Shooting Roundup

Maybe it is time for the city of Champaign and the city council to reconsider a Civilian Police Review Board, aka Urbana, because the people listed who make up the Champaign County Multi-Jurisdictional Investigative Team does not include anyone outside of the profession. Though I do have reservations about the effectiveness of a Civilian Review Board if the Champaign Community and Police Partnership has had little success in rebuilding trust between the community and police. I base this on the several extensive comments recently posted on IP and the 4 decades of observations on my part of major separation between the police and the community, especially particular areas. Even I have had interesting experiences with the Champaign police that have put trust on the edge under very benign circumstances and I reside in what would be considered a neutral area.

Pattsi Petrie

If the only choices of police officers are to engage in hand-to-hand combat or use deadly force, we should expect more incidents like this. Let's re-think the whole Taser issue

Let us remember that as a matter of law a police officer is justified in employing deadly force ONLY if he reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or that he reasonably believes BOTH that deadly force is necessary to effectuate the arrest AND the person has committed a forcible felony involving the infliction or threat of great bodily harm or is using a deadly weapon to escape or otherwise indicates that human life is in danger or great bodily harm is likely unless an arrest is accomplished without delay.

If, for example, the child had been using an implement to pry open a window AND he was brandishing it as though it was a weapon the officer MIGHT be justified in using deadly force. He would not be justified in drawing, pointing, and firing his weapon based only upon the failure of the child to follow his instructions. Mere suspicion that the child could be armed is not enough. Resistance is not enough. He must believe that the threat exists and his belief must be reasonable. Unless those circumstances exist the police officer does not have a lawful choice to use deadly force.

By the way there is substantial verifiable evidence that a Taser does constitute deadly force in some circumstances.

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

"If we had a State's Attorney that was the attorney for the citizens instead of just constantly covering for the cops maybe we would have a little more of the Freedoms guaranteed by the Founding Fathers."

Your personal convictions on the meaning of the Constitution doesn't change the fact that it conflicts with the current interpretations in effect today. Some of your suggestions could get someone in a great deal of trouble, imprisoned, or potentially killed. Whether it should be that way is an entirely different matter.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

 The laws of Illinois are clear. Cops must follow rules. Cops may not just bust in, even if it is a bad guy. Even if they see Osama Bin Laden in the front window, they may not go in. Read your Constitution. The Founding Fathers were worried about the government's ability to just go right into a house, and prohibited the government from doing it without a Warrant or very clear rules that are to be followed in every case, every time.

I don't know if you are accurate in your interpretation of the law, I have very serious doubt you are, but regardless, it doesn't seem to apply in this case since the incident occurred outside of a house and the property had not been established as the suspect's home. I believe the officers were more than likely trying to establish if the suspect "belonged" there. If someone were climbing in your window to rob your home when you weren't there and they told the police it was their home, should the police just go on their merry way and allow the robbery to take place?

Secondly, common sense would tell a reasonable person to cooperate or do the "safe" thing. Example, I'm about to step into the crosswalk and see a bus coming, the law (on campus) says the pedestrian has the right of way, correct? So I make a choice to go ahead and cross, I may be right, but also may be dead right.

"The CPD have been horribly disrespectful, incompentent and thoughtless to me..."

I've witnessed CPD deal with numerous situations that conflict with this perspective. Recently there was an incident I witnessed where a few young teenagers were playing with what appeared to be a real firearm, someone called the police, and CPD officers surrounded the area and waited for the opportune moment to close in, guns drawn and ordered them to the ground. They complied, verified the gun was some sort of fake replica, talked with the kids, uncuffed them, and left with the confiscated replica/toy gun. Like this situation it involved young minorities, a concern call to the police, and an incorrect impression as cause for that concern... though arguably a far more dangerous suspected issue.

Their professionalism in that situation was reflective of my previous experience with them, both personally and witnessing other incidents. I'm sure they've had their moments and there may be some officers who may be less than ideal, but generally speaking the complaints I've heard against them have come from those who are more upset about getting caught or dealt with firmly when they're being disrespectful or uncooperative due to whatever hangups against authority they may have. I worry that some kids are being taught to despise police officers in general as "racist death squads" and this may lead to further combative behavior whenever they interact with them. Not only does it make a bad situation unnecessarily worse, even in situations where they may be perfectly within the law up to that point, but it can also lead to additional criminal charges or physical harm.

