Chicago Cop Responds to Train Station DGU

 

An email from a TTAG reader who experienced a DGU at a Windy City train station has generated a lot of traffic and discussion. Here’s a comment from a Chi-town cop:

“I’m glad that you were not harmed during your encounter on that “L” platform. Yes, CTA does have some very, very good video surveillance on their platforms, buses. Sad part is that if those 3 mutts had called the Police, we would have to check it (and you if still on the scene ) out. Don’t believe the BS that having a firearm in a fanny pack is having it in a container (such as in a vehicle). Also if there are any rounds in that gun, magazine, chambered or any combo of both, that gun is loaded. Being a 26 yr. Chicago Police Officer, currently a Detective, I’ve investigated, responded to more homicides, shootings, robberies than I could ever count. Although I am sympathetic to you (and other law abiding citizens) as to carrying concealed, I would have no option not to arrest . . .

First off instead of just thinking “concealed” think “covertly concealed.” The gun may be really hard to get at, but it may keep you out of jail for that one time someone spots it on you. Another thing, if you have to pull that gun, keep it at your side , barrel pointed down, until the last instant that you may have to shoot. If you did this in your encounter, this would lend credence to your version .vs their version that “he pointed that gun at me.”

As far as being arrested with a gun. You do have the right to remain silent, but remember that only leaves me with one version of what went on. Your version will come out during your felony trial. Once arrested, I would interview all parties involved, then contact the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Felony Review Unit. They will ultimately make the decision of to charge you criminally with a felony (having only one side of a story presented, they will).

Next roll of the dice is what judge you will get at a bond hearing (you will sit in Cook Co. Jail until then). He may give you a $5000 or $500,000 bond, which you will have to come up with 10% cash to get out of County, or sit until your trial, which can be over a year down the road. If convicted, even though you may only get probation, you are now a felon. The FF job is gone. Believe me if I responded to your incident , and found out you were a FF on his way to work, I would do everything in my power (which I will not get into on a public blog) to keep you from an arrest.

But realize that some of these options may jeopardize my and my partner’s jobs. If you keep in your head that the ONLY time that gun comes out is when you HAVE to shoot, you may be fine. Not pulling it when you are apprehensive or scared. Again, your freedom and job will depend on #1 who the Police are that show up on the scene #2 Detectives investigating your incident #3 which Cook Co Asst. State’s Attny answers the phone #4 what judge is sitting on the bench the day of your bond hearing #5 what judge and / or jury is in that courtroom for your trial.

The gun laws are what they are in this State and I don’t see them being voluntarily changed anytime soon. Just be smart, only do what you have to to defend yourself, and don’t do something “to prove a point.” Believe me, myself and many other coppers are on your side, but can only do what the law allows us to.”

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

98 Responses to Chicago Cop Responds to Train Station DGU

  1. avatar9MM&4WD says:

    Very interesting to hear that side, and very good to hear some ChiCops are pullin’ for the good guys. Sucks that the city/state is still run by some complete morons, and probably always will be.

    • avatarILfarWestBurbs says:

      He’s not pullin’ for ALL the good guys, just his fellows in uniform. He said he’d do what he could for a FF/paramedic. That doesn’t go for you or I. Also, for someone so informed of the law that he’s enforced for 26 years, he’s wrong on the legality of the method of carry. I do agree that in Crook County, you’re testing this with your wallet. You may not go to prison (for long), but it will drain you financially. As far as letting you go if he can, he can’t. You have to assume you’re going to get arrested, as for any DGU, unless of course, you’re a FF/paramedic/cop/aldercreature/son-nephew of someone connected. Other than those points, he’s spot on.

  2. avatarGraybeard says:

    Excellent write-up. And words we should all take to heart.

    The LEO whom we encounter after (or worse – during) a DGU has a job he has to do in certain ways to protect the community – including us.

    There are crummy LEOs out there. As the brother of one and having been part of the criminal justice system for years, I know the stories and have met one or two. But in the main they are hard working folks trying to do a dirty job to the best of their abilities. Give them the benefit of your good will – and always do what you are told.

    I’m not an advocate of the “shut up” school of thought. But advocate “think before you speak, and choose your words carefully.” It can help the LEO out.

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      “always do what you are told.”

      Spoken like a true slave.

      • avatarJeff O. says:

        I’d take this as always do what you’re told as in don’t put your hands in your pockets, come over here, stand over here, etc…

        Comply with things that if you don’t, would make the situation worse and/or get you shot.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Good point. Rescinded. Apologies to Graybeard if I jumped to conclusions.

        • avatarGraybeard says:

          Apology accepted.

