Chief Finney Must Resign! says CU Citizens for Peace and Justice

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

I wrote earlier today, citing a report which indicated that police agencies have for years actively resisted provided and accurate and thorough accounting of civilians killed by police to federal government. At the time, I found this strange, but telling, about the way policing is done in the United States. It’s true that it does vary. Tonight, we find out how deadly these variations are and what it is that some police departments have to hide.

The report I referenced was cited in an article, “When the Police Shoot, Who’s Counting?” published on April 29, 2001 in the New York Times. It described the fact that the U.S. Department of Justice had no good statistics on encounters in which the police killed civilians. It seems this is, in part at least, an intentional omission on the part of many departments that is practiced as a matter of course.

“This lack of accurate statistics makes it virtually impossible, experts say, to draw meaningful, big-picture conclusions about deadly encounters between the police and the civilian population…

“The major reasons for the vacuum, the experts agree, are twofold. The lack of information on police shootings is attributable to the failure of police departments in many cities to keep and report accurate figures that distinguish between what the police see as "justifiable" shootings those in which the suspect posed a serious threat and incidents where an officer may have unlawfully fired at an unarmed civilian.

“The International Chiefs of Police, a police organization, tried in the 1980's to collect such information, but "the figures were very embarrassing to a lot of police departments," said James Fyfe, a professor of criminal justice at Temple University who is a former New York City police lieutenant. The results, he said, varied wildly.

“The Bureau of Justice Statistics, the statistical arm of the Justice Department, has tried to fill in some of the blanks on police behavior, issuing a number of surveys and reports on the topic. Most recently, the bureau quietly released a report, "Policing and Homicide, 1976- 1998." But the report itself underscores the continued problems in knowing what is really happening.

“On its cover, for example, the report refers to all the victims of police shootings as "felons justifiably killed by police," a categorization that Samuel Walker, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, termed "deeply offensive and legally incorrect." In fact, a Justice Department official said the bureau was so embarrassed by the term, and the lack of distinction between justifiable police shootings and murders, that it did not send out its usual promotional material announcing the report.

“But, the official said, the bureau was trapped because it depends on local police departments to report their figures on police shootings to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and "felons" is the term that police departments insist on using when they do so.

“Making matters worse, some police departments fail to report their shootings at all, and for some years, figures from entire states are missing…”

That’s right. If you get shot by police, if you are ever referred to as a statistic by Uncle Sam, you MUST be referred to as a “felon justifiably killed by police,” even though the Justice Department was admittedly embarrassed about having to lie about such things. Maybe that’s what all the often bloodthirsty thugnotes are about that relentlessly accompany this courageous reporting on these issues here?

Apparently, people in our community are now feeling some of the same pressure that the folks in Bush’s Justice caved under. I guess the fact that they are taking quiet satisfaction in knowing that Kiwane Carrington will be listed as a “felon justifiably killed by police” by the feds no matter what the Illinois State Police investigation says is reward enough in their value system. It certainly sounds that way from what I’ve read from that creepy direction. YMMV.

Well, that policy choice was in 2001, before September of that year, in the administration of a president who we all came to know much better about in regard to our civil liberties. We should not be surprised that this particular study landed with a thud on the desk of someone’s boss there, someone who might have had that Kerik guy as a boss, oh, never mind.... That’s as far as the feds go, who should be looking into this practice, if not this specific instance, of the sort of thuggish street justice that the British found at trial undermines public faith in the constabulary, and is more reminiscent of the rough and often inaccurate justice handed out in some 3^rd world slum, CIA-sponsored drug cartel, or stale death squad. One can see Mr. Lincoln shaking his head from side to side in shame. I’m uncertain yet about my faith in hope.

