Chicago Police have come under fire four times in past four days

Chicago’s finest have come under gunfire from brazen bad guys four times in the past four days. The most recent incident happened Tuesday at about midnight. For no apparent reason, a pair of thugs opened fire on two police officers leaving their firearms certification course.

The bullets missed the officers, but hit another vehicle nearby, narrowly missing the occupants. The officers pursued their attackers, quickly catching up to them. In an exchange of gunfire, one of the two cops shot and critically wounded both suspects.

Violence in Mogadishu on Lake Michigan continues unabated from last year’s 20-year high. With 268 homicides and 1450-ish people shot so far this year, the Windy City’s crime problem continues to spiral out of control. And now criminals apparently feel emboldened to simply shoot at the police when the urge strikes them.

The Chicago Tribune has a quick rundown of the mayhem in Mayor Emanuel’s gun control utopia.

Late Friday night, officers fatally shot Corsean Lewis, 17, in the 5800 block of South Wabash Avenue in the Washington Park neighborhood, according to officials.

Officers with the summer mobile unit had responded to a call of a person with a gun and were approaching a group of people when someone fired a shot at the officers, hitting the front bumper of the unmarked police car, according to officials.

Officers returned fire, striking the teen several times, according to police. Officers found a gun at the scene, and they believe the teen was the one who had fired the shot at them, according to officials.

About 24 hours later, officers working a similar summer mobile unit farther south in the 8100 block of South Maryland Avenue were involved in another shooting. A police officer and another man were wounded.

The man had run from officers who had seen him drinking outside. He went into a nearby apartment building, where there was a struggle over a gun.  An officer was shot in the hand, and the officer’s partner shot at the man, critically wounding him, police said.

Monday night, a 12-year-old boy and two 17-year-olds were arrested after shots were fired at police in the Lawndale neighborhood. Officers did not return fire, and no one was injured, police said.

It doesn’t take much of an imagination to figure what would happen to any police officer who justifiably shoots and kills a 12-year-old boy in Chicago. Interesting times.

46 Responses to Chicago Cops Under Fire…Literally

  1. Ok, I’ll say it:
    Firearms certification course…I think this may have been the final test immediately following their class, nyuk nyuk…

  2. Whatev…dindu nuffins. Precious little sympathy for the Chicago po-leece. You reap what you sow…

      • I think the point is that the Chicago police are reaping at the front line level what the imbecilic top cops and corrupt politicians have sown for decades.

        • Ah no…having known dozens of Chicago cops and observed their behaviorr in the street I’m surprised more cops aren’t shot. Thugs are us or “you can’t tell who’s a perp or a po-leeceman”…lol officer Hannibal(if you really ARE one).

        • ^ ^ ^
          This right here.

          Exercise authority over a people by brutality, and there will eventually be brutality in return from those on the receiving end.

      • Keeping the (law abiding) people disarmed has given rise to this kind of lawlessness. That happens due to the actions of ground level cops. And yes, cops are ABSOLUTELY responsible for the laws they enforce. “My job is to enforce the law, even if I am disagree with it”, doesn’t hold water. Not any more than “just following orders”. Bullshit. I usually hate comparing soldiers to cops (it’s insulting to soldiers), but in this case, it’s appropriate: if a soldier can be charged with war crimes for following orders (unlawful though they may be), cops are fully reaponsible for the laws they enforce. Soldiers face massive penalties for disobeying orders, even unlawful ones. Oh, and they can’t quit on a whim, or simply choose to move to another outfit in another place. Cops can. So fvck em, no sympathy from me.

  3. Thugs
    Live by the gun, die by the gun
    There is no honor in their manner nor their concept of manhood or strength
    I can only dream that each one meets his righteous end sooner rather than later

  4. Note how TTAG obsesses over the poor CPD cops facing imaginary retaliation for “justified” shootings, when CPD spent half a billion dollars settling police brutality lawsuits in the last 10 years, runs a literal black site at Homan Square, and probably has the worst criminal record of any PD in the entire country.

    CPD dindu nuffin!