That said, I don't know how much of any of that actually applies to this case, nor does it necessarily get the officer off the hook for any liability, criminal or otherwise, if it's determined he intentionally or unintentionally used deadly force inappropriately. A scuffle alone seems insufficient absent some other unknown factors in my mind. Assuming those factors do or do not exist at this point seems unwise. Demanding those answers does not. Impatience for those answers may be inevitable, but the reality may be that we have to wait to get them regardless.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

I find it interesting that everyone who speaks of the shooting has made the conclusion that the officer willingly pulled the trigger, without even giving a nod to the possibility of this being an accidental shooting.  Given that there was some sort of physical struggle, it is possible for someone to accidentally discharge the weapon without the intent of killing another, or even trying to shoot the other person-and that goes both ways for the individuals involved.

And an FYI for the legal scholars, probable cause is sufficient for police officers to act in a situation where a warrant would otherwise be required.

I find it interesting that everyone who speaks of the shooting has made the conclusion that the officer willingly pulled the trigger, without even giving a nod to the possibility of this being an accidental shooting.  Given that there was some sort of physical struggle, it is possible for someone to accidentally discharge the weapon without the intent of killing another, or even trying to shoot the other person-and that goes both ways for the individuals involved.

I've been wondering about that myself.  It seems like there are lots of opinions out there right now, but not too many facts.  It'll be interesting to see what the investigation yields.

Didn't need to happen. If the chief of police can't work his way through a simple situation like this without a citizen being killed, we've got the wrong chief of police.

You understand the difference between competence and perfection, right?  The police work their way through simple situations like this every day.  For some reason this time the suspects ended up in a fight with the officers and one of them got shot.  It'll happen again, but probably not for several years, and there's no real way to prevent it short of disarming the police.

UCIMC = Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

"Has your 15 year old ever locked themselves out of the house? Have they ever questioned authority?" I'm sure most can relate in one way or another.

"If so, how would you feel if someone showed up at your house and shot them dead? Would you like to bury your kid tomorrow?" Nobody would, and I'm sure the emotional reaction would be to blame the shooter no matter what additional events occurred that led to that point, as you're doing right now. As far as criminal/civil liability goes, however, those additional events make a big difference regardless of how little bearing the will have on the emotional distress.

"Another thought exercise: If the shooter was not a police officer, but a young black male, how would our society assess the situation? The idea that police deserve more right to deadly force over unarmed civilians than others seems backwards."

It's not as backwards as you depict. If the homeowner was doing the shooting then, just like this situation, there will need to be a determination on the additional unknown events as to whether it was justified or an accident and whether any criminal charges are appropriate. The larger differences are in scope and further authority when it comes to police officers' power, per laws the public has established via their representatives, to demand compliance and detain and probable cause enabling more intrusion than your average joe, etc.

You seem to be assuming the police officer is entirely off the hook at this point, regardless of the additional details, which is a bad assumption at this point. If those additional details prove a criminal liability and then he gets off the hook anyways, then it's time to shout and scream and demand justice. At this point you're just making conclusions that frankly aren't substantiated yet.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

To Anonymous @ 8:10 A--indeed, one of the important tracks for this community right now, as you posted, is "what can we do to make our community better?" Unfortunately, you stopped there. What are your suggestions? How to turn this community around, including Unit 4? How to build or rebuild trust between the community and police department? How to offer ways and means for young adults of the community to engage productively in life? This lack has been prevelant for all of the years I have lived here--the teenagers are left to fend for themselves; yet we complain about them. I am interested in IP posters' thoughts and suggestions.

Pattsi Petrie

What is extremely apparent to me, from most of these posts, is that facts have no bearing on the truth as seen by these posters.

I have questions, but I think I will wait until all of the facts are in.  Why does it take CSI only an hour to solve their crimes?  BECAUSE IT IS FICTION!!!  Why does it take so long for real police investigations to conclude?  BECAUSE THEY ARE REAL LIFE! And, since the investigators are not gods, they have to sift between the different accounts to find the truth.  Be patient, people.  The truth will come out in the end.

And, please, stop speculating.  It does no one any good, and only stirs up more problems.

Using the threat of deadly force to enforce the law is exactly what we pay and train the police to do. They've gotten so good at it that actual deaths are quite rare these days.

And Daniel Norbits' use of force was instrumental in two of those rare "actual deaths".

