The Illinois Reapportionment System. An Absolute Disgrace!

The Illinois General Assembly is the Illinois Legislative body. It consists of a House and a Senate. The House has 118 members elected from 118 "Representative Districts." The Senate has 59 members elected from 59 "Legislative Districts." Each Senate ("legislative") district is divided into two House ("representative") districts


In the year following each Federal decennial census year, the General Assembly is required by law to redistrict both the Legislative and the Representative Districts.


Article IV, Section 3 of The Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides, "Legislative Districts shall be compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population. Representative Districts shall be compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population."

No similar Illinois provision governs the drawing of Congressional Districts.


The average citizen's definition of "compact" would be roughly akin to the dictionary definition: "closely and neatly packed together; dense ... neatly fitted into a small space.


But in 1895, Illinois legislators and judges "defined" the requirement of "compactness," which was found in the Illinois Constitution of 1870, out of existence. In approving a gerrymandered map drawn by the legislature, the Illinois Supreme Court did so by defining "compactness" in a way to render the term meaningless.


"[W]e are of the opinion that as used in the constitution ... the provision that districts shall be formed of ... compact territory means that [they] ... must be closely united, territorially."


Under that definition two intersecting road could be deemed "compact." Certainly where they intersect, they are "closely united, territorially." But nobody except a political hack in the legislature or on the bench would say that I-80 and I-74 are "compact" because the are "closely united" at their point of intersection.

The drafters of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 were fully aware of what the 1895 Illinois

Supreme Court had done when they reinserted the "compact" requirement into the Constitution of 1970. But they again failed to define "compact!" So the legislature, and the court following its their earlier precedent, have once again ignored the plain meaning of the word — just as they did in 1895.


Nevertheless, the drafters clearly understood the importance of the "compactness" requirement. The Report of the Legislative Committee which proposed the language adopted by the 1970 Convention. It stated:


"Perhaps no standards for drawing legislative district boundaries possess a longer history than the traditional standards of compactness and contiguity. In our present Constitution, these standards are found in both Sections 6 and 7. These standards directly reflect the objective of improving legislative representation through seeking to insure that districts are not gerrymandered."


Presently the Illinois Senate consisted of 41 Democrats and 18 Republicans. The House consists of 73 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Democrats therefore have absolute control of both houses. The Republicans are utterly irrelevant. In Congress, the Democrats hold 13 of 18 seats.


You can see the results of Democrat gerrymandering — with judicial approval. Just look at the 2011 maps. Or look at the new 2021 maps the Democrats have just trotted out. [Of course, the Republican would do the same thing if they had the power.]


Proposed Illinois Senate Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewerll=40.08707930358038%2C88.48127570835499&z=8&mid=1X9lSD13vTX_-4oIyWqstGk8e1VFGJ_i2

Proposed Illinois House Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?mid=1L7I2r4gat9nRWx9wfaizpn7XkA7i1qL4&ll=39.79510521942542%2C-89.50414500000001&z=6



To see what the Illinois Democrats perceive to be "compact," simply look at the present Illinois Congressional map. Can any sane man honestly describe existing Congressional districts 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, as "compact?" This map reduces the redistricting process to crass political cynicism.

https://www.ilga.gov/CongressionalDistrictMaps/Statewide%20View.pdf


As a result of the Democrat gerrymandering in Illinois has been ruled by one-party government for the last 10 years. This map is designed to guarantee that elections are non-competitive. It succeded.

So what's my solution?


As I have no confidence the Illinois Supreme Court will construe the word "compact" as the drafters who wrote our constitutions intended, I see only two possible solutions:


(1) Elect holy angels to draw the map; or (2) amend the Illinois Constitution to provide:

All districts shall be compact — squares, rectangles or triangles. No district shall have more than four sides. All sides shall be straight lines, unless one or more sidesor the sides are the state boundry lines. No arcs, no curves, no squiggles. The only factor, beyond shape, that may be considered in drawing the district's lines is population equality.


Or if the politicians would choke on my solution, they might check out Iowa's. Iowa's Congressional Districts are pretty darn "compact." Copy the Iowa system!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa%27s_congressional_districts


In Iowa there are only four Congressional Districts. Indication that the Iowa system works, is that from the 2014 election until the 2018 elections, Republican held 3 of 4 seats. In 2018, Democrats grabbed 3 of 4 seats. In 2020, Republicans 3 of 4 seats back.