    • If you call being shot at “imaginary retaliation,” then it’s a safe bet that arguing with you continues to be a waste of time.

      • This is the guy that proclaimed communist soldiers as freedom fighters on the memorial weekend post.

        He is beyond damaged and of no value to anyone.

        • In the case of that thread (i.e. the Vietnam conflict), yes, the NVA and their predecessors, the Viet Minh, are undoubtedly freedom fighters against colonialism.

          But feel free to argue how the French and American overlords and their corrupt cronies were the good guys. Let’s hear you come up with a coherent, logical argument for that. This ought to be good.

        • Don’t need to explain or justify. You think communist soldiers are freedom fighters. Period. Just wanted that on the record. Not that you ever had credibility here.

        • “Don’t need to explain or justify”

          Note how when challenged, you simply state that your views are self-evidently true, therefore everyone else is wrong by definition. The irony here is that line of argument (if you can even call it that) is distinctly Marxist: inevitability of history and all that nonsense.

          “Just wanted that on the record”

          Damn right it is on the record, along with your refusal (and therefore failure) to defend your views. 🙂

        • Because the NVA, Viet Minh and the Viet Cong were fighting for the freedom to FORCE other people to adhere to their concept of a communist Utopia, or die. They were ruthless terrorists and murderers. The French may have been fighting to save their colonial interests, and the Americans definitely made some mistakes in their choice of allies (but remember WW II and the Soviet Union – your find help where you can get it).

          There may have been and probably were a lot of bad reasons to get as deeply involved in Vietnam without a plan for victory or an ethical strategy for fighting the war, but that does not change the reality of the brutality of the people we were fighting against, or their goals for the subjugation of the people of Vietnam.

          They were fighting for the freedom to do as they damn pleased, not for the freedom of the Vietnamese people to do as they pleased with their own lives.

        • @MDS. Wow, implying that colonialism is evil. You really are an SJW fuckwit. The first world rules the world, and takes what it wants from lesser cultures. Get used to it.

        • mds, I fully realize that you were the debate queen of your middle school. But the grown up world doesn’t play by your rules. I made a simple statement. You glorify communist soldiers as freedom fighters. I will use that admission at every comment you make.

          You viewed my statement thru your statist, marxist mindset and drew the wrong conclusion. Again. Still.

        • “Note how when challenged, you simply state that your views are self-evidently true, therefore everyone else is wrong by definition. ”

          You seem to be suffering from the delusion that just because you (and who are you?) issue a challenge, it must be accepted.
          You don’t have the standing to expect any challenges you issue to be accepted.

      • Being shot is being shot. Adding the retaliation claim for every act of violence against cops is nothing more than propaganda from the police unions to argue for more curtailing of civilian civil rights, and more legal double standards for government versus civilian use of violence.

        There is no “war on cops”. Police casualties continue to drop while civilian deaths at the hands of cops increases annually. In the case of CPD, there is ample evidence that the actual war is being waged by the cops against the citizenry.

        • “Because the NVA, Viet Minh and the Viet Cong were fighting for the freedom to FORCE other people to adhere to their concept of a communist Utopia”

          The overriding ideology of Vietnamese resistance was nationalism. Communism was merely the ideology that prevailed in the nationalist camp. Classifying anti-colonialist sentiment as the same as communism is pure drivel and ignorance.

          “Wow, implying that colonialism is evil.”

          Not even implying, flat out stating.

          “But the grown up world doesn’t play by your rules. I made a simple statement.”

          And you totally failed to defend it. Simple is correct: simple-minded. 🙂

          “You don’t have the standing to expect any challenges you issue to be accepted.”

          And you seem to believe your statements should be free from criticism. The concepts of debate and dialectic must be alien to you.

