Jump to content

Criminal reform bill


bmyers

Recommended Posts

Does the Criminal Reform Bill that passed the House and Senate today have any direct impact on carry conceal license? The bill being several 100 pages long (I believe over 700), I know I have not read it. I know law enforcement had come out strongly against it, but the details I haven't seen and I wonder if our legislators have read the details.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the Criminal Reform Bill that passed the House and Senate today have any direct impact on carry conceal license? The bill being several 100 pages long (I believe over 700), I know I have not read it. I know law enforcement had come out strongly against it, but the details I haven't seen and I wonder if our legislators have read the details.

 

 

If you look at the time line, it is plain that NO ONE got to read it let alone understand it before the vote in the middle of the night. Typical leftist tactic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does the Criminal Reform Bill that passed the House and Senate today have any direct impact on carry conceal license? The bill being several 100 pages long (I believe over 700), I know I have not read it. I know law enforcement had come out strongly against it, but the details I haven't seen and I wonder if our legislators have read the details.

 

If you look at the time line, it is plain that NO ONE got to read it let alone understand it before the vote in the middle of the night. Typical leftist tactic

A 764 page bill that the Republican caucus received in final form at 4:30am
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this section interesting. IF, which is a BIG IF, I'm reading it right, it makes it very difficult for law enforcement to use non-lethal force.

 

(e) A peace officer, or any person acting on behalf of a peace officer, shall not:

(i) use force as punishment or retaliation;

(ii) discharge kinetic impact projectiles and all other non-or less-lethal projectiles in a manner that targets the head, pelvis, or back;

(iii) discharge firearms or kinetic impact projectiles indiscriminately into a crowd; or

(iv) use chemical agents or irritants, including pepper spray and tear gas, prior to issuing an order to disperse in a sufficient manner to ensure the order is heard and repeated if necessary, followed by sufficient time and space to allow compliance with the order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this section interesting. IF, which is a BIG IF, I'm reading it right, it makes it very difficult for law enforcement to use non-lethal force.

 

(e) A peace officer, or any person acting on behalf of a peace officer, shall not:

(i) use force as punishment or retaliation;

(ii) discharge kinetic impact projectiles and all other non-or less-lethal projectiles in a manner that targets the head, pelvis, or back;

(iii) discharge firearms or kinetic impact projectiles indiscriminately into a crowd; or

(iv) use chemical agents or irritants, including pepper spray and tear gas, prior to issuing an order to disperse in a sufficient manner to ensure the order is heard and repeated if necessary, followed by sufficient time and space to allow compliance with the order.

 

And who is the arbiter of whether item (iv) has been complied with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Pritzker does sign this, you would be a fool to consider a career as a police officer in Illinois now. What you will see is any officer that can will be retiring. If you have less than 10 years, you are not vested in pension and would just get a refund of everything you contributed. And this would be the time to resign and find a department out of state if you still want a law enforcement career. You will probably also see many that aren't quite eligible to retire do it anyway to protect themselves and family. There is plenty hidden in this that will destroy law enforcement and create a society that is less safe instead of what these POS's are insisting. Pray for Illinois...

 

The increase in crime that happened over the last year will pale compared to what will happen if this becomes law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this section interesting. IF, which is a BIG IF, I'm reading it right, it makes it very difficult for law enforcement to use non-lethal force.

 

(e) A peace officer, or any person acting on behalf of a peace officer, shall not:

(i) use force as punishment or retaliation;

(ii) discharge kinetic impact projectiles and all other non-or less-lethal projectiles in a manner that targets the head, pelvis, or back;

(iii) discharge firearms or kinetic impact projectiles indiscriminately into a crowd; or

(iv) use chemical agents or irritants, including pepper spray and tear gas, prior to issuing an order to disperse in a sufficient manner to ensure the order is heard and repeated if necessary, followed by sufficient time and space to allow compliance with the order.

Most of this looks like things they cant/shouldn't do already. Go to a precinct meeting and inquire, i'm sure there are worse things in the bill.

I'm that is stuff that they get to go back to the community and look what we banned!

 

can't use force to retaliate or punish. Like beating for resisting arrest after in the cuffs?