Democracy works best when the voters can "throw the bums out"— whether they are Republican bums or Democrat bums.



Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 14, 2021 under the caption "Level the Playing Field."

Biden's contradictions undermine his message

Once upon a time, journalist were taught to give the "who, what, when and where" when writing their news stories. But it is increasingly difficult for even the most conscientious journalist to get those questions answered when they seek answers from high government officials and bureaucrats. President Donald Trump said one thing; Dr. Anthony Fauci contradicted him. Then Fauci went on a flip-flopping binge. President Joe Biden says one thing today, and the opposite tomorrow; and even worse, says one thing, and does the exact opposite. After all the "little sidesteps," how can any American have trust in what any government official tells them?


On Aug. 4, the Dispatch-Argus published an article from Capitol News Illinois by Jerry Nowicki. When I finished reading it, I found myself asking the question, "Is this really useful information?"

I have never attended journalism school, but had I written the piece, I would have tried to answer the following questions.

A. New Covid hospitalizations in the last 7 days:

1. How many vaccinated people in Illinois were hospitalized with the original Covid variant?

2. How many vaccinated people in Illinois were hospitalized with the Delta variant?

3. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois were hospitalized with the original Covid variant?

4. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois were hospitalized with the Delta variant?



B. New Covid cases in intensive care in the last 7 days:

1. How many vaccinated people in Illinois were placed in intensive care with the original Covid variant?

2. How many vaccinated people in Illinois were placed in intensive care with the Delta variant?

3. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois placed in intensive care with the original Covid variant?

4. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois were placed in intensive care with the Delta variant?


C. New Deaths from Covid in the last 7 days:

1. How many vaccinated people in Illinois died from the original Covid variant?

2. How many vaccinated people in Illinois died from the Delta variant?

3. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois died from the original Covid variant?

4. How many unvaccinated people in Illinois died from the Delta variant?


I suggest that if the above twelve questions were honestly answered, the readers of the Dispatch-Argus would have the information they need to make rational decisions for themselves. They would not have to rely upon the changing and contradictory statements made from day to day by their elected officials and the bureaucrat "experts."


It seems incredible to me that the government would not keep such statistics.

And if the government doesn't keep such statistics, why not? If not, how can any government make intelligent decisions without the answers to these 12 questions?

If a democracy is going to work, the citizens have to be given full and honest information. Voters can't intelligently vote if they are fed gobbledygook by their elected officials and the bureaucrats.

Do I blame Jerry Nowicki for writing an article that raises more questions than it answers? No. I blame government officials, the CDC and the Illinois Department of Public Health for failing to provide straight answers to really important questions that every American needs answered.

I understand viruses can mutate, and what was good advice yesterday may not be good advice as the virus mutates. But it is the height of irresponsibility for Biden to restrict travel to the U.S. from the U.K., Ireland and 26 countries in Europe, as well as South Africa, to slow transmission of COVID-19, while throwing our Southern border open to Covid-infected migrants, and releasing 1500 Covid-infected migrants into McAllen, Texas, to infect anybody they come in contact with.

In the words of the Wall Street Journal, "If the president wants the public to defer to public-health officials when it comes to masking and social distancing, he can't expect people to ignore these same officials when they tell us that large numbers of recent migrants may be contributing to the crisis."

The president's pathetic double standard undermines every sound part of his message.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 19, 2021

So Why is the U.S. Closed to Cuban Immigrants? — Another Biden Double Standard

Do you still believe what the Biden administration tells you? If so, wake up!

On March 3, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to increase "refugee admissions" into the U.S.

It reads:

"It is important to take this action today to remove any lingering doubt in the minds of refugees around the world who have suffered so much, and who are anxiously waiting for their new lives to begin.


"The United States Refugee Admissions Program embodies America’s commitment to protect the most vulnerable, and to stand as a beacon of liberty and refuge to the world. It’s a statement about who we are, and who we want to be. So we are going to rebuild what has been broken and push hard to complete the rigorous screening process for those refugees already in the pipeline for admission."

