“The incident began at about noon today when the off-duty officer was at his home with his child when he did not respond to his doorbell and a knock on the door,” chicagotribune.com. “Believing that it was a solicitor, the officer ignored the people but noticed that after not responding, a van parked in front of his home sped off, returned and parked on the side of the home . . . At that point, the officer began to hear noises in the front of his home and heard someone trying to push open the front door . . . The officer told his child to hide in a bedroom and he called 911 to report that people were trying to break in, police and Camden said.” Did he? Did he really? Maybe he did. But here’s something else the unnamed officer did that seems a tad questionable . . .
After seeing the frame of the home giving way he went outside the side of the home and spotted the men trying to break in. As the homeowner walked around his home, he saw one of the men running north on Princeton Avenue after he was spotted . . .
Another man ran around the home and appeared to have a gun in his hand and began pointing it at the off-duty officer, said [Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Patrick] Camden and police. The off-duty officer, who was armed, shot at the suspect and hit him.
Whenever a cop says a suspect “appeared to have a gun in his hand” my BS detector screams bloody murder. The fact that the wounded man was shot in the back doesn’t do much in terms of silencing said alarm.
Don’t get me wrong. A bad guy can turn around just as an armed defender fires, resulting in a back wound. And as sure as eggs are eggs, the off-duty cop is the good guy in this story, regardless of the exact circumstances of the shooting. But . . .
If it was you or me who shot a burglar in the back in Chicago, we’d be arrested, have our name in the papers and face a criminal investigation. That’s all I’m sayin’ . . . [h/t VE]