INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
INVESTIGATION
NUMBER:

Log# 1058420/U# 12–44

INVOLVED OFFICER #1: “Officer A” (Chicago Police Officer); Female/Black; 30 years old;
On- Duty; In Plainclothes; Year of Appointment – 2007
INJURY:

Graze wound to the left calf area; transported to Trinity Hospital.
Non-Fatal

INVOLVED OFFICER #2: “Officer B” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/White; 37 years old;
On- Duty; In Plainclothes; Year of Appointment – 2006
INJURY:

None reported

INVOLVED OFFICER #3: “Officer C” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Spanish; 37 years old;
On- Duty; In Plainclothes; Year of Appointment – 2000
INJURY:

None reported

INVOLVED OFFICER #4: “Officer D” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 33 years old;
On- Duty; In Plainclothes; Year of Appointment – 2006
INJURY:

None reported

INVOLVED OFFICER #5: “Officer E” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/Black; 40 years old;
On- Duty; In Plainclothes; Year of Appointment – 1995
INJURY:

None reported

INVOLVED OFFICER #6: “Officer F” (Chicago Police Officer); Male/White; 30 years old;
On- Duty; In Uniform; Year of Appointment – 2009
INJURY:

None reported

SUBJECT:

“Subject 1”; Male/Black; 20 years old

INJURIES:

Several GSWs about the face and body. Fatal.

INITIAL INCIDENT:

Robbery – Armed: Knife/Cutting Instrument

DATE/TIME
OF INCIDENT:

14 November 12, 2345 hrs.

LOCATION:

7900 South South Shore Drive, Beat# 0422

Page 1 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
SUMMARY OF INCIDENT:
Upon responding to a robbery in progress, Officers F and H arrived at the parking lot of
South Shore Food and Liquor at 7900 South Shore Drive. There they observed Subject 1
stabbing [Stabbing Victim]. On verbal command from the officers, Subject 1 dropped the knife
with which he was stabbing [Stabbing Victim], but then fled the scene on foot, running
westbound on 79th Street. After running a short distance (approximately to the intersection of 79th
Street and Coles Avenue), Subject 1 turned and confronted the officers, who were by that time
joined by Assisting Officers A, B, C, D, E, and G. Subject 1 then wielded a metal hammer,
which officers ordered him to drop. Subject 1 did not comply with that order, but continued to
brandish the hammer and swing it at various officers, beginning with Officer B, who deployed
his Taser, only one probe of which struck Subject 1, yielding no apparent effect. Despite
continued orders to drop the hammer, Subject 1 continued to swing the hammer at officers. As
his aggravated assault continued, Officers A, B, C, D, E, and F discharged their weapons striking
Subject 1, who was pronounced dead at the scene. One Department member (Officer A) was
taken from the scene for medical treatment of a gunshot wound.

Page 2 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
INVESTIGATION:
The narrative section of the Case Supplementary Report, as with all finally approved
editions of the Supplementary Report and Original Case Incident Report, stated only that a knife
and a hammer were located at the scene of the incident.
The Tactical Response Report and Officer’s Battery Report submitted by Officer A
indicated that Subject 1 did not comply with verbal commands and posed an imminent threat of
battery with a hammer at a level of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, at which
time Officer A discharged her firearm once at Subject 1 at a range of five-to-ten feet. Officer A
stated that Subject 1 attacked or struck possibly as many as eight (8) officers with a blunt
instrument (hammer). Officer A also reported that she sustained a non-fatal injury during the
incident.
The Tactical Response Report and Officer’s Battery Report submitted by Officer B
indicated that Subject 1 did not comply with verbal commands and posed an imminent threat of
battery with a hammer at a level of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, at which
time Officer B first deployed his Department issued Taser, which had no apparent affect on
Subject 1. Officer B then discharged his firearm four times at Subject 1 at a range of five-to-ten
feet. Officer B stated that Subject 1 attacked or struck possibly as many as eight (8) officers with
a blunt instrument (hammer). Officer B sustained no apparent injury.
The Tactical Response Report and Officer’s Battery Report submitted by Officer C
indicated that Subject 1 did not comply with verbal commands and posed an imminent threat of
battery with a knife and a hammer at a level of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm,
at which time Officer C discharged his firearm ten (10) times at Subject 1 at a range of five-toten feet. Officer C stated that Subject 1 attacked or struck possibly as many as eight (8) officers
with a blunt instrument (hammer). Officer C sustained no apparent injury.
The Tactical Response Report and Officer’s Battery Report submitted by Officer D
indicated that Subject 1 did not comply with verbal commands and posed an imminent threat of
battery with a hammer at a level of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, at which
time Officer D discharged his firearm seven (7) times at Subject 1 at a range of five-to-ten feet.
Officer D stated that Subject 1 attacked or struck possibly as many as eight (8) officers with a
blunt instrument (hammer). Officer D sustained no apparent injury.
The Tactical Response Report and Officer’s Battery Report submitted by Officer E
indicated that Subject 1 did not comply with verbal commands and posed an imminent threat of
battery with a hammer at a level of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, at which
time Officer E discharged his firearm one (1) time at Subject 1 at a range of five-to-ten feet.
Officer E stated that Subject 1 attacked or struck possibly as many as eight (8) officers with a
blunt instrument (hammer). Officer E sustained no apparent injury.
The Tactical Response Report and Officer’s Battery Report submitted by Officer F
indicated that Subject 1 did not comply with verbal commands and posed an imminent threat of
battery with a knife and a hammer at a level of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm,