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

"I just read today's N-G--there is an a fairly large ad requesting the firing of the police chief. "

Um... how dare he show up to a burglary? There's so much axe grinding going on at this point we're getting down to the handles. I suppose if one has already concluded the guilt of the cops without evidence, it's not a leap to demand sentencing too. Pretty ridiculous, not to mention ironic given the complaints about rights, double standards, etc.

"And Daniel Norbits' use of force was instrumental in two of those rare "actual deaths"."

Was the other incident suspicious/unjustified, or was it an appropriate use of force in that case?

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Your oversimplification of a tragic situation with inadequate information available to form any type educated opinion is premature and immature. It appears your intent is to incite, rather than understand, correct, or heal. Any one with an ounce of human compassion would not believe death should be a penalty for noncompliance, but sometimes due to circumstances, poor judgement, or human error it is, fact! My grandmother used to tell us there is a consequence for every decision or nondecision. Good judgement and grace determine whether it's a good or bad consequence. Obviously some errors were made. Who made them, with what knowledge or understanding they made is yet to be determined. Have a little good judgement and grace for all our sakes please.

I have concerns at several levels involving this death.

The first, and perhaps the more important, is at the human level. I have experienced the pain and frustration of losing a 14 year old nephew as a result of the tragic combination of his immature judgment and the ill-advised, incomprehensible, and unnecessary acts of an inexperienced small town policeman. It was 12 years ago today. The pain is still fresh and the tears still well up. He was an honor student, a popular kid, and full of promise. He was of mixed parentage, a Black kid under the one drop rule, who had the bad judgment to accompany a White teen friend to a town in which there were no Black kids in the wee hours of the morning. He died that night leaving holes in the hearts of his family that will never heal. I can't help seeing this situation through the lens of that experience. A child is dead and I want to explain the reason to myself to find a justification and purpose for the death.

The second level is more critical for the community, Black and White; the level of public information and policy. There is no question that the killing of a 15 year old Black kid by a police officer is an inflammatory situation. When the shared policy of law enforcement agencies and news media is to lower a cone of silence, circle the wagons, and restrict the dissemination of factual information the result is to encourage presumption, speculation, and raw rumor. In the vacuum created by the policy we see a supposition that a reckless officer willfully acted to kill a Black kid without reason countered by the proposition that had the child was at fault and the death was his own fault. It is simply bad and short sighted policy. Withholding the identity of the involved officer is an example. It is incomprehensible to me how making his identity known could have jeopardized any step in a coordinated comprehensive investigation.

The third level is professional. The law as to the use of deadly force by a police officer is well understood and codified. The circumstances under which the policeman is permitted to use force likely to kill or maim is closely circumscribed. I have posted the relevant statutes so that we all can view the event in light of the law that applies to it.

Finally there is the practical level. While a police officer may not lawfully use deadly force except under the most extreme of circumstances one should never forget that the policeman is heavily armed. I have always advised both my clients and my children that no matter how unreasonable the policeman may seem there is only one thing for the citizen to say and that is "Yessir"!

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

First, I'm sorry for your loss. But that loss isn't justification for jumping to conclusions on the current incident, that while you claim to not be doing, certainly comes through in your writing regardless.

Second, I'd expect law enforcement to release the facts as soon as possible, but not without ensuring they have all of the facts and evidence straight first. Most of your demands seem more appropriate for the local media as opposed to a party of the events that has a legal liability in the matter. Especially since other agencies are rightfully taking the lead in the investigation to avoid the obvious conflict of interest. As for the cop's identity, do you have any knowledge that contradicts their claim that they were required to withhold it, or are you just assuming their reasoning was flawed without proof?

As to your third and final concerns, they didn't seem to be stated as such, so I'm not sure what the concerns are? That they aren't following the law? If not, how? That it's unfair for police to demand compliance? Or that cops shouldn't be armed? Beats me.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Annoying Mike... thanks. Seems like an almost entirely unrelated incident with no actual bearing on this officer's demeanor, let alone some proof that he's some unusually violent officer compared to most with the blood on his hands to prove it. I can see why the original comment was stripped of any context. <sarcasm>I'm sure that was completely unintentional and in no way indicates that unsubstantiated conclusions are being drawn to destroy this cop whether he actually deserves it or not.</sarcasm>

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

 I too lost a 15 year old nephew in a senseless accident, although it did not involve the police, I know that heartache well.  You have no proof this incident is anything remotely similiar other than two key players were a cop and a young black man. Projecting old wounds onto current events won't give you the resolution you're looking for.

