Today is the 30th day since Kiwane Carrington died. We know little more of the incident that took his life than we knew 30 days ago. We know that the authorities announced that the investigation into his death would be handled by police agencies other than the Champaign Police Department headed up by the Illinois State Police. We know we were told that we should not speculate as to the actions of the police officer who fired the shot that killed him. We were told to wait patiently while the facts were established. Meanwhile here and in letters to the editor others have been speculating freely as to possible acts of Kiwane Carrington that might tend to justify the officer's use of deadly force.
It seemed a simple transaction attended with no great mystery. The identity of the shooter is known. That much has been made public. The shooter is on administrative leave, not detained or held to bond and drawing his full paycheck. Kiwane's body has been examined and we were told he was shot in the chest. Not one fact has been released that would offer a justification for the use of deadly force under Illinois law.
Thirty days have passed and we have been patient.
You have not been patient. You have been stoking the fires. If you act this immature at age 71, I can't imagine what you used to be like at 30.
Keith's right. Not that the "the kid deserved what he got because he wasn't raised right" people will notice.
By the way: It's Carrington. Not Cunningham.
By the way: It's Carrington. Not Cunningham.
You are right. I have made the correction.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
You have not been patient. You have been stoking the fires.
If asking questions is "stoking the fires", then I plead guilty. If asking questions is "immature" I hope that you never consider me to have matured.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
I think it's quite fair to say that a month has passed and the key questions remain unanswered.
"Be patient" does not mean "shut the hell up and never mention it again." Even though that's the outcome some would clearly prefer.
Steve Bauer's article in today's N-G put on the table the effectiveness of the 10-year Champaign Community and Police Partnership, not city sponsored, that has been working on the issues of community relationships with police. Patricia Avery, a member of the group, was quoted within the article as to the importance of more transparency by this group of individuals. Unfortunately, this did not unfold as I read the article. There is no information as to when and where the group meets or how to find out this out. There were no details as to the successfulness of the projects that have been chosen as a point of focus year by year. There is no information as to the decision-making process to pick the committee members and the length of service tenure. All of this appears to be the antithesis of what was expressed by Champaign citizens during the city council meeting--in other words one of the requests was for more transparency. You may read the article here www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2009/11/08/champaign_police_group_members_defend_its_usefulness I could not find a web site for the group.
I am confused as to why it is considered "stoking the fires" to continue to ask questions and not become a supine community. The city manager during the aforementioned city council meeting asked the community to be patient. At a minimum, the city manager, the state police level committee/task force, and/or N-G could periodically inform the community as to the progress being made toward a final reported and an ETA.
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi: The article listed all the members of this group. Have you contacted any of them considering the issues you discussed here?
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Don't forget, Pattsi, that the city manager also defended the Chief of Police at that same City Council meeting and stated that he felt Mr. Finney "had done nothing wrong" and would not be placed on leave. The hired city manager also said he is the one making decisions as to who gets hired and fired and suspended, and not the elected mayor or the elected council members.
Members of the audience have decided to cc the city manager on all future statements regarding the Chief of Police.
Citizens of Champaign should be asking who works for the benefit of whom within our borders.
And I personally would like to know what Finney has on Carter that has led us to the situation we are currently in. Carter's statements Tuesday night have backed him into a corner, should the report come out and find that Finney's actions in some way contributed to Mr. Carrington's death.
The hired city manager also said he is the one making decisions as to who gets hired and fired and suspended, and not the elected mayor or the elected council members. .... And I personally would like to know what Finney has on Carter that has led us to the situation we are currently in.
What makes you think Finney has anything on Carter, other than the terms of Finney's employment contract with the city ?
Carter's statements Tuesday night have backed him into a corner, should the report come out and find that Finney's actions in some way contributed to Mr. Carrington's death.
If the investigation indicates Finney culpable, then Carter will revise his previously stated view.
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Day 31
Tomorrow the Champaign City Council will have a study session considering the CPD policy on the use of deadly force. Earlier, when the study session was requested, several council members indicated that they would not be willing to consider the policy until after the investigation into Kiwane Carrington's death was completed and the report was received.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"Tomorrow the Champaign City Council will have a study session considering the CPD policy on the use of deadly force. Earlier, when the study session was requested, several council members indicated that they would not be willing to consider the policy until after the investigation into Kiwane Carrington's death was completed and the report was received."
On the one hand, you complain that things haven't moved quickly enough since the shooting.
On the other, you complain that the Council is going to have a study session - not a agenda item requiring a decision, but just a study session - to examine the use of force policy, which is something they should be doing anyway.
Is there anything this Council could do at this point of which you would approve?
IP, you insist on reading things into my comments on this subject. In no language can you find that I am complaining that the council is holding a study session. Indeed I believe that a careful study should have been undertaken before a policy for the use of deadly force was revised and published and is long overdue. For your information I sent the following e-mail to the Mayor and Council members this afternoon:
Dear Mayor Schweighart and Council Members:
At your study session on November 10, 2009 you are scheduled to consider the recently revised Champaign Police Department policy concerning the use of deadly force by officers. I have read the policy as it was revised and it accurately reflects the Illinois Statute with respect to when a peace officer is justified in employing deadly force. It does not go beyond the limitations of the statute. The question of whether or not Officer Norbits was or was not justified in shooting Kiwane Carrington is, and should be, independent of the question as to what the general policy should be with respect to the use of deadly force by a Champaign police officer. Adopting a policy or revising and amplifying it is a legislative and not an administrative function. It is within the City Council’s responsibility and should not be delegated to the Police Department or the Office of the City Manager. In considering the policy authorizing the use of deadly force by Champaign Police Officers I urge you to consider the following:
The only rational reason to employ a handgun is to cause death or great bodily harm to one or more individuals. The use of deadly force is not commenced when an officer pulls the trigger. Drawing a handgun is the first step in employing deadly force. When a hand gun is made ready to use the decision has already been made that circumstances exist that justify firing it. The use of deadly force is commenced by drawing the weapon. When we authorize a policeman to bear deadly arms against us we have the right to expect that officer to exercise extreme restraint in using those arms. Preparing to fire by drawing the weapon is the decision to loose that restraint.
The policy you adopt should go further than the raw words of the statute. It should address the question of under what circumstances an officer may take that first step toward being in a position to cause death or great bodily harm to a citizen. In my view, an officer should only be authorized to draw a weapon when he or she reasonably believes that circumstances exist justifying the infliction of death or great bodily harm to an individual.
Sincerely
Keith Hays
Yes, there is something that the Council could do at this point that would meet with my approval. The Council could discuss the subject in depth and revise the policy carefully in the due course of legislative deliberation.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Keith,
I disagree that drawing a firearm is the first step in use of deadly force. An officer should be able to draw their sidearm any time they feel that a situation exists where they or others may be harmed in the immediate future. Having some onerous legislative requirement prior to accessing their arms does nothing other than placing the officer in a given situation at risk of losing their life. After all, the officer can simply re-holster their pistol if the circumstances warrant.
Having the firearm at their side or at a low ready position would not constitute deadly force. Nor would gaining a sight picture of the potential assailant. Only the action of pulling the trigger of the firearm would lead to the deadly force. That is the only point of no return.
Is it not unreasonable that the city council, many of whom may have never handled a firearm or had law enforcement training or experience, decide when an officer can and can not draw their weapon. Wouldn't establishing best practices for these situations best be left to departmental leaders, and groups like the IL Assoc. of Chiefs of Police, or IL Sherriff's Association, who we assume have years of experience and training? Groups who undoubtedly had input on the drafting of the use of force statues?
I think this study session is purely window dressing. There is a state statute. There is a police policy in line with the state statute. There is an independent review of shooting incidents by other departments in the area who are also aware of the state statute and how it applies to officers use of force. End of Story.
Adopting a policy or revising and amplifying it is a legislative and not an administrative function.
Just to add to the last anon, I think you should be more clear that the above statement is simply your opinion and not based in fact. It's widely known that policy and procedures are written by command staff and signed by the cheif of police. Policies are absolutely an administrative function.
Keith-
Rather than just pussy footing around this with that 4th district case that did not involve the police, why dont you just come out and say that you would rather see a Police Officer rather than a civillian shot. Because under your twisted logic of taking a gun out of a holster, thats whats going to happen.
Rather than just pussy footing around this with that 4th district case that did not involve the police, why dont you just come out and say that you would rather see a Police Officer rather than a civillian shot. Because under your twisted logic of taking a gun out of a holster, thats whats going to happen.
I have yet to see an officer skilled enough with a handgun to shoot a bullet out of the air in mid flight.
Why don't you stop pussyfooting around and just come out and say that every police officer ought to have the right to shoot on sight anyone who is suspected of aggravated failure to do right!
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
If they are armed or suspected of being armed. I have no problem with that. Now, your an expert, why dont you tell everyone about the 21 foot rule that is taught at PTI with respect to subjects armed with knives.
I have yet to see an officer skilled enough with a handgun to shoot a bullet out of the air in mid flight.
I don't get it Keith. Care to elaborate your point?
The idea that a handgun in the hand of a police officer can protect that officer from being shot is nonsense. It is an offensive not a defensive weapon.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Really-
So I guess those Ft. Hood officers who shot that guy to death didnt protect themselves? I am so confused by your last statement... and BTW why dont you answer the 21 foot rule question since your the resident "expert" in all things police. I'd be happy to tell you, but your the expert
So I get to point my gun a the cops first? That's especially useful to know since everyone knows action usually beats reaction!
So I guess those Ft. Hood officers who shot that guy to death didnt protect themselves?
It was one woman officer who was was injured by one of the gunman's bullets
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3
Well, there's a lot of catty back and forth going on. As a cutizen of the state of Illinois, I would expect that anything that an officer does with his gun that goes beyond what a citizen does with his gun should be something clearly spelled out in LAW, not in policy.
So what exactly does Illinois law say about waving one's pistol around?
I know that the fundamentals of gun safety taught to me many years ago were not to point my weapon at anything I didn't mean to shoot, i.e. make sure your gun was pointed in a safe direction. Military training is a bit different. But police? What does law, not policy, say? I think that's the point here.
"The idea that a handgun in the hand of a police officer can protect that officer from being shot is nonsense. It is an offensive not a defensive weapon."
Ok, with no due respect, that is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard about this topic. Not attacking you, just the asinine statement.
It was one woman officer who was was injured by one of the gunman's bullets
Actually she was hit by three of his bullets...and he with four of hers. And she drew her weapon only when she knew that shots had already been fired.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
"And she drew her weapon only when she knew that shots had already been fired."
Which is why she was shot first and had to play catch up. Get it?
So the message is that cops should shoot everyone at the first hint of danger, and that way they won't have to "play catch-up". Get it? If it means the occasional innocent 15-year-old black boy gets drilled for no good reason - well, that's just the price civilization should be prepared to pay,
Keith-
The bottom line is that you would rather see PO hurt rather than a suspect. That is your opinion, why dont you just come out and say it. In the case of the Ft Hood officer, why did she have to wait until she heard shots fired before she deployed her weapon? Was it Army policy? Shouldnt she have had the weapon out WHEN she got out of the car, after all, you have multiple 911 calls going out about a shooting. Now I have nothing but admiration for the officer (s) in that case, however in the real world of Law Enforcement, if you get behind the curve chances are your going to get hurt or killed.
I think it is pretty absurd to suggest that Keith somehow wants police officers to get hurt just because he is concerned that suspects, both innocent and guilty, are being unreasonably put in harms way with tactics that are justified by officer safety concerns. Obviously officers could be even more aggressive to ensure their safety than they already are, but supporters of the current policy do not want police officers to get hurt because they don't support those even more aggressive tactics. There's a balance between the safety of officers and the need to ensure the safety of citizens they are charged to serve and protect, but who are sometimes violent criminals that need to be arrested. I don't think we have to assume some sort of malicious intent behind those who are concerned about citizen safety any more than those concerned about officer safety for merely having a different view on where that equilibrium may be.
As far as whether or not a handgun is a defensive weapon, this can quickly devolve down to a semantic debate clouded by the inherent oxymoron involved. It's easy to dismiss a firearm as not being defensive if you're just basing that on the terminology and not the context that such terms are derived from, which in this case is combat. Just as self-defense courses teach more than just blocks, but also include offensive techniques to stop an attacker, handguns are a close-quarters weapon easily kept on your person in case you come under attack to stop the attacker. One can contrast that with combat rifles, assault rifles, etc used for assaults, raids, etc by both military and special police teams... or defensive non-weapons such as bulletproof vests, flak jackets, helmets, etc. The defensive aspect of handguns has nothing to do with blocking bullets or shooting them out of the air, but their general usefulness in stopping an attacker in a close quarters situation. The description isn't intended to suggest they cannot ever be used offensively anymore than a self-defense class means some yahoo can't take what he learns and go beat up somebody they don't like... it's just not well suited nor generally intended beyond defensive uses in combat.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Really? Have you listened to what people are saying? It appears to me and many present supporting the police last night, that many in the crowd could care less if a Police Officer was injured. If they were, where was the hue and cry after two officers were shot several years ago.
There wasnt one.
"So the message is that cops should shoot everyone at the first hint of danger"
No, this is the kind of asinine remark that that tries to divert us from the point. Going into a situation that often posses high risks, and if in the experience of the person that is having to deal with the situation it appears that the threat level could both start at a high level and quickly rise to a higher level, it is prudent to get a bit ahead of the curve of action/reaction. Nothing in this says you can shoot unnecessarily. You can/should get yourself in a defensive position before you are already losing the fight. None on this means that the shooting of Carrington was justified. I suspect it was totally FUBAR, which does not mean that another similar or identical situation would not call for the same response, minus the FUBAR.
The bottom line is that you would rather see PO hurt rather than a suspect. That is your opinion, why dont you just come out and say it.
The bottom line is that I would rather that no one, citizen nor police officer, be hurt or killed and that the use of a deadly weapon be the last rather than the first resort. The Illinois Statute draws a bright line between a police officers justifiable use of deadly force and when that officer's conduct is itself a criminal act. Policy should go beyond drawing that line.
Shouldnt she have had the weapon out WHEN she got out of the car, after all, you have multiple 911 calls going out about a shooting.
She DID have the weapon out when she exited her automobile. She heard the shots when she was in the car and she reacted properly. She saw the shooter and knew that she faced death or great bodily harm at his hands. She was entirely justified in employing deadly force commencing with her drawing of her weapon. Her selfless action was heroic and worthy of everyone's admiration but contrasts emphatically with the use of deadly force against an unarmed teenager in a residential backyard.
[I]f you get behind the curve chances are your going to get hurt or killed.
In that comment lies the problem. So long as the mind set is that we are engaged in warfare between the Police Department and the rest of us; so long as the police officer on the street persists in viewing every civilian as a potential enemy; so long as police officers permit themselves to be set apart from the rest of society; significant segments of society will see police officers as a threat and not their protection and we will continue down the path which leads to the death of innocents.
Policemen are and must be a part of the community. We are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Hays nails it. The officers seemed to have a set of presuppositions when they saw Carrington. The presuppositions all turned out to be wrong. Who paid the price?
Keith,
Enough with the crazy generalizations... Policy should be consistent with state statute, no more or no less. My home does not deserve a less appropriate response from the authorities than someone who lives in Bloomington.
"She DID have the weapon out when she exited her automobile. She heard the shots when she was in the car and she reacted properly. She saw the shooter and knew that she faced death or great bodily harm at his hands. She was entirely justified in employing deadly force commencing with her drawing of her weapon."
I assume that either you were there, or you had a chance to review an analysis of the incident from FBI or CID. In either scenario, I'm glad you were able to analyze and approve of the officer's handling of the incident. Will you be willing to draw the same conclusions when you receive the report from the ISP?
"In that comment lies the problem. So long as the mind set is that we are engaged in warfare between the Police Department and the rest of us; so long as the police officer on the street persists in viewing every civilian as a potential enemy; so long as police officers permit themselves to be set apart from the rest of society; and significant segments of society see police officers as a threat and not their protection, we will continue down the path which leads to the death of innocents. "
Keith, I think you should post your home address publicly, and post signs that you do not want police assistance, nor want your neighbors to call police in the event of an incident at your property.
This isn't an 'us vs. them' argument. It's a them vs. them issue. The police have to work against those who take actions that require that we have police. Your generalizations on the mindset of all of our officers is troubling, I hope you have evidence of such widespread thought in the police department.
Keith-
Did you WATCH the meeting last night? DID YOU LISTEN to the people from PTI who said that once you get behind the curve, its harder to catch up? But as previous posters have stated, please put the signs up that say NO POLICE WANTED,. Do everyone a favor. Take the numbers 9 1 1 off your cell phone so that you never ever have to call it.
The question isn't that people don't want the police to respond, they want them to respond appropriately. What is appropriate is often very different based on the training, experience, situational perceptions and life experiences of the general population versus that of cops. Even the Supreme Court, operating from their lofty and very removed perch recognizes that what cops know is very different from what the general population knows, and allows them to act on their knowledge and experience, not on Keith's. Much of what constitutes probable cause and other legal determinations taken on the street in real time are predicated on what the cops knew at the time, and what they knew based on their experiences, which tend to be quite different from civilians.
To Anonymous @ 11:24 A--the last sentence of your post is most poignant--pointing to the need of much closer relationship between citizens and police where the majority view is that of a helpful entity rather than one to avoid, even fear. Here are two interesting articles about us v them law.jrank.org/pages/1677/Police-Police-Officer-Behavior-Individual-characteristics-officers.html law.jrank.org/pages/1676/Police-Police-Officer-Behavior-Explaining-police-behavior.html
Pattsi Petrie
"In that comment lies the problem. So long as the mind set is that we are engaged in warfare between the Police Department and the rest of us; so long as the police officer on the street persists in viewing every civilian as a potential enemy..."
I think if you look at the statistics Keith, you would find that the warfare is not among the police and citizens. Cops are not killing citizens in great numbers, citizens are killing citizen in great numbers. In our society we allow the police to do the job we refuse, are afraid, or simply refuse to do. You could do it. You know the statutes on the use of force for civilians, you know the statutes on civilians ability to make arrests, this is a job that you could do, if you were so inclined. But you don't for a number of reasons. I have often wondered why we continue to cry that the police can't get it right, when we have the authority to do it ourselves but won't. The citizen that watched the alleged break in could have intervened but did not. Maybe thought that it was too dangerous? Why, if it was only two unarmed teens that lived there, why worry. Maybe their skill level on these matters was not quite high enough to make them comfortable to approach an unknown situation and take the proper course of action. Maybe what we ought to do is take a group of citizens train them in police tactics, law, self defense, pay them a salary and provide continued training to keep their skills current. Maybe we could increase this group of citizens to a level that they could travel throughout the community and take care of these problems. If so, we could use tax money to pay them. We could even create a central location for people to call that would quickly get them to your home when you needed them. This way, if you wanted to call in a suspected burglary in your neighbors house you would get a uniformed response each and every time and you wouldn't have to do it yourself, even though you legally could. I think we could do it better, but why don't we?
In our society we allow the police to do the job we refuse, are afraid, or simply refuse to do. You could do it. You know the statutes on the use of force for civilians, you know the statutes on civilians ability to make arrests, this is a job that you could do, if you were so inclined. But you don't for a number of reasons.
I do know the statutes on the private citizen's use of force to make an arrest and have had the occasion to make such an arrest and restrain the arrestee for 45 minutes while the law enforcement officer arrived to take charge of the prisoner. I did not need the use of a weapon. Of course I was 30 years younger at the time. The situation involved the attempted forced entry to my home.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Wow Keith YOU DA MAN. Captured a bad guy eh? Held him for 30 minutes till the police showed up? How old was the suspect? Was the suspect armed? Did you imply you had a weapon? Tell us, how did you manage to hold this guy for 30 minutes with out force...You could sell that method to the cops so that they dont have to use force. Still waiting for your answer on the 21 foot rule with edged weapons.
I]f you get behind the curve chances are your going to get hurt or killed.
In that comment lies the problem. So long as the mind set is that we are engaged in warfare between the Police Department and the rest of us; so long as the police officer on the street persists in viewing every civilian as a potential enemy; so long as police officers permit themselves to be set apart from the rest of society; significant segments of society will see police officers as a threat and not their protection and we will continue down the path which leads to the death of innocents.
Policemen are and must be a part of the community. We are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies.
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Tell that to the Seattle Police officer who was shot while simply sitting in his squad car, or the Minneapolis Police officer while writing a report at a resturant, had a young man come up and shoot him. No conversation, just a bullet to the head.
So the guy at the restaurant should have had his piece out and ready? I mean, you can never be TOO careful.
...or perhaps that situation doesn't really apply to this conversation?
Read what Keith has to say... Police officers are trained and examples like this confirm this, that every person you do not know is a potential threat.
"Wow Keith YOU DA MAN. Captured a bad guy eh? Held him for 30 minutes till the police showed up? How old was the suspect?"
Yeah! I'll bet it was, like, a skinny 15-year-old kid or something, someone really easy to overpower and restrain without having to plug him.
Oh, sorry, bad example.
Probably a 6 year old ringing his bell on Halloween.. and asking for candy.... attempted residental burglary.
The Ft. Hood thing is pretty much irrelevant to Champaign. Where people are drawing comparisons to the killing of Kiwane Carrington are to other recent incidents that tell them that CPD is far too quick at the trigger and far too willing to see ordinary citizens as simply "collateral damage."
A chase across town leads to the house of an elderly woman, with her and grandchildren inside. The suspect, who has no link other than looking for cover, goes to ground there, the house is shot up and then trashed by CPD. Fortunately, no one was killed.
A domestic situation leads to CPD calling out their "tank" which leads to the suicide of the person involved. While domestic situations can be edgy and violent, an armored car is simply provacative and overkill.
Then -- whatever happened the day Kiwane was killed -- it is obviously an overreaction OR an accident in regard to whatever the original call was. Sure, the investigation will cook up something that might mitigate the worst assumptions by some of those in our community who see a pattern of blithe disregard for simply safe policing. Maybe not. Maybe it will be something that will be a total absolution. I doubt that. Maybe it will lead to something that others have warned of, that CPD has been engaged in an "us vs them" mentality for far too long and that has finally and definitively caught up with them.
Whatever the outcome of the investigation, I think the public, ALL of the public, cares that ordinary citizens aren't threatened by overly aggressive policing. Is someone trying to put together a pilot for a reality show or something?
Quite frankly, this is a systemic problem in US policing and there needs to be resistance to this trend. Most other countries manage without this and the ones who don't? You do NOT want to know where those comparisons lead, because it gets very ugly and shameful. Enough said. Many departments here are starting to revealuate the situation. Being a cowboy in blue is not good for your force, is not good for your jurisdiction, and is not good for your community. If you don't like hearing angry members of the public telling it like it is, how they feel, then suck it up, and make some changes instead of insisting there is nothing that you feel like changing.
A chase across town leads to the house of an elderly woman, with her and grandchildren inside. The suspect, who has no link other than looking for cover, goes to ground there, the house is shot up and then trashed by CPD. Fortunately, no one was killed.
A domestic situation leads to CPD calling out their "tank" which leads to the suicide of the person involved. While domestic situations can be edgy and violent, an armored car is simply provacative and overkill.
In case number one... the suspect FIRED at the police as they ran after him. THE SUSPECT fired first-- what are the police suppose to do? Leave? If the suspect then killed the family the same people who criticized them for getting shot at would criticize them for leaving. Cant have it both ways.
Second situation.
Guy had a gun to his head. What were the cops suppose to do? Just walk up to the car? It was a suicide attempt... The suspect then fled the scene because they could not get him blocked in...... But your the expert in police work. Apply today. Be a part of the solution, rather than sit on the sidelines. www.ci.champaign.il.us Good luck!
Rather than just pussy footing around this with that 4th district case that did not involve the police, why dont you just come out and say that you would rather see a Police Officer rather than a civillian shot. Because under your twisted logic of taking a gun out of a holster, thats whats going to happen.
I'm surprised that this is an issue:
Of course we should rather see a police officer than a non-lethally dangerous civilian shot. Civilians wake up each morning and make no professional commitment to themselves or their families that they may not come home that day. For those of us who chose violent civil service professions, the expectation is not the same. My family acknowledges these risks.
The fact that because they happen to be poor or black or something else, many of our youth have no choice but to face the same reality of risks is horrific. We should all be ashamed.
I would hope that law enforcement officers would be deeply offended that some posters on here see their job as being to shoot any youth they find threatening rather than to serve and protect...
Of course we should rather see a police officer than a non-lethally dangerous civilian shot. Civilians wake up each morning and make no professional commitment to themselves or their families that they may not come home that day. For those of us who chose violent civil service professions, the expectation is not the same. My family acknowledges these risks.
Please please please tell me your not in Law Enforcement... You would rather see one of your co workers shot because you know the job is dangerous? Wow. Thank goodness you and I never went on a call together. I would have to worry not only a bout the suspect but you as well.
The Champaign IL police have a long and dirty history of thuggery as was pointed out by many persons at a recent city council meeting. It is clear that the mayor of Champaign supports that attitude. Those who live somewhere else should be glad of it, while those who have to venture into the zone of potentially being accosted by one their loose cannons take the risk because of work, business, or, God forbid, shopping in Champaign. It's an ugly situation, and at this point it looks like the people could actually lose this battle with the Police since they seem to lack both the resolve and the smarts to hang on for a positive outcome.
Clearly, Champaign needs a new Police chief and at least one new officer, and a new broom. Unlikely they are to get any of that.
Let's not forget the white guy who got shot in his front yard. Sure, might not be the way to deal with vandals, but you'd expect the police to be the brains to sort out a not-too-bright citizen-vigilante problem. Instead, the Champaign taxpayers are making a hefty payment and a citizen undergoes painful and expensive recovery.
Flying bullets, no matter who they are aimed at, respect no race, creed, or color. Even if you somehow foolishly believe that Kiwane Carrington did something to "deserve" a bullet on the afternoon he was killed "by Officer Norbits's gun" that bullet could have just as easily have killed your child, son, brother or mother.
Does this sound like a professional force? Or the Keystone Cops on steroids?
I know that the Champaign Fire Dept. prides itself on its insurance ratings, with good reason. The citizens of Champaign are justifiably proud of that and benefit by it in lower insurance bills.
I know that like most big organizations that Champaign is probably self-insured against most smaller claims against it. But for bigger claims it will have to buy insurance to protect against what it can't afford to self-insure. This is an arcane area that I'm no expert on. Is there a rating agency for rating the exposure caused by law enforcement experience and policies? If so, what is the city of Champaign's rating?
I don't want to see any officers risk their lives unneccssarily. Neither do I expect them to expose my fellow citizens to needless risk. At this point, I believe that's an entirely open question
As someone said recently, the archetypical Champaign, IL policeman is nothing like the expected small-town constabulary, public servant Andy of Mayberry, wise, kind, protecting, serving the people, but is a ungainly pathologic chimera, a sort of Rapist for the Law, possessing overweening exploitive muscle of a RoboCop and fully under the control of all the brains of a Barney Fife.
I am so waiting for you all to put your big boy or girl pants on and go down an apply. The citizens of Champaign need and deserve viable and perfect citizens such as yourself to work Thurs-Sunday midnights.
"As someone said recently, the archetypical Champaign, IL policeman is nothing like the expected small-town constabulary, public servant Andy of Mayberry, wise, kind, protecting, serving the people, but is a ungainly pathologic chimera, a sort of Rapist for the Law, possessing overweening exploitive muscle of a RoboCop and fully under the control of all the brains of a Barney Fife."
Enough of this, please. If you want to criticize a particular action or policy, or even the leadership of the department, have at it. But please do not impugn the character of or insult the entire force. If you want to discuss, please email me - do not respond further in this thread, and do not try to defend disgusting comments such as the above. Thanks.
I see a photo of Andy Griffith.
A few weeks ago, the Krannert Art Museum showed the movie A Face In the Crowd, where Andy Griffith gives an Academy Award worthy performance. Unfortunately there was inordinate competition that year, 1957 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Griffith)
Michael Fuerst
Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3