Page 3 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
at which time Officer F discharged his firearm one (1) time at Subject 1 at a range of five-to-ten
feet. Officer F stated that Subject 1 attacked or struck possibly as many as eight (8) officers with
a blunt instrument (hammer). Officer F sustained no apparent injury.
The Tactical Response Report and Officer’s Battery Report submitted by Officer H
indicated that Subject 1 did not comply with verbal commands and posed an imminent threat of
battery with a hammer at a level of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Officer H
stated that Subject 1 attacked or struck possibly as many as eight (8) officers with a blunt
instrument (hammer). Officer H sustained no apparent injury.
The Tactical Response Report and Officer’s Battery Report submitted by Officer G
indicated that Subject 1 did not comply with verbal commands and posed an imminent threat of
battery with a hammer at a level of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Officer G
stated that Subject 1 attacked or struck possibly as many as eight (8) officers with a blunt
instrument (hammer). Officer G sustained no apparent injury.
A series of Event Query reports generated from the Office of Emergency Management
and Communication’s Police Computer Assisted Dispatch service recorded a sequence of actions
that reflects data contained in the preliminary investigation.
Various Evidence Technician Photographs were taken of the scene. These images
displayed various perspectives of a victim and also of Subject 1, as he lay prostrate on the
pavement approximately in the center of the intersection of 79th Street and Coles Avenue, spent
shell casings at the scene, parked vehicles that sustained gun shots, a hammer on the pavement, a
Taser, a knife, and various perspectives of the residential area at the scene.
A video surveillance recording from South Shore Food & Liquor displayed: a subject
attacking a victim in a parking lot; at least two onlookers apparently trying to distract the subject
from his victim and also flagging down a squad car as it approached the scene; officers arriving
and approaching the subject; the subject running from the parking lot with officers pursuing on
foot.
A recording taken from POD #678 displayed images of the scene after the incident,
including Subject 1 prostrate on the pavement, unmoving, and then paramedics arriving and
attending to him. 1
Ambulance Reports stated that Subject 1 was unresponsive, with multiple gsw to the
head, chest and back, that he was “asystole, pulseless and apniec” and “obvious DOA.”
[Stabbing Victim] was ambulatory, but displayed a stab wound to the right hip with minimal
bleeding. Although [Stabbing Victim] said he sustained a blow to the head with a hammer, he
displayed no obvious neurological deficits.

1

A recording taken from this device was entered as Attachment 45, but was recorded twenty-four hours after the
incident and displayed no image relevant to the investigation.

Page 4 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
The report from the Cook County Medical Examiner revealed that Subject 1 died from
multiple gun shot wounds causing damage to internal organs, no one of which could be identified
as directly and uniquely fatal. The toxicology report was negative.
Medical records obtained from Trinity Advocate Hospital revealed that Officer A was
admitted to the emergency department with a “graze wound to right lateral lower extremity
measuring approximately 1.5x2.5 cm.” A “tiny metal particle” was found lodged in the wound.
Officer A, however displayed “normal knee flexion and extension” Further observation indicated
that Officer A displayed “no focal neurological deficit” that she was observed to have normal
speech, mood, judgment, motor and coordination functions.
Drug and Alcohol Testing authorized and conducted by the Internal Affairs Division 2
determined that all officers who were so tested were free of the influence of any controlled
substance at the time of the incident.
In his interview, Civilian Witness 1 stated that at the time of the incident he was working
as the security guard at South Shore Food & Liquors. He said that at one point the store’s cashier
and the store’s manager exited the store and that the cashier returned saying someone was
attacking the manager outside the store. Witness 1 exited the store and saw an attacker (nka
Subject 1) having forced the manager to the ground on his stomach, kneeling over the manager
and putting the point of what appeared to be a kitchen knife to the manager’s back. Witness 1
drew his .38 Caliber revolver and warned Subject 1 to leave the store manager alone. Witness 1,
however, did not discharge his firearm at Subject 1 for fear of perhaps striking the store manager
instead. The store owner came out to the parking lot and Subject 1 requested the keys to the
manager’s vehicle. When he found that the keys did not work he became more agitated and,
holding the manager in a headlock, forced him to the ground and struck him with a hammer.
Witness 1 also reported that while Subject 1’s speech was clear and not slurred or garbled, his
utterances were not coherent in that they did not make sense. Inside the store the cashier called
for police. First two, then four and eventually as many as ten officers arrived at the scene.
Subject 1 left the store manager in the store’s parking lot and fled the scene out onto 79th Street.
There he was surrounded by officers who repeatedly ordered him to drop the hammer he was
wielding at them. He charged one officer, swinging the hammer at the officer’s head. The
officer’s partner deployed a Taser at Subject 1, missing him. Subject 1 then charged other
officers attempting to strike them with the hammer. After refusing to obey numerous commands
to cease his aggressive activity and to drop his weapon, and continuing to charge at the officers
while swinging the hammer at them, police opened fire. Subject 1 stood for a moment in front of
the officers and then collapsed to the ground.
In her interview, Civilian Witness 2 stated that she was working as the cashier at South
Shore Food & Liquor. She exited the store with the store manager to go to his car and retrieve
her headphones, which she had left in his car the night before. An unknown subject (nka Subject
1) then approached the manager and appeared to threaten him with a weapon of some kind that
appeared to have an orange handle. Witness 2 then returned to the store to alert the store’s
security guard. Witness 2 then called 9-1-1 and when she went outside again she saw Subject 1
push the store manager up against the back of the manager’s vehicle while holding a knife to the
2

nka the Bureau of Internal Affairs

Page 5 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
manager’s neck. Witness 2 went back inside as she saw police arrive. She did not hear or see any
shots fired. She only knew shots were fired when the store’s security officer returned with the
manager, who was bleeding. The security officer informed Witness 2 that officers shot Subject 1.
In his interview, Civilian Witness 3, proprietor of South Shore Food & Liquor, stated
that he observed his nephew, [Stabbing Victim], submitting to an aggravated battery by Subject
1. When police arrived Subject 1 then became combative toward officers, who announced their
office and provided Subject 1 with ample opportunity to comply with their verbal commands. 3
Witness 3, standing fifteen yards away, observed Subject 1 attack one officer. A Taser was then
deployed at Subject 1 with no effect. Witness 3 then saw Subject 1 attack two officers, at which
point numerous officers discharged their firearms at Subject 1, who then “dropped to the
ground.” 4 Witness 3 further stated that the mother of Subject 1 came to his store the following
day and “apologized.” Witness 3 informed Subject 1’s mother about the incident and told her
that her son refused safety and that the police “did give him an opening.” 5
In her interview, Civilian Witness 4 stated that she observed Subject 1 lying in the street
for a total of thirty-eight or forty minutes without any medical attention being sought for him.
Her neighbor, [Witness 4’s Neighbor], also stated that Subject 1 lay in the street with officers
standing over him for thirty or forty minutes to an hour without medical attention and that
Subject 1 lifted his head up from the pavement twice during that time. 6
In his interview, Witnessing Officer G, Beat# 463E, stated that he and his partner,
Officer C, arrived at the scene and observed Subject 1 stabbing [Stabbing Victim] with a knife as
[Stabbing Victim] lay on the ground. Officers C and G issued verbal commands to Subject 1 to
stop. Subject 1 fled the scene on foot with officers in pursuit. At about that time another car
arrived, carrying Officers A and B. When Officer B exited his vehicle Officer G heard, but did
not observe, the discharge of a Taser. At that point Subject 1 attacked Officer B with a hammer.
Officer B then seemed to fall back as if struck by the hammer. Officer G next heard gunfire, at
least six shots. Subject 1 continued westbound along 79th Street. Officer G then heard numerous
more gunshots. Officer G said that he did not discharge his weapon, saying that other officers
were in what would have been his line of fire, and he did not want to jeopardize their safety by
firing. At that point Officer G observed Subject 1 proceed around the back end of one of the
other officers’ vehicles and then fall face-first to the ground. At that time Officer A announced
that she was shot. Officer G then took Officer A to Trinity Hospital. Officer G stated that with
Subject 1’s actions of stabbing [Stabbing Victim] while he lay on the ground, and attacking
Officer B with a hammer as well as placing other officers in jeopardy, that the officers had no
3

