Some background info: at the end of May, two months after the police killing of Adam Toledo, CPD released a new interim foot pursuit policy.

The policy tells officers that foot pursuits are “appropriate only when there is probable cause for an arrest or it is believed an individual has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime,” according to this piece by @grace_hauck. usatoday.com/story/news/nat…

But there’s nothing in the policy that would have barred officers from chasing Toledo the night he was killed, according to this WBEZ piece: wbez.org/stories/chicag…

You can read the full, 13-page interim policy here: home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/upl…

CPD plans to publish a draft of an updated foot pursuit policy in early August, after seeking community input on the interim policy. (That’s what tonight’s event is about.) Afterwards, they plan to implement the updated policy in early September. chicago.gov/city/en/sites/…

And the call has started! There's around 70 people in the call. The conversation will start in a couple of minutes, a facilitator announces.

Bob Boik, Executive Director of the Constitutional Policing and Reform at CPD, discusses the origins of the interim foot policy. He also mentions that a second community conversation will take place on July 10; you can sign up for that here. us02web.zoom.us/meeting/regist…

Sgt. Tom Stoyias of CPD’s research and development division begins a presentation about the foot pursuit policy. https://t.co/zFu7HAw0xl

Stoyias says that the foot pursuit policy and tonight's presentation are and will be divided into two main sections: pre-pursuit considerations, and then considerations when engaging in a foot pursuit. https://t.co/h1VmwleMlF

Stoyias stresses “continual communication” as a tactic to prevent foot pursuits. He also mentions officers using “trauma-informed techniques” when communicating verbally with people, but doesn’t elaborate further on that particular phrase.

Stoyias also says that setting up an established zone of surveillance or containment can be an alternative to engaging in a foot pursuit.

Factors that could create a heightened risk during a foot pursuit, according to Stoyias: the number of subjects, the number of officers and how they’re dressed, the availability of assist units, physical characteristics of the people involved...

...characteristics of the area (do the officers know it well?), and more.

Stoyias says he wants the officers to develop a “balancing test” that weighs the risks to the public with the need for immediate apprehension of the subject(s).

Stoyias is now discussing how the policy prohibits officers from engaging in a foot pursuit when the suspect is suspected of committing less than a Class A misdemeanor (so, for example, a traffic offense that hurts nobody).

Stoyias is now presenting about the policy when it comes to engaging in a foot pursuit. https://t.co/kVVjB88wiY

The policy requires officers to activate their body camera when they begin engaging in a foot pursuit. A community member asks in the Zoom chat: “Shouldn’t body cameras be on the moment the officer…decides to take any action whatsoever related to another human being?”

Stoyias presents a slide with opportunities for community members to provide input and feedback on the foot pursuit policy.

One of the options: you can fill out this anonymous input form: research.net/r/CPDFootPursu… https://t.co/u7Fuxrgdbn

Rae, a facilitator from the Center on Conflict Resolution, asks if an officer can be disciplined for choosing *not* to engage in a foot pursuit.

Lt. Michael Kapustianyk of the CPD Research and Development department says that an officer will not be disciplined “solely for not engaging” in a foot pursuit after they’ve weighed the risks and need for immediate apprehension.

Rae asks the community member’s question about body cameras. Kapustianyk says that body-worn cameras should be on anytime an officer initiates a “law enforcement-related activity.”

Kapustianyk says that the presence of the guidance in the foot pursuit policy is a reiteration of that policy.

Rae asks if there’s guidance in the policy for teenagers. Kapustianyk says the policy currently does not differentiate between adults and juveniles.

Class A misdemeanors are “your more serious misdemeanors,” says Kapustianyk. Some examples: battery and domestic battery; it doesn’t include offenses punishable with a citation like curfew violations.

The facilitators have split up the attendees of this call into breakout rooms, to start some small group discussions. I’m in a breakout room with a facilitator, a note-taker, another Documenter (woo!), and two community members.

