Chicago cop allegedly fired for calling shooting "unjustified"

[GarfieldtheCat]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/us/chicago-police-shooting-cedrick-chatman-review/index.html

Yup, another cop coverup/killing. Just another bunch of bad apples.

Chatman was killed 3 years ago, with 4 videos of the incident (so far not released). The IPRA investigator ruled it wasn't justified, but he got fired (allegedly for not changing his report) and a new investigation happened where it became a justified shooting.

But Lorenzo Davis, the original IPRA supervising investigator on the case, made the opposite conclusion and says he was fired in July when he refused to change his report.

As usual, the cops won't release the video...sound familar?

Even better, this is the record of the cop that shot Chapman. 30 complaints, including 10 excessive force complaints, including killing a back kid for wearing a shiny belt buckle which he thought was a gun.

PRA found Fry justified in the shooting; he remains on the force. He has had 30 complaints lodged against him over the years, including 10 allegations of excessive use-of-force. The Police Department found every complaint against Fry to be unwarranted.

In one case in 2007, Fry and his partner shot a 16-year-old black male in a school alcove after seeing a shiny object around his waist and fearing for their lives. The object wasn't a weapon, but a "shiny belt buckle," according to the IPRA report from the time. The shooting was deemed justifiable, but CNN has learned the city settled with the teen and his family for $99,000. There was no admission of guilt as part of the settlement.

Time for DOJ oversight of the Chicago PD for police abuse maybe? How many major cities are guilty of systemic cop abuse already? Time to add another one.

But hey, people tell us this isn't a problem, right? Just a few bad apples according to them. Nevermind all the officers that see this and cover it up, higher-ups that cover up reports, DA's that don't investigate. Sure are a lot of bad apples involved for a single killing.

 

[master_shake_]

cops are like wasps.

when the nest is threatened they tend to attack as one.

 

[Genx87]

When the Chicago PD is under investigation for this stuff it has to be more than a few bad apples. This isnt some small town PD. This is one of the biggest PDs in the country.

 

[Jimzz]

When the Chicago PD is under investigation for this stuff it has to be more than a few bad apples. This isnt some small town PD. This is one of the biggest PDs in the country.

The biggest issue in Chicago and other PDs is they investigate themselves. Then the DA, who works with police, also has to make a call. So usually you have 2 groups who are tied to the person/people they are investigating.

Come up with a real group to do these investigations that is not attached to them or this will keep happening.

 

[waggy]

When the Chicago PD is under investigation for this stuff it has to be more than a few bad apples. This isnt some small town PD. This is one of the biggest PDs in the country.

Chicago PD is one of the most corrupt in the nation. It's rather scary when you read some of the stuff they have gotten caught for.

 

[K1052]

The biggest issue in Chicago and other PDs is they investigate themselves. Then the DA, who works with police, also has to make a call. So usually you have 2 groups who are tied to the person/people they are investigating.

Come up with a real group to do these investigations that is not attached to them or this will keep happening.

The IPRA is supposed to be independent (hence the "I") but like many other politically appointed bodies it became basically a do nothing board that protected the status quo. The mayor even noted the shockingly low amount of discipline meted out by it and the department's own IA division. The head of the IPRA has been canned and replaced with a former federal prosecutor who was also the deputy Inspector General for the city.

 

[Subyman]

The corruption in the Chicago PD is sickening.

Police commander puts gun in suspects mouth:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-chicago-police-trial-idUSKBN0TR1BT20151208

Chicago man's conviction overturned because Chicago PD tortured him into a false confession:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/shawn-whirl-free_561e87b9e4b028dd7ea60da7

 

[Jimzz]

The IPRA is supposed to be independent (hence the "I") but like many other politically appointed bodies it became basically a do nothing board that protected the status quo. The mayor even noted the shockingly low amount of discipline meted out by it and the department's own IA division. The head of the IPRA has been canned and replaced with a former federal prosecutor who was also the deputy Inspector General for the city.

Yea that is why I always add the "real" part when talking about this. Its not independent when the relation ship is still there or you have people running it that are former cops/DA's.

I think Lorenzo Davis is the one I read about a while back after he was fired stories showed the PD had a super low rate of ever finding a killing unjustified. So his firing was not that shocking when you saw way.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Funny how the cop apologists never come in to these threads to explain their opinion on how this isn't a problem. They will always jump in and defend individual cops when they abuse people, but as soon as you show systemic abuse and corruption, they all disappear and act like this doesn't happen.

How odd.

 

[waggy]

also this is why you have cops covering for bad cops. You try to do anything and you get fired. Even worse there are reports of cops refusing to assist them on calls.

 

[DrPizza]

Funny how the cop apologists never come in to these threads to explain their opinion on how this isn't a problem. They will always jump in and defend individual cops when they abuse people, but as soon as you show systemic abuse and corruption, they all disappear and act like this doesn't happen.

How odd.

