Glad That's Settled
- Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said Monday that he thinks a commander and an officer were justified in fatally shooting a driver over the weekend — despite new restrictions on cops firing into vehicles.
We're pretty sure the "restrictions" take a back seat to "in fear of great bodily harm/injury/dying under a vehicle driven by an asshole who is trying to kill you."
Labels: shooting
posted by SCC at 12:11 AM
31 Comments:
Wonder what he'd have said if it were just 2 blue shirts and no commander was involved.
You think he'd be so quick to defend the p/o's?
He'd have said, "the shooting is under investigation."
Sorry, but McCarthy would be singing a different tune if a highly decorated and clouted commander wasn't involved. That blue shirt would be getting thrown under the bus and we all know it.
Lucky Gary is thinking about our safety. Like not letting officers have 45 caliber weapons anymore because the range wants to save cash on bullets.
Gary I wonder if that Commander had is crown cap on while a car was reversing on him?
Did he have one of those great body cameras your house mouses are pushing for officer safety? It would have saved those great States attorneys some time in approving charges.
And did FOP send a rep for an Exempt? Curious... Little things get over looked always ask questions.
Just a question I feel I must ask. If a commander and his connected p.o. (no offense to either one) were not the ones involved in the shooting, but rather two regular p.o.'s, would the Superintendent/Department still feel the same way about officers shooting into a vehicle in this case?
I'm not so sure. We've all been witness to the "two tiers" system of discipline the department has been known to use when punishing or not punishing officers. And on top of that, everyone knows the department does NOT have your back. All this aside, i'm glad it worked out the way it did and we were on the winning end of this. Good job to them.
OK...
So the coppers who have taken administrative licks for taking
The exact same action over the years should expect to be made whole now?
Good. Garry is supposed to have their backs.
Let's not forget the "Cover the Exempt member that I picked" theory.
Wasn't long ago they'd be hero's on the morning front page....now ya get a nod and a wave like your being allowed to sneak into a fucking lunch line!
"...despite new restrictions on cops firing into vehicles."
Authority controls what it can most easily control. You can't tell where the next wild man is coming from who is going to start firing a gun and smashing up cars and trying to run over officers, but the coppers are right there, you know who they are, show up every day...so lay more s__t on them.
There! You have "done something about the problem."
The wrong thing, to be sure, but something.
*
Supreme court says we can fire into moving cars that are try to kill us
http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/7315125-Supreme-Court-OKs-deadly-force-to-stop-dangerous-pursuit/
A new Supreme Court decision has been added to the ongoing controversy in law enforcement circles about whether officers should be permitted by policy to shoot at moving vehicles. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that officers were justified in firing fatal rounds at a driver to end a dangerous high-speed chase. Further, the court declared, the officers were not guilty of excessive force for sending a fusillade at the offender’s vehicle — 15 shots in all.
“The Supreme Court is making it clear that the Fourth amendment allows the use of deadly force to stop drivers in those exceptional cases when their actions pose a very serious threat to public safety,” says police attorney Bill Everett, a legal consultant to the Force Science Institute. “By limiting legal liability in these circumstances, the Court is allowing agencies to put more emphasis on keeping the public safe when developing their policies.”
A summary of this case (Plumhoff v. Rickard)
From the same article
As for the lawsuit’s claim that 15 shots were too many, the Court says: “We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”
I love how the Scumtimes says, "unfortunately one of the drivers was killed". Unfortunately? Really? They tried to kill two police officers. He got what he had coming, but then again, so did Mike Brown!
But would he have said that if it were just two officers, and not a commander and a officer?
One half step in the right direction.
By the time I retire, Illinois will not be the 5th most populous state.
Off topic.....
Another officer just shot and killed in Fox Lake.....manhunt underway...2 m/w, 1 m/b.....
Time for a return to 2 man cars....You listening, Garry?
“By limiting legal liability in these circumstances, the Court is allowing agencies to put more emphasis on keeping the public safe when developing their policies.”
Just because the Supremes decree it doesn't mean a local judge, state or fed, will do it. If you don't like it, you can pay for an appeal
If it were just two blue shirt beat cops in that shooting he probably wouldn't have said a thing. Look for the commander to get showered with awards.
"It stands to reason..." Damn! When's the last time you've heard an appeal to reason and logic?
