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

[Melodye Rosales]

*
"...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.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> 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/20091021/0d96c67e/attachment.htm