Witness 3 said he feared Subject 1 would flee and evade capture. Witness 3 said that he was “shocked” that the
officers were exercising so much “patience” by not taking any direct and immediate action, waiting instead, for what
seemed to Witness 3, an unnecessarily extended amount of time for Subject 1 to respond to their verbal commands.
(Transcript of “Statement of Witness 3”, pages 13, 16, 20 et al)
4
Id., page 16
5
Id., page 20
6
While the scene described by both these witnesses seemed dramatically graphic as they related their memory of the
incident, their versions do not corroborate either with the POD video of the scene, in which Subject 1 is not seen
raising his head at any time, or with the ambulance report that indicates paramedics tended to Subject 1, whom they
determined “DOA”, five minutes after they were dispatched to the scene and approximately seven minutes after
officers discharged their weapons at Subject 1.

Page 6 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
choice but to use deadly force in dealing with the threat posed by Subject 1.
In his interview, Witnessing Officer H, Beat# 421R, stated that his partner, Officer
Stephen Woods, and he exited their vehicle and observed the Subject 1 crouched over [Stabbing
Victim], who lay on the ground as Subject 1 thrust a knife down at him. Officer H drew his
weapon and told Subject 1 to put down the knife. Subject 1 put down the knife but then wielded
a hammer, holding his arms up with the hammer in his right hand. Officers continued to tell
Subject 1 to drop the hammer. Subject 1 then ran northbound onto 79th Street. Officer H then
observed an unmarked police vehicle approach the scene from the west on 79th Street. At that
point, with all other officers on the scene focused on Subject 1, Officer H holstered his weapon
and tended to [Stabbing Victim], who had approached him, bleeding from the head. While he
was assisting [Stabbing Victim], Officer H heard, but did not see, a Taser deploy. Officer H then
went to secure his police vehicle. As he returned to continue providing assistance to [Stabbing
Victim], Officer H heard approximately five gun shots. Then, within “probably a second or
two,” 7 Officer H heard multiple gunshots, more numerous than the initial five gunshots. At that
point Officer H used his radio to call for an ambulance for [Stabbing Victim]. Officer H did not
see either series of gunshots; he only heard them. Officer H concluded, given Subject 1’s action
of thrusting a knife on a victim and not heeding officers’ verbal commands, that Subject 1 placed
all officers at the scene in danger of receiving “great bodily harm, or even death.” 8 And that the
officers were, therefore, justified in using deadly force in responding to the threat posed by
Subject 1.
In his interview, Involved Officer D, Beat# 6724B, stated that he arrived at the scene
with his partner, Officer E, immediately after Officers A and B arrived. Officer D observed other
officers at the scene and Subject 1, standing on 79th Street near Coles Avenue, holding a hammer
in his right hand. Officers were calling to him to drop his weapon. Officer D drew his weapon
and also gave that verbal command to Subject 1. Officer B deployed a Taser on Subject 1, who
then swung the hammer at Officer B. Officer B fell back and at that point Officer D discharged
his weapon once at Subject 1. Subject 1 then turned in the direction of Officers D and E and went
toward them. The officers were standing one on either side of their unmarked Impala. Subject 1
began running toward Officer E. Officer D then fired once at Subject 1, to protect Officer E.
Subject 1 then ran around the Impala and appeared to be about to continue west along 79th Street,
then turned and ran east toward Officer D, with the hammer up in a striking position. Officer D
noted that Subject 1’s eyes were opened very wide. As Subject 1 approached to a vicinity of
approximately five feet from Officer D, Officer D, standing upright and with no opportunity to
take cover or execute any evasive action to avoid Subject 1 striking him with the hammer,
discharged his weapon four or five times. Officer D heard other officers discharging their
weapons at that time, but he did not know who fired, or how many rounds were discharged.
Officer D then saw Subject 1 on the ground and did not recall seeing Subject 1 falling. Officer D
then kept his gun out and went toward Subject 1, who was bleeding and unresponsive, but still
held the hammer in his right hand. Officer D then went to assist Officer A, who announced she
had been hit.
In his interview, Involved Officer F, Beat# 421R, stated that he and his partner, Officer
7
8

