“The Chicago police officer who killed Quintonio LeGrier has filed a lawsuit against the teen’s estate,” cnn.com reports. “In a counterclaim filed last week, Officer Robert Rialmo alleges the 19-year-old whom he shot dead the day after Christmas assaulted him with a baseball bat and caused him to suffer trauma. He’s seeking more than $10 million in punitive damages from LeGrier’s estate.” According to Officer Rialmo’s lawsuit . . .
“The fact that LeGrier’s actions had forced Officer Rialmo to end LeGrier’s life, and to accidentally take the innocent life of Bettie Jones, has caused, and will continue to cause, Officer Rialmo to suffer extreme emotional trauma,” the lawsuit says.
Yup. Officer Rialmo shot an innocent bystander to death.
Rialmo’s lawsuit gives the officer’s side in the controversial case, saying the officer opened fire after LeGrier “took a full swing” at his head, “missing it by inches.”
“He told me that he felt the breeze of the bat passing in front of his face, it was that close,” attorney Joel Brodsky told CNN affiliate WBBM-TV.
In a statement on Facebook, Brodsky said Rialmo “was taken aback by the speed in which the family of Mr. LeGrier rushed to file a lawsuit.”
“He wants to make the point that having a relative killed in an officer-involved shooting is not the same thing as winning the lottery,” Brodsky said. “Only the few cases of truly excessive use and abuse of force should be subject to legal actions.”
I would have thought that’s the judge’s point to make. Also, this will do Officer Rialto no favors in the court of public opinion, which doesn’t quite equate a missed bat swing or two with an innocent bystander assuming room temperature post-perforation.
Nor will this action help embattled Chicago Mayor Emanuel who publicly declared that there were “serious questions” about the incident. Not that we don’t like watching the gun control advocate squirming. Anyway, watch this space.
The “accidentally” was referring to the second person shot, not the assailant with the bat
D’oh! I should have done more research on the case and read more carefully, Mea culpa and thanks for the save. Tex amended.
Robert, some of the more recent articles have added an important point to the discussion; according to the lawsuit documents, the bullet that killed the bystander passed-through the intended target first.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-robert-rialmo-quintonio-legrier-20160206-story.html
(paragraphs 17 and 18)
“LeGrier was shot on the left side of his chest, the lower left side of his back, the right buttock, the left arm and suffered graze wounds to his chest and right shoulder, according to LeGrier’s autopsy report. Jones died of a single gunshot wound to the chest, Cook County medical examiner records show.
The ‘fourth round that Officer Rialmo fired passed through LeGrier and struck Bettie Jones, who unbeknownst to Officer Rialmo, was standing in the front doorway to the building … behind LeGrier and partially exposed to any gunfire that might pass through LeGrier,’ the lawsuit states.”
In my opinion, this puts the death of the bystander in a different light. Unlike non-cops, cops can’t select their own ammo, and most departments issue deep-penetrating ammo that meets or exceeds FBI specs. If the bystander had been hit by wild misses, that’s one thing; but a shot that struck the intended target and passed-through? Well, that’s whole ‘nother thing in my book.
Thanks for sharing that. It takes some sting out of RF’s anti-cop diatribe.
It doesn’t remove the responsibility of government employees to know what is behind their target before they fire their weapons.
It is well past time to start disarming cops. Citizens should be armed, not government employees.
Thanks Nine for expanding the intel on this story. It goes beyond what was stated here and in other news reports I have read elsewhere.
Too often readers are left with incomplete action summaries which have come to be the norm expected from slanted MSM sources and consequently lead to uninformed, erroneous conclusions about the event by the viewers/readers.
Clarity from accurate, truthful intel is refreshing. It is unfortunate that even here one must often go to the comments to get “the rest of the story”.
Call it a team effort when it plays out that way.
“It is well past time to start disarming cops. Citizens should be armed, not government employees.”
Those cops will quit then go on to work for the highest bidder. A whole army of trained people who know how the legal system and the real world really works. They will not be answerable to your elected represntatives and there will be no effecive means to redress grievances outside civil war. Case, statutory, civil, and tax law will have no “teeth” and be irrelevant outside local concerns. Society as we know it will probably fraction in to city states or regions run by large corporate intrests…. Which was the case before well organized and regulated law enforcement organizations answerable to the state existed….. And the people should be well armed as an ultimate hedge against government tyrany.
Filing a counter-claim is a normal legal tactic when sued. The police officer did not initiate the case; he did NOT sue.
And even if he did I would have no problem with it, as he also didn’t initiate the situation that lead to it.
This is a messed up case. If it was just a case of a bat wielding thug assuming room temperature, I’d be rooting for the officer. Instead, I’m just pissed that the actual victim of this case (the shot bystander) is getting ignored by cretins looking for a payday.
It’s a counter to the ‘ghetto lottery’ that Chicago pays out on the backs of its police and taxpayers. I reserve judgement on a lot about this story and I won’t condemn this officer yet based on this legal maneuver, even if it is… distasteful.
The incident itself strikes me of a great example of people who should not have called the police if they didn’t think their son was a dangerous threat.
In another article, it is stated that the supposed bat-weilder was the one who called the cops in the first place, and further states that– from the internal review– the shots that hit the kid came from 25-30 feet away, which is hardly “I felt the breeze” range.
Not claiming that’s gospel truth, just something from a different article to keep in mind.
It all stinks like Chicago, no matter who ends up having told the fewest lies. Which is apparently what passes for the truth these days.
“Ghetto lottery” is the term used by defender of the likes of Tony Abbate and Jerry Finnegan to condemn the victims of the longstanding criminal culture of the Chicago PD.
Just remember they’re the ones who called the young man KIDNAPPED AND THREATENED as a minor by the SOS home invasion ring, in their search for more victims, an “opportunist” when he sued for that KIDNAPPING,
Of course these are also the same people who call barmaid Carolina Obrycka, savagely beaten by officer Tony Abbate, an “illegal alien” and declare that she had it coming.
Eventually, every defense of the Chicago PD starts to sound like a defense of Joachim Peiper…
>Joachim Peiper
More like Oskar Dirlewanger.
Indeed Dirlewanger’s was the name that first came to mind when referring to the Chiraq Mukhabarat.
However, truth be told, I’ve never seen anybody defend him, whereas I am aware of people (including Sen. Joe McCarthy) defending Peiper.
But it’s a Sarin/Soman choice. Either way, the Chicago PD is the most corrupt in North America… hardly surprising when one looks at the history of Chicago “government”.
The “Ghetto lottery” is what the defenders of the likes of Jerry Finnegan and Tony Abbate call it when the victims of kidnappings or beating (followed by victim and witness intimidation) sue for damages.
Apparently the kid who was kidnapped by SOS trolling for new robbery victims was waiting his ENTIRE life, drooling at the opportunity to be abducted by cops looking to rob somebody.
Eventually every defense of the Chicago PD ends up looking like a defense of Joachim Peiper…
The Chicago Way.
“Only the few cases of truly excessive use and abuse of force should be subject to legal actions.”
Even a broken clock….
No lawsuit of any kind, other than disputes over voluntarily entered into contracts, should get any further than being laughed out of a court fully funded by the plaintiff, until the defendant is first found criminally guilty. Absent the seriousness and standards of proof required for a criminal verdict, using the apparatus of the state to harass someone, is nothing but welfare for ambulance chasers.
So the Brown family should have received nothing from O.J.
Maybe not. The court acquitted him of murder, and he hadn’t entered into any kind of contract with them — the Brown family was suing him for being legally innocent, which is ridiculous.
OJ almost certainly got away with murder and richly deserves to live a hunted, haunted life and suffer an unlamented death, but that doesn’t erase the ridiculousness of the law in that regard.
OJ was not found “legally innocent.” Rather, he was found “not guilty,” which means that the State failed to prove its case against him beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, he was probably guilty, but between planted evidence and two incompetent prosecutors who handed the defense a defense verdict on a silver platter, the outcome was a foregone conclusion. But there is a world of difference between “not guilty” and “factually innocent. “Probably guilty” is not enough for a criminal conviction, but is more than sufficient for a civil judgment.
“OJ was not found “legally innocent.” Rather, he was found “not guilty,” which means that the State failed to prove its case against him beyond a reasonable doubt.”
That was the point I had to make time, and time again about the Trayvon Martin jury decision. And the Caycee Anthony murder trial.
Gets real tiring to have to enlighten the stupid over and over and over again…
If you’re not legally guilty, nothing short of a totalitarian banana state, comes to the aid of someone wanting to get into your wallet uninvited.
Noone walks through life, “proven to be innocent.” In any half decent society, the standard for meddling in your life, is you being _guilty_. And the standard to pass before you are guilty, is one of “beyond reasonable doubt.” Not one of, “whatever grants ambulance chasers the most leeway to get at your belongings.”
Of course not! Why should they?
He may or may not have killed their little gigolo. Just as you and I may or may not. After all, it was neither proven nor disproven, that any one of us ever did so.
Ah NO. THIS loser cop is represented by the same creep who defended Drew “played by Rob Lowe” Peterson who murdered his 3rd wife and is suspected of killing his 4th(Stacey). Sorry but this ain’t gonna’ fly. Even tho’ the dead lunatic “scared me”. Poor fooked up baby…
How many times could a person swing a baseball bat at you before you considered it a serious threat?
I don’t care who his lawyer has previously worked for.
cop must be a scum bag because his lawyer took a high profile case from a scumbag cop in the past. Right…
The fact that a person wants to be a cop means they are of low morals and suspect character, in other words, they are a scumbag.
The most silly and vapid thing posted in these comments today ^^^. Right there.
Trust Chris Mallory to post that. Silly and vapid, that is.
Is there any living witness, other than the shooter, who saw the kid attack the shooter with the bat?
Or did the kid, who had more than once called 9-1-1 asking for a cop, simply run downstairs to answer the door when a cop finally responded?
Getting hit upside the head with an aluminum bat by an agitated mentally ill person can very easily result in the person being stuck assuming room temperature or even worse leaving that individal ‘alive’ but in a vegetative state. I seem to remember an article on this very site recently, Mr. Farago, talking about shooting until the threat stops when dealing with a drugged up individal (or any other life or death threat for that matter). An agitated mentally ill person behaves much like someone on drugs. They often lack the normal pain responses of a sober individual and can exhibit strength much greater than you would expect from an individal that size. It’s not like policemen wear helmets that could deflect the impact (not that I’d advise taking a bat impact to a helmeted head). This kid was very much a deadly threat. It is unfortunate that the innocent woman was killed when the officers round over penetrated, but what was he supposed to do? How many bat strikes to the head would any of us be willing to take before shooting back? I’m sure that Rialmo feels terrible about Mrs. Jones death. But her death was ultimately set in motion by the actions of LeGreir.
The local climate in Chicago is for the city to settle these cases for millions of dollars along with a gag order. That is precisely what the suit is about. Post the Brown shooting in Missouri, LEOs stand a good chance of losing their entire career and possibly facing jail time for doing their job correctly when there is a bad outcome. It’s a sad reality of the current environment in which police officers work.
Not surprised at some level, he doesn’t have a lot of options to avoid becoming a patsy for Rahm at this point. I doubt he’ll gain much traction but it may drag some things out about this honor student. It’s possible the 911 operator will take a hit for it too.
This is why you dont ever call or involve the police in anything unless you literally have no other choice. They are not there to look out for your bests interests, intelligently defuse tense situations, or protect you, nor do they have a duty to do any of these things. They are there to make things that disturb order go away, and raise revenue, nothing more. Never ever forget that. If you dont want a bullet or a fine, or dont want one of these for someone else, dont involve the police.
And always keep in mind that if they fuck up, there’s probably little or no real recourse, and if there is, its going to come from the taxpayers, almost never the police themselves.
This is the most perfect comment I’ve ever read on the Internet. Seriously.
That’s not entirely accurate. (in the voice of the character Nimzicki in the movie Independence Day)
If government and police do too good a job making things that disturb order go away, they risk looking irrelevant and losing their jobs. I think it is more accurate to say that they work to keep disorder at a “moderate” level … versus letting disorder rage uncontrolled.
In Chiraq disorder and crime work to the benefit of the police, from robbing criminals (and eventually firefighters and other cops) to supplying “friendly” drug dealers, the Chicago PD have a LOOOOOONG history of profiting from crime, going back to the Capone days and before.
That’s why the song “The Night Chicago Died” was so ridiculous to people who grew up in Chicago. We all wondered why Al Capone was shooting his own employees…
Don’t police officers assume a level of risk when they take the job in the first place?
One would think, but not really. The rules of engagement for police in the US are extremely loose and can almost always justify any shoot and shut down any criticism with “I was in fear for my life”, in ways that no soldier or civilian would ever draw for, much less get away with anything less tham a felony conviction for pulling the trigger. They assume zero risk, and furthermore, and under no duty to assume such. Never forget that.
Many shoots are good, but some aren’t, and theres largely no accountability when they arent.
Sorry Muih, you missed the point of the question, which is, do police officers assume the risk of being injured given the nature of their profession? and the answer is yes, very much so. For firefighters, it is called (unsurprisingly enough) “the firefighter’s rule,” which precludes a firefighter from suing for injuries suffered in fighting fires under an “assumption of the risk” analysis. There is a similar rule for police officers.
To put it even more bluntly, and assuming Illinois follows the fireman’s rule for police officers, this case is going NOWHERE fast, and if filed in a federal court, I would think the officer and his attorney face the potential of the imposition of substantial monetary sanctions.
Yes. Yes they do. And Chiraq cops are known for shooting people…and it does make the cop and his mouthpiece “scumbags”. Keep up…
Really, known, by who? From what I have seen they shoot no more than other big city cops. Maybe they shoot a lot of people because there happen to be a lot of empowered gang bangers who are products of a catch-and-release criminal justice system corrupted by the decades of bleeding heart democrats running the city.
But what do I know, I just live here.
You got that right Kevin-you don’t know anything. I’m old and also lived in Chicago. And live 10 miles south now. THIS was textbook for subduing the young lunatic. His parents called the po-leece. And THIS cop killed 2 . His lawyer is the scum of the legal profession. BTW -I am no fan of the po-leece. As anyone following my hundreds of posts the past few years would know…
Court of public opinion?
Get real.
Officer Rialmo has no reason to care.
He has suffered debilitating emotional trauma and will be on taxpayer-funded disability for the rest of his life.
Good I say bill the family for the bullets used too.
You know, Farago, just because someone points out that you have no idea what you’re talking about is no reason to delete his comment.
You’re obviously unfamiliar with Robert’s ego.
Lol ^THIS
The CNN headline is as knowingly, intentionally bogus as everything else that CNN does. The officer did not sue the family. He asserted a counterclaim to the family’s lawsuit against him. The difference is huge. And CNN is a network of unmitigated liars — as we all know.
Some of the more recent articles at other news sites have added an important point to the discussion; according to the lawsuit documents, the bullet that killed the bystander wasn’t a wild/missed shot, it passed through the intended target first.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-robert-rialmo-quintonio-legrier-20160206-story.html
(paragraphs 17 and 18)
“LeGrier was shot on the left side of his chest, the lower left side of his back, the right buttock, the left arm and suffered graze wounds to his chest and right shoulder, according to LeGrier’s autopsy report. Jones died of a single gunshot wound to the chest, Cook County medical examiner records show.
The ‘fourth round that Officer Rialmo fired passed through LeGrier and struck Bettie Jones, who unbeknownst to Officer Rialmo, was standing in the front doorway to the building … behind LeGrier and partially exposed to any gunfire that might pass through LeGrier,’ the lawsuit states.”
In my opinion, this puts the death of the bystander in a different light. It certainly doesn’t matter to her (her outcome still sucked), but maybe it should matter to the rest of us.
Just curiously… why should it matter that the bullet passed through the decedent first?
http://www.nssf.org/safety/basics/
Rule #4 – Be Sure Of Your Target And What’s Beyond It
“Be Sure Of Your Target And What’s Beyond It. No one can call a shot back. Once a gun fires, you have given up all control over where the shot will go or what it will strike. Don’t shoot unless you know exactly what your shot is going to strike. Be sure that your bullet will not injure anyone or anything beyond your target. Firing at a movement or a noise without being absolutely certain of what you are shooting at constitutes disregard for the safety of others. No target is so important that you cannot take the time before you pull the trigger to be absolutely certain of your target and where your shot will stop.
Be aware that even a 22 short bullet can travel over 1-1/4 miles and a high velocity cartridge, such as a 30-06, can send its bullet more than 3 miles. Shotgun pellets can travel 500 yards, and shotgun slugs have a range of over half a mile.
You should keep in mind how far a bullet will travel if it misses your intended target or ricochets in another direction.”
You’ll notice that this “rule” as well as the nine that accompany it are considered “basic” firearm knowledge.
While we would all like to avoid shooting anyone for any reason, and certainly to avoid unintentionally shooting someone, those basic rules are for the range and the field. Gunfights are chaotic, they tax the senses and responses of those involved to the limits, and they are inherently dangerous. This is why we generally hold whomever is responsible for forcing a shooting to also be responsible for any collateral damage resulting from it. Trying to apply rules like muzzle discipline and knowing what is beyond the target to a gunfight is a recipe for losing the fight, and likely your life.
In the one report, it says that the officer did not know she was back there. What’s he supposed to do, activate his X-Ray vision to see through the “bad guy” DURING a fight-for-your-life gunfight?
I’m not siding with the cop (or not)…just asking the bigger questions.
The thing is, all deadly force shootings (cop or non-cop) are measured through the lens of an “Objective Reasonableness” standard.
We don’t get to Monday-Morning-Quarterback that there was an innocent person behind the ‘bad guy’ if there is no “reasonable way” the person IN the situation could have known that.
So, if it turns out the bystander was killed by a bullet that was fired at, and hit, the ‘bad guy,’ and the shooter could not even know she was there, the “Know your target and what’s beyond” rule simply cannot apply to any reasonable person.
Bad Guy: “I’m gonna KILL you with this baseball bat!”
Cop: “Hold on just a second, time out… let me see if anyone’s behind you.”
(pause)
“OK, all clear. Proceed.”
(bat vs. gun fight ensues)
So just curiously, given the role of civilian police, “to serve and protect”, how much collateral damage is acceptable? One, two, ten? Is this a war zone, or someone’s home. At what point is shooting in the direction of a home that the officer either new or should have known is occupied, become reckless endangerment, or perhaps negligent homicide? Assuming that the dirtbag with the baseball bat got what was justly coming to him (which by the way is not entirely clear), what responsibility does an officer of the law have to ensure the safety of bystanders? Any? What if this occurred on a crowded city sidewalk, how many innocent lives is an officer allowed to take in order to preserve his own?
Secondarily, if the officer was so fearful for his life then what was he doing standing within bats length of a potentially hostile assailant?
For what its worth,I not judging the officer in question as I have far too facts available in order to that, but I am surprised at how quickly some here are to value as nothing the life of the woman that was taken and the “rightness” of the officers taking of both lives. As an agent of the government the default position with respect to the officer should be (though I know that it is not) absolute justifiability, not just some cursory claim of “I was scared.”
There are no absolutes in situations like this. That’s why a standard of “reasonableness” is usually applied.
Jason, I suppose we could ask the flip side of some of your questions, too.
Is it okay to let a person assault and/or kill someone just because he brings along a few friends to stand behind him in the downrange “danger” area, preventing an officer or armed civilian from shooting at him “safely”?
Does that mean in a riot or other serious street disturbance, no firearms can ever be used for defensive purposes, because there might be an innocent person one, two, or ten blocks behind the group of folks that are actively trying to kill you? By this standard of safety, could a cop or other person EVER “safely” discharge a gun in a city of any size?
So your answer to a bat-armed assailant threatening you (a cop) with death or serious bodily harm would be to retreat? And when he advances, retreat again? And again? Do you ever STOP retreating, or does the bad guy just run you off 10 feet at a time? And what happens to the other residents after you are pushed into the next neighborhood by your retreat strategy?
NineShooter…
Typically participants in a riot are ordered to disperse and initially encouraged to do so with non-lethal force, in spite of their “active” participation in an unlawful activity . Refusing to obey a lawful order causes you to assume some, if possibly not all, of the responsibility for whatever may happen next…
Are you trying to equate rioting in the street, Baltimore style, with standing in your own doorway?
Is that similar to ordering “Drop the bat!” over and over again?
And the dude wasn’t in his own apartment, he was in a common area of an apartment building, and leaving THAT to move out onto the porch/stairs. From the article:
“Rialmo backed onto the front porch near the top of the front stairs, and ‘repeatedly shouted orders for LeGrier to drop the bat,’ but the teenager instead followed him onto the porch and took another swing at Rialmo, the lawsuit states. Rialmo, who was still shouting for LeGrier to drop the bat and had his gun in his holster, then backed down to the bottom of the steps.
LeGrier stood ‘with the baseball bat cocked back over his right shoulder with a two-handed grip, approximately 3 feet above Officer Rialmo and approximately 3 to 4 feet from where Officer Rialmo was standing on the bottom step of the front porch to the building. Officer Rialmo feared that LeGrier would strike him in the head with the baseball bat so hard that it would kill him,’ the lawsuit states.”
Granted, this is the cop’s side of the story, but I’m thinking the shooting evidence (firing angles of the shots) has to support the basic story, or it will be easily destroyed in court.
The issue that I have with the events as they are described is not that the baseball wielding nut was shot, but that the shooting was done in a manner that an innocent life was taken.
If in the process of keeping the peace, innocents are killed, if an officers primary objective is his own safety and well being, then the boundary between officer and criminal becomes cloudy. Are not criminals just looking out for their own best interests, at least insofar as they see it? I suppose it depends on how you asses the “mission” of the officer. If it is an officer’s mission/duty to, at potential risk to himself/herself, keep and maintain the safety of the law abiding public, you will likely get a different outcome then if the mission/duty is to keep the monkeys in their cages.
I’d be curious to know what this particular officer thinks his mission is…
This is called “Black Knighting” and while unsavory, it is just deserts for a system that is set up for one and only one side to to win while ensuring the other side always loses.
The only way to win is to use the system as it presents itself, unsavory as it may be to do so.
Kudos to this police officer for taking the heat and being the first one to do so. We’ll see more of these in the future, as well we should.
Agreed. My thought is “I hope this starts the trend.”
If the lawyers make money of it, you’re hopes and dreams will come through. That’s the standard to pass in progressive dystopias, after all.
Obviously we need baseball bat control and laws to restrict bat ownership.
There is a reason why we do not see police suing bad guys for “emotional distress” or even physical injuries allegedly arising from a violent encounter. The counter-claim is bogus. Police officers do not get to sue the perpetrators, whether living or dead, for either physical injuries or emotional distress resulting from an on the job incident, since it is the nature of their job to knowingly confront potentially violent perpetrators, and therefore expressly and impliedly assume the risk of being injured. The remedy for injuries is workers’ compensation. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the estate of the decedent is worth anything, such that the probability of recovery is nil. I have to assume that the suit was filed (a “counter claim”, no matter what Ralph said above, is another word for a “cross-complaint,” and is an affirmative claim for relief/damages that could be asserted as a separate stand alone complaint. The form of the action is of no legal significance. I have to assume, given the foregoing, that it was asserted as a defense to the claims asserted against the officer by the decedent’s family, i.e., as a tactical device without expectation of recovery.
“Innocent bystander” my ass, Bettie Jones came down to “interfere” with the officer thus was not only a “co-conspirator” but also a “combatant” guilty of “obstruction of justice” and a few other FELONIES. Good riddance to BOTH her AND the thug.
God, I hope this is just subtle satire.
No, it’s the coin of the realm for defenders of the Chicago PD.
Read the online comments sections of the Trib or the Sun Times. In general, the defenses of the Chicago PD are indistinguishable from anything you’ll find on the Stormfront website.
As they say, “birds of a feather”…
Thanks for stating the obvious Chris. And here I thought I was the only one hurling the Stormfront invective. Right is right…and it must seem impossible that their “friends” the po-leece are capable of every evil under the sun…
FormerWaterWalker:
Now I’m a Nazi and White Supremacist? Well even if I was it ISN’T “illegal” unlike interfering with a police officer or assaulting one with a bat.
BTW: Don’t you have a Bernie Sander’s victory party to attend or an anarchist OWS meeting to chair?
When he axed if I “Got Skittles?” I replied “Nope! But I’ve got LEAD!”
The VICTIM did no more than stand behind the kid with the bat. Even the Chicago Einsatzgruppen don’t claim that she “interfered” in any way.
Your comments are indistinguishable from those typical of the National Alliance trolls who used to haunt online fora and online newspaper comment sections. They’re typical of the defenders of the Chicago PD, the most corrupt “law enforcement” agency in North America.
That bitch, and she WAS (“WAS” being the operative term here) a “bitch” had NO business “interfering” with an officer performing his duties. She injected herself into a highly charged scene and received an “injection of lead”, had she minded her own business and stayed in HER apartment she might and I say “might” be alive today that is if her violence-prone downstairs neighbor or another local thug didn’t make her “good” while robbing/raping her either in her apartment or in an alley as she returned from buying her crack.
The fact is Bettie Jones who claimed to be a graduate of “Malcolm X. College” was a pushy, mouthy ghetto chickenhead (see her Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/bettie.jones.564?ref=br_rs) she was giving “it” away and or selling “it”), she couldn’t even control her own children some of whom have felony records. She didn’t live with the “fathers” of her offspring and was the poster-mother for “urban” dysfunction. Good riddance to a portion of THAT gene pool.
“That bitch, and she WAS (“WAS” being the operative term here) a “bitch” had NO business “interfering” with an officer performing his duties. She injected herself into a highly charged scene and received an “injection of lead”, had she minded her own business and stayed in HER apartment she might and I say “might” be alive today that is if her violence-prone downstairs neighbor or another local thug didn’t make her “good” while robbing/raping her either in her apartment or in an alley as she returned from buying her crack.”
One MORE time: The victim did nothing more than stand behind the kid with the bat. Even the goosesteppers of the Chicago PD don’t claim she did anything wrong, much less “interfere”.
You’re not just excusing, but advocating a criminally negligent homicide on the basis of nothing more than pure malice and hatred. In other words, you’re a typical defender of the Chicago Police Department. And as noted previously, the most ardent defenders of the Chicago Police Department are largely indistinguishable from the defenders of the Einsatzgruppen. Similar motivations, similar words.
Chris Morton:
Since you see no danger standing behind a potential “target” (read: suspect) albeit in this case one who is ARMED and “resisting arrest with violence” again while “ARMED” try standing behind a target at the range on your next visit and let me know how it turns our (that is IF you survive).
I have no problem taking down crooked cops and if you had taken the time to read my posts on prior articles here you would see I put one in prison but in THIS case the officer did NOTHING “criminal” nor should he be held “liable” in civil court. For all the officer knew Bettie Jones could have been an accomplice in a felony and he had just seconds if not a split second to decide, better he, the cop, live to return to his family at the end of his shift than to die in the “line of duty because he failed to act in a timely manner.
BTW: TWO (2) more deputies SHOT & KILLED tonight in an ambush outside restaurant in Hartford Ct. I guess they waited to determined whether the individual (no doubt a member of Obama’s “community”) was up to “no good”, “armed” or posed an “immediate threat” to THEIR well being BEFORE deciding to engage. The result of their inaction? BOTH are D-E-A-D, DEAD, their car is riddled with bullet holes and shell casings litter the pavement.
http://twitchy.com/2016/02/10/harford-county-sheriff-suspects-deputies-were-targeted-over-police-uniforms/
Correction: TWO (2) officers in uniform ambushed and murdered in Harford Maryland.
“For all the officer knew Bettie Jones could have been an accomplice in a felony and he had just seconds if not a split second to decide, better he, the cop, live to return to his family at the end of his shift than to die in the “line of duty because he failed to act in a timely manner.”
The COPS say it was an “accident”. Are you calling them LIARS?
Any defense of the Chicago PD inevitably ends up sounding like a Clive Barker short story written while drunk, told by Robin Williams on acid.
Clearly you can’t even confine yourself to facts stipulated by the Chicago Einsatzgruppen itself.
If you’re into speculative fiction, let me suggest Analog or the Huffington Post…
I DON’T care what the other officers OR investigators are saying, they’re either trying to save their jobs thus covering their own asses or hoping to keep the city’s “liability” to a minimum respectively.
I’ll wait to hear what comes out in court IF and THAT’S a BIG “if” it ever goes to trial either in criminal or civil court. There’s one thing I’ve learned in my 52 years living in NY/NJ Metro Area and that is there is a certain segment of society ALWAYS looking for an opportunity to hit the “ghetto lottery” and sue “the man”. Whether it’s hopping on a bus AFTER it’s been involved in an accident claiming “permanent debilitating injuries” (17 people in one case in Newark N.J. ALL caught on video) or suspects/convicted criminals making up fairy tales about harsh or abusive treatment (too many to list) I’ve seen it ALL.
“I DON’T care what the other officers OR investigators are saying, they’re either trying to save their jobs thus covering their own asses or hoping to keep the city’s “liability” to a minimum respectively.”
In any defense of the Chicago Einsatzgruppen FACTS can NEVER matter.
Your “argument” is the Institute for Historical Review redirected to defending the Chicago PD instead of the Einsatzgruppen.
Sam Dubose tried to run over a cop; his kids get free tuition. Laquan McDonald turns toward a cop with a knife; druggy mother and family get millions to continue terrorizing their neighborhood. Noel Aguilar grabbed a cops gun and caused an officer to get shot; the family (poorly) edits a video to incite outrage and scare up gofundme dough.
All three families should be sued for libel and slander, their “winnings” should be confiscated and given to actual victims of crime, like all the people their lowlife loved ones robbed, beat, extorted or killed before they started “turning their lives around.”
Hoooray for this cop. Hooray for comeuppance. May his counterclaim succeed, and may every dysfunctional family who ever juiced the taxpayers in this way suffer the same fate.
Tell you what, if the judge ordered that the family spend all of the money (minus funeral costs) on the world’s most expensive noose and then ordered the piece of shit murderer publicly hanged, I’d be OK with that.
Who, in this incoherent little rant of yours, is the “piece of shit murderer”? The cop? If so, why make his “victim’s” family pay out their last penny for a noose? If not the cop, then who?
I’m not saying that they SHOULD pay, the cop deserves to hang regardless, but IF a judge is evil enough to make them pay, those are the only circumstances I’d find acceptable.
Typical whiney cop. Their jobs are so tough. Police are way down the list of most dangerous occupation below fishermen and farmers. Waaghhh! Give me money! Waaghhh! Give me free health care for life, my job is so hard!
That’s why NRA contract lobbyist for Illinois Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “NRA backed” carry bill in 2013: the police unions wanted it. Police work is just so hard, and the anti-gun Chiefs of Police couldn’t deal with all the armed citizens roaming the streets. The cops wanted criminal penalties for DTI, so when they ask if you are armed, they can lie and claim you made a fast move, then execute you for “resisting arrest.” Thanks Todd! What’s next from Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA and their sick rat Vandermyde, Duty to Strip Search?
I think that for the preservation of all mankind, and as an act of vengeance for all those traffic tickets you’ve received, all police organizations should be disbanded. Replace them with the robots you think the police should be. Can’t wait to see it. Or, perhaps the critics could try their hand at being police officers? It looks like the money is good and the benefits superior. You get all those special privileges too. Policemen don’t pay taxes do they? You get to carry a gun and drive like a madman right? Yea, you “regular” guys out there should go after that job. We need you. Show us how its done.
