Brian Chesley was found guilty this afternoon on both counts.
There's a blog post from last year at http://www.illinipundit.com/2007/03/31/crash%2C-champaign-style . Kirchner and Wyman found it and decided to subpoena me, so I got served around 9 PM the night before I was supposed to testify. This didn't make much sense to me, and I pointed out that I hadn't even seen anything but the aftermath and most of the post was hearsay. But I had to come anyhow, and so did Gina Jackson and Mike LaDue, who hadn't seen any more than I did.
It seemed odd that there was no witness preparation - no interview, no discussion of what people were supposed to do in court, or anything. Gina and Mike said that there hadn't been any preparation with them either. While we were waiting out in the hall, we met another local attorney who had a pretty good reputation, and I described the situation to him and asked if this how defense lawyers normally operated. He said it would probably be best not to answer that question.
The second day we were there (the third for Mike LaDue), Wyman told us that they didn't actually need our testimony and we were released from our subpoenas. This didn't seem too professional, and I was curious whether they were doing any better inside the courtroom. I noticed that the defendant was wearing a T-shirt, baggy pants, and a hooded sweatshirt, and wondered whether they'd gotten around to discussing issues like courtroom attire with him. Someone told me that some of the defense witnesses were contradicting each other as well as the police, and Kirchner didn't seem too happy about that.
After Gina Jackson was released as a defense witness without testifying, the state called her. I talked to another attorney I knew that evening about the trial, and he explained some things to me. He said that jurors are sometimes impressed by sheer numbers of witnesses, so Kirchner and Wyman might have some testify and let the jurors believe that other witnesses who are not called would have said the same thing. So if that was the case, it wouldn't have mattered whether I'd actually seen anything - I would have just been subpoenaed to push up the number of defense witnesses.
What really bothered me about the whole case was that it seemed like the defendant might just be a pawn. Some other people I talked with expressed similar concerns. Someone told me that Kirchner was one of the people who'd urged the defendant to turn down the state's diversion offer. So the kid now has a misdemeanor conviction instead of a clean record.
What a mess. This kid just got shafted every step of the way. First by whoever taught him that it was okay to not stop when an officer demands you to stop (the debate on whether it is right or wrong of them to have such authority or what can be done to prevent abuse of that authority being a whole other matter). Then when he was given an out to avoid having a criminal record, by wanna-be Jesse Jacksons who try to turn everything into a catalyst for a civil rights march... no matter how irrelevant to race problems.
Pawn sounds like a good word for it. A "shame" seems like a good runner up.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Kirchner and Wyman should both be reported to the ARDC for their abuse of the subpoena power. They had no reasonable expectation that the host of a blog would be able to testify to anything admissible in this case. They are merely seeking to harass.
The main stream legal community is embarrassed for their behavior.
The jury would never learn the numbers of witnesses who were subpoenaed but never called. The cost of each of those subpoenas will be added to the court costs this poor pawn has to pay to boost Kirchner's twisted ego.
This kid could have had diversion and not faced a trial at all; but now he has a conviction thanks to the selfish advice given by Kirchner and Wyman.
The N-G story said that Kirchner and Wyman represented the kid pro bono. Of course, if he'd been eligible for a public defender, he wouldn't have had to pay for that either and he might have been better off.
If things happened as you reported them Wayward, there seems to me to be some serious malpractice involved. I looked at your blog post from a year ago. You conceivably could have had information useful to the defense. You were at the scene and saw the defendant on the ground; you talked to witnesses as well as the police. At the very least, the defense attorneys should have talked to you beforehand to see if you could help with leads to other direct witnesses who might have been helpful. To serve you with a subpoena the night before, never having talked with you to see what you did or did not know and then to never call you as a witness, all the time not knowing to what you would testify is inexcusable. Kirchner has a good reputation for going all out in representing someone, I don't understand how what you described could have happened in that way. As Glock put it, "pawn" sounds like a good word for it, if and that's a big if, it happened as you described.
Ruth Wyman did call me at home about 9 PM on Sunday, March 23 and initially wanted me to testify on March 25th related to my IP.com post. There was no interview, though I did try to explain to her (more than once) that I didn't even get there until the aftermath when the kid was being treated. The subpoena wasn't actually served until the night of March 25th and the date had been adjusted to March 26th.
Here is what I was emailed on Sunday night, though an emailed copy of a subpoena apparently didn't mean I had to appear. (Note the times and dates.)
Here's the email releasing me from the subpoena:
do Kirchner/Wyman ever win a case?
Kirchner has no conscience and Wyman has drank the Kirchner Kool-aid. Unfortunately, both will take nothing from this and both will be problem for the legal system in Champaign County for years to come.
Wonder how long it'll be before I see stuff from some local activists blaming the whole situation on the "all-white jury."
I got called in for jury duty some time ago. The pool seemed to be a good cross section of the community. It certainly seemed to be a random process right down to the order that people were called to the jury box by the computer.
On March 28th, 2008 at 07:22 PM, wayward said:
Wonder how long it'll be before I see stuff from some local activists blaming the whole situation on the "all-white jury."
Check out the March 26 2008 Open Thread, Brian Dollinar mentioned that "Another All White Jury was picked"
I'm surprised Jesse Jackson was not at the proceedings, Oh I forgot He only gets involved after the smoke has settled, Then He comes charging in with Al Sharpton! "The Justice Brothers"
I watched most of this trial and can honestly say that Chesley would have been much better served by the Public Defender's Office. Not only would he have been able to keep his record clean, but honestly, someone could have explained to him (and his supporters) that their "defense" was not a true legal defense based upon what actually happened to Brian. It does not matter whether one thinks a cop has a lawful reason to conduct a stop. If a cop orders you to stop, and he or she can articulate a reasonable basis for stopping you, then even if the officer is later discovered to have been wrong about his belief in that basis, by law a judge has to uphold the validity of the stop. If you walk away from him you are commiting an obstruction of his or her duties. Example: Cop sees you walking down the street and believes that you resemble someone he is looking for regarding a recent burglary. He thinks your shirt matches the description (black). He orders you to stop and upon closer inspection realizes that your shirt is blue. You not only must stop when he orders you to, but can be arrested for resisting/obstructing if you fail to. The fact that you KNEW you had not committed any offense is irrelevant. The cop had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that you had committed an offense. Turns out he was wrong but that doesn't change anything. And truthfully, we need cops to have this authority or no one would ever stop for them and cooperate with an investigation.....least of all criminals! I wish the public knew the law on this as much as I wish they knew that Kirchner almost certainly did before the trial ever began. Chesley should not have ever gotten a conviction of this, but nonetheless, according to his testimony he actually did commit the offense. Sorry folks, the law is pretty clear on this.
... and Kirchner will still sue the City of Champaign and the poor officers that were just trying to do their jobs. The city will settle for the nusiance value of the suit and Kirchner and Wyman will perceive that they were vindicated... Great system isn't it!!!!
yes he did turn down diversion... hopefully he will have to write a letter of apology to the officers involved in this incident. The officers were doing what the park district wanted... to make sure that no one was in the park at night. They did their job as that park has been the scene of many shootings/stabbings/fights over the years. Yet they were the ones who were raked through the proverbile coals over this. I often wonder how the folks that live around the park and dontwant kids in the park feel about having the police make sure that there are no kids in the park after dark. We have a park in our neighborhood and in the morning in the summer there are beer cans and vestigaes of "teen love" where I take my 10 yr old to throw a baseball. Somethings I dont think I need to explain to a 10 year old...............The officers involved should be commended. Sadly, this young man probably believes that when the police tell you to stop, that you dont have to.
To bhss73, I don't know if You live in Champaign or Urbana, but when I lived on the west side of Champaign several years ago,,I was told that on the midnight shift CPD had only one car for the area west of Prospect and south of University Ave. They can't cover the area properly. I know that Noel Park on Windsor is a popular drinking spot for the teens, RobesonPark is beer can city.
you are correct sir... Day shift has only one officer west of prospect to.....wait for it... wait for it.............Rising road south of University.
It is too bad that Ruth Wyman was once someone who stood up for the rights of crime victims, in particular rape victims. She must be admired for her work when active with Champaign County NOW. However, something has happened? What happened that Wyman will support the perpetrators of crime rather than the victims of crime? It can not be the money, its all pro-bono. Is it the moral superiority that the criminal is someone who can not afford legal representation. Has she gone bonkers? Note to Ruthie, not every poor black kid in the northend is innocent or a victim! But hey, principle can be suborned when it conflicts with ideology.
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
I googled Brian Chesley and this is what came up. Funny.....
01-25-08 JRK/ADK RE: BRIAN CHESLEY
JRK/ADK Appearance of the State's Attorney. Defendant
JRK/ADK appears personally and by counsel. Matter allot-
JRK/ADK ted for TRIAL and for trial scheduling on
JRK/ADK 3/03/2008 at 3:00 PM in courtroom E.
Brian Chesley is a black youth who was illegally stopped, beaten, and sent
to the hospital
by Champaign police on March 30, 2007.
Come show your support for police accountability
by showing up in court Monday, 3pm in courtroom E.
BD
--
Brian Dolinar, Ph.D.
303 W. Locust St.
Urbana, IL 61801
briandolinar at gmail.com
PS, what does ARDC stand for?
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
ARDC is an Illinois attorney review board responsible for disciplining wayward lawyers.
The zero-tolerance police inquiry into every possible technical violation that occurs in that neighborhood is the result of the community, led by council member Gina Jackson, wanting all the potential criminals "checked out".
So a minor violation (like being in the park after dusk) that would go unnoticed in Morrissey Park is an excuse to shake down a kid in Douglass Park. But it happens because folks like Gina Jackson want it to happen.
The damage to police/community relations occurs because 9 out of 10 of the persons questioned are totally innocent, just walking through the park. But 1 in 10 has a city warrant, some cannabis, alcohol, maybe a rock of crack.
The innocent 90% learn to hate the cops. The minority community is targeted because they live in the high crime neighborhood. I have no doubt that a cop would stop and question a white teen in Douglass Park after dusk, probably more quickly, because the dusk closing rule gives the cop the right to do so and there is a 1 in 10 chance the kid is violating some other law.
We do this not only with parks that close at dusk, but with burned out license plate lights, and hanging air fresheners. If we want to eradicate crime wherever it occurs then we are on the right course.
If we want to let some crime go unnoticed or unpunished in order to have the minority community have the same warm and fuzzy feelings for the cops that upper class white folks have, then we need to back off on the aggressive police tactics.
It is an interesting and legitimate public policy discussion this community needs to have.
I was unable to attend the court proceedings and I strongly disagree with the verdict. That being said I'm not here to debate the merits of the case. "What really bothered me about the whole case was that it seemed like the defendant might just be a pawn" Do you really care about the welfare of this young man? I doubt it.
I have to admit, unlike his attorneys or some of his witnesses, Chesley handled himself with dignity throughout the whole trial. He seemed very honest on the stand (even to the point of admitting the offense) when he could have embellished his story and possibly gotten off. He absolutely was a pawn in this case. I doubt it ends with the verdict.
Where was Alfred Ivy [former candidate for CCSA] champion of the the poor and misused in the Court system?? or Harvey Welch?
Why did the black community not get behind this kid and find a qualified black lawyer?
As for Kirchner and Wyman's Pro Bono... You get what you pay for.
Like it was mentioned above They "Gina Jackson" wanted the neighborhood cleaned up and when it was they cried foul.
I have a hard time understanding why there is so much discussion involved with this case. The facts are clear: the park was closed, the youth was in violation, he refused to stop when legally required to do so for a standard "Terry Stop".
This is only a social justice issue if you want to question where the child learned such blatant disregard for the law so you can blame them (whoever they may be) instead.
It also illustrates that, while Mr. Dolinar and Ms. Wilkinson should be praised for their concern for the community, they know nothing of the law. Dolinar keeps screaming that this was an illegal stop. It was not. He would better serve the community he is trying to assist if he had some factual basis instead of leading astray those gullible enough to give him a forum.
Bob Kirchner and Ruth Wyman did an admirable thing volunteering their valuable time to represent this youth for free, no matter the outcome. Additionally, Mr. Chesley still has his full appeal rights intact.
On March 28th, 2008 at 07:22 PM, wayward said:
Wonder how long it'll be before I see stuff from some local activists blaming the whole situation on the "all-white jury."
From Today's News-Gazette on line: www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/03/29/racial_bias_alleged_in_outcome_of_trial
Gregg,
Listen, you need to get your facts straight. Gina Jackson never 'cried foul' about this. She was supportive of the police, as she usually is. You really need to quit spouting off so much about things that you obviously haven't taken the time to actually research. It's getting old, man.
This is only a social justice issue if you want to question where the child learned such blatant disregard for the law so you can blame them (whoever they may be) instead.
Or if you've had even a small handful of experiences to help you understand why the disparity in perception of law enforcement between parts of the community is not just due to one group being stupid and hating law and order.
I like the idea of the police. I even like more of the individual police I've met.
I don't like being made to wait 6 hours when someone breaks into my house and then have them accused my roommates of breaking into their own house and refusing to check points of entry.
I don't like being stopped for an alleged traffic violation and having the officer change the details of the ticket when I point out that what he has described on the ticket is completely impossible.
I don't like being told that if I demand any sort of accountability from the police as public servants that "police officers shouldn't protect people like you".
I don't like being stopped in front of my house while I am getting the paper because I supposedly don't belong in the neighborhood in which I live.
My parents taught me well, "Don't trust the police, but if you run it gives the racist ones cause to do more damage to you."
I don't think that "Run from the pigs!" is a useful lesson to teach your kids and it will probably hurt them. But you should be able to see where it comes from, as every single time the police started to engage me for NOTHING (I have NEVER been stopped for any crime of ANY kind) a large part of my being wanted to run.
My parents taught me well, "Don't trust the police,
I would argue that your parents obviously didn't teach you very well
Xian, I have been stopped by the police merely for taking a walk. When I cooperated with them, they checked my Drivers License, I was on my way. I was new to the neighborhood and they wanted to make sure that I was cool. As long as you cooperate with the police, usually, they will be a lot nicer to you.
As far as the neighborhood that you are in, you, Xian, made the choice to live in that neighborhood. Maybe for ideological reasons of wanting to stand in solidarity with "oppressed people", I don't know. However, you made that choice.and you should live with its consequences. That kid should not have run from the officers. All that he needed to do was politely deal with the situation instead of shouting profanities and running.from the police. However, he was probably raised in a culture that hates the police and any type of authority, mainly from the hip-hop/rap culture. Plus, it does not help him out when bleeding heart white liberals are constantly pandering to him as a victim. Where is Bill Cosby when we need him? The number one cause of these problems are the lack of parental involvement with these children. Particularly, the lack of strong, responsible male role models needs to be more addressed. Im sorry if the radical feminists hate the fact that I bring up fatherhood, but it needs to be brought up. The assault on the family has hit poor communities the hardest. They are the ones who can not afford anymore the thousands of illegitimate children whose only role model is some guy living in a luxurious penthouse talking about getting rich quick. No one is there to tell them about the real world of getting an education, establishing a strong work ethic. On top of this, liberals are constantly pandering to these folks, selling the newest government program to "help them out."
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
I never said Gina Jackson cried foul, She wanted the hood cleaned up and that's what was going on, the"they" I was referring were the activists and preachers that are crying racism. You do have to stop when asked by the Police. If you have a problem with the way you are treated go to the Mayor or Chief of Police or the Illinois State Police and file complaints. Clean up your own neighborhood so the Police don't have to.
Stereotypes, much?
*boggle*
boggle cosign.
How can they blame the jury when the defendants outstanding attorney's Kirchner and Wyman can reject the jurors during the pre-trial phase?
xian, This isn't about you.
Ok, what the hell is "boggle." Mr. Dunn was pointing out an obvious fact.about the horrific state of the black community. Sarcasm does nothing to foster discussion. What are you adding Akibare and IP beyond insults and typical leftish PC claptrap? Let me guess? Boggle?
So now I'm a PC leftist, huh? Interesting - I guess now I've been called everything.
I'm boggled by the amazing number of stereotypes he can cram into a single comment that really didn't have anything to do with the topic being discussed.
Plus, he managed to take an unjustifiable shot at Xian.
I apologize. I wasn't trying to make the thread about myself. My entire point was that there is a perspective gap in how the police are regarded and I thought some real personal anecdotes might help people see the other perspective. I was wrong. There is probably nothing that could accomplish that.
But I suppose my general point has been demonstrated quite strongly--people have trouble with empathy and then seek to demonize those who don't make the exact same choices that they do.
