IL-Chicago Police Officer Says She Feared Using Gun While Being Beaten Oct. 2016

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
After reading the first page, I had to skip and post this question. It seems she had a partner with her who had Maced and tazed this perp. Why did this other officer not shoot him? Was the female officer the head officer and had she given an order to "do not shoot" ?

Is there a rule as to who can shoot? Two officers, one chooses not to shoot, why did the second officer not backup the female officer and shoot?

To me, this is more disturbing that the second officer did not protect his partner. How many officers in this department are in the mindset? It is a very dangerous situation!
 
1&2&3 said:
After reading the first page, I had to skip and post this question. It seems she had a partner with her who had Maced and tazed this perp. Why did this other officer not shoot him? Was the female officer the head officer and had she given an order to "do not shoot" ?

Is there a rule as to who can shoot? Two officers, one chooses not to shoot, why did the second officer not backup the female officer and shoot?

To me, this is more disturbing that the second officer did not protect his partner. How many officers in this department are in the mindset? It is a very dangerous situation!
Click to expand...

And had he shot, this would be a whole different thread wondering why they didn't "just shoot him in the leg or arm." GMAFB
 
If she was being severely beaten I don't think anyone would fault her for using lethal force. Maybe she just has a conscience and couldn't bring herself to kill another human being.... And then the union thought this would be a great opportunity to spin the story in their favour????

Yup, that sounds more like it to me. JMO
 
bluesneakers said:
Officers do get killed, and that's a sad thing and a tragedy for their friends and families. But their lives are not more important than anyone else's and if being afraid of an arrest or dismissal saves someone's life then that's good. It upsets me to see officers kill people because they were afraid for their own safety (even if they were never in danger), but now they supposedly don't kill people because they're afraid they'll get in trouble (would you really die rather than get put on paid leave for awhile?). If they're making huge decisions like this based on fear ... that's how bad decisions are made. Ask Betty Shelby.
Click to expand...

Their lives are not 'more important.' But there is a difference between a shootout between a law enforcement officer, answering a 911 call for help, and the suspect in the middle of an armed robbery. You cannot expect the officer to surrender their life to save the armed robber. But they would do so to save the victim that called 911.

All lives are important. But if someone makes the choice to commit a felony and rob or threaten someone else, then they are putting their own life in danger, themselves. And an officer should not put the suspect's life above their own. Society needs Law Enforcement officers to protect us. And they cannot do so if they don't protect themselves as well.
 
1&2&3 said:
After reading the first page, I had to skip and post this question. It seems she had a partner with her who had Maced and tazed this perp. Why did this other officer not shoot him? Was the female officer the head officer and had she given an order to "do not shoot" ?

Is there a rule as to who can shoot? Two officers, one chooses not to shoot, why did the second officer not backup the female officer and shoot?

To me, this is more disturbing that the second officer did not protect his partner. How many officers in this department are in the mindset? It is a very dangerous situation!
Click to expand...
Depends on where the perp was. If he was on top of the female officer (and it seems he probably was, since he was smashing her head repeatedly against the concrete), her partner might have been afraid he might hit her or the bullet go through the perp and into her.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
MIKAYOYO said:
And had he shot, this would be a whole different thread wondering why they didn't "just shoot him in the leg or arm." GMAFB
Click to expand...

And if he was on top of the female cop, it may not have been safe for the other cop to shoot him. JMO
 
Man accused of attacking officers was in court that same day for similar incident

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-91663723/


The man who's accused of severely beating two Chicago police officers Wednesday had appeared in court earlier that same day on strikingly similar charges involving an attack on a suburban cop earlier this year, the Tribune has learned.

His arrested records indicate he is a reputed Gangster Disciple gang member,
 
bluesneakers said:
This is great! I mean it's awful she was hurt, but she didn't resort to the easy way out and killing another person needlessly. You can feel afraid but it doesn't have to dictate how you behave (which is true for everyone).

What a great example! Instead of hanging her head in shame or apologizing she should be proud!!
Click to expand...



bluesneakers said:
Just be careful, please. And don't put words in my mouth or twist what I say in an attempt to make your own point.

It's disturbing to be accused of wanting to see someone brutally beaten to death.
Click to expand...

BBM

It is equally disturbing to see a post saying "This is great!" in a thread about a brutal beating of a police officer.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
Wyle_E_Coyote said:
BBM It is equally disturbing to see a post saying "This is great!" in a thread about a brutal beating of a police officer. Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I agree. There's absolutely nothing "great" about this incident.
 
CoolJ said:
If she was being severely beaten I don't think anyone would fault her for using lethal force. Maybe she just has a conscience and couldn't bring herself to kill another human being.... And then the union thought this would be a great opportunity to spin the story in their favour????