Officer H, page 34, line 9.
Id., page 47, line 16.

Page 7 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
H, heard a call for service regarding an offender holding a victim at knife point in a parking lot.
Another dispatch report stated further that the offender might also be armed with a gun. Arriving
at the scene, Officer F observed Subject 1 over the victim, stabbing the victim. Officers F and H
exited their vehicle, drew their guns and repeatedly ordered Subject 1 to drop his knife. They
approached to within ten feet of Subject 1, and as they moved closer, Subject 1 stabbed the
victim in the leg and in the side while looking at the approaching officers. Officer C and his
partner then also ordered Subject 1 to drop the knife. Subject 1 replied that if the officers did not
back away he would keep stabbing the victim, which he then continued to do. Then at one point
Subject 1 dropped the knife and quickly ran, first northbound from the parking lot onto 79th
Street, and then westbound along 79th. He then suddenly stopped in the middle of the street,
turned and produced a hammer and began to verbally threaten the officers, saying that if they
continued to approach him he would attack them with the hammer. Officer F was in the lead of
officers pursuing Subject 1. Officer C was nearby to Officer F’s left. Other officers then joined
from behind with their guns drawn and continued to issue verbal commands such as “Drop the
weapon.” And “It doesn’t have to be like this.” 9 Subject 1 remained focused, his eyes opened
very wide, as he stared at the officers, continuing to threaten to attack them with the hammer. He
moved toward the officers, who then backed up while continuing to order Subject 1 to drop his
weapon. Then Subject 1 turned and ran westbound on 79th Street. The officers followed him at a
distance as more police vehicles arrived from the west, beginning to surround and contain
Subject 1. Officers A and B were in the first of those cars to arrive at that point. Officers
pursuing Subject 1 on foot then arrived near the front of Officer B’s car. Officer B exited his
vehicle and deployed his Taser on Subject 1. Officer F stood approximately ten feet behind
Subject 1 as Officer B deployed the Taser at Subject 1, who was still running. Subject 1 spun
around, away from Officer B's car. One of the Taser prongs struck him and one missed. Subject
1 pulled the Taser prong from what appeared to be his shoulder area. He then raised the hammer
and lunged at Officer B, swinging the hammer down at the officer. Officer F’s line of sight was
partially impeded by Officer B’s vehicle at that point, but he saw both Subject 1 and Officer B
go down and only Subject 1 returned to a standing position. Officer F then feared that Subject 1
had struck Officer B, severely injuring him. Officer F then heard about four or five shots being
fired, followed by many more shots within about a ten-second period. Because of his proximity
to Subject 1, Officer F decided to back up for his own safety. At that point he saw Subject 1
proceed first southbound, then northbound toward the other officers. He appeared to be struck
once or twice by officers’ bullets. He then proceeded southbound toward Coles Avenue. At that
point Subject 1 was in Officer F’s direct line of fire with no other officers near him. Officer F
then fired one shot at Subject 1. Other officers began converging on Subject 1, entering Officer
F’s line of fire as they did so, at which point, Officer F refrained from discharging his firearm
any further. Subject 1 turned westbound, swinging the hammer wildly. Other officers fired at
him. Again Subject 1 appeared to be struck about two times. He then turned southbound again,
still holding the hammer high in the air and still swinging it as he continued to lunge at officers
in his path. Officers continued to issue verbal commands to which Subject 1 apparently paid no
heed. At that point Officer F holstered his weapon as Subject 1, having received several gunshots
by that time, closed in on the other officers just as the shooting stopped. Subject 1 then fell
forward onto the pavement. Officer F then heard Officer Alder report that she had been struck,
and officers went to her aid. Subject 1 still held the hammer as he lay face down in the street. An
officer, whom Officer F did not identify, kicked the hammer away from Subject 1’s hand.
9