With different experiences, we are obviously going to disagree on some of this stuff. However, when Mr. Dunn tries to say that it's the same when a police officer stops him for walking around as when I am told that I don't belong in my neighborhood that certainly doesn't make me sympathize with his argument. When he implies that if the police tell a kid that he doesn't belong in his own neighborhood that that kid should have chosen to live somewhere else.
When he ignores huge chunks of American history in which law enforcement has lynched, murdered and tortured minority folks (please don't say this is in the distant past--surely you have heard of the current problems in Chicago) and blames "hip-hop music" for mistrust of law enforcement, one doesn't know whether to laugh or boggle.
I mean, some people believe that there is a giant comet coming to Earth and we need to kill ourselves to get on board, and others believe that hip-hop music and whiny minorities are to blame for mistrust of the police.
Both are welcome to their opinion, but I hope people will regard them critically-regardless of their general feelings about the African American community. Certainly Gordy and Akibare have done so.
Just imagine what the reaction would be if somebody talked about the atrocities done to him and his family by blacks and why he has a general distrust of black people. Why can't Xian have empathy for police officers instead of demonizing them? How do Xian's childhood experiences have anything to do with the reaction of a boy in Champaign-Urbana? Why does every incident that turns out to not have anything to do with racism always lead to liberals talking about the larger issues of racism etc. in this country? Isn't that a clever way of insulating your opinion from reality? Am I asking too many questions?
there is no doubt that IP is way to the left of traditional conservativism, but so what?
What has been accomplished in this case?
A young black man "minding his own business" (in truth) was harassed by the local police for playing b-ball after dark with his friends. He didnt want to be stopped by the police. Its reasonable enough. Remember the poor bastard in Casablanca whose papers were expired? What has this country become? Now we know for sure that those who go into law enforcement are not the sharpest knives in the box. But even the average Blackwater-wannabe Barney Fife/Officer Obie/Roscoe P Coltrane dipstick ought to have enough common sense to tell what a group of kids are up to. What was the use in pursuing the kid? Was there any evidence of wrongdoing? What is the point of escalating this into pepper spraying an innocent young man and criminalizing him? What ever happened to kindness? Getting along with people?
Now what is the result? I am mad as hell and a little bit frightened too. A lot of people in this community feel the same way as me. This event sure enough aint over.
To put it in very simple terms - there is something important about being "everyman," the "default human," or not. When you are one of the majority, when you are "everyman," you are free to be yourself. Whatever you do, your behaviors, will be assigned to you only, and any clues for "what could cause your problems" will be looked at in your own personal life only.
But when you are a member of a minority group, not "everyman," you are never only yourself, you are expected to be the representative of your whole exotic "other" community. Whatever you do, reflects on all the other members, and if you do something stupid or wrong, people don't only look at your life for clues, they scrutinize the entire community, and even silly stereotypes of what they only IMAGINE are influences on that entire community, the boundaries drawn by them, the majority. Someone might assume that you listen to certain kinds of music and that your thoughts are defined by such things.
Let me know, if you ever hear some crime report on TV, and the first thing you think is "please don't let the perp be one of my group" because you KNOW that the ripples of it will be pinned on YOU. Let me know when there is some humor character on TV from your group and everyone at work instantly thinks you're similar to that character because hey, well, that's what you guys are like, right? Oh wait, maybe YOU are different, but, at home, like, you're crazy like that guy right? Right? Haha, let's make fun of how we all think you should speak English too, because it's funny, you know? Bad t-shirts, and all that? Haha?
As for police, why should anyone trust them automatically? That seems particularly American to me, the fetishizing of authority. As with any other job, some will be good, some won't, judge each guy on his behavior. The police I've known laughed at the idea that people would think somehow that due to the uniform people should think they were as their parents, that they are always looking out for you. Such marks! Why do you let your guard down? Everyone is so quick to talk of revolution when it comes to the rest of the government.
I agree that it's wisest to obey the letter of the law and protocols when dealing with police. The law is what it is, you cross it, you get the penalties. But when it comes later to if someone is trustworthy, how is their word, all of that sort of thing, it's all up to the individual, and humans are human. All sides get equal benefit of the doubt, in my book. Sometimes I empathize with the police, and sometimes I don't, it depends on the circumstances.
That, and of course the law, and what is right, are not necessarily related. So, perform the appropriate dance. I certainly can't speak for Xian but in my view it's more "do what is asked, be as polite as required, put on the correct performance, but as for what I think, that's something else."
I agree entirely. I'm happy to empathize with police officers and on some days it's probably the job that shares the most with my own. However, empathizing and as you correctly put it, "fetishizing of authority" are not and should never be confused for being the same thing. I have never approached any member of law enforcement with anything but the highest level of outward respect. But to give them the benefit of the doubt and out of self-preservation. I have been let down again and again.
Somewhere there might be someone thinking, "What does this guy's experience growing up in Champaign have to do with Champaign?" Because it seems unlikely that what goes on in Champaign would have anything to do with what goes on in Champaign.
In all seriousness, I appreciate your post Akibare. I don't know if those are your own experiences, or simply empathy you are showing through the experiences of others, but you are right on about my sentiments.
Ok, IP, I think you are way wrong for saying that I am stereotyping. I am just telling folks the plain truth. Im sorry it hurts folks feelings. Im really sorry that a Republican is so teary eyed about stereotyping. Why is it not stereotyping when folks like Xian lecture me about "how privileged I am." If these do-gooder, change the world types would walk at least a half-mile in my shoes, maybe they would not be so quick to tell me how privileged I am. I did not come from wealth, never got a handout. In fact, I came from downright poverty. No one marched on my behalf. I had to learn that if you want something in life, you fight like hell for it, because you can not take anything for granted. No one gave me any sympathy for my plight. It was up to me to get out of it. That was the lesson I had to learn. As someone who lived in Section 8 housing, i have to tell you, it sucks! All of the stuff I described is no flipping stereotype, but the truth. Im sorry, that I do not speak in post-modern, post-colonial mumbo-jumbo. I just speak from experience.
Im tired of being told that Im stereotyping and other crap. I grew up in these neighborhoods, ive seen the stuff. Its wrong. You do not need a PHD in Gender Studies to know the reality of life in "poor-America."
Its not stereotyping IP, its simple truth and commonsense!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Support your local fuzz.
Huh? Local fuzz???
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
When someone brings up the lack of fatherhood in African-American communities in relation to a case and a young man for whom they don't know his relationship with his father, that's meaningless stereotyping, and I'm going to object.
Same with the "influences of hip-hop culture." Neither I nor Robert know if they apply here. So painting the young man in this case with that particular brush doesn't seem appropriate to me.
Same with government handouts. Section 8. And a whole host of other things.
I don't object to discussing those issues, even in conjunction with race relations (I don't object to discussing pretty much anything, as long-time readers know...) But I don't have any knowledge of whether they apply to this case, and neither does Robert. In this case and this discussion, without knowing more, injecting these statements is meaningless stereotyping. If pointing that out makes me a "teary-eyed leftist," so be it. I've always believed that when the namecalling starts, it's pretty easy to figure out who's losing the argument.
"there is no doubt that IP is way to the left of traditional conservativism, but so what?"
Thank you, I think. But I'm pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment and anti-tax and pretty much think that there are few problems that cannot be solved by the free market. How does that put me "way to the left of traditional conservatism?" Are you basing that on my early support of Rudy Giuliani? Genuinely curious, as it's come up several times in this thread.
"Genuinely curious, as it's come up several times in this thread."
Actually this thread just seemed to be the perfect opportunity for a public intervention. We've been discussing it at the weekly hidden agenda meetings, and we all think that it's time for you to come out of the closet and set free your inner liberal. In fact, we voted on it, and we've decided that you should legally change your name to "Teary-Eyed Leftist" and run for Urbana City Council. I might even move back to Urbana for that one...
Robert, I'm not really sure what you are referring to. You are recycling stereotypical arguments, so it would be pretty easy to stereotype you are a "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps" aversive racist American and it's unclear from your account if you did or not, but that's an entirely different discussion.
I wasn't stereotyping. If you read my post, what I said is that based on your description, you have no clue what you are talking about. Your response is tantamout to this exchange:
Xian: Someone set my hair on fire.
Robert: Someone lit my cigarette on fire once. I got over it.
Xian: Those aren't the same thing.
Robert: Stop stereotyping me. I haven't had it easy. Stop using big words.
Xian: What?
Anyway, you are right. You certainly don't need a PhD in gender studies to understand "poor America". You do need a measure of empathy to understand that not everyone's experience is the same as yours, and ridiculously as it might seem, neither class, nor race, nor gender,, nor sexual orientation, etc. are the only issue--they all interact to form a reality.
Robert, how dare you use statistics to suggest the kind of background that this individual "probably" had. The better thing to do is draw on your personal experiences and then assume that this individual has had similar ones, and moreover has the same emotional and intellectual reaction to them as you did. As IP clearly pointed out in his scold, you have no idea what this young man's background is. How dare you use statistics to suggest what they "probably" are. Xian apparently grew up in Champaign, and he's a minority, and his parents told him to not trust the police. This young man is a minority and is in Champaign. Don't you get it? Their minds are one, and Xian is justified in speaking for this kid. As akibare so astutely and non-stereotypically pointed out, there is a qualitative difference between people who are "everyman" and those who are minorities. Moreover, akibare hints at why it is ok to stereotype police as racist power abusers - we *should* be skeptical of them, and God knows we don't want to be guilty of the "fetishizing of authority". Hope you learned your lesson Robert. Hopefully now you won't offend liberals and people who want liberals to like them.
Horrified,
Let's do this again, in direct answer to your questions.
"A young black man "minding his own business" (in truth) was harassed by the local police for playing b-ball after dark with his friends."
He wasn't "minding his own business". He was in a public park, after dark, after it was closed. He was, in fact, trespassing.
"He didnt want to be stopped by the police."
It wasn't his choice. You don't get a choice when the police tell you to stop. None. If you have doubts, please see the US Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio.
"But even the average Blackwater-wannabe Barney Fife/Officer Obie/Roscoe P Coltrane dipstick ought to have enough common sense to tell what a group of kids are up to. What was the use in pursuing the kid?"
Not necessarily. While the Supreme Court has ruled that simply fleeing from the police is not enough probable cause to initiate a stop, combine that with the underlying offense of trespassing and the officer was simply doing his job. In a part of town, and in the immediate proximity, where numerous shootings, robberies, assaults and open drug dealing have occurred, stopping a fleeing youth is the better part of discretion. Any day of the week you can travel to that neighborhood and observe open drug dealing and consumption of alcohol in the parking lot of that little strip mall just to the west of the very same park. Just to the east of the elementary school located on the southeast corner of the park, there is open drug dealing on the very same street, just east of Wright. Now, you tell me, why shouldn't the officer have stopped the kid?
"Was there any evidence of wrongdoing?"
Yes. Trespassing. See above.
"What is the point of escalating this into pepper spraying an innocent young man and criminalizing him?"
The young man criminalized himself by trespassing, refusing to stop and then assuming a fighting stance when the other officers attempted to stop him. The police did not criminalize him. He did that himself. And why not pepper spray? Would you rather they shot him in the leg to get him to stop?
"What ever happened to kindness? Getting along with people?"
Exactly. And while you're at it ask what ever happened to respect for the police and doing as you're told? The officers were only reacting to the situation as it presented itself.
"Now what is the result?"
Well, hopefully you're a little better educated about your rights and obligations when dealing with the police and hopefully you can avoid being pepper sprayed in the future. Hopefully, you'll also understand that when the sign says the park is closed, well, the park is closed.
"I am mad as hell and a little bit frightened too. A lot of people in this community feel the same way as me."
You should be. How dare that young man allow a whole community to be painted negatively by his disrespectful actions. I think he owes his family, friends and neighbors a sincere apology.
It doesn't seem like Brian Chesley is a bad person. From what I heard, he hadn't been having the best day, and when the police told him to stop, he thought that he shouldn't have to because he didn't believe that he'd been doing anything wrong. This was a mistake, and things quickly got a lot worse for him. The State's Attorney apparently figured that he'd already been punished enough and offered him adult diversion. But local activists got involved. Some of them sincerely meant well, and I think that others wanted to make a statement even if it was at Chesley's expense. At any rate, Chesley turned down the diversion offer, apparently at others' urging and now has a couple of misdemeanor convictions.
Sure, he has the right to appeal. IMHO, he might have a good case if he used "ineffective counsel" as the basis for this appeal, but I don't see that happening.
So the citizens of NE Champaign around the park complain that there are people in that park at night. They make it a point to complain to their councilperson. She asks the police to make sure that there is no one in the park after dark. The police then decide ( gasp) to enforce the Park Districts sign that says... dont be in the park after dusk......they stop one kid who decides that he is not going to stop. He runs, he gets chased and he gets tackled. Then after all that, he decides to resist. He get sprayed----and this is some how the officers fault? What would you like the police to do? Not listen to the wishes of the people who live in the neighborhood? Not be pro active in the park so that the shootings and fights and stabbings that have occured there on a regular basis can continue? Exactly what would you prefer that the police do? the ball is in your court..... I am waiting to be enlightened.
Ok, i am stopping this because all I am being accused of is stereotyping. I was just trying to share some reflections in this case. However, all that ended up happening is that i was accused of stereotyping, NOT TRUE! Plus, Xian has proofed my worst stereotype of liberals. Xian's snobbery in the comment about my not knowing big words is tantamount evidence of the elitism of the Left!
IP, you are not a man of the Left. But, you do happen to go the RINO direction every now and then. Can we say Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee! No, you are not a man of the Left. I can give it to you that you are slightly to the Right of Carl Estabrook, but so is Ruth Wyman!
Other evidence that your conservatism is lacking sometimes is when someone makes a perfectly legitimate conservative arguments about poverty and race in America, and I get attacked vehemenously. A Republican is the last person I would suspect that would get a bleeding heart about stereotyping. After all, it was a "racial stereotype" that we consider to be an honored symbol. By IPs, logic, the Chief should not have just been retired, but taken out and stoned to death!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Dunn,
Have you lost it completely? Everything you have posted in this thread is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the far right of the Republican party.
He was NOT trespassing. Those who claim he was know neither the facts nor the law. Neither the Judge nor the Prosecutor claimed he was trespassing. He was leaving open gym with 2 other boys. There was no less than 10 other people in the park near the library just south of where Andre Davis parked and initiated this encounter. There were still more than a dozen kids inside still playing basketball and more coming for the 9-11 event- m180. The law is clear- absent a reasonable and articulable basis to believe BRYAN had committed, or was committing a crime the officer was required to let him keep walking. Their assignment that night however - according to Officer Bridges was to stop, identify, run warrant checks and then the data would be entered into the cpd database where they track african american youth activities. Those who post here can continue to claim he was trespassing, they can claim the park was closed - although even andre Davis admitted that Bryan had no way to exit open gym and leave the park except by going through it- but those who continue this spin are simply ignorant of the facts. No officer denied there were others still in the park and in the gym. Those who post can claim he should have stopped , been subjected to this interrogation of who his is and why he is there, but perhaps they should ask why he should have less rights than every other law abiding citizen of a different skin color and why police knowingly retaliate against someone who simply did what the United States Supreme court says all people have a right to do. Finally - no one denies that as Bryan was leaving the park ,he told the officer that he was just coming from open gym. And BTW this incident-assault, handcuffing, etc- did not occur in the park he was well away from the park when he was first confronted by Bridges and Clinton - walking to the store down Tremont street. When those who post here are stopped by the police do you EXPECT there to be a legitimate reason or would you be satisfied with the officer saying he just wanted to know who you are and what you are doing so they can track you in their database? Bob Kirchner
He was NOT trespassing. Those who claim he was know neither the facts nor the law. Neither the Judge nor the Prosecutor claimed he was trespassing. He was leaving open gym with 2 other boys. There was no less than 10 other people in the park near the library just south of where Andre Davis parked and initiated this encounter. There were still more than a dozen kids inside still playing basketball and more coming for the 9-11 event- m180. The law is clear- absent a reasonable and articulable basis to believe BRYAN had committed, or was committing a crime the officer was required to let him keep walking. Their assignment that night however - according to Officer Bridges was to stop, identify, run warrant checks and then the data would be entered into the cpd database where they track african american youth activities. Those who post here can continue to claim he was trespassing, they can claim the park was closed - although even andre Davis admitted that Bryan had no way to exit open gym and leave the park except by going through it- but those who continue this spin are simply ignorant of the facts. No officer denied there were others still in the park and in the gym. Those who post can claim he should have stopped , been subjected to this interrogation of who his is and why he is there, but perhaps they should ask why he should have less rights than every other law abiding citizen of a different skin color and why police knowingly retaliate against someone who simply did what the United States Supreme court says all people have a right to do. Finally - no one denies that as Bryan was leaving the park ,he told the officer that he was just coming from open gym. And BTW this incident-assault, handcuffing, etc- did not occur in the park he was well away from the park when he was first confronted by Bridges and Clinton - walking to the store down Tremont street. When those who post here are stopped by the police do you EXPECT there to be a legitimate reason or would you be satisfied with the officer saying he just wanted to know who you are and what you are doing so they can track you in their database? Bob Kirchner
Anon8:51 says: "Moreover, akibare hints at why it is ok to stereotype police as racist power abusers - we *should* be skeptical of them, and God knows we don't want to be guilty of the "fetishizing of authority"."