The facilitator is going to ask us some prepared questions. The first one: "What expectations do you have of officers engaged in a foot pursuit?"

A community member says that a cop would have to be “crazy” to engage in a foot pursuit. “I see no reason for them to pursue at all. Just stand there and watch them run away.”

He also alludes to Adam Toledo as the “young kid who got himself killed,” saying he had a gun. The community member also says that they think that police officers are faced with repercussions if they engage in a foot pursuit, and also if they don’t.

A second participant (community member #2) says that he thinks that police officers have a lot of considerations when engaging in a foot pursuit.

Another participant says she agrees with participant #1. “I agree they’re damned if they do and they’re damned if they don’t. I really feel for them….It’s a mess. I feel for the police.”

Participant #1 doesn’t think the new foot pursuit policy is going to solve anything. He thinks it’s going to make things worse.

The next two questions from the facilitator: “Does the current Foot Pursuit Policy align with your expectations of CPD in response to calls for service and criminal incidents?”

And: “Is this what you expect from police officers when they are deciding whether or not to engage in a foot pursuit and how to conduct a foot pursuit?”

The facilitator moves to the next question: “Do you think CPD's Foot Pursuit Guiding Principles of "sanctity of life" and "safety as the primary consideration" offer the proper foundation to determine when to conduct foot pursuits and when alternatives would be appropriate?”

Participant #1 says “sanctity of life” is an example of “legalese” that will cause court cases to go against officers 9 out of 10 times.

Participant #2 says in foot pursuits and vehicle pursuits, the “sanctity of life” of pedestrians and other bystanders needs to be taken into account.

The facilitator asks: "what are other Guiding Principles you might recommend?"

Participant #3 says that she thinks the foot pursuit policy is only a smaller piece of the bigger issue. She thinks that people don’t stop when the police tell them to because there’s a lack of trust between community members and the police.

Participant #3, a former teacher, says building trust with police is the bigger-picture problem. She says she grew up trusting the police, and is "in shock" that some people don't.

The facilitator brings forth the next question: "Do you think the CPD's standards of when to conduct a foot pursuit provide sufficient options and guidance to the officer to determine when the foot pursuit is appropriate to safely resolve the incident?"

Participant #2 says that training for the police is crucial.

Participant #1 says that the trouble with training is that it's "bookish" and doesn't prepare you for when reality strikes.

Next question: "What do you feel is the role of a supervisor of officers who engage in foot pursuits?"

Participant #2 says a sergeant should be there at the end to clean the mess up, but not to make the decision whether to pursue somebody or not.

Next question: "Based on the review of the Foot Pursuit Policy, what is your overall view of the policy?"

"The most striking thing I heard tonight," says Participant #2, is that CPD had no official foot pursuit policy prior to tonight. He says it's got to be better than nothing.

Next question: "Do you feel CPD's community engagement methods for the Foot Pursuit policy have given you a meaningful opportunity to provide feedback and be heard?"

Participant #1 says he's doubtful if these methods will accomplish anything, since the interim policy already exists.

"If the police had some superhuman powers, it [the policy] would be good," Participant #3 says. The problem is that they're forced to make split-second decisions that are so important.

Next facilitator Q: "What would you recommend for continued and future engagement efforts?"

Participant #3 says she'd like to hear more ideas about how police can build trust with communities. "Having some human fun with kids, just to let them know that police are not the bad guys."

Participant #1 says that his police district has a monthly meeting with the community, which he appreciates. (He's referring to the CAPS meetings; here's an example of one such past meeting: documenters.org/meetings/caps-…)

Participant #3 says she likes how her polling place was a police station. She thinks it built community, and she felt good walking into a polling place to vote.

The discussion in my breakout room ended at 8:20, and there's nothing occurring in the main room. The meeting's over, but if you want to learn more, be sure to check out Mihir Garud's notes for @CHIDocumenters at documenters.org. Have a good evening, all!