Police-involved shooting under investigation

Police-involved shooting under investigation

CHAMPAIGN — An officer-involved shooting incident that sent a Champaign man to a hospital on Sunday night is under investigation.

A 22-year-old man was treated for a non-life-threatening injury after being shot in the shoulder after a chase involving a Champaign police officer. The Champaign County Multi-Jurisdictional Investigative Team, led by the Illinois State Police, is conducting the investigation.

“This is an unfortunate incident and details are currently limited,” Champaign Police Chief Anthony Cobb said in a statement.  “At this time, additional interviews and evidence needs to be collected, including having the benefit of processing the scene during daylight hours, before we can draw conclusions.”

Neither the name of the officer nor the man shot has been released.

Reports indicate that at 10:37 p.m., a patrol officer made a traffic stop in the 400 block of East Washington Street.  During the stop, the suspect vehicle fled and crashed into a residence in the 400 block of East Church Street.

The driver then fled on foot as the officer pursued. At a blocked-off area in the 300 block of North Fourth Street, a single shot was fired and the suspect was struck.

This is a developing story

 

Sections (2):News, Local

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Local Yocal wrote on June 12, 2017 at 9:06 am
Profile Picture

Are police officers authorized within the use of force policy to use lethal force on a fleeing subject? Can an officer's gun be used as a "stopping device?"

Walkingdead1 wrote on June 12, 2017 at 9:06 am

Already casting doubt on the police and you have NOT heard the entirety of the situation or facts presented.   Criminals get more reasonable doubt than the police.  It's so amazing that you have not even doubted the person the officer was chasing (sarcasm).  He could have had a weapon, the officer could have feared for his life.  The suspect could have told the officer he was going to kill the officer. Stop casting doubt when you don't know everything.  This is what's wrong with social media.  Tried by inaccuarate statements and inflamed by citizens who just want to be baiters on the war against police.  I myself will reserve judgement on both ends until ALL of the facts have been released.   You should do the same.  It's not only fair it's the right thing to do. 

Dread Pirate DNT wrote on June 12, 2017 at 10:06 am
Profile Picture

LOL. Sounds like you might need a snowflake safe space.

Amazing how you manage to reserve judgement on both sides until we know the details while simultaneously painting the shooting victim as a criminal and offering up a host of reasons as to why you think the police were justified in shooting at a fleeing person.

Any time an officer uses their weapon and/or abuses their power by way of excessive force the cops and their boot lickers always go with the 'I feared for my life' card. That doesn't cut it anymore. This community has been brutalized enough by the police departments that have been allowed to racially profile, beat and shoot citizens because 'they feared for their life'.

Release the officer's name!! Our community needs to know who is ok with pulling the trigger of a gun while pointing it at a person who's running away!

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on June 12, 2017 at 12:06 pm

Absolutely.

 

Under your logic.. I can crank a whole bunch of rounds into a crowd, run away with the gun hin hand and you canot fire at the suspect?   Then under you logic why do officers have guns in the first place, although I know your not big into Officers carrying guns, nor do you think that officers should respond to calls nor do yoiu want officers in your life.

Local Yocal wrote on June 12, 2017 at 1:06 pm
Profile Picture

The scenario is whether officers can fire at unarmed citizens who are merely fleeing apprehension- without having shown the officer a weapon, without verbalizing an intent to do great bodily harm, without having just committed a violent crime. Can officers use lethal force to merely stop a fleeing subject?

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on June 12, 2017 at 2:06 pm

That was decided by the Supreme Court in Tenn Vs Garner.  Yet we do not know the facts in this case concerning any verbalizations that the suspect may or may not have had.  You really need to wait until the facts comein before you make suppositions.

Like 10000 DUR/DUS drivers in champaign county.  Remember that factoid?

 

Local Yocal wrote on June 12, 2017 at 3:06 pm
Profile Picture

Appreciate your acknowledgement of the Tennessee vs. Garner case. It's interesting how we're not supposed to assume the officer may have made a mistake but it's okay to assume this "criminal" had it coming. The problem of course is what will be taken for facts are collected by the very agency that has a vested interest in finding that the officer had probable cause and a justified reason to shoot the civilian.

There needs to be an independent investigation when there's an "officer-involved" shooting. And certainly not an investigation like the sham that was the Kiwane Carrington investigation.  

Patman wrote on June 12, 2017 at 4:06 pm

I agree.  I'm thinking start with a state agency, have it all review by a prosecuter, appoint a panel of a retired judge and retired AA police chief, and then follow up with the FBI through the DOJ.  Of course, that is what happened in the Carrington "sham".  All with the same findings.  

Walkingdead1 wrote on June 12, 2017 at 4:06 pm

Nobody is assuming the criminal had it coming but you fail to represent both sides of the argument and go right for the officer.  Again biast citizen comments which cast immediate doubt on the officer.   GOOD JOB!

Patman wrote on June 12, 2017 at 5:06 pm

The current use of force policy can be found here:

http://champaignil.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/CPD-Policy-Manual.pdf

It has complied with state law for years, even before Cobb.  Cobb changed part of it to address shooting a dog according to this article.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-02-03/champaign-police-will-...

 

 

rsp wrote on June 12, 2017 at 1:06 pm

That house he drove into worked as a "stopping device". Please tell me you are concerned about that. The vehicle was in the house.

Are you concerned about the guys shooting up the parks full of kids? This is my neighborhood. You need to go home. You don't care about these people.

Walkingdead1 wrote on June 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

Snowflake I am not.  What a joke.  Is that that catch all now?  Name calling?  Sounds like you are a judgemental anger driven individual who needs their safe space against opposing opinions.  Again another citizen baiting the war against police.  You don't even know if the suspect was running away when the shooting happened.  Another non- factual opinion.  

Rocco146 wrote on June 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

You must have some insider information or you're leading the investigation, because no where in that article does it say the officer pulled the trigger of a gun while pointing it at a person who's running away.  Get the facts first, before you comment.

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on June 12, 2017 at 5:06 pm

if the suspect did not violate thelaw he would not have been stopped

 

If he was stopped but did not run, he would not have been shot

 

instead the suspects crashed into a house  and then ran from the Officer.

 

He made his own bed...............

 

let him lie in it .............................