Media Bias

Channel 7:

• A teenager was shot and killed by police Thursday night after an alleged home invasion and pursuit.

  Friday, the medical examiner revealed the teen was hit in his lower back and has now classified the case as a homicide.

Newsflash assholes - shootings resulting in death are classified as homicides. Doesn't matter who did the shooting. Any person killed by the actions of another person is a homicide. Your "reporting" makes it seem like something is amiss. It isn't.

Sun Times:

• Police fatally shot a 16-year-old boy who allegedly pointed a gun at officers chasing him through an alley after a Thursday night home invasion in the Lawndale neighborhood on the West Side.

  Rakeem Nance, of 1910 S. Troy, was shot in the 1900 block of South Christiana. Nance was pronounced dead at 11:32 p.m. at Mount Sinai Hospital.

  An autopsy Friday revealed Nance suffered a gunshot wound to the back.

Eek. The police shot someone in the back. Let's march! Except CPD Use of Force directives explicitly provide for shooting someone in the back, front, side, head, ass, where ever to protect the life of the officer or another:

• General Order 02-08-03 Deadly Force
  
  Section III, A - A sworn member is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he or she reasonably believes that such for is necessary:
  
  (1) to prevent death or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to another person or;
  
  (2) to prevent an arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape and the sworn member reasonably believes that the person to be arrested:
  
  (a) has committed or has attempted to commit a forcible felony which involves the infliction, threatened infliction, or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or great bodily harm or;
  
  (b) is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or;
  
  (c) otherwise indicates that he or she will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.

Gee, the officer seems to have complied with Section 1, Section 2 subsections (a) (b) and (c). Is that plain enough? Or how about Illinois Law?

• (720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
  Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, [...] need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
  (1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
  (2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.

That looks suspiciously like the CPD lifted the Use of Force policy right out of the State Law. Why would they do that? Oh yeah, because it's THE LAW!

But the news would rather put up some drunk and high "witness" and blur out his face so he can make wild unsubstantiated claims of "no gun" and "altar boy" and "future doctor who would have cured cancer" while ignoring the pages long rap sheet and gun. We really wonder some days how it would feel to have an actual Free Press. "Free" as in "not bought and paid for by Shortshanks and the liberal establishment." It'd be a breath of fresh air, no doubt.