I think that the cop apologists probably think you are an idiot for labeling them that way. You seem to be treating this as all cops are bad, and never have justification for what they do. But, the reality is, sometimes when a cop shoots someone, the cop is bad. Sometimes when the cop shoots someone, it's justified. It's pretty scary the way you view the world. In the above cases, there's probably no justification for what the officers did. That's why your supposed "cop apologists" haven't said anything. Apparently, they tend to look at the facts a little more than you do.

 

[bshole]

Chicago PD is one of the most corrupt in the nation. It's rather scary when you read some of the stuff they have gotten caught for.

In their defense, Illinois is the most corrupt state in the union.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Link

Video finally got released.....cop shoots him 4 times in the back as he runs away from the cops. One cop chases him, the 2nd just aims and shoots him as he runs away.

"I pay most attention to Officer Fry. Mr. Chatman is simply trying to get away. He's running as fast as he can away from the officers. Officer (Lou) Toth is right behind him; he's doing the right thing. He's pursuing him. He's trying to capture him, while Officer Fry, on the other hand, has both of his hands on his weapon. He is in a shooter's position. He is looking for a clear shot."

I guess Fry's history is also an isolated incident?

He has had 30 complaints lodged against him over the years, including 10 allegations of excessive use of force. The police department found every complaint against him to be unwarranted.

So this was covered up by the PD for 3 years? How are the cop apologists and bigots going to spin this? Just ignore it? Try to defend it as a good shoot? Saw it's "yet another isolated instance" despite a cover up (just like other CPD shootings?)

Perhaps they can explain this "isolated incident" when the entire PD cleared him of 30 complaints, and also cleared him of this execution.

 

[WHAMPOM]

When the "good" cops cover up for the actions of bad cops does that make the "good" cops bad cops? Use the same logic train that gets an unarmed get away driver charged with a murder the armed accomplice commits.

 

[PokerGuy]

Perhaps they can explain this "isolated incident" when the entire PD cleared him of 30 complaints, and also cleared him of this execution.

Since when does a complaint automatically mean he did anything wrong?

Idiots who label people "cop apologists" for not simply accepting some narrative and taking specific incidents to be proof that all cops are bad pretty much preclude any logical discussion on the matter.

Personally I think there are a lot of things that need to be improved but then groups like black lives matter and other idiots pick the exact wrong cases to raise a stink about and make it a big racist (anti-white) issue instead of what it really is.

Investigation into police activity has to be conducted by a true independent law enforcement oversight agency. Statistics kept by police departments need to be consistent so they can be tracked accurately. Cops hold the public trust and are given a lot of leeway because of the nature of their job. When they betray that trust, they need to be held to a higher standard than the average citizen IMO. And on and on and on.

Railing against all cops when the vast majority are doing a good job instead of focusing on the things that need fixed just makes you look like a frothing at the mouth idiot.

 

[DrPizza]

How are the cop apologists and bigots going to spin this? Just ignore it? Try to defend it as a good shoot? Saw it's "yet another isolated instance" despite a cover up (just like other CPD shootings?)

Okay, look, dumbass. (Got your attention this time?) Read my earlier post. There's no justification for this shooting, that's why your supposed "cop apologists" aren't justifying it. Yet again, unlike you, they seem capable of actually looking at the facts in each situation and coming to a reasonable judgment. You appear to simply rush to the copy/paste the same judgment every time a cop shoots someone.

 

[PokerGuy]

When the "good" cops cover up for the actions of bad cops does that make the "good" cops bad cops?

Yes, IMO, anyone who covers up for a bad cop or bad behavior is just as guilty of the bad behavior. The thing is, if we don't set up a way to protect cops who try to do the right thing from retribution etc from other (bad) cops, it's logical that the good cops don't want to risk everything by standing up when they see inappropriate things going on.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

it's logical that the good cops don't want to risk everything by standing up when they see inappropriate things going on.

Cops are great at banding together to defend against a threat. In many cases where a cop goes to trial, there are tons of his cop buddies at the trial to support him. Even if what he did was truly disgusting. Why can't they band together like this against a bad cop? How is it that they can be so organized defending one of their own and then such scared, disorganized buffoons when it comes to getting rid of the bad cop? It is logical to wonder if it's because they WANT being a bad cop to be OK.

 

[Mai72]

Reminds me of the movie Serpico w/ AL Pacino. Great movie.

 

[Sulaco]

Funny how the cop apologists never come in to these threads to explain their opinion on how this isn't a problem. They will always jump in and defend individual cops when they abuse people, but as soon as you show systemic abuse and corruption, they all disappear and act like this doesn't happen.

How odd.

Funny how you fail to address DrPizza's well reasoned and thought out responses to your assertions, despite responding to the thread after he posts, and instead bury your head in the sand further and make a bigger ass of yourself than usual.

How odd.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Funny how you fail to address DrPizza's well reasoned and thought out responses to your assertions, despite responding to the thread after he posts, and instead bury your head in the sand further and make a bigger ass of yourself than usual.

