Chicago Cops Shoot Wrong Man - 11 Times

[AnotherMcIntosh]

During an armed robbery of a business, the Chicago police responded. They shot the armed robbers who were fleeing from the scene. They also shot the store owner.

The store owner says in a complaint:

"At no time did the plaintiff ever point a gun at the police or robbers, ever shoot a bullet at the police or robbers, ever own a gun, ever chase the robbers, or ever try hurt anyone. The plaintiff saw that the robbers who fled also never aimed a gun or fired any guns at the police while fleeing from the store. In fact, he saw them drop their guns while fleeing. Plaintiff's only concern was to protect himself and survive until help arrived," the complaint states.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/13/55671.htm

His complaint also includes:

"The plaintiff saw a gun at the front of the door outside. The plaintiff picked it up for protection until the police arrived because he was terrified that the robbers would return and come back for him from the side or anywhere. The plaintiff was standing right by the front door with the door open, half of his body inside and the other half outside. The plaintiff saw the police arriving in the parking lot outside the store. Feel{ing} relieved that the police were present for protection, he immediately threw the gun down to the ground and did not point it at anyone.

"After the police saw plaintiff drop the gun to the floor, they opened fire at him and shot plaintiff in his leg. The plaintiff ran back in side and was screaming, 'Don't shoot; I am the store owner.' The police kept on shooting even when plaintiff was lying inside because plaintiff had been already been shot in the leg. At no time did the police ever warn the plaintiff to point his hands up and/or lie on the ground or else they would shoot. In the process of shooting the plaintiff repeatedly, the police also shot out the glass in the store windows and glass door, causing substantial property damage.

His complaint also states:

"The City of Chicago, by and through its agents and officers, tried to cover up and hide the fact that they shot the wrong person and that they used excessive deadly force against plaintiff who did not pose any threat to them."

He adds: "The next morning at the hospital at 4:00 am, while plaintiff was resting and lying in bed while heavily medicated, Chicago police came and handcuffed the plaintiff to the bed arms who was trying to rest from the pain from all bullets lodged his body. [Sic.] The police knew or had reason to know that the plaintiff was a victim of a crime given he was the store owner and had been held at gunpoint by three robbers which the police had shot beforehand.

The Chicago Tribune reported on the following next day that the officers responded to gunfire at the store. But the store owner said "There had been no gunfire ... other than the police gunfire."

[Loudly]

1. Guns in the hands of the public make the cops crazy aggressive.

Focus every effort on ridding society of guns and you pacify the police as a welcome added benefit.

[Gravitycollapse]

3. This is a cowardly argument.

I'm for gun control. None of my reasons involve appeasing police brutality.

[Loudly]

5. You're just failing to make the connection between

police brutality and the empowerment of brutality among the People whom they police.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. Bullshit. Police brutality is a product of bigotry and power hungry assholes.

[Loudly]

11. Argue your point against the facts of this case.

Why did they respond to the call and behave like they did?

Because they were dispatched, and because they saw a gun.

Explain your accusation of bigotry and hunger for power.

Seems like you are stuck in 1961 Selma.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. "...excessive force, false imprisonment, assault and battery, wanton conduct, conspiracy...

civil rights violations and negligence..."

Yep, all of that happened because they heard there was a gun involved.

Are you seriously that daft?

[tblue37]

38. Even if he HAD been one of the robbers, the cops are supposed to follow certain

rules of engagement, not shoot repeatedly at people who are not armed and not offering any resistance. They are also supposed to say something before shooting, unless they are actually under imminent threat.

The CA cops who shot two newspaper delivering Asian women in a truck--wrong color, wrong make--while hunting Christopher Dorner also shot repeatedly when there was no threat, and they did so without saying anything, without making any attempt to ascertain who was in the truck.

This happens because the cops know they won't get punished, no matter what they do, and because they are violent, lazy, trigger-happy, bigoted, and cowardly, and with no threat of punishment to constrain them, they are able to act on their worst impulsed.

[premium]

41. YES!!!

[tblue]

60. Hey Cuz! You're on the right track here.

I'm sure there are good cops all over, but reports of 'excessive force' at the hands of police seems to surface ALL the time. Cops are way too often the guilty party, but they get away with murder, literally, as you stated. They have a way of making matters so much worse sometimes. I am really really really fed up with their abuse, false arrests, racial profiling, itchy trigger fingers, intimidation, etc and so on.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. And fear. The poster has a point, though not a happy one.

