Officer Shot by Partner in Chicago OIS — Tactical Breakdown of a Critical Failure

OVERVIEW AND SECTIONS IN THIS BREAKDOWN

1. SETTING THE SCENE

2. What we know

3. Tactics breakdown

4. legal breakdown

5. What could have been done better

6. Bottom line

Setting the Scene

On June 5, 2025 at approximately 2149 hours (9:49pm), Chicago Police Officers Krystal Rivera and Carlos Baker were on patrol on the city’s South Side when they initiated an investigatory stop on a male they believed may have been armed. Upon seeing the officers, the suspect immediately fled on foot, prompting both officers to pursue.

The chase led into a multi-unit apartment building, where the suspect ran upstairs and forced entry into a unit. Officers Rivera and Baker followed within seconds, maintaining close proximity as they moved through the hallway toward the apartment door.

Officer Baker reached the door first and forced entry, with Officer Rivera positioned directly behind him. Inside the apartment, there were indications of at least one additional individual, and at least one person appeared to be holding a firearm. In that confined, rapidly evolving environment, Officer Baker turned and fired a single round, which struck Officer Rivera, who had not yet entered the apartment and remained in the hallway behind him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiPxYGB-fog

What we know:

To start, we know the two officers were on routine patrol and observed a male who they believed may be armed. The word “may” is a key detail here. The officers initiated an investigatory contact based on reasonable suspicion that the subject was armed. This allows for a temporary detention, investigation, and a weapons frisk. However, it is still only reasonable suspicion. At this point, there is no probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Upon making contact, the male immediately flees into a nearby apartment building. Like many proactive officers, both give chase. Based on the bodycam footage, the suspect makes it inside the building, while the officers are briefly locked out and struggle to gain entry. After approximately 27 seconds, they are able to enter the building and resume the pursuit. The officers move to the second floor and reach the apartment the suspect appears to have entered.

This is where things begin to break down.

Officer Baker is the first to reach the apartment door. Without hesitation, and with his duty weapon already drawn, he kicks the door open. Upon entry, he is immediately met with the suspect, who is now presenting a firearm and pointing it toward both officers. Faced with this threat, Officer Baker retreats from the doorway and takes cover behind a wall near the stairwell leading to the third floor.

While moving to cover, Officer Baker appears to lose footing or trip. At that moment, he fires a single round from his duty weapon. That round strikes Officer Rivera, who is positioned in the hallway on the second floor. She immediately falls to the ground.

Officer Baker then retreats further up to the third floor, where he maintains a position with a view of the apartment. He remains there for approximately one minute and thirty-seven seconds before returning to the second floor. He then locates Officer Rivera and begins dragging her toward the first floor, where additional officers arrive and begin rendering aid.

From Officer Rivera’s bodycam perspective, you see the entry into the building, the movement up to the second floor, and the moment Officer Baker kicks the door. You then observe the suspect, the immediate retreat, and the single round being fired. Officer Rivera falls in the hallway and remains there until aid is eventually rendered by responding officers.

Tactics:

As far as tactics are concerned, there is a significant amount to break down in this incident, with multiple points that can be learned from.

So upon entry, from Officer Rivera’s point of view, we see the following.

This image shows the officers after they have entered the building and are on the second floor. From my experience, the hallway directly in front of Officer Rivera is what we refer to as a “fatal funnel.” Any gunfire from inside the apartment is likely to travel straight down that hallway. With Officer Rivera positioned there, if the suspect were to fire, she would be at a significantly higher risk of being struck.

In high-intensity situations like this, you may not always have time to consciously recognize that you are in a fatal funnel. However, it is still critical to maintain awareness of your surroundings, where potential threats are located, where weapons may be pointed, and where your avenues of escape are.

With the railing present and the fact that she is actively pursuing with her partner, repositioning may not be the first thought in that moment, but it is something that should always be in the back of your mind.

At the same time, Officer Baker is positioned at the door, which has already been forced open, and he is immediately presented with a threat. In the next image, you can see this threat more clearly. While it may not be perfectly visible in the still frame, it is more apparent when reviewing the full body-worn camera footage.