The second level is more critical for the community, Black and White

Well there's some common ground. All the more reason the information that is issued needs to be based on fact, not speculation. These few but extensive threads on IP over the last few days are a prime example of how preconceived ideas, past experiences, and partial facts give birth to speculative scenarios that fuel racial discord. Could the delay in the release of factual data be due to the police department's sensitivity to discord? Could they be waiting for a third party investigation perhaps?

The third level is professional. The law as to the use of deadly force by a police officer is well understood and codified.

Wouldn't you agree you can not apply "the law" to an unknown scenario? It's quite evident emotions are running high on this, and emotions don't fuel good decision making.

"That cops shouldn't always immediately draw down and order people to lay down on the ground. That cops should professionally assess the threat first, quickly, professionally. That cops should assess whether the suspect may be armed, based upon training, experience, and likelihood. That often a "Hey, what are you doing?" is more effective and less dangerous."

You're assuming they didn't make such an assessment when for home invasions this very well may be the appropriate response for both the safety of the officers and suspects normally. Your alternative suggestion would be great if they were psychics who could be certain of what they were walking into with little regard needed for their own safety.

"That shooting an unarmed 15 year old skinny black kid isn't the first instinct."

You have absolutely no evidence that it was. Assuming it to be true doesn't make it true.

"The circumstances that permit a peace officer to employ deadly force are set out in Section 7 of the Illinois Criminal Code that I previously posted. I suggest that you read it. Those circumstances do NOT include to compel compliance with an order to get on the ground as some who post here seem to think and advocate."

I read and agree with the excerpts you posted. If someone suggested that an officer may shoot merely to get complaince with such an order without any of the additional issues mentioned in the law, I missed it. If you have evidence that this ocurred with this incident you have yet to provide it. Thus far no such evidence exists afaik.

"The only conclusion I have jumped to is that the lack of the timely release of accurate public information encourages the kind of speculation that poisons the well of public opinion."

Even if you're right that this obligation exists on the local police, which I do not, I do not see how that justifies actively poisoning the well of public opinion, which you seem to be engaged in, whether you recognize/admit it with your highly emotive and conclusive language that has both implied/stated this was a public execution, that this kid's life was worth nothing to the people involved, and attempting to smear the cop with a cherry picked and stripped of context event, etc. Given your postings thus far, your "concern" about lack of information leading to a poisoned well of public opinion seems more like a threat that if they don't, you'll continue poisoning the well of public opinion.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

1) Pointing out my experiences differed doesn't require videotaping your childhood.

2) That would be unfair. But I was applying the "axe to grind" comments towards those going beyond mere criticism, but actually demanding heads roll before the facts are in, some folks have been doing so for days with even fewer facts.

3) I'm not dismissing anything. But we still don't know if race played any role whatsoever in this particular incident. We don't even know exactly how the shooting actually went down yet beyond some very ambiguous descriptions from one party. People assuming that race must have played a role conflicts with my experiences observing the police deal with minority suspects in arguably more dangerous potential situations. It's a bad assumption. Now if the evidence shows that race played a factor here, then it will need to be dealt with accordingly. But the unwarranted assumptions are spreading like wildfire on this thread and it's irresponsible, imo. That kind of reckless propaganda could very well get more people injured or killed.

There are real race issues that need to be dealt with in our community. Exaggerating every pepper-spraying into a severe beating, shootouts with actual armed suspects as unwarranted use of force, or jumping to conclusions on this case, which for all we know may have been a tragic accident, and assuming it was part of some "racist death squad" conspiracy will only further divide the community and cause resentment. If evidence eventually shows the officer was in the wrong you might find a great deal of folks who would have been equally outraged and an ally to your cause still on the defensive from earlier assumptions that grouped them in with the worst accusations out there.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

anon 4:56... I'm not sure you actually understood a word of what I said. You seem to be projecting some typical white guy stereotype on me and inferring a lot more into what I said than what was actually said. I disagree with pretty much everything you seem to think I believe based on that last post. If you're not intentionally setting up a strawman then I'm at a loss in how to respond.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Seems like an almost entirely unrelated incident with no actual bearing on this officer's demeanor, let alone some proof that he's some unusually violent officer compared to most with the blood on his hands to prove it.