          I may have been unclear in my phrasing. What I intended was that when the LEOs show up, they are already concerned about running into someone with a weapon. I know from 1st hand experience as well as my brother’s stories about what that does to the LEO. If I have been involved in a DGU and still have a weapon in my hand, and a responding officer tells me to put the gun down and step away – I will. I don’t want to have him shoot and only later realize I was not the bad guy. Really puts a damper on things. For the LEO as well as for me.

          On the other hand, as a bonafide died-in-the-wool Texan, I have a streak of stubbornness and independence that I will not give up. I’m just careful about when and how I exercise that streak.

        • avatarMP says:

          Always do what you’re told as in “don’t move! get out of the car!” or “show me your hands! unbuckle your seat belt!”

          If you’re lucky you’ll only get Tased while trying to figure out which of the hail of contradictory orders to comply with.

      • avatarDon says:

        Sorry to get all philosophical, but that phrase, “spoken like a true slave”, is quite possibly the most insulting thing that can be casually bandied about in a group of people so staunchly on the side of individual’s rights. It is an ethnic-slur-caliber-insult in this kind of crowd. It adds nothing to debate except a deeply personal insult regarding one of our most deeply held values. Like when I hear or see someone use it, I know we could never be allies, and I could never support them, regardless of how common our interests are.

        I really wish we could all refrain from using this on each other, though of course everyone is free to be any kind of man they want to be.

        -D

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          I guess you could never be allies with the likes of Samuel Adams then:

          “If ye love wealth better than liberty,
          the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
          May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

          The point is to inspire patriotic men of character, as we have here, to defy the accusation.

        • avatarTom says:

          Hey, he sounded like a pretty cool guy. I wonder what he thought of the Alien and Sedition Acts?

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Yeah, I guess his cousin wasn’t cut from the same cloth.

        • avatarDon says:

          Equating the spirit and context of Sam Adam’s chosen words in Sam Adam’s time to the spirit and context of your chosen words in your time is intellectually disingenuous.

          Sam Adams was facing real tyranny, a king, an army, and certain death, we are talking about choosing not to be obstinate regarding simple and occasional interactions with police. Two very different things. To equate the two scenarios is disrespecting the seriousness and gravity of the first.

          You may claim you intend to rally good men, but I suspect you simply intended to insult someone who you felt had a different view than yours. At the very least, if you simply misunderstood the comment, don’t good men deserve the benefit of the doubt before leveling such a nuclear claim against them? I think so.

          Like I said though, everyone has the right to be any kind of man they want to be.

          -D

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          The specific police situation aside, I think you underestimate the seriousness and gravity of our current situation. As if we don’t face “real tyranny” is this country.

          You’ll notice that I quickly apologized when a less “slave-like” interpretation of the remark was revealed as it’s likely intent (which was well before you inserted yourself into the discussion).

          Also, at least I take a man at his word when he asserts his true motive, as opposed to clinging to my false first impression.

        • avatarDon says:

          None of this has anything to do with the fact that the phrase is deeply offensive.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Sam Adams wouldn’t speak up for revolt when the sailors and mechanics urged it. Only when wealthy Boston merchants were threatened ca. 1768-72 did he and Hancock turn into eloquent professors of rebellion. His excuse for crushing Shays’ rebellion was shabby: He claimed the rebels could fix their problems in the next election. However, they were being foreclosed upon because there was not enough gold coinage in circulation and paper was not not being accepted by the bankers….many of whom had sat out the revolution in Canada and Britain. He was a perfect lackey of the Brahmins.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      The TL;DR version: leave Chicago.

      As for talking to the police, you’re always better off getting an attorney before saying anything.

  3. avatarTodd AF Vet says:

    I love it. A Chicago cop telling you that yes you have the right to remain silent but if you do we are taking you straight to jail. Has for the concealed in the fanny pack questions. I think there’s been a recent change in the law that allows this. Of course God forbid a Chicago cop would know it. This is a question for our TTAG readers in Illinois to answer.

  4. avatarKYgunner says:

    Question for the Chicago officer: What would have happened if he would have had to shoot? Have you seen any cases of a clearly defined DGU similar to this, and if so, what was the outcome?

  5. avatarChris says:

    If anything this demonstrate just how irrational, and philosophically indefensible the current legal system is.

    When your freedom, and indeed your very life, can hinge on which officers show up, or which judge you happen to get, the whole concept of the law becomes a farcical circus.

    A moral person, has an obligation to refuse to follow orders they find immoral. To enforce such laws is an indefensibly moral failure and a sign of an inferior character. Such people should never be given positions of authority over others.

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      Agreed. This detective’s claim that he “would have no option not to arrest” has been proven false on numerous occasions when police come upon a brother in blue involved in a crime.

      If sticking to your principles and abiding by your oath “may jeopardize my and my partner’s jobs”, maybe it’s time to find a new line of work.

