your bias is noted.
Another Stripping
No, not the cheating lieutenants:
A third Chicago police officer has been relieved of police powers after department brass made the preliminary determination that officer and two others violated policy when they fired their weapons in an incident that killed an 18-year-old man, a police spokesman said Saturday.
Three officers fired their weapons in the incident that left [a gang banging car thief], 18, dead after police say he sideswiped a squad car and hit a parked car while driving a stolen Jaguar, injuring some officers about 7:30 p.m. Thursday in the 7400 block of South Merrill Avenue. Police officials announced Friday that two of the officers were relieved of their police powers, and the third was relieved of police powers on Saturday, police spokesman [...] said. See that phrase, "injuring some officers"? That's Aggravated Battery with a weapon weighing a ton-and-a-half. Seems kind of deadly to us. And the total disregard for uniformed officers traveling in marked cars? What's to stop him from disregarding a little old lady crossing the street? State law and General Order seem to conflict with the prevailing "community" feelings, and everyone knows "feelings" are the new currency of the realm.
Funny how the Department brass are demanding ISR's, for which we need Reasonable Articulable Suspicion checked by a sergeant, reviewed by downtown and audited by the ACLU. And if we happen to actually arrest someone, we need Probable Cause, sworn under oath, checked by a sergeant, and reviewed by a Detective, a Assistant State's Attorney and ruled on by a judge. But Special Ed can make a determination on three officers' livelihoods in under 48 hours just using the power of his massive brain. Labels: shooting
POSTED BY SCC AT 12:03 AM 0 COMMENTS
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/?m=1
This guy rams into two occupied police vehicles and this is a bad shoot?
Ok, you can have a policy that says don’t shoot at fleeing vehicles but if that person driving that vehicle is using it as a weapon, the policy goes out the window.
Most policies say an officer should not shoot a moving vehicle unless it is a last resort.
Seems like an entirely reasonable action to take, give the fact that someone died. These cops are not missing a paycheck and if it turns out to be a justified use of deadly force, they will be back on a beat sometime in the not too distant future. It’s long past time to simply call every shooting death at the hands of a cop, “justifled” and then the investigation never takes place. The sad part of all of this cops vs. blacks is that every time there’s “action” on either side, it rachets up the tension and makes more deaths all the more likely.
All part of the plan to create a new alphabet agency.
The question is not whether he used lethal force at one time, but whether he posed a lethal threat at the time they shot him. Police are only legally permitted to use the force necessary to subdue the threat. If there is no lethal threat, then lethal force is excessive. Police have other weapons to deal with non-lethal threats. Again I don’t know the details and I am not judging the officers, just the hypothetical situation. We grant police a lot of leeway and we should, because they have to make a judgement call in the heat of the moment and when adrenaline is flowing. But if he was fleeing on foot he may no longer have posed a lethal threat.
Folks don't pay attention to the facts anymore, they've been trained to respond emotionally so they can be manipulated by the elites.
Take, for example the excerpt from above. Quote: "he struck a responding police SUV". Inside that police SUV is an Officer of the LAW. So when he "struck" that vehicle he was really striking the Officer of the LAW and AGAINST THE LAW with a weapon.
What weapon you say? A BIG Weapon called a Car. Now there are other weapons the perpetrator could have used. He could have used a bullet, he could have used a rock, he could have used an RPG, an anti-tank weapon, But in this case the perpetrator used a handy vehicle called a Car. And a Car is no less deadly than any of the above when used properly.
So if you put the facts together, you come up with a conclusion the elites Obama and Hillary do not want you to come up with: THE PERP USED A WEAPON TO ATTEMPT THE MURDER OF A POLICE OFFICER AND AGAINST THE LAW WHICH THE OFFICER REPRESENTED.
"O'Neal then collided with another police SUV". Note - he did it again AND IF YOU APPLY THE LAW TO ITS FULLEST EXTENT THE PERP COMMITTED ATTEMPTED MURDER A SECOND TIME according the the article.
THE ELITES, AND THAT IMHO often includes some of our PRESS, do not want you looking at the FACTS and DO NOT WANT YOU TO THINK of the RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT THE PERP WAS DOING ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND THEY WANT YOU TO HAVE SYMPATHIES FOR HIM. AND THE PERP DESERVES NO SYMPATHIES.
Because, note "he struck ... a parked car". That parked car could have had a Homeless person in it or a baby and it's mother. They could be sleeping in it AND THE PERP DOESN'T CARE AND THE ELITES DO NOT WANT YOU CARING EITHER.
FOR IF YOU CARED. YOU WOULD DEMAND THAT THIS PERP GET THE WORST THE LAW CAN GIVE HIM OR THAT THE LAWS BE STRENGTHENED EVEN MORE TO DETER THESE. But According to OBAMA AND HILLARY, attacking the police (and the LAW) is a good thing. THEY WANT THE LAW DIMINISHED OR ELIMINATE FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. And what purpose may that be?? WHY TO VOTE FOR LAWLESSNESS OF COURSE.
And what person would be the beneficiary of THAT?? Why HILLARY AND THE DEMOCRATS WHO ELSE?
How can a guy driving several thousands of pounds of steel that can move over 100 mi/h be “unarmed?” It’s certainly a more dangerous weapon than a hammer, a sword, a hatchet.
He deserved to be shot if those are the facts. Lynch/Obama/Rahm government in action in gangstertown. Isn’t Chicago Hillary Rotten Clinton’s town?
“....so that it is always the police who are at fault.”
“Why are you running?”
“Cuz you chasin’ me!”
If the police had fired at the man as he was in the process of ramming cars and endangering lives then that would be one thing. But the police shot the man after he had left the stolen auto. He was unarmed and not a threat to anyone. What was the justification other than he was running away?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
“Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
Given that this week’s dead thug in Chicago had demonstrated a violent and reckless disregard for the lives of others, it was completely reasonable to assume that the fleeing felon posed an immediate danger to the community. The shooting was not just constitutional under the governing Supreme Court decision, it was the morally correct action for that situation.
Good riddance to another of the useless **Black Lives** that didn’t **Matter** to the thug who got himself justifiably killed.
thou shall not run from the cops
This is Pontius Pilate in full action.
Mayor gets what he wants ('clean' hands), 'top cop' gets what he wants (pass the buck), #BLM gets next to nothing but a pat on the head (because the perp isn't likely a #BLM dues-paying member), and the beat cops get shafted - unless they get their own lawyers and sue the everlasting shit out of all of the foregoing.
Annnnd again, the lawyers win...