Judge had to decide if law enforcement guideline was enough to warrant crime

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised when I learned Wednesday of a Cook County judge’s ruling that acquitted a suburban Park Forest police officer of a reckless conduct charge in the death of an elderly man.

Prosecutors emphasized during the criminal case of Craig Taylor that his use of a shotgun loaded with beanbag rounds did not strictly comply with the guidelines for using such a weapon – which is supposed to be a non-deadly way of subduing a potentially violent person.

SPECIFICALLY, THEY POINTED out that the officer was about six feet away from his target when he fired five rounds into the man’s torso – causing injuries with internal bleeding that ultimately caused his death the following day, although it should be noted he refused medical treatment that could have saved him from the injuries.

As investigators with the state’s attorney’s office pointed out at the time of Taylor’s indictment, such a weapon is not supposed to be used any closer than 15 feet from its target; because such a blow could be so hard that it would be deadly at such close range.

My point is that I expected the bench trial for Taylor at the courthouse in suburban Markham would have focused heavily on that technicality. When combined with the fact that the victim’s family was heavily emphasizing his age (95) and his military service record (he was in the Army Air Corps during World War II), I expected the outcome to be some sort of technical ruling that would say he had to be found guilty of a crime, any crime.

But that didn’t happen!

JUDGE LUCIANO PANICI wound up issuing a ruling that said Taylor’s use of force during a 2013 incident at a Park Forest nursing home “was not excessive.”

Which then allowed the criminal case for which a trial was held last month to focus heavily on the fact that the deceased man had been abrasive to the nursing home staff (which is why police were called in the first place) AND had pulled a knife that he used to threaten police officers.

In my own experience of covering cops, crime and courts during the past quarter of a century, it usually comes out that any sense of an officer feeling threatened by someone with a weapon justifies the use of deadly force.

As in Taylor and the other officers who were with him back in July 2013 would have been justified reaching for their pistols and trying to shoot the man dead!

IT MAY HAVE gone in Taylor’s favor that he said he took his target’s age and physical condition (he was living in a nursing home because he wasn’t physically capable of living on his own any longer) in not reaching for his pistol, but instead trying to use the beanbag-loaded shotgun instead.

During Taylor’s trial, some said he should have tried to show even more restraint – such as using the shield he was equipped with to merely knock the man down.

Although I suspect if he had, we’d still be hearing intense complaints from the man’s family about how their elderly, war hero relative was brutalized by a police officer.

Which means there was no way this incident was going to turn out in a way that would have satisfied the man’s family.

I UNDERSTAND THEIR feelings of loss. Nobody wants to lose a relative. But this case had devolved to the point where it seemed like they were more interested in taking down a police officer who had no prior record of criminal behavior or improper incidents on the job.

That is why I can’t help but feel a bit of relief for the ruling that Panici made on Wednesday. He didn’t let a technicality (the six-foot distance versus 15-foot guideline) pressure him into deciding on a “guilty” verdict.

Not that I expect the elderly man’s family to be content. They still have a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court – one that will seek to break this police officer financially, possibly for the rest of his life. His legal troubles are far from over.

But the judge wound up keeping this unfortunate incident of two years ago into a completely illogical legal catastrophe; which is what a “guilty” verdict and prison time for Taylor would have created.

  -30-

A 30-year reunion only one year late

My 30-year high school class reunion is Saturday night, yet I'm not among the people eager to see how my one-time colleagues (many of whom I haven't seen since I walked across the stage and accepted my high school diploma) turned out in life.


Did they go bald? Wind up rather unsuccessful in life? Perhaps turn out to have larger pot bellies than the one I have managed to develop during the past three decades?


SOMEHOW, I THINK the results would be more depressing than anything else. Particularly because they'd relate to a stage of my life that hasn't been particularly relevant to me since the days that I moved on from Thornwood High School in suburban South Holland.


Our reunion is tonight at a restaurant/bar right on the Chicago River. Which has potential for an urban scenic view of some spectacular-ness, I suppose.


Then again, I can go to downtown Chicago anytime I want. The idea of seeing many masses of long-forgotten individuals just isn't strong enough to make me want to do it this particular Saturday night.


Now don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who detested my high school years. I have enough pleasant memories that on the occasions I think about that era (1979-83), I don't shudder in disgust.


EXCEPT FOR THE times I have to recall the horrid pop music and pseudo-fashions of that era. How could we have ever have listened to that dreck. Aerosmith is a lingering memory, along with forgotten bands such as REO Speedwagon, Journey and the Go-Gos.


Blech!!!!!!


My recollection of high school was that it was an experience that I had to go through before I could consider college -- which is where life truly became interesting.


I do have regrets over past college Homecomings I have missed. Not so for Saturday night with the high school crowd.


AND FOR ANYBODY who's going to reminisce about some long-ago high school Homecoming event, I'll have to say it was all rather pointless compared to what happens at a university setting when decades of alumni return to reminisce about their glory days at ol' State U. (or wherever they went).


Part of the reason, however, that I don't think I'm missing much is that I noticed the class reunion event has become a group affair.


It is being billed as a 30-year reunion for the classes of 1981 through 1985. Is that the only way they could get enough people to show up to make an event worth while?


That, in fact, is why the Class of '83 is having its big event 31 years after we graduated. Although I suppose that is better than the 20-year reunion that was held in 1984 at a rather tiny restaurant banquet facility that actually was about three blocks from where I happened to live at the time.


ONLY I NEVER got the invitation, and didn't find out about it until the day AFTER the event was held.


This time, I got notice in advance (they found me through Facebook). So I'm not snubbed (although I didn't feel snubbed 10 years ago).


There's also the fact that my life has sort of turned out into something I wanted. I'm writing for a living (albeit, not being as well-compensated financially as I would have hoped some 16 years ago).


Unlike a couple of our bigger-name classmates -- our star athlete died in an auto accident many years ago, and the girl whose ambition in life would have envisioned great things for her became a little too aggressive, and is now serving a prison stint.


I'M NOT GOING to be the intriguing story of the Class of '83 by any means. For all I know, my absence may not even be noted.


But I will go so far as to wish those of my former classmates who do show up at the reunion, I hope they have a wonderful time and find the experience redeeming.


And if anybody is curious, I'm the classmate who now has a head of hair gone almost fully grey (that image of me to the right is a 22-year-old press card image). So you baldies can feel a little bit better about yourselves while we all move a year closer to a half-century of existence on this planet.


  -30-