[Gravitycollapse]

19. The only fear they expressed was that of being punished.

[truebrit71]

6. Yes. I am sure that would completely pacify them...

No thanks.

[Loudly]

7. I have you down as going to war with the police.

RIP

[truebrit71]

18. Congratulations, you've managed to completely miss the point..

...well done..

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. Police power without accountabiliy make cops crazy aggressive.

And steroids also help.

[BlueStreak]

10. Agreed. This article is most misleading. It is a hatchet job on the cops

I don't deny that it ended up being a fiasco, and definitely should be investigated. But what the article doesn't say until about the 20th paragraph that the store owner was in fact holding a gun. Because of that little fact, it is certainly plausible that the owner looked like a bad guy, when the cops had to make a split second decision.

I'd like to see a more objective report of this case, and I will no longer give any credence to articles published by that rag.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. It's Courthouse News. It publishes civil complaints. That's what you're reading.

It doesn't have the cops' side.

The store owner dropped the gun before the police opened fire, according to this account.

[Loudly]

22. When anyone claims that police support guns in the hands of the public

show them this story.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. City cops are the worst, those in less crowded areas do much better IME

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. You say, without being a witness, "the store owner was in fact holding a gun."

Not when he was shot, he didn't. To say so is a figment of your imagination.

You weren't there and you didn't see that.

Courthouse News Service did not report that. What they reported was that, when the police arrived, the store owner threw down the gun that he had picked up for protection until the police arrived.

His complaint alleges, which an impartial judge will assume to be true, was that the police saw that he was no longer holding the gun and then opened fire. He further alleged that when he was no longer holding the gun but had been shot in the leg and managed to get to is store, the police continued to shoot him.

"The plaintiff saw a gun at the front of the door outside. The plaintiff picked it up for protection until the police arrived because he was terrified that the robbers would return and come back for him from the side or anywhere. The plaintiff was standing right by the front door with the door open, half of his body inside and the other half outside. The plaintiff saw the police arriving in the parking lot outside the store. Feel[ing] relieved that the police were present for protection, he immediately threw the gun down to the ground and did not point it at anyone.

"After the police saw plaintiff drop the gun to the floor, they opened fire at him and shot plaintiff in his leg. The plaintiff ran back in side and was screaming, 'Don't shoot; I am the store owner.' The police kept on shooting even when plaintiff was lying inside because plaintiff had been already been shot in the leg. At no time did the police ever warn the plaintiff to point his hands up and/or lie on the ground or else they would shoot. In the process of shooting the plaintiff repeatedly, the police also shot out the glass in the store windows and glass door, causing substantial property damage.

[Loudly]

27. Did the report or sight of a gun have anything whatsoever to do with the behavior of the police?

If you agree that it did, then please concur with my point that guns in the hands of the public make a potential enemy of the police force sworn to protect us.

[premium]

28. Sworn to protect us?

Did you actually say that with a straight face?
The police are not there to protect us, they're there to protect the 1%'ers, as was shown during the various Occupy protests last summer.

Protect us?

[Loudly]

30. Why dispatch or respond to the call at all?

How does that reconcile with your view of the police as mere stooges of the rich?

[premium]

32. Hey buddy,

I saw first hand the brutality of cops at Occupy Oakland last year, don't try to tell me that they're there to protect "us" unless the "us" is the 1%.

NYPD, LAPD, CPD, OPD, SFPD all have a very sorry record when it comes to civil rights so don't lecture me about the police being stooges of the rich.

[sabrina 1]

55. The whole world saw it, thank you. It's laughable for anyone to think they

are there to protect the people.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Uh, cops are not supposed to not shoot victims of armed robberies.

When responding to armed robberies, they are supposed to distinguish between victims of armed robberies and the perpetrators. They are not supposed to shoot everyone and say, "Let God sort them out."

When only one person on the scene is screaming

"Don't shoot; I am the store owner,"

maybe it would be a good idea to not shoot him.