At the local level in Champaign, the recently implemented policy mentioned in the memo cited in the article above is indicative of an organization that seeks immunity from the consequences of their misbehavior, not accountability for all the parties involved in an incident. The use of deadly force by officers is fraught with consequences far beyond any “lesson” that can be taught about justice in the United States. Is this change by Champaign, widely viewed by most sectors as one of the departments least respectful of the rights of its citizens regionally, something restricted to it? Who else bends the law in their favor, how is this law interpreted in places other than Champaign County, and what needs to be done to spare thoughtful police officers of the hideous presumption that they should shoot to kill some kid, some woman, some man, some person who might have done nothing but be having a bad day in some way that certainly doesn’t deserve the death penalty?

Bullets flying around or the death of someone’s frightened child are just the least of it. There is no judge, prosecutor, or jury in any officer’s holster. There is no reason for there to be an executioner, either, especially so in a state that has already learned how fraught with injustice the process of law often is.

Go Danielle! ---and obviously this reflects the whole community's work especially CU Citizens. I wish I could be there to support you all I have been quarantined with H1N1. I will see you soon in solidarity and protest.

-Rob

"That he would draw a gun of an unarmed child, and let his staff do the same, is in conscionable."

    should probably read

That he would draw a gun on an unarmed child, and let his staff do the same, is unconscionable. 

Thank you, Danielle, and to everyone at CUCPJ for your continual work for the community.  I was in the lobby last night and heard the roar of clapping coming from the chambers as well as those of us crowded outside, the community is behind you.

Quote from above:  "If you try to escape a police officer, they can kill you.  If you are unarmed and resisting, they can kill you."

Here is a novel idea...DON'T TRY ESCAPING... DON'T RESIST.  If you are innocent why would you need to.  If I am pulled over for speeding I stop and discuss it with the officer..I don't speed off. 

You call for Finney's resignation and demand his head on a platter.  Do you think any sane police official would want to work in the City of Champaign after that?  They'll take one look at all of the freaks on these forums and say "no thanks...I'll pass." 

CPD puts a shoot to kill policy in place??? Just how much hysteria do you want to engage in ? It's always the police who are at fault in any situation isn't it ?

It was the black community who refused officers to have tasers in March 2004 because they would be used on blacks. You need to look at the use of force by an officer. A taser is classified as " less than lethal " force. You could say it's another tool for legitimate use by an officer. When in a fight would it not be better for an officer to be have available the use of a taser if they have it, rather than deadly force called their hand gun ? Had CPD had tasers would they have been used in this situation ? I don't know. We'll find out when the report is finished.

In 1962 Illinois adopted the Criminal Code at of 1961. It says this. (720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5) Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that: (1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and (2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay. (b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid. (Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)

The statute says nothing Danielle Chynoweth about just gunning down some one who's escaping. Danielle said earlier " I think we all know what this means. If you try to escape a police officer, they can kill you. If you are unarmed and resisting, they can kill you. If you are deaf and you appear to be fleeing, they can kill you. If you are mentally ill and playing out some fantasy of good against evil, they can kill you for resisting. And if you are young kid who never read this use of force policy that even our group has had a hard time obtaining, you will not know that resistance can equal death. You must rewrite this policy. It is unacceptable to kill unarmed people. Educate yourself people." Educate yourself Danielle instead of making wild statements.

The Columbine shooting massacre was carried out by two mentally ill high school students, " playing out some fantasy of good against evil." Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were " good ", the students were " Evil. " Read their suicide letters they left behind justifying the killing The police had no right to shoot to stop them Danielle ? Just let them go on killing at will fellow students. "Killing unarmed people is unacceptable" you say Danielle ?    A bomb has just exploded in Champaign killing many people. The suspect is observed fleeing the scene. A witness is behind talking to 911. The police arrive, have the correct person and try to stop the suspect. He / she refuses to stop and drives on. By that thinking the police should let him / her go shouldn't they ? He's unarmed right ? Let that bomber go, right ? Well, Illinois Law currently says that deadly force can be used against such an individual, if the Officer is attempting to make an arrest. READ THE STATUTE. You sit there and say " that'll never happen here ." Really ? The guy who killed people at Northern Illinois University actually lived here. Why he went to NIU to kill I don't think anyone knows.