Now, Officer Baker made the decision to kick the door in. Upon doing so, he is immediately presented with a clear threat. His weapon is already drawn and pointed toward the suspect. In a moment like this, your brain is moving fast, trying to process the threat and decide whether to engage.

In this incident, after forcing entry and identifying the threat, Officer Baker does not fire immediately. Instead, he retreats to the left side of the door frame to take cover.

It is easy for someone watching this afterward to say what they would or would not have done, but in a real-life, life-or-death situations, you do not truly know how you will react until you are in it. Everyone responds differently under that level of stress.

From my own experience in law enforcement, if I am presented with a clear, immediate threat like what is seen here, I am engaging that threat. That said, I cannot speak to Officer Baker’s exact mindset in that moment.

The time between identifying the threat and taking cover appears to be roughly one to two seconds. As Officer Baker retreats, he appears to lose footing or trip while moving. This highlights the importance of training while moving with your weapon drawn, whether that is backpedaling, turning, or taking cover quickly and under control. Equally important is proper trigger discipline while moving, which becomes a critical factor in what happens next.

After retreating, Officer Baker still has his weapon out, but it is now oriented down the hallway, or what was previously described as the fatal funnel.

In the first image, you see Officer Rivera still in the hallway. In the second image, you see Officer Baker with his weapon drawn, pointed in the direction of Officer Rivera, with what appears to be his finger on the trigger.

In that second image, Officer Baker had just fired the round that struck Officer Rivera. On bodycam, he can be heard saying “shots fired at police,” when in reality, it appears he was the only one who discharged a weapon. At this point, Officer Rivera is down in the hallway, still positioned within that fatal funnel.

I won’t harp on this too much, because when adrenaline is high and you are faced with the possibility of being shot or killed, the body does some unpredictable things. You can experience tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, and a distorted perception of events. It is possible Officer Baker was not fully aware he had fired and genuinely believed the suspects had opened fire.

We now move into what is arguably the most difficult portion of the bodycam to watch. Officer Baker quickly retreats upstairs to the third floor, where he maintains a position on the suspect’s apartment and acknowledges that his partner has been shot and is down.

In this image, you see Officer Baker at the top of the stairs maintaining a covered position on the suspect’s apartment, while Officer Rivera is on the ground below him on the second floor. For approximately two minutes and thirty seconds, Officer Baker holds this position before finally moving downstairs to reach his partner.

From a tactical standpoint, retreating to cover is a smart move. However, in this situation, you have a partner who is unresponsive and has what we later determine to be a fatal injury. For those saying he should have immediately pushed the hallway, it is important to understand that officers must ensure the scene is reasonably safe before rendering aid. If the suspects were still an active threat, which Officer Baker likely believed at the time, maintaining a covered position is understandable.

That said, in a dynamic and high-intensity situation, you have to be able to think and act quickly. Sitting upstairs for nearly three minutes, in my experience and opinion, is too long. If additional officers were on scene, that might change the approach, but in this case it was just him and his partner, who was down. At that point, action needs to be taken.

Tactically, the better approach would have been to move down quickly, conduct a brief visual check, and backpedal with the weapon drawn while maintaining coverage on the apartment. From there, reach your partner and immediately begin dragging them out of the fatal funnel. If a new threat presents itself during that process, you engage and reassess.

What appears to have occurred here is a hesitation likely driven by fear and uncertainty, which ultimately contributed to the delay in reaching and assisting his partner.

Now Officer Baker reaches Officer Rivera and initially takes a moment to holster his weapon, leans on a post briefly, and then begins dragging Officer Rivera down to the first floor to be evaluated and transported by other officers.

My biggest issue with this portion of the bodycam is that there appears to be a lack of urgency in getting his partner out of this situation. If you have made the determination to extract your partner, then you need to commit to that decision. Instead, Officer Baker stops, grabs his partner, radios to other units, looks back toward the apartment with his weapon, and then continues dragging Officer Rivera. If you have made the call to get your partner out and get them help, then you do that, especially considering it is still only these two officers on scene and no other units have arrived yet.

Granted, in this incident, Officer Baker’s mind was likely overwhelmed, and the situation was rapidly evolving. This is exactly why training and mental preparation are critical. In my own experience, I approach calls expecting the worst so that I can be ready. Will it ever play out exactly how you imagine? No. But having already thought through potential scenarios helps you react more effectively. I have been in tight environments like hotel corridors where I actively think through what I would do if someone suddenly presented a weapon, just to keep myself mentally prepared.