        • MDS – The number of “civilian” shootings by police isn’t a relevant statistic. What is relevant is the number of police shootings of “civilians” which are ruled IMPROPER or ILLEGAL after investigation and judicial review – and the vast majority of them are adjudged as having been legal and proper. You can read a chart. Good. Read one of them which shows that crime had declined generally in the U.S. over the past several decades. Less crime, fewer police/perpetrator interactions which could lead to a shooting incident. Police shootings of “civilians” on a steady rise? The statistics indicate that they are – but again, that statistic is not relevant. It’s the number of ILLEGAL or IMPROPER shootings which should be of concern.

          It should be fairly obvious from my postings that I’m a retired cop. I don’t know what you do/did for a living but I wonder how many people in your line of work are killed/injured at work annually. In my 15 years of service before I was retired on disability there were 15 officers from my department whom I knew personally who were shot or stabbed. Of those, 8 of them succumbed to their injuries. As for myself, I did 8 trips to the ER to have damage sustained in the line of duty repaired.

          There seems to be a growing and disturbing tendency for criminals to resist a lawful arrest up to and including killing police officers, so much so that the phenomenon has gained the sobriquet of “the Ferguson Effect” to describe it. True, a sudden spike in police officers killed in 2016 (135, with 64 of them by gunshot) could be an anomaly – or it could indicate a trend. That 19 officers have died of gunshot wounds in 2017 as of today’s date compared to 20 on today’s date in 2016 would appear to indicate that the latter is the case.

        • “The number of “civilian” shootings by police isn’t a relevant statistic.”

          Of course it is. It indicates an increased use of lethal force by cops, even as crime decreases. That is a contradictory trend, unless you are willing to claim that increased police use of violence is actually responsible for the drop in crime, in which case you should go talk to all the criminologists who disagree.

          “What is relevant is the number of police shootings of “civilians” which are ruled IMPROPER or ILLEGAL after investigation and judicial review”

          Then this will require a debate on whether the process of review is transparent and fair for the civilian side, which is completely unrepresented. Also relevant is whether the legal chasm which separate police and civilians in their use of violence is constitutionally sound, even if the entirety of the judicial system has been consistently pro-police in their rulings in the last half century. What you consider legal and proper has been shifting consistently to a pro-police bias.

          If you are going to claim a reversal in a four decade trend, you better have more than a single year anomaly.

  5. Why were the police pursuing a man whose only crime was drinking outside? Somethings ya gotta let slide..

    • True… although the fact that he ran inside to grab a gun (I’m guessing with ill-intent) might point to him being the kind of gangbanger that the cops are going to lock up for drinking because every night he spends in jail is a night he isn’t victimizing citizens.

      Ultimately you’re right, though (even if the violator is a complete shitbag) it’s probably not a great idea to go after someone for a municipal infraction like that. Much safer to stay in the car and watch the neighborhoods collapse into 3rd world nations. The residents all scream at the police to DO SOMETHING!!1! about the crack dealers and hobos drinking and pissing all over (those ‘quality of life’ crimes) but the moment the cops do anything they’re liable to see their career go down the toilet.

      • Of course, if those cops allowed folks to actually protect themselves (anyone who disagrees with that premise is welcome to read my post above), this would be a non issue

      • Hannibal – I’m going to offer you a more likely scenario: The gun was ALREADY in the perp’s pocket when the officers approached him to tell him to put his booze away, pour it out, or write him a citation for drinking in public. Rather get caught with the gun in his pocket in a pat-down (since odds are pretty good that he was a prohibited person), he beat feet but they caught up to him and then things got ugly.

        As for those of you who have used this blog as yet another opportunity to bash law enforcement, I’d be the last one to tell you that everyone who wears a badge is a fine stalwart fellow who is free of any human inclination to make mistakes or even have human emotions. As Teddy Roosevelt is quoted as saying, “The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything.” Cops, being human, occasionally make mistakes, sometimes of the head and even worse, of the heart. Cops have the same emotions and fallibilities that every one of you do. For the most part they’re just human beings trying to do the best they can at the job they’ve chosen. And cops can be afraid, just like you can – except they have an obligation to face the danger instead of retreating from it. Frankly, any street cop with more than just a few years on the job who tells you he’s never been afraid should be avoided because he’s (1.) a damned fool; (2.) a liar, or (3.) not much of a street cop.

