INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1052788/U#12-10

INVESTIGATION
NUMBER:
Log #1052788 / U#12-10
OFFICER
INVOLVED:

“Officer A” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 29 years old;
On- Duty; In Civilian Dress; Year of Appointment – 2006

OFFICER
INJURIES:

None reported.

SUBJECT:

“Subject 1”; Male/Black; 20 years old

SUBJECT’S
INJURIES:

Three gunshot wounds to the back, right arm and buttocks. Treated
and released at/from Christ Hospital.

INITIAL
INCIDENT:

On view arrest, “Man with a Gun”

DATE/TIME/
OF INCIDENT:

22 March 2012, 1934 Hours

LOCATION:

10501 S. Green Street (alley) Beat 2233

Page 1 of 7

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1052788/U#12-10
SUMMARY OF INCIDENT:
On 22 March 2012, Officers A and B, while on routine patrol working Beat 41S70D,
drove south on Green Street from 104th Street. The officers observed people in the alley
between Green and Halsted Streets. The officers observed two men with their faces concealed
with makeshift masks and attempted to conduct a Street Stop; however, the two men, now
known to be Subject 1 and Subject 2, fled east on 105th Street with the officers in pursuit.
Subject 2 was running in front of Subject 1 as the officers gave chase with Officer B running
behind Officer A. Subject 1 pulled a sawed-off shotgun from his waistband and pointed it
towards the officers. Officer A, in fear for his safety and the safety of his partner, discharged
his firearm multiple times at Subject 1. Subject 1 dropped the shotgun before entering the east
alley of Green Street and then ran into the alley. Officers A and B pursued Subject 1 into the
alley. The officers lost sight of Subject 2 as he continued running north in the alley. Officers A
and B observed Subject 1 reach into his waistband again, and Officer A ordered Subject 1 to
“Stop.” Subject 1 kept his hands near his waistband; so Officer A believed Subject 1 to be in
possession of a second weapon and feared he was attempting to retrieve the same. Officer A
fired additional rounds at Subject 1, who slowly fell to the ground and was taken into custody
near a residential garage located at 10451 S. Green.
Officer B heard movement approximately two houses north of where Subject 1 fell.
Officer B ran to the area but did not find Subject 2; however, the officer heard what he
believed to be a person jumping over fences traveling west. Officer B went back to where his
partner was guarding Subject 1. Officer B remained with the prisoner while Officer A went to
retrieve the shotgun discarded by Subject 1.
CPD Sergeant A and Officer C, aware that the second offender was still at large, began
a systematic search of the area for the second offender, Subject 2. Subject 2 was located lying
on the ground in a small area next to a detached garage in the yard of 10441 S. Peoria. Subject
2 was taken into custody and positively identified by Officers A and B as the male subject who
fled with Subject 1.

Page 2 of 7

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1052788/U#12-10
INVESTIGATION:
In an interview on 22 March 2012 with CPD Detective 1 and CPD Detective 2,
Subject 1 stated that he and his friend, Subject 2, planned to go to 105th Street and shoot any
Gangster Disciple (GD) they saw in retaliation for a threat made on Subject 1’s brother’s life
two days earlier. According to Subject 1, in relation to an internal Gangster Disciple conflict,
his brother had a gun put to his head for “selling too much weed.” Subject 1 stated that he got
the shotgun and a .22 caliber handgun from Subject 2’s house, and that he and Subject 2 met in
Fernwood Park at 105th and Wallace. Subject 1 stated that he took the shotgun because he
liked it better than the .22 caliber and gave Subject 2 the .22 caliber handgun. Subject 1 and
Subject 2 walked East on 105th Street from Halsted to Green Street. Subject 1 and Subject 2
saw the police, so Subject 2 ran towards the alley and Subject 1 pulled the shotgun from his
pants, cutting his right thigh in the process. Subject 1 heard gunshots when he pulled the
shotgun out, so he tossed the shotgun in the grass and ran into the alley. Subject 1 heard
another shot and immediately felt pain. Subject 1 stated that he did not reach for his waist,
rather he grabbed his right side when he felt pain in his buttocks. Subject 1 positively
identified an electronic photograph of Subject 2 as the person with him who was in possession
of the .22 caliber handgun.
In an interview on 23 March 2012 with CPD Detective 1 and CPD Detective 2,
Subject 2 stated that Subject 1 and he are friends, and Subject 1 has been living at Subject 2’s
house for the last few weeks. According to Subject 2, Subject 1 took him to an alley on
Loomis Street; the actual address was unknown to Subject 2. Subject 1 was aware that there
was a shotgun and a .22 caliber handgun being kept behind the garage. Subject 1 took the
shotgun and Subject 2 put the handgun in his waist. Subject 2 stated that he saw the .22
revolver “on the block” and that it (the revolver) was stolen from a trap house by someone he
did not know. Subject 2 also stated that he did not know the address of the trap house. Subject
2 and Subject 1 were walking when the police pulled up and stopped. Because he (Subject 2)
had the revolver in his waist, he didn’t want to get stopped by the police, so he fled. Subject 2
ran toward Halsted and then turned into the alley. Subject 2 heard what he assumed was
warning shots being fired by the police, but he continued running. Subject 2 tossed the
revolver over a fence as he ran west from Halsted through the yards. Subject 2 hid in a yard
next to a garage until the police found him, at which time he was taken into custody.
An Attempt to Interview Subject 2 was met with negative results. Subject 2 refused
to provide an interview to IPRA without consulting with an attorney.
A Tactical Response Report (TRR) prepared by Officer A indicates that the officer
fired his weapon eleven times, striking Subject 1, who was armed with a 12-gauge shotgun,
multiple times.
Officer A’s Battery Report (OBR) indicates that he did not sustain any apparent
injuries during this incident.

Page 3 of 7

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1052788/U#12-10
A Tactical Response Report (TRR) prepared by Officer B indicates that Subject 1
pointed a shotgun in the direction of Officer B and his partner Officer A.
Officer B’ Battery Report (OBR) indicates that he did not sustain any apparent injury.
In a statement to the IPRA on 23 March 2012, Subject 1 stated that he and his friend
“D,” now known to be Subject 2, were walking from 104th and Halsted towards Green Street
when two police officers driving an unmarked squad car stopped directly in front of them.
Subject 1, having been arrested previously for UUW, took off running before the police said
anything to him. Subject 1 ran towards the north alley near Halsted, removed the shotgun from
his waist and then threw it aside. Subject 1 heard shots, but he continued running. Subject 1
heard a second shot; this time he felt pain and numbness in his arm, yet Subject 1 continued to
run until he felt pain in his right buttock, at which time he stopped and laid down on the
pavement. An officer wearing dreads approached Subject 1 immediately, put a gun to his head
and told him not to move. Subject 1 stated that he was shot in his right arm, his back and his
right buttock.
In a statement to the IPRA, on 28 March 2012, Witness 1 stated that someone
informed him that there were two suspicious people on the side of his grocery store located at
10500 S. Halsted Street. Witness 1 went outside to verify the information and observed two
people with their backs to him, dressed in dark clothing, walking west on 105th Street. 1 Shortly
thereafter, Witness 1 heard gunfire and observed two people following behind the pair dressed
in dark clothing running towards the alley at 105th Street by the Barber’s College. 2 Witness 1
stated that the two following behind started shooting. Witness 1 later learned that the police
were chasing two individuals and were involved in the shooting.
The related Department Reports, including the Arrest Reports, Original Case
Incident Report, and Case Supplementary Reports, included an account of the incident that
is consistent with the Summary of Incident. Subject 1 was charged with two counts of
Aggravated Assault to a Police Officer with a Firearm and UUW/Possession of a Firearm by a
Felon. Subject 2 was charged with UUW/Possession of a firearm by a Felon.
Evidence Technician (ET) Photographs depict Subject 1 laying on a gurney or bed
with medical apparatuses affixed to his right arm and upper chest. Subject 1’s body is covered
by a blanket and only his head and arms are visible.
The Chicago Fire Department Ambulance Report indicates that on 22 March 2012,
at 1935 hours, Ambulance #A05 was dispatched to 105th and Green Street for a gunshot victim.
Ambulance #A05 arrived at the location and found Subject 1 alert and sitting. Subject 1 stated
that he was out to shoot another gang member and he was shot. Subject 1 was shot once in the
upper back on the left side, once in the left upper arm (in and out) and once in the right
buttocks (no exit wound). Subject 1 complained of pain in the areas of GSWs and loss of
feeling in his left hand. At 2002 hours, Subject 1 was transported to Christ Hospital with CPD
on board.

1
2

Now known to be Subject 1 and Subject 2 From Department Reports
Identified as Officer A and Officer B from Department Reports
Page 4 of 7

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1052788/U#12-10
Medical Records obtained from Christ Medical Center indicate that Subject 1 was
treated and released on 23 March 2012 for multiple gun shot wounds to the left upper arm,
right hip, and left back.
A report from the Illinois State Police (ISP) Division of Forensic Services indicated
that the firearm belonging to Officer A was test fired and found to be in firing condition. The
ISP report also indicates that the barrel displays rifling of six lands and grooves with a right
hand twist.
A report from the Illinois State Police (ISP) Division of Forensic Services indicated
that the firearm inventoried under #12569465 was examined and found to be inoperable due to
a broken firing pin.
In a statement to IPRA on 24 March 2012, involved Officer A indicated that he and
his partner, Officer B were on routine patrol in the vicinity of 104th and Green Street when they
observed two male subjects with their faces concealed with dark colored T-shirts, and acting
suspiciously 3 . Officer A, the driver, pulled over to conduct a field interview, at which time
both subjects fled and a foot chase ensued. Officer A lost sight of Subject 2 after he ran into
the alley. Subject 1 ran approximately five feet in front of Officer A with Officer B about two
feet behind Officer A. Both officers announced their officer and gave verbal commands for
Subject 1 to stop, which Subject 1 ignored. Officer A observed Subject 1 reach inside of his
waist, removed a 12-gauge sawed off shotgun and point the same in the direction of Officer A
and Officer B. Officer A described Subject 1’s actions as “leveling off” the shotgun as he
looked over his shoulder pointing the weapon at the officers. In fear for his safety and that of
his partner, Officer A fired approximately five rounds at Subject 1 causing Subject 1 to drop
the weapon, but continued to flee. Officers A and B continued to pursue Subject 1 into the
alley with Subject 1 placing his hand inside his waist for a second time; fearing that Subject 1
may have a second weapon; Officer A fired another five shots, injuring Subject 1. Subject 1
gave up and fell to the ground; he voluntarily stated something to the effect of he “did not have
anything else on him and that he had the shotgun because some guys were trying to get him.”
Officer A cuffed Subject 1 and called for an ambulance. According to Officer A, his partner
heard noises coming from a nearby yard; assuming the noise was the second subject (Subject
2), Officer B went to investigate. Subject 2 was not observed in the yard; where the noise was
heard, however Officer B saw Subject 2 jumping over a nearby fence. A flash message was
sent with the description of Subject 2 who had made good his escape and the direction of
flight. Shortly thereafter, CPD Sergeant 1 arrived at the location where Subject 1 was detained
with a second subject in custody (Subject 2) who was positively identified by Officer A as the
male subject who fled on foot with Subject 1.
In a statement to the IPRA on 23 March 2012, witness Officer B essentially provided
the same account as Officer A. Officers A and B were on routine patrol in a known gang area
when they observed two male subjects, now known as Subject 1 and Subject 2, with T-Shirts
covering their faces in the vicinity of 105th and Green Street. Officer A stopped the unmarked
squad and the officers exited their vehicle and announced their office in an attempt to conduct
a field interview. Upon exiting their vehicle and approaching the subjects, both Subject 1 and
Subject 2 fled on foot. Subject 2 ran first, with Subject 1 stumbling and then fleeing in the
3

Identified as Subject 1 and Subject 2 from Department Reports
Page 5 of 7

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1052788/U#12-10
same direction as Subject 2. Officers A and B gave chase with Officer A in front and Officer B
a few feet behind. Subject 1 pulled a large shotgun from his waist and pointed the weapon in
the direction of Officers A and B. Officer A discharged his weapon; Subject 1 dropped the
shotgun and then ran north into the alley near 104th and Green Street. Officer B was able to see
Subject 1 as pointed the shotgun at the officers, however Officer B did not discharge his
weapon, to stop the fleeing Subject 1, as his partner was in his line of fire. Subject 1 continued
running and moving his hand about his waist as if he was attempting to retrieve a second
weapon. Officer A fired multiple rounds at Subject 1 at which time Subject 1 fell to the ground
and was placed into custody by Officer A. Officer B heard what he thought was the second
subject, Subject 2, in a nearby yard and relocated to that area to investigate, leaving Officer A
to guard the prisoner. Subject 2 was observed running west, at which time Officer B returned
to where his partner was detaining the injured Subject 1. A flash message was broadcasted
with the description of Subject 2 and his direction of flight. Responding units subsequently
apprehended Subject 2.
In a statement to the IPRA on 22 March 2012, witness CPD Sergeant 1 stated that,
while on routine patrol, she monitored a radio call of “Shots Fired by the Police” and
responded to assist. Additional radio transmissions indicated that one offender was still at
large. CPD Sergeant 1 and Officer C conducted a systematic search of the area for the wanted
offender. After a through search of the area, the wanted offender, Subject 2, was located in the
gangway of 10441 S. Peoria between the garage and a fence. CPD Sergeant 1 radioed that she
and Officer C may have the wanted offender in custody and then relocated to 105th and Green
at the mouth of the alley, where Officers A and B positively identified Subject 2 as the wanted
offender. CPD Sergeant 1 did not witness the officer involved shooting.

Page 6 of 7

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log #1052788/U#12-10
CONCLUSION and FINDINGS:
This investigation found that the use of deadly force by the involved officers was in
compliance with Chicago Police Department policy. According to the Chicago Police
Department’s General Order G03-02-03, Section II:
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 force 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.

Based upon the evidence obtained as a result of this investigation, the actions of Officer
A were in compliance with the aforementioned General Order regarding the use of deadly force.
Subject 1 presented a grave danger to the lives of Officers A and B when he pointed his weapon
at Officer A directly, and in the direction of Officer B as well, as they gave chase. Thus, Officer
A was within the Department’s guidelines regarding the use of deadly force. Subject 1 admitted
he ran from police because he was armed with a shotgun with the intent to shoot any member of
a rival gang in his original statement to CPD Detective 1 and CPD Detective 2. Subject 1 stated
that he did not point or shoot the handgun at the police during the pursuit; he threw the shotgun
away, but was shot upon pulling it out. Regardless as to whether or not Subject 1 intended to fire
his gun at Officers A and B, his intentions were unknown to the officers and can not be
considered a barrier to Officer A’s use of deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to
himself or his partner. The evidence shows that Subject 1 was unaware that his weapon was not
loaded, although in working condition, despite his intentions to fire it or not.
Given these facts as a whole, Officer A’s use of deadly force was in compliance with
department guidelines.

Page 7 of 7