40 Years Ago Today: April 5, 1968
Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago issued "shoot to kill" orders to Police Superintendent James B. Conlisk. Ten days later, Daley called a press conference to express his outrage that his orders were not carried out.
Shoot Arsonists: Daley
Edward Schrieber, Chicago Tribune, April 16, 1968
Mayor Daley announced yesterday he has ordered police to shoot to kill arsonists and "shoot to maim or cripple" looters. ... He said he thought orders to shoot arsonists and looters were in effect here since rioting began April 5, and that he found out only yesterday morning that they were not. .. Conlisk issued the order last night.
The Mayor, obviously angry ... in his 15-minute press conference, in which he declined to discuss any other topic ... Daley opened his blast at police by saying he had given Conlisk
"instructions which I thought were the instructions on the night of the 5th, but which were not carried out. I said to him very emphatically and very definitely that an order be issued immediately under his [Conlisk's] signature to shoot to kill any arsonist or anyone with Molotov cocktails in their hand to fire a building because they are potential murderers, and to also order police to shoot to maim or cripple anyone looting any stores in the city"
6 comments:
Uh, Craig, exactly what point are you trying to make by posting orders given by a long-dead mayor long ago?
Daley the Elder was really only at fault in his handling of the demonstrators at the Dem convention. He over-reacted, and wrongly, to relatively mild, and non-violent, disorder at the convention.
However, the riots were different. Is there really anything reprehensible about ordering "Shoot To Kill", for arsonists? We are talking about someone about to fling a Molotov Cocktail into a building containing live humans, are we not? I mean, they ARE murderers, and I don't care if they are rioters throwing firebombs or landlords who want their money back. As for looters, I have never heard of any law, written or unwritten, that did NOT permit the shooting of looters.
I may sound harsh saying all this, but I have never heard of any authority, confronted with an rampaging, homicidal mob, that ever acted differently.
Sins of the father for which I suspect later in life he deeply regretted. Remeber this statement was issued in anger.
I remember that statement made by Daley the Elder as much as I remember the anger felt by neighbors of mine at the time who participated in the rioting.
Daley the Elder also ordered the electricity to be cut off during that time. My mother had just purchased a new freezer and filled it with meat. Of course, everything was spoiled. A single mom couldn't afford to lose that much money on food for her kids. She called Daley everything but a child of God over that.
We need the old Mayor Daley now, not this watered down,sissified version of the real thing whose only goal is his personal enrichment as well as his hack cronies. BTW, as one who was at the 68 convention as a youngster and on the opposing side of the fence, in retrospect, Daley really did nothing wrong IMO. While most were there to protest the war, there was a very LARGE faction that came to pillage and plunder.
The distinction between "shoot to kill" and "shoot to maim" is one that would only be made by a non-police officer.
When you fire a gun at someone you have already made the decision to kill that person. I suppose trained marksmen are the exception to this.
That being said: if some angry maniac is standing outside MY home with a bomb or torch the police had better god damn well shoot him. If he lives to stand trial: great. I would not expect an officer to attempt to apprehend such a suspect by nonlethal means. The life of one suspect is not worth the risk of an officer getting severely burned.
The life of one suspect who has a Molotov in his hand is not worth the lives of the people inside the building, either.
As for Daley the Younger being a "sissified version" of his old man-how true.
Could it be due to the difference in the circumstances of their youthful years? The old man came from a blue-collar home and bootstrapped his way up inch by inch, attending law school at night, and paying his dues all the way to the top.
Sonny boy, on the other hand, was born to privilege and enjoyed extraordinary access from day one.
You can see the difference this disparity in circumstances makes. Richard the Elder, for all his large and well-publicized flaws, kept Chicago intact while other midwestern burgs were ratcheting downhill, and left the city better than he found it. Most of all, he had profound respect for the working and middle classes of this city, and protected their interests.
Sonny, on the other hand, found this city financially solvent and with excellent transit and services, and has managed to drive it to the brink of insolvency, with rapidly deteriorating services and infrastructure, while bleeding it dry with corporate welfare and monument-building, and hiking to levels that make even New Yorkers wince. This is a guy who spends $100,000 on silk drapes while the furnace is broken and the plumbing's backed up.
Most of all, Sonny has respect only for the well-heeled, most of all his mega-rich donors. He holds the non-rich and working classes in ardent contempt.
The fact that Republican suburban business and political leaders love him so much tells you something.
Post a Comment