    • avatarDrew says:

      That is incorrect Chris…

      A Citizen only has the Legal Right to refuse and Ignore orders from people in Authority positions (Fed/State/Local LEO) that are ILLEGAL.

      Morality is defined as a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good and bad.

      Laws have been Voted on in Legislative Bodies and apply across the board. Morals are Subjective based upon the personal viewpoint of the individual in question. Someone might have different morals if they were raised Christan than if they were raised Jewish for example.

      A further point: 99% of all the Police Officers I know in Chicago are in favor of a CCW permit FOR everyone that can pass the background check. I have a Pistol and a Carbine in my Lincoln Park Condo. I carry Concealed every day to and from work, with a magazine in the coat pocket (so that it is unloaded but ready).

      The Consistent Denial of 2nd Amendment Rights and Reciprocity of the other 49 States CCW permits is a Travesty in Illinois

      • avatarChris says:

        I disagree with your definition of morality, and I don’t subscribe to the subjective moral theory you are working from (if you really believed in subjective morality you wouldn’t be asserting that I am incorrect, that should be an obvious contradiction) but moral philosophy would be a huge tangent…

        Let’s just say that if you ruin someones life enforcing laws you disagree with, you’ve failed a major test of character. Your options, if being consistent is important to you, would be to either revise you’re beliefs or refuse to follow to law and find some other kind of work.

        It’s a cliche to say that everything done by the Nazi was legal… but people still don’t seem to be able to integrate that principle into their own thinking so we have to repeat it over, and over, and over.

        I’ll concede that there are a lot of challenges, and that clear answers are not always easy or obvious.

        • avatarNot too Eloquent says:

          Is it moral to force your version of morality down everybody else’s throats?

        • avatarNR says:

          If you grant that it’s legitimate for everyone to have their own personal morality, then yes– my morality, after all, may demand that I force-feed it to other people.

          Then again, if you grant that everyone can legitimately have their own version of morality, then it would seem that the very concept of morality is pretty much meaningless when more than one person is involved.

        • avatarChris says:

          I have my own personal mathematics, it makes perfect sense to me but you probably wouldn’t want to try to build a bridge with it. :-P

          As it turns out, realty doesn’t care about my opinions.

        • avatarChris says:

          darn edit function isn’t working… I mean, I have my own way of spelling and if you believe that everything is subjective then you cannot criticize it…

        • avatarChris says:

          My approach to morality is from a universal perspective.

          If the moral principle in question cannot be rationally applied to all people, regardless of race, nationality, religion or social status, then it’s not a moral principle, it’s a subjective preference.

          Saying “my morality” is meaningless from my perspective. It’s like saying, “my nutrition.” Yes my ideal diet might be somewhat different than yours, but basic principles of nutrition, the things that all humans need to consume in order to maintain optimal health, is universal. It’s an analogy, best to not get too hung up on it.

          As for forcing it down your throat. I’m not sure how you equate writing a comment on an open public forum as “force”.

          Now a cop enforcing an unjust law (an opinion backed by a gun), that’s forcing morality down someone’s throat.

          So long as we are free to peacefully disagree, we don’t have a problem.

  6. avatarTodd says:

    I challenge the cop’s idea of what a container is or isn’t. If they arrest you for the fanny pack carry, they are up for a lawsuit and a loss. It’s already been proven in other parts of the state.

    • avatarAharon says:

      Are you serious? A person without a cc permit can carry a gun in fanny-type pack? If yes, does it matter if the gun is loaded or not?

      • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

        I believe the law contains the phrase “in a container expressly made to contain a firearm” or some such.

    • avatarokto says:

      Cool, you’re right. So all you have to do to prove it is sit in jail for a while, pay your bond (if you can even afford to do so), not break a single law until your court date months in the future—including carrying your weapon, which you will likely be prohibited from doing while the trial is pending. Sound like a win to you?

      You can’t change the laws by breaking them, and you don’t have the authority-by-force to interpret them; the judiciary does.
      Only a fool thinks that being in the right is enough to keep him free of the clutches of an opponent more powerful than he.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        “You can’t change the laws by breaking them”

        Tell that to Rosa Parks, or better yet, those silly law-breakers at the Boston Tea Party.

        • avatarNR says:

          When the rules don’t work, you break ‘em. Of course, I would personally prefer bring about change by donating money for the legal defense of someone *else* who broke ‘em.

    • avatarSA Operator says:

      Also, a loaded gun is one in which you can pull the trigger and it will fire. Having a loaded magazine in the weapon without having a round in the chamber makes it an unloaded weapon.

