



We didn't want to write this post. It pains us, because while we've always tried to do our job to the best of our abilities, we have to acknowledge that we are part of a broken organization. We knew it was bent when we got on, but we resolved to do it the correct way regardless, and we've pretty much succeeded as we move into the home stretch. We sleep soundly, not concerned about any late night knocks at the door - we've known too many people not as fortunate.



As we said, we didn't want to write this post, because the information we have available to us is pointing toward a justifiable shooting. We've always advocated for a prompt, thorough and legit investigation of "questionable" shootings because shootings have to be judged through the eyes of a reasonable police officer, not a political actor with an axe to grind.



How does that saying end again? Oh yeah....."There's fire."We didn't want to write this post. It pains us, because while we've always tried to do our job to the best of our abilities, we have to acknowledge that we are part of a broken organization. We knew it was bent when we got on, but we resolved to do it the correct way regardless, and we've pretty much succeeded as we move into the home stretch. We sleep soundly, not concerned about any late night knocks at the door - we've known too many people not as fortunate.As we said, we didn't want to write this post, because the information we have available to us is pointing toward a justifiable shooting. We've always advocated for a prompt, thorough and legit investigation of "questionable" shootings because shootings have to be judged through the eyes of a reasonable police officer, not a political actor with an axe to grind. So this revelation from the Tribune only makes us shake our head once again:

A Chicago police sergeant who shot an apparently unarmed man last month — his second fatal shooting in three years — might have been fired years ago, but that disciplinary case fell through the cracks for reasons the Police Department cannot explain, the Tribune has learned.



Chief police spokesman [...] said Superintendent Eddie Johnson has ordered that an audit be done to try to figure out why the internal investigation of Sgt. [...] was never completed.



Multiple sources told the Tribune that the allegation against [...] was serious enough for the Police Department to consider moving to fire him well before the two fatal shootings, but it was a mystery why he was never disciplined at all.



Chicago Police Officer [...] was cleared of the fatal shooting of an unarmed burglary suspect in 2013, and he is under investigation in the fatal shooting last month of an unarmed teenager in West Englewood. Police investigators now want to know why the department never closed a 2004 internal affairs investigation that could have cost [...] his badge more than a decade ago.



Police Supt. Eddie Johnson has ordered an audit to determine why the 2004 investigation of [..]’ possible ownership interest in a bar, a violation of department policy, has never been closed.



Owning or working at an establishment that sells alcohol is a firing offense, but [...] went on disability shortly after the department’s Internal Affairs Division began looking at his ownership of a bar in 2004. The investigation apparently went dormant because [...] stayed off the job for another seven years, according to department sources. He stayed off the job for 7 years? A Leave of Absence is only granted for a year (though numerous superintendents ignore this rule for connected people.) Disability has a short shelf life. IOD runs out after a year, then you might go on Disability. But this guy stayed off the job for 7 years.



Then after returning in 2011, he shoots a guy in 2013 - with his brother's gun - and IAD doesn't find a "missing" investigation. He then gets "nominated" for a merit bump in, and a standard IAD background "investigation" found no trace of an open investigation that fell through the cracks for nine years.



Golly. How can such a thing fall through the cracks? Not just fall through the cracks, but fall so far as to not jeopardize a "merit" bump from the current First Deputy Superintendent. All we can say is it must be a pretty deep crack. Deep enough that: A real mystery here. So mysterious that the Sun Times had even more information He stayed off the job for 7 years? A Leave of Absence is only granted for a year (though numerous superintendents ignore this rule for connected people.) Disability has a short shelf life. IOD runs out after a year, then you might go on Disability. But this guy stayed off the job for 7 years.Then after returning in 2011, he shoots a guy in 2013 - with his brother's gun - and IAD doesn't find a "missing" investigation. He then gets "nominated" for a merit bump in, and a standard IAD background "investigation" found no trace of an open investigation that fell through the cracks for nine years.Golly. How can such a thing fall through the cracks? Not just fall through the cracks, but fall so far as to not jeopardize a "merit" bump from the current First Deputy Superintendent. All we can say is it must be a pretty deep crack. Deep enough that:

an officer named by the Chicago Crime Commission as a known associate of the Outfit was hired and remained employed even when he was the last person to see three murder victims alive;

an officer with a disqualifying history was screened through, only to be videotaped in a drunken rage missing countless hay-makers at a bartender;

an officer beating an elderly couple in the suburbs, who had skated on numerous other Battery charges, and who had to be subdued by a suburban K9 Team;

a commander with numerous CR's for stalking a boyfriend, domestic abuse, child abuse, an arrest record, battery to co-workers, and a record of general incompetence who had her ex's dogs put down after the breakup;

another commander who stole money from fundraisers to gamble with;

an Assistant Deputy Superintendent was promoted, demoted and promoted after using Department databases to stalk female cops and citizens;

another exempt busted climbing in the window of a female officer;

a Chief at IAD who overlooked dozens of Deviations and CR's directly related to the SOS scandal that might have exposed it years earlier;

another Chief pissed hot for cocaine not once, but twice;

another Chief at Housing who handpicked most of his teams that ended up going to jail for stealing drugs and money;

and another Chief who, as a PO, committed Aggravated Battery on juvenile students, washing their mouths out with soap;

a First Deputy with a Domestic Violence CR, and a number of Captains with the same;

a Superintendent of Police who was fired for associating with mobsters - and "nobody knew;"

another Superintendent who was awfully close to the Marquette 10;

an "outsider" Superintendent who had a history of drunken behavior, improper weapon discharges and a "colorful" vocabulary regarding minorities;





In fact, we'd bet that 90% of the scandals over the past 25 years, are directly traceable to clout - either someone handpicked a team, someone running a team was "merit" along the way, someone politician sponsored someone to a certain spot. You don't get a really good spot without some pull - and those who feel they don't have to play the game the legit way, don't feel any particular need to follow the rules (or the law) when they get there. They've beaten the system once, twice, three times, what's once more?



The Tribune has this laugh-line in the article:

According to the department, [...] was nominated for the promotion by Kevin Navarro, then a South Side commander and now Johnson's top assistant as first deputy superintendent.



At the time, Navarro would not have been aware of the 2004 complaint about [...] involvement in a liquor license or the mysterious inaction on it, according to the department. Bullshit. Everyone knew. See the examples listed above - we're "aware" about those. The clouted are a law unto themselves. And that's where it really gets bad. Intelligent people eventually figure out when a game is rigged...when the odds are stacked against them. Sometimes they get out. Sometimes, they buy into the game, not matter how crooked they know it to be. Sometimes they just move through, hoping for retirement without too many hassles.



Unfortunately, the hassles sometimes find you. And that's when the un-clouted get fired....or sued....or jailed....and the charmed ones continue on their merry way, sometimes even going up the ladder, to bigger and better things, enabling an entire new generation of clout. And that's just off the tops of our heads. There are undoubtedly dozens more incidents we could dredge up over beers with two of three other coppers with a few more years than we have. The connecting thread to all of it is "clout." Certain people have it and exercise it.In fact, we'd bet that 90% of the scandals over the past 25 years, are directly traceable to clout - either someone handpicked a team, someone running a team was "merit" along the way, someone politician sponsored someone to a certain spot. You don't get a really good spot without some pull - and those who feel they don't have to play the game the legit way, don't feel any particular need to follow the rules (or the law) when they get there. They've beaten the system once, twice, three times, what's once more?The Tribune has this laugh-line in the article:Bullshit. Everyone knew. See the examples listed above - we're "aware" about those. The clouted are a law unto themselves. And that's where it really gets bad. Intelligent people eventually figure out when a game is rigged...when the odds are stacked against them. Sometimes they get out. Sometimes, they buy into the game, not matter how crooked they know it to be. Sometimes they just move through, hoping for retirement without too many hassles.Unfortunately, the hassles sometimes find you. And that's when the un-clouted get fired....or sued....or jailed....and the charmed ones continue on their merry way, sometimes even going up the ladder, to bigger and better things, enabling an entire new generation of clout.

Labels: scc responds