The article I read this morning in the News-Gazette clearly stated that this officer was the one who beat Brown repeatedly with his baton.

The report said Norbits tried to push Mr. Brown down with his foot in the center of the back.

"That had zero effect," Norbits said. "The subject again started to get up. I hit him, and we – he was flailing his arms as he was starting to get up. I didn't want the officers to get struck. I struck the upper portions of his – upper portions of his arm on the outside, both arms, at some point during the struggle."

Up to 14 patrol officers came to the scene before Mr. Brown was subdued and handcuffed. Shortly thereafter, he appeared to stop breathing and died.

Call it unrelated if you want to, but it seems pretty relevant to me.

Of course I don't spend my days trying to pretend that police are victims when they just killed an unarmed teenager.

Rietz said school officials report he is registered at Central and "from time to time, shows up at the school, but doesn't go to class.

Is it true that the kid has only shown up to school 5 times this quarter? Exactly where are his parents when he is missing nearly 90% of his classes???? Isnt this a part of the problem?

On October 14th, 2009 at 09:07 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

I am white and middle aged and I am uncomfortable with the Champaign Police and I always feel safer when I am in Urbana.  There is a long and ugle history with the Champaign Police Department starting with the time they refused to show up and protect the black children being bused to Centennial High School.  The principal called the police when several white fathers and their sons showed up with baseball bats and waited for the buses.  The police never bothered to show up and those men beat up the poor black children.

Dear Anon:

Would you be so kind as to supply us with a month and a year this incident happened in?  I have lived here for 20 years and this is the first time I have heard of this.

I am assuming it happened sometime in the 1960s-early '70s.

Thanks in advance.

owhtcootcitf

It is relevant, since if the kid, who goes to Central, had been in School, then he would not have been at the incident, since Unit 4 was not on a half day that day, but Ready was............................

One has to wonder how many times the average police officer ends up killing a civilian in his or her entire career.  I would guess that the average is zero.  This guy has now instigated violence upon two civilians who ended up dead at his hands.

You know, call me crazy but it seems pretty clearly relevant.

Of course I am not in the business of pretending down is up.

So you think Norbits is somehow responsible for the death of Gregory Brown?  If so, that would probably make Gregory Brown the first person in human history to die of a nightstick wound to the arm.

Well, I don't think we'll ever know what happened with Gregory Brown since, as you can see from the testimony, there is an awful lot of vague area between hitting someone on the arm (repeatedly) with a stick and the guy ending up dead.  Color me skeptical if I don't believe this cop told the whole story in his testimony - his career was on the line.

On the other hand, Norbits was the first one to hit Brown (repeatedly) and he ended up dead.  Norbits is now the one whose gun killed a 15 year old.  Again, some might call that coincidence.  My contention is that logical people without a hidden agenda (like, "I'm trying to be really fair here but of course the cop deserves every inkling of doubt and anyone who disagrees with me deserves ridicule") are probably going to find this piece of information persuasive against the cop.

I've known a few cops in my day, but I've never known one that killed a person.  Norbits has killed at least one and was party to the death of another.  To me, that information is disturbing.

And, I do realize that these children did have a right to be where they were.  Nobody has the right to defy the police and not expect some sort of consequence.  As has been said repeatedly on "Penny For Your Thoughts" in the last couple of days:  do what the police tell you to do, then sort it out later.  Better that than someone lying dead on the sidewalk.

(BTW:  Chris Rock's piece:  Right on!)

To Keith Hays @ 10:01 A--fair enough and thank you for your response. Specifically, I am curious if our states attorney has any reason to recuse herself from this situation based on the fact that she is married to an Urbana policeman along with my own assumption that this is a very small community of professional individuals and might possibly know the two Champaign policemen involved.

Pattsi Petrie

OK, call me stupid if you want to, but I don't quite see the relevance of the War in Iraq to the civil unrest being stirred up by the shooting of a child.  We don't know much beyond a child's death in the latter; in the former, we had 3,000 deaths and a group of people claiming to have done it in the former. 

Of course, someone will always try to connect totally disparate things.

(BTW, holding a man down with a foot is not kicking him)

To Keith Hays @ 10:01 A--fair enough and thank you for your response. Specifically, I am curious if our states attorney has any reason to recuse herself from this situation based on the fact that she is married to an Urbana policeman along with my own assumption that this is a very small community of professional individuals and might possibly know the two Champaign policemen involved.