Have any of you ever heard of Tennessee V. Garner Danielle or any of you ? The case started in 1974. The US Supreme court ruled in 1985 on it. TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) 471 U.S. 1 No. 83-1035. Argued October 30, 1984 Decided March 27, 1985 * READ IT........

" We call for an Independent Citizen Police Review Board with subpoena power. This board would help your force discipline and when needed remove rogue officers. " Will this board also look at the attitude and actions of the citizen involved to determine what role their actions played in the incident ? Oh, That's right...... the police are always at fault and the person is innocent by current thinking standards.

In April the man was shot on I - 74 by police. The black community raised their voices saying he was shot because he was black. There was a huge uproar. A very long investigation by the State Police showed the individual was mentally ill. Sad, but true. He was observed at Walmart earlier on video down south buying the weapons he displayed that night. After release of the report and the video I've heard nothing from the black community about how they were wrong assuming the police shot the man because he was black. He was mentally ill and armed with a deadly weapon. You beat the police over their heads for everything. Then you ask them to patrol your streets and make you safe. Continued beating them over their heads will only drive them into being reactive, instead of proactive. That means they answer calls only, not looking for suspicious behavior or enforcing laws that benefit this community. Traffic stops are a very useful tool for law enforcement. Criminals drive cars. The carry their drugs, money, stolen property, etc. in the car. They have warrants for arrest, they have no drivers licenses, no insurance, etc. The thinking here is nobody should be stopped and if they are it's a racist stop. It appears the police should just let anybody drive and do as they please. More ignorance. 

I ask all who read this when, yes when will this community move into 2009, almost 2010. When will the black community look at their own attitude(s) toward police ? Every stop is NOT based on race. Every contact is NOT based on race. Every arrest is NOT based on race. Whom here has the guts to look and say we have taught for years that the police are racist. They don't have the right to tell me what to do. That attitude immediately sets up a wall between the black community and the police. If CPD was racist, little to no crimes committed against any black would ever be solved. Yet, I read in the paper many crimes in the black neighborhoods are solved. Arrests are made. Murderers are convicted and sent to prison. Do the few screaming in Champaign speak for the majority of the minority ? Or is the majority quiet ? Fearful that saying anything about attitudes towards the police that are wrong, would bring condemnation against them for standing up for the police. One can only wonder. You want to honor Kiwane's memory ? Then build on healing this community in his name. Not tear the community apart.

;and, c. The person to be arrested has committed or has attempted to commit a forcible felony which involves the infliction of great bodily harm, or, d. is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or e. Otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.

Coincidentally, the same language as is in the ILCS.

Note the comma after the 'and', which means that what follows is inclusive of what proceeded. You can't have the level of force without what follows... Either Chynoweth is deliberately being disingenuous so as stir up emotions, or is too obtuse to read basic sentences.

I don't think CPD worries much about the law, because they know it's pretty much what THEY say it is in Champagn County.

Whatever the law says or is, people see that the law as being enforced essentially as was summed up at last night's meeting. It stinks. Their is obvious inequity.

Then there are those like you, those who argue for it continuing to be the way its been, up to and including the killing of Kiwane. One only need read comments posted here to see that some are just reall happy that things like this keep happening and that no change is needed on their part. Then you need only review the history of the way the law works in this town. You're happy and it makes you feel righteous to lord what you see as the Rule of Law over those who you think need to be the Ruled.

Assume the position. Don't give us any back talk. Act like you enjoy it. Submit. Now go on your way, if we please.

Anything else in reaction to how we see things can and will result in retribution -- not justice -- but retribution, up to and including the taking of your life. It will be officialy sanctioned. You will be declared a "felon justifiably killed by police" no matter where things started. Our showing our dominace over you is the message.

