The West Pratt Avenue home of Cook County State's Attorney, Dick Devine became a resting point for a candlelight vigil Friday night. The theme of the vigil was "No Justice, No Peace!"
At least 50 people, both young and old, knelt down in protest of what the perceive as justice denied for Miguel Flores and Erick Lagunas. Many prayers were read in Spanish and there was a lot of emotion from the vigil attendees. Some in attendance were visibly upset with Mr. Devine. I was the only English speaking media on scene, which made any interview very difficult. I'll let the signs being held speak for themselves.
20 comments:
protesting at a pol's home is over the line
Hey Craig,
what's da backstory about dis?
Que pasa Amigo de Gayo Chicago Publishero?
Make your response quick before those irate contractors git ya.
Who are Miguel and Erick?
As for protesting at a private house I agree with Hugh. That sucks. If only for the neighbors.
Protest downtown or at a courthouse.
A few weeks ago some of the hippie scumbag O.N.E. types protested at the home of Mary Ann Smith ovewr changes at lovely Senn High School.
That was wrong too.
Even elected scumbags deserve a zone of privacy.
And illegal.
I BELIEVE this is over the two guys that were killed when they were struck by an off duty Chicago Police Officer who was allegedly DUI. They DUI was later tossed because as I was told, he was not DUI. IIRC, they failed to stop for a stop sign and were struck by the Officer after he went around a double parked car. They want the Officer charged even though the two guys were clearly in the wrong. IIRC.
Is there a double standard to these house vigil's?
I vividly remember a few years ago, CAPS and the Chicago Police Department put together a vigil/protest on a Rogers Park slumlord's private home. We even met at the 24th district police station.
Just how is this illegal, Big Daddy?
It is illegal to do protests on people's residences.
It is not illegal to do vigils.
The law if kinda' funny - as long as you keep moving, there you are typically within the law.
Of course... I would say that dropping charges against drunk cops that killed two young men is way further over the line than doing a protest/rally/vigil at a pol's home.
From Technorati:
An off-duty Chicago police officer has been charged with DUI and driving left of center after his SUV allegedly broadsided a Pontiac, killing two men and injuring a third early Thanksgiving morning.
Witnesses say the police officer, John Ardelean, 33, was driving a Dodge Durango SUV at approximately 3 A.M. when he struck a Pontiac, causing the car to crash into two other cars.
One of the men in the Pontiac, Erick Lagunas, 21, was thrown from the vehicle and later pronounced dead at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
Another man in the Pontiac, Miguel Flores, 22, was pronounced dead at Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. A third man in the Pontiac was hospitalized with non-life threatening injuries.
Relatives of the deceased men complained they received no information from the police about the crash or who was involved.
"Never was I contacted by a police officer or anyone telling me it was a police officer who was off duty," Miguel Flores' sister Nancy Flores said. "Why do I have to find out from the news?"
While Ardelean's blood alcohol level results were not made public, he is the second Chicago police officer to be charged in a fatal DUI in this week.
Jose Lagunas, whose brother of Erick was one of the two men killed early Thursday morning, flew home from Texas to console his family. He expressed the frustration his family is feeling with the police.
"They're out there drinkin'. These are the people supposed to protect us."
Your right Dave. It isn't as big a deal as dropping charges against a drunk cop. Only problem is that he wasn't drunk. Do a little research and you will see who was at fault in this accident. But then again, why let the truth stop a little protest?
Charges Dropped After Chicago Illinois Police Officer John Ardelean Kills Two Motorists In Drunken Wreck - Received Special Treatment By Police At Time Of Killings, And Latter By Prosecutors
February 9th, 2008
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS — A Cook County judge has dismissed a felony DUI charge against a Chicago Police officer involved in a fatal accident, citing lack of probable cause.
Cook County Judge Don Panarese found the case against John Ardelean, 34, had no probable cause and dismissed the aggravated driving under the influence charges filed after the fatal Nov. 22, crash, according to Cook County State’s Attorney’s office spokesman Andy Conklin.
Ardelean faced up to 28 years in prison if convicted. Prosecutors took the somewhat unusual step of requesting a preliminary hearing, leaving Judge Panarese to decide whether the case should go forward.
Panarese heard testimony Ardelean was driving north on Damen at 2:49 a.m. when his Dodge Durango slammed into a Pontiac Grand Am carrying Miguel Flores, 22, and Erick Lagunas, 21, who both died. A third victim survived.
The Pontiac ran a stop sign when it turned left from Oakdale, police investigator Dan Postelnick testified. The Durango was in “full braking” mode when the collision occurred, he said.
Prosecutors had to show Ardelean’s actions were the “proximate cause” of Flores’ and Lagunas’ deaths, said John Decker, a criminal law expert at DePaul University College of Law. “It raises some questions,” he said. “If the other parties were really solely responsible for the collision, then how can you hold him responsible?”
