Chicago Police Superintendent warns Officers will shoot CC'ers!

[Doug]

So the new CPD policy is "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out?"

 

[turnandshoot4]

The cop is right. If some idiot has their firearm unholstered and points it a an officer they DESERVE TO BE SHOT.

 

[Gabriel]

You miss the point. How many times do CC'ers turn towards a cop with a gun in their hand huh????

You have a point, that's something more likely to be done by OCers.

 

[buckstopshere]

You have a point, that's something more likely to be done by OCers.

Racist

 

[Fargo]

Playing devils advocate here, but I think that the quote is a little misinterpreted. While his stance is clearly anti gun, he's not saying the officers will just shoot concealed carry holders. He's saying that the officers will continue to react as they have; if someone presents a gun and the officer feels threatened, they will shoot. The fact that people may now legally have a firearm doesn't change that. As such, citizens of a state that has not had a legal carry option need to be wary of the limits of a concealed carry license. If I get out of my car in Indiana with a gun drawn toward an officer, I'm probably going to get shot.

I don't know why you are telling me what "he is saying" when I can read what he said. As pointed out above, what he actually said makes no sense. There is nothing in his statement about "threatening" or "pointing." He instead says things like "turns with a firearm in their hand" and "return fire" and "tragedies"...

While the headline of the article is somewhat misleading, the actual text of what he said is both concerning and legally incomplete at best. It also has huge liability implications in any officer involved shootings.



Best,


Joe

 

[Fargo]

The cop is right. If some idiot has their firearm unholstered and points it a an officer they DESERVE TO BE SHOT.

Where in his statement is anything about "pointing"????? I see "in their hand" and inexplicably "return fire" but NOTHING about pointing. The statement is self-contradictory at best and has potential liability ramifications for the city in any subsequent officer involved shooting.

Best,

Joe

 

[turnandshoot4]

Where in his statement is anything about "pointing"????? I see "in their hand" and inexplicably "return fire" but NOTHING about pointing. The statement is self-contradictory at best and has potential liability ramifications for the city in any subsequent officer involved shooting.

Best,

Joe

"...but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand..."

It shouldn't be out of the holster. Furthermore, if it is in your hand and you turn around I would expect an officer to at least prepare to shoot you.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Where in his statement is anything about "pointing"????? I see "in their hand" and inexplicably "return fire" but NOTHING about pointing. The statement is self-contradictory at best and has potential liability ramifications for the city in any subsequent officer involved shooting.

Best,

Joe

Considering the potential liability of shooting someone with a firearm in their hand is interesting. Say the CC'er was dead, how would that play out? Seems a clear cut case of "officer safety." If the CC'er was alive they might be able to make their case that they weren't going to shoot the officer, but still didn't comply with the commands the officer was giving them.

 

[Fargo]

"...but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand..."

It shouldn't be out of the holster. Furthermore, if it is in your hand and you turn around I would expect an officer to at least prepare to shoot you.

Those are some shockingly overbroad statements devoid of any context.

I can see that being appropriate in some cases, but far from all. There are many valid reasons to draw your gun and there is no legal justification for the police to shoot people MERELY for having a weapon in their hand. You need way more than that before it is legal for the cops to shoot the citizenry and this Chief should know better.

Best,

Joe

 

[Fargo]

Considering the potential liability of shooting someone with a firearm in their hand is interesting. Say the CC'er was dead, how would that play out? Seems a clear cut case of "officer safety." If the CC'er was alive they might be able to make their case that they weren't going to shoot the officer, but still didn't comply with the commands the officer was giving them.

The standard for using deadly force by a LEO is NOT "officer safety". You have to comply both with Tenn. v. Garner and with any additional requirements your state law imposes.

Plus, why are you adding made up facts about disobeying commands? There is nothing about that in the statement.

Best,

Joe

 

[jonlong]

I don't know why you are telling me what "he is saying" when I can read what he said.

Because this is the internet!

 

[turnandshoot4]

The standard for using deadly force by a LEO is NOT "officer safety". You have to comply both with Tenn. v. Garner and with any additional requirements your state law imposes.

Plus, why are you adding made up facts about disobeying commands? There is nothing about that in the statement.

Best,

Joe

In some kind of interaction an officer isn't (hopefully) going to walk up behind you and kill you. There should be some sort of command that leads to the either escalation or deescalation of the situation.

Tenn. v. Garner that isn't hard to prove. If a firearm, in hand, is present I believe their basic defense would be using the case itself. "officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[turnandshoot4]

Those are some shockingly overbroad statements devoid of any context.

I can see that being appropriate in some cases, but far from all. There are many valid reasons to draw your gun and there is no legal justification for the police to shoot people MERELY for having a weapon in their hand. You need way more than that before it is legal for the cops to shoot the citizenry and this Chief should know better.

Best,

Joe

I think the chief gives his legal justification here, "officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire ."

It looks like the Tenn. v. Garner case is what he is talking about here. No it isn't about "officer safety" rather, it is about "everyone's safety." If the officer feels that anyone is threatened then they have legal justification to shoot you.

Perhaps I am reading something incorrectly from the law but this is the best conclusion I can draw.

Regards,
Byron

 

[Doug]

According to the statement, if you turn toward an officer with a gun in your hand, the officer will shoot you.
It matters not where the gun is pointed.

 

[Hoosier8]

Thought I would go over and see what SecondCityCop had to say about it.

McMoron - Let's Shoot Gun Owners!

Second City Cop

 

[Fargo]

In some kind of interaction an officer isn't (hopefully) going to walk up behind you and kill you. There should be some sort of command that leads to the either escalation or deescalation of the situation.

Tenn. v. Garner that isn't hard to prove. If a firearm, in hand, is present I believe their basic defense would be using the case itself. "officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Having a gun in your hand in no way proves de facto that you are a threat to anyone and is NOT per se legal justification for an officer to shoot you. There are a bazillion good reasons to have a gun in your hand that in no way justify your execution.

They have to show you intend to use it on someone and that is what is completely missing from the Chief's statement.

Best,

Joe

 

[marv]

If they are CC how will the police know they are carrying?

 

[Glock19]

,ummm....i fail to see the issue on the part where he says" but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire." If your dumb enough to point a gun at a cop he shouldn't wait to shoot you.

 

[Bunnykid68]

,ummm....i fail to see the issue on the part where he says" but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire." If your dumb enough to point a gun at a cop he shouldn't wait to shoot you.

Don't think it ever said anything about a gun being pointed, just being in the hand.

What if it is an undercover cop that just defended himself and turns around with a gun in his hand?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Pointing is never mentioned by the street light shooter or anywhere in the article. Why are we even discussing pointing when it's not relevant to what McStreetlight was quoted as saying?