And a dog pisses on a post with the same intent.

Everyone knows it. You can keep telling people it's only raining. But no one believes you.

If I could look into my crystal ball this is what I would probably see....Chief Finney leaves Champaign and says to hell with all of you.  Champaign searches and searches for a new chief and the first time a black person is stopped for questioning community outrage will rain and everyone will show up at a council meeting demanding that changes be made in the CPD. 

I hope our council members will have the fortitude to wait until the investigation is complete before they cave into the ravings of a few fanatics.  Remember that you represent all of the citizens of Champaign...most who have faith and trust in those that serve and protect our city.  Don't let someone from Urbana dictate what happens in our city.  If she wants to throw around her opinions then she should take them to the Urbana council or move back to Champaign. 

I encourage ALL citizens of Champaign to contact their council member.  Those of you out there who support our police officers need to make your voices heard also.

It's empowering to see community members come together during crisis.  I envision this to be a time when the youth have an opportunity to be center-stage and receive much deserved attention....why can't we provide similar space(s) in times of relative peace????  We need to celebrate these kids when they are doing positive things; give them praise when praise is due.  This is the key to healing and preventing disaster.  We must empower them to stand up and voice their concerns and goals within schools, at home, within community centers, and during public gatherings (civic and informal).  Non-white youth, in particular, must be given the tools to affect change.  They are too often relegated to the sidelines unless being charged with criminal behavior (then the justice system is all too happy to "involve" them).  And, as the adults within our community, WE are charged with the task of youth development.  Who's up for it???!! Let's go!....

Near Hysteria: "It was the black community who refused officers to have tasers in March 2004 because they would be used on blacks. You need to look at the use of force by an officer. A taser is classified as " less than lethal " force. You could say it's another tool for legitimate use by an officer. When in a fight would it not be better for an officer to be have available the use of a taser if they have it, rather than deadly force called their hand gun ? Had CPD had tasers would they have been used in this situation?"

The Champaign police already have access to non-lethal force: Pepper spray, which was used on a black teenager near Douglas Park last summer. If the availability of pepper spray didn't prevent the use of lethal force by the police, then it doesn't seem likely that the availability of tasers would have changed the outcome of this incident. Therefore, the death of Kiwane cannot be used to justify the introduction of tasers.

One reason many citizens are opposed to the availability of tasers to the police is their lack of accountability to members of the community -- there is no police review board in Champaign.

Near Hysteria: "However, [the police officer] is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that: (1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and (2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay."

This is totally unacceptable. Under no circumstances is it morally justified for the police to use lethal force in response to non-lethal force. I have bold-faced the unacceptable section of the law. Here, "such force" is referring to lethal or near-lethal force on the part of the police for mere resistance or an attempt to escape. Therefore, Danielle Chynoweth's conclusions are correct: According to Near Hysteria's own quotation of the law, the police should be allowed to do the following:

"If you try to escape a police officer, they can kill you.

If you are unarmed and resisting, they can kill you. 

If you are deaf and you appear to be fleeing, they can kill you. 

If you are mentally ill and playing out some fantasy of good against evil, they can kill you for resisting. 

And if you are young kid who never read this use of force policy that even our group has had a hard time obtaining, you will not know that resistance can equal death."

All of this can be readily inferred from the bold-faced section above.

Near Hysteria: "The Columbine shooting massacre was carried out by two mentally ill high school students, 'playing out some fantasy of good against evil.'"

Kiwane was unarmed and not involved in any armed massacre of students! He wasn't even committing a crime when the police arrived. No proper comparison can be made between this incident and the Columbine incident. For similar reasons, your comparison between this incident and the Northern Illinois University shooting has no relevance. If anyone was in the grip of dangerous fantasies about "good" and "evil," it was probably the police officer that shot Kiwane.

