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-

Governor Quinn putting some thought into issues, but getting them mixed up

With Illinois government officials these days in a mode of wanting to undo just about anything associated with Rod Blagojevich, it is nice to see that Gov. Pat Quinn is not giving knee-jerk approval to everything put forth.

Quinn took a stance this week on at least two matters that were high-profile Blagojevich decisions during his six years as governor. On one, he undid Blagojevich.

BUT ON THE other, he’s inclined to agree with Milorod.

The two issues involved Blagojevich’s attempt to curry favor with senior citizens by declaring that everybody over age 65 qualifies for free rides on public transit systems across the state (my mother would qualify, if she ever got around to applying for the special permit needed to actually use the system).

But one of Blagojevich’s attempts at cutting state spending was to shut down seven of the state parks located in rural parts of the state, which also are among the few attractions that get people from around Illinois and the United States to actually consider visiting those communities.

Quinn on Wednesday signed an order that re-opened those state parks. But on Friday, he told reporter-types that he would reject any measure approved by the General Assembly to repeal the free rides for senior citizens.

HE THINKS GIVING the elderly residents of the state who may depend more heavily on mass transit if they’re no longer capable of driving an automobile a financial break is a worthy goal.

Now on the latter matter, I think the General Assembly is going overboard. It is going to be like the Legislature’s behavior back in 1997-98. Those were the two years following the two-year period in which the Republican Party’s officials controlled every single state government office of significance.

When Democrats regained control in the Illinois House of Representatives, they insisted on trying to pass bills repealing every politically partisan measure the GOP-led Legislature enacted into law.

Admittedly, the Illinois Supreme Court wound up striking down the most draconian of those measures. But it got silly watching the Legislature engage in a whole batch of actions whose purpose seemed to be to re-write history.

AFTER ALL, IF the GOP-desired “laws” were no longer on the books, perhaps we could pretend that the whole Republican Domination of Illinois government never happened.

That seems to be the same mode of thought these days for legislators – Let’s Pretend Blagojevich Never Happened!

Well, he did, and it can’t be erased, even if legislators maintain their stubbornness and refuse to let him hang his official portrait in the Statehouse’s Hall of Governors.

But this might be one area where there ought to be some sort of change. After all, it’s not like every senior citizen will use mass transit – even though in the Chicago area, the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra commuter trains and Pace suburban buses gave about 25 million rides to older people during the past year.

SOME SENIOR CITIZENS probably can use the perk. But there is some room for change. I’d hate to see Quinn react improperly just because he’d like to get the votes of elder residents (and registered voters) when he likely runs for election to his own term as governor in 2010.

At a time when mass transit in the Chicago area fears a revenue shortfall for the current year, I’d hate to think partisan politics were getting thrown into the mix on this issue.

Meanwhile, I have to wonder if Quinn should have so eagerly re-opened those state parks. That action also seems politically motivated – he wants the votes of those rural Illinois residents who believe that Blagojevich was too Chicago-oriented (foolish people) for their tastes.

That is what caused the state parks such as Illini at Marsailles, Hidden Springs State Forest in Strasburg, Moraine View in Leroy, Weldon Springs in Clinton, Wolf Creek in Windsor, and Castle Creek and Lowdon in Oregon to be re-opened – effective Thursday.

NOW I CAN understand the need to make a gesture to rural Illinois, which felt snubbed by Blagojevich in so many ways (including the non-issue of his refusal to live with his wife and two young daughters full-time in the Executive Mansion).

But I can’t help but wonder if this was an issue that should have been held off on until the upcoming fiscal year, which begins in July. At a time when the state is trying to figure out how to plug a $9 billion budget shortfall, every single dollar matters. Reopening these parks now will cost money from the current state budget.

This might have been an issue where action could have been held off. Those people who feel the need to venture into the rural Illinois take on Mother Nature could just as easily do so come July or August as in March or April.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Perhaps Pat Quinn should reverse his actions – allow some changes in free mass transit fares (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/02/quinn-wont-take-away-free-bus-and-train-rides-for-seniors.html) while letting some state parks (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-quinn-reopens-state-parks-27feb27,0,7642727.story) remain shuttered for a few more months.

I don’t have any problem with Quinn’s decision to change state practices and NOT put his (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-tollway-signs-27-feb27,0,116294.story) name on every public sign in sight.

Gay ‘civil unions’ backers bring ‘senior citizen’ tactic to Illinois General Assembly

At a time when California officials are going to boldly address the issue of whether marriage ought to be legal for gay people, politicos in Illinois may try to sneak the issue in through the back door.

Specifically, supporters of a bill pending before the Illinois House of Representatives this spring to create the concept of civil unions (which gives some of the legal rights to couples that a church-sanctioned marriage already provides) are now touting the notion that it’s not just gay people who could benefit – senior citizens who are widowed and have potential for a new relationship at the end of their lives would also gain.

