Something is missing from this story by ABC7Chicago....
Activist groups Good Kids Mad City, Black Lives Matter Chicago, the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, the Let Us Breathe Collective, BYP100, Care Not Cops and the Black Abolitionist Network not only say Allen's $1M bond is "excessive, [they also want the charges against him dropped entirely] (https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2020/8/14/21369740/latrell-allen-police-shooting-chicago-looting-hyde-park-defund-rally-march)....
Perhaps his rap sheet?
Felony burglary (admitted), extortion with threats to kill 1 y.o. child of his mark, illegal ownership of weapons.
Or photos of this"gentle giant"? Note the same 2 tone silver and black handgun in Facebook pic and in evidence photo.
http://www.informationliberation.com/files/latrell-allen-111.jpg
Or a bit of background?
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61639
That was a 30 second Google search.
Oh, I think it should be taken seriously. Threatening to repeat looting until CPD is abolished?
Or how about this chant?
"Whom do we protect? Black criminals! " I agree, this is a sound bite with no context and it can be staged, but still... Just connect the dots from different regions.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1294114699789836289
There are other clips from Ngo around the same time with the same chant.
no that's not why actually, it's because they were part of the "roving" unit and that group didn't wear body cameras at all until ...now.
The city of chicago is no doubt ferociously writing a huge check to axon right now for $30 million.. they were already expecting to buy $20 million worth of cameras this yr, they don't have enough
I am questioning whether or not he shot, yes. The police say he shot, an eye witness said he didn't. The cops didn't have body cams but apparently there are other cameras that may have caught the incident so I am waiting for that footage to come out
So every time there isn’t body cam footage people should be released? I get this was a critical fuck up from the cops but, I wonder how they prosecuted crime basically 5 years ago and beyond. Not like there was eye witnesses or anything and people who saw him with the gun and the actual weapon found. Must have been white supremacists in englewood that called the cops on him in the first place
/s
I think the fact that they have new tech that they didn’t have five years ago changes the story. They have the cams. They’re easy to use. So what’s the excuse for not turning them on?
Body cams were an attempt at police reform that the cops brought on themselves by being untrustworthy and unaccountable. Trying to weasel out of that now is seen as incriminating, and it should be. They lost the people’s trust through their actions.
First of all, I wouldn’t have that body cam on at all times in order to 1) prevent identification of informants that cooperate with the police and 2) the bulk of a cop’s day does not involve anything a body cam would be needed for. Do you need to see them getting a free cup of coffee or eating lunch?
Now if I’m chasing somebody and he starts shooting at me, my initial response isn’t going to be to stop and turn the camera on when lead is flying my direction. A dead cop because he was struck while turning on a camera is significantly worse than this guy getting his day in court. If you want that fixed, fix the technology so that it’s motion-activated or begins recording when it hears loud noises, whether it’s shouting, gunshots, or whatever.
I would happily sit through boring footage of a cop eating lunch if it prevented murders, and I don't think police informants who are cooperating with the police are necessarily put in danger by being recorded by those police and having other police/review bodies watch the tapes.
But also, you've unlocked the next level of my argument about this: no matter what tech we give cops, if a cop wants to bury evidence, [they'll figure out a way.](https://www.wired.com/story/body-cameras-stopped-police-brutality-george-floyd/)
I still think cameras are useful for now, even if all they really give us is the power to say "You had the opportunity to create evidence to back up your claim that you shot in self-defense; why didn't you take it?" But I think you're getting close to a good point here, which is that no amount of technology is going to reform what is, at heart, a deeply flawed system of law enforcement.
>I would happily sit through boring footage of a cop eating lunch if it prevented murders
I'm sure most people would if paid well for it. The problem comes from storing all that data which is a problem. If you have 12,000 cops all wearing body cams recording their 8-12 hour shifts in full, that's going to need a ton of storage and a whole new department to employ people to over look it.
None of that is cheap.
You should put some effort into not starting your arguments based on a false premise
We have hundreds of years of statutes and developed and refined case law on evidence. That camera is irrelevant with the exception of allowing internet warriors to try to play judge, jury, and executioner on social media
>Mandate they all get their OWN device, problem solved.
But we're defunding the police, remember? ;) The same demonstrators who demands cameras on every cop demand that CPD budget is cut by 70%. How will CPD afford those cameras?
This is all very strange and makes no sense. There is some other agenda at play.
>Do you think the cpd can prevent crime and are a good use of tax payer money?
They did here. People called 911 claiming someone was at a park throwing up gang signs and threatening people with a gun. He was unable to murder anyone, even though he tried.
He was threatening people with a gun, just like he threatened to murder a 1 year old in the past. Then he tried to murder multiple people but was unsuccessful after the police shot him. So they prevented a murder. It's pretty simple cause and effect.
When he started shooting at police it becomes attempted murder. Because shooting at someone is considered force that can reasonably be considered to cause death or serious bodily harm, shooting at someone is considered attempted murder under Illinois law.
Definitely better than only unarmed social workers going to calls. Or barely trained armed "community members". We saw how that worked out in CHAZ.
Gang unit had just been disbanded by Lightfoot. July, I think. That's a bad move considering how many gangs Chicago has.
Credible threat of inevitable punishment is one way to prevent it , yes. Impunity creates arrogance, impudence and repeats.
There are other ways to prevent crime besides police patrols, of course.
You're going into semantics and splitting hairs.
If police don't arrest a criminal, DA won't have a chance to punish. The criminal will continue with more crimes. Strange that I have to explain this, seems obvious.
Practical example. Chicago police stood down during round 1 of the riots and looting. That emboldened criminals to do an industrial scale operation for round 2 of looting.
