Skip to comments.Chicago Police: If You Carry a Gun, We're Trained to Shoot You
Posted on 09/08/2013 6:17:52 AM PDT by benasawin
You put more guns on the street expect more shootings. I dont care if theyre licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained
putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So Ill train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and were going to have tragedies as a result of that. Im telling you right up front.
(Excerpt) Read more at lastresistance.com ...
The title sounds like a threat to the military.
Badge is not a shield. You shoot me, I shoot you.
An incredibly violent city is doubling down on the bad policy which has led to the rampant violence.
Back attcha baby
The whole article is a tragedy about our country.
So, if you have a gun, legal, or not, the police will shoot you? I understand that is boiling WAY down; it is the crux of the comment, though. Sounds to me that the Chicago Police just declared war on the Constitution and law abiding citizens.
Well, jackass. That is a two way street.
Your officers don’t really want to kill innocent people.
You’re gonna create some real anger problems and alcoholics within your ranks, as men struggle with their concience.
We have an unrestricted number of guns on the street in most parts of the country without more shootings. It’s only in big blue cities like Chicago where we have most of the shootings.
Standard corrupted police: we WILL murder you.
The quote in the article says that, if you draw down on a police officer you will probably get shot.
That is entirely consistent with the way I have always understood the universe. I have 34-state CCW but I make it a practice not to point guns at police officers.
THAT can ruin your day.
Don’t apologize for making an accurate summary.
Putting gunz in the hands of psychos with a Napolian/Rambo complex is even far more dangerous and deadly.
Funny, that’s why they carry guns.
interesting story benasawin....What I hear him saying is ‘we don’t care about the law or justice or our citizens.. we will kill if we ‘feel’ threatened’...[ but crips and bloods we will hide from ]
With Chicago's crime and murder rates, maybe we need to label the Chicago police "Special Needs" so they can get help under ADA.
Yes, anyone with a gun in his hand when the cops arrive is strongly advised to place it on the ground and step away from it. That is the way it has been and I don’t see this changes anything, tho the tone of the statement by the police chief is very nasty.
It would be hard to identify a more corrupt city in the US.
It’s no surprise, then, when Chicago’s police department takes the law into its own hands for interpretation...
Well, no shit sherlock. Police have a right to defend themselves when their lives are in danger. However you could probably count on one hand how many CCW who had illegally fired a weapon. Now count on all 10 fingers and 10 toes and every hair on your head of the illegal carry who kill every day in the inner cities. Your mind is not operating correctly.
Your logic doesn't make sense.
Don’t worry porky, by the time your boys arrive on the scene, the gun won’t be pointed at anyone anymore.
What Chicago Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy is saying: Chicago police are free to murder anyone they want, any time, any place, any where, without consequence. Innocent civilians defending themselves against thugs and gang members or criminals — it doesn’t matter. My cops are above the law. And as a bonus, we will shoot your dog(s) too.
At first I thought this was another John Semmens satire piece but after reading, truth is stranger than fiction!
“We spend six months in the police academy, six months of field training and ongoing training on a regular basis and the fact is once in a while were going to shoot someone with a cellphone; were going to shoot somebody with a flashlight and none of that is okay. But now you take John Q. Civilian, you give them six weeks or 10 weeks of training and you say have at it?”
So just because highly trained cops don’t know the difference between a cellphone or flashlight and a weapon average civilians will surely go around shooting people holding those objects?
Only the police should be allowed to have guns.
“...the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire...”
And, a law abiding, licensed to carry civilian should respond how when they meet a cop?
You reap what you sow.
They won’t stop and frisk ‘gangstas’ because that would violate their rights (and it might be dangerous for them?) but they will level their sidearms at legally armed citizens with carry permits. Because we are ‘soft targets’? Like dogs?
What we got here is .... a failure to communicate (guns up)!
Liability lawyers are wetting themselves with glee, while City attorneys soil themselves from fear. They should demand this clown’s resignation; he is trying to intimidate people from exercising legal rights, by threatening to murder them.
So, when the CPD murders the first CCW licensee, it can be shown easily that the Police Department’s training was flawed, inconsistent with the law, and likely to result in the death of innocent citizens behaving lawfully — and that they knew that in advance but did nothing to change it. That constitutes willful gross misconduct. Massive damage awards and Chicago bankruptcy coming up.
Chicago juries should refuse to convict anyone who shoots a cop as long as this asshat is in charge of the dept.
Here's how it will work in Chicago. Officer asks if you have concealed weapon. You say yes. He pulls his gun, points it at you and says drop the weapon. As you go to reach for the weapon (to drop it) he shoots you and claims you drew on him. That is why it is imperative that no matter what the officer says, you do not touch your weapon if the officer is aiming at you. You will get shot. Just put your hands on your head and await the beating.
