Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner releases new digital ad “Nightmare for Illinois”
Next Post: Ives, Pritzker slam Rauner on a wide range of topics
Posted in:
* Former Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy was on WVON again this morning. He was asked once again about what, exactly he told Mayor Rahm Emanuel after the Laquan McDonald shooting and when, exactly he told Emanuel. There was just a bit of vagueness about the timeline the other day, so I (among others) asked interviewer Charles Thomas to clear it up today if he could.
McCarthy claimed the morning after Laquan McDonald was shot by police that he had his usual morning phone call with Mayor Emanuel at 6 o’clock. McCarthy said he told Emanuel during the call that police had shot and killed a young man the night before. He said he explained to Emanuel that the man “had a knife, was acting erratically and had stabbed some police car tires.” He said he didn’t remember Emanuel’s response. “We didn’t have anything at that point that indicated there was a problem,” McCarthy explained.
Two days after the shooting, McCarthy said he received a briefing about the shooting and watched the police video. “After the briefing, I spoke to the mayor and told him that this officer is going to have a problem articulating what happened. He may be able to do it because there was a knife involved.”
McCarthy was asked specifically if he told this to the mayor two days after the shooting. He said it was.
McCarthy said he doesn’t remember if he told the mayor that McDonald had been shot 16 times. “I may have, but I definitely told him the officer is going to have a problem. I don’t remember his response and I don’t remember exactly what was said, but I do know that I told him there is a video of this and the officer is going to have a problem.”
* To refresh your memory, this is from a December 8, 2015 Paris Schutz interview of Mayor Rahm Emanuel…
PS: When did you first learn that there were discrepancies between the initial reports from officers on the scene that night and the video?
MRE: When we get the information, that it’s public, that’s when I learned it like everybody else.
PS: So former superintendent McCarthy didn’t tell you that there might be a problem between the official reports and what the video shows?
MRE: No. That’s not what he briefed me about.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 10:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner releases new digital ad “Nightmare for Illinois”
Next Post: Ives, Pritzker slam Rauner on a wide range of topics
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
How is pouring salt on a wound when you are part of the team that caused the wound help? This is becoming a joke.
Comment by Rocky Rosi Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 10:45 am
McCarthy isn’t saying he told Emanuel that there might be a problem between official reports and the video. He said he told Emanuel the officer might have a problem, which anyone looking at the video would surmise. So Emanuel’s statement on Chicago Tonight doesn’t contradict what McCarthy is saying.
Comment by chi Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 10:45 am
“this officer is going to have a problem articulating what happened.” That doesn’t seem like a very good way of saying that the officer is lying, if that is what the chief was trying to imply to Emanuel. Personally I would have no idea what he was trying to get at if I was told that.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 10:48 am
McCarthy wants to have his cake and eat it too. His story is full of holes. His failure to act following viewing the video is strong evidence he concluded the officers actions were justified.
Comment by old pol Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 10:56 am
Still seems vague since he didn’t definitively say one way or the other that he informed Rahm that the reports filed by the officers contradicted what can be seen in the video.
Comment by Juice Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 10:58 am
===So Emanuel’s statement on Chicago Tonight doesn’t contradict what McCarthy is saying. ===
I’m betting you’re an attorney.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 10:59 am
So McCarthy did not run down to City Hall with a DVD of the dash cam. It was a little more than “having a problem articulation” folks
Is Mccarthy thinkin’ this makes him look good?
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:04 am
“I told him there is a video of this and the officer is going to have a problem.”
If that’s accurate, that’s a pretty big understatement. But if I was told there was additional evidence and the officer was going to have a problem, I would have assumed the investigation was underway.
Way to be vague.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:05 am
I don’t see how any of this helps McCarthy’s potential mayoral bid… just hurt’s Emanuel’s reelection efforts.
Maybe this McCarthy bid is more of a Kamikaze mission than anything real….
Comment by Boone's is Back Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:08 am
With or without this potential gotchya moment, does anyone think Emanuel is trustworthy on this subject, or any other subject? The guy blew it for a year on this.
(I’d like to hear more, everyday, from the AA community in Chicago and Illinois. They are an important constituency that are affected greatly by Illinois politics.)
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:12 am
==“this officer is going to have a problem articulating what happened.” That doesn’t seem like a very good way of saying that the officer is lying…Personally I would have no idea what he was trying to get at if I was told that.==
It means - definitely meant to Emanuel - that the police officer was going to have a hard time articulating a basis for the shooting that comported with the Constitution, rather than being excessive force.
So, did he say “lie?” No, he said (in effect) “can’t justify” when the media and officer were saying “justified.”
