CHICAGO Federal investigators have found the Chicago Police Department routinely violated civil rights of citizens, according to a report issued Friday. Here are some of the most concerning parts of the assessment by the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division. The report includes explicit language. Read more on the report here.

One off-duty officer failed to wait for backup when confronting an individual in a vacant building, and killed the unarmed man. The shooting was found justified. The officer then went on to kill another unarmed man:

In another case, an off-duty CPD officer spotted the silhouette of a man in a vacant building and suspected the man was burglarizing it. The officer called 911, but did not wait for other officers to arrive. Instead, the off-duty officer summoned the man out of the building. According to a civilian witness, the burglary suspect angrily exited the building, yelling, Youre not a fucking cop. The suspect then advanced on the officer, who struck and kicked the suspect. According to the officer, the suspect then reached into his waistband and withdrew a shiny object, prompting the officer to fire twice, killing the man. No weapon was recovered. Instead, officers reported finding a silver watch near the mans body. IPRA found the shooting justified without addressing the officers failure to await backup. According to press reports, in November 2016, this same officer shot a man in the back and killed him, claiming the man had pointed a gun at him during a foot pursuit. No gun was recovered.

Less than 2 percent of more than 30,000 misconduct complaints over five years were sustained:

The City received over 30,000 complaints of police misconduct during the five years preceding our investigation, but fewer than 2% were sustained, resulting in no discipline in 98% of these complaints. This is a low sustained rate. In evaluating the Citys accountability structures, we looked beneath these and other disconcerting statistics and attempted to diagnose the cause of the low sustained rates by examining the systems in place, the resources, and leadership involved with the Citys accountability bodies, including CPDs Bureau of Internal Affairs (BIA), IPRA, and the Chicago Police Board. We reviewed their policies and practices, interviewed many current and former supervisors, investigators, and other members involved, and we reviewed hundreds of force and misconduct investigative files from an accountability standpoint. We discovered numerous entrenched, systemic policies and practices that undermine police accountability, as described below.

In some incidents, officers appeared to fire their weapons merely because others had done so.

For example, in one case, two officers chased a man they saw carrying a gun. During the foot pursuit, one officer told his partner he intended to shoot, and then fired 11 shots at the suspect. The partner then fired five shots of his own. Later recounting the incident to IPRA, the partner did not articulate any threatening actions by the man that prompted him to shoot. He stated that the suspect did not turn his body or raise his weapon. Instead, he explained that the first officer began shooting and so he did as well. IPRA did not pursue the matter further and found the use of deadly force justified.5 On the evidence available to us, the shooting did not meet the constitutional standard because the officer was not responding to a specific, articulable threat.

Officers routinely used Tasers on children, which the DOJ said was unreasonable:

In one incident, officers hit a 16-year-old girl with a baton and then Tasered her after she was asked to leave the school for having a cell phone in violation of school rules. Officers were called in to arrest her for trespassing. Officers claimed the force was justified because she flailed her arms when they tried to arrest her, with no adequate explanation for how such flailing met the criteria for use of a Taser. This was not an isolated incident. We also reviewed incidents in which officers unnecessarily drive-stunned students to break up fights, including one use of a Taser in drive-stun mode against a 14-year-old girl. There was no indication in these files that these students conduct warranted use of the Taser instead of a less serious application of force.

An officer allegedly pointed a gun in the face of teens who were playing basketball on his property:

We also found instances in which force was used against children in a retaliatory manner. In one incident, an officers neighbor called to report that some boys were playing basketball on the officers property. The officer, on duty, left his district to respond and found the teenage boys down the street on their bikes. The officer pointed his gun at them, used profanity, and threatened to put their heads through a wall and to blow up their homes. The boys claim that the officer forced them to kneel and lie face-down, handcuffed together, leaving visible injuries on their knees and wrists. Once released, one boy called his mother crying to tell her an officer had pointed a gun at his face; another boy went home and showed his mother his scraped leg and, visibly upset, said the police did this to me. The mothers reported the incident to IPRA. The officer, who had not reported the use of force, accepted a finding of sustained and received a five-day suspension. The officer was never interviewed and his reasons for not contesting the allegations are not documented in the file.

An officer reportedly shoved a 15-year-old, and the investigation didnt wrap up until she turned 18:

In another case, a girl and a boy, both 15 years old, were crossing a street at the light, and one car had already stopped so they could proceed. A uniformed officer in an unmarked car braked hard and changed lanes to avoid the stopped car. The girl claimed the officer got out of the car and yelled profanity (calling her a fucking idiot among other things), drawing the attention of a female witness. The girl claimed that when she told the officer that they had the right of way, he pushed her in the back with both hands so hard she fell into a newspaper stand, after which he handcuffed her arms behind her back while she still wore her backpack, hurting her wrists, and did not loosen the cuffs when she complained. The officer called for backup, two officers responded, and the teens were released without charges. The girl reported this incident to IPRA. During the investigation, the officer, who had not reported using any force, claimed the teens were standing in the street obstructing traffic, causing him to slam on his brakes, prompting the teens to laugh at him. He said the teens cursed at him, and he handcuffed the girl for his and her safety because she was becoming agitated and refused any and all direction. Despite the existence of four witnesses (the two officers, the boy, and the female witness at the very least), the IPRA investigator obtained a statement only from the accused officer. The investigator did not try to call the female witness until 26 months after the incident (yet wrote that she did not cooperate with this investigation). By the time the investigator concluded the investigation in April 2014 and deemed her allegations not sustained, the girl had turned 18.

DOJ found many instances in which an officers explanation for a use of force was accepted, and then undercut by video evidence.

The Laquan McDonald shooting is one such incident; our review found many others. In one incident, for example, officers justified unreasonable force by falsely claiming in their reports that a woman had attacked them. In the video, officers can be seen aggressively grabbing the woman, who was being arrested for a prostitution offense, throwing her to the ground, and surrounding her. After she is handcuffed, one officer tells another to tase her ten fucking times. Officers call her an animal, threaten to kill her and her family, and scream, Ill put you in a UPS box and send you back to wherever the fuck you came from while hitting the womanwho was handcuffed and on her knees. Officers can then be seen discovering a recording device and discussing whether they can take it. Supervisors approved this use of force and the officers were not disciplined until after the woman complained to IPRA and produced surveillance video of the event. The City paid the woman $150,000 in settlement of her lawsuit.

Investigator failed to interview civilian witnesses in misconduct investigations:

[I]n one investigation of a complaint of misconduct, an IPRA investigator interviewed an 8-year-old girl who complained that a CPD officer working secondary employment in a school grabbed the girl by her hair, swung her around, and choked her while breaking up a fight in a school hallway.20 IPRA did not interview the identified student witnesses and entered a non-sustained finding based primarily on the accused officers written statement.

Investigators engaged in coordinated, coach-and-conceal efforts during internal investigations that they had not seen anywhere else. DOJ said it was not uncommon for officers to change the course of the narrative or walk back statements they had made after their legal representatives whispered a few words. They pointed to this example: