[Peace-discuss] Re: [Discuss] Schwieghart's quote to WDWS

[Melodye Rosales]

Not trying to debate your quote from MLK 1954, but...

--in 1967 MLKs growing radicalism was made obvious in a speech he made in
Selma: "...For the last twelve years we have been in the reform movement
(but now) we have moved into a new era, which must be an era of
revolution..."

Moving on---I agree with John W,  but once we get that community police
review board----who are they going to advise, provide input to?  Or, would
they simply be there to keep an accurate death toll from the CPD's
aftermath?

I support a citizen's review board and promoting Troy Daniels to the job he
should have had in the beginning---Chief---whether he is perfect or
imperfect----he knows the community and the community trusts him.

Not trying to influence or change opinions----just making points to reflect
on---as we all continue to process the matter...



On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:59 PM, E.Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

>  In February 1954, Martin Luther King said "If we are to go forward, we
> must go back and rediscover those precious values – that all reality hinges
> on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control."
>
> I dont think he ever varied in his belief in that statement.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>  *From:* John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> *To:* Melodye Rosales <melodye at nitrogendesign.com>
> *Cc:* Courtwatch Discuss <discuss at communitycourtwatch.org> ; Peace-discuss<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:27 PM
> *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] Re: [Discuss] Schwieghart's quote to WDWS
>
> A couple of points, if I may.
>
> While Dr. King re-oriented his focus somewhat toward the end of his life,
> toward a more global approach which included a "war on poverty" and a
> deconstruction of the role played by the Viet Nam War, I don't think he ever
> changed his TACTICS.  He remained a man who espoused non-violent civil
> disobedience as the only viable means to lasting change.
>
> More to the point locally, I suggest that the firing of Chief Finney,
> absent more extensive structural reforms in the Champaign Police Dept., may
> serve the City well but not the larger community.  Finney will be fine;
> he'll either find another Police Chief job somewhere else, or he'll retire
> on two or three pensions and be some sort of "security consultant".  The
> City, by firing Finney and hiring a new Police Chief, will have found a
> convenient scapegoat, given the appearance of doing something about the
> problem while buying itself time until  community anger has somewhat
> dissipated, and basically changed nothing about the way the Police Dept.
> operates.  Personally, my focus has been and remains on advocating for a
> strong and effective Citizen Police Review Board, and a re-thinking of the
> use of deadly force policy.
>
> Just my thoughts.  Take them for whatever they're worth.
>
> John Wason
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Melodye Rosales <
> melodye at nitrogendesign.com> wrote:
>
> *"...the love imagined by Dr. King as the only answer to violence."*
>>
>> *"
>> I contend that we will not build anything different, any place worth
>> living in, until we have the courage to step away from the Master's Tools
>> and start building - not dismantling but building - something completely
>> different - maybe unrecognizable - maybe with our bare hands at first."*
>>
>>
>> Interesting--but the author clearly has never studied MLK or his later
>> work and reprocessing his former philosophy.  And that was his work for the
>> Poor Peoples Campaign.  A movement which called for stronger measures and
>> concrete changes.  He realized he was being played and had actually been
>> lauded and praised and given worth because he was a gatekeeper.  That real
>> change, at a level that would make a serious impact, could only come by way
>> of a different approach and Civil Rights process---hence, his right hands
>> continued this movement after his death----Jackson, Abernathy, Bond----and
>> those that followed them as we began to "rebuild" what we had labored in the
>> fields to make possible to begin with.  Only now we were knocking at the
>> front door instead of using the rear.
>>
>> Hope we meet one day---and please stay close to our movement---even if
>> only to critique---add knowledge---make us step back and pause---allow our
>> voices to take flight through your e-new_network.  However, I have to sign
>> off 'cause we have a mega event to get together for tomorrow.
>>
>> Again--we value your input and appreciate you being their as a life line
>> ;o})
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Mikhail Lyubansky <lyubanskym at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Something to munch on (related to this discussion): http://bit.ly/23Szt0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Mikhail Lyubansky <lyubanskym at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Melodye and everyone else,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for taking the time to look into my work. I appreciate it, and