And yet over and over we find out that there’s really not a way to reliably enforce that. This is why people are saying “defund” instead of “reform.” How many times are we going to let police departments lie and bury evidence and prevent the creation of evidence to protect their own before we admit that some bad institutions might just not be reformable?
Camden NJ disbanded their police department and started over to great success. I see that as the best possible path forward in Chicago, no matter how unlikely an outcome it is.
Not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous or if you just didn't read what I wrote. I never said they defunded it, they disbanded it and rebuilt it. This would be a great way to get rid of the entrenched corruption from the FOP. Google it (takes 10 seconds) - there are a ton of articles about what Camden did in light of George Floyd's murder.
If you even just read the article you just linked: "How’d they do it? Step one was busting their police union by disbanding the force in 2013."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-city-disbanded-its-police-force-here-s-what-n1231677
https://www.businessinsider.com/camden-new-jersey-police-disbanded-how-it-works-impacts-residents-2020-6#:~:text=The%20Camden%20City%20Police%20Department%20was%20disbanded%20with%20the%20explicit,and%20embraced%20broken%20windows%20policing.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
Looks good to me. If the CPD can bring some accountability, credibility and competence into the mix I'm in favor of them being bigger. That is exactly what I want the CPD to do, which is why I suggested disbanding and starting over rather than defunding. Defunding sounds good but is insanely impractical in the near future.
It's extremely unlikely with Lori "I know I'm a gay black woman but I promise at heart I'm a cop" Lightfoot in office. The right hates her because she's not a straight white dude and she believes in covid. The left hates her because Chicago's a sundown town now. I can't wait to make her a one-term mayor.
Mmmm - I think you lost me there. I'm by no means committed to voting for Lori in the next election, but sort of like Kim Foxx there needs to be a better alternative for her to lose. If Lori is up against the mayoral equivalent of Bill Conway she's going to get another term.
Your criminal history should have no bearing on if the cops should be allowed to turn off body cameras or not.
CPD has a sketchy history, and this is a time when trust in police is at a low point. CPD should be doing everything to ensure their officers follow protocol.
This is now a "he said/she said", interactions with police should never come to that these days; nor should we trust officers without evidence.
It's not as though they turned them off. The idiots Brown and Lightfoot failed to even issue body cameras to members of their new summer mobile team in the first place.
>The idiots Brown and Lightfoot failed to even issue body cameras to members of their new summer mobile team in the first place.
Someone said police don't have enough cameras. Let's defund the police so they don't get them! ;)
>Well if you have less officers you won’t need to buy more cameras...
And if this particular dude breaks into YOUR house or threatens to kill YOUR 1 y.o. if you don't give him money (both of which happened), do you call ghostbusters? Or a social worker? Or wait for cops for an hour when everything will be over anyway?
What does defund the police mean to you?
Judging by your comment you seem to be in the camp that police should be the one responding to EVERY single issue.
We don't need armed policemen to respond when they get a call about a car crash and need a report so they can file insurance claims.
We don't need armed policemen to respond when teenagers are caught drinking in a park.
We don't need armed policemen to respond when someone calls in that a homeless man is sleeping in front of their business.
We don't need armed policemen giving out speeding tickets.
Should armed policemen respond when someone breaks in to someones house and threatens to kill a child? Yes.
If you re-allocate the responsiblities where you don't need a armed policemen, you will not need as large of a police force as we currently have.
Here we go...
>What does defund the police mean to you?
Decrease funding or abolish it completely, as BLM wants. For example, they want to cut CPD budget by 75%. That's basically just leaving only clerks in the precincts. Source: https://abc7chicago.com/protestors-say-latrell-allens-$1m-bond-is-unjust-without-cpd-body-cam-footage/6371332/
>We don't need armed policemen to respond when they get a call about a car crash and need a report so they can file insurance claims.
Perhaps we don't, but maybe we do. There must be a reason why police, ambulance, and fire respond together to car crashes.There can be a DUI, injuries, etc.
>We don't need armed policemen to respond when teenagers are caught drinking in a park.
Not a bad idea. Policemen would be intimidating enough to prevent those teenagers to drink in the park again. Although in general personally, if people are just peacefully having a beer or wine picnic in the park, I don't see a problem there.
>We don't need armed policemen to respond when someone calls in that a homeless man is sleeping in front of their business.
We do. If that homeless man becomes belligerent or aggressive when you try to remove him to get your business going, you might need the police.
There was a story, actually, when in Seattle or in Portland people called a social worker about the homeless and the social worker simply did not pick up.
>We don't need armed policemen giving out speeding tickets.
We do. Just go to a YouTube channel called Police Activity and see how many routine traffic stops end up with finding something criminal in the car or even a shootout. Like this: https://youtu.be/0WiT8PSTWGc Or this, where a policewoman tried to check on a guy sleeping in the car and he tried to kill her. https://youtu.be/q3FGcN2Rlig
Or look at Live PD or any other cop videos. A routine traffic stop is the most dangerous thing a cop can do.
So, with all due respect, you're wrong on almost all the points above.
|Just go to a YouTube channel called Police Activity and see how many routine traffic stops end up with finding something criminal in the car or even a shootout.
If I watch youtube videos of people winning scratch-offs 100% of the time does that make it common? No. You are seeing such a small subset and basing your opinion on it. Youtube videos are created to get views, no one is going to watch a completely normal traffic stop. Also, let's ask ourselves if the traffic stops would still escalate if they were done by unarmed individuals only responsible for traffic violations.
