When Can Chicago Cops Unholster Their Weapons?
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 2 months ago
The Chicago Police Department for the first time will ask the public to comment on proposed changes in how officers may use force against people suspected of crimes — proposals that already are worrying some officers, such as restrictions on when to draw a weapon.
Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson has sent a memo to officers giving them highlights of the changes.
Among the most controversial proposals among the rank-and-file is for officers to keep their guns in their holsters “unless there is a reasonable belief that such action is necessary for the officer’s safety or the safety of others,” several officers told the Chicago Sun-Times on Friday.
One sergeant said he was worried the restriction could prompt officers to second-guess themselves in potentially dangerous situations in which they might have drawn their guns in the past.
I would have thought that this would have been fairly uncontroversial, but then again I guess I just have an exaggerated sense of equity and fairness. If I can’t do it, and I expect that others can’t unholster their weapons towards me, then cops shouldn’t be able to do it either. And there is that whole Tennessee versus Garner thing.
On October 9, 2016 at 10:17 pm, Roamer said:
If you haven’t read it, you might take a look at secondcitycop.blogspot.com, a blog about being a cop in Chicago. The new use of force rules run to 41 pages(!) and essentially promise to second guess any decision any use-of-force decision an officer makes – with an unqualified civilian review board there to provide an additional layer of criticism.
I believe civilian control is necessary, and that many large departments, Chicago’s among them, were deeply corrupt for a very long time. But that control needs to be performed by people with an appropriate background and perspective. Needless to say, that’s not what is happening. The pendulum has swung too far, and the new rules mean that an officer who actually uses force, even to protect his partner, faces punishment up to dismissal and prison. Take a look at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-stomping-video-suspect-released-20160615-story.html. I won’t talk about the video, you should draw your own conclusions, but I think stripping the officer of his badge for his actions seems insanely punitive. The message they’re sending to the cops on the street is clear, and dangerous: “We don’t have your back.”
On October 10, 2016 at 8:10 am, Duke Norfolk said:
Yeah, these civ review boards all too often are filled with “community organizers” and the like. People who have a serious political agenda and huge biases.
This is always, obviously, a tricky balance to strike. I think the bigger issue is the general attitude and atmosphere that is encouraged in the department. One of service vs. war against the people. And of course these inner city areas are just broken beyond belief. I don’t know how they ever come back from their feral state.
On October 10, 2016 at 9:59 am, Herschel Smith said:
So then, according to you, when *SHOULD* cops be allowed to unholster their weapons? Compare and contrast that, if you will, with when I *SHOULD* be allowed to unholster my weapon in public. Explain any differences, and why said differences are justified.
On October 10, 2016 at 2:38 pm, Roamer said:
To answer your question, you should be allowed to unholster when you have a reasonable belief that you or another person is in danger – and so should the officers. The only difference between you and the officer is in the responsibility and authority you have. If you hear someone scream from behind a locked door in another house, you cannot break in. They, based on other circumstances, may have a duty to do so. The problem is that they are no longer able to do so without being judged after the fact.
On October 10, 2016 at 3:13 pm, Herschel Smith said:
“The only difference between you and the officer is in the responsibility and authority you have.”
Unmitigated bullshit. The courts have said repeatedly that the police are under absolutely no legal obligation to protect anyone. This is well known. You either don’t know this or you’re lying.
As for me and my family, I am the one who has responsibility to protect, not you. “To protect and serve” is a campaign slogan, not a requirement.
On October 10, 2016 at 3:46 pm, Roamer said:
Does the lack of obligation imply a lack of either responsibility or authority? I never said anything about legal responsibility; I was, in fact, referring to moral responsibility. Of course, I don’t expect you to do anything so radical as to grant a point to anyone other than yourself. It’s quite clear that you have no respect for anyone whose viewpoints differ from your own, no matter how minor the difference. A pity we don’t live in an age where I could call you out publicly for your boorish and contemptible behavior, as you were obviously never taught to behave as a civilized person as a child.
On October 10, 2016 at 9:42 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I think this is a swell comment indeed. We’ve learned a lot. But there is still more and I think you haven’t communicated your position very well.
We started out with the new policy, which is that LEOs can only unholster their weapons when their life is in danger. You made a highly disagreeable response, to which I asked when should a LEO be able to unholster his weapon? Your response indicates that your view is exactly that of the new policy.
To this confusion you differentiated between me and a LEO by “degree of … responsibility.” To this I added that a LEO is under no legal obligation to do anything of the sort. To that you responded that you comment has to do with moral responsibility, not legal. So is your current point that having a badge creates greater moral responsibility?
Is so, then you have a number of problems to deal with. First of all, you’re unfamiliar with my previous analysis where I make quite a good case that all men bear moral responsibility for the protection of life, using Calvin’s analysis of the Decalogue.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/09/25/christians-the-second-amendment-and-the-duty-of-self-defense/
Clearly, you’re wrong about this point. Greater moral authority doesn’t attach to a badge. But even if you’re right, you are conflating the need to protect the lives of others (which you assume is a LEO duty) with the right to unholster a weapon, which is protection of one’s own life. With so many NDs, so many errant rounds fired, so many wrong home raids, etc., you would think the burden would be on the LEO to NOT unholster his weapon if you’re right.
Then there is the whole issue of not living in an age where you can “call me out publicly.” So tell me, what age is that, and what exactly is it that you want to do to me in some other unknown age that you can’t do to me now?
I think your comment is a total mess, and you need to clarify your positions. Otherwise, one might think you’re threatening me.
As for being contemptible, if that’s your opinion on the matter, I’ll wear that as a badge of honor. As to the “civilized” part, I take it that you’re female and think I should be acting differently than I am? Does your workplace punish men for disagreeing with other men, or men for disagreeing with women? Did you take feminist studies courses in college? Is that what this is all about?
On October 11, 2016 at 8:42 am, Fred said:
And the name calling. Bet he stomped off in a huff.
On October 10, 2016 at 6:50 am, Frank Clarke said:
41 pages? I can write effective regulation in a few paragraphs:
1. Here’s your new bodycam. Check the batteries at the start of every shift. Because…
2. If you have an interaction with a citizen and the bodycam is off or malfunctioning, you will be presumed to have disabled it deliberately for unlawful purposes.
3. For this reason, you should avoid being the lone officer on site, because your partner’s bodycam may provide the exculpatory evidence you need to stay out of prison.