Don't put words in my mouth, please. What I am saying is, there is no reason to automatically trust the police, any more than there is a reason to automatically trust all members of any other profession. They are humans, doing a job, some will be good, others won't. Don't let the uniform blind you, is what I'm saying. Engage the brain.
I will say that I find a lot of the automatic trust of uniforms in the US. Obviously, this is only my experience, I should make that clear. But comments that elsewhere people don't remark on, here will often get a "what? Why do you hate the police?" type response. I don't hate the police. I just don't automatically trust the police or expect them to be my parents.
Mr. Kirchner,
With all due respect, if the park is closed and there is access to leave the gym to the south without entering the other parts of the park, how is it not trespassing if he is in the closed portion of the park and not the open facility? Do facilities users have blanket permission from the Parks Department to cross through the closed part of the facility in order to leave?
If the officer didn't have probable cause for his Terry Stop, why wasn't the case thrown out? Would this not be a constitutional issue?
I'm sorry if my questions belabor the issue, but your defense does not seem to be borne out by the results of the case. Are you implying that Judge Kennedy, the State's Attorney's office and the Champaign Police Department do not recognize they comitted a serious constitutional error?
Thank you for taking the time to clarify matters.
The trespass statute is at 720 ilcs 5/21-3. No one claims Bryan was trespassing. The notion first appeared at trial when Andre Davis was called on to justify his actions. He did not claim he was trespassing that night; did not claim that in the report he wrote that night; did not tell Bryan he was under arrest for trespassing; did not submit charges to the States Atty office for trespassing; did not claim that in his second report; and in fact testified that he first came up with that notion when he was preparing to testify and how to respond to Bryan's anticipated offenses. The park was not closed. The gym is part of the park. And, there were others in the park right behind the circle drive where andre davis parked. There were still others in the gym. And still others coming for the open gym that ran from 9-11. There is no basis for claiming the park or any area used to exit the park was the gym was closed. The legality of the actions taken by the police that night will continue to be addressed in post trial motions, and if necessary on appeal- perhaps then there will be answers to your last 2 questions.
Bob;
It didn't work in the court room, why are you making your appeal here. The facts where tried and the jury, in which you in part approved, found him guilty. You over estimated your defense and lost. The kid was stopped because he was in the park after dusk and is prohibited, you know it and by making the "He was NOT trespassing" argument continues to show your failure of logic that lost you a trial in front of 12 reasonable people. Stopping digging, you are only getting deeper.
and then the data would be entered into the cpd database where they track african american youth activities
Bob, you're making yourself look really foolish
I am not making an appeal. I am responding to the disinformation being put out there by people who are ignorant of the facts elicited and the applicable law. Your response however confirms all of the reasons why I hesitated in posting anything. Often , discussions here are not fact based, or reasoned but simply efforts to attack and divert from substance. Since you wish to be anonymous no one will ever know if you have any knowledge of this case or if you are just choosing to express opinions. We were precluded at trial from arguing to the jury that he was not breaking the law, nor were we permitted to argue what the law is, nor was the jury permitted to see what the trespassing statute says and judge for themselves, nor were we permitted to argue that he was free to walk away from andre davis and did not have to stop. There will be post trial motions and if necessary an appeal. Your comment will however end my involvement here.
Bob Kirchner
Perhaps you know something the officers who testified don't. They admitted to keeping such a data base. Do you have some factual basis to believe they testified untruthfully.
Bob Kirchner
Probable cause to make an arrest, for trespassing or anything else, has no bearing on this case. The officer was making a Terry Stop. Terry Stops have a long and clear history in the Criminal Process and Kirchner again is making a public argument that is groundless in a court of law. Again, the defense of Brian seems to be public opinon rather than a legal based defense. He knows the officer did not have to articulate grounds for an arrest, nor did he have to have probable cause to make an arrest. He only had to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion. " The Court held that police may briefly detain a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." Bob also knows that the term resisting "arrest" is only part of the entire statute Brian was charged under. The definitive term is "obstructing" as in obstructing the investigation that Davis was attempting to perform. That seriousness of that investigation is insignficant. It could be murder or a violation of a park district rule, Brian still would have to stop for the officer to conduct the investigation and to do otherwise is a violation of the Illinois statutes.
Anonymous - 1:30
You cannot be a lawyer. Your opinions about the law as applied in this case are simply inaccurate. No offense existed. No basis for a Terry stop existed. It was a stop and ID mission they were on that night. That is impermissible.
Bob Kirchner
Mr. Kirchner,
Thanks for the information. I have one question that I'm sure you know the answer to. If a police officer asks someone to stop and talk to them, does the law require that they do it? Regardless of whether they have done anything wrong or are even suspected of having done something wrong? If the law says you have to stop, then didn't the boy break the law by not stopping? I'm not suggesting that justifies the rest of what happened, but want to make sure I understand the issues here.
"and then the data would be entered into the cpd database where they track african american youth activities"
Are you saying that the officers testified that the police keep a data base specifically to track only african american youth activities? Or do they keep a data base of people stopped? Keep in mind Bob, there were numerous people who attended this trial and your claim of getting factual information out there might go both ways.
It is permissible for a police officer to interact with a citizen in a public place at any time with or without suspicion that the person has committed or is committing a criminal offense. It is equally permissible for that citizen to choose to not interact with the officer and walk away. If the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual has committed, is about to commit, or is committing a criminal offense a temporary (TERRY) stop is permitted. This is codified in 725 ilcs 5/107-14. The short answers to your questions are NO, unless its a valid terry stop. NO. and NO-because there was no basis to stop him over the 2 kids he was with, or the numerous other kids within15 feet of Andre Davis who were never approached at all. This was an ID,run warrants,submit contact info for the database operation that went bad when Bryan chose to keep walking.
Bob Kirchner
Mr Kirchner,
So, you're saying there is a data base that says: Track African-American Youth? As opposed to one that just says, Contacts; or one that says Contacts of people in a certain patrol area; or Contacts with people in certain geographcal area that is being tracked due to specified or obvious on-going problems? Or are you coloring the nature of information storeage and retrieval to fit conspiratorial goals?
Anonymous 1:41 raises a different but related issue. Apart from the law generally applicable to stops by police it is never permissible to selectively enforce the law against a specific racial group, or to administer the law in a discriminatory fashion. An officer cannot choose to "id" only african-americans or only "id" persons in the african-american areas of town. Both federal and state statutory and constitutional law prohibit that. That issue is at play as well but unrelated to the trespass, terry stop discussion which preceeded that.
BTW -All you anonymous posters should feel free to launch your personal attacks- to voice your opinions about the law- to claim you know facts that you dont know - and to spin your positions knowing no response will be forthcoming.
Bob Kirchner
"there was no basis to stop him over the 2 kids he was with, or the numerous other kids within15 feet of Andre Davis who were never approached at all. "
So how does an officer decide who should be stopped over another? Doesn't someone have to be the first contacted? If there are five people and none of them stop does the officer have to catch them all for one to be a legal stop? After one did not stop, is the officer required to go back and arrest all the other for one to be legal? Thanks for your help Bob in explaining legal procedures in the law.
Mr. Kirchner,
Again, thanks for your response. It was my understanding that the green areas of the park closed at dusk and were so posted, despite the differing hours of the indoor facilities. If this is not so or Mr. Chesley was never in the green areas prior to Officer Davis' attempt to stop him, thanks for your clarification.
Anonymous 1:30, what legitimate investigation, if Mr. Chesley was not trespassing or suspected of trespassing, could the officer have been conducting to prompt the Terry Stop? Albeit, it is a very low standard, there still is one. Mr. Kirchner may well have a very good point if the officer cannot articulate a clear reason behind his "reasonable suspicion" to stop Mr. Chesley. A black youth simply walking at night, no matter what part of town, does not meet that threshold. And certainly, we could consider Hiibel and state the youth did not have the right to not identify himself, but that is still predicated upon there being "reasonable suspicion" for the Terry Stop. Please accept my apology for misusing "probable cause" in place of "reasonable suspicion" earlier. After all, IANAL nor do I play one on TV.
Thank you Mr. Kirchner for taking the time to discuss the case. There are people here incapable of thoughtful discussion, but I ensure you that there are quite a number of us who appreciate you providing information.
Prairie Biker;
No reason for an apology. I wouldn't be so quick to accept the notion that Bob is correct that the area of the park that Brian was in was not closed. That is a disputed fact that the jury obviously rejected and Bob obviously disagrees. You are correct that if no volation could be articulated then no arrest or stop could occur , however, the charge is resisting arrest. The jury heard and apparently agreed that Brian was resisting the officers efforts to place him into custody based on him being in the park after dusk and disobeying a legal order to stop and THEN resisting the attempt to place him into custody. Also, keep in mind that the jury would also hear, correctly, that even if the arrest or stop is found invalid or illegal, one cannot resist arrest unless certain circumstances exist. Those circumstances were not accepted by the jury, apparently, and a conviction was rendered. The notion as well, that the park must be open because of the Douglas Center was disputed by the park district as well. Entry and exit into the Center can be accomplished by not crossing the park to say otherwise is simply not correct and again was factually disputed to the satisfaction of the jury. I only ask that you consider ALL reasonable facts that were presented to the jury, not just the defense side. By the way, I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Ok, Prairie Biker, aren't you engaging in the exact stereotyping of "far-right-wing Republicans" as I am being accused of stereotyping? Talk about pure hypocrisy. I just disagree with you folks on this. Im sorry, im not a legal expert. In Xian's eyes, that makes me a dumb yahoo who needs to be enlightened!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
xian;
I agree that the discussions regarding your experiences being right or wrong are simply non productive and thoughtless. However, I would hope that you do not oppose other opinons that might be offered that different from the young man's defense attorney. As long as they were productive and not personal, of course. As an open forum, as I assume this is, I would hope that citizens who are not teachers, lawyers or politicians be able to discuss education, law or politics.
Mr. Kirchner, I am not some anonymous person. I have one question for you and Ruth Wyman. Why are you two so involved with every single case involving some police officer? It seems like you two have an agenda. Just admit it! It's a far left agenda that you two are trying to acheive. Whether its shaking down innocent police departments or purging our local Democratic Party of those who do not cowtow to the far-left wing. You tried to crucify Brendan McGinty and failed miserably. The fact that you guys are so intent on getting rid of Democrats who might be slightly more moderate than you are is laughable, but sick. Remember, in 2000, certain moderate Republicans were treated the exact same way by the far-right of the local GOP. Because of that, Democrats won the County Board. Hmmm, maybe its a good thing that you folks are doing this, divide the Democrats and give the County Board back to the Republicans.
On second thought, keep up the good work Bob. It really is horrible that you want to support criminals, but you are doing a wonderful thing by trying to get rid of moderate Democrats. I pray that Ralph Langenheim is not on your next target list.
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
"Mr. Kirchner, I am not some anonymous person"
Ok xian, you are correct, I surrender.
Check out the March 26 2008 Open Thread, Brian Dollinar mentioned that "Another All White Jury was picked"
I guess there is no prejudice, racial or otherwise, implied in this statement.
Is it to be presumed as fact that no white jury from "rural Champaign County" (as was stated in a different blog), can be fair? Clearly, there is no prejudice in that statement. Maybe if the goal is jury nullification based on some supposed racial consciousness, then there is no supposition of some other race's consciousness built in to that thinking, is there. Or maybe some people heard whatever facts were presented to them based on all of the legal legerdemain that controls evidence and came to a conclusion based on what they heard and the law they were asked to apply. Juries here and elsewhere have done some pretty odd things, but most of the time they are quite diligent. Both the state and defendant are known to benefit from legal rulings that bar certain facts that would have significant impact on a potential decision. One of the opening thought lines here was about Chesley being a pawn in other people's bigger game. From the get-go I know he was surrounded by people that had larger agendas than just his, but he also bore some responsibility. I'll go out on limb here--I'm guessing that at the moment this incident started he was not running the legal issues through his mind. His thinking was more visceral than that. He feels/hears/believes that the cops can't stop him, so he is entitled to any response he wants to make. He ran afoul of that initial thinking. He could have stopped, been a perfect jerk the whole time but answered the basic questions, and been released. Then he could have used the stored information about the contact to present the same arguments about proper stops and lawsuits and society....but he didn't. Now we have a protracted legal issue that is entwined with many other people's fates. People are hanging their reputational hats on what issues they can make of this situation, spinning it to meet their larger goals.
Ok, anon 3:28PM, whats that supposed to mean?
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
So the lesson should be that we should stay out of trouble or else people with political agendas will represent us in a court of law! Great idea!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
So the lesson should be that we should stay out of trouble or else people with political agendas will represent us in a court of law! Great idea!
I'd say that it's a good idea to stay out of trouble, and also to choose your legal representation carefully.
The law is clear- absent a reasonable and articulable basis to believe BRYAN had committed, or was committing a crime the officer was required to let him keep walking.
Bob, the court records indicate that your client's name is actually spelled "Brian," just in case you care.
anon 3:03,
Thanks. I am not taking Mr. Kirchner's word at face value, but I am more than willing to defer to his knowledge of the case in which he is actively involved and to his formal training and number of years of practice.
As I said, my understanding is that the youth was originally in one of the green areas of the park when he was asked to stop. If that is not correct, I would hope that Mr. Kirchner states so unequivocably. The buildings at the park have their own hours posted but the park in general had a sign that stated "Park Closed at Dusk". To me this means that he should not have been in the green areas regardless of reason unless of course the parks department specifically allowed it for people participating in organized activities at the indoor facilities. Therefore, whether charged or not, the youth was trespassing if he was in one of the green areas and the reasonable suspicion for the Terry Stop is sufficient. I read the statute definition of trespassing and posted it before Mr. Kirchner gave it to me. It seems pretty clear. The argument that others were not singled out also does not hold water since just like speeders on the highway, an officer can only stop so many people at a time and just because others are not stopped does not make you not guilty. I also reject that the officer was singling out black youths as a class and not white youths because I very strongly doubt that there were any white youth in Douglass Park after dark for the officer to NOT single out.
Right now I am still convinced that Mr. Chesley was correctly stopped and correctly convicted. I could change my mind if Mr. Kirchner tells me that Mr. Chesley was never in one of the green areas of the park.
Additionally, since I don't understand, could you please explain how Mr. Chesley could be guilty of obstruction if his stop wasn't legal in the first place? It seems to me that is what you are stating. I was also thinking that perhaps 720 ILCS 5/31-1 was rather vague, but then I found IL v Meister and see that the IL Supreme Court had previously ruled on it, albeit with a very low threshold which Mr. Chesley's actions easily meet.
While we're at it, does anyone else think Robert Dunn's behavior meets the threshold to be Baker Acted? It seems he may be off his meds (again).
Dunn, your comments to Mr. Kirchner, who is kindly taking his time provide us yahoos with some clarification, are way off the mark. Additionally, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand and are simply rude.
I too appreciate Kirchners comments. This is from Waywards orignal post above, "seemed odd that there was no witness preparation - no interview, no discussion of what people were supposed to do in court, or anything. Gina and Mike said that there hadn't been any preparation with them either. While we were waiting out in the hall, we met another local attorney who had a pretty good reputation, and I described the situation to him and asked if this how defense lawyers normally operated?" Bob would You comment on that?
PB, I thank you for your approach to this situation as it has help enlighten us all.
I would say that the fact that there were unlikely to be white youth in Douglass Park at dusk is a problem unto itself. It may be difficult to speculate whether the particular police officer in question was more likely to stop the youth because he was black, or "looked like he might have listened to too much hip-hop music" (hee-hee just kidding), but it is certainly worth asking why some parks are more integrated than others and whether enforcement and treatment of youth is equal in each park.