The executive order was consistent with his pre-election promises. Since the day Donald Trump was elected, President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, the "Squad," and virtually every Democrat have been proclaiming — or perhaps bellowing — that our Southern border must be open to refugees seeking to escape persecution in their native countries, that this country must take all comers, and that they must be released and given a date in the future when their claims of persecution will be adjudicated.


But now when the people of Cuba take to the streets to protest their government's one-party rule, incompetence, brutality, and violation of human rights, suddenly our country's doors are slammed shut by Biden's Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas. They will not be allowed entry here, even if they demonstrate genuine fear of being persecuted, imprisoned or tortured on their islands.

"If individuals make, establish a well-founded fear of persecution or torture, they are referred to third countries for resettlement. They will not enter the United States."

"Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States,"

"The time is never right to attempt migration by sea. To those who risk their lives doing so, this risk is not worth taking."

Fleeing from Cuba to the U.S., across 90 miles of unpredictable open sea, via small boat is undeniably a dangerous venture. You have to be absolutely desperate to do it. The gamble that Cubans take risking their lives in small boats should say to any open-minded American that life in millionaire-socialist Bernie Sanders' Cuban socialist paradise is a delusion of a deranged mind. No sane man would put his family in an open boat and cross 90 miles of open sea without calculating that living in Cuba is worse than dying at sea. Taking the trip is presumptive evidence of a good faith and genuine fear of being persecuted, imprisoned or tortured by Cuba's communist government.


Moreover, any country that gives a damn about the welfare of its people wouldn't force people who wanted out to cross a small ocean in a small boat. If Cuba was a free country, like Marxist Bernie and "the Squad" contend, it would allow its dissatisfied citizens to emigrate to the U.S. or elsewhere via safe ocean-going ships, or by airplane.


And if Mayorkas really fears the dangers of the trip across 90 miles of open-water, why doesn't he, assuming that he is a reasonable man, have a similar fear for the safety of families, women and children making the trek from Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Or is a 90-mile voyage across open-water really that much more dangerous than a 1,323 mile trip from Guatemala City to the Texas border? Are women and children really safer traversing deserts in the hands of drug cartels and across Covid-infested lands than they'd be in open boats? At least women and girls traveling in small boats with their families don't get raped.


Now, re-read President Biden's executive order. Is their any exception for "Cubans who show up in small boats?"


Bottom line. You're welcome if you risk your life and pay the drug cartels to bring you 1,500 miles to the U.S. You are not welcome if you risk your life in a small boat to come 90 miles without enriching the drug cartels.


So why are our shores closed to Cubans? I am just cynical enough to believe it is because Cuban refugees have the effrontery to vote Republican. Their experiences in the affairs of life have taught them never again to vote for socialists, Marxists or totalitarians.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on August 6, 2021

Solutions to reduce street crime

Not long ago, I was playing golf, and got chased into a gazebo by a passing shower. Three other men, all Black, also took shelter. I didn't know them; they didn't know me. They talked, and I just listened. One of the men said he had worked as an Illinois prison guard. A second, indicated that he had taught in the Chicago school system for 20 years. Both began talking about "gangs." The man who worked at Thomson said that if you wanted to survive in prison, you had to pick your gang. The teacher said that the same was true in the minority neighborhoods of Chicago.


Their point was that, either in Thomson prison or the minority neighborhoods of Chicago, trying to survive without joining a gang was to invite retribution of all the gangs. The teacher put much of the blame on crack cocaine. He said it destroyed families and minority neighborhoods which had previously been safe places to raise a family. Why the men chose to discuss these matters in front of me, I don't know.


But from my experience on the bench, what they said had the ring of truth. Then, one of my retired colleagues sent me an article that appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on July 6, entitled, "Chicago's most violent weekend of 2021: 104 shot, 19 of them killed. 13 kids among the wounded."


The Sun-Times states that, "Through July 4, ... 2,019 people have been shot in Chicago this year, an increase of almost 13%, compared to the year before, and a 58% increase in shootings compared with 2019.

• " ... a 15-year old boy was critically hurt in a drive-by shooting...."

• That followed an attack when "two people were killed and four wounded, including a 12-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy in Washington Park on the South Side."


