Chicago police: Body camera didn't record cop's fatal shooting of teen in back

The body camera of a Chicago police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager on the South Side last week was not recording when he opened fire, police officials said Monday.

Department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the department is investigating why the equipment didn't capture the shooting of 18-year-old Paul O'Neal, who was struck in the back.

The officer, as well as two others involved in the shooting, had received the camera equipment just recently, according to Guglielmi.

The department moved swiftly in the days after the Thursday night shooting to relieve all three officers of their police powers after a preliminary determination concluded they had violated department policy.

O'Neal was shot about 7:30 p.m. Thursday near 74th Street and Merrill Avenue after he crashed a reportedly stolen Jaguar into two Chicago police vehicles and took off running.

Two officers had opened fire at O'Neal while he was in the Jaguar, according to police sources. A third officer who had been in one of the police vehicles struck by the Jaguar gave chase after O'Neal fled on foot and fatally shot him. The Cook County medical examiner's office said O'Neal was struck in the back.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-shooting-eddie-johnson-met-20160801-story.html?14700782723073

waiting on the



contingent now.

What do we need a video for?

If the victim was unarmed (and did not have control of a lethal weapon ER: the car) and was shot in the back then video is not necessary, is it?

Yeah, shooting someone in the back is a no go in most situations and I dont see the need for a video.

The cameras should be sealed in some fashion and the officers should be powerless to turn them on/off.

However, one less car thief in this world isn't a bad thing.

NLXSK1 said:

What do we need a video for?

If the victim was unarmed (and did not have control of a lethal weapon ER: the car) and was shot in the back then video is not necessary, is it?

Click to expand...

He wasn't in the car when he was shot in the back.

spandy said:

Yeah, shooting someone in the back is a no go in most situations and I dont see the need for a video.

The cameras should be sealed in some fashion and the officers should be powerless to turn them on/off.

However, one less car thief in this world isn't a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Death penalty for stealing a car? It's definitely good to be white in America.

bearkat42 said:

He wasn't in the car when he was shot in the back.

Click to expand...

So what do we need a video for?

NLXSK1 said:

So what do we need a video for?

Click to expand...

The cop who killed the kid certainly didn't think we needed it. I wonder why?

bearkat42 said:

The cop who killed the kid certainly didn't think we needed it. I wonder why?

Click to expand...

Suddenly you have determined the intent of a person just by osmosis... You should patent that ability...

Just dont call it assumption...

You still didnt answer the question. If an unarmed person is shot in the back while running from a cop, why do we need a video?

NLXSK1 said:

Suddenly you have determined the intent of a person just by osmosis... You should patent that ability...

Just dont call it assumption...

You still didnt answer the question. If an unarmed person is shot in the back while running from a cop, why do we need a video?

Click to expand...

He turned the video off. Intent isn't that hard to determine. Why is a video needed is actually a very good question, considering the fact that even with video evidence, cops seem to walk. I guess I'd answer that question by saying that it, at least, gives the public an idea of how street gangs operate.

bearkat42 said:

He turned the video off. Intent isn't that hard to determine. Why is a video needed is actually a very good question, considering the fact that even with video evidence, cops seem to walk. I guess I'd answer that question by saying that it, at least, gives the public an idea of how street gangs operate.

Click to expand...

In this case intent would be impossible to determine.

You want to treat the cops as guilty until proven innocent.

The cop shot an unarmed person in the back. If that is the way it actually happened ( I remember hearing the Michael Brown story the exact same way) then the cop is going to get prosecuted. They dont need a video if he shot the victim in the back.

He wasnt out hunting black people the day of the incident, he responded because someone called the cops.

NLXSK1 said:

In this case intent would be impossible to determine.

You want to treat the cops as guilty until proven innocent.

Click to expand...

Why did he turn off the video?

NLXSK1 said:

The cop shot an unarmed person in the back. If that is the way it actually happened

Click to expand...

He shot him in the back. It's not that hard to determine. The technology in 2016 is amazing.

bearkat42 said:

Death penalty for stealing a car? It's definitely good to be white in America.

Click to expand...

Death for stealing a car is obviously not justice.


Although I can't help but wonder if he had been doing something other than being a piece of shit thief that day, would he still have been shot? Hard to say...

Why were the cops after him in the first place?

I understand the need to shut the camera off if you are taking a piss or having lunch...but if you shut you cam off and there is an incident ...the cop should be fired and lose any support from the union or the FOP lawyers...let em fight their criminal or civil case as a fired cop and foot the legal bill on their own dime...I bet these fucks stop shutting their body cams off.

spandy said:

one less car thief in this world isn't a bad thing.

Click to expand...

jesusfuck.

we have white nationalists in this forum wishing summary execution on black people openly.

@rollitup , i see the point in allowing some of the patently stupid members to continue posting, but what about these homicidal white power types?

oops.

UncleBuck said:

jesusfuck.

we have white nationalists in this forum wishing summary execution on black people openly.

@rollitup , i see the point in allowing some of the patently stupid members to continue posting, but what about these homicidal white power types?

Click to expand...

People have always asked me if I thought there were pigs on this site.

The posts of several of the members in Politics could provide proof.

Yeah some of the shit and logic posted here makes me think there are definitely loser good ole boys looking for promotions. Hard ons for potheads and coloreds.

I can't speak to the ultimate legality of this shoot, but if you shoot at a cop and then run, they are well within their guidelines to put you down with shots to the back.

If you use a vehicle to try to hit an officer in or out of his vehicle, or actually do so as in this case, it is viewed with exactly the same deadly intent and I'm fairly certain they put you down, even if you run away. You hard ass types might want to keep that in mind.

From what I'm reading, it was a "good shoot" and the bodycam footage malfunction/operator error is the story, not what it would have shown. It appears he gave up his right to keep breathing when he rammed into the cops, go figure.

MuyLocoNC said:

I can't speak to the ultimate legality of this shoot, but if you shoot at a cop and then run, they are well within their guidelines to put you down with shots to the back.

If you use a vehicle to try to hit an officer in or out of his vehicle, or actually do so as in this case, it is viewed with exactly the same deadly intent and I'm fairly certain they put you down, even if you run away. You hard ass types might want to keep that in mind.

From what I'm reading, it was a "good shoot" and the bodycam footage malfunction/operator error is the story, not what it would have shown. It appears he gave up his right to keep breathing when he rammed into the cops, go figure.

Click to expand...