The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the Windy City’s police chief has issued new guidelines for the use of deadly force (shooting people, in layman’s terms). “Chicago cops will now be permitted to shoot at drivers or passengers in cases of felons fleeing in motor vehicles.” And there you have it, minus the shit storm that’s brewing on this bad boy. Of course, all TV cops already have that right, so why not the Chi Town Po-Po? “The liability to the City of Chicago could be astronomical.” Ah. Previously, on America’s Most Amazing Parting Shots, “Officers were allowed to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to themselves or another person, but it didn’t allow them to use force to apprehend a fleeing forcible felon,” said the paper’s police source. “If confronted by an oncoming vehicle, officers were simply told to get out of the way, unless they were put in great danger.” Good thing the policy told them to get out of the way, I suppose. Anyway, the cops have already gone into damage control mode.
“The Department is currently reviewing the existing order to eliminate unnecessary language, provide officers with more clear direction and comply with nationally accepted best practices, as well as existing state statutes and federal law,” according to a press release. In other words, on second thought, maybe not.
Shoot ’em all, I say. Let God sort ’em out.
It’s like they never even heard of Sean Bell.
Are you kidding? This is going to be great! Who cares about LA chases now. We’ll get to see the bestest stuff on COPS from good ol Chi Town. The ratings will go through the roof!*
*Tongue firmly in cheek.
What cops are allowed to do and what cops actually do have been two different things for ages. First, shoot the fleeing suspect, then plant a throw-down in his hand or say he was driving straight at you. Most cops are honorable people doing their jobs and putting their lives at risk every day. A few dishonest cops find ways to do whatever they want and always will.
Twotone
These kind of “one size fits all” rules never work. There are too many factors to weigh in any given situation. Careful judgment is needed. A shot fired without thought could leave an officer psychologically wounded for the rest of his life, not to mention the irreparable harm to society.
For example, if the bad guy is driving a Chrysler Sebring or Pontiac minivan, then blaze away. But if it’s an Aston Martin or ’64 GTO, then the police must use restraint. No cop wants a bullet-ridden ’57 T-bird on his conscience.
You remember what happened when the Police got tasers? They goddamn tasered everyone from kids to grandmas for nothing more than then impression of disrespect.
Shoot at a fleeing car? How can you be sure at what you are shooting at or if a deflection will not cause some unintended consequences?
So if someone runs from the cops with kids in the car the cop is justified in shooting at the car with the kids in the back seat?
@affabbro @carguy: Where are you getting that the rule outlaws careful judgment, or forces cops to shoot? The rule is putting the option on the table, not forcing a cop to use it.
The latest news reports indicate that the rule may be suspended or modified. The ruling seems to be based on the notion that cars are, more and more, being used as weapons by thugs against police. Several cases cited to support the rule were instances of police (or bystanders) being run down by criminals. The current policy tells cops to jump out of the way if a criminal attempts to run them down.
# darkwing :
July 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
@affabbro @carguy: Where are you getting that the rule outlaws careful judgment, or forces cops to shoot? The rule is putting the option on the table, not forcing a cop to use it.
—————————————————
Trust me. When the option is available, the cops will find every chance to abuse it.
Here in Canada, an unarmed Polish immigrant was tasered 5 time by an RCMP (Canadian version of FBI) officer, just because he was unhappy with his long wait at the airport customs.
That person died shortly after. The investigation conducted by RCMP itself concluded that the officer did nothing wrong.
Later on, video was released showing that officer lied everything about the incident such as how many times he fired taser and what direction was the person walking.
That same officer was caught in unrelated criminal conduct before and after that incident.
The RCMP confiscated an amateur video to cover up, until the person who filmed the video hired a lawyer to reclaim it.
If that can happen with Canadian cops, I can imagine what Chicago cops will do with this new policy.
The real problem is that we only have one police system. It’s really easy for them to do cover ups. It’s like the days when long distance call are monopolized by AT&T; we get poor service. We really need 2 or 3 competing police service companies. It’s no rocket science and can be done very well by competing private companies.
Cars are being used with deadly force against cops and civilians, by criminals?
OUTLAW THE CARS!!!! Where in the constitution is the right to a car provided? Nowhere, that’s where! We must rid our society of these menacing steel monsters. Do it for the children!
The direction that the vehicle is traveling is the most important element missing from the article. If the car is heading towards the officer, by all means, fire away. If the vehicle is driving away from the officer, it gets a lot more complicated and would depend on the crime alleged to have been committed to determine whether the risk of shooting at a moving vehicle is worth it. The big 3 (robbery rape murder), maybe. DUI, stolen car, (as long as it was hotwired rather than jacked), expired tags, no way.
It is worth bearing in mind that with the exception of a head shot, it would be very difficult to accomplish the task of halting the vehicle. A pistol will do nothing to the engine, although they go through car doors just fine.
Yep, they’re free to shoot, even when you’re running away. The number of unarmed, people being murdered by cops is growing every week.
If you’re a cop, and you want a vacation, just shoot somebody. 90 days paid vacation and you can GUARANTEE that your fellow cops that “review” the incident will decide that it was justified.
I have never understood the reason to instantly escalate the situation, suspect trying to escape. So what? You got the license plates, have at least a description of the offender, no reason to go on a high speed chase, let alone start shooting at the perp. Just follow slowly way behind, sirens off and grab them when they pull over for a smoke. Or if you loose them send a squad car to their house and pick them up when the show up later.