>>>> though I approach my participation on this email list (and in the community
>>>> more broadly ) as a member of the community, not as an academic, I do
>>>> recognize that the two are difficult to separate and, indeed, that one has a
>>>> strong influence on the other. I am also aware that the University (and its
>>>> faculty) has not always been an ally to the less privileged segments of this
>>>> community, so I try to tread as softly as I can. To that end, it was never
>>>> my intention to silence or in any way diminish anyone else's voice. To the
>>>> contrary, I have tried to support those who are trying to turn this tragic
>>>> incident into a stronger and more equitable community, including publishing
>>>> Marti's recent editorial on opednews. It is my intention to continue to be
>>>> supportive of these efforts as we move forward. I couldn't agree more with
>>>> your assertion that community voices have "an equal place on the traditional
>>>> stage."
>>>>
>>>> Thank you also for taking the time to carefully spell out the case
>>>> against Finney and others. I agree that the information that has been put
>>>> out for public consumption thus far has been superficial and meager. The
>>>> detailed description of how city policy is written and edited is very
>>>> helpful, precisely in the way that you outlined, but more information is
>>>> still needed regarding what exactly happened that day. I hope it will be
>>>> forthcoming.
>>>>
>>>> Until then, I continue to be uncomfortable with the calls for Finney's
>>>> resignation. Your paragraph below does not alleviate those concerns at all.
>>>>
>>>> Whether Finney claims he was not aware of what Norbits intended to do
>>>>> that day, or whether Finney confirms this was a terrible accident that was
>>>>> not intentional, it doesn't matter.  Because it is up to Finney to establish
>>>>> the officer's conduct, and extent of force, as well as when to use deadly
>>>>> force and or when to pull out a firearm and cock it in anticipation of
>>>>> feeling they (officers) or (hostage) is in immediate and imminent danger.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What you're essentially saying is that it doesn't matter what Finney
>>>> knew or didn't know or what he did or didn't do on that day.  That doesn't
>>>> sit well with me.  I know there is a history of racism in the police dept.
>>>> (and in the community more broadly) and I suspect that this incident would
>>>> have played out differently if the "suspects" were white. But I value due
>>>> process...and calls for a resignation at this point don't seem to be
>>>> consistent with the notion of due process.
>>>>
>>>> I offer the above as a friendly comment. I'm not trying to change
>>>> anyone's mind...or put a wrench in what concerned community members are
>>>> trying to accomplish.  I just think there is a fine line between justice and
>>>> revenge and would like to see us stay on the right side of that particular
>>>> divide.
>>>>
>>>> Mikhail
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Melodye Rosales <
>>>> melodye at nitrogendesign.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mikhail, we appreciate your interest in the matter.  Your research and
>>>>> expertise regarding racial misnomers both from within the African Diaspora
>>>>> and outside of it may help you to look beyond the superficial information
>>>>> being allowed out for public consumption.  The manipulation of the
>>>>> underclass, the devaluing of the underclass, the dismissive attitude towards
>>>>> the underclass that can easily be found in a conservative community that
>>>>> lacks any folks of color at a decision making level where the buck stops
>>>>> with them---so they don't fear losing their jobs---or mistakenly being
>>>>> associated with the "Them"---those "disgruntled" "lazy" "baby-makin'" "Baby
>>>>> Daddy Gone" "welfare-link card carriers"  "lechers of White Folk with jobs
>>>>> who DO pay taxes"  and on and on..
>>>>>
>>>>> You role as a researcher, an academician at what we affectionately
>>>>> call, The Public Ivy, one of the top ten public research institutions in the
>>>>> nation, you must allow the community leaders voice to resonate and take an
>>>>> equal place on the traditional stage.  Perhaps many of us may seem
>>>>> unpolished, not very articulate, not well groomed, not well educated or well
>>>>> read, scowls affixed permanently on our faces----but bare with us.  Simply
>>>>> appearing to tell the truth does not make it true.  Simply appearing to look
>>>>> balanced and reasonable, using a well metered voice accompanied by well
>>>>> measured gestures----does mean you are speaking with sincerity or
>>>>> transparency.  But I am sure you recognize this.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you may not recognize is the city of Champaign's policy making