I have my suspicions of what we'd find based on my own experiences and the experiences of others, but that's not the point--the point is that we should all be interested in not justifiable enforcement, but equal enforcement.
Similarly, the knee-jerk indignation we see above at the mere questioning of an all-white jury is deeply troubling. After all, we all want representative, fair juries, right? And it's certainly been the case that DA's have been caught in the past excluding potential jurors on the basis of race.
Probably just a freak of statistics, but since registering to vote at 18, I have never been called for jury duty once. Not a single time. My wife, who is two years younger, has been called eight times.
Does that mean that the jury selection process is utterly racist? No, but it is something worth studying. If we don't, what are we afraid of?
Prairie Biker;
The statute you refer to can have numerous counts. The obstructing can result from the inpedment of the performance of the police. It appears that the two counts came from the physcial resistance (resisting the cuffing during apprehension) and failing to stop to allow Davis to perform his duty investigating the trespassing. Mary Schenk reports in the News Gazette that:
"Officer Andre Davis testified he asked Chesley and the others to stop so he could identify them and talk to them about why they were in the park. He said he didn't want to arrest them for trespass but that was his reason for stopping them."
So it appears in fact, Davis was conducting a trespassing investigation even if his intentions were not to arrest them for it, but merely investigate WHO was trespassing. The fact that this investigation was obstructed by the actions of Chesley fail to stop could result in a count under the resisting charge.
I think I indicated that Chelsey could be charged with "resisting" even if, and it does not appear so in this case, that the original reasons for the stop was deemed illegal or invalid. Case law allows for resistance of an arrest only in situations of excessive force. That defense was used and rejected here according to news articles. I used the term illegal or invalid, a better description would be even if the arrestee were later found not guilty of the original crime he was suspected of committing.
You were correct in your original assertion that all of this could be avoided by stopping, giving your information, and addressing the validity of the stop in the proper manner. The courts have always found that the streets are not the proper venue for the redress of improper police procedure.
Gregg-
Witnesses who are intended to be called for limited purposes - ie impeachment or on a particular point - whose anticipated testimony you believe to be known - ie based on that persons writings (blog) or statements at city council meetings which we have on video and were prepared to display if contradictory testimony was offered by the witness- may later not be called because others offered the same intended testimony and therefore their testimony would be cumulative. Any lawyer who interviews a witness as Wayward suggests another local attorney suggested either knows that witness will testify exactly as they discussed (ie a friendly witness) OR has to accept the fact that if the witness testifies differently than anticipated the lawyer has just committed a critical error because the lawyer cannot get up on stand and impeach that witness while acting as the lawyer in the case. I doubt any good lawyer would have suggested the technique claimed to be suggested by wayward if he/she knew the details of what Wayward, Jackson, LaDue were being subpoened to testify to. On balance , a hostile witness, with limited testimony to offer, but perhaps necessary depending on other testimony is best left without contact excepting scheduling information unless you want to get yourself in an irreparable mess in the middle of a trial of needing to be an impeachment witness while being the atty in the case. Thats primarily why investigators interview important witnesses. BTW poor people don't have the police department to do their interviews or the money to hire investigators, and small law firms dont have investigators or lawyers to spare to do interviews. Just a fact. Not complaining.
Bob Kirchner
race issue?? Not sure, I know bridges is white, but isn't officer andrae davis black? If so, I laugh at the barney fife...comment way up
...as Wayward suggests another local attorney suggested...
Fascinatingly convoluted. The other attorney didn't suggest anything - he merely stated that he preferred not to answer when I asked if it was normal for attorneys to subpoena witnesses without interviewing them first.
whose anticipated testimony you believe to be known - ie based on that persons writings (blog)
I don't know if I'd assume that someone's testimony would be known based on a blog post like that. Most of it was hearsay anyhow. Anyhow, what if you called someone as a witness based on a blog post, didn't bother to interview them at all, and then they got up on the stand and said, "Well, I was really drunk when I saw the incident and blogged about it, so I'm not too sure what happened?" Or what if they blurt out something inadmissible because nobody's told them what's excluded? Seems like you might have a harder time getting a mistrial if it comes from someone who's supposed to be your witness.
Xian-
My parents are +80. They have been called ONE TIME in the past SIXTY years. I am PLUS 50 along with my brothers. We have been registered for VOTE since we were 21. We have been called ONE TIME for jury duty. My wife is about the same age.. She has been called ONE TIME> Now... what investigation did you want to call for?
xian; I wrote: "I agree that the discussions regarding your experiences being right or wrong are simply non productive and thoughtless." After reading this again, let me offer an apology. My intent was to agree that some of the "responses" to your discussion regarding your experiences of race and the police being right or wrong are non-productive and thoughtless. It was not to insinuate that YOUR experiences have no merit in this discussion. Sorry.
It is permissible for a police officer to interact with a citizen in a public place at any time with or without suspicion that the person has committed or is committing a criminal offense. It is equally permissible for that citizen to choose to not interact with the officer and walk away. If the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual has committed, is about to commit, or is committing a criminal offense a temporary (TERRY) stop is permitted. This is codified in 725 ilcs 5/107-14. The short answers to your questions are NO, unless its a valid terry stop. NO. and NO-because there was no basis to stop him over the 2 kids he was with, or the numerous other kids within15 feet of Andre Davis who were never approached at all. This was an ID,run warrants,submit contact info for the database operation that went bad when Bryan chose to keep walking.
Bob Kirchner
Question: was he (Brian) in that area of the park that closed at dusk? yes or no? if so, then the officers did have a right to stop him or are you saying that he was not tresspassing?
Who is going to handle his appeal? Who is going to pay for his fine that he now has to pay, rather than if he took the diversion route, he would not be fined?
My parents are +80. They have been called ONE TIME in the past SIXTY years. I am PLUS 50 along with my brothers. We have been registered for VOTE since we were 21. We have been called ONE TIME for jury duty. My wife is about the same age.. She has been called ONE TIME> Now... what investigation did you want to call for?
My investigation was that I would like to see transparency in exactly how jury duty is handled in each area. The idea is not that there is specifically untoward going on, but it's a process that is so utterly vital for our basic constitutional rights, that it ought to be complete transparent.
Does anyone know the general make up of the Jury?
Retirees
Doctors
School Teachers
Construction Workers
U of I workers
Farmers or what occupations?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Each side has X number of challenges. Are you saying that the county circuit clerk is not allowing minorities to be called to the jury pool in the first place by manipulating the computer that selects who gets called?
I'm saying that the Supreme Court decided on a case, I don't, about four years ago where there was documented evidence of DAs using their challenges to specifically disqualify minority jurors.
I'm saying that the computer system should be transparent because it is vital.
So I can be clear on this... your wanting to make an investigation into the Champaign County SA office excluding minorities from this case ? You want ( and I dont think that its a bad idea) to have a story on how jurors are picked? I know how they are, but perhaps alot of folks have no clue or have forgotten.
I think this was briefly covered in a post a while back, To be called for jury duty you have to have a valid Illinois drivers license and or current voter registration card. I am 54 years old and been registered to vote since I was 18 and never have been called for duty. Would someone explain the calling and the picking of the jury pool? and the seating of a jury ?
There have been studies about racial biases in juries. From what I recall, it was found that blacks tend to not show up when called. That was found to account for at least the bulk of the perceived racial disparities.
The jury pool for this case was approximately 45 people. They included one African American, and one Asian. The percentage of people of color in the jury venire was then approximately 2 %. The population of African Americans in Champaign County is 15%. In a misdemeanor case, each side has 5 peremptories. The defense used all of our peremptories. The State did not. Not a single juror whose number was called, and then was questioned, was a person of color.
-Ruth Wyman
Ruth;
While the county might be made up of 15% African Americans, what is the percentage of the demographics that qualify as jurors? Excluding children, people who do not possess drivers license or are registered voters, my guess the number for all races would be less than the census numbers. While 2% seems low, it might be closer to the actual demographics to those qualified to serve on jurys, rather than total demographics. And by qualified I mean those who would show up on the jury pool computer. This is a sincere question, I am not exactly sure what is required to be a juror.
"My investigation was that I would like to see transparency in exactly how jury duty is handled in each area. The idea is not that there is specifically untoward going on, but it's a process that is so utterly vital for our basic constitutional rights, that it ought to be complete transparent."
There is a rather comprehensive ongoing study of Champaign County juries being run by Law professors Steve Beckett and Tina Gunsalus and their students. I wrote about it here about a year-and-a-half ago. There was a follow-up here, but I don't remember hearing anything about it recently.
So............what are you saying? That the current method of picking the pool is wrong? How then would you change it? ID cards, voter registration, IL DL and tax records are all used. What additionally would you use to get a fair and impartial jury picked?
There is a clear overstepping of police authority. When will the police be brought to justice?
To increase race in a jury pool there would have to be someway to identify race. Voter registration does not indicate race, nor does a drivers license or Illinois ID. Given that the factor of race is not put into a computer to randomly draw from, it has no way of correcting for census demographics. The question is, should it? And if it should, then should race be indicated on all relevant forms of selection IE: ID's, Driver license, voter registration?
705 ILCS 305/1 describes who gets on a list of potential jurors: those who are legal voters, those with an Illinois driver's license, Illinois Identification Card, and Illinois Disabled Person Identification Card in the County. I think the lack of people of color in juries (the Chesley case and others) in Champaign County merits serious review.
-Ruth Wyman
I'd like to add some comments based on my experience attending Mr. Chesley's trial.
Some anonymous person stated "Entry and exit into the Center can be accomplished by not crossing the park to say otherwise is simply not correct and again was factually disputed to the satisfaction of the jury", which is incorrect. Officer Davis testified this in court, you HAVE TO go through the park to get in/out of the park's civic centre.
Also, prairie biker asked whether or not Mr. Chesley was in the "green" areas of the park and that if then indicated that "the youth was trespassing if he was in one of the green areas and the reasonable suspicion for the Terry Stop is sufficient."
The park rules indicate that the parks close at dusk or 11pm (and it seems that there is a sign indicating so, but I have no personal knowledge of whether this is true or not). However, the park's civic center was open, so the park cannot be closed. You have to go through the (supposedly) closed park to participate in the activities (open gym) organized by the Park District at the park (the civic center is part of the park, just like the ball field and the soccer field). Mr. Chesley and his two companions at the time, were coming out of an activity organized by the Park District in the civic center, and were walking out the park (although they were still inside the park) when officer Davis saw them. There were, however, other people simply standing in the park (near the statue), with no intention of leaving the park.
So, as far as whether or not, Mr. Chesley was trespassing, he was not. In order for him to commit trespassing, officer Davis had to have asked him to leave the park, and then Mr. Chesley had to refuse to leave. However, Mr. Chesley, his two companions at the time, and officer Davis himself, testified that they (Mr. Chesley and his companions) were walking when he first saw them, and that they were walking in a direction to get out of the park after he first approached them. So, there was no trespassing committed by Mr. Chesley.
For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the park was indeed closed (which it wasn't, as is obvious from the activities organized by the Park District). Then I would have thought (and I think most people do) that in this case Mr. Chesley was committing trespassing simply by being in the park when it was "closed". But the law says otherwise, and officer Davis (who testified to being in the Champaign police force for at least 3.5 years) should know this. If not, well then we're in trouble if the people who're supposed to enforce the law don't actually know the law! Therefore, there should have been no reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop. All evidence presented in trial prove that trespassing was not the reason why officer Davis approached Mr. Chesley and his two companions. There is no reference to trespassing in his reports, nor on the other officers' reports. Davis' own testimony was that he HAD NOT mentioned this to anybody before he testified. So, if trespassing was indeed the reason for which he stopped Mr. Chesley and his two companions, and which could have been the reasonable suspicion for the Terry Stop, then, officer Davis failed to express this to Mr. Chesley and his two companions. So, in Mr. Chesley's (and his two companions') perspective, there was NO reasonable suspicion for the Terry Stop. In order for Mr. Chesley to be guilty of obstructing officer Davis, Mr. Chesley must have been aware that there was such a reasonable suspicion
On a related issue, one must question the competence of the Champaign police force, or at least officer Davis', regarding this incident. Officer Davis testified that the Champaign police force had orders to step up enforcement in the Douglas Park area at the time of this incident, due to some other incidents in the area in the previous weeks. One then should ask, if the Douglas Park area is to be looked at more closely, how is it that he (and perhaps the rest of the police department) doesn't know that there is open gym EVERY Friday night at Douglas park's civic center and that because of this there will be people at the park, getting in/out of the civic center.
Juan
You know - completely apart from the facts of this particular case, I wonder, how many people actually knew before this exactly what "park is closed" means?
Personally, I've always assumed that meant you weren't to "use" the park, weren't to hang around in it, use the swings, sit around, spend time. But absolutely I would walk through a "closed" park rather than take the long way around and think nothing of it - to my view, it's not quite "using" the park, and I'm all about lazy, of course I'll take a shortcut across the grass. It's not like they're fenced in, usually. I cut across parking lots and schoolyards for the same reason.
(All this is separate to whether I'd stop when asked, just saying, "park is closed" wasn't clear to me.)
ok......what is your proposal? It seems to me that if you a) dont vote b) dont drive c) dont have an ID card your really not that interested in being on a jury pool... How then do we find persons to serve on a jury? Cell phone records are private leases are private telephones records are private and dont show who is over 18. How exactly would you increase the pool? Mandatory ID cards for everyone? You talk about review, but you seem to be lacking in specific ways to allievate the problem. Please do not quote the law, just give if you were in charge for the day, how would you increase the jury pool? You seem to want to complain about the system, but your not interested in helping fix it.
Mr. Kirchner....really, one last thing...your civil suit will never fly!!! Stop making a mocker of the legal system.
JB
Addressing Officer Davis' understanding of the law, I would say that at least two experienced attorneys, if not more, and at least 12 reasonable jurors understand it the same way. I would believe that he has more understanding of the issue than a seventeen year old who just happened to formulate in his mind that the burden of proof of reasonable doubt as it appiles to a Terry Stop was not meet and therefore resisting arrest was another legal option to choose, where did he come up with this legal therory.
Regarding leaving the Center. You are wrong, you do not have to walk north through the entire park to leave. Obviously the jury did not buy that one either. Again, look at the charge of resisting, study when you can and can't and then try to apply it to this situation.
how is it that he (and perhaps the rest of the police department) doesn't know that there is open gym EVERY Friday night at Douglas park's civic center and that because of this there will be people at the park, getting in/out of the civic center
Well, I suppose the short answer would be because the police don't work for the park district. How come the teachers at Unit 4 don't know the schedule for when the Champaign Public Works Department changes burned out streetlight bulbs? Because one has nothing to do with the other. As long as there were no ongoing problems at the open gym, why would the police be aware of it's schedule?
If the police made a habit of attending the open gym, no doubt there would be people crying 'police harassment.'
"and then the data would be entered into the cpd database where they track african american youth activities"
Bob, I would still like a response to this comment you posted. As was pointed out by Dane, it appears that you are "coloring the nature of information storeage and retrieval to fit conspiratorial goals."
You are smart enough to know what you are doing.
Mr. Alvarez,
Thank you for that thorough explanation. You more than answered the question to my satisfaction except for a couple small details. Looking at an aerial picture of the park, it would seem that one could leave the community center to the south without going through the park. Is this wrong? Also, isn't a sign listing the closing time of the park sufficient notice? Is separate notice required?
I appreciate your response and for helping me to see the situation more fully. With this information it would seem that Mr. Chesley's rights were abused.
It's not the way "I" understand the law, the law is written like that. Look up the statue indicated b Mr. Kirchner.
Which are the two attorneys you mention in your statement? During the trial, no attorney said they understood it otherwise (they can't, the law is clear). The state's attorney prosecuting the case, and the judge, did not state it as a fact that Mr. Chesley was trespassing.
It was only officer Davis that during his tesimony (and never before) said that one of the actions he could have taken when he saw Mr. Chesley and his companion (although there were two companions) was to arrest him for trespassing. Maybe he didn't do that because it would have been a wrongful arrest and he knew it, but I can't say what he was thinking, and neither can you nor Mr. Chesley. However, officer Davis's reports do not reflect such thinking (the initial report nor the ammendment) . He has over a year to correct or ammend the reports if they were incorrect/incomplete.
