Force policy must be fully aired
It'll be important to keep emotions in check when city council members in Champaign review the police department's policy on the use of deadly force.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant, so it's a good thing that the Champaign City Council will be reviewing the city's use-of-force policy in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of a 15-year-old teen-ager.
Of course, it may well turn out that the shooting, which occurred Oct. 9 after police responded to a report of a burglary in progress, was not intentional but an accident. In that case, the use-of-force policy would be essentially irrelevant as it relates to the death of Kiwane Carrington.
But so many questions have been raised and so much anger has been expressed that it'll be good to get the issue out in the open at a scheduled Nov. 10 study session, particularly after former Urbana Alderwoman Danielle Chynoweth mistakenly asserted the city recently revised its policy to allow police to use deadly force when confronting a fleeing suspect.
No police department in this country has so broad a policy as Chynoweth suggested applies in Champaign. It's settled law that use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is constitutionally prohibited, a prohibition reflected in state law and incorporated into city policy.
The only time deadly force can be used is during a life-threatening situation, which seems sensible.
Nonetheless, it appears many people do not understand that to be the case. Further, there is considerable confusion about the circumstances when police can draw their service weapons, and it would be wise to go into considerable detail about that issue.
Suffice it to say that no amount of discussion is going to ease the pain caused by the unfortunate death of Mr. Carrington.
It is a tragic loss of life that has scarred this community and calls for straight talk and facts, not hyperbole.
With any luck, the council's discussion will provide the necessary explanation, clarify misconceptions and calm any concerns people have about police policy.
Comments
Once again, Ms. Chynoweth has proven that her greatest talent is that of wasting taxpayer time and money!
Posted by AlanR on October 30, 2009 at 7:36 AM Suggest Removal
You are correct AlanR. I want to finally give the News Gazette a pat on the back for recognizing not only was she reading the police wrong but also for having the guts to come out and say so.
As for when an officer can draw his gun. An officer can draw his weapon when dictated by the totality of the circumstances surrounding what is happening. Would it be unwise of an officer to draw his weapon on every motorist the make a traffic stop on? Obviously so. At the same time if an officer is approaching a reported burglary in progress, which is a forcible felony in Illinois, if an officer did not have his weapon out then he would be considered unsafe. Absolutely so. I challenge those people to google the following names. Randy Vetter and Kyle W. Dinkweller and watch the videos. Two officers caught off guard by seemingly normal citizens on a simple traffic stop. Officers fully trained and fully armed, but hesitant to use their weapons because Vetter it seems couldn't understand how a 73 year old man would want to shoot him. And Dinkweller, giving to much respect to a person elder to him and a veteran. Complacency kills and I fully believe that a majority of citizens in our community know this.........
Posted by Jsmith68 on October 30, 2009 at 9:06 AM Suggest Removal
A little sunlight into the past of the deceased in this case would also be a good disinfectant.
Miss Chynoweth owes the community a public apology for her public display of ignorance which did nothing but foment discord in our community.
-- Joe
Posted by JoeSixpack on October 30, 2009 at 1:53 PM Suggest Removal
"Sunshine is the best disinfectant ..."
I guess that's why the N-G never reported on the local angle of Category I. Or why there were details missing from the cancer center story.
The N-G does support more use of cameras in courtrooms, though. I guess as long as the negative, counterproductive information is damaging to the general public, then it's OK.
Posted by Wenalway on October 31, 2009 at 10:57 AM Suggest Removal
You can send your letter to the editor