>>>>> process. Before you begin reading, I am using laymen terms to simplify for
>>>>> all readers to understand.  This may increase my chances of being a bit
>>>>> repetitive--so please forgive in advance.
>>>>>
>>>>> *In answer to your specific quote (above) The order of  policy created
>>>>> at any governmental level/department in Champaign is as follows:*
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) City Manager, Steve Carter
>>>>> 2) City Council
>>>>> 3) Department Heads to enforce
>>>>>
>>>>> Any of the three (above) can request a policy to be established,
>>>>> revised, edited or changed, but it is always passed through the City Council
>>>>> for an official vote ---to accept or reject---or to table until a Study
>>>>> session can be agreed upon by the majority of the council
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Here is the communities justification for asking for the resignations
>>>>> of named individuals:*
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Norbits is a subordinate of Chief Finney
>>>>> 2) Chief Finney sets the parameters of what or what not within his
>>>>> department level power.  But he is limited to policies already on the books
>>>>> that have previously been approved by City Council.  In otherwords, Finney
>>>>> cannot make the rules up as he goes if they are not drawn from pre-existing
>>>>> policy that was approved by City Council
>>>>> 3) Steve Carter controls the language of the policy when it is put up
>>>>> for a vote at City Council.  Carter has Fred Stavins (City Atty) draft the
>>>>> language to be presented
>>>>> 4) The final word on what the policy looks like before it is presented
>>>>> to City Council is up to Steve Carter (only)
>>>>>
>>>>> note: What makes it awkward and often frustrating for Council Members
>>>>> is that Carter has the sole authority to combine separate policies, under
>>>>> one vote.  In otherwords, if one Council Member wants Section 8 to be
>>>>> included as a recognized class and to adhere to the National Policy for
>>>>> same----Carter may include a policy(ies) that would not be passed by the
>>>>> same Council Members who want the Section 8 policy revised---it might be
>>>>> something like allowing officers to use tasers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly those opposed to Tasers will not vote yes----similarly, those
>>>>> who oppose Section 8 won't vote yes. So, no proposed policy at that juncture
>>>>> gets passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also known as: Blocking (layman term)
>>>>>
>>>>> This, for example, would not be to eliminate Tasers from the
>>>>> table---but its sole purpose is to eliminate Section 8 from the table.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, at a later date, Carter can draft another Taser policy without
>>>>> any other policies attached---for that single vote, and it may get the
>>>>> majority vote because the Council is only considering one issue, one policy
>>>>> and their vote will only apply to that one matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also known as: Stacking the Deck in your favor (layman term)
>>>>>
>>>>> Though this is normal in politics when Bills and policies are on the
>>>>> floor for a vote, it also depends on whose the chair of the group who can
>>>>> tilt in in favor one way or block it from another.  The Chair in the Council
>>>>> is Carter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, it is inconceivable for Carter not to have known that Finney
>>>>> revised a standing policy that was previously approved by City Council.  And
>>>>> both Carter and Finney know the rules of engagement.  They both know that
>>>>> unless City Council signs off on it, those policies cannot override the
>>>>> existing ones.  Hence, the community questioning this illegal move.  This
>>>>> dishonest move, and what was the driving reason for this deception?
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise, Finney is the Chief of Police. His men follow his direct
>>>>> orders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether Finney claims he was not aware of what Norbits intended to do
>>>>> that day, or whether Finney confirms this was a terrible accident that was
>>>>> not intentional, it doesn't matter.  Because it is up to Finney to establish
>>>>> the officer's conduct, and extent of force, as well as when to use deadly
>>>>> force and or when to pull out a firearm and cock it in anticipation of
>>>>> feeling they (officers) or (hostage) is in immediate and imminent danger.
>>>>>
>>>>> And as for the so-called revised policy for "Use of Force" that
>>>>> allegedly was introduced and put into effect on Oct. 1---would not be
>>>>> considered "in effect" unless the Council approved.  And the Council never
>>>>> even saw the document or knew of its existence so technically it was
>>>>> not---and is not, in effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the ever changing Chameleon Public explanations delivered by the
