Yes, Chicago…the city that cares. I’m sorry that Superintendent Hillard retired. He seemed to genuinely care about our citizens AND about punishing idiot cops. I was proud of many of his actions.
I disagree, Snooooopy. As a journalist and editor-of-copy, I generally refuse to help my wife spell things while she is on the computer at home.
This may be a special case, however, since although she does this on a weekly basis, my wife is a teacher and I keep a dictionary on the freaking computer desk.
She seems to find it easier to annoy me instead of opening the book and checking herself. I always to look it up herself, and she then gets very angry with me.
I suppose she’s just as lazy as that off-duty cop.
Spoken like someone who’s seen the inside of a jail too many times.
If she was off duty, what was she doing in an unmarked police vehicle? It is my understanding that those vehicles are only to be used by on duty officers. I didn’t read anything in the paper to indicate that she was, in fact, off duty, and I figured that since she had the car, she must have been on duty.
Does anybody know for sure she was off duty?
Max, thank you - I was just trying to put the words together to respond to that little remark, and you did it so much better than I could have! I’ve also been wondering, since he doesn’t seem to think it takes all that much training to be a “po-lice”, wonder if he could tell me what it DOES take? If he has any clue at all?
That’s what I heard on the radio but I haven’t found anything else that says one way or the other.
Ah, so sad, but so true. I can’t help but copyedit everything around me.
Except my own work, of course. “Copy editor, copyedit thyself!” – it just don’t werk.
IIRC from my time living in Illinois, you didn’t get hired as a police officer unless you either had your four-year degree or were studying to get it.
According to the Chicagp Police Department website, the minimum education requirements are:
What they don’t seem to mention is that, while police ARE on duty all the time, and are supposed to stop crime, or whatever, many, many cops go out of their way to now get involved with stuff going on around them when they’re not on the job. Many don’t carry the gun or badge with them in their off hours just so they don’t have to get involved. Because being involved means taking responsibility for a situation, and most of the time that’s just too much a pain in the ass.
This of course goes for most stuff (altercations in bars and the like.) I suspect most of my police friends would not hesitate to involve themselves in foiling a bank robbery. Good for the career, ya know. 
“To NOT get involved.” Kinda changes the meaning, there.
Don’t you think it’s a tad simplistic and completely incorrect to say that a cop’s always on duty? The police officer may have a responsibility to perform certain crime-fighting activities when confronted with the opportunity; however, that does not mean that said officer is always on duty.
In numerous gun control debates of the past, when I complained about police officers being allowed to carry concealed handguns without a permit and in violation of the law even when off the clock and in plain clothes, numerous people cited that the police are always considered “on duty” by default. I’ve never met a police officer, sherrif, HiPo, or other law enforcement officer who did not always carry their concealed handgun (illegally, AFAIK in Kansas) - in fact, they typically were quite condescendingly proud of having that “special privledge”. I don’t know if it applies to Chicago, Illinois, or even this case, but it certainly sounds suspicious to me.
So police officers don’t necessarily carry licenses to carry concealed? I never even gave it a second thought- I just assumed they’d be officially licensed.
Depends on the jurisdiction. mhendo pointed out that Chicago requires at least some college or Military training but there are departments which only require a high school diploma. The Metropolitan Police in Washington, DC, for example.
FWIW, I think departments like the MPD are in the minority when it comes to educational requirements.
They are- just differently than civilians are. For example, when I had a peace officer job that involved carrying a firearm, I didn’t have the sort of permit that a civilian can get - but the same law that made those in my job peace officers also authorized us to carry a firearm. And a different law required that I attend specified training and pass a qualifying test every year.
There seem to be two reasons for the common expression that the police are always on-duty. First, I think it’s fairly common for even off-duty police to be required to take action when they see certain crimes taking place. Notice I said “take action” , not stop the crime. Secondly, suppose the officer is injured while taking action. If the officer who was injured when he tried to stop the robbery was considered to be off-duty when he got injured , he doesn’t get the benefits he would get if he was injured on-duty. Even my agency, which explicitly told us that we had no obligations off-duty, also told us that if we did take action we would be considered on-duty, aalowing such benefits as workers comp and indemnification.
MOST (not all) Chicago cops will not take action against a crime unless they are ordered to do so. Chicago is so thick with politics and pecking order, everyone that works for the city is deathly afraid to take any action unless ordered to do so. There are people on Chicago city payroll that haven’t showed up for work for years, but they still receive a check. Chicago is corrupt, with a capital “C”.
Let me add, I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be a Chicago cop. I lived in the city for several years and heard some horrify stories involving the Chicago police. For instance, one cop was ordered to chase a criminal on foot, and the perpetrator ran into one of the notorious Chicago housing projects. The cop pursued the suspect, but lost him. When the cop returned to his squad car it had been set on fire.
So I learned to respect Chicago cops for the life-threatening danger they face every day. But I sure wouldn’t want to rely on one of them to protect my neighborhood.
ccwater: I don’t suppose you have a cite for that malarkey, do you? Or do you prefer that your posting above stand as a cite for your prejudice?
Heard? From whom?
I’d be interested to see some evidence for the alleged indifference of Chicago cops, and for the other stuff you discuss.