Judge orders Chicago PD to release video of teen killed by officer
 

This could be the cause of large scale civil unrest. ;)

The city of Chicago said Thursday it will comply with a judge's order and soon release a video of a white police officer shooting a black teenager 16 times - images that some worry could lead to unrest similar to protests that other cities have seen after police involved deaths.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/j...-teen-35296447

Watch it burn!

this is worrisome. ISIS, AQ, etc are not stupid. I'm sure Ali Amriki Muhammed was not the only one who channeled our FM, TM, COIN manuals to the enemy.

If I were ISIS, I would make sure US-bound operatives or local sympathizer/sleeper can blend with the African ethnic groups. Cops would be hesitant to engage. If (and when) they do, there are enough BLM sheeple who would find it as violence against blacks. More ethnic schisms ensue. Win-win-win

Chicago, hmmm?
Anybody force the judge into that decision, or is he on board with the in crowd?
How convenient, politically, for the left.

This kid was at 15 feet and holding a knife, and likely had been warned, what's the issue? Back turned on not, has nothing to do with it.

Of course the press make no effort to educate the public on
- The 21 foot rule and its reasoning
- The standard best practice of emptying the magazine, to ensure contact is made. And how easy it is to miss contact when under trained and under stress
- That bullets don’t always stop an individual, especially when that individual is on certain types of drugs (PCP).

If you want to knowingly threaten a cop, or take substances that are known to put you in a state of mind to threaten a cop or anyone for that matter, and the threat is legitimate, kill the bastard; and everyone should smile about it and move in.

Since when have we got so yellow livered about consequences?

What am I missing here?

You're missing the fact that logic and reasoning have nothing to do with lib political actions.

Bing Bing.....how else are you going to taint the possible jury pool.

What has happened to going through the court process and keep the evidence inside the system. Try the case in the court room not in the news and public domain.

What good does releasing a video before his day in court do other than spin up the nut jobs. Sorry for trying to think logical:eek:

No, it's twice (or trice) the rage for one incident. Rage when it happened (and again now) and months from now when the officer (oops, white officer) is acquitted either through mistrial or found not guilty.

Just insert another quarter- wash, rinse, repeat. The cycle of rage against the man continues.

"Never let a crisis go to waste" (Ralm Emanual)

It's just an excuse to riot. Maybe get a free TV or simply burn some stuff.

Very true ... Christmas IS just right around the corner.
#Black-Friday-LivesMatter

Well, I bet there's not going to be a spike in homicides after all this goes down in Chicago. Yeah, right.

It'll be hard to discern a trend given the high background levels....

Having watched the video it shows very little. What it does show is a quick turn by the perp towards the officer in question and then back onto the original path. That's what got him shot, that quick turn towards the officer. The officer responded to that threat and it was clearly a threat move.

Shot 16 times, that's pretty normal these days, cops are not warriors.

Nothing to see here...... Tiny Dancer is all over it.

Not true in every case, but a number of the nationalized deaths and beat-downs caused by police officers have started with the officer using piss-poor tactics at the onset.

I've wondered how many of the incidents would have not ended with someone injured or killed if the officer had practiced better officer safety and common sense instead of needlessly placing him/herself at a tactical disadvantage, and then using that disadvantage as the justification for the force used.

I wonder how many of these incidents would have ended without injury or death if the if the young street savy lads had practiced better common sense, were't showing out their badass selves and hadn't put themselves in a position to get shot.

Cops need to call in to the City Attorney for the thumbs up or dumb. Hey Buddy, stop charging at me for a minute while I consult with dispatch on the ROE.

Poor tactics is irrelevant to the use of deadly force. The initiator of the situation - the dead shithead - is the sole individual responsible. Great case out of AZ wherein the FBI did some really stupid stuff and shot the living dog snot out of a bank stopping an armed robbery. I mean really stupid stuff. Court found that it may have been stupid and very poor tactics but they weren't the ones putting the use of force into issue, the bank robbers were.

If I had a nickel for every time I was in a situation where bad tactics were used.....

A LTC sends his entire BN through a KNOWN kill zone with an SF team as their lead element? Does anyone except the team medic yell "WTF happened to bounding over watch?" guess what, he got back on his vehicle and slugged it out. You get yourself into bad situations everyday without realizing it! Shit happens. It's what you do in those situations that really counts.




The tactic that is getting used for officer safety in Bodymore, Murderland, is to avoid officer contacts. Which caused the murder rate to increase there. This is more of the same indignant liberalism spreading communist hubris around our nation.

I am no lib. Quite the opposite in fact. I completely believe that the responsibility for the vast majority of police use of force cases, excluding the cases where the cop was full-on unjustified falls on the bad guys and their decision making. By the same token, however, police are supposed to do everything they reasonably can to keep from using any more force than is necessary on the citizens. Using good officer safety tactics can make a huge difference in how incidents develop.

My post was poorly written. I'm as pro police as they come, being as I was a cop for a number of years. I've been the guy that has been "along for the ride" so to speak, waiting to see what the suspect is going to do to see if I am going to need to dish out the hurt or not, or need to shoot or not. I was never afraid to go hands on when it was called for, and I always believed in bringing the maximum amount of force that was justified to end the bad guys' ability to resist effectively as quickly as possible. I've walked in those shoes. That doesn't mean that I agree with every action police officers have made in the cases that have gotten big press.

I agree that one can end up in bad situations without meaning to, and that Shit Happens. Practicing proper officer safety tactics every time so that they are being used when the shit hits the fan unexpectedly, however, is what I was trained to do, and trained all of my trainees to do. Those tactics can be what allows you to go home at the end of the shift instead of to the hospital or the morgue.