[Loudly]

33. The sight of the gun made them do it. Erase the possibility of that sight and problem solved.

[premium]

36. According to the article,

He had already thrown down the gun and said don't shoot, I'm the owner.
Just a bunch of trigger happy cops.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. They are also supposed to be trained not to shoot non-threats

The sight of a gun should not over ride training or good judgement, assuming they saw it at all.

[premium]

17. You mean like the NYPD were pacified against the Occupy protesters?

People who were doing nothing more than protesting the criminal acts of Wall Street, who, I would add, were not armed.

[Loudly]

34. I missed the story where the police shot protesters.

Please re-post.

[premium]

37. So I guess it's ok that they beat us,

gassed us, handcuffed us and put us in jail for exercising our 4th amend. right because they didn't shoot us?

You're unbelievable.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. Here's one where they shot a protester, once in the forehead close to her eyes with rubber bullets,

after first shooting her in the leg, and then laughing about it:

And here's one where the Oakland police shot rubber bullets at fleeing protestors:

[Loudly]

42. Thank you. Powerful document of misbehavior.

What would the police have done if they spotted a gun in the crowd?

[premium]

44. Opened fire and shot a lot of innocent people,

because they can.

[Loudly]

45. Because they would have felt justified by the sight.

Point made and accepted.

[premium]

46. They opened fire on unarmed protesters,

they don't need justification.
It doesn't matter to the cops whether someone is armed or not, they shoot unarmed people often because they know they can get away with it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. Felt justified and being justified are two very different things

[Loudly]

50. You, I recall, are a declared combatant.

Guns in the hands of the public for the goal of a general uprising.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. Your recall is flawed. Zombiehood has impacted your memory

I never have nor never will support such a thing. Not surprising given my background.

I support handguns as a the most effective means of self defense especially for women, gays, and other targeted groups and carry one most days.

[Loudly]

52. As a constitutional right? Your affection for causes is endearing.

But it is no justification for lethal force being wielded at the subjective whim of individual triggermen.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. No, as a practical matter and its quite legal

And my justification is reasonable, even according to Hoyt.

Your concern would outlaw cops carrying firearms as well.

[premium]

43. I can attest to the accuracy of that video,

I was one of those fleeing the barrage of rubber bullets and tear gas at Occupy Oakland.
The OPD were nothing more than an armed gang.

[Scootaloo]

54. Uh, no, steroids and seige mentality culture make cops crazy aggressive.

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. Nuthin' to see here. Move along.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

4. If he only had a gun. He could've killed those jackbooted.... wait... What?? nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. You win every straw-man argument that you post.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

15. Awesome, thanks what do I win? BTW I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

20. Oddly enough you win a rifle.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

21. Sweet! nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. One of these:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

26. Shit, I already have the motorized version. nt

[Loudly]

24. I would hardly call a jab at a well-worn gun love motto a "straw man."

It strikes at the very heart of the ghastly beast.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. Of course you wouldn't. Do you know what a straw-man argument is?

"A straw man argument occurs in the context of a debate―formal or informal―when one side attacks a position―the "straw man"―not held by the other side, then acts as though the other side's position has been refuted."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

[Loudly]

40. I agree with that definition. And what you called a straw man wasn't.

The commenting poster wasn't refuting an argument so much as he was satirizing a tidbit of familiar horseshit from gun proponents by employing the facts of this case.

If you want to offer yourself up as the blowup doll to punch down debate style, I will take his side even more enthusiastically!

[Logical]

29. The idiot cops will receive no punishment! Just a wild guess!

[RedCappedBandit]

53. Most cops are good

[AnotherMcIntosh]

56. You must be very young.

[RedCappedBandit]

57. Or really suble with my sarcasm, apparently.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. OK. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2013, 03:15 AM - Edit history (1)

[TheKentuckian]

61. Just like most politicians are honest and most insurance companies really care about your health

Similarly most sales people just want you to be happy, buy or not.

The barrel is rotten, the individual apples all mixed around in whatever ratio is going to be bad.

[datasuspect]

63. most cops are drunks

[Kennah]

59. One wonders how many times they'd shoot the right man

[datasuspect]

64. they're too busy trying to give out tickets to people going to work at 4 am

fuckers.

[datasuspect]

65. chicago cops are a special breed of fuckstain

lazy, surly, and whiny.

overfed security guards for the most part.