Surveillance video from Martini Ranch at 311 W. Chicago showed Ardelean at the bar from 11:51 p.m. on Nov. 21 until 2:24 a.m. on Nov. 22, police investigator Louis Torres said. The video showed Ardelean drinking one shot and “three regular-sized glasses,” he said.
Bartender Michael Dreher said Ardelean purchased several drinks, but some were for other people. Dreher testified that he saw Ardelean drink one beer and one shot of tequila.
Ardelean did not seem drunk that night and often drank soda water when he came in, Dreher added.
But two witnesses at the crash scene said Ardelean appeared drunk. He refused to take field sobriety and Breathalyzer tests, prosecutors said.
A Police Department-ordered test nearly eight hours later showed Ardelean’s blood alcohol to be .032. Albert Carl Larsen from the Illinois State Police estimated his blood alcohol was .104 to .177 at the time of the crash — over the legal limit of .08.
Source.
After taking a new look at the case of the police officer initially charged with drunken driving in the Thanksgiving crash that killed two Cicero men, Cook County prosecutors have returned to the old conclusion.
The Cook County State’s Attorney’s office announced WednesdayMay 7 afternoon its decision to not pursue additional criminal charges against Chicago police Officer John Ardelean due to “insufficient evidence.”
“There is no substantial basis for proceeding with charges beyond the preliminary hearing,” according to a State’s Attorney written statement.
Source.
Big Daddy, according to the States Attorney's Office, he wasn't given a breathalyzer test until SIX HOURS after the accident and still managed to register .032. State police experts said that could mean that his blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crash was much higher. "That extrapolation proves that he is as much as twice the legal limit," the victims' attorney, Daniel O'Connor, said. "Officer Ardelean, after the occurrence, did not call 911, he did not call an ambulance, he did not go over to the victims to find out how they were."
Prosecutors contend the victims ran a stop sign directly in front of Ardelean, but family members dispute that claim.
Given that information, I would too. It sure does seem as though the Hard Blue Line was solidly in tact that night. Or is it normal to perform a breathalyzer test 6 hours after a fatal car crash. And is it normal for a police officer, on duty or off . . . or any citizen for that matter, not to at least call 911 after an accident, or even show enough concern to find out if anyone was hurt?
It's interesting to note the officer in question is still on suspension pending further internal investigation.
SOURCE: http://www.nbc5.com/news/16194006/detail.html
- PEACE -
I appreciate the fact the families are upset. But, as the DePaul professor stated, the State must show the officer's actions were the proximate cause of death.
There was a stop sign. The driver of the Pontiac either didn't stop OR thought he could clear the on-coming vehicle. According to the investigator, and I'm assuming from the residual brake/tire marks, it was determined the officer took evasive action in an attempt to avoid hitting the car.
I'm not saying the officer did or did not receive preferential treatment, but the bottom line is that, the Pontiac RAN the stop sign and had they stopped, looked both ways and cautiously proceeded to make the left turn, ensuring there was no oncoming traffic, they would be alive.
Day in and day out, I see so many vehicles blatantly running stop signs. I've also seen many "near misses" and actual crashes because people don't take the time to stop. Or, they stop, but instead of waiting their turn, they gun it through the intersection.
All things being the same, had the driver of the SUV not been a cop, and alcohol consumption not an issue, the outcome would have been the same. Two people dead because they ran a stop sign.
Ohhh man, it's the same Fargo Woman who was just begging for the police to come and deal with the child endangerment she convicted somebody on, who's now demanding they put some god fearin' police officer in jail based on a guess by "State police experts" that the off duty police officer in question.
Maybe it's about time you make your way back to the burbs.
Fargo Woman: Armchair judge, jury, and executioner.
She saw CSI once. She knows how to figure out BAC over time.
Dan, I've never lived a day of my life in the 'burbs. I'm merely stating my opinion. And, yes, I still believe it is wrong to exploit children by putting them to work in dangerous, unhealthy environments.
- PEACE -
Right Fargo. You just do a really really good impression of a boutique citizen from Schaumburg who convicts 5-0 of imaginary crimes on the words of a bunch of criminals.
O.K., Dan, now you're just blathering. I'm through replying to you comments on this issue.
- PEACE -
Isn't that what you're advocating Fargo? You don't have any evidence of a DUI, save for the irrelevant opinions some anonymous experts from Joliet - but it's the police so it must be a big cover up.
The police have the right to refuse a breathtest like everybody else. The test that was done was administrative, he was ordered to blow. That test would have been thrown out on appeal, if it came down to it.
Doesn't the refusal to take a breath test constitute admission of guilt?
Post a Comment