  7. avatarRobert Shults says:

    There is some incorrect information from the officer at the top of this article. A fanny pack is indeed a container, and the law in Illinois states that the firearm must be unloaded and in a container, firearms carring box or other container. (You must also have a FOID card)
    The magazines are not firearms and can be loaded. The ammunition can be carried anywhere, as long as the firearm isn’t loaded. A ziplock bag is a container, as is a tshirt wrapped around the firearm.
    I have been arrested three times in Illinois for UUW. ALL three times the judge in the case let me go, let me have the firearms back, and told the detectives and officers that they were wrong to arrest me in the first place.
    The first time with a gun case, and twice after that with a fanny pack. There were no other charges. I’ve never been arrested for anything else. I talked with the officers two of the times and did not talk the third. Talking (or not talking) to the officers made no difference whatsoever as to how I was treated or the charges involved.

    • avatarTodd AF Vet says:

      What is “UUW”? Also what locations?

    • avatarILfarWestBurbs says:

      Hey, you beat me to this reply. I was soo pissed at his mischaracterization, that I jumped in too early (above). Funny how a 26 year veteran cop is fuzzy on the details. He’s probably a good guy too, but in this state, there’s soo much mis-information put out that even well meaning folks can let “common knowledge” get in the way of knowing the actual law.

  8. avatarTio Volatito says:

    Sure, this particular Chicago cop only wants to hear your side of the story so he can help you with the DA. BS. This story illustrates how arbitrary police work can be. Hey, if you tell him you’re a firefighter on your way to work, he might let it slide and break some rules because you’re almost like one of his own. Almost. So, it’s ok for some law-abiding citizens to carry guns, but not others? The bottom line is that cops — hard-working good guys or not — aren’t your friend. Anything you tell them can and will be used against you.

    • avatarMr. Lion says:

      This is what rubbed my rhubarb wrong about what was said. Oh, so if you’re a fire fighter, you’re welcomed into the wonderful “gray area” that is the law being applied by public workers to public workers. Keen. But if you’re joe sixpack who’d rather not get robbed and/or killed, sucks to be you, in the can you go.

      While the officer’s overall sentiment is appreciated, the very fact that rules get bent in specific circumstances should tell any rational person that the rules in question are broken. Apply them evenly, or ignore them entirely.

      Ultimate solution: Live somewhere else.

      • avatarTio Volatito says:

        On another site, a presumed Chicago cop is raising the question of why if you’re a FF did you not call 9-11 and tell them there were 3 guys strong arming people? And oh, what kind of FF job is temporary? And there were no other witnesses on an el platform in the middle of the day? Those questions are enough to raise suspicions. To Chicago cops, it’s “us vs them”. And we’re all “them”.

  9. avatarAharon says:

    I know that it is not as good as having Ralph at your side in the case of an emergency, however, I have a monthly subscription to a legal service that provides me with access to defense attorneys 24/7, and others Monday through Friday. I have used the service for many issues though not self-defense criminal-defense related matters. In the case of needing a defense attorney, it is hopefully a matter of a few minutes to get one to speak with for advice and I can also put him on the phone with the police officer.

  10. avatarnonya says:

    For those commenters from IL, realize that the laws downstate and the laws in Chicago can vary wildly. Do not assume that because something worked with a judge downstate, the same thing will work with a judge in Chicago.

  11. avatarRobert says:

    I’m with the advice to move out of Chicago, and preferably Illinois.

    However, assuming that’s not practical, for heaven’s sake find a place to live that doesn’t require traveling on public transit.

  12. avatarDJ says:

    As a retired Illinois State Police officer I feel the need to post some info for the benefit of law abiding citizens who choose to concealed carry in spite of Illinois’ corrupt politicians and their anti-2nd amendment laws. First of all, in the corrupt state of Illinois you will more than likely be charged with weapons offenses in Cook County than other parts of the state since Cook County is run by liberal Democrats and the current States Attorney, Anita Alvarez, is a gun hater. Anyway, if you choose to concealed carry, and end up having to draw your weapon or shoot in self defense, remember that you have no obligation to remain at the scene. If you have to shoot in defense of your life, secure the scene by taking any weapons from the offender so he or his buddies cannot come after you, and then simply walk away. Go some place safe and call an attorney for advice. If you are stopped by the police, do not resist arrest but remember that you are best served by not providing any statement until you have a chance to speak with an attorney. Say nothing until then, about what happened, but you can provide your identifiers. You may have to spend a night or a few days in jail but that sure beats years in prison after being convicted thanks to your own words being used against you. For some interesting information about speaking to the police, watch the attached two videos in the link below.

    http://www.crimefilenews.com/search/label/Fifth%20Amendment

    Here’s a link of an interview with Cook County States Attorney where she explains her gun hatred.

    • avatarTodd AF Vet says:

      By her statements at the end of the interview I think the people of Illinois should impeach her. She literally says that she doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment. Which means if she took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America she is violating that oath of office.
      Thanks DJ both of his links.