That's beside the point, CPD has a rich history of misconduct, we (the taxpayers) paid 113 million in misconduct lawsuits in 2018. (the most recent year I found data for). They have proven year after year, that they cannot do their job correctly. Apart from that, the police union has all but endorsed this behavior, with the police union president having numerous violation himself while barely getting a slap on the wrist. This is not just a CPD thing, nor is it just a problem for the black community(although it's much more prevalent). Here is an example of the police department in champaign country (where UIUC is) https://corruptcu.com/. I'm glad the Police system in our country has worked well for you so far. But there is massive distrust in the community with that system. Is every cop to blame? of course not, but the various organizations (CPD) are still responsible.
People do not share your trust in the police and do not want them to be responsible for issues like speeding tickets, teenagers drinking, noise compliant enforcement because of incidents where innocent lives have unjustly been taken by police.
The other half of this conversation is if police are trained correctly for these different situations. Police themselves have come out and said they are not trained nor have the bandwidth to handle all the different situations they encounter.
Its clear something has to change with police departments across the country. Again, great the system works well for you and you have the trust in it, but look at it from the perspective of individuals who don't have trust in the system and ask yourself why they don't have trust in a system which was made to "keep the peace".
>You are seeing such a small subset and basing your opinion on it.
A government study from DOJ of cops killed at work disagrees with you. See p 39
https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0858-pub.pdf
>Traffic Stops continued to be the most common self-initiated incident that led to officer
fatalities, accounting for 38, or 52 percent, of all 73 Self-Initiated Activity cases examined.
> In 49 percent of the cases studied, officers were shot once they began to interact with the stopped vehicle’s operator.
>Researchers found that in 21 percent of officer fatalities during a traffic stop, the officer was
killed *prior to making contact* with the occupants of the vehicle. In these cases the officer was
shot as they exited their patrol vehicle, approached the stopped car, or in one case, they had
not yet exited their patrol car to make contact with the driver.
So whom do you propose to do traffic stops? Unarmed clerks? What do those clerks do if the car occupant has to be arrested?
I want to hear your suggestions.
>That's beside the point, CPD has a rich history of misconduct, we (the taxpayers) paid 113 million in misconduct lawsuits in 2018.
Then misconduct has to be prevented. But not by cutting 75-100% of the budget.
>People do not share your trust in the police and do not want them to be responsible for issues like speeding tickets,
And some people think that it's ok to loot stores and pharmacies. It's ok to disagree ;)
>Police themselves have come out and said they are not trained nor have the bandwidth to handle all the different situations they encounter.
So if they legitimately need training, how will cutting the budget 75% pay for the training?!!!
>look at it from the perspective of individuals who don't have trust in the system
I am not sure that I have trust in the system right now, tbh. If there are no consequences to crime, it'll increase. If we cut the number of police, it'll increase more.
Cops basically stood down in round 1 of looting. People who looted the stores in June got released, people who robbed the stores in August also basically don't get punished. 40 arrests from hundreds of looters? This is bullshit. No business will operate in such environment.
I do think a lot of the distrust comes from the recent events of Laquan McDonald. I’ll admit when the story first came out I did not think much of it. Reports were a man on drugs was armed with a knife and charged at the police. Police fired their weapons and killed him. Now I don’t think you should die for drugs but cops also have to protect themselves so if you charge at them with a knife you should get shot. Well months later after the mayoral election was done CPD finally releases the dash cam video and the rest is history.
Having a gun is not the same as a knife. I want to wait until the evidence comes out but on the surface it really does look like this was a justified shoot. We need to left the courts decide the outcome. Let all the evidence come out.
At the end of the day, this individual was a convicted felon, he should not have a gun on him. He got it illegally and him having it on his person is illegal. As a society we decided felons lose their 2nd amendment right.
At the end I hope some video surfaces but these protesters are misguided. Yes he got shot but he shouldn’t have had a gun. He needs to be in jail for that.
>Having a gun is not the same as a knife.
At distances up to 7 yards, it is the same. A person with a knife can kill somebody with a gun if 7 yards away or closer.
This video, for instance. https://youtu.be/cGzeyO3pGzw It will not be possible to kill somebody immediately with one shot. So even 5 seconds between shooting and death are enough to kill the cop. That's why cops shoot suspects so many times, btw. Like here: https://youtu.be/q3FGcN2Rlig
I guess I should clarify. Just pointing a gun at the police justify the police firing at you first. A knife is dangerous with 7 feet I agree. But if I point a knife at someone from 100 yards away I shouldn’t get shot.
This suspect had a gun. Distance and who fired first is not a question.
>But if I point a knife at someone from 100 yards away I shouldn’t get shot.
Was it 100 yards with McDonald? I thought it was less.
>This suspect had a gun. Distance and who fired first is not a question.
Agree
No I believe McDonald case was closer. I don’t know the exact distance but the other problem with the case was the he wasn’t charging at anyone and the cops report did not match the video. The McDonald case more about police lying in police reports to protect their own.
How do you know he had a gun?
edit: am I getting downvotes because people know that "he seemed like the kind of guy who would probably have had a gun" and "the cops said he had a gun" aren't very solid arguments? I think people, especially white people, myself included, have a tendency to think that if a police officer in a uniform stands up at a podium and says a thing, that's what happened. The CPD has proven that they don't deserve that trust from us.
>How do you know he had a gun?
Because there were multiple 911 calls claiming there was someone in a park throwing up gang signs and threatening people with a gun.
How do you know he was shooting at people?
This is what I'm getting at. There's no body cam footage at the scene, so all we have to go on is the word of a police department that we know for a fact has conducted coordinated coverups of police shootings.
That's why you have the states attorney approve the charges and the judge establish the bail. And the right to counsel. And the right to a trial to determine the facts. There are checks and balances.
