Question of the day
Tuesday, Oct 9, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller
* You’ll remember this from Friday…
The Illinois Fraternal Order of Police blasted the jury verdict finding Jason Van Dyke guilty of second-degree murder and aggravated battery in the shooting of Laquan McDonald — a sentiment that was shared by many members of a Far South Side neighborhood where many police officers live.
In a statement issued Friday, the state FOP — based in Springfield — decried the ruling.
“This is a day I never thought I’d see in America, where 12 ordinary citizens were duped into saving the asses of self-serving politicians at the expense of a dedicated public servant,” the statement from State Lodge President Chris Southwood said.
“This sham trial and shameful verdict is a message to every law enforcement officer in America that it’s not the perpetrator in front of you that you need to worry about, it’s the political operatives stabbing you in the back. What cop would still want to be proactive fighting crime after this disgusting charade, and are law abiding citizens ready to pay the price?”
* You may recall that this was the first press release I received after the Van Dyke guilty verdict…
“Today, Jason Van Dyke was held accountable for his role in the tragic death of Laquan McDonald and justice was finally served for him and for his family, who have already endured so much during this difficult time,” said JB Pritzker and Juliana Stratton. “While there is still so much work to do, we believe this verdict represents an important step — one of many — towards fostering an environment of respect and accountability between law enforcement and the communities they serve.”
* You might not remember this story from June…
The Illinois Fraternal Order of Police State Lodge (FOP) endorsed Democratic candidate J.B. Pritzker for governor Friday. […]
“I’m proud to have the support of the Illinois FOP and the working families they represent,” Pritzker said. “With workers’ rights under assault, Illinois needs a governor who will stand up for working families.” […]
Illinois FOP State Lodge President Chris Southwood said “Illinois needs a fresh start and J.B. is the man to do it.”
“Law enforcement officers, like all other working men and women in Illinois, want a leader who won’t bankrupt the state by trying to dictate his own personal agenda at all costs. The 34,000 members of the Illinois FOP have confidence that J.B. Pritzker is the best candidate to shake up Springfield and return civility decency and a true sense of public service to Illinois.”
* I asked the Pritzker campaign over the weekend if the candidate would renounce his ILFOP endorsement…
JB and Juliana wholeheartedly disagree with their statement and their position. They believe justice was served for Laquan McDonald and his family.
* The Question: Should JB Pritzker renounce his ILFOP endorsement? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
free polls
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:26 am:
FOP is a disgrace, always has been, always will be. JB should renounce the support of racists, like the FOP, and people who support unconstitutional policing, like the the FOP.
- Dee Lay - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:27 am:
No. You can support the police as whole, and still say there are instances where cops acted improperly.
They are not mutually exclusive thought processes.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:27 am:
I’m going to say no, they should not renounce the endorsement. The Van Dyke conviction was emotional for many police officers and serves them notice that they can no longer act with impunity, that there will be consequences for illegal use of force. I don’t expect any police to love that new reality, but I also expect they’ll come to terms with it eventually.
I think the statement from the Pritzker camp disagreeing with the State FOP is enough. This is one very major issue they disagree on, but there are a lot of issues where they will remain in agreement, including the right to collectively bargain.
Also, it seems like Democrats are more sensitive to this guilt-by-association thing than Republicans. Why is that?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:28 am:
No. Emotions were rubbed raw in the Van Dyke/McDonald case.
You can disagree virulently with what union leadership said about the verdict while still supporting cops’ and their rights to organize and collectively bargain.
Life ain’t always simple. In fact, it rarely is.
- Roman - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:33 am:
Voted no. It’s possible to agree with the Van Dyke verdict and consider yourself a supporter of the police and their right To collective bargaining.
As an aside, it’s interesting that the comment from the Chicago FOP was the standard “we disagree with the jury” kind of stuff and not nearly as inflammatory as the statewide FOP statement.
- Streamwood Retiree - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:42 am:
Agree with 47th Ward. Also, it’s not necessary to agree 100% with supporters. Otherwise a politician would only be endorsed by his own staff and family!
He COULD publicly reject the FOP’s Van Dyke position while still accepting the endorsement.
I’d like to see something like “While we disagree with FOP’s disgusting position on the recent Van dyke trial, we still support the vast majority of dedicated officers who do not regard their badge as a hunting license.” A good wordsmith could make that a lot better.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:43 am:
No. The president of FOP made the statement and that doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinion of every member of the organization.
