I think you are confusing tactics with procedures. I doubt that there is a department in the country that spells out how many people you should pursue.
It’s one of my pet peeves with many of the comments/threads about what cops do/don’t do/should do/should have done/should not have done/etc.
It’s like civilians believe that every cop has some sort of preplanned, meticulously detailed response flowchart for every conceivable contingency, memorized perfectly in advance, and if they go “off script” in the least little bit from what some internet wankencranker thinks the cop should have done, it’s all some sort cop conspiracy to kill minorities and eat our young, or some other nebulously nefarious “weird vibe” sort of thing.
I think the OP is suggesting that the cop committed suicide and made up the three suspicious guys story.
WHAT?
Has the possibility that he was killed by his own gun been ruled out?
Since I can’t access the Tribune story, I’m not getting why a cop would have chased them in the first place. They were hanging out [del]near the souvenir stand by the old abandoned factory[/del] by the closed cement plant, looking suspicious. He shows up, they run. Problem solved, right? Even if they’d broken in, they might’ve committed some minor vandalism, but that’s about the worst of it, presumably.
Even taking ExTank’s comments into consideration, this just seems way beyond the call of duty, especially given that the cement plant owners apparently didn’t care enough to post a security guard, and foolhardy: if there’s just one of you, why would you chase three minor hoodlums into an area rife with the possibility of ambush?
What I’m wondering is: other than the dead cop’s call, is there any evidence yet that these guys existed? I hate to bring up the tired old trope of someone wanting to commit suicide but also wanting to make sure his life insurance paid off for his wife and kids, but I can’t help but wonder, based on what little I know.
So what’s the latest on this? I haven’t heard a word. Still finding it hard to believe three dudes just disappeared from the face of the earth in six minutes. With the local police, the County sherifif’s office, the Illinois State Patrol, and the FBI all looking for them.
that’s what I was thinking too. reminds me of Lennie Briscoe on Law & Order, disbelieving someone’s claim that a crime was committed by two black guys.
“Yeah. Two ‘all-purpose’ black guys.”
Police Investigate Lt. Gliniewicz’s Death as Murder or Suicide, Sources Say
I didn’t get *that *vibe from the OP, but maybe I was projecting. The weird vibe I got was there is a *huge *swath of story missing from what we’re hearing in the media.
If it was suicide, that’s pretty weird. Why radio in 3 suspicious characters just before?
If it’s suicide, no pension for the widow and kids.
In case you weren’t aware, the insurance policies I have seen don’t pay out if the person commits suicide.
So if he was having a rough patch, or knew he had terminal cancer or something else horrid, then fabricating three “suspicious characters” that he “happened to see” on his routine beat right before he retired, means that even though he ended up dead with no evidence that anyone else was even there, if there’s enough potential that it could have been homicide, then his family ends up getting taken care of, and since there weren’t any “suspicious characters” actually there, he can hope in his final moments that no one will end up unfairly punished for his false report.
Do you have any you can check?
Of course, it could be the case that he *believed *it to be true. Or was ashamed that he wanted to kill himself, so wanted to hide it.
I guess those would make sense.
Cecil’s answer jives with what my financial planner told me; there’s a window of time after obtaining the policy where the insurance company won’t pay, but after that, they will.
I think the suicide theory seems possible. Going out “in the line of duty” is a much better legacy than killing yourself (and 3 vs 1 no less) and maybe there are additional department benefits for the surviving family when that happens.
Hmm, it’s three for three on the policies in my household, BUT (and here’s what I didn’t think about) two of those three are religious-organization-based policies. So, maybe that’s why? I have to say, I like the thought that suicide would be considered like any other death due to illness.
I still think there’s a good chance it was a suicide.
I have family and friends in the area. What’s filtering to me is that a) no one believes that 3 “suspects” can disappear so completely in the area, and b) it’s suicide made to look like murder. Otherwise, why would you shoot yourself in the chest, not the head? In the chest you’ve got a split second to throw the gun away.
They’ve determined that Gliniewicz was shot with his own gun.
The head of the task force investigating the shooting says it’s being conducted as a homicide investigation, but they aren’t ruling anything out, including suicide.
I keep hearing about “foreign DNA” but that in itself means nothing. Most likely, it’s from discarded cigarette butts, beer cans, water bottles, etc.
I also wonder what may have been found in the autopsy that hasn’t been released yet. He was old enough that it’s not unlikely that he may have had some incurable disease, although it’s strange that if this is true, he didn’t appear to have told his family. 
^^^Which is a very good point. The Illinois State Police aren’t exactly overfunded at this point in time. Assuming that the 3 purported assailants were decent shots, if shot #1 bounced off the vest, wouldn’t the second shot be aimed at the head instead of a one in a (whatever factor you deem appropriate) shot where the vest doesn’t cover the torso, yet be lethal?
I have no horse in this race, but I still would not discount suicide.