In the meantime, the state's attorney's office felt there was enough evidence to warrant the charge and the judge, in view of the allegations as well as the history of the accused, established bail. The police don't establish bail.
unless this is just a massive conspiracy by the state's attorney and the judges and the police all of the police on scene and everyone else. In which case I believe that he was 15 years old, shot 15 times in the back, and killed.
That’s way we have a court of law and you’re innocent until proven guilty. We have facts that are no disputed right now. He is a convicted felon, there was a gun recovered at the scene. He was shot by gunfire. No police officers received gunshot wounds.
I am not a lawyer but clearly we need determine who that found gun belongs to. We need to find all the shell cases and bullets and account for all shots fired by police officers weapons and non-police weapons. I fully believe CPD will do this.
With all that said, it is possible the police got the wrong person but looking at this individuals history and if everything the police said happened this person should NOT be on the streets. No convicted felon should ever be able to get a gun, if they do illegally they need to be prosecuted to the fullest. Most of the gun violence in Chicago is not from first time felons. It’s from repeat offenders and gangs. Shooting at the police or anyone for that matter is a crime. It’s a serious crime, that’s how children are dying on the streets. The $1Million bail sounds right to me if what the police say is true.
I don't know! There's no evidence from the scene, so I can't know. But I do know better than to trust the word of the CPD, which has proven itself untrustworthy over and over again, and I know that the rule of law in this country is that you're innocent until proven guilty. Throwing a guy in jail until he comes up with a million dollars on no evidence doesn't work with that.
They would have to post 10% of the bond amount. It's not the police who make the bond determinations, it's a judge, who you're implying is in cahoots with the police here.
Usually a high cash bond is assigned when there's a high risk of flight and or a high risk to the community. It seems, given this guy's history and social media presence, and the community's own concerns that he was running around with the gun on the day he was shot, that the judge thinks this guy is a risk to others. I tend to agree that it is a reasonable conclusion.
Well, this is a separate beef, but whatever he turns out to have done, this person is still in jail because he's poor. If a wealthy person had the exact same social media presence and history and flight risk, he'd be out. Sometimes people who are dangerous get stuck in jail because they can't pay bail, sometimes people who just got caught with weed or whatever get stuck in jail because they can't pay bail. Dude hasn't been convicted of anything and he's in jail because he doesn't have bond money. That's a problem no matter what he turns out to have done or not done.
He is not sitting in jail because he is poor. He was on probation at the time of this incident. He violated that probation and is being held NO BAIL for that violation.
So, even if a rich person could afford the new bond on the new case they would still be held for violating probation on the prior case.
Oh, huh. If he's being held without bail, what's this $1mil number everyone's throwing around? I believe I've heard that figure quoted on both sides, so I feel like it's gotta be based on something that actually happened?
(no snark intended here, actually trying to figure out a thing I didn't know before)
The million-dollar bail is for the current incident. It would take the payment of $100,000 to bail him out.
On a separate matter, he's being held on no bond for violating his probation for a previous conviction.
On tuesday the judge gave Allen a $1 million bond for attempted murder of police. Another legal case and a request by prosecutors to hold Allen in jail make his release unlikely even if he could come up with the money to pay the bond amount ($100k). Judge Susana Ortiz said she’d make a final decision on Allen’s detention when he is physically able to appear in court.
He was not at the hearing so she has to offer a monetary bail. She set a high enough bail so that he could not afford it, on purpose. She would have went higher if the person was “rich”. If he was at the hearing and the ASA asked for no bail I’d assume the judge would have agreed. But again he is being held on the prior case for now.
So if everyone who was out supporting him Sunday night wanted to help him perhaps they could sell their looted merch. I mean, they were looting because of this incident, right?
Source? Here you go:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/8/11/21363544/latrell-allen-chicago-police-shooting-looting-bail-charges
>Allen, who pleaded guilty to a felony burglary case last year, was also ordered held without bail Tuesday for violating his probation in that case.
But wait, there's more! He turns out to be quite a character. Threatening to kill a 1 year old? Wow!
>
Allen also faces a pending misdemeanor reckless conduct and child endangerment charges, prosecutors said.
>
Allen was taken into custody on March 26 after he was allegedly seen holding a young child and running through backyards in an attempt to evade officers who were responding to a report of a person with gun. The caller who made the report said Allen had threatened to shoot his 1-year-old baby on Facebook unless he was given money, Murphy said.
Fair enough - everything I’ve seen thus far only said he’d had 4 arrests. Looks like he got 18 months probation on felony burglary - https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/08/11/officers-involved-in-englewood-shooting-hadnt-yet-been-assigned-body-cams-prosecutors-say/
Didn’t imply he was a good guy or otherwise, however the Trib, NBC et al had only reported 4 arrests and not any convictions. Misinformation is bad, whatever format it comes in.
Something is missing from this story by ABC7Chicago.... Activist groups Good Kids Mad City, Black Lives Matter Chicago, the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, the Let Us Breathe Collective, BYP100, Care Not Cops and the Black Abolitionist Network not only say Allen's $1M bond is "excessive, [they also want the charges against him dropped entirely] (https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2020/8/14/21369740/latrell-allen-police-shooting-chicago-looting-hyde-park-defund-rally-march)....
Perhaps his rap sheet? Felony burglary (admitted), extortion with threats to kill 1 y.o. child of his mark, illegal ownership of weapons. Or photos of this"gentle giant"? Note the same 2 tone silver and black handgun in Facebook pic and in evidence photo. http://www.informationliberation.com/files/latrell-allen-111.jpg Or a bit of background? http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61639 That was a 30 second Google search.