    • avatarHazzard Bagg says:

      Ms. Alvarez’ responses to the interviewer’s excellent questions are devoid of any argument of any kind. Her response to gun ownership is entirely emotional—and in direct violation of the Constitution.

      What unadulterated arrogance!

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I didn’t see her explain anything. I expected an explanation where she laid out her rational (to her) reasons for opposing gun ownership. All I got was her saying, repeatedly, “I believe in gun control. I believe less [sic] guns is better. I don’t think anyone should own guns.”

      She must have been very sure of her voting base (and I guess rightfully, since she won the subsequent election) to answer that firmly, especially without articulating her reasons for those answers. I hate what she stands for, but I have to have a grudging respect for her for not tiptoeing around the issue with ambiguous answers.

      • avatarILfarWestBurbs says:

        Until she runs for president, then you’ll hear how much she’s always supported the 2nd ammendment!

    • avatarAharon says:

      Thank you DJ for your post.

    • avatarGS650G says:

      I bet her fukcing security guards pack heat.

  13. avatarSilver says:

    “I would have no option not to arrest . . .”

    “…but can only do what the law allows us to.”

    There’s always another option.

    And as refreshing as it is to hear from an officer with such sentiments, let’s face it: you took a job in a city that forces you to violate the Constitution, the law of the land. You can feel sorry for what you’re doing all you want, but the fact remains that you’re breaking a higher law by enforcing that awful city’s illegal laws. I appreciate you wanting to help out gun-owners, but if you make an arrest on a righteous DGU, you’re still on the wrong side.

    • avatarST says:

      He’s a Chicago Police Officer. He does not have the option to follow the law as it should be, or his political overlords would be locked up too.

    • avatarKWAL says:

      +1 to that. The “I was only following orders” excuse is no excuse at all.

      What would happen if a cop refused to arrest based on violating the second amendment and constitutional law? You would think at least ONE of them would grow a set of balls. Think of all the support he would have.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        They’re too worried about jeopardizing their pensions, which, of course, are funded by those very same tax-payers they refuse to go out on a limb for.

      • avatarMP says:

        Better yet, what would happen if a cop arrested a fellow cop and the district attorney for kidnapping and deprivation of civil rights under color of law, both of which are federal felonies!

        Their pensions are apparently more important to them than their oaths, though.

  14. avatarST says:

    A few points.

    This officer is being nice and mindful of his audience. In reality on the street no police officer is going to risk 20+ years of service and his associated pension for a complete stranger regardless of said stranger’s occupation.After living in Chicago for years I do not blame him, as his own city superiors are in bed with criminals and gangsters. They-and by “they” I mean the city government and its criminal allies-would toss a Chicago policeman on the street in a heartbeat if they could get away with it.Chicago law enforcement must deal with the rock of street crime and the hard place of a legal & political system that keeps criminals on the street but looks for any reason to toss a member of CPD in the clink.The media is on the take too; anytime a scumbag points a gun at an officer and is properly ventilated Chuck Goudie gets on NBC5 talking about excessive force, complete with a sound byte from the local minister advocating more gun control and city government.

    Those of you who cite state law must remember that in Illinois there is no state preemption of local firearm laws.

    Chicago -and any other Illinois village, town, or city-can make and enforce any gun law it darn well feels like. The IL state police will tell you as long as a gun is in a case and unloaded you’re good to go, but following that advice in many cities in Illinois will get you jailed for Unlawful Use of a Weapon because of local possession statutes that are cryptic and confusing.

    Bottom line, in Chicago the citizen is simply another mark to exploit. Living in the Edgewater neigborhood wasn’t nearly as bad as the west side or Rogers Park to the immediate north, but even there I got hip to the truth that the City Government is just as bad a pickpocket as the street hoods. $250 every six months for city sticker renewal, a $100 worth of parking tickets accrued every month like clockwork no matter how far away I parked or how carefully I scouted my spots, 10.25% sales tax, $50 no front plate fee , and the comforting knowledge that if I was severely injured or targeted for crime I was on my own.

    People in bad sections will leave their cars unlocked, because they would rather the theif take what they want and leave the windows alone versus breaking in and leaving the owner with a window repair bill on top of the stolen property.

    Call the police? That’s a bad idea in most parts of the Third World, and its just the same in Chicago-no offense to the detective. I would come back from work and see drug dealers posting on corners, and I didn’t live in what people would call the ‘Ghetto’. I’d turn down a billion dollar check if it meant I had to live in Chicago.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      I’d turn down a billion dollar check if it meant I had to live in Chicago.

      For me, it would depend on how long. A day, a week, a month? Sure no problem. More than that? Gotta think about it.