        Some years back my wife gave me a photo book called “Street Cops” written by a photojournalist named Jill Friedman. It was photos and comments from NYC cops as their went about trying to control chaos. One comment from a street-wise cop stuck with me all these years when he said, “This is the only job in the world where the guys at the bottom make more important decisions than the guys at the top.” That’s something that will never change.

    • A better question perhaps would be “why would you try to shoot at cops over a potential Public Drinking citation? “

  6. No idea why anyone would want to be a cop in a big city like that. If it’s not the punks trying to shoot you, it’s lawyers trying to hang you.

  7. This isn’t going to be a popular opinion, but here goes anyway.

    Chicago is where the rubber meets the road in regards to the failed war on drugs vs the second amendment. The very purpose of the second amendment is to protect the ability of the citizenry to fight against a government which seeks to rule, rather than serve them. The war on drugs is unwinnable, it’s like the 55mph speed limit nobody obeys: the government can try to protect people from themselves so to speak but it doesn’t work. It only creates resistance. And so drug dealers or people otherwise involved in that oh-so-lucrative drug game, shooting at policemen in Chicago, is the intersection of the two: people are voting with their bullets.

    • First, I agree that the war on drugs is a failure and needs to end. But people are not voting with bullets. Are soccer moms? Teachers? Insurance sales people?

      The people shooting at cops here are going to be involved in crime even if you ended the war on drugs tommorrow and gave pardons to all that had drawn convictions because of it.

      Inside a week most of those people voting with bullets will be out destroying their cities over some other criminal enterprise.

  8. I like cops. Its very sad when they are murdered. But I think they should be shot in self-defense in a “No Knock Raid on the Wrong House!” You will not see the three L’s, libertarian, Liberals and the Left, including their hero’s Gary Johnson and William Weld take my position.

    “Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House”, this happened 70 miles from my house. I’m still angry about it.

    http://freedomoutpost.com/man-killed-by-police-in-raid-on-wrong-house/

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1

    • SWAT has been overused, and have hurt innocent people. They should return to their mission of hostage rescue and the apprehension of barricaded violent felons. A SWAT raid doesn’t end your right to self defense, but it’s probably prudent to not take them on.

      I’ve taken out innocent families at gunpoint during felony stops when they forgot to report to police that their stolen car was recovered. There have also been mistakes by police where a stolen car wasn’t taken out of the system. The agencies responsible paid out on those lawsuits. Thankfully it was never my mistake or the mistake of my people.

      I hate when police screw up, but I’d personally rather have my day in court than shoot it out with 5-0. Certainly there’s corruption with US police, but not nearly as bad as many other places in the world.

    • Well, I’m glad Gary J. and the rest don’t agree with you. Cops should be shot in self defense in no knock raids? Why would you say that? Why are you wishing harm on someone?

      • Home invasions are totally cool brah, as long as they are executed by government agents for whom the legal bar to obtain permission for said home invasions is set so low such that is is practically non-existent. For all intents and purposes, no-knock raids are executed at will.

        Isn’t 2A supposed to defend against government tyranny? Why even have 2A if you support these police home invasions?

        • MDS – Perhaps your knowledge of our Constitution is a bit flawed. The Fourth Amendment is the one covering search and seizure, not the Second. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In other words, no warrant is issued except BY AN OFFICER OF THE JUDICIARY, i.e., a judge. Do cops sometimes embellish the facts concerning the information backing up the request for the issuance of a warrant? It’s been known to happen – but the best thing likely to happen to a cop who does that and is caught in perjury is that he loses his employment.

          Are the “facts” proffered sometimes as a matter of fact in error? That happens, too. I’ll mention once again that cops are human beings and are therefore subject to making mistakes. Sometimes the courts are forgiving of “good-faith” errors – and sometimes they’re not and criminals go free.

        • You miss the point. 2A is the final recourse against the government if they infringe on other civil rights (such as the ones guaranteed by 4A).