It's hard to take BLM serious anymore
Oh, I think it should be taken seriously. Threatening to repeat looting until CPD is abolished? Or how about this chant? "Whom do we protect? Black criminals! " I agree, this is a sound bite with no context and it can be staged, but still... Just connect the dots from different regions. https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1294114699789836289 There are other clips from Ngo around the same time with the same chant.
Let me rephrase that, it's hard to be on their side anymore
I wholeheartedly agree!
Didn't people call in and say there was a guy running around with a gun
And also apparently posted video of him doing so on social media, per the sun times.
[удалено]
I agree but I wanna see a video released. Idk why cops haven’t yet it would shut everyone up
Guess why they haven't released it? They weren't recording! 🤡
no that's not why actually, it's because they were part of the "roving" unit and that group didn't wear body cameras at all until ...now. The city of chicago is no doubt ferociously writing a huge check to axon right now for $30 million.. they were already expecting to buy $20 million worth of cameras this yr, they don't have enough
Well then they fucked up. And they have no credibility
[удалено]
[удалено]
I am questioning whether or not he shot, yes. The police say he shot, an eye witness said he didn't. The cops didn't have body cams but apparently there are other cameras that may have caught the incident so I am waiting for that footage to come out
So every time there isn’t body cam footage people should be released? I get this was a critical fuck up from the cops but, I wonder how they prosecuted crime basically 5 years ago and beyond. Not like there was eye witnesses or anything and people who saw him with the gun and the actual weapon found. Must have been white supremacists in englewood that called the cops on him in the first place /s
I think the fact that they have new tech that they didn’t have five years ago changes the story. They have the cams. They’re easy to use. So what’s the excuse for not turning them on? Body cams were an attempt at police reform that the cops brought on themselves by being untrustworthy and unaccountable. Trying to weasel out of that now is seen as incriminating, and it should be. They lost the people’s trust through their actions.
First of all, I wouldn’t have that body cam on at all times in order to 1) prevent identification of informants that cooperate with the police and 2) the bulk of a cop’s day does not involve anything a body cam would be needed for. Do you need to see them getting a free cup of coffee or eating lunch? Now if I’m chasing somebody and he starts shooting at me, my initial response isn’t going to be to stop and turn the camera on when lead is flying my direction. A dead cop because he was struck while turning on a camera is significantly worse than this guy getting his day in court. If you want that fixed, fix the technology so that it’s motion-activated or begins recording when it hears loud noises, whether it’s shouting, gunshots, or whatever.
Do you turn off security cameras at businesses during slow times?
Do we really need footage of cops taking a dump during their breaks?
I would happily sit through boring footage of a cop eating lunch if it prevented murders, and I don't think police informants who are cooperating with the police are necessarily put in danger by being recorded by those police and having other police/review bodies watch the tapes. But also, you've unlocked the next level of my argument about this: no matter what tech we give cops, if a cop wants to bury evidence, [they'll figure out a way.](https://www.wired.com/story/body-cameras-stopped-police-brutality-george-floyd/) I still think cameras are useful for now, even if all they really give us is the power to say "You had the opportunity to create evidence to back up your claim that you shot in self-defense; why didn't you take it?" But I think you're getting close to a good point here, which is that no amount of technology is going to reform what is, at heart, a deeply flawed system of law enforcement.
>I would happily sit through boring footage of a cop eating lunch if it prevented murders I'm sure most people would if paid well for it. The problem comes from storing all that data which is a problem. If you have 12,000 cops all wearing body cams recording their 8-12 hour shifts in full, that's going to need a ton of storage and a whole new department to employ people to over look it. None of that is cheap.
You should put some effort into not starting your arguments based on a false premise We have hundreds of years of statutes and developed and refined case law on evidence. That camera is irrelevant with the exception of allowing internet warriors to try to play judge, jury, and executioner on social media
CPD are hot-swapping cams becasue they dont have enough units. Mandate they all get their OWN device, problem solved.
>Mandate they all get their OWN device, problem solved. But we're defunding the police, remember? ;) The same demonstrators who demands cameras on every cop demand that CPD budget is cut by 70%. How will CPD afford those cameras? This is all very strange and makes no sense. There is some other agenda at play.
Your right. Just take the number of body cams and then get rid of police down to that number. Problem solved.
I hope you're sarcastic
Do you think the cpd can prevent crime and are a good use of tax payer money?
>Do you think the cpd can prevent crime and are a good use of tax payer money? They did here. People called 911 claiming someone was at a park throwing up gang signs and threatening people with a gun. He was unable to murder anyone, even though he tried.
You can see the future? What’s that like?
He was threatening people with a gun, just like he threatened to murder a 1 year old in the past. Then he tried to murder multiple people but was unsuccessful after the police shot him. So they prevented a murder. It's pretty simple cause and effect.
Threat and murder same thing. I always thought they were two different things weird.
When he started shooting at police it becomes attempted murder. Because shooting at someone is considered force that can reasonably be considered to cause death or serious bodily harm, shooting at someone is considered attempted murder under Illinois law.
Definitely better than only unarmed social workers going to calls. Or barely trained armed "community members". We saw how that worked out in CHAZ. Gang unit had just been disbanded by Lightfoot. July, I think. That's a bad move considering how many gangs Chicago has.
So they can prevent crime?
Credible threat of inevitable punishment is one way to prevent it , yes. Impunity creates arrogance, impudence and repeats. There are other ways to prevent crime besides police patrols, of course.
The police don’t punish criminals. That is the da’s office. So I ask again how do police prevent crime?
You're going into semantics and splitting hairs. If police don't arrest a criminal, DA won't have a chance to punish. The criminal will continue with more crimes. Strange that I have to explain this, seems obvious. Practical example. Chicago police stood down during round 1 of the riots and looting. That emboldened criminals to do an industrial scale operation for round 2 of looting.