Memorize:
* Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
* Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
* Police not assigned as bodyguards have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.
Police don’t protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals who cannot or will not protect THEMSELVES.
If you’re not willing and able to protect YOURSELF, you’re just not going to get protected AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is LYING.
That being the case, “Let us commit crimes against you or we won’t ‘protect’ you from crime!” is a REALLY tough sell.
More delusional GovtTerrorist oink oink lunacy writ large
I DON’T care what the other officers OR investigators are saying, they’re either trying to save their jobs thus covering their own asses or hoping to keep the city’s “liability” to a minimum.
I’ll wait to hear what comes out in court IF and THAT’S a BIG “if” it ever goes to trial either in criminal or civil court. There’s one thing I’ve learned in my 52 years living in NY/NJ Metro Area and that is there is a certain segment of society ALWAYS looking for an opportunity to hit the “ghetto lottery” and sue “the man” whether it’s hopping on a bus AFTER it’s been involved in an accident claiming “permanent debilitating injuries” (17 people in one case in Newark N.J. ALL caught on video) or suspects/convicted criminals making up fairy tales about harsh or abusive treatment (too many to list).
You mean like Emma Hernandez, who’d been waiting her WHOLE life to be shot in the back.. TWICE by the LAPD for the capital crime of… paper delivery? You mean THAT “ghetto lottery”?
“Ghetto lottery”? Sounds an awful lot like the claims that the “Khazars own the banks and the media”.
Birds of a feather…
Nice try but go ahead I know your just dying to say what YOU mean ie. “‘Jews’ you know the money-grubbing, hook-nosed crew from Borough Park/New Square, Bernie ‘Ex-Wall Streeter”” Sanders pals”. To you they’re a “stereotype” just like “police officers”.
Try again anarchist OWS organizer. Unlike YOU I support Israel in it’s fight against the savages belonging to YOUR cult of Liberalism and YOUR barbaric Islamic allies.
As with Holocaust denial, and gun control advocacy, idolatry of the Chicago PD involves making up “facts” out of whole cloth.
Needless to say, it also involves a “healthy” does of racism and an endorsement of government thuggery.
Let me see, the victim was shot in the chest. Then, in the back and buttocks. The police officer shoots him in the chest at which time the victim spends around or is spun around by the shot itself. Then the police officer proceeds to pump two more in. This don’t sound like self-defense. It sounds more like the officer intended to do more than just defend himself. Just saying.
Officers are taught to shoot until the “threat” is “neutralized” thus if the thug and he WAS a “thug”, still maintained “possession” of the baseball bat subsequent to being struck by the first round he, the thug, remained a “threat” and was “fair game”.
Have you forgotten how many rounds Ferguson’s resident Swisher-stealing “Gentle Giant”, Mike Brown, took to the body during his 15 yard sprint towards the cop BEFORE finally succumbing to his wounds? It was the last one to the top of his noggin that did him in and that’s only because he lowered his head like a bull when he closed in on Officer Darren Wilson. Had Brown NOT dropped his melon Wilson would’ve been toast and we would’ve been watching another “flag draped” coffin being lowered into the ground on the Evening News.
I don’t know what Chicago cops are “taught”. I just know what they DO:
* Operate home invasion, burglary and kidnapping rings.
* Try to stomp barmaids to death because they won’t serve them when they’re drunk.
* Get drunk in bars, beat up random patrons, then pass out on top of their own guns.
* Shoot unarmed men in the face and lie about it… forgetting that they were standing under a bank of security cameras when the murder was committed.
* Supply drug dealers with dufflebags full of ammunition.
* Operate organized TORTURE rings.
* Engage in a pattern of witness and victim intimidation.
* Lobby for convicted wife beaters to be allowed to possess and carry guns… but ONLY if they have badges.
I can only conclude that these are activities which you support.
Where do you store your backpack full of claw hammers? Been to any restaurants lately? Did you “hammer” any elderly couples eating brunch last Sunday?
“Where do you store your backpack full of claw hammers? Been to any restaurants lately? Did you “hammer” any elderly couples eating brunch last Sunday?”
Perhaps you thought this was a “debunking” of the well known and longstanding history of criminality in the Chicago Police Department, running from long before the Capone era to the savage beating of barmaid Carolina Obrycka and beyond. If so, you were mistaken… COMPLETELY.
Puerile attacks on the bearers of unpleasant truths are just as meaningless as the “no showers at Auschwitz” sophistry of the Institute for Historical Review.
I’d say you can do better than that, but in fact I know no such thing.