Back to the incident, Officer Baker eventually makes it to the first floor with Officer Rivera. Instead of immediately checking on his partner or rendering aid, he directs other arriving units to assist her and hands off her weapon. Officer Baker then appears to walk back toward the second floor, at which point the video ends.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

So far, we have discussed several tactical considerations, but the two primary takeaways from this incident are Officer Positioning and Crossfire, and Uncontrolled Dynamic Entry and Escalation.

1. Officer Positioning and Crossfire: Officer Rivera remained directly behind Officer Baker in a confined hallway, creating a fatal funnel and eliminating any safe shooting lane. As Officer Baker disengaged from the doorway, he appeared to lose footing while moving with his weapon out and his finger on the trigger. With Rivera still directly behind him, his weapon was oriented down the hallway with no safe backdrop, resulting in her being struck.

Takeaway: Poor positioning combined with uncontrolled movement and trigger discipline issues created a crossfire environment where a friendly-fire incident became highly likely once shots were fired.

2. Uncontrolled Dynamic Entry and Escalation: The immediate decision to force entry into the apartment without slowing down, assessing angles, or establishing roles escalated the situation into a high-risk, confined encounter with an unknown threat.

Takeaway: Speed over control during the entry created a chaotic environment where critical mistakes were more likely to occur.

LEGAL BREAKDOWN

Investigatory Stop vs Escalation

To start, the officers initiate contact based on reasonable suspicion that the subject may be armed. That matters. Reasonable suspicion allows you to detain, investigate, and conduct a weapons frisk. It does not give you probable cause, and it does not automatically justify pushing things into a high-risk situation.

This is straight out of Terry v. Ohio (1968). You are allowed to stop and check, but you are still operating in a limited scope. At this point, there is no confirmed crime, just suspicion.

The issue here is how fast this situation escalates. What starts as a Terry stop turns into a foot pursuit, then quickly into a forced entry and lethal-force encounter. That jump is where you have to start asking if the escalation matched what the officers actually had at the time.

Foot Pursuit Policy (CPD SPECIFICALLY)

Chicago policy is pretty clear on this. You cannot chase someone just because they run. Flight alone is not enough. Pursuits are supposed to be tied to probable cause for a felony, a Class A misdemeanor, or an immediate threat to safety.

On top of that, you are supposed to constantly reassess.

• Is this still worth it?

• Is the risk outweighing the need to catch this person right now?

• Could you contain instead of chase?

• Could you slow it down and call for more units?

If this pursuit was based strictly on “he MAY be armed” and then he runs, that becomes a problem under policy. Now, if there was something more that clearly pointed to an immediate threat, then you can start to justify the pursuit. But that has to be clearly articulated.

This is one of those situations where the justification for the pursuit is going to be heavily scrutinized.

Warrantless Entry / Forced Door Breach

Now we get to the door kick, which is a whole separate level.

Forcing entry into a residence without a warrant is not something you just do. You need exigent circumstances or you need to be in hot pursuit of a felony suspect. Without that, you are stepping into legally questionable territory.

Payton v. New York (1980) makes it clear that you cannot just enter a home without a warrant unless those exigent circumstances exist.

Kentucky v. King (2011) allows for warrantless entry in certain situations, but it still requires that the circumstances justify it and that officers did not create the urgency themselves through improper actions.

So now you have to look at this and ask:

• Did they have probable cause for a felony?

• Was there a clearly articulable, immediate threat inside that apartment?

• Or did this escalate from suspicion and flight into a forced entry that may not have been legally supported?

  
  

That door kick is a major turning point in this incident, both tactically and legally.

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER?

In this last section, we talk about the hard truth of what could have been done better.

1. Slow the Situation Down

What starts as an investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion quickly turns into a foot pursuit and then a forced entry. That is a rapid escalation.

Slowing things down, even briefly, could have changed the entire dynamic. Instead of immediately committing to the chase and entry, options like containment, calling for additional units, or holding the position should have been considered.