As for the 12 jurors, I do not know whether or not they understood it that same way (whatever you mean by that) and neither can you (unless you asked each one of them). They did not yield a veredict on whether Mr. Chesley was trespassing, the jury decided on whether he obstructed officer Davis or not. Unfortunately the judge prevented the defense to state the trespassing law to the jury so they could have taken that into consideration, and perhaps they have the same misconception as I used to have, and that you still have.
Juan
With this information it would seem that Mr. Chesley's rights were abused.
PB, you're always all over the board. What do you mean by this? What bit of information did you seem to gleam from Juan that all of the sudden tipped the scales in the other direction? You seem to be stuck on this 'trespassing' issue way too much. It's not even about that. Trespassing really has very little to do with this case.
The shortest way out of the park from the entrance/exit of the community center is indeed south, but it is still part of the park, until you get to the sidewalk. Officer Davis testified to this.
As for the sign listing the closing time, again, the community center is part of the park. If you don't think so, then you also HAVE to step on the park when you exit the community center. The sidewalk is not immediately past the doors of the community center. So anyone attending the activities organized by the Park District during that time would be in the "closed" park. How can the Park District organize activities in a place to which you cannot get to except by going through the park?
Suppose that a friend of yours invites you to his/her house for dinner. Yet, when you arrive there you see a sign in the front yard that says no trespassing. Do you leave? You have been invited by the property owner so you probably (I think any reasonable person) walk up and ring the bell, and most likey your friend lets you in because he/she invited you in the first place. Your friend could ask you to leave, and if you didn't then he/she could call the police and accuse you of trespassing. Well it's the same case here, the Park District organized this event in the park (in the community center), and Mr. Chesley was allowed to attend (he did every Friday). So, how can get in/out to this Park District event without going through the park? Impossible! He had every right to be there. If the Park District or officer Davis wanted to accuse him of trespassing, they had to tell him to leave, and then he had to refuse to do so.
Juan
I'd be suspicious of both Bridges and Clinton.
Bridges once responded to a complaint I filed regarding a telephone threat. The threat was made with speakerphone on, and was witnessed. Bridges was advised that the person standing next to me had witnessed the call while it was on speakerphone, and was offered his name and contact info. She declined. The police report which she generated failed to mention there was a witness, and it obviously did not include his name.
I filed a complaint that was limited in scope to something like, "officer failed to record witness information or even the fact that there was a witness". Finney's response to the complaint was something along the lines, officer responded properly by not making an arrest. Finney broadened the scope of the complaint to serve his own needs. But I digress...
As for Clinton, this fine young man (getting any hits on your sarcasm detector?) called me a "fucking pussy" for watching he and another officer detain and then handcuff an african american man on campus. Of course, he'd changed his story by the time the I filed was investigated. Turns out it was I who called him a fucking pussy, or something like that.
I wouldn't rely to heavily on statements made by either of those losers.
Dennis Toe ppen
"On March 14th, 2006 at 01:18 AM, Dennis To eppen (not verified) said:
The Champaign Police Department continues to amaze me. After hearing about the woman who was recently terrorized by Champaign Police at gunpoint, I've had somewhat of a heightened sensitivity to their incompetence and lying. I had an interesting encounter today, recounted in this letter to RT, the guy from North Carolina (?) who is currently police chief.
-------
Approximately ten minutes ago, at about 5:43 pm, I was walking from my rented parking space at Sixth & John to Starbucks. At the northeast corner of the university parking structure, I encountered two officers searching the person of a black male. I was interested to see if they would engage in any improper conduct in dealing with the man.
As I stood there, the black male asked one of the officers, "Who's that guy?" They looked at me, and I responded, "I am here as your witness". The officers looked at me, and one of them sarcastically remarked, "Doing your civic duty, eh?" I said something to indicate that I was more concerned about the detainee than their well being. As they walked away with the black male, the black male thanked me for my concern.
The officers sarcastically asked me why I was so interested. I indicated that my experience suggests that they might lie or mistreat the individual. They made some snide comments and I resumed my walk to Starbucks.
Although my path (to Starbucks) was diverging from the path of the officer who had the man in custody, Officer Clinton threatened to arrest me if I approached the officer. I advised him that I was walking to Starbucks.
As I walked away, Officer Clinton called after me, "What's the matter with you, you fucking pussy?" I responded, "Did you just call me a fucking pussy?". He replied, "Yes."
I would like to initiate a formal complaint against officer Clinton.
Warm Regards,
Dennis Toepp en
On March 14th, 2006 at 01:30 AM, Dennis Toe ppen (not verified) said:
My point:
If police officers lack the self-control to refrain from using profane language when dealing with residents/citizens/taxpayers, I have a hard time believing that they have sufficient self-control to refrain from using tazers (sp?) and other weapons unnecessarily."
Thanks Ruth
Is that type of happening a common occurrence?
What determines the order of calling, polling by number?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
When Chesley was arrested last year, I used my cellphone to take a photo. A police sergeant asked me why I was doing that, but he wasn't nasty or threatening and we ended up having a reasonable conversation, IIRC.
10:08 PM, akibare
Good point, when I am surveying, I walk through parks after I have completed my surveys because it shortens the distances and I am usually carrying about 75-100lbs of equipment.
I also used to play a lot of basket ball in many places that had parks with parking across the parks and we walked across the parks to get to our cars and we were usually there after the gym closed because we had to get dressed.
I probably would stop if confronted by an officer, but I have to say, some of the places we played basketball were not the best of neighborhoods and if I could not see who was telling me to stop, we didn't give a sh_t if they said they were policemen, it was not worth the risk to stop.
09:59 PM, Juan Alvarez
Do I understand you correctly, you heard these things first hand at the trial?
If so, what was said to remove the obvious reasonable doubt as to what was going on?
Ruth and Bob
Any comments on Mr. Alvarez's observations at the trial, or my questions?
Thanks
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Well, I finally got caught up on this mega-thread from my initial posting. Wow.
A couple things I either missed or just didn't see during the more detailed descriptions after my first post:
I got the idea that the cops didn't try to temporarily stop the kid for tresspassing or suspicion of tresspassing... a couple people noted that it wasn't in their reports on why they stopped them though one may have mentioned it on the stand.
Question: What did the police reports of the incident state about their reasons for wanting to stop the kid? Did it just skip over the why? Was there any mention of what raised their suspicion?
I also got the idea that the stop wouldn't have been legitimage if they lacked a reasonable suspicion of a criminal activity about to occur, in progress, or had occurred. Does this change the responsibility of the person being stopped to stop? If the cops screw up the reasoning, don't you still have to stop? It'd be utterly unfair, but I don't see how one could just assume, rightly or wrongly, that a cop doesn't have the required rationale/justification to stop you and ignore a demand to stop. Such matters seem more appropriately disputed later, either in court, motions to surpress evidence of an unlawful stop, etc... or if it was a matter of harassment through the complaint process later, or via lawsuit.
Appreciate any opinions, but especially facts, on these.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Yes, I heard these things, or saw the evidence, first hand at the trial, except for the statue regarding trespassing because the judge didn't allow it to come in. However, I did look up the statue afterwards (Mr. Kirchner indicated which one it is).
As for "what was said to remove the obvious reasonable doubt as to what was going on", I am not sure what you mean. Officer Davis indicated that he stopped them to see what they were doing there, and the three kids indicated that they were coming out of open gym. He then said he wanted to see their IDs and they refused and kept walking. Officer Davis testified that he wanted to see their IDs because he is supposed to keep track of every person he contacts during his job (although I was told by other spectators that officer Bridges contradicted this later indicating that they were supposed to just stop people in that area for no good reason other than to put them in some database, but I wasn't at the trial during officer Bridges' testimony). During officer Davis' testimony there was never any mention of him giving Mr. Chesley and his two companions any reason for stopping them. In fact, his initial report and his ammendment to the report do not indicate any reasons for the stop either. More than a year later, just during trial is when he expressed for the first time that he thought that he could have arrested them for trespassing.
Juan
If police officers lack the self-control to refrain from using profane language when dealing with residents/citizens/taxpayers, I have a hard time believing that they have sufficient self-control to refrain from using tazers (sp?) and other weapons unnecessarily."
It's not a matter of self-control. I contend that the remarks and the attitude are fully intentional, and that the S.o.B. was dying to tase you, bro.
How does one file a complaint against the Police State?
Here is a little tid bit of info you may not be aware of......does anyone realize that Mr. Chesley was involved in a very similar incident as a youth with the Urbana Police Dept. almost one year to the date of the Douglas Park incident? The circumstances and details are ironically similar (ie: stopped by the police, had an attitude, fought with police, etc.). And why does Mr. Chesley reside in Rantoul??? Because he was removed from one local school system and expelled from another. While we spend the time raking over the Douglas Park episode of last year and actions of the police, maybe we should look at the totality of Mr. Chesley's past behavior to uncover the eye opening details. Do the research...
It's funny, Mr. Toeppen that you go to great effort to deflect and confuse the point by attacking the standing of two officers, especially one who almost died for her community last year (Officer Bridges shot in a gun battle). Are you disgruntled and angry because your police complaints were reviewed (by the police chief) and found to be meritless? Anyone can allege an officer...oh wait, correction...anyone can MAKE UP a police complaint. Despite your belief, not everything is the conspiracy YOU spin it to be. Check your ego man, this isn't about you.
Warm regards-
When is this "officer davis" going to be brought to trial for abusing the populace. Some thing I read said one of the kids was 8 years old.
Hey, you. Yes, you. Come over here and let me scan the barcode on your ass, kid.
This reminds me of an article in the LFC Times on Obedience Junkies a few years ago. It is pretty radical I suppose, and my personal view is not so extreme as this but it expresses the appropriate sentiment for this whole fiasco so well that I think it makes sense to read it every now then. A link to it is posted below for you enjoyment. It's a classic. Required reading for PostModerns.
Al Gore Proclaims World Soap Day by Wolf DeVoon
If Mr. Chaney was indeed arrested and charged with a similiar incident a year ago, then it would appear that he would have been a poor choice for diversion. Having said that, basically what some folks are saying is that they dont want the police to enforce the law, they dont want the police to be reactive they dont want the police to go out and prevent crime from happening, they dont want the police to be responsive to neighborhood complaints of kids inthe park at night fighting.... exactly what DO you want the POLICE to do WHEN the neighborhood and the council member tell the Police department to enforce the curfew in the park? Some of you are telling the police what to do and how to do it, well then, if the citizens want you to be there, they want you to stop people they want you to clear the park, do you tell them....uh no it might offend some kid?
I checked the website for the circuit clerk and there is only one record for Brian Chesley and it's the arrest which happened in Douglass Park last year. Assumming that what JB is saying is true - then why did that not come out in court? As for making allegations regarding Chesley's school record - it's really nobodies business. Does Officer Davis have some sort of ESP which allows him to detect who was expelled from school or not? I doubt it.
While I hope that Officer Bridges continues to make a full recovery from her ordeal after being shot last summer, that does not exempt her from being questioned regarding what happened last spring.
In reading some of these comments I really wonder if we have made any progress regarding human rights over the last 50 years. I find it quite discouraging.
anon 11:11,
I am not all over the map. In fact, I asked Mr. Kirchner a number of times exactly where in the park Mr. Chesley was when first confronted by the officer. I think that matters. I stated why I asked that and what would happen if I got different information. If he was deep in the green areas of the park, well, I think that very well he could have been trespassing. Remember it is absolutely critical that the officer be able to articulate his reasonable suspicion that a crime has been/is being/or will be committed in order to make a legal Terry Stop. If the officer can't do this, then pure and simple, you can't charge the kid with obstruction for walking away, something that is well within his rights. Mr. Kirchner never answered my direct question and it seemed to me like he was avoiding the issue. Mr. Alvarez has given a very detailed response that gives me the answer I need. I do think he is partially wrong. I would still separate the green areas of the park from the concrete around the indoor facilities. I realize that's a very fine distinction, but so be it. Moreover, thinking about this further, I also wonder whether or not the park district has a "presence implies consent to search" policy and what the implications of that might be as well.
However, the second time the youth was confronted, he caused problems for himself, and that is a separate issue.
Additionally, I think we should all be grateful for the time that Mr. Kirchner and Ms. Wyman are dedicating to this case. If the least of us can't get an adequate and vigorous legal defense, then none of us are so entitled, especially for a constitutional issue with a line as fine as a Terry Stop. Whether you realize it or not, they are performing a service not just for Mr. Chesley, but for the community at large. Whether or not you think they are correct in their defense is immaterial.
Mr. Toeppen, this isn't about you. Additionally, I've worked with Officer Clinton before and found him to be very polite and professional. Given your very public history of abrasive contacts with the CPD, I would think that either you did something to set him off or you're lying, plain and simple.
Hey Dennis Toeppen, really, nobody cares and your "crying wolf" style personal history with the Champaign Police Department isn't important to the discussion. How many complaints did you tell me you filed against officers in the past? 25+ if my memory serves me correct. And how many were substantiated? One or two right? One for a squad car parking in a fire lane and one for a turn signal violation. Wow! What a serious display of mis-conduct which adds so much credit (do you hear my sarchasim meter going off?) to your argument. I agree JB, Dennis this isn't about you and your bickering with CPD Chief Finney. Oh yeah, by the way...the young black male the officers were handcuffing of which you claim to be a silent witness...well he was interviewed and guess what? He never heard the officer use the phrase or call you "a fucking pussy." Subliminal self-proclimation is a strange animal isn't it?
Marti Wilkinson-
You won't find the information on Brian Chesley I was referencing.....that's because he was a juvenile and juv records are not subject to public discovery. You would have to know the family to get the information first hand, but it is completely factual. The State can't bring past criminal contacts into court as part of evidence (legal rule) and obviously the Defense will do everything they can to keep it out. With regards to his school problems, I disagree, I think his problems with the school system is completely relevent and shows a pattern of behavior, not just a bad decision on the spur of the moment. I appreciate your challenge.
Praise God that we have someone like Dennis Toeppen who is fighting back. At least somebody is doing something against the police.
I'd be suspicious of both Bridges and Clinton.
Bridges once responded to a complaint I filed regarding a telephone threat. The threat was made with speakerphone on, and was witnessed. Bridges was advised that the person standing next to me had witnessed the call while it was on speakerphone, and was offered his name and contact info. She declined. The police report which she generated failed to mention there was a witness, and it obviously did not include his name.
I filed a complaint that was limited in scope to something like, "officer failed to record witness information or even the fact that there was a witness". Finney's response to the complaint was something along the lines, officer responded properly by not making an arrest. Finney broadened the scope of the complaint to serve his own needs. But I digress...
As for Clinton, this fine young man (getting any hits on your sarcasm detector?) called me a "fucking pussy" for watching he and another officer detain and then handcuff an african american man on campus. Of course, he'd changed his story by the time the I filed was investigated. Turns out it was I who called him a fucking pussy, or something like that.
I wouldn't rely to heavily on statements made by either of those losers.
Dennis Toe ppen
Mr. Toeppen: Dont you own a business on campus? Dont you call the police on a regular basis to have YOUR customers THROWN out of your business for such infractions such as talking on a cell phone while inside your business? Didnt you once lock the door so that NO ONE could get out ( I think they call that unlawful restraint along with a fire code violation) because some girl was talking on her cell phone complaining to her mom how she was poorly treated by you? Isnt it true that when you call now, that a supervisor must also respond as your dememor towards the Champaign Police Officers has been so poor? How many calls have been made to your business over the past year not only from you, but your customers who refuse to be treated in such an uncivil manner?
While you discuss what a liar that Officer Clinton is, when you filed the complaint, the arrestee didnt hear the conversation, yet your some distance away and did hear it? If there was one guy who MIGHT lie to get back at someone it would be the guy UNDER ARREST. But even he would not stoop to your level. I do assume that you read last week that Officer Clinton was fired upon numerous times by a suspect, the rounds going past his head so close that he could feel the muzzle blast. And yet YOU who intimidate 19 year old girls on a regular basis, are the one who has the gall to call Officer Clinton a coward and a liar? Well continue to complain and lock the doors so that 19 year old girls who talk on the phone are held hostage until the police arrive so that you can demand that they be arrested for tresspassing for violation of your posted rules. Go ahead and complain about CPD on a regular basis. Just quit calling the PD for any reason, tresspassing, robbery, bad checks. Didnt Officer Bridges put her life on the line last year and was shot confronting an armed subject at WSP and still has not recovered from her wounds. She and the other officers saved no doubt numerous lives in the park that night, for they confronted a suspect who just as easily could have been shooting at innocent people in the park. This at the same time that you call about college kids talking on the phone. Jeez you are a real hero Mr. Toeppen.......taking on those dasterdly kids on cell phones.... whoo hoo we will put you in for a medal of honor .... You cannot have it both ways Mr. Toeppen If you dont want the cops there, then please dont call.............................
