[Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force

[John W.]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Mikhail Lyubansky <lyubanskym at gmail.com>wrote:

John,
>
> The Champaign policy actually addresses this directly (yes, shooting a
> fleeing felon is not allowed). See below:
>
> a. Officers are prohibited from using deadly
>> force against "fleeing felons" when the only
>> condition for the application of deadly force
>> is that the individual is a "fleeing felon".
>>
>> b. A 'fleeing felon" should not be presumed to
>> pose an immediate threat to life in the
>> absence of actions or circumstances that
>> would lead one to believe that a threat to life
>> exists.
>>
>
>
> And yes, the distinction between "fleeing" and "escaping arrest" is not at
> all clear to me.
>
> Mikhaill
>

Thanks again, Mikhail.  I haven't read the entire use of force policy.  All
I had read was the part that Danielle quoted.

It would seem, then, that if Kiwane Carrington and his buddy didn't display
a deadly weapon, the Champaign cops' sidearms should have remained in their
holsters.




> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Beyond all this discussion of procedure, I would think that Champaign's
>> new use of deadly force policy is flat-out illegal.  At least I've heard
>> virtually all my life that a cop can't shoot a fleeing felon.  That's why,
>> in all the crime movies and TV shows, the cop chases the fleeing felon on
>> foot for blocks and blocks and over fences and rooftops and so on.  If it
>> were legal, it'd be much easier to stop the fleeing felon by simply shooting
>> him in the back.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:
>>
>>   I concur that Barbara’s bringing it out into the light of day and
>>> focusing public attention not only on the change in the “Deadly Force”
>>> policy but  on the substance of the  new provisions in that changed policy
>>> was very important and relevant to not only the this particular incident
>>> being discussed but policy and policy making in Champaign in general.  I
>>> have to admit that I was caught unawares of this change although I was not
>>> really surprised by the substance of the change in that I sort of expected
>>> such changes – even though not as extreme or vague as this.  I was really
>>> offended by the non-transparent nature of the process  by which such a
>>> changes in policy were developed, instituted, and became part of the
>>> established policy without any public hearings, any public discussion or
>>> formal official approval of the City Council, or publication of the new
>>> policy allowing the public easy access to its content. The changes are not
>>> mere mundane administrative changes such as the introduction of new data
>>> collection and assemblage forms and processes, new uniforms and dress codes,
>>> new complaint response protocols, etc. that affect routine internal police
>>> operations; they are significant and substantive changes in the scope and
>>> range of permissible  police discretionary behaviors and  of approved
>>> courses of action by officers in the field.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The most significant question that the establishment of this new policy
>>> raises revolves more around the general issues than issues pertaining to
>>> this particular tragic incident. The focus should be on issues of
>>> transparency in the administrative policy making process, the public
>>> participation in the process by which such policies are considered,
>>> developed, and established, the need for elected officials to officially
>>> vote on and approve policy changes when they are substantive in nature as
>>> contrasted to merely mundane procedural changes in substantive policies or
>>> changes in procedural policies, and the making public aware of all such
>>> policies and policy changes and  their contents easily accessible to the
>>> public in written form.  There should be an insistence on all administrative
>>> policies, rules, and regulations being published in written form and easily
>>> available to the public before they can be made effective.  There are too
>>> many administrative policies, rules, regulations, and routine operating
>>> procedures that are informal unwritten in nature, that are uncoedified ,
>>> that are vague as well as ambiguous as to their meaning and concrete
>>> applicability so as to be capricious or allow for capricious implementation
>>> in actual concrete ciscumstances.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:
>>> peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *John W.
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:14 PM
>>> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
>>> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List; Barbara kessel
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Police policy on lethal force
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Barbara--
>>>
>>> Your comments last night on the changes in the police policy document on
>>> lethal force seem to me very important indeed.  Nice work.
>>>
>>> I hope they will be followed up.  How e.g. is the policy established?
>>>  City council who permitted it must be retired.
>>>
>>> Regards, Carl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For those who haven't read it and didn't hear Danielle's comments last
>>> night, the policy says,
>>>
>>> "A peace officer is justified in using deadly force only when ... such
>>> force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance
>>> or escape."
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091021/19964a01/attachment.htm