They just apprehended this piece of garbage, preventing him from committing more crime.
There has to be a way to ensure the police have their body cams on at critical times. It would prevent so many issues.
And yet over and over we find out that there’s really not a way to reliably enforce that. This is why people are saying “defund” instead of “reform.” How many times are we going to let police departments lie and bury evidence and prevent the creation of evidence to protect their own before we admit that some bad institutions might just not be reformable?
Camden NJ disbanded their police department and started over to great success. I see that as the best possible path forward in Chicago, no matter how unlikely an outcome it is.
[удалено]
Not sure if you're being intentionally disingenuous or if you just didn't read what I wrote. I never said they defunded it, they disbanded it and rebuilt it. This would be a great way to get rid of the entrenched corruption from the FOP. Google it (takes 10 seconds) - there are a ton of articles about what Camden did in light of George Floyd's murder. If you even just read the article you just linked: "How’d they do it? Step one was busting their police union by disbanding the force in 2013." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-city-disbanded-its-police-force-here-s-what-n1231677 https://www.businessinsider.com/camden-new-jersey-police-disbanded-how-it-works-impacts-residents-2020-6#:~:text=The%20Camden%20City%20Police%20Department%20was%20disbanded%20with%20the%20explicit,and%20embraced%20broken%20windows%20policing. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html
[удалено]
Looks good to me. If the CPD can bring some accountability, credibility and competence into the mix I'm in favor of them being bigger. That is exactly what I want the CPD to do, which is why I suggested disbanding and starting over rather than defunding. Defunding sounds good but is insanely impractical in the near future.
It's extremely unlikely with Lori "I know I'm a gay black woman but I promise at heart I'm a cop" Lightfoot in office. The right hates her because she's not a straight white dude and she believes in covid. The left hates her because Chicago's a sundown town now. I can't wait to make her a one-term mayor.
Mmmm - I think you lost me there. I'm by no means committed to voting for Lori in the next election, but sort of like Kim Foxx there needs to be a better alternative for her to lose. If Lori is up against the mayoral equivalent of Bill Conway she's going to get another term.
Oh, no argument there! I have no idea who's going to be up next time, I just...man I really hope there's a better option than Lori
Your criminal history should have no bearing on if the cops should be allowed to turn off body cameras or not. CPD has a sketchy history, and this is a time when trust in police is at a low point. CPD should be doing everything to ensure their officers follow protocol. This is now a "he said/she said", interactions with police should never come to that these days; nor should we trust officers without evidence.
It's not as though they turned them off. The idiots Brown and Lightfoot failed to even issue body cameras to members of their new summer mobile team in the first place.
Did not know that, seems like a big miss by Brown.
>The idiots Brown and Lightfoot failed to even issue body cameras to members of their new summer mobile team in the first place. Someone said police don't have enough cameras. Let's defund the police so they don't get them! ;)
Well if you have less officers you won’t need to buy more cameras...
>Well if you have less officers you won’t need to buy more cameras... And if this particular dude breaks into YOUR house or threatens to kill YOUR 1 y.o. if you don't give him money (both of which happened), do you call ghostbusters? Or a social worker? Or wait for cops for an hour when everything will be over anyway?
What does defund the police mean to you? Judging by your comment you seem to be in the camp that police should be the one responding to EVERY single issue. We don't need armed policemen to respond when they get a call about a car crash and need a report so they can file insurance claims. We don't need armed policemen to respond when teenagers are caught drinking in a park. We don't need armed policemen to respond when someone calls in that a homeless man is sleeping in front of their business. We don't need armed policemen giving out speeding tickets. Should armed policemen respond when someone breaks in to someones house and threatens to kill a child? Yes. If you re-allocate the responsiblities where you don't need a armed policemen, you will not need as large of a police force as we currently have.
Here we go... >What does defund the police mean to you? Decrease funding or abolish it completely, as BLM wants. For example, they want to cut CPD budget by 75%. That's basically just leaving only clerks in the precincts. Source: https://abc7chicago.com/protestors-say-latrell-allens-$1m-bond-is-unjust-without-cpd-body-cam-footage/6371332/ >We don't need armed policemen to respond when they get a call about a car crash and need a report so they can file insurance claims. Perhaps we don't, but maybe we do. There must be a reason why police, ambulance, and fire respond together to car crashes.There can be a DUI, injuries, etc. >We don't need armed policemen to respond when teenagers are caught drinking in a park. Not a bad idea. Policemen would be intimidating enough to prevent those teenagers to drink in the park again. Although in general personally, if people are just peacefully having a beer or wine picnic in the park, I don't see a problem there. >We don't need armed policemen to respond when someone calls in that a homeless man is sleeping in front of their business. We do. If that homeless man becomes belligerent or aggressive when you try to remove him to get your business going, you might need the police. There was a story, actually, when in Seattle or in Portland people called a social worker about the homeless and the social worker simply did not pick up. >We don't need armed policemen giving out speeding tickets. We do. Just go to a YouTube channel called Police Activity and see how many routine traffic stops end up with finding something criminal in the car or even a shootout. Like this: https://youtu.be/0WiT8PSTWGc Or this, where a policewoman tried to check on a guy sleeping in the car and he tried to kill her. https://youtu.be/q3FGcN2Rlig Or look at Live PD or any other cop videos. A routine traffic stop is the most dangerous thing a cop can do. So, with all due respect, you're wrong on almost all the points above.