Officer F, page 26, lines 9-14.

Page 8 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
Officer F stated that Subject 1 consistently displayed aggressive, combative behavior, causing
bodily harm to one citizen as well as verbally threatening and physically attempting to inflict the
same on officers at the scene. Officer F asserted that after Officer B deployed his Taser there
were no other force options available to eliminate the threat posed by Subject 1’s presence at the
scene.
In his interview, Involved Officer C, Beat# 463E, stated that he and his partner, Officer
G, heard a call for service, robbery in progress a person with a gun at 79th and South Shore.
Arriving at the scene, Officer C observed a person with a knife (Subject 1) kneeling on top of
another person ([Stabbing Victim]), who was down on the ground in a fetal position. Subject 1
said something and then stabbed [Stabbing Victim]. At that time Officer C drew his weapon and
ordered Subject 1 to drop the knife. Subject 1 stated something else, inaudible, and stabbed
[Stabbing Victim] again, apparently somewhere on the right side between the ribs and hip.
Officer C could hear others shouting at Subject 1 to drop his knife, but he could not tell who was
shouting at that time. Subject 1 then dropped the knife, then rose to his feet, grabbed a hammer
apparently from the ground somewhere near [Stabbing Victim] and then ran northbound from the
parking lot up to 79th Street and then westbound on 79th. Officer C ran after Subject 1 until at
one point Subject 1 stopped and turned around to face Officer C, saying words to the effect of,
“What? You want a piece of me? You want some of this?” 10 and then appeared ready to charge
at Officer C while holding the hammer high in his right hand, apparently preparing to strike the
officer with it. Subject 1 was about ten feet away from Officer C at that point. Officer C then
raised his gun and pointed it at Subject 1 and ordered him to drop the hammer. Subject 1 did not
drop the hammer, but instead began to walk backward. Then Officer C observed Officer B’s car
arrive from behind Subject 1. Officer B exited his vehicle with a Taser in hand, ready to deploy.
Just after Officer B deployed the Taser, Subject 1 turned around and the Taser seemed to have no
effect on him. Subject 1 then ran toward Officer B, swinging the hammer at Officer B’s head, at
a distance of less than three feet. Officer C saw Subject 1 swing the hammer once at Officer B, at
which point Officer B began falling back and down. Subject 1 then swung the hammer a second
time. Officer B was then down behind the trunk of his unmarked squad car, out of Officer C’s
line of sight. Officer C then gave a verbal command to stop, which Subject 1 did not heed.
Officer C then took aim and discharged his weapon five or six times at Subject 1 from a distance
of between five and ten feet. Officer C believed that one or more of the rounds that he discharged
made contact with Subject 1, but Subject 1 continued to run westbound along 79th Street.
Officers D and E then arrived in an unmarked Chevrolet Impala. Subject 1 then ran past those
officers and around their squad car and Officer C continued to pursue Subject 1 on foot, calling
out to Subject 1 to stop, as other officers were also doing at that time. Subject 1 then turned as he
ran, continuing to run but then in the opposite direction, eastbound. Officer C said he saw muzzle
flashes during this time but was not sure who was firing. Suddenly Subject 1 stopped running
and stood facing eastbound at the officers who had been chasing him. He then raised his hammer
again and appeared about to rush at the officers. At that point Officer C thought that, having
inflicted bodily harm on [Stabbing Victim] and having attempted to do so on Officer B, Subject
1 was about to charge at officers in front of him. With this in mind, Officer C, with no one in his
line of sight except Subject 1, discharged his weapon at Subject 1 four or five times from a
distance of approximately ten or fifteen feet. Subject 1 then fell to the ground. Officer C then
saw an officer kick the hammer from Subject 1’s hand. Officer C did not see who the officer was
10

Officer C, page 25,lines 7-8, and page 27, lines 7-9.