As the wonderful program Cops shows, most of the wild car chases endangering everybody involved and the public as well are after petty criminals freaking out over some minor offence. Short of seeing Osama Bin Laden try to get away with a ticking time bomb, the situation can be handled much smoother with a little leg work when everybody has had a second to calm down.
T-Truck:
What if the car is stolen? How long would you wait at the house where the owner lives before you decide that the car isn’t coming back?
What if the suspect is on drugs or on a crime spree? Follow slowly behind and wait for a smoke break? That would be irresponsible, especially if the suspect caused an accident or committed another crime.
No, if you’ve determined that an offender is at large, and you know he’s in “that car”, then the only correct course of action is to stop “that car” before anything worse can happen…
+1 afabbro
It definitely depends upon the getaway vehicle. Sebrings, Azteks, Five Hundreds – fire away.
And if the car is a CFC candidate, the cop might accidentally deprive its owner of a good upgrade opportunity.
So many factors to weigh in a split second.
ZoomZoom :
If the car is stolen, the owner has likely reported it already, or will be happy to report it to the police when they knock on the door at 3am asking why the car was is such a hurry leaving from that traffic stop.
Again the police will have description of the driver and passengers, probably a dash cam photo plus fingerprints, DNA, etc all the evidence needed to find the suspect and build a case later on.
Think about it for a second, police signal a car to stop, but the driver tries to speed away, what puts the public at more risk: Sending out an alarm to look for this car, following slowly and trying to apprehend the driver with the least amount of force possible or going on a 100mph wild chase through residential neighborhoods?
Unless the cops have a very good reason to stop the driver immediately, Osama with his bomb, the crazy lady with a loaded gun on her way to kill her ex, the Enron executive about to drive off a cliff, it seems like public safety is best taken care of with a little leg work the day after.
Wolven : Yep, they’re free to shoot, even when you’re running away. The number of unarmed, people being murdered by cops is growing every week.
I’m not sure what you mean? Police are not “free to shoot” anyone. Also, your statement that the number is growing is either trivial (any additional shooting will make the total number increase), or you are making a statement that the rate of shooting unarmed citizens is increasing over years past. I’d like to see some figures to support your allegations. Since you are specifically citing murder (i.e., unjustifiable homicide), your statement is particularly egregious to police unless you have a few facts to back up your accusation.
Can Chicago Cops shoot bartenders who refuse to serve them past closing time? Or do they still have to limit themselves to the standard beating?
@twotone
Most cops are honorable people doing their jobs and putting their lives at risk every day.
While I believe that most cops are honest I’m sick of people repeating this little chestnut. Cops do NOT risk their lives every day. Most cops will need less the fingers of one hand to count the number of times they will be in life threatening circumstances in their entire careers.
People have been conditioned by TV and popular media to think that police work is inherently dangerous. Not if you’re doing it right. Good cops will acknowledge this. Bad cops will use this perception of self sacrifice as carte blanche to abuse their power.
mpresley : “Since you are specifically citing murder (i.e., unjustifiable homicide), your statement is particularly egregious to police unless you have a few facts to back up your accusation.”
There’s a never ending stream of them in the newspapers. Whether there is actually an increase over years past (certainly seems to be) or not, I don’t really know scince, for some odd reason, I haven’t seen the statistics on that. A recent article I read noted that the the police had shot, and killed, 5 people in the first nine DAYS of July in the Seattle area. That’s averaging a little over one every two days.
It didn’t give the details on all 5. But at least two of the cases were OLD (60ish) UNARMED men shot, and killed, in broad daylight. I call that unjustified. (i.e. murder) Whether police find that particlularly egregious or not is irrelevant… especially to the dead man, his friends and family.
Now let’s think about this for a minute. If I shoot an UNARMED 60 year old person, in broad daylight, that’s NOT in my home, hasn’t robbed me or anyone else, isn’t threatening my wife, kid, neighbor, and hasn’t even touched me, what am I going to be charged with? What are the odds that it’s going to be found as “justifiable”?
But when cops do it, which happens on what SEEMS to be an increasingly regular basis, what is the result? How many cops have been found guilty of unjustified homicide? How many have been sent to prison, or jail, (or even home monitoring) for killing a completely unarmed (even handcuffed) person? vs. How many have gotten a 90 day paid vacation?
Good way to encourage/ensure the felons have a gun to shoot back.
Any chance bystanders are MORE likely to get shot?
Only in the USA. Yee-ha.
Since many Chicago cops are felons does that mean they can shoot themselves? That will be a big improvement for the city.
wsn : Here in Canada, an unarmed Polish immigrant was tasered 5 time by an RCMP (Canadian version of FBI) officer, just because he was unhappy with his long wait at the airport customs.
Are you talking about the crazy dude Dziekanski who was smashing tables and computers? You should try smashing things in the customs department of another country to see how it compares to Canada and get back to us.
Here in NM we just had a handcuffed felon reach a gun he had hidden in his pants shoot and kill an officer.
Luckily, the officer had time to shoot and kill the felon before he bled to death. (The officer was shot in the groin) No doubt, this will be spun to blame the officer, since he and his partner didn’t conduct an effective search immediately upon handcuffing the killer…The killer, as it now unfolds, is now suspected in 5 other brutal murders from Canada to California.
Every time an officer stops a car, serves a warrant, or conducts a stake out, their life is literally at risk.
Maybe we should give all law enforcement a day off each year (They aren’t really doing anything anyway but eating donuts) and see what downtown ChiTown turns into by noon?