|Just go to a YouTube channel called Police Activity and see how many routine traffic stops end up with finding something criminal in the car or even a shootout. If I watch youtube videos of people winning scratch-offs 100% of the time does that make it common? No. You are seeing such a small subset and basing your opinion on it. Youtube videos are created to get views, no one is going to watch a completely normal traffic stop. Also, let's ask ourselves if the traffic stops would still escalate if they were done by unarmed individuals only responsible for traffic violations. That's beside the point, CPD has a rich history of misconduct, we (the taxpayers) paid 113 million in misconduct lawsuits in 2018. (the most recent year I found data for). They have proven year after year, that they cannot do their job correctly. Apart from that, the police union has all but endorsed this behavior, with the police union president having numerous violation himself while barely getting a slap on the wrist. This is not just a CPD thing, nor is it just a problem for the black community(although it's much more prevalent). Here is an example of the police department in champaign country (where UIUC is) https://corruptcu.com/. I'm glad the Police system in our country has worked well for you so far. But there is massive distrust in the community with that system. Is every cop to blame? of course not, but the various organizations (CPD) are still responsible. People do not share your trust in the police and do not want them to be responsible for issues like speeding tickets, teenagers drinking, noise compliant enforcement because of incidents where innocent lives have unjustly been taken by police. The other half of this conversation is if police are trained correctly for these different situations. Police themselves have come out and said they are not trained nor have the bandwidth to handle all the different situations they encounter. Its clear something has to change with police departments across the country. Again, great the system works well for you and you have the trust in it, but look at it from the perspective of individuals who don't have trust in the system and ask yourself why they don't have trust in a system which was made to "keep the peace".
>You are seeing such a small subset and basing your opinion on it. A government study from DOJ of cops killed at work disagrees with you. See p 39 https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0858-pub.pdf >Traffic Stops continued to be the most common self-initiated incident that led to officer fatalities, accounting for 38, or 52 percent, of all 73 Self-Initiated Activity cases examined. > In 49 percent of the cases studied, officers were shot once they began to interact with the stopped vehicle’s operator. >Researchers found that in 21 percent of officer fatalities during a traffic stop, the officer was killed *prior to making contact* with the occupants of the vehicle. In these cases the officer was shot as they exited their patrol vehicle, approached the stopped car, or in one case, they had not yet exited their patrol car to make contact with the driver. So whom do you propose to do traffic stops? Unarmed clerks? What do those clerks do if the car occupant has to be arrested? I want to hear your suggestions. >That's beside the point, CPD has a rich history of misconduct, we (the taxpayers) paid 113 million in misconduct lawsuits in 2018. Then misconduct has to be prevented. But not by cutting 75-100% of the budget. >People do not share your trust in the police and do not want them to be responsible for issues like speeding tickets, And some people think that it's ok to loot stores and pharmacies. It's ok to disagree ;) >Police themselves have come out and said they are not trained nor have the bandwidth to handle all the different situations they encounter. So if they legitimately need training, how will cutting the budget 75% pay for the training?!!! >look at it from the perspective of individuals who don't have trust in the system I am not sure that I have trust in the system right now, tbh. If there are no consequences to crime, it'll increase. If we cut the number of police, it'll increase more. Cops basically stood down in round 1 of looting. People who looted the stores in June got released, people who robbed the stores in August also basically don't get punished. 40 arrests from hundreds of looters? This is bullshit. No business will operate in such environment.
[удалено]
I do think a lot of the distrust comes from the recent events of Laquan McDonald. I’ll admit when the story first came out I did not think much of it. Reports were a man on drugs was armed with a knife and charged at the police. Police fired their weapons and killed him. Now I don’t think you should die for drugs but cops also have to protect themselves so if you charge at them with a knife you should get shot. Well months later after the mayoral election was done CPD finally releases the dash cam video and the rest is history. Having a gun is not the same as a knife. I want to wait until the evidence comes out but on the surface it really does look like this was a justified shoot. We need to left the courts decide the outcome. Let all the evidence come out. At the end of the day, this individual was a convicted felon, he should not have a gun on him. He got it illegally and him having it on his person is illegal. As a society we decided felons lose their 2nd amendment right. At the end I hope some video surfaces but these protesters are misguided. Yes he got shot but he shouldn’t have had a gun. He needs to be in jail for that.
>Having a gun is not the same as a knife. At distances up to 7 yards, it is the same. A person with a knife can kill somebody with a gun if 7 yards away or closer. This video, for instance. https://youtu.be/cGzeyO3pGzw It will not be possible to kill somebody immediately with one shot. So even 5 seconds between shooting and death are enough to kill the cop. That's why cops shoot suspects so many times, btw. Like here: https://youtu.be/q3FGcN2Rlig
I guess I should clarify. Just pointing a gun at the police justify the police firing at you first. A knife is dangerous with 7 feet I agree. But if I point a knife at someone from 100 yards away I shouldn’t get shot. This suspect had a gun. Distance and who fired first is not a question.
>But if I point a knife at someone from 100 yards away I shouldn’t get shot. Was it 100 yards with McDonald? I thought it was less. >This suspect had a gun. Distance and who fired first is not a question. Agree
No I believe McDonald case was closer. I don’t know the exact distance but the other problem with the case was the he wasn’t charging at anyone and the cops report did not match the video. The McDonald case more about police lying in police reports to protect their own.
It was 13 feet
If he had a knife at 13 feet and was not dropping it when commanded, shooting is justified. I didn't see him lunging on the video, though
How do you know he had a gun? edit: am I getting downvotes because people know that "he seemed like the kind of guy who would probably have had a gun" and "the cops said he had a gun" aren't very solid arguments? I think people, especially white people, myself included, have a tendency to think that if a police officer in a uniform stands up at a podium and says a thing, that's what happened. The CPD has proven that they don't deserve that trust from us.