In my own experience and opinion, calling for additional units and setting containment would have been the better course of action. If I had a known felon who fled into an apartment, I would likely have one officer maintain cover on the door while either we begin the containment process or I move to a potential exit point, such as a balcony or window, and hold that position until more units arrive. What needs to be understood is that policing today is different. We cannot just kick doors anymore, as that can be viewed as officer-induced jeopardy.

Not every fleeing suspect needs to be caught in that moment, especially when the situation is still based on suspicion. This job is a game of cat and mouse. That suspect would likely be caught eventually, and the fact that this situation was based on suspicion rather than a confirmed crime only makes the escalation more problematic.

2. Avoid Immediate Forced Entry

The decision to kick the door and committing to going inside placed both officers into a confined, unknown environment with a potentially armed suspect.

Holding the door, establishing a perimeter, and waiting for backup would have allowed for far better control of the situation. A forced entry should be tied to a clear and immediate threat, not just speed and proximity.

As mentioned earlier, policing has evolved. What may have been more common years ago does not hold the same standard today. Working smarter is safer for everyone involved. Setting a perimeter, bringing in additional officers, and slowing the situation down instead of rushing into a dynamic and unfolding incident would have very likely changed the outcome here.

This is one of the biggest turning points in the incident.

3. Improve Positioning and Separation

Once inside the building, both officers moved in close proximity with little separation. Creating space, even in a tight environment, is critical. A slight lateral offset or staggered positioning can prevent both officers from being in the same line of fire. In this case, Officer Rivera remained directly behind Officer Baker, which ultimately contributed to the crossfire issue.

Better positioning could have reduced the risk of a friendly-fire outcome.

4. Maintain Control During Movement

When Officer Baker disengaged from the doorway, he appeared to lose footing while moving with his weapon drawn. Movement with a firearm requires control. Whether you are backpedaling, turning, or taking cover, those actions need to be trained and deliberate. Losing balance in a moment like this not only affects your ability to respond, but also increases the risk of an unintended discharge, especially if proper trigger discipline is not maintained.

This lack of control carries over into what happens next. After the shot, there is a noticeable delay before Officer Baker returns to Officer Rivera. While maintaining cover and assessing for additional threats is important, nearly two minutes is a significant amount of time when a partner is down. Once you disengage and move to cover, there has to be a quicker transition from movement and threat focus to action.

6.  Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) and Commit to the Decision to Extract

When Officer Baker eventually reached Officer Rivera, there were multiple pauses during the extraction.

From a TCCC perspective, once you transition to that phase and make the decision to move a wounded partner, it needs to be deliberate and continuous. The priority shifts to getting them out of the danger area and into a position where care can be provided.

If the decision has been made to extract, it has to be executed with urgency. Stopping, re-checking the threat, and breaking that momentum delays movement and delays care. While threat awareness still matters, once you commit to extraction, you follow through unless a new, immediate threat forces you to reassess.

Bottom Line:

For our send off, This incident is not the result of a single mistake. It is the result of rapid escalation, poor positioning, and a loss of control in a confined environment that ultimately created the conditions for a preventable outcome. What started as an investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion quickly turned into a high-risk entry, where positioning and movement placed one officer directly in the line of fire.

At the center of this incident are critical decisions made by Officer Baker. The choice to force entry, the lack of spacing and positioning, the loss of control during movement, and the delay in reaching a downed partner all contributed to the outcome. These are not minor issues. They are foundational tactical breakdowns that had real consequences.

At the same time, this is a reminder of how quickly these situations unfold and how unforgiving they can be. Decisions are made in seconds, under stress, with incomplete information. That does not remove accountability, but it highlights the importance of training, discipline, and decision-making before, during, and after the encounter.

This incident remains under investigation. Our thoughts are with Officer Rivera, her family, and those affected by this incident. As more information becomes available and the investigation reaches a conclusion, this breakdown will be updated accordingly.

Sources:

• Body-Worn Camera Footage: https://www.youtube.com/@PoliceActivity

• Chicago Police Department Foot Pursuit Policy (google and CPD website)

• Relevant Case Law: Terry v. Ohio (1968), Payton v. New York (1980), Kentucky v. King (2011)

Tags:

Use of Force · Officer-Involved Shooting · Police Tactics · Foot Pursuit · Crossfire · Bodycam Analysis