• "That happened around the same time that a 6-year-old girl and a woman were shot in West Pullman, and about four hours after an 11-year-old boy and a man were shot in Brainerd on the South Side."

• "A 21-year-old man, shot twice in the head, and a 26-year-old man, shot in the torso, were pronounced dead ...."

My colleague asked me, "What's the solution?"


I would begin by asking, "Who do we want to run the prisons? The guards or the inmates? Who do we want controlling the streets of Chicago? The gangs or the police?


The statistics cited by the Sun-Times provide the obvious answer for any rational person: We want the guards to run the prisons; we want the police to run the streets. But America is a democratic republic, and the voters can choose to live in cities without police protection. They can do that by electing idiots as their mayors and members of their city council. Once in office, these idiots can defund the police, strip away their immunity, prohibit the use of force by policemen and prohibit "stop-and-frisk."

That is what is happening in Chicago, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Minneapolis, etc.


In defunding and defanging the police, these idiots create a vacuum, which is quickly filled by the gangs. The results are always predictable. Over the 4th, in Chicago the result was "104 shot, 19 of them killed. 13 kids among the wounded." How many of these were shot by gang-bangers? Were any shot by police officers?


So what is my solution? My solution would include at least the following:


1. Adequately fund the police;


2. Hire enough police officers to do the job;


3. Train them to be high-quality, color-blind policemen — to judge by character.


4. Keep [or reinstate] "qualified police immunity." If an officer is going to face personal liability and jury trial every time he uses force, or intervenes in good faith, no officer in his right mind will risk using force.


5. Reinstate the use of "stop-and-frisk." No citizen likes to be stopped and frisked by an officer who believes he has reasonable grounds or a reasonable suspicion for doing a pat-down search. But gang members don't buy guns the way law-abiding citizens do. They acquire their guns via theft or the black market. A pat-down search is only a slight, albeit unpleasant, inconvenience for a person not carrying a gun. A cop cannot find what isn't there. But to the gang member carrying a gun illegally, it poses a grave risk of jail or prison. Illegal possession is an easy crime to prove. It is the most effective means of gun control for those who would illegally acquire guns. The choice is clear: brief, unpleasant inconvenience, or "104 shot, 19 of them killed. 13 kids among the wounded."


6. When officers go beyond the "qualified immunity" accorded them by the U.S. Supreme Court, prosecute them to insure public confidence in the justice system.


7. And perhaps most importantly, don't vote for idiots. Judge candidates by their character.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 22, 2021

AdChoices

Sponsored

A Formula to Stop Violence

The Dispatch-Argus wrote last month of "an altercation among large groups of people," during which nearly 80 shots were fired in Davenport's Redstone parking ramp. "No one was known to be injured" but windows in the Figge Art Museum and the Davenport Sky Bridge were damaged.

An "altercation?" Really? I thought an "altercation" was a "noisy argument or disagreement." When 80 shots are fired it's a hell of a lot more than an argument.

Davenport's police chief, the NAACP and Davenport Peace decried the violence.

Decrying violence and/or praying for peace isn't going to get the job done.

The city has asked for help from Gov. Kim Reynolds and Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst. The city wants federal help and has asked the governor to send in Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation personnel to help with the forensics.

My mother used to say, "God helps those who help themselves."

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with getting forensic help from the Iowa DCI, the FBI or ATF. Careful gathering of evidence at a crime scene, and carefully analyzing evidence is always sound police practice. Getting help from experts is a good idea. But the prosecution of crime in Scott County is primarily a local issue. That means the job of prosecuting Scott County criminals is primarily the job of the local (Davenport) police, and the Scott County Attorney — and not the governor, the U.S. senators, the NAACP, social workers, BLM or President Joe Biden. And crime isn't a matter of black or white. When 80 shots are fired in a downtown parking ramp, it is a matter of miscreants wantonly endangering human life — including entirely innocent human life — and property.

The age-old purposes of having criminal laws are straight forward:

(1) Protect the public — the decent law-abiding families in the community.  

(2) Punish the offender with penalties commensurate to the crime.
(3) Deter the defendant and others from committing like crimes.
(4) Place the criminal in the facility best suited to his rehabilitation, taking account of the nature and circumstances of his crime.