Page 9 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
as he was busy at that point calling on his radio to request a supervisor and an ambulance to the
scene. At that point his attention is also diverted toward Officer A who had just announced that
she had been shot. Officer C stated that verbal commands and a Taser were not effective in
causing Subject 1 to cease and desist from inflicting, or attempting to inflict, fatal or grievous
bodily harm to others present and that deadly force was justified in eliminating the threat posed
by Subject 1 during the incident.
In his interview, Involved Officer E, Beat #6724A, stated that he arrived at the scene with
his partner, Officer D. As the officers exited their car, Officer E saw another car ahead of theirs,
from which Officer B exited. Officer E heard many shouted commands to drop a weapon as he
observed Subject 1, wielding a hammer, charging at Officer B and swinging the hammer several
times at the officer. Officer B then reeled back, raising his left arm and reaching for his Taser.
Officer E also had his weapon drawn at this point and also shouted at Subject 1 to drop the hammer.
Officer B then deployed the Taser, at which point Subject 1 turned from Officer B and began to
charge at Officer E, who then discharged one round from his weapon at Subject 1. Officer E then
heard several other shots being fired. He stepped aside then as Subject 1 ran past him and proceeded
westbound along 79th Street. Subject 1 then stopped, turned and began running toward the officers.
Officer E noticed that Subject 1’s eyes were opened very wide as he seemed to be charging again
toward Officer B. At that point Officer E heard several gunshots and then observed Subject 1 begin
to fall forward as the shooting stopped. Subject 1 fell face-first on the ground, moved briefly and
was then still. Shortly after the shooting stopped, Officer E heard Officer A announce that she had
been shot. Officer E called for an ambulance on his radio, saying there was an officer shot and
offender shot at the scene. Officer E did not see what happened with the hammer that Subject 1 had
been wielding. The next time Officer E looked to where Subject 1 lay on the pavement, he appeared
to be handcuffed.
In his interview, Involved Officer B, Beat# 463D, stated that he responded to the scene
along with Officer A. There he saw Subject 1 standing in the middle of 79th Street, just east of
Coles Avenue, brandishing a hammer. There were also several police officers with their
weapons drawn in what appeared to be a face-off between them and Subject 1. Officers were
ordering Subject 1 to drop the hammer. Officer B then produced his Taser. He stated that since
other officers had their weapons drawn, a less lethal attempt at eliminating the threat posed by
Subject 1 might be attempted at that point. Subject 1 then turned toward Officer B and rushed
directly at him from a distance of about twenty feet. Both Subject 1’s hands were held high, at or
above his head; the hammer in the right hand and the left hand clenched in a fist. Officer B then
announced his office but had no chance to call out “Taser!” because Subject 1 was upon him and
so Officer B deployed the Taser. Officer B reported that both prongs must make bodily contact
in the target for the device to work effectively and at least one of the two prongs did not make
bodily contact with Subject 1, who then ducked down and then swung the hammer at Officer B’s
head from a distance of approximately one or two feet. Officer B was not certain whether or not
the hammer made contact. By this time Officer B was at the rear of his vehicle, back pedaling
away from Subject 1 who continued to advance on Officer B. Officer B then ducked away from
Subject 1 and crouched low to the ground, at which point he heard maybe six gun shots, but was
unable to see who was firing. He then left the Taser on the ground and stayed low and ran to the
southwest, drawing his weapon while placing time and distance between himself and his
attacker, Subject 1. Officer B then arrived at the southeast corner of the intersection of 79th and
Coles. As he turned around to reassess the situation, he saw Subject 1 running westbound along
Page 10 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
the middle of 79th Street, north of Officer B’s position. Officer B heard no more gunfire at that
point, but did hear officers telling Subject 1 to drop his weapon and stop. Subject 1 then passed
a burgundy colored unmarked car that Officer B said had apparently pulled in a short distance