Yup, that sounds more like it to me. JMO
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. Because nobody said anything about Michael Brown being shot. There wasn't riots or anything after that.
Nobody faulted that cop at all.

Lets not forget he was punching the officer who shot him.

(Even though there was an "eye witness" that said he had his hands up "hands up don't shoot")
 
Kimberlyd125 said:
Oh yeah. Because nobody said anything about Michael Brown being shot. There wasn't riots or anything after that.
Nobody faulted that cop at all.

Lets not forget he was punching the officer who shot him.

(Even though there was an "eye witness" that said he had his hands up "hands up don't shoot")
Click to expand...

Not sure why you are bringing up an old case that has nothing to do with this. There is a difference between shooting someone who you had a scuffle with and is now 50yds away compared to someone on top of you, severely beating you.
Not sure why people can't see the difference?
 
CoolJ said:
Not sure why you are bringing up an old case that has nothing to do with this. There is a difference between shooting someone who you had a scuffle with and is now 50yds away compared to someone on top of you, severely beating you.
Not sure why people can't see the difference?
Click to expand...

Bringing up an old case because it was said if this officer was being beaten, nobody would object to lethal force.
History shows that is wrong.
People react FIRST before the facts come out.
If this officer had shot him, I guarantee you there would have been protests (peaceful and not), eye witnesses giving incorrect versions of events, news footage of grieving family members saying he was a teddy bear that didn't have a violent bone in his body, calls for the mayor and police chief to resign... I could go on and on.
And all of this would have occurred BEFORE any facts were known or any investigation could be conducted.

THAT IS WHAT SHE FEARED.

Many people could give two chits about the truth. And everybody reading this knows this is how it would have gone down. Whether they want to admit it or not.

JMO
 
Kimberlyd125 said:
Bringing up an old case because it was said if this officer was being beaten, nobody would object to lethal force.
History shows that is wrong.
People react FIRST before the facts come out.
If this officer had shot him, I guarantee you there would have been protests (peaceful and not), eye witnesses giving incorrect versions of events, news footage of grieving family members saying he was a teddy bear that didn't have a violent bone in his body, calls for the mayor and police chief to resign... I could go on and on.
And all of this would have occurred BEFORE any facts were known or any investigation could be conducted.

THAT IS WHAT SHE FEARED.

Many people could give two chits about the truth. And everybody reading this knows this is how it would have gone down. Whether they want to admit it or not.

JMO
Click to expand...

I disagree. Most folks care only about the truth. My point is, if things went down the way she says, she would have nothing to worry about as she clearly would have been justified.

Shooting someone who is not anywhere near you and unarmed is a different situation entirely. Most folks who are unbiased can agree with that.

Let's not forget we are dealing with Chicago PD here. It has been well documented, the dirtiness and corruption within that force recently so I am sure there is a massive amount of distrust for LE in the city.
 
CoolJ said:
I disagree. Most folks care only about the truth. My point is, if things went down the way she says, she would have nothing to worry about as she clearly would have been justified.

Shooting someone who is not anywhere near you and unarmed is a different situation entirely. Most folks who are unbiased can agree with that.

Let's not forget we are dealing with Chicago PD here. It has been well documented, the dirtiness and corruption within that force recently so I am sure there is a massive amount of distrust for LE in the city.
Click to expand...

Seriously?
Protesters wait to find the truth before shutting down cities? Families wait to hear the truth before saying their family member was innocent?
I've missed ALL of those cases.
I don't think she was worried about the long term outcome. Surely she would have never been charged with killing him. We all know that. I think, like she HAS STATED, she was more concerned about what her city and family would have to endure to get to that point.

Whether there is distrust or not, people can't attempt to kill an officer.
He was wrong. She would have been 100% justified had she blown him away. But you can bet there would have been hell to pay in Chicago.
 
I'm extremely happy this officer is going to be ok. I'm extremely concerned about the partner and his role.

When you're being physically assaulted, it would odd to be thinking "what will the media say?" rather than "how do I not die?" *shrug* It saddens me she wasn't thinking "how do I not kill someone" instead of "what will people think of me". Different priorities, I suppose. JMO.
 
She wasn't thinking much of anything after a few head bashes on the concrete I imagine.
She's lucky to be alive.
We can arm chair quarterback all day long and nit pick why she thought what she did.
She's a 17 year veteran who deserves our respect IMO. She has been working selflessly for nearly two decades protecting and serving her city.
IMO she should have used her gun. But I wasn't there and can't say what I would've done in her situation.

I hope P. Huff spends a long time behind bars. He's a violent drug head who contributes zip to his society.

JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 53 more.
Total: 4,217 (members: 54, guests: 4,163)

Online statistics

Members online
54
Guests online
4,163
Total visitors
4,217
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,549
Messages
17,970,868
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top