If you want a formula to stop this armed violence? Here it is:

(1) When there has been an arrest, set the bond at a level commensurate with the intentional, wanton or reckless harm — or threat of harm — to the public. Pre-trial release is generally a worthy goal, but it must be balanced against the need to protect the public — especially, if the evidence of guilt of a wanton, dangerous crime of violence is great. Strike the balance.

(2) If you are a prosecutor, prosecute. Think open plea or trial, rather than plea bargain — unless you get almost exactly what you want. A criminal who wantonly sprays the neighborhood with gun fire deserves to be hammered. Your primary job is to protect the public from such miscreants. The punishment must be such that it will guarantee the defendant will not again have the chance to repeat his crime in the near future. And it must be sufficiently severe to deter every other gang-banger in the city. They have to fear that if they commit a like crime and get caught, they will lose their freedom for a substantial period. Eschew any plea bargain that does not accomplish this end. And, very importantly, if trial is required, bring the case to trial within 60 days. The longer the case sits, the greater the chance of witnesses disappearing or being intimidated.

(3) If you are the judge, give the guy a fair trial, but remember that you can undo all the good work of the police and the prosecutor by imposing a sentence not commensurate with protecting the public, punishing the wanton act, and deterring the defendant and others. Where the criminal acts, like those in the present case, intentionally, wantonly and/or recklessly endanger the lives not only of the intended victim(s), but every other innocent man, woman and child within the range of the gun shots, make your record to show that in the case, on balance, protecting the public, punishing the criminal and deterring the defendant and others are substantially more important than worrying about the possible, and perhaps illusory, rehabilitation of the defendant. In cases of this sort, there are few good excuses for not bringing the case to trial within 60 days.

No continuance should be for more than two weeks.

This sort of crime won't be stopped by well-meaning social workers, or insane schemes to "defund the police." The choice is clear: make criminal activity too dangerous to engage in, or become the next Portland.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on July 8, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

When the "Marketplace of Ideas" is Shut Down

In 1919, in Abrams v. U. S., Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes tried to explain to the American people why the Founding Fathers opted for freedom of speech and press in the First Amendment, rather than censorship.

"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe ... that the ultimate good desired is better reached by the free trade of ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." 

In 1953, another great Supreme Court justice, William O. Douglas, echoed Holmes in United States v. Rumely in 1953:

"These tracts may be the essence of wisdom to some; to others their point of view and philosophy may be anathema. To some ears their words may be harsh and repulsive; to others they may carry the hope of the future. ... Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas.

"The aim of the historic struggle for a free press was 'to establish and preserve the right of the English people to full information in respect of the doings or misdoings of their government.' ... Censorship or previous restraint is banned. ... The [First Amendment's] command that 'Congress shall make no law *** abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press' has behind it a long history. It expresses the confidence that the safety of society depends on the tolerance of government for hostile as well as friendly criticism, that in a community where men's minds are free, there must be room for the unorthodox as well as the orthodox views."

When I was in law school at Notre Dame, one of my professors, Robert E. Rhodes, Jr., opined that our U.S. democracy functions best when small "bureaucracies" vie with each other to gain the public's attention.


If you are not worried about America's direction, you should be. Monopoly is once again rearing its ugly head. Monopoly, the deadly enemy of free enterprise and of the American consumer, is also the mortal enemy of free thought, speech, press and religion


There are certain things our government is barred from doing by our Bill of Rights. It cannot shut down or censor free speech, consistently with the First Amendment. Nor can it establish its favored religion.


But what if, instead of shutting down all criticism itself, it encourages and allows its cronies in the media to do the shutdown or engage in censorship on its behalf?


For over 200 years the American press has wrapped itself with the First Amendment and gloried in printing discordant ideas. Now suddenly in the age of "woke," all ideas and speech that might undermine its own cherish dogmas must be suppressed. The marketplace of ideas is being shut down. The swamp knows best.


But when Facebook, Twitter, the major TV networks and the newspapers deny discordant opinions space on their respective platforms, what does that do to the free speech rights of the American people? Is there a practical difference to our free speech rights if, instead of the government telling the press it cannot print certain stories or opinion, the press voluntarily engages in "conscious parallelism" to suppress the very stories the government would choose to kill?