It’s like telling the mayor you’ve been outside and were personally rained on, while the mayor is watching Tom Skilling saying it’s sunny. You don’t have to actually call Skilling a liar for the point to be crystal clear.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:16 am
stuck in SPAM
Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:16 am
Also, it wasn’t vague. When the Superintendent calls an officer’s actions into question that is not vague.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:17 am
If we gave both Gary and Rahm a lie detector test does anyone doubt the mayor is lying about the entire debacle
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:21 am
crazybleedingheart, what I mean by vague is whether McCarthy was saying that the excessive use of force was a problem (my interpretation) or whether McCarthy was saying that the reports submitted by Van Dyke and other officers on the scene pretty clearly contradict the video being the problem (another interpretation that had been submitted by Rich).
So in general, I agree, not vague. But between those two very real and very major problems, it is not clear to me which one McCarthy is saying he spoke to Rahm about.
Comment by Juice Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:23 am
McCarthy sure has a bad memory.
Comment by DeseDemDose Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:34 am
This may say much more than McCarthy intended.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:35 am
It’s the cover-up that always get them. If you believe McCarthy could possibly have all those I don’t recalls in this, the heater case of the decade then I don’t know which end is up.
Comment by jimk849 Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:35 am
Maybe a good ‘Question of the Day’ ought to be,
“What should McCarthy have told Rahm?”
My answer; We’ve got a cop to fire.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:37 am
If McCarthy didn’t think there was a SERIOUS use of force issue after watching the video, he should have turned in his badge. You shoot to stop the threat, and once the bad guy is down and no longer a threat, you stop firing. A comparison of the video vs. the reports by anyone with police training and serious integrity would have revealed the bad shoot and the coverup. Pity CPD top brass lack apparently both.
Comment by rivvedup Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 11:53 am
McDonald had a knife and was puncturing tires on police cars and ignoring orders to stop by the police. The protesters often omit these details.
This an excessive use of force matter, if Van Dyke had fired one shot rather than sixteen there might not be a controversy. Clearly, this is not someone that I want on the police department. He was out of control and had been accused of misconduct before.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 12:43 pm
Has anyone started filing FOIA’s for emails to see how long it took stories of discrepancies to get up to McCarthy?
Comment by NIU Grad Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 12:44 pm
Agree with rivvedup. Regardless of whether 2015 or 2017 McCarthy is being truthful, and regardless of when exactly Rahm knew about the details of the shooting, they both failed in their responsibilities to the public.
Comment by Actual Red Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 12:54 pm
The problems in the Chicago Police Department start in the Academy and go all the way up to the Superintendent’s office. Nothing less than a complete culture change, from how and who we recruit to how they are trained, to district boundaries are drawn and how promotions are handled. Everything should be on the table. I don’t remember McCarthy telling the Mayor anything like that. This is CYA, and McCarthy would be a much worse Mayor than Emanuel.
McCarthy for Mayor is a complete non-starter. He may succeed in taking down Rahm, but McCarthy will never be elected.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 1:27 pm
- He may succeed in taking down Rahm, but McCarthy will never be elected. -
An ideal result in my opinion.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 3:41 pm
This entire episode is sickening from start to finish. Another thing that bothered me was to cover it up, the City Council approved a sizable settlement which was paid to McDonald’s parents who basically had no relationship with their troubled child who was raised in foster care.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 4:05 pm
McCarthy’s still bitter about taking the fall for the pre-election coverup.
Understandable, I guess, but I’m not sure how that parlays into a mayoral run. They were both in on it.
Plus, I’m sure there would be more questions about his going into business with Rick Simon, a rather interesting choice for a former police chief.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 6:46 pm
McCarthy should run. He’s in a no lose position.
When all of the facts about Emanuel’s coverup regarding LaQuan McDonald comes to light, Rahm will be lucky not to go to prison let alone retain his seat. I see a lot of angry cops, current and former, are bashing McCarthy.
But the african american community largely supported McCarthy who has always had a higher public popularity rating then Rahm. McCarthy was well received on WVON despite McDonald, a claim Rahm can’t make.
Comment by Time for a New Chicago Mayor Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 8:19 pm
Rahm’s comments on Stephen Colbert were embarrassing. Rahm is about to shutter ten more schools; he has verbally abused CTU president Karen Lewis;violent crime is extremely high, Chicago is losing black population, taxes and fees are outrageous; he enabled and supported ethically questionable and possibly criminal conduct of Forrest Claypool and Jenner and Block and and he still believes he’s good for Chicago?
Comment by Time for a New Chicago Mayor Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 8:24 pm