Police need our support. Murderers don’t.
- Stones - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:46 am:
Voted no. I agree with Roman’s comment above.
- Chicago - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:48 am:
I do think that the Chicago FOP deserve credit for their more restrained reaction to this verdict. God bless the police & all of Chicago.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:51 am:
No. There are good cops, of course, as well as bad ones and institutional racism.
- NIU Grad - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:51 am:
Yes.
To the comments below, FOP members voted for their leadership. It was made abundantly clear that this president would be much more of a “hard-liner” against reform than his predecessor, which is saying something. As a candidate who claims to support criminal justice reform, standing with them at this moment is disingenuous and indicates that he will not be able to stand against the unions that support them on any of the critical issues facing the state.
- NIU Grad - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 9:51 am:
Sorry, I meant comments above*
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 10:42 am:
No. Politics is the art of addition. If you can make common cause with the FOP on union rights, training, etc., you should, even if you disagree on other, equally important matters.
- Retired Educator - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 11:31 am:
They gave the endorsement, it is up to them to pull it. Why would a candidate renounce the endorsement of 34,000 police officers? If they feel he is no longer worthy, it is their call.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 11:41 am:
Voted no. There is more to the police than just Chris Southwood. And Mr. Southwood needs to lay off whatever substance is making him so paranoid.
- justacitizen - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 12:00 pm:
Voted yes. I don’t like the wording the FOP used but I think their sentiment is that the officer could not get a fair trial in Chicago or IL because of the political pressure and also threat of riots, etc. if there was anything but a guilty verdict.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 12:06 pm:
Chris Southwood said this three years ago. What changed his mind?
“The case will not be tried in the court of public opinion, where the only evidence is that disturbing video, but in a court of law, where all evidence in the case will be considered. The laws we swear as police officers to uphold will decide the outcome.”
- Anon0091 - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 12:17 pm:
It’s a false choice. You can support cops and most of FOP represents while you renounce their inflammatory rhetoric on the verdict. JB has been very clear that he believes cops are generally to be supported but more effort needs to be made to expose and discourage the inequitable treatment often received by people of color.
- Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 12:26 pm:
I voted no. What would renouncing the endorsement accomplish? We might get an “interesting” column out of McQueary, but really what would the point be?
How about the reverse? Should the ILFOP rescind its endorsement? As mentioned in the Sun Times article, even “the head of the FOP in Chicago, Kevin Graham, was more cautious in his response to the verdict.” I don’t recall him or the CFOP being this restrained in the past.
Maybe we’re getting somewhere.
- Harvest76 - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 12:56 pm:
There’s no reason JB should renounce his endorsement from the fop. It’s this type of all-or-nothing thinking gets us into many of the problems we have today. Whether or not they believe him to be the right person for structural change, and him agreeing with them on this one specific issue is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 2:28 pm:
I’m a retired cop. Keep the FOP endorsement, but issue a statement disagreeing with Southwood’s statement. State FOP leadership needs a change…the lack of diversity is unbelievable with no efforts to be inclusive.
- Ready To Leave this State - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 3:17 pm:
Why can’t we have a Question of the Day about…Why our Governor feels he is above the law?
- AlfondoGonz - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 8:12 pm:
No. Winning is too important, and I’d bet more people are tangentially aware of the FOP than they are anything they stand for.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 8:24 pm:
Sorry, forgot to vote.
Voted “No”.
“Why?”
Pritzker is a candidate receiving an endorsement.
That means the group is choosing to support Pritzker and his views, not that JB must 100% agree and conform to all that group believes, even in selected issues.
So, no.
No reason to renounce. None.
That’s not how endorsements work, and both will benefit by working together, if Pritzker is victorious, because that’s how endorsements really work.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Oct 9, 18 @ 11:38 pm:
Yes, Pritzker should shed the FOP endorsement. Police are never happy until they can kill whoever they want whenever they want, then get away with it legally. Plus have citizen/taxpayers pay for their legal defense, then get back pay and keep their jobs.
“There are good cops, of course, as well as bad ones…” What is that nonsense even supposed to mean? Is that like, “Their are bad judges, I had one who sent me to death row, but most are good?” Or, “There are bad doctors, like the one who replaced the wrong knee, but he meant well?” There is no acceptable level of police criminality in America under the Constitution.