No aiming a rubber bullet at the head, or pelvis, or back. Think a bean bad to the head would really mess someone up.

No shooting into a crowd....

No pepper spray without telling someone to stop or leave first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen anything in either of the bills directly touching on gun ownership or carry. You can use your imagination to think of situations where someone might act on behalf of a police officer, say, if an officer was down and you happened to be armed and willing to help. That's a very big stretch to get there, though.

 

The bill will make it more difficult (?), I don't know if difficult is the right way to think of it but use of force will require different training and the provisions of the bill will introduce more hesitation that may not be good in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have not read the 750-page bill. I got about halfway through its predecessor before I gave up, and that one was shorter.

 

This version eliminates cash bail. So does that mean there's only bond left? Bail is money you get back if you show up for trial. Bond is money you never get back, and (in Illinois) it's the state that keeps it, since bondsmen are prohibited. That sounds more like a bizarre way to increase revenue. Arrest everyone regularly, and keep the bond money.

 

It requires state licensing of cops, so if a department refuses to fire a cop or the union files a grievance to get him rehired, the state can just revoke his license. There are some bad cops that need to be fired, but I can see good cops getting the ax just because some politician wants it. If being a cop at any level becomes a political job, I think no one should be surprised if corruption flourishes.

 

In 750 pages, there's other stuff, I'm sure. The previous version revoked qualified immunity. I haven't seen talk of this version doing the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the details need to be fleshed out:

 

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20210113/criminal-justice-reform-package-sent-to-governor

 

 


Effective Jan. 1, 2023, all bail bonds and conditions of bail will be replaced by a system of pretrial release to be developed by the Illinois courts based on a detainee's alleged crime, their risk of not appearing for their court date, and the threat or danger they may pose to the community if released.
"For too long, people in this state have spent time in jail only because they could not afford to pay their bail," Peters said in a statement released shortly after the successful Senate vote. "The end of that practice is near. I'm thrilled that ending cash bail was part of the package we passed today."
The original version of the bill abolished cash bail effective immediately, but that was extended by two years to accommodate the transition and allow for uniform standards to be developed, according to Sims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My understanding is that bail has been replaced with non-monetary pre-trial release for offenses that qualify.

So is that I-bonds for some things and remand for everything else? Mandatory remand doesn't seem like something ILGA would do. I-bonds were already a thing, so that part's not new.

 

It looks like the details need to be fleshed out:

 

Daily Herald

...

Short version: There is no plan. There's not even an idea for a plan. But in two years, there will be a plan, and it will be the best plan in the entire history of forever. Illinois will lead civilization into a new era of jurisprudence. Just wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Short version: There is no plan. There's not even an idea for a plan. But in two years, there will be a plan, and it will be the best plan in the entire history of forever. Illinois will lead civilization into a new era of jurisprudence. Just wait and see.

Yep, you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

 

Well....if you two say so....okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

News media confused again. Bill to big for them to go and look I guess.

 

Many of the most debated aspects, such as ending qualified immunity for law enforcement, were reduced or removed from the bill following heavy opposition from law enforcement, labor unions, prosecutors and municipal representatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this section interesting. IF, which is a BIG IF, I'm reading it right, it makes it very difficult for law enforcement to use non-lethal force.

 

(e) A peace officer, or any person acting on behalf of a peace officer, shall not:

(i) use force as punishment or retaliation;

(ii) discharge kinetic impact projectiles and all other non-or less-lethal projectiles in a manner that targets the head, pelvis, or back;

(iii) discharge firearms or kinetic impact projectiles indiscriminately into a crowd; or

(iv) use chemical agents or irritants, including pepper spray and tear gas, prior to issuing an order to disperse in a sufficient manner to ensure the order is heard and repeated if necessary, followed by sufficient time and space to allow compliance with the order.

With the exception of IV, the rest are completely open to subjective (mis)use. How do you prove intent in i, what they were targeting in ii, what indiscriminately is?

 

THis is either unenforceable, or a tool, that looks, on the surface, to only curb only bad behavior, but will be used to stop ANY force used in mob scenarios. Nailing just a few, will make the rest afraid to 'run the risk'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...