Conclusion: Any policy or law that allows the police to use lethal force in response to non-lethal force, an attempt to escape, or passive resistance, should be changed. One possible consequence of this policy is that criminal suspects may use preemptive lethal force against the police before the police use lethal force against them. It has the potential to make our community a more dangerous and violent place.

Apparently you can't read either. She is not; that is not what it says. She either made an error by grabbing onto the language she wanted to see and read no further, or is intentionally spreading untruths for the goal of inflaming others to the greatest degree possible. It is not about puncuation, this is a tactic. She got this out there knowing the correction never gets the same play. There are more than enough issues here to deal with without ginning more of them up. Perception is reality and people's perceptions can create new realities or focus them on the old ones. There are real problems here aplenty without using the age old radical tactics of exaggeration to create more.

Why can't any of you amatuer journalists get the 911 tape? i know the News Gazette won't do it but somebody should file a lawsuit in federal court today to get the 911 tape - you'll win.

Such Force: "What about this circumstance?  Someone shoots a bunch of people, then threatens to shoot some more.  He runs off to do this.  The police try to stop him, but he keeps running.  He's able to outrun the police, and maybe they could shoot him and stop all those other people from getting killed."

In this case, there has been an umambiguous application of lethal force on the part of the criminal suspect toward either the police or members of the public. If it seems reasonable to believe that the criminal suspect will continue to use lethal force against either the police or members of the public, then the application of lethal force on the part of the police to stop the criminal suspect could be justified as the lesser of two evils if this is the only method available that could accomplish this goal. In my original statement, I did not specify whether the criminal suspect was applying force to either the police or members of the public -- this was left open because it really doesn't matter, as lethal force is lethal force.

However, in the incident involving Kiwane, neither the police nor any members of the public were killed, and it appears that he was unarmed. The only justification for lethal force on the part of the police in this instance, that I can think of, would be if Kiwane had successfully grabbed at the gun of a police officer and there was a struggle over its control. So far, insufficient information has been released to members of the public to draw a firm conclusion about this.

Such Force: "Yes.  FROM THE SECTION YOU BOLDED.  Reading the whole thing makes it clear that that's not really the case.  The cops can't just shoot you for resisting arrest if they don't think you committed a forcible felony.  It's not like they can just arrest you for jaywalking, and shoot you if you don't hear them."

Very well, I concede your point. I read the state statute as though it was imposing a disjunctive relationship (either/or), but it is clear that it is imposing a conjunctive relationship: both conditions (1) and (2) of the statute have to be satsified before the police are justified in the use of lethal force.

This means the state statute isn't in as bad of shape as I had assumed. I am glad this is the case because it means that the police can't run amok shooting people for trivial reasons!  Whew!

However, I don't think Danielle was referring to the state statute, but rather a policy of the Champaign Police that had been implemented recently behind the back of the city council. The wording of this policy may be quite different from the wording of the state statute to which you have referred, therefore her conclusions could still be valid. Personally, I have not seen this policy in writing, except what has been cited above.

The law that Near Hysteria quotes and interprets to be a declaration that use of deadly force when someone runs is acceptable because da law sez so, is a complete misinterpretation of what the law means.

The conditions that great bodily harm has been committed or is about to be committed, or you are running with a weapon must be met first before an officer can use deadly force when someone resists or attempts to flee.

Finney and Norbits never had that situation in front of them. The boys may have tried to flee, but there was not ever a forcible felony involving great bodily harm had been committed or was about to be committed.
Nice try Near Hysteria. Legal minds like yours need immediate check for deception.

"And" means both these things must be occuring.

In the new use of force policy adopted by the CPD, the policy uses the word "or", separating the great bodily harm criteria, leaving it as a list of when you can use deadly force. How that got in the policy, and without Council approval needs to be investigated and Steve Carter can look for work with Finney.

This whole thing is based on the word of the two people who have the most to hide: the officers.

Somebody try to explain how the surviving boy is to have cut, bruised, and separated a shoulder of an officer and is NOT charged with aggravated battery.

Somebody explain how after stopping what was perceived to be a burglary in progress where the suspects did not make it into the house, and after a boy is dead on the ground with a hole in his chest, the CPD's first move is to batter down the door of the homeowner who's house they were protecting and ransake the place without an explanation.

Bottom line: NO white teenagers would be treated like this in Cherry Hills and no Cherry Hill homeowner would have their place ransaked after the suspects are apprehended. Period.

"...a policy of the Champaign Police that had been implemented recently behind the back of the city council." Read them both (law and policy), completely. They are the same.

Explanations: "Bottom line: NO white teenagers would be treated like this in Cherry Hills and no Cherry Hill homeowner would have their place ransaked after the suspects are apprehended. Period."

Near Hysteria (probably): "You don't know this. Instead, you make yourself believe it to make this terrible incident about something other than what it is."

If you think that the police treat high status people in rich neighborhoods the same way as low status people in poor neighborhoods, then you are willfully blind to reality.

Near Hysteria (probably): "Unfortunately, despite whatever facts come out of the investigation, many minds have been made up about what people THINK happened, and they won't care to hear anything else about it."

If you're referring to the "investigation" of the police by the police, then I think there are good grounds to be suspicious of the outcome of such an investigation, considering the conflict-of-interest that is involved.

Somebody explain police procedure for me:
Police intervene on a burglary preventing the two
from entering the house.
Suddenly a shot is heard, boy falls dead blasted in the chest.

Why then do police, according to the bar owner next door and the renter of that house and by the police's own admission,
why do police bash in the door with a battery ram?
Why not just call the owner to let them in. And for what
reason is this needed when protecting the house against a burglary has been
solved, albiet too dramatically?

Once inside, police ransack the house and tennant's personal items in every room? why can't Troy Daniels explain that procedure?

I'm still trying to figure out why if the kids didn't do anything, why they were in a struggle with the cops. They should have just laid down and said OK. Why do people try to come up with excuses for people not doing what they should be doing? If someone is trying to get into my house at 1:30 in the afternoon, when kids should be in school, I hope someone calls the cops. Now if someone couldn't get in, then they give me a call or wait till I get home. Why would anyone need to break in or climb through a window if they were welcome there?

Anon: "I'm curious, and honestly not trying to be a wise ass. Who do you think should conduct the investigation? An independent group that has some sort of experience in interviewing/evidence collection etc? An out-of-state police agency?"

That's very simple to answer: A police review board that is comprised of local citizens. Champaign should have one.

I hear the argument about a police review board doing the investigation.  Here is my retort to that.  How much experience will a review board have in:

criminal law and procedure

evidence collection

interview and interrogation

case preparation

written documentation

Also, what happens when this board discovers something criminal?  Will they arrest the person?  Will then they refer the case to another organization, who will have to completely start the investigation over, including all of the documentation that goes along with it.  What will the standard of proof be?  How will we insure that the local citizens on the board will not come to a conclusion based on a political/ideological position?  Who will handle procedural matters and direct the course of the hearing?  Who will hear the appeal of the boards decision?  What will the procedure be if misconduct is discovered on the part of board members?  What will the remedy be if such misconduct is discovered?

The list goes on and on.  I hear the argument and think that generally the idea has some merit, but honestly it won't work.  It will take WAY too much time, WAY too much money, and will be WAY to subjective.  The process won't hold up.  Even if you do solve these issues, what power will they have?  The power to shake their finger at a cop?  Maybe get him to lose his job?  If there is something criminal, then he/she needs to be chucked into prison. 