behind his vehicle. At that point Subject 1 had a clear path of flight before him, westbound on
79th Street. Instead of continuing his flight, however, he turned back, made eye contact with
Officer B and began racing toward Officer B at full speed, again with the hammer held high in
an apparent striking position. As Subject 1 closed the distance to the officer to about eight or ten
feet, Officer B discharged his weapon about four times. As Officer B discharged his second
round he heard other shots being fired but could not tell the direction from which those shots
originated. As Officer B fired at Subject 1, Subject 1 fell down face first. At that point he no
longer posed a threat to the officer, who then stopped firing. Then Officer B heard from behind
him the voice of his partner, Officer A, saying that she had been shot. Then he saw several
officers coming from his right to cover Subject 1, at which point he turned away from Subject 1
to place a call on his radio, “We have an officer shot.” 11 He then put his radio away and went to
tend to Officer A. Officer B reported that just when Subject 1 attempted to strike him with the
hammer, he did so in an apparent attempt to kill or maim Officer B, and that officers fired their
weapons in Officer B’s defense, to eliminate the threat posed by Subject 1. When Subject 1 then
charged at Officer B a second time, Officer B concluded that he and his fellow officers were at
that time applying a level of force necessary to keep Subject 1 from causing death or great bodily
harm to either Officer B or any of the other officers in the immediate vicinity.
In her interview, Involved Officer A, Beat# 463D, stated that when she and Officer B
arrived at the scene from the west on 79th Street, Subject 1 was standing in the middle of 79th
Street, holding a hammer in one hand, down along the side of his leg. There were other officers
present and the situation appeared to Officer A to be a “standoff” 12 between the officers and
Subject 1, with officers facing north and Subject 1 facing south. At one point Subject 1 turned
toward the vehicle that was just arriving at the scene, carrying Officers A and B, with it’s
emergency equipment activated. Subject 1 then began to walk briskly toward the vehicle, picking
up speed as Officers A and B exited their vehicle, Officer A having warned her partner that
Subject 1 was holding a hammer. Suddenly Subject 1 charged at Officer B with the hammer up
and swung it at Officer B, who appeared to lose his balance and fall backward, pulling out his
Taser and attempting to deploy it on Subject 1, to no apparent effect, as he (Officer B) stumbled
back. Subject 1 and Officer B were at the rear of the vehicle by that time. Officer A, her weapon
drawn, then came to the rear of the vehicle to assist her partner as Subject 1 again swung the
hammer at Officer B. Officer B staggered back and away to Officer A’s left, and she then
discharged her weapon at Subject 1. Officer A then immediately felt a “slap” 13 on the side of her
right leg, below her knee. She followed Subject 1 at that point and he seemed to be moving
toward parked cars toward the north side of 79th Street.
The General Order on the use of deadly force, 03-02-03 (formerly 02-08-03) outlines
the parameters under which officers are either permitted or obliged to apply this level of physical
force.
11

Officer B, page 31, line 15.
Officer A, page 8, line 31.
13
Id., page 13, line 24.
12

Page 11 of 12

 INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW AUTHORITY
Log# 1058420 / U# 12–44
CONCLUSION AND FINDING:
This investigation found that the use of deadly force by Officers A, B, C, D, E, and F was
in compliance with Chicago Police Department policy. According to the Chicago Police
Department’s General Order 03-02-03 (formerly G02-08-03), Section II, A:
A sworn member is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm
only he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary:
1.
2.

to prevent death or great bodily harm to the sworn member or to another
person, or:
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.

The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the officers’ actions were in accordance
with the requirements of the Police Department’s deadly force policy. Subject 1 resisted officers’
non-lethal attempts (verbal, Taser) to cause him to cease and desist his threatening speech and
demeanor. Officers discharged their weapons only when they saw Subject 1 charging and
swinging a hammer toward officers, doing so in the belief that they were in immediate danger of
death or great bodily harm from Subject 1.

Page 12 of 12