Chicago Off-Duty Cop Pins 14-Year-Old Boy To Ground After Accusing Him Of Stealing Son's Bike

A man alleging to be a Chicago police officer has been caught on camera pinning a young teen to the ground with his knee, leading to a plethora of questions and concerns over the situation.

The ordeal unfolded in front of a Starbucks in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge, Illinois, on July 1.

In a short video that has since begun circulating on social media, an unidentified white man — said to be an off-duty cop — is seen pinning a young teenage boy, who is Puerto Rican, onto the ground.

The adult notably has his knee on the teen’s back and — despite other teens’ pleas for him to “get off” — tries refusing to let the 14-year-old go, alleging that he is an off-duty officer.

The unidentified man can also be heard hurling accusations that the 14-year-old stole his child’s bike, though numerous bystanders notably refute this unsubstantiated claim.

Shortly after that, the video ended, and it swiftly started making rounds online.

Over the weekend, the teen’s parents — Nicole and Angel Nieves — blasted the matter online.

“This adult did not use words — he used force; he used his hands. Grabbed our son’s wrists, body-slammed him, then held him down with his knee to forcibly restrain him,” they wrote. “Regardless of the circumstances, getting physical with a minor as an adult for any reason other than self-defense is unacceptable.”

The parents noted that they believe their son was racially profiled.

“We’ve talked to our 3 Puerto Rican boys about this moment for years… We can’t possibly put into words how we’re feeling — disgust, anger, frustration, outrage, fear, sadness,” the parents continued. “We will not let this go away quietly.”

The family also notes that they’re hoping to further speak out about the ordeal, though they’re first seeking legal counsel.

In a statement on the situation, Chicago authorities note that “an internal investigation has been opened into this incident.” Further details, including the identity of the “off-duty” officer, remain unclear.