If nothing else, both Mr. Kirchner and Ms. Wyman are to be commended for their willingness to discuss the case on here and elsewhere.
The disgusting lack of respect with which they've been treated on here by some of our anonymous commenters is embarassing to me, and I apologize to them for not keeping a closer eye on this thread over the weekend.
PB,
I think you're losing sight of the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter if the kid was trespassing or not. It doesn't matter if he was in the 'green' areas of the park or on the sidewalk. It doesn't matter if he was 10 feet away from the basketball courts or 1000. The only thing that matters is that the officer thought the kid might be trespassing. It's been stated several times already in this thread, but the fact of the matter is that even if the officer is operating under an incorrect assumption, a person is legally obligated to stop when told to do so by an officer.
If Chesley had been cited for trespassing, then you (and everyone else) would have a great argument as to why he had not committed that offense. But this case has very little to do with trespassing.
Here's another example. An officer is driving down the street and sees a man crawling out of a first floor window of a house at 2 am. The officer assumes the man just burglarized the house and tries to stop him. The man takes off running, but is later caught. It turns out that the man lives at the house and he was sneaking out to go see his mistress. He ran because he didn't want to have to face his wife. The fact that the man was not committing a burglary bears no consequence because by running from the police officer, he was committing the offense of resisting/obstructing a peace officer. (BTW, the phrase 'resisting arrest' is synonymous with this law, but that's a misnomer. An officer does not have to be attempting to place you under arrest in order for you to be breaking this law). Here's the law.
(720 ILCS 5/31‑1)
(from Ch. 38, par. 31‑1)Sec. 31‑1.Resisting or obstructing a peace officer or correctional institution employee.(a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.They turned down a plea deal that would have resulted in a) no conviction b) no fine . They turned gift of gold into a pile of poop. How would any be commended for that?
They turned down a plea deal that would have resulted in a) no conviction b) no fine . They turned gift of gold into a pile of poop. How would any be commended for that?
I got the impression that if Chesley had accepted the diversion and admitted that he made a mistake, it would have made it harder for Kirchner and Wyman to sue the city of Champaign.
"They turned down a plea deal that would have resulted in a) no conviction b) no fine . They turned gift of gold into a pile of poop. How would any be commended for that?"
They're to be commended for at least discussing the case. I have no problem with disagreeing with how they handled it, with the facts of the case, etc.
But when someone comes on here and is personally attacked as Bob and Ruth were over the weekend, I'm embarrassed.
Luckily, this was still a mostly-educating discussion even with the idiotic insults.
Well thank you for hosting this site.... i doubt many cities this size have the ablility to discuss mostly rationally, events that are going on in our community.
I got the impression that if Chesley had accepted the diversion and admitted that he made a mistake, it would have made it harder for Kirchner and Wyman to sue the city of Champaign.
Exactly - I'm pretty sure that any sort of police brutality/misconduct suit filed on Mr. Chesley's behalf would lose a lot of ground if he had taken the diversion.
Rather than just trying to get Mr. Chesley zero punishment, they sought to get him zero punishment while seeking legal retribution for the police actions. Although I completely disagree with calling the actions "police brutality/misconduct," I can't fault Mr. Chesley, Mr. Kirchner, or Ms. Wyman for trying to seek justice.
But when someone comes on here and is personally attacked as Bob and Ruth were over the weekend, I'm embarrassed.
IP, have to disagree with you on this one. Bob Kirchner has made a business of attacking and impugning the credibility of others. There are many well respected defense attorneys in this community. Bob Kirchner is not one of them. Respect is earned, not given.
I'm pretty sure that any sort of police brutality/misconduct suit filed on Mr. Chesley's behalf would lose a lot of ground if he had taken the diversion.
Not true at all. You can be perfectly guilty of the crime and make pleas of guilty or get convicted at trail. But if there was, for instance, improper force used in the arrest or interview process, then that has no relationship to guilt (provided that a confession was not improperly obtained by force). In this case he could have plead to resisting and still retained full standing to sue over force used in the arrest. You can admit you were wrong, but it still remains wrong to use improper force. Apples and oranges.
i love this site. people have poor reading comprehension. for instance, the bit about the guy complaining about a cop swearing at him:
- he never said a young black male was being handcuffed. someone added the young modifier
- do we know if the police interviewed the person who was being arrested? if the complaint had merit, the last thing they would want is testimony from a non-officer who was there.
- what does the celly policy of a business have to do with police being jerks? i think nothing.
- if someone takes issue with poor quality police services, does anyone really support not providing police services to that taxpayer? so we want bad police services unchecked, and we want the police to retaliate?
jeez
It seems to me that throughout this thread most commenters have been writing from a set of pre-conceived notions. ie: the police deserve respect no matter what, or the police are bad guys who need to be challenged. There are shades of grey, obviously, in the writing, but look closely underneath the arguments and it seems to me these are the big points. I won't discuss the big points that seem to be lying underneath some of the writing about young black men.
As a person who works with young black men every day, let me just state that anyone who acts the way the police acted toward Mr. Cheney has no business patrolling Douglass Park at night. Maybe these facts need to be stated: young black men often run from the police, and young black men often do not have much respect for the police. Regardless of what is right or what is wrong, what is a crime or what is not a crime, these generalizations are (generally) true.
Having police officers who at least appear to be frustrated and angry about these truths is not helpful. The cops MUST be the adults in the situation, and they CANNOT let their emotions come into play. There is no other way about it. Otherwise incidents that are really small, like this one (he was in the park after dark - are you kidding me?) get blown into big, life-changing events. That power lies in the hands of the police officers.
Cops are not perfect, and sometimes they have bad days. Sometimes they are frustrated and angry, and this is just one more kid running away or giving lip. But was it really worth it? Was a greater point served by taking this kid down? Again, regardless of the legalities here, did this kid really deserve to be treated this way by the police?
We can hope and wish that all of our citizens will act the way we act, "Well, officer, I was just walking home from my basketball game. Is there any more information that you need?" But the reality is that a lot of these kids are not going to act that way, and it is up to the officers to keep their cool, keep their perspective, and not let emotions make a big deal out of something that is not a big deal.
In this case it appears to me that the perspective was lost and now all of this has happened. I am sure these po-pos are good people, but I sure hope they aren't on patrol near Douglass Park anymore. They are obviously the wrong people for that job.
BHSS,
Your statements and claims have little basis in fact. For instance, we don't even accept checks, and we stopped taking hostages years ago.
I do, however, hold police to a high standard. I do expect them to obey the laws they are paid to enforce. When I see them violating the IVC or other statutes/ordinances, I tend to file complaints. The goal of filing a complaint is to facilitate improvement.
The complaint process seems to be directed towards the goal of protecting the department and its officers regardless of the facts of a complaint.
In the case of the Clinton complaint, there was no inidication that they had talked to the person being arrested. Finney or Yohnka refused to reveal whether or not the person being arrested was interviewed, when I asked in a follow-up letter, I believe.
I'm sorry that you view citizen action to provide checks and balances as a bad thing.
Dennis
But when someone comes on here and is personally attacked as Bob and Ruth were over the weekend, I'm embarrassed.
It is also embarrassing to me to see the repeated comments attacking the police. That is not what this thread was ever about, but when it comes to discussing issues that are even remotely related to the champaign police there are those who participate on this board who can't wait to publicly take their shots. Too bad really, it makes open dialogue and discussion more difficult and forward progress less attainable.
"It is also embarrassing to me to see the repeated comments attacking the police."
Yes.
Criticize their job performance if you like, but blanket statements about how they are all paramilitary thugs are neither constructive nor persuasive.
"On June 22nd, 2006 at 11:13 PM, Dennis Toeppen (not verified) said:
There is a marketing term/concept known as "touchpoints". The basic idea is that a person's concept of a brand is the function of data which that person has collected (mostly passively) about the brand. Touchpoints include lots of things. Let's talk about a restaurant, for instance.
Before you directly experience a restaurant, you may see print ads, hear radio ads, see television commercials, and so forth. The production quality of those ads (good actors/bad actors, good lighting/bad lighting, good script/bad script, nice graphics/ugly graphics), the content of those ads, and other factors help you decide whether the place is a local greasy spoon or a flashy franchise, and other things.
You may also learn things from seeing the exterior of the restaurant. Is the parking lot usually full, or not? Is the landscaping neat and tidy? Or is the lot strewn with litter.
And when you go in, you'll form your impression using many senses. Does it smell nice, or like a campus bar? Is it humid and muggy, or is the cooling system working properly? Are the carpets clean, or are they sticky and filthy?
When you interact with the employees, are they patient and friendly or no? Are they speedy and organized? Or are they all talking in back? Are the waitresses quietly communicating with the cooks or is everyone yelling at each other?
Most importantly, what happens when there is a service failure? If you get the wrong meal, does the restaurant's handling of the situation make you feel BETTER about the restaurant than you would have if the failure had never occurred (apology, coupon, free cupcake), or does the handling of the situation just confirm that they are incompetent?
In short, a touchpoint is an instance where you have gathered a bit of information about a product/service/establishment.
Every organization needs to be aware that it is constantly creating and reinforcing or extinguishing opinons through its various touchpoints. Some touchpoints are inexpensive and easy to manage, others are costly and expensive. A good manager works hard to make sure all the inexpensive, easy touchpoints are taken care of, because they may yield the highest return to the organization.
A manager of an organization with limited touchpoints has to be particularly careful to manage touchpoints carefully, because each touchpoint looms large. The fewer the number of samples on which the customer bases his opinion, the more influential each touchpoint is.
The Police Department is probably an organization whose image is based on a relatively small number of direct touchpoints. Most people interact with the police infrequently, if at all. Therefore, I would argue, observable behaviors which, to the police, may seem secondary to their task of heroic crime-fighting, are very important. Police may see their day-to-day trivial conduct as unimportant, but most people don't have any touchpoints other than casual observations of police in action. So the thing which the police may be ignoring most is also the thing which citizens sample the most.
More importantly, as far as I'm concerned, I believe it's crucial that Champaign Police handle "service failures" well. I suspect (but cannot verify, since CPD is unresponsive to FOIA requests) that many of the complaints CPD receives are from law-abiding citizens who are frustrated with something they've seen. In handling a complaint, CPD has an opportunity to wow the complainant by demonstrating a high level of sincere concern. Or they can convince an ordinary citizen with a positive opinion of the police that their positive opinion is totally unwarranted.
In my opinion, CPD needs to do a much better job of managing their touchpoints. This means getting officers behave as though they respect the laws which they enforce, changing the tone of their communications (from their inwardly-focused mission statement on down to their obnoxious Citizen Complaint Fact Sheet), opening up their secretive complaint process so that it is perceived as fair and balanced, and so forth.
My opinion has nothing to do with feeling mistreated. It is simply how I see it after gathering a relatively large sample through casual observations, interaction with police as a complainant, as a loading zone scofflaw, and so forth.
Your opinion is likely the result of a different quantity and type of exposure."
DLH said:
"Oh yeah, by the way...the young black male the officers were handcuffing of which you claim to be a silent witness...well he was interviewed and guess what?"
DLH must work for the police. If complainant couldn't find out if black male was interviewed, how does DLH know? Why do they participate in these blogs and pretend they are not who they are?
young black men often run from the police, and young black men often do not have much respect for the police. Regardless of what is right or what is wrong, what is a crime or what is not a crime, these generalizations are (generally) true.
How is it that Boon can get away with stereotyping, but when others do it they are crucified? Is it because Boon is so much more enlightened than the rest of us? Maybe it's because he works with young black men every day. Did anyone else laugh at this like I did?
As a person who works with young black men every day, let me just state that anyone who acts the way the police acted toward Mr. Cheney has no business patrolling Douglass Park at night.
Please enlighten us. Since it is obvious that you were there that night, what did you see happen? Or am I incorrect in my assumption that you were there and you are simply basing your opinion on your own biases and assumptions of what you think the police probably acted like.
This is certainly one of the larger blogs in a great while, but the length, has not all been for naught, because many facts (hopefully) have come to the forefront concerning this matter. Those facts along with attempting to piece together the view from every set of eye begs me to ask or state the following.
1. Nothing said seems to indicate the young man was really doing anything suspicious other than maybe being in a place that may have some curfew limitations or trespass limitations or both. But clearly he was not alone, so those violations must not have been universal violations for everyone, or some type of selecting process was being performed by the officer. So the lack of uniform enforcement of the law begs an answer as to why the police officers, just didn't say;
"The park is closed and you people just move it along now."
Would have seemingly cleared the park and not necessitated any further action, unless any of the people precipitated it.
2. Her having been shot, I can understand the short fuse on the one officer. As I have stated in other blogs, it is imperative we learn from our mistakes. I am sure that officer has reviewed the incident many times in their mind and recognized some simple action that may have prevented them getting shot. Maybe that simple action was "too much rope", and her response in this matter was affect by that other incident. However that is more of a fact, than a reason, and certainly her partner could temper the situation by taking the lead and trying to defuse the situation in a more civil manner. So again, and because of the lack of uniform enforcement of the law on all in the park, wouldn't a "move it along" served not only the young man, but also Officer Bridges?
3. When a person actually posted the ILCS pertaining to resisting or obstruction, with the intent of clarifying the young man had broken the law, to wit;
"(720 ILCS 5/31‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑1)
Sec. 31‑1. Resisting or obstructing a peace officer or correctional institution employee.
(a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor."
I became even more confused as to what the authorized act was?
Was it simply the officers saying stop? Just wanting stop and talk with someone is an authorized act? What if they just wanted the time?
What was the performance of the officer that was obstructed? The only thing I can see the officer was performing at the time the young man left the park was the officer saying "stop". No where can I find where the young man put his hand over the officer's mouth and prevented him from saying stop. Was it clear to everyone they were police officers, or was it too dark?
For instance, A long time ago, I was stopped in the parking lot of a grocery store, when a herd of security officers started yelling "stop" in my direction, nothing else just "stop". They incorrectly thought I had stolen a bag of cat food, but I knew I had not done anything wrong and thought they were after someone else. When I looked at them racing in my direction, I ran because I wanted to get the Hell out of the way so they could get to whomever they were after. As it turned out they were after me, and it looked like I was running from them.
In this case, I would have been convicted of resisting arrest, because I didn't think they meant me. I can't see above that the young man actually ran from the officers, he just did not stop. I actually ran, because I wanted to get out of the way of that "herd"
It is a pretty loose interpretation of the law to arrest someone because they don't know what is wrong and certainly don't want to stand in the way of someone trying to correct a wrong.
And finally, being a police officer is something which I have the utmost respect for and can't even fathom what it must be like to have a job that a moments lapse or minor mistake can cost you your life. It is beyond me, how any officer can approach a speeder on a dark street after midnight and NOT be on edge. Even though Illinois has more gun control laws than aggregate base course in its highways, those laws do not protect that officer from the moment. They provide as much protection as the paper they are written on, and no more. So I can certainly understand how an officer can be a little more than "edgy" in certain situations
Additionally, they only get to see the worst side of life. Criminals, traffic accidents, death, beatings, sorrow are all a part of the daily routine and that would be so depressing. I think the re-instatement of the "Beat Cop" would allow them and the people to get to know each other and also to see a better side of life.
But lets not forget to ask why the State's Attorney even bothered filing these charges. That office must have had a great deal of the information we have seen on this blog, and it certainly does not seem worthwhile to society to take the courts time on such a questionable matter.
Is our society actually a much better place, because he was convicted? I hardly think so.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
*boggle*
Her having been shot, I can understand the short fuse on the one officer. As I have stated in other blogs, it is imperative we learn from our mistakes. I am sure that officer has reviewed the incident many times in their mind and recognized some simple action that may have prevented them getting shot. Maybe that simple action was "too much rope", and her response in this matter was affect by that other incident. However that is more of a fact, than a reason, and certainly her partner could temper the situation by taking the lead and trying to defuse the situation in a more civil manner. So again, and because of the lack of uniform enforcement of the law on all in the park, wouldn't a "move it along" served not only the young man, but also Officer Bridges?
Officer Bridges wasn't shot until after Chesley's arrest, and she approached Chesley because another officer had asked her and her partner to stop him. When she was shot at West Side Park, she and some other officers were approaching a man in a car who turned out to have a gun and serious mental health problems. I'm not too sure what "simple action" she could have taken that would have prevented this.
Prosecuting Chesley wasn't the State's Attorney's first choice - he was initially offered diversion, which would have meant no charges, no fine, no record. He wasn't charged until after he turned down the offer. Given that Chesley was convicted, I'd assume that the SAO had some understanding of the case.
Thank you Rex. And thank you Gordy for making the distinction between thoughtful criticisms of law enforcement and just random mean-spirited attacks.
It is important to be able to assess the job which public servants are doing critically.
What is clear and sobering is how many people think that having respect for African American youths and having respect for thoughtful, effective law enforcement are somehow mutually exclusive.
It's also frustrating that someone would act as if work in the African American community doesn't add to the understanding and empathy one might have of general feelings within the community to the point that they would mock the very idea.
Obviously, I have more of an opportunity to understand the common feelings about law enforcement in the community. I don't stereotype or generalize that to the individual, but in an after-the-fact situation like this one, it helps in understand the motives and thinking behind individual's actions.
I mean, are we really supposed to treat, "OMFG A KID RAN FROM THE POLICE HE DESERVES WHATEVER HE GETS!<!@>!@<!>@!#!" any more seriously than, "POLICE? OMG F THE PIGS!"
How is it that Boon can get away with stereotyping, but when others do it they are crucified?
I haven't crucified anyone. My goal is to bring some reality into the situation. Perhaps you should not take my word for it and ask some random black youth about their opinion of the police. I have gotten to know literally hundreds of this area's finest young black men and women over the years and I know very, very few who don't have stories about being harassed by the police for one reason or the other. It is important to understand the context in which events occur. Otherwise we fall into the trap of saying, "Well, I wouldn't have acted that way so obviously this young man deserves to be arrested." We don't know how we would act if we were this young man. Young black men act very different (in general) toward the police than the rest of us do. With one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34 in prison, perhaps there is a good reason for that attitude.
But my point is not to excuse the young man's actions. My point is that the police must be held to a higher standard than the citizens. Citizens get mad, they get afraid in the presence of the police, and sometimes they do or say things they later regret. But the citizens have very little power in the equation, almost all of the power rests in the hands of the police. As we have seen in this situation, the decisions a police officer makes on the fly have extremely serious repercussions. Therefore, the police officers must be more responsible, and more cool-headed than the citizens they are interacting with.
The law is definitely on the police officer's side when something like this happens. My point isn't legal - it is about doing the job well. From what I have read in the reports about this crime, and from what I have heard from police and young black youth, the police in this situation did not do their job very well. They didn't break the law, mind you. They may have all the legal cover in the world, but that doesn't make up for the fact that they took a small situation and made it a very, very large situation. And in my experience that is not the way good police do their job.
Was it simply the officers saying stop? Just wanting stop and talk with someone is an authorized act? What if they just wanted the time?
What was the performance of the officer that was obstructed? The only thing I can see the officer was performing at the time the young man left the park was the officer saying "stop". No where can I find where the young man put his hand over the officer's mouth and prevented him from saying stop. Was it clear to everyone they were police officers, or was it too dark?
The officer could be asking because of a legal issue (Even if the issue is a mistake at the point of asking-he could have been wrong as to the law, as is bandied about here, or he could be mistaken as to identity. Say he was looking for someone that looked like the person being addressed, but that person was not the right one-the person would know he was not guilty of anything, but until the officer gets a chance to ask he will not also know). If the officer asks questions that indicate he wants to know the time his questions will sound like, "Could you tell me what time it is?". If he says "Stop" you must stop. You can stand mute if you want, but the questions asked will clearly explain the intent of the contact. You don’t have to know anything about the problem that prompted the stop or like the fact that you were stopped, you have to stop. It is one of those fundamental issues that govern the ability to conduct inquiries. If you just committed a robbery and an officer sees you walking a block away and he tells you stop, everyone recognizes the need for that person to stop. Society has an interest in him stopping. If there is a robbery a block away and you look very similar to the description of the robber and an officer sees you and tells you stop, you must stop. Society has an interest in you stopping. The officer needs to determine if you are or are not the robber, even if you have no knowledge of a robbery. If you run, the police will chase you, subdue you and arrest you. The point is bigger than your particular situation. If there is no right to stop and detain, no criminal will stop and be detained. If there is a robbery a block away and you are walking down the street and an officer says, "Hey, can you tell me the time?", society no longer has an interest in that outcome and you can walk away.
This all comes down to what I refer to as "turtle law enforcement" drive around with the radio on, the windows up, dont look around, drive with your eyes straight ahead, you see something that looks odd, just drive on, for you never know that what your about to get into might result in a complaint. If the Officers that night had just driven on, shined their spot light on the kid and then didnt bother to stop, none of these discussions might have taken place. See someone walking down the street at 130am with a stereo? Heck, he's just going to best buy to return it and wants to get there early. See someguy riding down the street at 130am with two bikes? Well he is just making sure that he has a spare in case he has a flat on the way home.
When and if there are shootings in the NE part of Champaign this summer, dont be posting that the police should do more... they get crucified for stopping one kid who was in the park at the wrong time,...
"When and if there are shootings in the NE part of Champaign this summer, dont be posting that the police should do more."
Ok. And we'll call it a self-cleaning oven.
Hey, I would like to apologize for my stereotyping. I was not there! Nor was anyone else there that night. I am now ignoring this blog!
On to the next heated topic, hmmm,
Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a decent human being with much spiritual wisdom to give.
DISCUSS!!!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Rex,
I understand your concern about the law, but you don't seem to have a very good grip on the intricacies. I'm not trying to talk down to you, but the concerns you voiced don't really hold that much weight. Dane explained it better than I could, but if I may add a few points:
1. If a police officer commands you to stop, then you should stop. You can talk to him or her about the reason that they made such a command if you wish, but it would behoove you to stop. Yes, some cops might get pissy about you "questioning their authority," but most others don't care at all and will be more than happy to explain the reason(s) to you because it will usually make the stop go all that much smoother.
2. It's ok to ask, "am I free to leave." If the cop says yes and you don't feel like sticking around, then take off. If it's a voluntary contact, the cop can't make you stick around. If the cop says you can't leave, then it's not a voluntary contact anymore and more laws apply as to how the police should conduct themselves.
3. It doesn't matter what you think you did (or are doing), it matters what the cop thinks you did (or are doing). A response of "I'm not doing shit, leave me the fuck alone" rarely works .
4. If you want to further question the legality of the stop, that is what the court system is for. You can either get any criminal charges dismissed if the stop was improper and/or sue for civil rights violations if you feel that it was egregious enough to do so.
5. If you run or fight, you will most likely be arrested (even if they had no reason to do so previously).
How about this??? Brian Chessley was charged with a crime. He was presumed innocent. He was afforded the attorneys of his choice. On the advise of his attorneys his case proceeded to trial. His attorneys vigorously defended him. Both sides participated in the selection of the jury and called the witnesses they felt were material and relevant. The judge instructed the jury based on the law as he beleived it to be. The jury spent several hours deliberating the evidence and the law that were given to them. The jury rendered the verdict that they believed they were required to return based on the evidence, the law and oath that they took. There are posts to this thread by people that do not like Bob Kirchner, Ruth Wyman, members of the Champaign Police Department or law enforcement in general. We can look backward and question the wisdom of the case proceeding to trial in light of the verdict. We can look backward and question whether the police could have handled the situation differently. People can interject their own unpleasent encounters with the police. Or we can accept that maybe the system worked, the jury did what it thought was right and maybe, just maybe, the system worked. It does happen from time to time.
"maybe, the system worked. It does happen from time to time."
ha.
When I was going to law school at Loyola in Chicago I worked one summer as clerk for the States Attorney's Office at 26th and California (felony court). They had an interesting approach to plea bargins then called the rule of 2 and 4. If you turned down a plea (which was the judges suggestion of what might happen after discussions with both the State and the PD) and took a bench trial and got convicted, you would get 2 times the benchmark sentence. If you took a jury trial and lost, you would get 4 times. Just so you understand what they did back in the 70's they had two States Attorneys and Two Public Defenders assigned to the same judge, so you always got a pretty good read on what the judge was thinking.
Given what happened in this case, and what is promised during aggrevation and mitigation, what would be a fair sentence?
"maybe, the system worked. It does happen from time to time."
"ha"
Are you truly that soured on our system that even guilty people can not and should not be convicted ???
As to police officers in the line of duty, they wear many hats, in this case some think they should have had the baby sitter hats on at the park, a park notorious for needing the combat helmet in recent times, tough change of wardrobe, on a seconds hesitation, many things ride.......
I find a similarity here to Illini shooting skills. We ask our players, say Pruitt, to move mountains, hand to hand combat, round after round in a heavy wieght battle and then have the touch of a ballerina at the free throw line........and we wonder why they miss.......
The kid blew it by not responding properly. Properly......he knows now.............make sure the other kids on the block learn from this lesson.......Pass it on...
Police officers who are in a high threat area (Douglas Park has earned it's reputation) have to be in the proper gear, frame of readiness......it's safe to say the kid was in the (proverbial) wrong place at the wrong time flashing the wrong response....and got called on it....
I do see a lesson here and it has nothing to do with race.....
When an officer asks you to stop....stop. Then there will be no case to be closed....as this one will be, soon. I suppose we could put the police review board on it....
I have commented consistently that he is guitly as charged and that the jury made the right decision. However, I do not believe that just because a defendent exercises their right to a trial by jury they should be treated more harshly than one who took a plea. Short of adult diversion, I think he should get the miniumn sentence afforded to anyone with a similar situation, no injury to the officer (not much at least) only a previous juvenile transcretion. 24 months conditional discharge. Let him be evaluated with recommendations and release him to monitor over twenty four months by probation officers. This is the opinion of a CPD cop.
Punishment, hasn't the kids suffered enough! His legal counsel is punishment enough. Plus, Brian Dolinar supports him! He has learned his lesson. Next time, Barack Obama himself will get back into the legal profession and represent him. I just see it now! Headlines read: B. Hussein Obama BRINGS HOPE TO NE CHAMPAIGN!
"However, I do not believe that just because a defendent exercises their right to a trial by jury they should be treated more harshly than one who took a plea."
I agree.
"Let him be evaluated with recommendations and release him to monitor over twenty four months by probation officers."
Sounds reasonable to me, given my limited knowledge of the case.
"Punishment, hasn't the kids suffered enough! His legal counsel is punishment enough. Plus, Brian Dolinar supports him! He has learned his lesson. Next time, Barack Obama himself will get back into the legal profession and represent him. I just see it now! Headlines read: B. Hussein Obama BRINGS HOPE TO NE CHAMPAIGN!"
Boggle.
This blog is getting really old now. The kid screwed up! He had poor legal counsel! He probably would have been better off if he was given the public defender.
Next topic, please!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
PS, what do you mean by Boggle? Im just curious.
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
"I do not believe that just because a defendent exercises their right to a trial by jury they should be treated more harshly than one who took a plea."
I second that motion. How un-american is it to screw someone really hard just because they wanted their side of the story heard???
boggle: to overwhelm with wonder or bewilderment
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Next topic, please!"
If people still want to discuss it, let them. Nobody is forcing you to read this.
"PS, what do you mean by Boggle? Im just curious."
Boggle: confused, doesn't make sense, not understanding
It's an all-purpose one-word response to comments that are so absurd as to make any other response impossible.
I worked one summer as clerk for the States Attorney's Office at 26th and California (felony court). They had an interesting approach to plea bargins then called the rule of 2 and 4. If you turned down a plea (which was the judges suggestion of what might happen after discussions with both the State and the PD) and took a bench trial and got convicted, you would get 2 times the benchmark sentence. If you took a jury trial and lost, you would get 4 times.
This is one of the most nauseating and angering things I have ever read.
-boggle-
It's an all-purpose one-word response to comments that are so absurd as to make any other response impossible.
Its a self aggrandizing cop-out.
Thanks wayward
I was not sure of the chronological order and admit that does change the light of that particular part of my post.
Nor do I know what she might have done to possibly avoid her unfortunate incident, but as I said later, I am damned glad I don't have her job.
In earlier time, I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement;
"Given that Chesley was convicted, I'd assume that the SAO had some understanding of the case."
But it seems like a good stern lecture, on what the law means and how he was wrong, doesn't seem like such a bad solution. I am sure you are aware that diversion and all the no record, etc. means he would have to do two things. One admit guilt and second show remorse for his actions. He obviously believed he did nothing wrong, so I ask you.
How many times in your life would you admit doing something wrong, when you believed you did nothing wrong. THEN after swallowing your beliefs once, be asked to apologize and show remorse for something which you never believed was wrong in the first place. Just put up a finger for every time you have done that, and tell me how many fingers are showing.
06:47 PM, Anonymous
at 6'5", I don't get talked down to often, so worry not.
"don't seem to have a very good grip on the intricacies"
Exactly, I would prefer to use facts, rather than complex.
What I am not understanding is:
Apparently the young man left with at least two other people, where were they? What happened to them? Did the officers ask just him to stop or all of them. If they were behind him and he was walking to the store, when he heard stop and the officers were still behind the other two guys, why would he believe he needed to stop? They obviously were talking to the other two guys. Did everyone else in the park stop and the officers questioned them? Why did they pursue this young man clear off the park to a store when all these other people were in the park? Did they continue to yell stop and identify themselves? Wasn't it dark?, how far were they when the yelled stop, could he see who they were?
Maybe I have missed some of these answers in the above posts, but I think they are legit questions.
"It's ok to ask, "am I free to leave." If the cop says yes and you don't feel like sticking around, then take off. If it's a voluntary contact, the cop can't make you stick around. If the cop says you can't leave, then it's not a voluntary contact anymore and more laws apply as to how the police should conduct themselves."
Did he ask this when they finally stopped him? Apparently the Police admitted it was a voluntary stop for informational purposes, why did he have to stick around? If they made him stick around, why?
" It doesn't matter what you think you did (or are doing), it matters what the cop thinks you did (or are doing). A response of "I'm not doing shit, leave me the fuck alone" rarely works .""
Certainly the latter portion of your statement falls under my "unless any of the people precipitated it." Did he say that?
But in the instance a person really does not know what is happening (like my instance), none of us are related to Sister Mary and we cannot read minds, even a officer's mind, and why would we even want to stick around, if we thought the police officers were asking someone else to stop. Hell the other people might have a gun the farther away you are, the better.
"If you want to further question the legality of the stop, that is what the court system is for. You can either get any criminal charges dismissed if the stop was improper and/or sue for civil rights violations if you feel that it was egregious enough to do so."
Telling a cop you are gonna take them to court will have the same effect as ""I'm not doing sh_t, leave me the f__k alone"
No, just am having trouble understanding what he did to obstruct the officers, when they admittedly only wanted voluntary data base information on just him. If he did nothing to obstruct them from getting that information on others, where is the obstruction?
Xian,
Thank you.
In closing, another thing about juries and the pool. After I got my Engineer's and Surveyor's license, I have been asked to be an expert witness many times, and have become very familiar with court room tactics and the haze of disguise that often accompanies them. In one particular case I was on the stand as an expert witness for 7 days.
I have been called for jury duty one time, and for the life of me, I can't remember if it was Vermilion County or here. Courtrooms all look the same, but it was before metal detectors.
When I was questioned, one attorney asked me if I had ever been in a court room as an expert witness, to which I disclosed the many times. I was immediately challenged and excused. I was scheduled to be there for many days, but the Judge said, Mr. Bradfield, in light of your courtroom experience and professional licenses, your continuing to stay in the jury pool will be a waste of your time and excused me from additional cases.
I asked an attorney friend of mine, why he did that, and was told, attorneys do not want anyone in the Jury Room who has my experience and leadership, because I am capable of cutting through the haze and sticking to the facts. He also said, 99% of the time, the attorney with the weakest case will challenge you.
Kind of goes along with John M's observation and example above.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I find it very difficult to type in stereo.
This blog is getting really old now. The kid screwed up! He had poor legal counsel! He probably would have been better off if he was given the public defender.
No one is force to read this thread
How many of you bloggers would have just sat there and watched them tase that kid in Fla.?
How many of you have watched that video Dont Tase Me Bro and clenched your fists and imagined the mob rising in anger?
What's so many tasers and nightsticks against a group of pissed off citizens?
Have you seen "a Bug's Life"?
"The ants outnumber us 100 to 1. What if they figure that out?...