      • avatarbontai Joe says:

        I lived in the south side of Chicago 1974-75. Got quite an education on city life because prior to that I lived next to a dairy farm during my childhood. Chicago was at that time a very divided city racially, I have no idea what it’s like now, but if offered a billion dollars to live there?…… maybe if I could live in one of the high security sky scrapers and have everything delivered so I wouldn’t have to ever hit the streets. I appreciate the detective giving us his viewpoint, Knowing his perspective gives us all additional knowledge and knowledge is power. Knowledge also allows us to plan better and be better prepared.

      • avatarDon says:

        if you have a billion dollars you can pretty much afford to do as you want no matter where you live, as long as you don’t interfere with someone else’s billion dollars…

    • avatartdiinva says:

      A little history. I grew up in Rogers Park in the 50s and 60s. (Jarvis and Sheridan) Back then it was known as a solidly Jewish middle class neighborhood. It was actual as much Irish as Jewish. When I returned in 2002 to show my then 12 year old son where I grew up I was shocked how it had turned into gangbanger city.

  15. avatarsum yung guy says:

    Pardon my ignorance. What is FF?

  16. avatarjohnl says:

    “only following orders” or the law – sounds like nuremberg to me.

    My advise – do what you have to do, and SCOOT! When you are innocent, why subject yourself to idiotic laws passed by morons?

    Be ethical, be moral, be free. Especially if it violtes some idiotic illegitimate law that some toady is happy to enforce. Law enforcement agents are not the ally.

  17. avatarGS650G says:

    Move from Chicago. Period. Nice city, I think I’ll just look at pictures of it on television.

  18. avatarmichael says:

    As most people here know, cops are not your “friends.” That does not mean they are bad guys necessarily. They are just people with disgusting jobs to perform; jobs that many of us would quickly sour on. It is not to excuse them, but only to state a fact. I give them credit, because I could not very well be a policeman, and certainly wish them well–or at least safe passage home at night.

    For those of you wanting a taste of Chicago cop, go to the Second City Cop blog, and read about the hell hole that is Chicago police work, along with everything associated. Corrupt politicians, a virulently anti-cop media, incompetent administration, and some of the worst criminal losers on the street this side of Detroit inner city, or parts of Oakland.

    The best advice has been given. Get the hell out of Dodge while you still can.

  19. avatarJSIII says:

    Chicago has some real good cops, but it has some real bad cops. Most of the good cops are not telling their kids to become cops though, the force is way too political. My bosses father retired as an L.T. in the 80′s, he told my boss to NEVER EVER become a Chicago cop because the politics were just so bad; and that was in the 80′s.

    Keeping the gun at your side is a good idea though, it probably wouldn’t flag too much attn for anyone watching those CTA cameras.

  20. avatarJake says:

    I’m kind of sick of the “what the law allows us to do” excuse. I know decent lawmen seem to be outnumbered these days, but what the law actually emphatically demands they do is allow people like this to pass freely, even those peons of us not in the business of saving lives but still very concerned about keeping their own. A few of them believe it, but a fraction of that already small number would go out of their way to protect a citizen from arrest for civilly disobeying a lesser “law” that is unjust and unlawful, which is unfortunate. I don’t mean to sound too negative, I believe that if every one of the guys who kept saying “too afraid to lose my job” were to “come out” as it were, there would be enough that some real change would be effected and police could start treating citizens like adults instead of like delinquent children.

  21. avatarAharon says:

    This makes Chicago great even if the gun laws stink.

    http://www.tastesofchicago.com/

    • avatarjkp says:

      No. There’s little in Chicago that people don’t do better somewhere else.

      If I must live in a city with shitty gun laws, I’ll go to New York (at least it actually IS a world-class city) or even Washington, DC in a heartbeat instead of Chicago.

  22. avatarJames says:

    “Also if there are any rounds in that gun, magazine, chambered or any combo of both, that gun is loaded.”

    That’s something I’ve always thought of as bullshit. Regardless of what you say, or what a law says, unless there is a round in the chamber, the gun is not loaded.

    I don’t care if there’s a round in a magazine, or a round within reach of a gun with a magazine nearby. If there’s not a round chambered, it’s not loaded. Period.

    I think that’s some “common sense” law-changing the 2A-supporting community should get behind.

  23. avatarBob says:

    Nice post, but I couldn’t help but notice the blatant double-standard where government employees get preferential treatment, not because they’re somehow better people than us regular folks, but simply because they are government employees (FF) like cops.

  24. avatarRobert Shults says:

    UUW is Unlawful Use of a Weapon. It covers a lot of ground. Anything from a loaded gun to shooting it off to just transporting it incorrectly.

    All three times I was arrested, it was Downstate Illinois. The first time was a County sherriff, then Town cops, and a different County Sherriff the third time.
    All traffic stops. Two in parking lots, and I only gave consent to search the first time.
    For a short time UUW was a felony. I was indicted by a grand jury on a felony charge. It was dropped, but the indictment is still on my record.
    I had the law and even the page number of the law memorized, and none of the deputies would open the book to read it. (The copy of the book was in the squad car)
    There is what is written, and there is what makes the police warm and fuzzy while doing their jobs.

  25. avatarKWood says:

    This is why I carry a PepperBlaster as a backup, or in places where guns aren’t welcome. It looks somewhat like a firearm (mine is the black version, not fire engine red), and would-be assailant would probably back off upon seeing it, much like the Chicago FF’s gang did.

  26. avatarRKBA says:

    Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. – These are places that are as American as…… Moscow.

    I (or my wallet) will not be visiting any in my lifetime. If I want to see a communist country, there are far better options.

    • avatarRalph says:

      If I want to see a communist country, there are far better options.

      Yes — almost any college in America. Communism never died, it just moved to the US, wrote a thesis and got a teaching job at Berkley.

  27. avatarMP says:

    “Believe me, myself and many other coppers are on your side, but can only do what the law allows us to.”

    What a whiny b!tch.

    He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, didn’t he? If the law required him to rape whoever he arrested, would he have the same sick attitude he exhibits here? Arrest and felony prosecution for exercising your fundamental human right to self-defense against a violent attacker is worse than rape, because it goes on for month after month, year after year.

    “I was just following orders” didn’t cut it at Nuremberg, and it doesn’t cut it today. If “many other coppers” are on the side of fundamental human rights and the Second Amendment, then they should stand up against the abusive prosecutors and uphold their bloody oaths, instead of kidnapping innocent people and cooperating with prosecutors in destroying their lives.

    I hope this whiny b!tch of a cop sees this reply and decides to man up.

  28. avatarJohn Boch says:

    I’ve carried in a fanny pack for 12 years.

    I’m eager to be arrested for it and publicly extend an invite to LEOs to make an arrest.

    I’m still waiting.

    1983 is a beautiful thing.

    John

  29. avatarIdahoPete says:

    Moral of the story: GTFOO Illinois.

  30. The guy simply gave an assessment of the situation from a Chicago police officer’s point of view. I thought it was informative in a real world sense because he outlined his position very well in his post. I would encourage more of the same from front-liners who can add a real world of law enforcement element to this forum.

    • avatarMP says:

      He outlined his position all right – he’s an oath-breaker who will piss on the Constitution which he swore to uphold for the sake of his precious pension. So much for “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”

      • avatarMark Smith says:

        There’s theory and then there’s reality. What the cop above detailed? That’s reality. That’s what you’ll have to deal with in Real Life, no matter how much you may not like it or wish that things were like how theory says they should be. They’re not. Best work from that assumption first.

  31. avatarBambiB says:

    Chicago is a crap-hole. I consider it, NYC, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Detroit and Oakland arguments in favor of thermonuclear war. D.C. is an argument in favor of neutron weapons.

  32. avatarRich7553 says:

    Interesting how the officer never once mentioned arresting the three thugs.

  33. avatarJericho941 says:

    A cop interviewing you is collecting evidence, nothing more. It doesn’t matter if there’s “only one side” presented. Anything you say to a cop can be used against you, but it also cannot be used FOR you.

    • avatarRobSmalls says:

      That’s what I was thinking when the cop is exhorting the FF to tell the cops his side of the story. The cop can’t testify to the FF’s story in court – the prosecutor will raise an objection to hearsay and it would be suppressed.

  34. avatartwency says:

    “You do have the right to remain silent, but remember that only leaves me with one version of what went on.”

    No. You will have the criminal’s version and my version as relayed by my attorney (and so not usable against me in court).

    Don’t talk talk to the police. ESPECIALLY in a situation like this. Exercise your right to counsel.

  35. avatarRetired Soldier says:

    I appreciate that the police officer is trying to explain things from his perspective. What’s galling is that the oly choice one is left with in Chicago is to die a glorious law abiding death at the hands of criminals. If you are attacked by 3 men, you are required to be helpless and to pray that either you are rescued by someone that is armed (i.e. a cop or a citizen that does not obey Chicagos mandatory helplessness laws), that somehow you don’t die, or that maybe your death will be quick and painless.

    What kind of evil hell is Chicago? One where you would be punished and thrown in jail for not waiting to be subjected to those horrible choices? Where it should be common sense that a person should not have to make this kind of decision. I would ask this officer, would he want his family to have to make that choice? I think we all know what the answer is, good for thee for not for me. I’m sure the cops and political leaders families carry guns illegally (or legally via some special permit only issued to special friends of the power elite) and aren’t faced with this horrible choice of living through a violent assault and joining to prison or obeying the law and dying a violent painful death.

    What an evil corrupt and insane place Chicago is where violent assaults like this one happen and anyone that defends themselves is treated as the criminal. Sheer madness.

