Chicago TV stations broke into regular programming Thursday to broadcast the funeral procession and services for fallen police Officer Andrés Mauricio Vásquez Lasso.
An 18-year-old man is being held without bail and facing first-degree murder charges for allegedly shooting Vásquez Lasso March 1 while the officer responded to a domestic violence call in the Gage Park neighborhood.
Thursday’s solemn ceremonies were moving tributes that allowed a city to collectively mourn a dedicated public servant. They were also powerful displays of fellowship and solidarity among the law enforcement community.
The suspect accused of killing Vásquez Lasso was arrested last year and charged with a misdemeanor count of resisting a peace officer. Prosecutors alleged he and two others ran from a car after officers investigating a shooting stopped the vehicle.
Police caught the three suspects and recovered two guns in the area. Prosecutors decided to not charge the man accused of killing Vásquez Lasso for last year’s incident, saying facts of the case did not support a gun charge. They offered the offender community service as an alternative to traditional prosecution.
Earlier this week, Cook County Board member Sean Morrison of Palos Park criticized State’s Attorney Kim Foxx over how her office handled last year’s incident.
“How many more times will we see violent offenders released right back into the community with nothing more than a slap on the wrist — only for these same offenders to return to committing more violent crimes?” Morrison wrote in a statement.
“Did the decisions made by Kim Foxx’s office lead to the killing of Chicago Police Officer Andres Vasquez-Lasso?” Morrison asked.
I think Morrison is right to ask the questions, and I agree with his point. I also believe the questions extend far beyond Chicago and Cook County. From Baltimore to Los Angeles, jurisdictions across America are wrestling with the same questions.
For years, many taxing bodies have sought to cut costs by reducing jail populations. This strategy has involved collective efforts of prosecutors, judges, sheriffs, county administrators and others. Many have criticized the controversial policies, saying offenders have escaped consequences and accountability for criminal conduct.
Authorities increased use of electronic monitoring and other means to reduce costs of detaining suspects accused of nonviolent offenses. Anyone paying attention to Chicago’s mayoral election would agree crime and public safety are top concerns among voters and the reason Lori Lightfoot is going to be a one-term mayor.
From carjackings throughout the city to store lootings along Michigan Avenue, there’s a sense that Chicago has been too soft on criminals. Young offenders in particular seem to be caught, mollycoddled and released only to offend again once they discover there is no pain from a slap on the wrist.
I agree with Morrison and mayors of communities throughout the south and southwest suburbs who believe prosecutors must do more to curb shoplifting and other property crimes.
I also wish Morrison and others who support law enforcement would be more open to considering other steps to reduce violent crime throughout Illinois and the United States. For instance, I fail to understand law enforcement’s opposition to legislative efforts to curb gun violence.
Dozens of sheriffs across Illinois have said they will ignore oaths they swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution and not enforce the Protect Illinois Communities Act. The new law makes the state safer by banning high-powered firearms and magazines with more than 10 rounds for long guns and more than 15 rounds for handguns.
The Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to an accelerated hearing schedule for the state’s appeal of a Downstate judge’s ruling that struck down the ban on certain assault weapons and types of ammunition.
Perhaps tragedies like the line of duty killing of Vásquez Lasso will prompt some sheriffs and others in law enforcement to rethink their opposition to efforts to reduce gun violence. Consider how the political views of individual sheriffs contradict the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which supports a nationwide ban on assault weapons:
“They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against police officers,” the group said in a position paper. “The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that the criminal use of semi-automatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.”
There are ample opportunities for compromise and consensus when America is ready to have a serious conversation about addressing gun violence.
People who support restorative justice and other concepts that address inequality and systemic racism ought to agree there must be consequences for criminal conduct. Society needs to find a better solution for the high costs of detention than catching and releasing offenders.
The law enforcement community ought to consider harnessing the awesome power of its unified voice to get sheriffs and other individuals on board with supporting the police chiefs’ position on banning assault weapons nationwide.
The common goal should be to reduce gun violence in communities and protect the lives of law enforcement officers.
Ted Slowik is a columnist for the Daily Southtown.
