Chicago officer accused of putting gun in suspect's mouth
CHICAGO — A Chicago police commander who had been praised for his crime fighting in some of the city's roughest neighborhoods appeared in court on Thursday to face charges he put a gun in a suspect's mouth, officials said.
Cmdr. Glenn Evans, who headed a busy district on the city's west side, has been relieved of his duties pending the case's outcome, according to Chicago police.
“The alleged actions, if true, are unacceptable to both the residents we serve and to the men and women of this department,” police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said in a statement. He added that the police would cooperate with prosecutors.
Evans was charged on Wednesday with aggravated battery and official misconduct in the capture of a suspect on Jan. 30, 2013, according to Sally Daly, a spokeswoman for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.
At the hearing, Evans was released on his own recognizance, said Laura Morask, one of his defense attorneys.
The amount of force that can be used by police officers has become a focus of national debate since the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man in a St. Louis suburb on Aug. 9. The shooting of Michael Brown, 18, was followed by weeks of sometimes violent protests.
The Independent Police Review Authority, which investigates allegations of Chicago police misconduct, recommended that Evans be relieved of his police duties earlier this year as part of an investigation, said spokesman Larry Merritt.
McCarthy, who has been under pressure to bring down the murder rate in the nation's third-largest city, has praised Evans' work in the past and said on Monday he continued to support him.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.