Folks, we have a process for this.  It is a criminal investigation by a team of trained professionals.  Those professionals are called police officers.  They do all of this and they turn over their work to a prosecutor.  The prosecutor takes the ball and does what needs to be done.  There are multiple layers of safeties.  There are multiple layers of critical eyes.  If you want the shooting investigation done by cops from another agency, cool.  I am down with it.  Champaign County has that.  It is a team comprised of every agency of any substantial size.  If you think that this is just another way of covering something up, you are way too much of conspiracy theorist.  There is no way to get 20 cops to agree on any one thing.  There will be 20 different opinions.  All will be heard and documented in written reports that the effected agency will have no way of controlling or censoring in any form or fashion...

Dear  anonymous on October 27, 2009 - 9:24pm,

I suppose the same argument could be made about jury trials...  But what I was trying to also point out was that there is a methodical and well regulated system that is in place to present already.  That is the legal system we have.  Don't go off on a tangent about the legal system right now, because God knows that I have my own issues with it - but the information is presented to the jury in a systematic fashion by the two opposing camps.  The judge makes the legal calls on what the jury hears.  I guess the point that I was trying to make is that the "review board" with no training, expertise, or experience will not only have to filter the information on what is appropriate to be heard, but then have to make a decision as to outcome while trying to ignore information that they have heard.  I guess my overall point is why reivent the wheel here.

If you want the state police to do the investigation, fine.  If you want the office of the inspector general to do the investigation, cool.  FBI, no problem.  The frickin Texas Rangers, rock on.  They all have training, expertise, and experience.  Joe the plumber and Susie the astrophysist, they don't.  I don't know a thing about plumbing so I can't judge the work of a plumber.  I also have no clue about astrophysics.  How is it that Joe and Susie can judge a cop's work with any level of creditability when the people who would judge their work would have to have some?  

As for Nightwatch - I don't think the coppers in CU are shaking in their boots about a review board in Champaign.  The world did not come to an end east of Wright Street when Urbana got one.  But there was a BUNCH of meetings in Urbana about the review board so that all of the concerns could be heard (by both sides).  I am betting that one of the biggest concerns by Urbana cops was "how can someone judge my work that knows nothing about what I do?"  Doesn't that general argument have some validity?  I am pretty sure that is why the review board members in Urbana are required to ride along a certain amount to even sit on the board.  You know, it is the old walk a mile in my shoes argument...  I get that police officers are public servants.  I get that what officers do need to pass the smell test and make the public they serve feel good about the people they employ.  But I am guessing that police work is profession where people are not always going to be happy with the decision made, even if they were the correct decisions... 

I know nothing about what happened to the 15 year old boy other than what I have seen on the news.  Right now that is not much.  I will decide what I think of the situation once the report from the state police becomes public.  Will I be satisfied?  Dunno.  Will I be angry?  Dunno.  I do know that I should wait to hear as much as I can before I make a judgement.  That is the right thing to do...

Municipalities can write the requirements of who sits on a Review Board like they do for any task force. The assumption that the Board would be comprised of ignorant citizens with a bias against the police would be solved if you have a criteria for the seats on the board. Example, "The Board will be comprised of representatives from the following:
1) one member of the State's Attorney's office
2) one member of the Public Defender's office
3) One member of the police department
4) one member of the U of I law school
5) one member of business community
6) one member of the FOP
7) one member of ......you name it....

That argument has been one of the more dishonest canards police have used to wriggle out of independent oversight. It really comes down to "if you got nothing to hide, why are you hiding?" It remains mystifying police insist they do nothing wrong, then chaffe when video cameras or civilian oversight is suggested to monitor their behavior. If I were an honest cop, I would embrace all the eyes you want on my work. It would be better protection against the whackos who complain just because the officer didn't do what they wanted.

Well, the argument about when, whether and how CPD revised its use of force policy seems to be coming to an end with an admission that at the very least the entire process created confusion. WILL AM580 interview CPD Chief Finney on its local news this afternoon.

Chief Finney cited the need to end the ongoing confusion brought about by CPD's Oct. 1 revision of the use of force policy language, later attributed to a professional certification process, and the shoorting death of Kiwane Carrington, nine days later in which the chief himself was involved.

The policy would specifically state that someone who presented no obvious threeat to others and who tried to resist or escape would not justify the use of deadly force, something which was unclear and uncertain in the language of the previous, "revised" policy.

The associated Taser policy, which seemd odd to many citizens since CPD does not use tasers, would specifically state that CPD Taser policy would apply whenever CPD requested outside agencies to bring Tasers into Champaign's jursidiction and use them on a subject.

Finney advised that he would be forwarding the yet-again revised use of force policy to the city manager and attorney in the next few weeks. Nothing was said about the ISP inversitigation and report of the Carrington killing, which has been forwaded to State's Attorney Julia Rietz. And whatever is changed in it is too late to help Kiwane Carrington.

One might surmise that Finney's Friday afternoon press opportunity was timed in an attempt to partially deflate the findings in the ISP report. Combined with an earlier report that Champaign Schools have been alerted to the potential need for a lockdown when the report is released, another blindly devotional ad supporting Finney in today's News-Gazette, and the many ironically insistent comments that people with opinions that differ from comments that demonstrate support for the police should wait until the ISP report is released, these signs point to signs that the report is nearing release.

Police Department • 82 E. University Avenue • Champaign IL 61820 • (217) 351-4545 • fax (217) 403-6924 • www.ci.champaign.il.us

Date: November 20, 2009 Contact: Rene Dunn Phone: (217) 403-6912

NEWS RELEASE

Champaign Police Propose Changes to Use of Force Policy
In Response to Community Comments

At the Council Study Session on November 10, 2009, the Champaign City Council discussed the Police Use of Force Policy. After hearing comments from the Council and citizens regarding some concerns with the policy, the Champaign Police Department is proposing changes in the following areas:

• Adding language that better explains when it is legally reasonable for an officer to use deadly force.

• Emphasizing language about the restrictions in the use of deadly force when a suspect is resisting or escaping.

• Clarifying that Champaign Police do not use Conducted Energy Weapons (tasers), but may call in other agencies to deploy them, and providing guidance on when tasers may be requested.

• Reinserting language found in the previous policy concerning when an officer may display a firearm.

• Adding language to state that the Annual Use of Force Report will be reviewed by both the City Council and the Human Relations Commission.

In the coming weeks, the Department will work on these revisions and present them to the City Manager and the City Attorney for review. “I believe these policy revisions will accomplish the intent of the Council and citizen recommendations, as well as provide improved guidance to officers concerning use of force,” says Chief R.T. Finney.

If anyone saw the Nov. 10th study session, you will know that the pressure to change the CPD Use of Force Policy did not come from either source mentioned in the news release (citizens or council members). The citizens were marginalized by members of the council and the council comments overall gave a ringing endorsement for the CPD and their use of force policy. At the end of the meeting it appeared to be a victory for the police and a clear signal for them to continue business as usual.

So what happened? Did they get an "F" from ILEAP on their accreditation efforts? Is the ISP report really, really bad for them? Or is it both? I guess we'll have to stay tuned!

I was thinking along the same line as that expressed by Tom Bruno in the article. It's entirely possible that the use of force changes simply don't apply to the death of Kiwane. We don't know what the real story is.

Sure they eventually charged his friend with resisting, but as has been noted here that could've just been a way to give them an excuse for capping Kiwane. I'm not buying that whatever use of force policy they want to pull out of their butts applied that day.

I haven't heard anything about life-saving measures that would have (should have) been applied when Kiwane was shot.  Did anyone come to Kiwane's aid?  Did the police officers attempt to stop the bleeding, administer CPR, or anything before the ambulance arrived?  How long did it take for the ambulance to arrive?  Wasn't there anyone in the whole neighborhood who actually witnessed the scene besides the 2 officers and the other child?  It was broad daylight in the middle of the day.  I find it hard to believe that not one single neighbor has come forward to describe what they saw and heard.  Or maybe they have and we just haven't been apprised of that information.