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

Wed Oct 21 15:50:16 CDT 2009

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.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
>> now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>>
>> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>
> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091021/d429feb3/attachment.html