          You lay blame at the hands of the judiciary for allowing these raids to happen. This is a worthless argument: police are volunteers, they willfully request permission from the judges to perform these no-knock raids, and they execute the raids. That judges are always pliant and willing to grant permission is another matter: no sane person expects today’s judges to uphold the originalist Constitution or stop government malfeasance.

          Cops should be fully responsible for the consequences of these raids, but same pliant judicial system gives them a free pass in the vast majority of cases. Consider the case of the mutilated toddler in Georgia: the investigating officer was charged with perjury and was found not guilty after a halfhearted prosecution by the DA. The SWAT team knowingly violated department violicy on flashbang use and was not disciplined in any meaningful way.

          Lastly, police unions completely unified in their lobbying of the legislature for yet looser rules on use of force. As such, cops are not just doing their job, they are actively destroying the civil liberties of the people.

          “Sometimes the courts are forgiving of “good-faith” errors – and sometimes they’re not and criminals go free.”

          On the contrary, the courts are massively forgiving of cops, but completely ruthless on civilians. Grand jury indictment rates prove this. District attorneys cannot be trusted to prosecute cops with full effort when they are completely reliant on cops to provide fodder for their political aspirations. But this is the hopelessly compromised system we live under.

  9. I’m confused why “12 year old shooting at cops” isn’t plastered all over the media (including the race of the child!!) the way it would be if the situation were reversed and the cop had shot back.

    Maybe if we talked about why 12 year olds are shooting people in Chicago we could get closer to the root of the problem. And it’s not cops. Or guns.

      • The same reason the media doesn’t splash “Deranged cop leaps onto hood of passing car and shoots a white girl in the head” in regards to the Samantha Ramsey case. The media worships the police narrative, unless the minorities start protesting.

  10. MDS – With no way to hit “reply” on your last comment, it’s evident that this site is not set up to foster debate among the contributors. Be that as it may, we’ll do the best we can, shall we?

    That you aver that police shootings of “civilians” which have been adjudicated as being legal and proper should be lumped together with those which were clearly not confounds common sense. What court or fair-minded jury in this land would convict someone, a LEO or not, for using deadly force to protect his very life when someone is doing their level best to kill him/her unlawfully? Very few, I should hope. Also, to asseverate that the “civilian side” is “completely unrepresented” in a police shooting incident is utter nonsense. Are not prosecutors at any level the “civilian side”? The fact that prosecutors conduct thorough and complete investigations of virtually every instance of police use of force and quite often present their finding to a grand jury to see if an indictment is warranted puts paid to that, not to mention the probability of federal charges of abuse of civil rights under Title 18, U.S.C.

    Also, to claim that the American judiciary has been “pro-police” for the last half-century is ludicrous. Granted, there have been rulings which could be seen as such – but the great majority of them were to bring American jurisprudence back to sensibility in the wake of the rulings of the Warren Court such as “Miranda”, “Escobedo” and quite a few other decisions where egregiously poor police conduct resulted in equally poor SCOTUS decisions which tilted the criminal justice system in favor of the criminal element. Defendants are entitled to “fair” police conduct and a “fair” trial – but not necessarily does either require “perfection”, which is where the bar was set by the Warren court. The SCOTUS decisions you may see as “pro-police” are for the most part in recognition of modifications to Warren court decisions where police have acted in “good faith” without any intent to violate the Constitutional rights of a suspect.

    I shall await your riposte.

    • borg – A lot of cops wear Kevlar ballistic vests, which will stop most handgun rounds. Many departments provide their officers with them and some REQUIRE that they be worn on duty. The drawback with them is that they are miserably hot and uncomfortable in warm weather. I purchased one out of my own pocket before my department started issuing them and wore it every working day until the weather got hot. I started wearing it again once cool weather returned and not two weeks after that an officer from my department took two .38 rounds during a traffic stop. The first hit him squarely in the “X” ring and knocked him down and the second did some serious damage when it hit him in the shoulder – but he lived. I got downright religious about wearing mine after that, no matter how warm it got. I finally figured out that I would rather sweat than bleed..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *