...if suspected of minor offense.....


Chicago police are no longer allowed to chase people on foot just for running away

Officers won’t be allowed to chase people on foot if they suspect them of minor offenses such as parking violations, driving on suspended licenses or drinking alcohol in public.

....Chicago police officers will no longer be allowed to chase people on foot simply because they run away or give chase over minor offenses, the department said Tuesday, more than a year after two foot pursuits ended with officers fatally shooting a 13-year-old boy and 22-year-old man.

The new policy adheres closely to a draft policy put in place after those shootings and gives the department something it has never had: permanent rules about when officers can and can’t engage in an activity that can endanger themselves, those they’re chasing and bystanders.

“The safety of our community members and our officers remain at the core of this new foot pursuit policy,” Superintendent David Brown said in a statement announcing the policy, which will be implemented by the end of the summer. “We collaborated internally with our officers and externally with our residents to develop a policy we all have a stake in.”

Under the policy, officers may give chase if they believe a person is committing or about to commit a felony, a Class A misdemeanor such as domestic battery, or a serious traffic offense such as drunken driving and street racing that could risk injuring others.

Officers won’t be allowed to chase people on foot if they suspect them of minor offenses such as parking violations, driving on suspended licenses or drinking alcohol in public. But they will still have discretion to people who they’ve determined are committing or about to commit crimes that post “an obvious threat to any person.”

Perhaps most significantly, the policy makes clear that the days of officers giving chase just because someone tries to avoid them are over.

“People may avoid contact with a member for many reasons other than involvement in criminal activity,” the policy states.

The names of 13-year-old Adam Toledo and 22-year-old Anthony Alvarez, who were armed when they ran from police in separate March 2021 pursuits, are not mentioned in the news release announcing the policy or the policy itself. But those pursuits — particularly that of Alvarez — cast a shadow over the policy.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot demanded that the department create an interim policy after the shootings and the county’s top prosecutor harshly criticized police about the Alvarez pursuit. It also appears that the police department took pains to prohibit just that kind of foot chase.

Under the policy, the chase of Alvarez would apparently not have been allowed for two key reasons. First, when police chased him for a traffic violation they knew who he was and where he lived, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx told reporters in March when she announced that the officers involved in the two shootings wouldn’t be charged. Second, officers are no longer allowed to chase on foot people who are suspected of the kind of minor offense that led to the chase.......


can't.....run after............?!

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2022 01:47PM by NewtonMP2100.

Police running after someone isn't the problem, it is what some police do when they catch them.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

Passive aggressive response to BLM. "So, you think we're too aggressive? How about we don't do our jobs at all! Then you'll appreciate us!"

Quote
Ombligo
Police running after someone isn't the problem, it is what some police do when they catch them.

Basically, the city has stamped its approval of minor criminal behavior. I guarantee that Lightfoot will not be re-elected.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2022 02:31PM by vision63.

Quote
Ombligo
Police running after someone isn't the problem, it is what some police do when they catch them.

If you are unable to control the one, you're only left with controlling the other.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
vision63

Quote
Ombligo
Police running after someone isn't the problem, it is what some police do when they catch them.

Basically, the city has stamped its approval of minor criminal behavior. I guarantee that Lightfoot will not be re-elected.

You know, I often read the local police blotter, and around here, if they have you on camera for, say, misdemeanor shoplifting, they’ll just mail you a citation/fine.

Dunno what happens after that, but it probably doesn’t go away or get better if you just ignore it.

There’s an appropriate time for hot pursuit, but minor crime probably isn’t it.

Quote
pdq

Quote
vision63

Quote
Ombligo
Police running after someone isn't the problem, it is what some police do when they catch them.

Basically, the city has stamped its approval of minor criminal behavior. I guarantee that Lightfoot will not be re-elected.

You know, I often read the local police blotter, and around here, if they have you on camera for, say, misdemeanor shoplifting, they’ll just mail you a citation/fine.

Dunno what happens after that, but it probably doesn’t go away or get better if you just ignore it.

There’s an appropriate time for hot pursuit, but minor crime probably isn’t it.

Their job is to stop crime. End stop. This is why SF DA Chesa Boudin was just recalled. This is why DA Gascon is going to be recalled in Los Angeles. This is why Eric Adams was elected in NYC. This is why my girl Karen Bass is having the devil trying to stave off Billionaire Rick Caruso in Los Angeles.

Street takeovers (sideshows), smash and grabs, ignoring general street traffic laws (running red lights etc), car break-ins and other petty crime is wearing us down.

Nobody wants to see anyone abused but we also don't want crime ignored or excused. These guys are wilding out and it has to stop.

Quote
vision63

Quote
Ombligo
Police running after someone isn't the problem, it is what some police do when they catch them.

Basically, the city has stamped its approval of minor criminal behavior. I guarantee that Lightfoot will not be re-elected.

Lightfoot will not be re-elected by those who come to the same conclusion, somehow.

Quote
vision63

Quote
pdq

Quote
vision63

Quote
Ombligo
Police running after someone isn't the problem, it is what some police do when they catch them.

Basically, the city has stamped its approval of minor criminal behavior. I guarantee that Lightfoot will not be re-elected.

You know, I often read the local police blotter, and around here, if they have you on camera for, say, misdemeanor shoplifting, they’ll just mail you a citation/fine.

Dunno what happens after that, but it probably doesn’t go away or get better if you just ignore it.

There’s an appropriate time for hot pursuit, but minor crime probably isn’t it.

Their job is to stop crime. End stop. This is why SF DA Chesa Boudin was just recalled. This is why DA Gascon is going to be recalled in Los Angeles. This is why Eric Adams was elected in NYC. This is why my girl Karen Bass is having the devil trying to stave off Billionaire Rick Caruso in Los Angeles.

Street takeovers (sideshows), smash and grabs, ignoring general street traffic laws (running red lights etc), car break-ins and other petty crime is wearing us down.

Nobody wants to see anyone abused but we also don't want crime ignored or excused. These guys are wilding out and it has to stop.

I agree with this.

---

It is what it is.

Their job is to stop crime. End stop. This is why SF DA Chesa Boudin was just recalled. This is why DA Gascon is going to be recalled in Los Angeles. This is why Eric Adams was elected in NYC. This is why my girl Karen Bass is having the devil trying to stave off Billionaire Rick Caruso in Los Angeles.

Street takeovers (sideshows), smash and grabs, ignoring general street traffic laws (running red lights etc), car break-ins and other petty crime is wearing us down.

Nobody wants to see anyone abused but we also don't want crime ignored or excused. These guys are wilding out and it has to stop.


Geeeze, that's good!



I agree with this.

As do I.

---

I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

So. Chase em down and kill em is the solution?

Got it.

I really don’t see this as a change. If you want police chasing them, they’ll do so and say it looked like something more serious than simple misdemeanor. By the way we caught the perp and he’s not harmed. All good now?

Where it gets tricky is for the Rambo who just really needs to “teach someone a lesson.” Consider how much crime that one is mitigating and if it’s worth it, before lamenting that cops are being held back or whatever.

Quote
pdq
So. Chase em down and kill em is the solution?

Got it.

There is a middle ground. Pandering, isn't part of any kind of equation.

Our 1st job is to create as many pathways as possible for growth, health and opportunity Also, to make sure everyone is aware of and actively engaged to benefit from it. Our 2nd job is to ensure that our society is just and safe for everyone. Our 3rd job is to protect our land, our home planet from degradation.

Enacting policy based more on what's anecdotal than on raw numbers that detail probabilities is just pandering (based on the "draft policy" referenced in the story). The public knows this. It doesn't help, it doesn't solve anything. If we want to help people being chased, then we need to focus on our jobs.

We fail to do our jobs because we're too frequently bumped out of power. Anything that helps us is 100% embedded in some kind of legislative policy. You need power and control to accomplish that.

It's one thing to talk about the underlying issues that crime is rooted in, poverty, mental health etc., and it's a whole other thing to deliver solutions. When we fail to deliver, we'll use stunts like this to pretend like we're doing something. When we lose, we're just treading water, yelling loudly, and getting nothing done. We can "solve" almost all of our problems if we really want to.

Because of our failures we get swarmed with the fallout, the killings, the shootings, the assaults etc., plus we hand-deliver talking points to Republicans.

Quote
Acer
Passive aggressive response to BLM. "So, you think we're too aggressive? How about we don't do our jobs at all! Then you'll appreciate us!"

This really can't be emphasized enough. This is where we are at on policing. No more response to petty calls, no more traffic stops after a certain hour or neighborhood, or at all. No more putting oneself in any sort of danger. I'm begging to believe Racer's signature line!

It’s not “pandering”. They made a decision as policy not to run people down for “minor offenses” like parking violations (!) - put a ticket on their car! Have it towed to impound! - because two people (including a kid) were killed by police after such run-downs.

In Minneapolis, the police made a conscious decision not to engage in high speed car chases unless the police feel there is imminent danger to others (guy driving drunkenly/erratically) or a violent felony is going on. What we’ve seen since then is that the driver almost always gets caught anyway. The (very good) reason for this policy is that before, innocent bystanders/drivers were often killed in the ensuing and often unnecessary police chase.

This isn’t the Dukes of Hazzard. It’s not Dirty Harry. It’s just being smart in law enforcement.

Quote
pdq
It’s not “pandering”. They made a decision as policy not to run people down for “minor offenses” like parking violations (!) - put a ticket on their car! Have it towed to impound! - because two people (including a kid) were killed by police after such run-downs.

In Minneapolis, the police made a conscious decision not to engage in high speed car chases unless the police feel there is imminent danger to others (guy driving drunkenly/erratically) or a violent felony is going on. What we’ve seen since then is that the driver almost always gets caught anyway. The (very good) reason for this policy is that before, innocent bystanders/drivers were often killed in the ensuing and often unnecessary police chase.

This isn’t the Dukes of Hazzard. It’s not Dirty Harry. It’s just being smart in law enforcement.

You're just citing anecdotes. Of course, there's always something. Out of a thousand foot chases, how many of them result in killings? You don't know and they don't know because they're doing whatever it takes to get "you" off of their backs. But the 47 people that got hit by bullets in two days on the south side last weekend and every weekend, screw them. They're not even a thought.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2022 10:43PM by vision63.

Quote
pdq
So. Chase em down and kill em is the solution?

Got it.

False dilemma – two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
vision63

Quote
pdq

Quote
vision63

Quote
Ombligo
Police running after someone isn't the problem, it is what some police do when they catch them.

Basically, the city has stamped its approval of minor criminal behavior. I guarantee that Lightfoot will not be re-elected.

You know, I often read the local police blotter, and around here, if they have you on camera for, say, misdemeanor shoplifting, they’ll just mail you a citation/fine.

Dunno what happens after that, but it probably doesn’t go away or get better if you just ignore it.

There’s an appropriate time for hot pursuit, but minor crime probably isn’t it.

Their job is to stop crime. End stop. This is why SF DA Chesa Boudin was just recalled. This is why DA Gascon is going to be recalled in Los Angeles. This is why Eric Adams was elected in NYC. This is why my girl Karen Bass is having the devil trying to stave off Billionaire Rick Caruso in Los Angeles.

Street takeovers (sideshows), smash and grabs, ignoring general street traffic laws (running red lights etc), car break-ins and other petty crime is wearing us down.

Nobody wants to see anyone abused but we also don't want crime ignored or excused. These guys are wilding out and it has to stop.

I agree with this.

They apparently aren't paying much attention to what's happened in California with the relaxed enforcement. No, it's not going to go over any better in Chicago than it's gone here … People just waltzing into stores and waltzing out with shopping baskets full of goods. Not a fear in the world.

Quote
pdq
So. Chase em down and kill em is the solution?

Got it.

Don't be obtuse.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
pdq
So. Chase em down and kill em is the solution?

Got it.

False dilemma - two alternative statements are given as the only possible options when, in reality, there are more.

There’s plenty of those in this thread. No one said police can’t apprehend a shoplifter - but if, when approached, a shoplifter dropped the goods and ran, for instance, it might not be worth it to run him/her down and get into a wrestling match when at least one person has a gun, especially if you may already have got them on camera.

Remember last fall, when there was great wringing of hands about the fad of smash-and-grab robberies? Kids these days! They just waltz in and steal stuff brazenly…and get away with it!

Well, as I said at the time here, a big group of people stealing stuff right in front of cameras is a stupid idea. Just days later:

Quote

Authorities said Wednesday they have several leads and have identified multiple suspects in the grab and run coordinated thefts of thousands of dollars of goods from three Best Buy stores in Blaine, Maplewood and Burnsville on Black Friday.