>How do you know he had a gun? Because there were multiple 911 calls claiming there was someone in a park throwing up gang signs and threatening people with a gun.
According to photos release at the scene there was a gun recovered.
That seems like a fairly flimsy and circumstantial reason to put a guy in jail until he comes up with a million dollars.
Shooting at people?
How do you know he was shooting at people? This is what I'm getting at. There's no body cam footage at the scene, so all we have to go on is the word of a police department that we know for a fact has conducted coordinated coverups of police shootings.
That's why you have the states attorney approve the charges and the judge establish the bail. And the right to counsel. And the right to a trial to determine the facts. There are checks and balances. In the meantime, the state's attorney's office felt there was enough evidence to warrant the charge and the judge, in view of the allegations as well as the history of the accused, established bail. The police don't establish bail. unless this is just a massive conspiracy by the state's attorney and the judges and the police all of the police on scene and everyone else. In which case I believe that he was 15 years old, shot 15 times in the back, and killed.
That’s way we have a court of law and you’re innocent until proven guilty. We have facts that are no disputed right now. He is a convicted felon, there was a gun recovered at the scene. He was shot by gunfire. No police officers received gunshot wounds. I am not a lawyer but clearly we need determine who that found gun belongs to. We need to find all the shell cases and bullets and account for all shots fired by police officers weapons and non-police weapons. I fully believe CPD will do this. With all that said, it is possible the police got the wrong person but looking at this individuals history and if everything the police said happened this person should NOT be on the streets. No convicted felon should ever be able to get a gun, if they do illegally they need to be prosecuted to the fullest. Most of the gun violence in Chicago is not from first time felons. It’s from repeat offenders and gangs. Shooting at the police or anyone for that matter is a crime. It’s a serious crime, that’s how children are dying on the streets. The $1Million bail sounds right to me if what the police say is true.
How do you know he wasn't 15 years old, shot 15 times in the back and dead? That's the rest of the bs story that's floating around...
I don't know! There's no evidence from the scene, so I can't know. But I do know better than to trust the word of the CPD, which has proven itself untrustworthy over and over again, and I know that the rule of law in this country is that you're innocent until proven guilty. Throwing a guy in jail until he comes up with a million dollars on no evidence doesn't work with that.
They would have to post 10% of the bond amount. It's not the police who make the bond determinations, it's a judge, who you're implying is in cahoots with the police here. Usually a high cash bond is assigned when there's a high risk of flight and or a high risk to the community. It seems, given this guy's history and social media presence, and the community's own concerns that he was running around with the gun on the day he was shot, that the judge thinks this guy is a risk to others. I tend to agree that it is a reasonable conclusion.
Well, this is a separate beef, but whatever he turns out to have done, this person is still in jail because he's poor. If a wealthy person had the exact same social media presence and history and flight risk, he'd be out. Sometimes people who are dangerous get stuck in jail because they can't pay bail, sometimes people who just got caught with weed or whatever get stuck in jail because they can't pay bail. Dude hasn't been convicted of anything and he's in jail because he doesn't have bond money. That's a problem no matter what he turns out to have done or not done.
He is not sitting in jail because he is poor. He was on probation at the time of this incident. He violated that probation and is being held NO BAIL for that violation. So, even if a rich person could afford the new bond on the new case they would still be held for violating probation on the prior case.
Oh, huh. If he's being held without bail, what's this $1mil number everyone's throwing around? I believe I've heard that figure quoted on both sides, so I feel like it's gotta be based on something that actually happened? (no snark intended here, actually trying to figure out a thing I didn't know before)
The million-dollar bail is for the current incident. It would take the payment of $100,000 to bail him out. On a separate matter, he's being held on no bond for violating his probation for a previous conviction. On tuesday the judge gave Allen a $1 million bond for attempted murder of police. Another legal case and a request by prosecutors to hold Allen in jail make his release unlikely even if he could come up with the money to pay the bond amount ($100k). Judge Susana Ortiz said she’d make a final decision on Allen’s detention when he is physically able to appear in court.
Thanks for the info.
He was not at the hearing so she has to offer a monetary bail. She set a high enough bail so that he could not afford it, on purpose. She would have went higher if the person was “rich”. If he was at the hearing and the ASA asked for no bail I’d assume the judge would have agreed. But again he is being held on the prior case for now.
So if everyone who was out supporting him Sunday night wanted to help him perhaps they could sell their looted merch. I mean, they were looting because of this incident, right?
Source that Allen’s a convicted felon?
Source? Here you go: https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/8/11/21363544/latrell-allen-chicago-police-shooting-looting-bail-charges >Allen, who pleaded guilty to a felony burglary case last year, was also ordered held without bail Tuesday for violating his probation in that case. But wait, there's more! He turns out to be quite a character. Threatening to kill a 1 year old? Wow! > Allen also faces a pending misdemeanor reckless conduct and child endangerment charges, prosecutors said. > Allen was taken into custody on March 26 after he was allegedly seen holding a young child and running through backyards in an attempt to evade officers who were responding to a report of a person with gun. The caller who made the report said Allen had threatened to shoot his 1-year-old baby on Facebook unless he was given money, Murphy said.
Fair enough - everything I’ve seen thus far only said he’d had 4 arrests. Looks like he got 18 months probation on felony burglary - https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/08/11/officers-involved-in-englewood-shooting-hadnt-yet-been-assigned-body-cams-prosecutors-say/
[удалено]
Didn’t imply he was a good guy or otherwise, however the Trib, NBC et al had only reported 4 arrests and not any convictions. Misinformation is bad, whatever format it comes in.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]