Another Stupid Payout

$650,000 for a justified shooting:

• The family of a 21-year-old Homewood man shot to death by an off-duty Chicago Police officer outside a South Side bar in September, 2001 would receive $650,000, under a settlement advanced today by a City Council committee.
• That's when the [OFFENDER!!!], Lajuanzo Brooks, allegedly came between the officer and his friend, pulled a gun out of his groin area and announced a robbery, Seimetz said. The off-duty officer then reached into his pocket as if he was about to "hand over his wallet" and, instead, pulled out his service revolver and "announced his office," she said.
• [The officer - VICTIM] was never disciplined, and police brass ruled the shooting justified after a gun that reportedly belonged to Brooks was recovered at the scene. But, two fingerprints on the gun did not match Brooks, [the officer - VICTIM], the officer's friend or anybody else at the scene.

As you can see, we've corrected a few of the errors published by Fran Spielman where she misused the word "victim." But here's the real problem. A gun was recovered at the scene - "...a gun that reportedly belonged to Brooks" - the OFFENDER. The entire case was built on the premise that the two fingerprints found on the gun did not match anyone at the scene.

Someone from the Crime Lab, State Police or even a Feeb who reads this site can tell you better than we can of the local, state or national averages of finding usable prints on guns. We've heard it's in the neighborhood of under 5% of recovered firearms. But a sleazebag of a lawyer can come up with the following statements and win a $650,000 settlement from the City:

• Julie Aimen, an attorney representing the Brooks family, said the physical evidence does not match the police version of events or the city's contention that Brooks was attempting to rob the officer.

  "You don't shoot somebody three times in the back. They executed my client's son on the street," said Aimen, who originally demanded $3 million.

  Aimen noted that witnesses testified during depositions leading up to the settlement that there was no gun at the scene.

  "One would have expected to find [Lajuanzo Brooks'] prints on a gun they said he was holding to conduct a robbery. [Brooks'] prints were not there. Somebody else's prints were on the gun. That tells me the gun wasn't [Brooks']," she said.

  "It's a police bar. They ought to have run those prints against all the people who were there that night. They never did that. I don't think they were interested in knowing the truth."

One who has any training whatsoever in crime scene processing wouldn't expect to find any prints on a gun. It doesn't happen like you see on TV. Finding prints on a gun is a freak occurrence. And guess who's salivating at this very scenario being played out as we speak?

The vice lords and Aaron Harrison's lawyer.