Police arrest man wanted on warrant after brief chase

Police arrest man wanted on warrant after brief chase

CHAMPAIGN — A Champaign man who ran from police when they approached him about an outstanding warrant Sunday was arrested for resisting a peace officer.

Champaign police Sgt. Dave Griffet said a person called Crimestoppers to report that Nathaniel Lemons, 22, of the 1300 block of Hanover Drive, was on foot in the 600 block of West Bradley Avenue and that he was armed.

Knowing Lemons was wanted for domestic battery and acting on the tip that he was armed, police officers engaged him around 12:35 p.m. and he ran.

He was caught after a brief chase and in his path of flight, police found a .25-caliber handgun, Griffet said.

Lemons was wanted in connection with a felony domestic battery that allegedly occurred April 8 in Champaign.

He was being held in the Champaign County jail Sunday in lieu of $15,000 bond on the battery case.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sid Saltfork wrote on May 27, 2012 at 8:05 pm

Another gun story?  Want to bet that some John Wayne wantabee will make a comment about conceal and carry?  How many articles involving guns have there been this past week?

CJ Williams wrote on May 27, 2012 at 9:05 pm

Does he have a FOID Card?  Maybe he should have turned the gun in to the ministers this week.

jeep1980 wrote on May 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Exactly how many of these stories have involved legally acquired firearms being used by people who are legally able to own and keep firearms?  Don't use another criminal against concealed carry.  Those of us who want carry laws passed own our firearms legally.  I can't think of one example of a law abiding gun owner being the suspect in one of these cases.  Don't compare thugs and criminals with law abiding people.

rsp wrote on May 28, 2012 at 3:05 am

Some of these people have never commited any crime and could get a permit if they applied. 

I can't think of one example of a law abiding gun owner being the suspect in one of these cases.

Steven Phillip Kazmierczak, Northern Illinois University, 2008. He was legal. Until Feb 14. 

jeep1980 wrote on May 28, 2012 at 10:05 am

Phillip Kazmierczak was actually admitted to a treatment center in high school for mental issues, was being seen by a psychiatrist, and perscribed medication for his issues at the time of his crime.  Those things should have excluded him from obtaining a valid FOID card or being able to truthfully fill out the backround check paperwork and therefore legally obtaining any firearms.  If the laws we have would be enforced correctly then there wouldnt be a need for more restrictive laws.

rsp wrote on May 29, 2012 at 3:05 am




He graduated from Elk Grove High School in 1998, during which he was treated temporarily for mental illness at the Elk Grove Village Thresholds-Mary Hill House psychiatric center, for being "unruly" at home, according to his parents. That was over ten years prior and voluntary. 

From the FOID card application, the question is, "in the past 5 years, have you been a patient in a mental institution or any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of mental illness?"

Seeing a psychiatrist isn't grounds. One must have been ruled a mental defective by a court of law. 

No questions about medication, only about addictions to narcotics, which wasn't the case. So he was legal. 

serf wrote on May 28, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Anyone who does anything illegal with a firearm is by definition a criminal.  Therefore, all the gun nuts out there are able to simply brush them aside and purge them from the ranks of the 'law abiding gun toters.'  


betuana wrote on May 29, 2012 at 11:05 am

I see nothing in this that should be used to counter legal possession of a fire arm, or legalization of conceal and carry. What I am reading is that there was someone with an outstanding warrent out for their arrest, who, instead of going in to the police station to clear up the situation, post bail if needed, etc, was wandering around while Crimestoppers was asking people to look for them. The fact that he had a gun, legal or not, just added to the stupidity of his actions. He SHOULD have left the weapon, legal or not, at home and gone in voluntarily to address the issue of a warrent being out for him. His failure to responsibly respond to that, and then attempt to flee when confronted by officers, is what makes his actions problematic.

Having known someone who had a warrent out for him for an absolutely absurd reason (lost and forgot to pay a traffic ticket), I know that it is possible to go in and clear up the situation voluntarily (and will generally earn the person more respect and consideration than fleeing officers and trying to avoid them).

I think someone has the legal permits to do so and is law abiding should be allowed to carry a gun. That said, I think people also need to use their brains a bit as to when it is or isn't appropriate. Don't carry your gun, legal or not, into an airport security or under your coat into a courthouse metal detector, etc. If you ARE walking into a police station to clear things up, maybe leave it at home. If there is a warrent out for your arrest - this is not the time to walk around carrying, run from officers, and avoid dealing with the situation. Take responsibility and use some common sense.

rsp wrote on May 29, 2012 at 12:05 pm

I found out from a deputy at the courthouse that people put guns, cell phones, and other things in the bushes around the courthouse before they have to run inside to make an appearance. Then they pick it back up when they leave. Then this deputy said they couldn't do anything about it. Isn't it nice when law enforcement looks the other way?

doglvr wrote on May 30, 2012 at 9:05 am

so why don't they have an officer on duty confiscate abandoned weapons, etc.?

the whole idea of carrying guns around is totally insane! legal or not! it just increases the odds of someone getting shot! what idiot can't see this?  maybe all the people with guns will eventually shoot each other and everyone else can finally relax.

gun laws are a no-brainer for any one that can see the issue clearly

awilson wrote on May 11, 2013 at 4:05 pm

I wish all of you "clear thinkers" had the ability to see that you could pass 10 trillion new gun laws and criminals still won't care and obey them.  It was illegal for the moron in this article to carry a gun, correct?  He didn't have a permit to carry a gun but still carried one.  Should we pass a law that says "but seriously...you can't carry a gun"?  I'll bet he'll run to the closest police station and turn his gun in then, won't he?  Such clear thinking on your part to believe he would do that.  Get a clue...passing more laws aren't going to stop people that want to kill and steal from having guns.  They're too lazy to carry around boulders to drop on people's heads.