That new vehicle shoot policy is such complete bullshit. All it means from the depts/citys standpoint is you may not go to jail, but you sure as hell may be fired for shooting at a vehicle. This is despite whether or not a court rules it justified. Just another tool in there belt. And i agree with other assertions that if this was just two blue shirts...we would be having a different conversation.
I agree that Garry's comments are such because an exempt was involved.
Remember when Blinky's daughter and low life boyfriend got caught red handed with drugs and guns in a condo owned by Blinky?
Within a few hours JFled exonerated Blinky.... in just a few fucking hours! If that were a lowly P.O. they'd have been stripped and sent to callback immediately.
Some animals are more equal than others.
I'm so tired of the double standard on this police department when it comes to the brass and the clouted.
Please tell me one instance where Mcarthy didn't back a cop in a shooting. He even backed Servin in his shooting. Even when no one else would. Honestly I'm not really a fan of mCarthy. But for the most part he is pro police. You don't have to like the political talk he as to make because of the job. However he has not thrown one copper under he bus during his tenure.
"precedent" an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. Enjoy! This is good for the next 15 years, use it whenever necessary.
Now is it me or is the Lambert tree award only for exempts who get hurt?
I thought was for officers risking their lives against outrageous odds.
But to go on a search warrant and become the victim? Did nt another exempt get the award for shooting down a street?
May be i'm wrong How about debate SCC? Or has the word hero changed?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"...despite new restrictions on cops firing into vehicles."
Authority controls what it can most easily control. You can't tell where the next wild man is coming from who is going to start firing a gun and smashing up cars and trying to run over officers, but the coppers are right there, you know who they are, show up every day...so lay more s__t on them.
There! You have "done something about the problem."
The wrong thing, to be sure, but something.
*
9/01/2015 04:19:00 AM
We've been yelling about this from the church steeple and
Village square for years...
Rules and Restrictions are ONLY applicable under sure and certain
administrative, legal and civil punitive pain, to those individuals
who have compelling rules and restrictions to abide by.
Nobody but The Police...
And since society views The Police as the priority problem
in dire need of being fixed, you can bet your ass that more rules,
more restrictions, more second guessing, more fault-finding, more
cries from catered-to constituencies for more Police "Sensitivity Training"
and yet more demands from head-in-the-sand Police Administrators
for a mandated amount of "good touches" so The Police don't make
themselves scarce - only to be seen when they've dared to emerge from their
Bat-Cave of convenience to respond to an assigned call for service.
Why are the people who demanded and facilitated the current state of affairs,
so fucking pissed at Policemen for playing it smart?
Amusing...
Some ignorant m/fers are already whining about punishing The Police for
"Denial of Police Service" because "those rebellious, over-paid, $100K
pension and sweet early retirement getting Cops" are indeed making
themselves scarce until their number is called.
Emerging From The Bat-Cave Theme:
>Recorded at 33 RPM but played at 78 RPM
to reflect the current state of Policing in Chicago<
And of course...
Returning To The Bat-Cave Theme:
>Recorded at 33 and played at 78...<
Somehow...
It is so fitting and proper to imagine Rahm al-Ghoul
running around laughing his ass off while wearing
mask and a bright green unitard with black question marks all over it.
"WHEEEEE-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEEEE!"
Maniacal little prick.
The Police are the problem.
Black Lives Matter... Except for when they don't...
Passing you on the right. Spraying bullets, shit and misery all over.
In reverse... Engulfed in flames...
Making skeleton faces at YOU
just because YOU happen to be THERE.
A rolling, flaming, grinning affirmation of
enmity with The Police and the coming to acceptable
terms with the ugly that just rolled by...
Fools believe the media.
And every Police Officer went home safe that night......... All that matters.
Anonymous said...
Please tell me one instance where Mcarthy didn't back a cop in a shooting. He even backed Servin in his shooting. Even when no one else would. Honestly I'm not really a fan of mCarthy. But for the most part he is pro police. You don't have to like the political talk he as to make because of the job. However he has not thrown one copper under he bus during his tenure.
9/01/2015 08:30:00 PM
Not exactly true. Even though it wasn't "shooting related" he threw Det. T.M. under a BIG bus for a picture taken 10 years ago. Know you're talking about shootings here but you also said he hadn't thrown one copper under a bus during his tenure. Maybe not for shootings, but he was really quick to screw over other good coppers like T.M. because it was simply politically correct to do so. I for one won't be attending McCarthy's "pro-police" party ...
Post a Comment
<< Home