ragsbo Posted January 15, 2021 at 12:51 AM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 12:51 AM I have heard that it has a provision that would prevent schools from having a police/ resource officer in the building without a bonifide threat. Anyone know if it does? Don't really want to read it myself to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragsbo Posted January 15, 2021 at 01:16 AM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 01:16 AM I was wrong, it was another bill someone filed. https://wsiltv.com/2021/01/14/proposed-bill-would-eliminate-school-resource-officers-in-illinois/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WSIL_News_3&fbclid=IwAR2PH1iA8DeBIUra79G-Z2KJfUk7M5htR1KHTMYEpqiROWcZr1b4iHg0w34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 15, 2021 at 01:58 AM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 01:58 AM I have heard that it has a provision that would prevent schools from having a police/ resource officer in the building without a bonifide threat. Anyone know if it does? Don't really want to read it myself to see FWIW, since your message prompted me to look, here's the only reference to school officers that I found in bill. (a) The Board shall develop or approve a course for school resource officers as defined in Section 10-20.68 of the School Code. ... (c) The Board shall develop a process allowing law enforcement agencies to request a waiver of this training requirement for any specific individual assigned as a school resource officer. Applications for these waivers may be submitted by a local governmental law enforcement agency chief administrator for any officer whose prior training and experience may qualify for a waiver of the training requirement of this subsection (c). The Board may issue a waiver at its discretion, based solely on the prior training and experience of an officer. So apparently a local PD could previously request less training for school officers, but now any local agency (like the school itself?) can request less training for school officers. The only other reference I saw regarding schools was (a) Upon verified petition by the State, the court shall hold a hearing and may deny to determine whether bail should be denied to a defendant pretrial release only if: ... (6) the defendant is charged with any of these violations under the Criminal Code of 2012 and it is alleged that the defendant's pretrial releases poses a real and present threat to the physical safety of any specifically identifiable person or persons. ... (G) Section 24-3.3 (unlawful sale or delivery of a firearms on the premises of any school); ... In other words, there is a list of crimes for which a defendant may be denied pretrial release. Unlawful sale or delivery of a firearms on the premises of any school (as if there's any lawful delivery or sale of firearms at school) is one for which a defendant may or may not be denied pretrial release. For any crime not on the list, the defendant cannot be remanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted January 15, 2021 at 02:30 AM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 02:30 AM Best to just say i am done..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyk101 Posted January 15, 2021 at 02:36 AM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 02:36 AM I have heard that it has a provision that would prevent schools from having a police/ resource officer in the building without a bonifide threat. Anyone know if it does? Don't really want to read it myself to seeFWIW, since your message prompted me to look, here's the only reference to school officers that I found in bill. I think he means this one: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0029&GAID=16&GA=102&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=127840&SessionID=110 Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the School Code. Provides that law enforcement officers shall not maintain a presence on school grounds unless there exists an imminent threat of danger to students at the school in question or there is reason to believe that urgent and immediate action is necessary to prevent such danger to students. Makes conforming changes. Defines "school grounds". Effective immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 15, 2021 at 03:32 AM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 03:32 AM ... I think he means this one: ... Ragsbo originally meant the criminal reform bill that's the topic. I was already looking when he posted his correction. It's a big bill. It took a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyk101 Posted January 15, 2021 at 04:24 AM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 04:24 AM It's crazy. There is no reason, absolutely no reason for an amendment to be that large. There is no way that any of the Representatives or Senators were aware of every provision before they cast their deciding vote. It should be broken down into many much smaller bills so they can be thoroughly understood and easier to comprehend. All you have to do to see this is look at all the statutes that are being affected by just this one amendment. The biggest problem with this stuff is that ignorance of laws isn't a defense. There is no way humanly possible to go through a day without violating at least 1 or 2 laws and probably not be aware that you have done so. This completely defeats the purpose of having laws in the first place. How many laws have been passed that either are already covered by other laws on the books just so a "lawmaker" can take credit or even contradict other laws? Sorry, rant off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felixd Posted January 15, 2021 at 03:41 PM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 03:41 PM The ramification of this legislation is, following JaBa the Putzs signature, your CCL is far more critical to you than ever before. This is especially important if you live near any of the Socialist Democrat enclaves in Illinois. Local law enforcement will be engaged in catch and release, forced on them by legislation, until they realize the futility and quit. Crime in Cook County, specifically Chicago, will increase rapidly as the States Attorney in that county will not adequately charge criminal offenders. The transition to chaos may take a while, but it will get there. Dont be like many Ive seen who have the CCL and who do not carry a gun. You need it starting today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted January 15, 2021 at 03:47 PM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 03:47 PM I have heard that it has a provision that would prevent schools from having a police/ resource officer in the building without a bonifide threat. Anyone know if it does? Don't really want to read it myself to seeFWIW, since your message prompted me to look, here's the only reference to school officers that I found in bill. I think he means this one: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0029&GAID=16&GA=102&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=127840&SessionID=110 Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the School Code. Provides that law enforcement officers shall not maintain a presence on school grounds unless there exists an imminent threat of danger to students at the school in question or there is reason to believe that urgent and immediate action is necessary to prevent such danger to students. Makes conforming changes. Defines "school grounds". Effective immediately.Words have meanings. Shall can also mean shall not from what I learned years ago here. What a s hole of a state we are in. Lord knows the same maroons that will vote in favor of this bill are also going to vote in favor of more security for themselves after the "insurrection" we had last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackinelgin Posted January 15, 2021 at 05:31 PM Share Posted January 15, 2021 at 05:31 PM I have heard that it has a provision that would prevent schools from having a police/ resource officer in the building without a bonifide threat. Anyone know if it does? Don't really want to read it myself to seeFWIW, since your message prompted me to look, here's the only reference to school officers that I found in bill. I think he means this one: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0029&GAID=16&GA=102&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=127840&SessionID=110 Synopsis As IntroducedAmends the School Code. Provides that law enforcement officers shall not maintain a presence on school grounds unless there exists an imminent threat of danger to students at the school in question or there is reason to believe that urgent and immediate action is necessary to prevent such danger to students. Makes conforming changes. Defines "school grounds". Effective immediately.Words have meanings. Shall can also mean shall not from what I learned years ago here. What a s hole of a state we are in. Lord knows the same maroons that will vote in favor of this bill are also going to vote in favor of more security for themselves after the "insurrection" we had last week. Hey-Don't indict all Maroons[Elgin High School Maroon here and oldest grandson is a Robinson HS Maroon]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted January 16, 2021 at 02:29 AM Share Posted January 16, 2021 at 02:29 AM Belleville Township H.S. West MAROONS here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted January 16, 2021 at 08:04 PM Share Posted January 16, 2021 at 08:04 PM Remember "shall" means "shall not" for cronies, so a crony gets arrested, they won't get charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hceuterpe Posted January 16, 2021 at 09:15 PM Share Posted January 16, 2021 at 09:15 PM 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. I'm going to refrain from throwing my two cents in here on qualified immunity itself. But seeing as how qualified immunity is a legal priniciple that has been ruled by the Supreme Courts in several cases over the years. I don't see how it's going to stick if the bill looks to diminish this at the state level. But then again maybe the majority in the state assembly also doesn't care in how it's supposed to work... In regards to limiting use of force in this bill. Personally, I think CPD is substantially culpable, compared to the local PD departments in the rest of the state. Just look at how they are handling (or lack thereof) the on-going consent decree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.