I thought that might be the question toward which you were tending.

A State's Attorney in her second term and with prior experience in the State's Attorney's has undoubtedly become acquainted with many individual police officers and undoubtedly with every command officer active in the county. Add to that the social contacts through her husband and his colleagues and the universe of her social contacts expands. That fact, standing alone, does not constitute an ethical problem for her in making a professional decision to either prosecute or refrain from prosecuting a specific case involving a police officer. Nor does it, in my opinion, create an appearance of impropriety such that she would be required to recuse herself under the Canons of Ethics.

But the rules of the profession are not the only factor which a public servant must consider in addressing that question. In a case such as this one the public prosecutor must be sensitive to the political atmosphere swirling around the facts. A distinguished British jurist once wrote, "It is important that Justice be done but it is the more important that Justice be seen to be done." That is to say that the public must be able to accept the outcome of a case as just and thus have confidence in the ability of the judicial system to find the truth and administer the law.

Were I Ms. Reitz faced with this set of apparent facts and my social and professional connections to law enforcement officers I would strongly consider recusing my office from any contact with the cases and request the appointment of an independent prosecutor. I do not know how I would decide that question. Knowing Ms. Reitz I am confident that if she decides to proceed with the cases it will be because she is confident that she will be able to objectively examine the facts without any improper influence affecting the outcome.

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

Interesting CSI on Thursday night.  The plot centered on a white police officer who shot an African-American male and killed him.  It turned out the victim was also a police officer.  Immediately, claims were made by community members that the white officer deliberately murdered the black officer.  Many on the show were quick to reach that conclusion without an examination of the evidence.  Lo and behold, the evidence exonerates the white officer, but not before he kills himself over remorse for the killing and the stigma from the whispering campaigns of those who just knew it was racism...............

Perhaps some in the community, to include several who post on this blog, could learn a lesson or two from this story, for example:

• wait for the evidence before opening your mouth because events may not have happened as believed, or
• refrain from trashing someone's reputation just because it fits your political agenda.

But I'm sure the righteously indignant will quickly point out that it was just television.

Interesting CSI on Thursday night.  The plot centered on a white police officer who shot an African-American male and killed him.  It turned out the victim was also a police officer.  Immediately, claims were made by community members that the white officer deliberately murdered the black officer.  Many on the show were quick to reach that conclusion without an examination of the evidence.  Lo and behold, the evidence exonerates the white officer, but not before he kills himself over remorse for the killing and the stigma from the whispering campaigns of those who just knew it was racism...............

I've wondered whether shows like CSI fuel unrealistic expectations of what law enforcement should be able to do.  Yeah, I'd like to know what happened, but it doesn't seem that surprising that the State Police investigation will take some time.   Of course, on a show like CSI, it'd be completely solved within an hour minus commercial breaks.

Keith... a very good summary there. Thanks.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

may we have your permission to use your prose?

Thank you for your kind words.

I am reluctant to discuss the use of my work, poetry or prose, in a public forum and especially by an agency whose identity I do not know. Unfortunately you are not a registered user of this website and thus I presume that our host does not have your e-mail address. I will request that IP release my e-mail address to you if you will register so that he can do that. You may then contact me directly.

How did CPD find its way to the lad's school? The most likely scenario is that they found a school ID card on the boys person. I sincerely doubt that the CPD picked out the photo but I would guess that it was the only photograph that the school released to them.

I cannot account for the method by which the child's family was notified nor for the 3 hour delay in doing so. Remember that we do not know at what time the school was contacted.

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

The Rev. Jerome Chambers, president of the Champaign County NAACP, said repeatedly "Enough is enough!" and asked "Why did this 15-year-old have to die?"

Chambers said the teen was not just another black boy; he was "our black boy" and that he did have a father who saw him even though they didn't live together. Mr. Carrington's mother, Rita Williams, died of cancer a year ago.
Entire Article

Let me take a poet's privilege to correct a misreading of his work. A poet uses a parsimony of language to capture an emotion. Of necessity that results in each reader providing his own reading of the words. Rev. Chambers reads the line "Father God knows where." as "Father? God knows where." The line was not intended to refer to the boy's father but rather to his mother embracing the idea that God the Father knows where she dwells with Him.