Maplewood police Lt. Joe Steiner said during a news conference that felony charges could be filed against some of the suspects within days, and that a joint investigation with Blaine and Burnsville police and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension continues in an effort to identify the people responsible for the mass thefts and hold them accountable.

These mostly young folks are now in deep guano for little-to-no gain, not least because they unnecessarily damaged displays, etc in the process. They also have the opportunity to fess up on the other folks involved in the ill-thought-through theft in a plea for leniency (not to mention paying restitution). To my knowledge, such flashy thefts have largely ceased in our town, because they were a stupid idea to begin with.

I give this as an example because, as I get older, I just don’t get the macho Dirty Harry thing any more. I’m all for effective police work, and if Chicago’s or Minneapolis’ policy changes don’t work, adjustments will be made. It’s just that after Philando Castille and George Floyd, we’ve seen the result of balls-to-the-wall policing for (sometimes suspected) property crime.

Stuff isn’t worth people’s lives, especially when there are other effective means of deterring crime.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2022 07:51AM by pdq.

"No one said police can’t apprehend a shoplifter - but if, when approached, a shoplifter dropped the goods and ran, for instance, it might not be worth it to run him/her down and get into a wrestling match when at least one person has a gun, especially if you may already have got them on camera."

Cops make these kinds of decisions every day. Making a blanket policy of no pursuit only incentivizes running. How much damage do some of these people do after running? Plus, the lawsuits that will occur when people the police "should" have caught hurt people. We don't have to try stupid things like this to find out whether it works. They just have to make the best decisions they can, and it's not going to be perfect.

Quote
kj
Making a blanket policy of no pursuit…

It’s not a blanket policy. Only for minor offenses.

Quote

How much damage do some of these people do after running? Plus, the lawsuits that will occur when people the police "should" have caught hurt people.

Ask RacerX. He reminds us every time in his posts (in his sig), “police have no duty to respond.”.

Quote

We don't have to try stupid things like this to find out whether it works. They just have to make the best decisions they can, and it's not going to be perfect.

Here’s one that wasn’t perfect:

In St. Paul, the County Attorney, John Choi, said his office will no longer prosecute cases that stem solely from traffic stops unrelated to public safety such as for a broken tail light or expired tabs.

Why would they even try such a stupid thing? Because a Black man was shot 7 times at point-blank range in his car by a police officer after he was stopped for a broken tail light. (The officer “feared for his life”; while this employed, well-liked guy with no serious record had been previously stopped ~50 times (!) for minor offenses like broken tail light (ie driving while Black), and the odds finally caught up to him - that and the fact he was licensed for concealed carry, which instead of it protecting him, ended up leading to his death).

That’s why.

Not catching precludes the "Catch and Release" model of law enforcement.

now, on the record, I have immense respect for good LEOs. I know a few, and they all balance compassion with the law/public safety.

Like the watch commanders who looked the other way for the massive 4th of July parties.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2022 12:10AM by Racer X.

Quote
pdq

Quote
kj
Making a blanket policy of no pursuit…

It’s not a blanket policy. Only for minor offenses.

Quote

How much damage do some of these people do after running? Plus, the lawsuits that will occur when people the police "should" have caught hurt people.

Ask RacerX. He reminds us every time in his posts (in his sig), “police have no duty to respond.”.

Quote

We don't have to try stupid things like this to find out whether it works. They just have to make the best decisions they can, and it's not going to be perfect.

Here’s one that wasn’t perfect:

In St. Paul, the County Attorney, John Choi, said his office will no longer prosecute cases that stem solely from traffic stops unrelated to public safety such as for a broken tail light or expired tabs.

Why would they even try such a stupid thing? Because a Black man was shot 7 times at point-blank range in his car by a police officer after he was stopped for a broken tail light. (The officer “feared for his life”; while this employed, well-liked guy with no serious record had been previously stopped ~50 times (!) for minor offenses like broken tail light (ie driving while Black), and the odds finally caught up to him - that and the fact he was licensed for concealed carry, which instead of it protecting him, ended up leading to his death).

That’s why.

I guess that's a mild version of the "Police did something wrong so get rid of the police department" school of thought. Obviously, stuff like that should never happen, but there are lots of ways to prevent it, and that doesn't seem like a good way. And nothing is going to be perfect.

Plus, how do you know for sure it's a "minor offense". I can't imagine it's always obvious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2022 04:45PM by kj.