  36. avatarCurtis Nix says:

    I heard the word LAW being used and to me very loosely. what about the original LAW of this land .. you know the CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? If those so called police officers, detectives,judges, Cook Counties Attorney, and of course those Juror’s selected from the Electoriate..all have taken an oath and are responsible for defending the CONSTITUTION…..let me see. that would be ignoring the main higher law of the land for some illigal sub-kind of law..ARE YOU KIDDING ME? well lets try this … the SHERIFF is the only and highest CONSTITUTIONAL officer in the COUNTY chosen from the ELECTORATE…:that would be the VOTERS.any officer , detective , attorney, or evan a judge, could be arrested for constitutional violation of the law if they try to enforce it.. there is no higher authority in the county than the SHERIFF…period…if the sheriff fails to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES., then the next absolute last defense of our constitutional rights come from the JUROR. just one knowledgeable juror trumps any judge no matter what that judge enfers, decrees, orders or demands from the juror’s they or that one juror can nullify what ever evidence is presented regardless of public sentiment. Now that’s real power of the people for the people and by the people.. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS PEOPLE or YOU WILL LOOSE THEM to STUPIDITY and LAZY IGNORANCE!

  37. avatarGerf says:

    It’s really hard these days to tell who the BG is. Cops, politicians or the guy mugging you on the ‘L.

    OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT THAT COULD GET THE POSTER IN BIG TROUBLE DELETED

  38. avatarDean says:

    I appreciate the LEOs opinion but if you look at the cases where homeowners in Chicago use a firearm to defend themselves, they aren’t charged.

  39. avatarDJ says:

    Dean says:
    March 26, 2012 at 06:30

    I appreciate the LEOs opinion but if you look at the cases where homeowners in Chicago use a firearm to defend themselves, they aren’t charged.

    You were saying?
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-elderly-man-shoots-burglar-in-englewood-both-charged-20120326,0,3175723.story

  40. avatarRic says:

    You may have been a law enforcement officer for 26 years, you and other LEO’s would probably arrest someone fanny packing an unloaded handgun. But, according to the way the law is written, “fanny packing,” is perfectly legal.

    “three statutory codes regulate the possession, transfer, and transportation of firearms, the criminal code, the wildlife code, and the firearm owners identification act……………
    ….persons who have been issued a valid FOID card may transport a firearm anywhere in their vhicle or on their person as long as the firearm is unloaded and encased in a case.

    ………so.
    1. Unloaded and,
    2. Encased in a case, and
    3 By person who have valid FOID card.
    (I took pertenint peices from the law, so if you are interested don’t quote me, look up the whole thing yourself)

    Also note that a loaded magazine does not equal a loaded gun under the law. As long as the magazine is not in the gun it is not considered loaded.

    Everyone should search on, “chicago fanny packing.”

    I carry a copy of the law with me, in my gun case. Just in case an officer has an issue with me transporting.

    The law does NOT specify that cases have to be locked, OR even as some think that the ammo and or gun have to be well out of reach while trasporting while in a vehicle. You can still be legally considered, by the letter of the law, transporting a handgun as long as it is in a closed case and the ammo/magazine is not in the gun.

    I realize LEO’s wouldn’t probably see it this way. (They would interpret the law as they saw fit as LEO’s do with many laws) Which is why I keep a copy of the actual law in my case. Should I get stopped I would present them with this law to inform them. At this point they would no longer be able to say they were acting under good faith. If the officer insisted on arresting me I would then be able to sue not only the department, but also the officer(s) involved in civil court.

    Yes, there would be the issues of perhaps having to bond out and if I got a judge with an axe to grind. Myself though I have the means to hire a good lawyer, I would sue the absolute shit out of anyone that arrested me while I was legally, “transporting,” a handgun.

    So, LEO’s keep that in mind if you happen to decide to arrest a FOID card holder, legally, “fanny packing.”

    Let’s hope that IL, ends up getting concealed carry so that law abiding people can have a means to defend themselves without worrying if LEO’s are going to put them in jail for merely having a gun.

  41. avatarDJ says:

    Ric,

    I agree that Illinois really is in need of a concealed carry law so that law abiding citizens can protect themselves without worrying about being arrested. As a retired police officer, I have made UUW arrests over the years, but I have also let go many hard working, law abiding citizens who I found to be in possession of a firearm. The deciding factor in my decision was basically if the person was a thug criminal with a lengthy criminal history or an honest, hard working citizen simply going about his business. It’s not too hard to differentiate the bad guys from the good, and any cop who arrests the good guys for exercising their 2nd amendment right to bear arms is not doing anything to promote public safety.

  42. avatarLatanya says:

    Hello, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.

    When I look at your blog in Ie, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping.

    I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that,
    fantastic blog!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.