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

But trust me when I tell you this,we as a race will get justice for this. We are tried of things like this happening to us. We are targets. But we are about to make YOU the prey. We are not taking this **** no more. So when you start seeing cops get shot and killed, maybe somebody will wake the **** up!

I don't think that Kiwane died because he was Black. I think he died because he was one of us, the folks who are not cops. I think he died because he was one of "them", the others, the people not privileged to carry a belt full of weapons. He died because of a mindset that holds anyone not a cop is an enemy, a danger, a threat. When you threaten to extract an eye for every eye that is lost, no knock out a tooth for every tooth destroyed, a life for every life taken away you simply reinforce that mindset. If we start seeing cops get shot and killed in Champaign we will tell them that their assumption that we are all the enemy is true and there will be more funerals.

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

But I do think it's silly to complain about people using idle speculation to criticize the boys involved in this situation, while the same people are simultaneously using idle speculation to say whatever they want about the police.

I have not speculated about what Officer Norbits may or may not have done. I have not speculated as to whether or not he was justified in firing his weapon. I have said that having fired the shot the burden is on him to justify doing so, not because I am "anti-police' but because that is the law. I have posted the statutes in question that the reader can reach a reasoned judgment when the facts are known. I have attempted to synthesize the various press accounts and labeled it "what we THINK we know"

Yes, I deplore the mind set that negates the boy's humanity and says he deserved what he got when he did not follow police orders to get on the ground. Yes, I deplore that a youngster's life has been wasted whether or not the policeman had lawful justification for firing the shot.

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

A child is dead. The child was unarmed. The chief of police was present when he was killed. 
That is all you need to know to know that the police department has some big problems.

Beyond the likely financial liability and a very, very skeptical black community, what "big problems" does this tragedy indicate the police department has ?

Michael Fuerst             

Go here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers:
      http://bozourbana.org/wordpress/?page_id=3

It seems like there'd be some self-selection going on - the folks who'd already made up their minds being more likely to show up to the meeting than the ones who were still waiting for the investigation results.

OUTSTANDING.    While the rest of us are sleeping tonight, there are a dedicated group of men and women who go to work when we go to sleep so that we can sleep safely at night.

I personally am still waiting for a former Urbana Councilwoman to apologize for her erronious comments the other night.

 Thank you Nighteyes.

 This kind of snark is exactly what is wrong with the Champaign Police Department.  This post is absolutely unprofessional and represents a contempt for the citizens of this community that is really disturbing, if not surprising.

How dare they.....how dare they...be human! Look back through these threads and you'll see cop bash after cop bash. I thought his response was very tame and civil considering the slanderours rants that have taken place against the police department based on speculation. This gentleman in merely pointing out what many are purporting as fact or first hand knowledge and using as a basis to pass judgement is all a bunch of hot air.

The last thing I would ever do is mock or ridicule them for having a concern.

Want to take a walk with me down memory lane A? "What's next?  Crazy liberals who protested because Bush flew over Katrina in a plane?  Gosh, they're just like those people who put Obama's face on the body of a monkey, aren't they?  Or how about those crazy anti-war protestors...."

Only took about 10 sec to find that one, care to walk a little futher back?

Is the pay we provide them in line with these requirements of super-human abilities? Do we respect and honor them for being super-human?

It is called professionalism and it isn't an option, Even when off duty? Even when their integrity, motives, and character are under attack they should not be permitted to vent as we mere mortals are?

Be a citizen and state your piece or be a professional and say nothing. Would that apply equally to all public servants? Hmmmm?

I smell a hippo!

 And if you're uptight over a cop saying "Oh, you don't want to do that?   Hmmmmm." to the point you think he should get a different job for such an unacceptable utterance, perhaps you may need a pill, or two.

 Questioning that may have kept this child alive.

Oopsie, maybe you took a few too many pills. What the posting officer said was very, very far from attacking, imo. Everyone releases stress in different ways, it's not something you can write protocol on. Expressing his point of view in a blog is also very, very far from a life or death situation, nor was it done in a horribly unprofessional manner. I would have much more concern about his professionalism if he exaggerated they way you have.

 I took the comment to mean those who are posting as if they hve information none of the rest of do, should share that information with authorities as part of their investigation. If they choose not to share or make official statements, perhaps they don't really have the knowledge they profess and are just spouting off unfounded accusations. I didn't for a moment consider it threatening in anyway. That was my take on the statement anyway.