Yeah, I love one of the liberal talking points. “If private citizens have guns, and there’s a mass shooting, then when we finally show up two hours later to collect bodies and fill out paperwork, if the incident is still in progress we might shoot the wrong person!”
“The quote in the article says that, if you draw down on a police officer you will probably get shot.”
You need to read that again because it says nothing about drawing down on a cop. It also says nothing about probability. It states a certainty.
That can ruin you day.
Or the rest of your life:
107-year-old man killed in police shootout in Arkansas, authorities say
SWAT TEAM insanity
The author quotes the superintendent saying: "So Ill train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and were going to have tragedies as a result of that." (Emphasis added.)
It also says nothing about probability. It states a certainty.
The author states: "And now his highly trained officers will shoot at someone carrying a gun, regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong."
I didn't see where the author quoted the superintendent saying police will shoot at someone for merely carrying a gun. It's the author's statement.
You know, it seems that states that are serious about the second amendment need to pass laws limiting police actions against citizens exercising their rights AND granting rights of self defense to citizens who are defending themselves against illegal cop actions.
This police chief obviously needs to be removed from office and prohibited from carrying and owning firearms due to extreme mental instability.
“They should demand this clowns resignation; he is trying to intimidate people from exercising legal rights, by threatening to murder them.”
Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago’s Mayor, is replacing McCarthy as Police Chief. He’s already on his way out. Probably why he is so belligerent and sour grapes.
What if the officer is the one who told you to remove the gun from it's holster and then shoots you for doing so?
Or, what if two cops do it tag team and one officer screams drop the weapon while other screams put your hands on your head. If you reach to remove the weapon, the one who told you to put your hands on your head will shoot you. I hope you don't think these scenarios are somehow out of the realm of likelihood.
Unless the cops are given specific procedures on dealing with CCW's they will shoot first and ask questions later. AND, they will never publish what those procedures are because that would take plausible deniability out of the cops hands and empower the CCW. Exactly the opposite of what they want.
Well, jackass. That is a two way street.
Your officers dont really want to kill innocent people.
Youre gonna create some real anger problems and alcoholics within your ranks, as men struggle with their concience.”
I wouldn’t count on cops with a conscience. What guys like that need is citizens who think the same way, and shoot on sight. If it is a cop, well...as he said, tragedies happen.
Or maybe they need an electorate that suddenly decides to hamstring the local police with new rules of engagement.
But the moron better understand, the streets run red with innocent blood, no one is going to care about his justifications or arrogant attitudes.
“That is entirely consistent with the way I have always understood the universe. I have 34-state CCW but I make it a practice not to point guns at police officers.
THAT can ruin your day.”
The problem is that cops have been intruding on innocent people’s property. They aren’t always so easy to identify as a cop.
There was one a few weeks ago where a citizen and a cop met on the citizen’s property. The citizen held his fire, not wanting to shoot at an unverified threat. The cop didn’t hesitate.
For me, lesson learned. Just shoot. If it was a cop, hey, tough luck there buddy. If cops are under no obligation to show restraint even on another person’s property, then why should I show restraint? Either it is a criminal who’s life is worthless, or it is a cop who IS going to kill me if I don’t kill him first.
“And, a law abiding, licensed to carry civilian should respond how when they meet a cop?
You reap what you sow.”
As I said to another
There was one a few weeks ago where a citizen and a cop met on the citizens property. The citizen held his fire, not wanting to shoot at an unverified threat. The cop didnt hesitate.
For me, lesson learned. Just shoot. If it was a cop, hey, tough luck there buddy. If cops are under no obligation to show restraint even on another persons property, then why should I show restraint? Either it is a criminal whos life is worthless, or it is a cop who IS going to kill me if I dont kill him first.
If your comments are made in general I’m not going to argue with them. If they were a specific response to my post, all I was doing was pointing out what the article actually said.
So what happens when the police officer kick in your door in the wee hours and you have *seconds* to decide whether a Common Criminal or a Government Employee is the intruder?
You shoot, obviously. Duh.
People are dumping on me for stuff I never said. The headline misquotes the Chicago PD. They did not say that if you were carrying legally that they would shoot you down. What they said was, if, on the street, you turned on a cop with a gun in your hand you might get shot.
Whatever other bad things the cops in Chicago do is not my concern. My only point was, IF you point a gun at a police officer, the ensuing events could ruin your day.
Just remember: Americans have died shooting police officers while defending their own homes.
And yes, the Chicago PD *is* corrupt enough to refuse to differentiate between legal and illegal gun owners. Innocent people will continue to be killed, in their own homes, in Chicago and elsewhere.
To suggest otherwise is naive at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.