Page 21 - 01A_CL7_OCT16.indd

they have recently, the same politicians are the first ones to throw the police officer under the bus. The politicians have gotten a pass so far. No one has bothered to consider that the officer’s actions had been consistent with training and state law. The politicians made the rules and, when the heat gets turned up, they put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the individual officer. What leaders. It must be recognized that these officers are reacting exactly how they were trained to act. Their Department policies and Illinois statutes justify their decisions to use force in many situa- tions.
The Illinois code grants police officers considerable lat- itude in determining whether or not to use force in mak- ing an arrest or preventing escape. Statute 720 ILCS 5/7 – 5 governs a police officer’s use of force in making an arrest. The statute holds that a police officer 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.” What is more, the code authorizes a police officer to use deadly force when such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated; and the person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm; or is attempt- ing to escape by use of a deadly weapon. “The officer is not obliged to retreat from resistance before using force to ef- fect the arrest or to protect himself or herself or others from bodily harm.” The law recognizes that the perceived dan- ger, rather than the actual danger, is the controlling factor.
The actions of the officer must be determined by an exam- ination of all of the circumstances preceding and immedi- ately surrounding the deadly confrontation. Moreover, the law implicitly recognizes that “in the heat of the potential- ly deadly confrontation, drawing a fine line between what may be a reasonable belief versus an unreasonable suspi- cion can be exceedingly difficult.”
What is more, the legislators included specific language in the statute that justifies deadly force if, “the arrestee is attempting an escape through the aid of a deadly weapon.” The committee comments attached to the statute indicate a clear legislative intent, “The peace officer should be au- thorized to act even if the offender has not actually used or currently threatened to use the weapon: the normal in- ference is that he (the offender) intends to use it to thwart apprehension.”
These are the rules that the politicians and the policy- makers put into place. It is difficult to understand why this point has yet to be recognized by the media. The rules clear- ly allow police officers the authority to use deadly force in a variety of situations. Yet, as we have seen lately, officers are being disciplined or charged criminally for acting consis- tent and fully compliant with the laws and rules in place. Of course it is much easier to sacrifice a police officer rather than accept any personal responsibility. d
Dan Herbert is a former Chicago police officer, Cook County pros- ecutor and an in-house attorney for the Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge 7. He is the founding member of the Law Offices of Daniel Q. Herbert and Associates.
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ OCTOBER 2016 21
n -
-
r e - - o e - - -
o . e r o k -
s e