Uh.... i guess your somewhat un familiar with how the Feds sentence people... 3 yrs ago there was a guy by the name of Jack Turner. He was part of some scam involving a pyramid scheme... he was his own lawyer.. He turned down a 2 or 4 year sentence... he went to trial, had a hung jury the first time, and was convicted the second time... Result? He managed to turn a 2 or 4 yr sentence into 24 years...... Its part of the Federal system.... the idea being is that if you plead guilty and accept your punishment, then you wont serve as much time as if you took it to trial and rolled the proverbile dice.... he did and it came up snake eyes....
I guess Jack Turner believed that he was innocent. Shame on any innocent man for thinking that.
Here is the bottom line;
The legal system should not be a "roll of the dice" and the penalty should not be based on whether you plead guilty early or exercise your right to a fair trial, the penalty is what it is, and to suggest any leeway otherwise is an indication of a flaw in the system.
It should be a process which the finders of fact are presented with all the facts in a complete and professional manner, no smoke, no song and dance, no dog and pony show. If a person is actually not guilty or responsible for the issue at hand, the outcome should be not guilty in the Court. If the outcome is anything BUT the truth, and not guilty, then the legal system is flawed and needs correcting. No other profession allows mistakes without accountability.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, a tap dance"
one of the greatest lines ever about the legal profession.
Money or quality of representation or judges who can act without accountability should not be an issue, only the facts should be the issue.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I don't have a problem with the sentencing issue. Even guilty people are entitled to their day in court, and a trial by jury or judge. However, if the system is to work, then huge numbers of cases have to go through the system. Should someone who is found guilty receive the same punishment as someone who pled out? In a perfect world, probably not, but if there is no difference, then your plea system breaks down. Why would anyone plead out if there isn't a benefit, ie, you'll get a lesser sentence than if you go to trial?
No.... what it is, is an enducement for those who are guilty, to plead guilty there by saving the time and effort to go to trial. That way, if you accept your responsibility as opposed to the proverbile roll of the dice, you get out quicker..... otherwise what would the advantage be to plead guilty? BTW this has been in existance in the Federal system for about 10 yrs.. You get sentenced on the grid system... crime x and plea of guilty gets x spot crime x and trial gets y spot.... and they are not close to each other in terms of sentencing........
"Those who worry about the impending police state in the wake of the Patriot Act and "total information awareness," should be more concerned about its arrival in black neighborhoods. Already given orders to stop, identify, and enter into a database anybody on the street, police now have a carte blanche to interrogate us all. Of course, so long as it is not youth in lily-white suburbs or students in parades of public drunkenness like the U of I's unofficial St. Patrick's day who receive such treatment, things will remain the same." it may be a Carte Noir? - read more at this link.
"Those who worry about the impending police state in the wake of the Patriot Act and "total information awareness," should be more concerned about its arrival in black neighborhoods. Already given orders to stop, identify, and enter into a database anybody on the street, police now have a carte blanche to interrogate us all. Of course, so long as it is not youth in lily-white suburbs or students in parades of public drunkenness like the U of I's unofficial St. Patrick's day who receive such treatment, things will remain the same." it may be a Carte Noir? - ....
Or you could have just linked directly to UCIMC, since that's where it originated.
http://www.ucimc.org/node/2743
At least we're cross-pollinating between IP.com and UCIMC now.
;-)
Or something. :)
That article on the UCIMC site is really well written. The bias is obvious, but it is a very clearly written piece of work that helps the understanding of this case.
It's good to see someone is repeatedly called a rapist here, and the comment is allowed to stand.
That article on the UCIMC site is really well written. The bias is obvious, but it is a very clearly written piece of work that helps the understanding of this case.
YMMV, but I tend to get turned off by hyperbole and exaggeration. For example, it says, "The trial depended on who a jury would believe—three Champaign police officers or an entire community." The "entire community" apparently means "14 defense witnesses." It also says, "The incident was quickly swept under the rug by the local media, assisted by the comments of Jackson herself who at the City Council meeting following the incident stated, 'racial profiling exists. It always has and it always will.'" As it happens, I was there at the City Council meeting when Gina spoke about the incident, and she did not seem to be trying to push anything under the rug.
It states, "During the election on April 15, Latino Councilman Giraldo Rosales, who had been pushing for a police review board in Champaign, was voted out and the City Council shifted to the right." This is true, but I doubt that the incident with Chesley had much to do with it. First, one of the hottest issues in that race was the smoking ban issue. Second, none of the Dems did too well in that race, and I don't recall any of them having a strong campaign effort.
Here's another quote: "Already given orders to stop, identify, and enter into a database anybody on the street, police now have a carte blanche to interrogate us all." Really? If the Champaign police have indeed been ordered to stop, identify, and log anyone walking down the street, why haven't I been stopped when I've been walking in Champaign? How about this one: "Of course, so long as it is not youth in lily-white suburbs or students in parades of public drunkenness like the U of I’s unofficial St. Patrick’s day who receive such treatment, things will remain the same." Funny, I remember a comment on here that drunk, out-of-control white students have also gotten sprayed, but it just didn't become a big issue. Perhaps someone on the force can clarify this.
It's good to see someone is repeatedly called a rapist here, and the comment is allowed to stand.
You have a point - that wasn't fair since Thompson's conviction in a sexual abuse case was vacated when he was granted a third trial.
"It's good to see someone is repeatedly called a rapist here, and the comment is allowed to stand."
Forgive me. It appeared twice in one comment out of almost 200, and I missed it.
Thank you for pointing it out, though. I've unpublished it.
All media sources have their bias. Usually it is bias by omission. I find Dolinar's article refreshing, because it is a bias that is directed toward local concerns, but it isn't conservative.
That said, his description of the trial's proceedings is what I was really talking about. I am not sure where else I could have found that kind of description. Which makes the article, as I said, well written, clear and extremely useful.
Besides - this is IP.com. Do we really come here for unbiased analysis of today's news? I sure don't. Frankly, Dolinar's article is more informative than 98% of the comments in this thread (my own definitely included). For that alone it deserves a kudos, at least in my book.
bhss73
"what it is, is an enducement for those who are guilty, to plead guilty there by saving the time and effort to go to trial. That way, if you accept your responsibility as opposed to the proverbile roll of the dice, you get out quicker..... otherwise what would the advantage be to plead guilty?"
Let's talk about advantage and the legal system.
As I understand it, the legal system is my only protection from those who break the law and are capable of harming me or doing it again.................. it is in place to properly punish those in a manner to either discourage or prevent them through incarceration from doing it again, correct.
So lets say a no good low life, drunken S.O.B. beats the crap out of a girl, just because he could. She dies. He is charged with 2nd degree murder which carries a 40 sentence, but when he is not drunk, he knows about the "Grid system", so he asks for a deal to plead guilty for involuntary manslaughter, and gets say 10 years.
So that no good low life, drunken S.O.B. is on the streets, with all his prison training and manners in 10 YEARS, just because the legal system wants to offer him an "advantage". Where the Hell is the advantage to the public in that kind of system?
Seem like my suggestion that
"the penalty is what it is, and to suggest any leeway otherwise is an indication of a flaw in the system"
Might offer the PUBLIC the protection intended by the law.
Oh, Oh, what's that you say? He might have matured and won't do it again. Anyway, he was off the streets for 10 years.
Fine, when he comes out, send your daughter down to greet him alone.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
The sending of one's daughter is a far different message from integrating a man back into the society.
Actually I dont see at all what purpose is served by keeping the poor SOB in prison. You might as well take the guy out back and put a bullet through him as to cause him to live out his life stupidly caged away from all you good people who are scared of him.
Rex your argument seems to state that it is the drunkenness that is causing his problem. What is it about this stupid-ass society that gives this fellow so much angst that he finds solace and freedom only in the bottle? So he takes his rage out on some girl simply because he can't reach the people that sincerely need their asses kicked by him? The interesting thing about this thread is that it is exposing so much of the rot, ignorance, and corrupt power-wielding that the criminal justice system is built upon. Quite frankly I do not believe that the real criminals in this society ever get a stay in the Iron Hotel.
Further, I perceive that the criminal justice system exists to support itself. Pure and simple, it has gained a life of its own and it creates a steady supply of victims to feed its lust for the souls of men. I am sure that is not what the society really wants but that is certainly what we are getting. When are people going to wake up and say "This is nonsense. I dont want to be made a criminal, and I dont want my friends my relatives my children my associates to be criminalized either"???
but he could have gone to trial and found NOT guilty.... hey it happens all the time... just last week one young man was found NG by the jury even though he was seen at Schnucks minutes after the home invasion cashing out coins.. they were caught on video tape and identified.. they got away with one. Now, if they had been found guilty, they rolled the dice and lost... their penalty should be higher than if they had just pled guilty.....double or nothing.....sorry, but i just think that one should get a different sentence than if they went to trial vs pleading guilty.
Now, if they had been found guilty, they rolled the dice and lost... their penalty should be higher than if they had just pled guilty.....double or nothing.....sorry, but i just think that one should get a different sentence than if they went to trial vs pleading guilty.
Bhss- I think that is absolute nonsense. Not only that but your attitude applied violates rights guaranteed by the 6th and the 8th amendments to the Constitution.
Well, those advocating for consistent sentences should pony up the extra funds to have 2-3 times as many trials.
Until then, I'm fine with the SA using plea bargains to make deals. If the SA makes too many, feel free to vote her out.
Seriously, do you people not understand risk vs. reward? Do you also see problems with venture capitalists seeking high returns for risky investments while T-bills yield less?
Well, if we like risk vs. reward, we could just have a big wheel with "Death penalty" to "$10 fine" on it and we wouldn't have to hire judges or lawyers or anything. It'd be super cheap.
Of course the missing ingredient in this equation is the money. If a defendant is rich he or she can just pay out the cash for a team of lawyers who can almost undoubtedly poke enough holes in the prosecution's case to gain an acquittal. Why take the deal when you can buy your way to not guilty?
The system is screwed up. Until we are serious about funding a legal justice systems that ensures every defendant has a fair trial, innocent people will go to prison and guilty people will walk free. There should not be deals. There should be justice. That was the original idea anyway.
Really? Well then the Federal Government has been violating that for sometime now. Go to THEIR guidelines, ask Judge McClusky about them the next time he is on WDWS. You plead guilty under the fed system you get X you go to trial you get Y. Hey its the LAW of the LAND. Might want to see how the Supreme Court has ruled in the cases before you start saying that my attitude violates the constitution.....Just a thought that you MIGHT want to check your facts BEFORE you speak.
There can be little doubt that the constitution is violated, perverted, ignored left and right by the treasonous bastards who think they own this country. Most of the sheeple are only dimly aware of it. Instead of "We the people" , we get "People vs Chesley". What a joke. It's not the People vs Chesley. The People dont have any say in it. Look. This thread has passed 200 responses. Why? Because the People think that Chesley got a raw deal, and since the People are Chesley, the People are getting a raw deal. It's the Judicial System vs the People. How dare you say People vs Chesley?
Unless the sentence is death or life without parole the system assumes you have rehabilitative potential. The first step to rehabilitation is "acceptance of responsibility". If you plead guilty you accept responsibility. If you go to trial and lose you have not accepted responsibility. The Fed system specifically grants a lower sentence for acceptance of responsibility. The State system does it by implication. That is why pleas should get a lower sentence than going to trial and losing. It's not the other way around, we don't punish for exercising your Constitutional rights. If you can't see the difference you don't understand the basic concepts of crime and punishment.
F...F...F...Forget the System. Baxendale, I am afraid that for you and your ilk, Rehabilitation is "He loved Big Brother".
Down with Big Brother. "Time will destroy you like a Mexican God." "Those that carried us away captive required of us mirth". "O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewards you as you have served us. Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones."
"This thread has passed 200 responses. Why? Because the People think that Chesley got a raw deal,..."
Since "we the people" also include the jury system that "we the people" serve on and "we the people " found him quilty. This blog has over 200 responses because people feel strongly on both sides. Stop attempting to take healthy discourse and claim victory because both side are willing to discuss it. You sound strangely like the guy who wrote "The community against three cops". The community was not against the cops. Our system is far from perfect, and its lack of perfection is the responsiblity of all of the people, not just the criminal justice system. In most countries Chesley's act would reap a much different outcome, and it would not be as understanding as a system that offers incentives for responsibility for an act. You cannot make change by always living under the "we" against "them" concept. As you mentioned, they are "we the people" everyone involved in the incident are included in "we the people". The official concept of the People of the State of Illinois Vs. Chelsey was heard, determined, and brought forth a decision. Both side were represented, one by those who voted the SA in and the other by two attorneys who are experienced in criminal trials. Chelsey got more of a defense than most people get in murder trials and lost. Doesn't that tell you something?
Not my jury system.
"Not my jury system."
Sorry you can't cherry pick your justice systems. You can agree with it,disagree with it, help to change it, and work within it, but whether or like it or not, it IS your jury system. You will serve on it when called, and it will judge you if you want a jury of your peers, but you can't deny that it is, as a matter of fact ,your (all of ours) jury system.
07:59 PM, Anonymous
"no good low life, drunken S.O.B. beats the crap out of a girl, just because he could."
Those are just adjectives indicating a pretty undesirable person
I could have said..
church going, honest family man, with a medal of honor beats the crap out of a girl, just because he could
You missed the point, it was about the penalty. I would not put my daughter in front of either of those and I would expect the legal system to protect us from those individuals according to the law.
bbhs
The laws never intended penalties to be bargaining chips, they are deterrents. The either prevent people from doing it again because of incarceration. The sooner they are back on the streets the sooner they can do it again.
but he could have gone to trial and found NOT guilty
I posted this earlier, substitute guilty in place of not guilty.
"It should be a process which the finders of fact are presented with all the facts in a complete and professional manner, no smoke, no song and dance, no dog and pony show. If a person is actually not guilty or responsible for the issue at hand, the outcome should be not guilty in the Court. If the outcome is anything BUT the truth, and not guilty, then the legal system is flawed and needs correcting."
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Kirchner and Wyman are the local version of GLORIA ALFRED and JOHNNY COCHRANE.......they just enjoy their names in the paper.
Wow, he wrote Johnny Cochrane in CAPITAL LETTERS. He must know a lot about him.
Question: If Johnny Cochrane enjoyed his name in the paper so much, why did he do so much lower profile social justice work? Oh wait, people who just watch Access Hollywood and FoxNews probably don't know about anything except OJ.
new
On March 31st, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
I worked one summer as clerk for the States Attorney's Office at 26th and California (felony court). They had an interesting approach to plea bargins then called the rule of 2 and 4. If you turned down a plea (which was the judges suggestion of what might happen after discussions with both the State and the PD) and took a bench trial and got convicted, you would get 2 times the benchmark sentence. If you took a jury trial and lost, you would get 4 times.
This is one of the most nauseating and angering things I have ever read.
We had a State's Attorney here about 20 years ago that had a policy that his office would go to trial on every DWI (no pleas). How do you think that worked out? By the way, I get nauseated and angry at all gutless f***h**** that hide behind anonymous posts.
Anonymity has it's good points and it's negative points. It is unfortunate that we see more of the negative in these online venues. Personally I don't have a problem with anonymous posts as long as the tone remains civil. While I know my own perspective is not something that some of the participants here agree with - at least you know where it's coming from.
"Anonymity has it's good points and it's negative points. It is unfortunate that we see more of the negative in these online venues. Personally I don't have a problem with anonymous posts as long as the tone remains civil."
I agree completely.
It is amazing actually how many different anonymous posters there are. It's IP's blog, and as owner, editor, censor he finds it R-rated speech to be permissible but censors out some comments that he deems to be politically incorrect. Civil tone and negativity are subjective and like beauty are in the eye of the beholder.
"It's IP's blog, and as owner, editor, censor he finds it R-rated speech to be permissible but censors out some comments that he deems to be politically incorrect."
Actually, I usually edit out swearing without unpublishing the entire comment, with an explanation that the comment was edited by me. Sometimes I miss things, though.
Any time a defendant is sentenced in Illinois, there are statutory factors in mitigation and aggravation that the judge is to take into consideration in fashioning a sentence. Aggravating factors include prior record, deterrence, etc, Mitigiating factors incluse lack of prior record, likliehood of not committing crimes in the future, the defendant's medical issues, hardship to his dependants, etc. Quite often the Court's consideration of these non-statutory mitigating factors can be the difference between probatoion or a trip to the Department of Corrections. The court often considers non statutory factors like the defendant's age and if the defendant plead guilty and accepts responsibility for his actions. A defendant who takes a case to trial does not get the benefit of the "discount" for pleading guilty at time of sentencing.