>>>>> City Staff has tried to think ahead and claim that the "Use of Force"
>>>>> revision came directly from the State level to go into effect on Oct. 1---so
>>>>> no need to pass it by Council or the Public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again.  Nothing a local municipality does to regulate and
>>>>> implement codes and laws is dictated by the State of Illinois if it is "in
>>>>> addition to".  In other words, the city can cherry pick as long as they
>>>>> follow the basic National requirements of the Law or those of a particular
>>>>> State that are "mandatory".   There was nothing in the State
>>>>> revision/language for "Use of Force" that would allow for a mandatory
>>>>> revision--it simply gave municipalities a broader scope from which to cherry
>>>>> pick to strengthen and or add to in addition of, the standard mandatory
>>>>> rules, regulations, and codes as required used as the basis of all law
>>>>> making municipalities to use as is or embellish on as that municipality
>>>>> feels is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Case-in-point the revised policy for Use of Force included language
>>>>> about the use of Tasers.  A weapon CPD does not currently have in their
>>>>> arsenal.  So you can clearly see including that language from the revised
>>>>> policy of "Use of Force" on Tasers could be excluded---and is not a
>>>>> mandatory item unless you have Tasers, and even then, each municipality can
>>>>> create it's own language, even add to it--as long as the basic standards of
>>>>> "Use of Force" are used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, if only one word were changed, added, deleted,
>>>>> altered from a policy that is currently in place and previously approved by
>>>>> Council, Council would have to take the altered language to a vote before it
>>>>> becomes effective and is acted upon.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Mikhail Lyubansky <
>>>>> lyubanskym at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Good morning,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like many here, I am very saddened and concerned about Kiwane
>>>>>> Carrington's tragic death and the Champaign Police dept's role in this (as
>>>>>> well as past) incidents.  However, I am uncomfortable with the recent calls
>>>>>> for Chief Finney's resignation given the information currently in our
>>>>>> possession.  We do not, for example, know what actually happened in the
>>>>>> moments leading up to the fatal shooting or what Finney did or did not do
>>>>>> during this time.  Furthermore, while there are parts of the Department's
>>>>>> Use of Force policy that I find troubling (particularly section 1.3.2
>>>>>> concerning the use of deadly force), it is not clear to me that Finney was
>>>>>> responsible for determining this portion of the policy.  To the contrary,
>>>>>> according to the document, that section was determined by the lllinois
>>>>>> Compiled Statutes (220 ILCS 5/7-5).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I write this not to defend Finney but to caution us from rushing to
>>>>>> judgment. Sometimes time is of the essence and decisions must be made before
>>>>>> all the necessary information is in.  This is not one of those cases. I
>>>>>> suggest that, for the moment, we marshal our efforts to push for a full and
>>>>>> independent investigation and the creation of a community review board and
>>>>>> hold off on judging Finney until more information is available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In hope of community healing,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikhail
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Department of Psychology
>>>>>> University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
>>>>>> http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~lyubansk<http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/%7Elyubansk>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Managing Editor, OpEdNews
>>>>>> http://www.opednews.com/author/author18834.html
>>>>>> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mikhaill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Christopher Evans <
>>>>>> caevans2 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   In reaction to the call for Chief Finney's resignation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *"I think that's alot of emotionality. The Chief hasn't done
>>>>>>> anything that calls for his resignation. I wouldn't support his resignation.
>>>>>>> Uh, he acted in a legal manner."*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Said even though Finney's police tactics help cause the death of an
>>>>>>> unarmed 15 year-old, Finney snuck in the taser and broad use of deadly force
>>>>>>> in the use of force policy behind Council's back, and relations betweeen the
>>>>>>> community and police are at an all-time low.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091021/101032b6/attachment.html