Police Abuse

Chicago Cop Involved in Fatal Shooting of Unarmed Man Could've Been Fired Years Ago

Police acknowledge he could've been fired before either of his fatal shootings of unarmed people.

|

Chicago PD

Chicago police officer John Poulos shot and killed 19-year-old Kajuan Raye during a foot chase last motnh—police claimed Raye had pointed a gun at Poulos, but police never recovered any weapon from the scene. According to the medical examiner, Raye was shot in the back. Raye's family is suing the police department.

Police superintendent Eddie Johnson said he had "concerns" about the incident, and Poulos was involved in another fatal shooting in 2013, when he said he saw an attempted burglary while returning from his family's bar. He hit the suspect with the butt of his gun and later cornered him and fatally shot him, saying he had seen his victim pull out a shiny object (he had no gun, only a chrome-colored watch).

But now, the Chicago Tribune reports, Poulos could have been terminated before either of the fatal shootings. According to the Tribune, an investigation into Poulos was opened in 2004 in relation to his ownership stake of his family's bar—Chicago police officers are prohibited from owning liquor establishments, but that investigation fell through the cracks. The police department insists it is preforming an audit to find out what happened.

In another mix-up, the police department pulled a cop off desk duty who had been involved in a fatal shooting and actually was suing the department over inadequate training. He had received no new training before returning to the streets. Between 2004 and 2013, Chicago spent half a billion dollars on various lawsuits against the police department.

NEXT: The War on Free Speech Escalates

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Chicago police officer John Poulos shot and killed 19-year-old Kajuan Raye during a foot chase last motnh?police claimed Raye had pointed a gun at Poulos, but police never recovered any weapon from the scene. According to the medical examiner, Raye was shot in the back. Raye’s family is suing the police department.

    Good shoot.

    /Tulpa sockpuppet

    1. Nonsense, the fool cop didn’t even both to carry a drop gun from the drop gun box.

      1. Drop guns are only for white people in Chicago.

      2. They were all destroyed in the photo-op supporting a failed gun-buyback for the mayor’s publicity needs. So…

    2. 400+ murders in Chicago this year, and asshole libertarians are focused on the less than 1/4 of a percent committed by this cop! Even if they fire this cop, that’s still 399 murderers* that will still be armed next year!
      /lawandorderrunpublican

      *I know that’s not how murders work, but forget it, I’m rolling.

      1. I mean look at the story. Two murders, but what will really get him fired is partly owning a bar.

        1. Are we celebrating the fact that bureaucracy occasionally destroys the guilty with the innocent, or is that more of a drink whiskey and play Russian roulette comment?

          1. I’m not saying that I didn’t post from despair, but despair wasn’t my only motivation.

          2. We are bemoaning the lack of enforcement of a bad law preventing a worse thing.

            Because Utilitarian arguments are soooo libertarian.

            1. I remember back when Obama nominated Keagan and had Janet Napolitano heading Homeland Security. I was reading comments on a site somewhere and someone commented:

              ‘All behold the horror that is the Janet Napolikeagan!’. I laughed.

        2. I mean look at the story. Two murders, but what will really get him fired is partly owning a bar.

          Imagine if he’d denied accosted a transperson access to the restroom for their birth certificate before allowing them access to their bathroom of choice.

        3. Well, blue livers matter.

  2. This is infuriating. I want to sue myself so bad.

    1. You can’t sue yourself, there would be conflict of interest.

      1. That word-associates me to a Norm MacDonald video I watched today. Him doing the SNL weekend update:

        “Meanwhile, FBI Director Louis Freeh said this week that Attorney General Janet Reno might have a conflict of interest in her investigation of Democratic fundraising. Freeh also pointed out that Reno might have a conflict of interest between her X and Y chromosomes. “

        1. /androgynous

          What is it about Democrats and their obsession with ugly butch dykes?

          1. Because an attractive woman couldn’t have possibly advanced through merit, therefore only ugly women are meritorious.

            1. Since when do Democrats believe in advancement on merit rather than identity group?

          2. That’s not a very nice thing to say about Chuck Schumer.

  3. They could’ve, but where would the fuzz get to hang out, get free drinks and laugh about the people they killed/lament that they haven’t been able to kill anyone without a cop owning a bar?

  4. All of this is going to be fixed after Duterte meets with Trump and Trump agrees to use Duterte’s tactics to solve this crime epidemic. Not sure if that’s before or after he sics Sessions on those dopers in WA and CO and nukes the Middle East and Northern Africa.

    1. You forgot “Jill Stein approves this message.”

  5. Chicago police officers are prohibited from owning liquor establishments, but that investigation fell through the cracks. The police department insists it is preforming an audit to find out what happened.

    IA went to the bar, got all the free drinks they wanted, and decided that there was no violation.

    1. that investigation fell through the cracks

      Imagine my surprise.

  6. Chicago police officers are prohibited from owning liquor establishments, but that investigation fell through the cracks. The police department insists it is preforming an audit to find out what happened.

    WE’RE GOING TO DO A FULL AUDIT TO FIGURE OUT WHY THE LAST FULL AUDIT WASN’T PROPERLY COMPLETED!

    1. “We’ll get to the bottom of our failings or fail trying!”

      1. Or union work rules prevent us from finishing before we run out of overtime for the year.

      2. Look, it’s not a failure if they shell out the hush money and admit to no wrongdoing. That’s just business.

        1. Yeah. Also, I wouldn’t describe the outcome of the desk pogues’ attempts as failing;

          “We’ll get to the bottom of our failings or retire with full pensions trying!”

    2. It would save a lot of time and money if they would just release a statement now that the Audit of the audit which they decided not to do revealed that procdures were followed.

  7. in another mix-up, the police department pulled a cop off desk duty who had been involved in a fatal shooting and actually was suing the department over inadequate training. He had received no new training before returning to the streets.

    Estimated percentage of officers who are required to do “further training” that actually get the “further training”?

    1. He had received no new training before returning to the streets.

      I’m pretty sure this is what the lawyers tell you to do if someone sues over a lack of adequate training. Doing additional training after that makes it pretty difficult to argue that you had adequately trained someone.

      1. Actually, any remedial measures that you take post facto are generally not admissible as evidence that whatever you had at the time was legally inadequate.

        1. Huh. That’s remarkably sensible.

    2. “Further training” is what you do the year before retirement to pad your pension.

      1. I thought it was the trading you get that teaches you how to not get caught next time.

    1. Parasites always try to start on a healthy organism.

  8. The police department insists it is preforming an audit to find out what happened.

    What? Are you seriously telling me they have to preform an audit, like they don’t already have one preformed for every conceivable circumstance? This is Chicago we’re talking about, they don’t do a damn thing without having a preformed conclusion and everybody knows that. Hell, they already know the vote totals for the next several elections, they certainly know the outcome of every investigation they’re going conduct for the next 20 years.

    1. BTW – My first thought on seeing the PD was going to “preform” an audit was a smile at the john-o but then it occurred to me that it probably was literally what was meant.

  9. That alt-text is inspired

  10. fatally shot him, saying he had seen his victim pull out a shiny object (he had no gun, only a chrome-colored watch).

    “Time to die.”

  11. The police department insists it is preforming an audit to find out what happened.

    Chicago politics is what happened. Case closed.

  12. Stop with the “involved in”. That’s weasel wording designed by police unions to avoid accountability. The correct headline is “Chicago cop who fatally shot unarmed man…”. Get it right next time.

    1. Chicago cop introduces Mother at Christmas party: Merry Christmas everyone. This is the woman involved in my being born.

  13. Forget it, Ed. It’s Chi-town.

  14. Or, he could have gone to prison for the first shooting, as he should have, which would have prevented the second.

  15. The northern 10% of the state costing more money, again! Wonder when the flyover part of that state is going to take over!?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.