I've seen poor tactics by officers end up getting them hurt or escalating situations, and I've seen good officer safety practices prevent incidents from developing further because the suspect decided that the officer was switched on and not a good prospect for fighting. On three situations I had bad guys tell me or other officers that they were considering trying to shoot me in one case, stab me in another, and try to fight me in a third, but due to the way I was handling myself tactically, decided not to because they did not think they would prevail.

The cases I was thinking of when I wrote my post include Brelo in Cleveland, who did not use cover but instead jumped onto the hood of the boxed in suspect car and shot into the car, claiming that he was in fear of his life. He cited a fear that the car would start driving again as part of his defense. The suspects never should have run, and are responsible for what happened after that, but I doubt that many would disagree that that situation was as fucked up as a football bat.

Brown and Wilson in Ferguson. The second Brown started beating Wilson he deserved what was coming, and as soon as Brown tried to grab Wilson's pistol, he rightfully deserved to get shot as many times as it took to stop his actions. If I were in Wilson's shoes, I would have done the same exact thing Wilson did.

Wilson however, pulled right alongside Brown and his other choirboy friend and put his vehicle in park. He did not give himself a reactionary gap because he stopped his car alongside of Brown, he reduced his ability to fight and gave a substantial advantage to Brown by staying inside of the police vehicle while making contact, and eliminated his ability to break contact by not leaving his vehicle in either drive or reverse. That is poor officer safety that rookies are supposed to learn not to do in the first week on the job.

Would things have turned out differently if Wilson had used better tactics during his approach? Maybe not. Nobody will ever know. Wilson's officer safety was poor, and that was what I was trying to state.

Garner pulled away from Panteleo in NY, and at that point, Panteleo was in a situation where he was justified to escalate his force against Garner. That is on Garner. However, Garner was not actively fighting or running, and Panteleo had backup close by and seconds away. Instead of waiting for more officers to help Panteleo go hands on and do a "pigpile" to get Garner in cuffs, the safest move for Panteleo and coincidentally Garner, Panteleo decided to use an against policy carotid restraint and take Garner down himself.

That is the point I was meaning to make.

Fusht rule of law enforshment.

Cell phone video has exposed a lot of stupid cops doing stupid things. Illegal things. Bad cops should lose their badge and their freedom.

I personally think that video of incidents is ultimately going to be one of the best things to help law enforcement be more professional.

The idea of going home safely has been overblown by some cops to mean that they shouldn't take any risks. If one is to be a professional serving the public, putting that badge on means that one is going to take on risk that other members of society don't.

For every shooting that made the papers, I saw hundreds of cases where the cop would have been justified in shooting someone but didn't because the cop thought the situation could be resolved without having to shoot the suspect. Those incidents got maybe one line in the police report, and never made the papers.

Risk is part of the job, a fact that seems to be lost on a lot of the current crop of police officers out there.

When the rubber hits the road however, if the choice is between the cop getting hurt or killed or the bad guy who chose to take action that truly threatened the cop's safety or life, wouldn't you rather see the bad guy being the one in the hospital?

Me, personally? Of course.

I think you missed my point completely. I wasn't saying you are a lib. I'm saying you aren't seeing the big picture. You are playing checkers here. You need to be playing chess.

You're looking at: if tactics used by police are correct or not. You are arguing that there are 100 good cops for every 1 bad cop. We are far beyond this argument. I remember a saying that a 100 ataboys can be washed away by one ohfuck. 1 bad apple spoils the bunch. Cops have a bad rap right now, what do you do to change that? Double down? Put cops in riot gear? Not patrol? Let criminals rule the streets? Tactics won't win the war.

The strategy of the libs, the commies I'm talking about is to divide and conquer. The police are being denigrated right now and for good reason. They have been screwing the pooch bad. The libs are creating a mob rule mentality and the cops have been playing into it. When Reagan was CA Gov. he squashed a student riot with force and the law behind it. He didn't use weasel words. He wasn't trying to be PC. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpg0UfpuUAs

You are absolutely right, miclo18d. I completely missed your point, have been thinking checkers instead of chess all this time, and I am feeling rather stupid right now. I had never thought of the issue as a strategic one.

What you are saying suddenly puts a WHOLE lot of what seemed to be a lot of disturbing individual data points into a solid pattern. I'm generally really good at finding patterns, but I now realize that I have had my head in my fourth point of contact for quite some time. I feel like I just earned the dunce cap. LOL

There is a reason that I read a lot here and post very little. The intelligence and experience on this board never fails to astound me.

I feel kind of stupid about having posted now, but I'm glad I did because if I hadn't, you wouldn't have replied and clued me in. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Please review this thread and you'll get a better understanding of where we come from on this subject. http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ht=Warrior+cop

We have gone from a "Protect and Serve" "Andy Griffith" "Officer Friendly" mentality to a "Special Ops" "Us v. Them" "warrior cop" mentality.

Cops are not soldiers. Posse comitatis makes a distinct line between police and military. Police are blurring that line in the name of officer safety. If you want to feel safe don't take the job. Jn15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

I agree with the members of the board on the militarization of police as discussed in that thread, and I agree with you about not taking the job if you aren't willing to feel unsafe.

Going home safely 25 years ago meant not being stupid when on patrol. It didn't mean leaving common sense and a willingness to be exposed to danger in the interests of the public's safety and constitutional rights at the door while playing dress-up.

Somewhere between when I was a cop and today, the attitude of cops changed, and not for the better.

Do they even teach this in Criminal Justice qualifications anymore?

Peels Nine Principles of Policing

S

Peels Nine Principles of Policing.

How about we listen to the guy who invented policing...

I was going to highlight pertenant portions of this, but the whole damn thing is relevant...

Police shall aim...

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.