How odd.

The irony in all this is: there are plenty of trollish members who will repeatedly defend cops even when the action of the cop seems despicable. They won't even come in this thread and attempt to justify this cop, and yet the cop still got away with it. What does that say about our justice system when "cop apologists" won't even touch this one but the DA STILL couldn't score a conviction?

 

[Sulaco]

The irony in all this is: there are plenty of trollish members who will repeatedly defend cops even when the action of the cop seems despicable. They won't even come in this thread and attempt to justify this cop, and yet the cop still got away with it. What does that say about our justice system when "cop apologists" won't even touch this one but the DA STILL couldn't score a conviction?

Who are the "cop apologists"?

What are their numbers compared to the "GarfieldtheCat anything that paints cops in a bad light gets my member hard" crowd?

Because we've actually had members banned, multiple times, for trolling the "all cops are horrible" tag line. Hell, this forum briefly implemented a "Cop alleged misbehavior" sub forum because of the sheer number of threads being posted.

So I don't see ATPN's posting habits and trends as a good metric for commentary on fair discussion on this topic.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

The biggest issue in Chicago and other PDs is they investigate themselves. Then the DA, who works with police, also has to make a call. So usually you have 2 groups who are tied to the person/people they are investigating.

Come up with a real group to do these investigations that is not attached to them or this will keep happening.

Is that what other countries do? If, not why is it so different here?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Who are the "cop apologists"?

You want me to call people out? Nice try. You probably already know who they are anyways.

What are their numbers compared to the "GarfieldtheCat anything that paints cops in a bad light gets my member hard" crowd?

You think people get boners from bad cop stories? What is wrong with you?

People don't like when cops do bad things and get away with it. Why does that piss you off that people don't like this? There are far too many stories where cops do bad shit and get away with it. THAT is what should piss you off. As in THIS VERY THREAD. This thread topic should piss you off, not what people have to say about it. Seriously...it is the PERFECT cop corruption story...a cop gets actually fired for calling a cop shooting unjustified. It doesn't get more scummy and corrupt than that. Yet your "get my member hard" rage is directed at someone calling out "cop apologists". Why?

Because we've actually had members banned, multiple times, for trolling the "all cops are horrible" tag line.

Who? What specifically were they banned for? I have a hard time believing it's because they said "all cops are horrible".

Hell, this forum briefly implemented a "Cop alleged misbehavior" sub forum because of the sheer number of threads being posted.

No, the forum implemented the "cop alleged misbehavior" thread because resident cop "cheerleaders" complained so much about the number of legitimate bad stories about cops. It was a classically shitty attempt at stifling free speech that they didn't agree with and it failed as it should.

So I don't see ATPN's posting habits and trends as a good metric for commentary on fair discussion on this topic.

Cool. Bye Felicia.

 

[Sulaco]

You want me to call people out? Nice try. You probably already know who they are anyways.



You think people get boners from bad cop stories? What is wrong with you?

People don't like when cops do bad things and get away with it. Why does that piss you off that people don't like this? There are far too many stories where cops do bad shit and get away with it. THAT is what should piss you off. As in THIS VERY THREAD. This thread topic should piss you off, not what people have to say about it. Seriously...it is the PERFECT cop corruption story...a cop gets actually fired for calling a cop shooting unjustified. It doesn't get more scummy and corrupt than that. Yet your "get my member hard" rage is directed at someone calling out "cop apologists". Why?



Who? What specifically were they banned for? I have a hard time believing it's because they said "all cops are horrible".



No, the forum implemented the "cop alleged misbehavior" thread because resident cop "cheerleaders" complained so much about the number of legitimate bad stories about cops. It was a classically shitty attempt at stifling free speech that they didn't agree with and it failed as it should.



Cool. Bye Felicia.

Your post precisely illustrates why this entire conversation and the thinking behind it is absurd. Just reread what you wrote. Nothing in my post was personal against you, yet the very thought of someone not knee-jerk reacting behind their keyboard worked you into a froth.

You're complaining about me not being 'angry' enough about cop injustice. You're berating me for not falling into line, as you deem fit, in showing public outcry in this thread. Yet the idea that there are better, more mature, more constructive ways of actually acknowledging the issues and the actual problems versus flinging shit in pointless thread after thread is looked on as some kind of acquiescence to the problem.

It's not. It's just that the mindless GarfieldtheCat methodology of posting is simply no better than your "cop apologists" who defend anything unquestionably. It's two sides of the same coin.
Intelligent, reasoning people will look at each case in its own light, in its own merit, and make judgments based on those applicable facts.

As for your question, despite the mildly amusing irony of demanding names of those banned for their nonsense on this topic, and then balking at actually having to name the "cop apologists", I point you in the direction of one "TreVader", and his alts. Look him up. Look up his alts. And look at the last posts he made before being banned. And yes, you'll see it was for this kind of bombastic, bellicose petulance on this very topic.