IN THE IMAGINATIONS of the activists who want this issue to pass, a unique pairing will develop – gay rights activists and the small army of retirees who can be organized by the American Association of Retired Persons and other interest groups that look out for older people.

They will supposedly create a force that will pressure the Illinois Legislature into actually voting for something resembling civil unions. After all, who’s going to say “no” to that sweet grandma-like woman?

In reality, when it comes to the prospect of gay marriage entering a debate, there are a lot of people who will screech and scream – perhaps even a few of those sweet-looking grandma-types.

At stake is what happens to elderly people who are widowed, then get into another relationship in their final years of life. Some of them go so far as to get married, but many do not – in large part because their Social Security benefits would take too big a hit if they were legally joined as one.

SO THEY MERELY live together, although supporters of this new strategy note they suffer when one of the people passes on or incurs a threatening illness. Because of the lack of a legal marriage, the other person in the couple has no legal say in what happens.

A civil union, these people say, is the perfect alternative to marriage in that it would invest each person with a legal say in the other’s future. Hence, civil unions are not just something for gay people anymore.

Who’s to say whether that line of reasoning will be considered acceptable? It has been tried in other states, but did not appear to sway many people.

AARP officials in Florida last autumn tried arguing against measures to outlaw gay marriages. They cited civil unions as acceptable, provided that provisions were written into the law to allow heterosexual senior citizens to take advantage of the measure as well.

WHAT HAPPENED WAS that conservatives wound up blasting the attempt to include senior citizens as, “a pathetic, desperate strategy.”

Already, various Internet sites that attract social conservative elements of our society are denouncing the possible use of the tactic in Illinois, making it clear they will not tolerate anything that would (in any way) benefit gay people – which makes this an issue more of trying to keep gay people down than it is of protecting anyone’s legal rights.

The one that caught my attention was an anonymous half-wit who felt the need to tell the world (through the Springfield State Journal-Register newspaper’s reader’s comments section) that without heterosexual marriage, our very essence would be, “out in some farmer’s bean field plowed under with the rest of the sewage.”

So what’s going to happen here in Illinois?

IT’S A GOOD thing that the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Greg Harris (who represents Chicago’s Ravenswood and Lincoln Square neighborhoods) is non-committal about when this issue will come up for a vote.

He thinks he could get enough support in the Chicago Democrat-controlled Illinois House if the measure actually got to a vote. But with all the other potential issues for legislators to dump on each other with, the last thing that House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is going to want is something that stirs up the social conservatives.

He’s already geared up for battle with Gov. Rod Blagojevich on a myriad of personal slights. He doesn’t need another enemy. That is what makes this issue (and strategy) a likely bet to come up in 2009 – if at all.

Perhaps the 2008 elections will help bring on a change in the mindset of our public officials to allow them to view the issue of gay marriage more rationally.

I KNOW. QUIT laughing.

Reality makes that scenario even less likely than the seniors/gay activists working together as an effective coalition to pressure the Illinois Legislature to take action on civil unions.

Which means the interests of gay people in Illinois who want their relationships to have legal status ought to be looking to Sacramento, Calif., rather than Springfield, Ill., for any sort of movement.

IT WAS ON Thursday that the state’s high court struck down the two laws that made marriage a legal option only for heterosexual couples. The court, in its majority opinion, ruled that marriage, “properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual.”

That could result in gay couples from around the country converging on California to get married, then return to their home states to pressure their local political people to recognize the result of their union.

Social conservative activists already are working with their California sympathizers, trying to push for an amendment to the state constitution that would ban any gay-marriage options. That, if they can get it on the ballot and get a majority of voter support, would overrule Thursday’s high court ruling.

IN SHORT, GAY marriage is now an issue that Californians are going to be confronted with – although I won’t be the least bit surprised if it creeps its way into the presidential campaign and the entirety of the United States of America has to put up with the ridiculous rhetoric.

I can already envision Republican John McCain trying to gain the support of people pushing for the constitutional amendment and conservatives trying to tar Democrat Barack Obama as the candidate with the crazy black preacher, the hippie terrorist friend AND who supports gay marriage.

It’s one more thing they can try to pile on him. I would consider it a victory for Illinois (and society as a whole) if voters rejected such ridiculous reasoning and didn’t take the issue of gay marriage into account at all come Nov. 4.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Wearing their “Seniors for Civil Unions” t-shirts, a group of elderly people led by state politicos (http://www.sj-r.com/news/x194397179/Sponsor-Civil-union-bill-would-help-seniors) want to show that civil unions is not just a gay rights issue.

The desire for civil unions is growing (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-xgr-civilunions-o,0,2952794.story) amongst gay people in this state.

The Statehouse Scene in Tallahassee, Fla., already went through this attempt to link senior citizens (http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2007/12/aarp-marriage-a.html) and gay rights activists.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT among the Republican politicos wanting to overturn (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1210878799-Jj/xwntb5wCqzwzdXIgcMA) the California Supreme Court’s action that legitimizes marriages of gay couples beginning in mid-June.