That "contest of idea" is less likely to exist when the Nexstar Media Group owns 197 TV stations, and controls numbers of others. Or when in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, when "Google is the gatekeeper between that user and the speech of others 90% of the time. It can suppress content by deindexing or downlisting a search result or by steering users .... Facebook and Twitter can greatly narrow a person’s information flow through similar means."


During the newsboy strike of 1899, Joseph Pulitzer is reputed to have said, "If it's not in the papers, it never happened." When "disfavored" Americans wrote that the Covid virus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and/or implied that Hunter Biden and those around him were on the payroll of Communist China, Twitter and Facebook deleted those allegations from their platforms. The mainstream media refused to air them on their TV networks, and refused them space in their newspapers. The justification was that they were "false news" or "denials of science." Very similar justifications were used by Hitler, Stalin and Mao used to destroy free press in their countries.


In 1868, when the first Memorial Day celebrations were held on Arsenal Island — two local little "bureaucracies" — provided very different coverage. The Rock Island Union commended the proceedings. The Rock Island Evening Argus bitterly denounced them. When I was a boy in Chicago, my parents subscribed to the Tribune, the Daily News, the Herald American and the Sun Times. They rarely agreed on anything.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 22, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea 

Leaders are willing to do what they require of their people

In the United States, government officials normally enjoy either "absolute immunity" or "qualified immunity" against being sued personally for money damages.

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the president enjoys "absolute immunity," and cannot be sued for money damages in his personal capacity for his official acts as president.

Members of Congress engaged in the legislative process enjoy similar "absolute immunity."

Without this immunity, they could be sued, like any other citizen, for money damages for their negligent acts. If a jury found that they had failed to use "reasonable care," they could be ordered to pay damages out of their own pockets. Every time they exercised their discretion, even in the best of faith, believing they were acting "reasonably," they could be second-guessed by a jury.

Strip away that immunity, and the president and every member of Congress would be paralyzed out of fear of losing their homes, savings and income.

The Supreme Court has granted them absolute immunity, because without it, every one of them would probably be sued every time they exercised executive or legislative discretion. National laws and executive orders, while they may benefit someone, almost always aggrieve someone else.

So while enjoying "absolute immunity" themselves, President Joe Biden, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Rep.Karen Bass, D-California, support legislation which would abolish "qualified immunity" for police officers.Their justification for this insanity, is that America is a "systematically racist country" and systematic racism is rampant in our nation's police departments.

The Supreme Court created the doctrine of "qualified immunity." It protects police officers "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Police officers have been granted "qualified immunity" because it is impossible to write a statute governing every aspect of police conduct — such as an officer's right to use of deadly force. It is impossible to specify exactly when the officer can use deadly force, and how much force he can use.

For that reason, the relevant statute in Illinois in pertinent part reads:

"A peace officer ... is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person ...."

The statute clearly and necessarily vests the officer with great discretion.

He can use deadly force if he has (1) a reasonable belief (2) based on the totality of the circumstance that (3) such force (4) is necessary.

But without "qualified immunity" his exercise of discretion as to each of the listed four elements, is subject to second-guessing, or de novo review by jurors — every time the officer exercises his discretion. To put it bluntly, without "qualified immunity" police officers will be sued every time they exercise their discretion.

But if you are a policeman, why would you intervene in a situation where you might be required to exercise your discretion and use deadly force, if you know that if you act, you may lose home, savings and reputation?

Without "qualified immunity" it is open season for suits against police officers — even those who did everything perfectly. Whether the officer's use of force was "reasonable" or "necessary" is always a jury question, as is the question, "did the officer take account of all relevant circumstances?"

Years ago, when I was in basic training, a drill sergeant told us that a leader does not ask his men to do things he is unwilling to do himself.

In 1951, the "11 Principles of Leadership" were first published in an Army Field Manual. Here are a few germane excerpts:


    Leaders ... are willing to do what they require of their people.

    Leaders share hardships with their people.

    Set the example — people want and need their leaders to be role models.

    Telling your people you care about them has no meaning unless they see you demonstrating it.


If the principles of leadership mean anything, and if Biden, Pelosi, et al., really believe the police should be stripped of "qualified immunity," let them lead the way and give up their "absolute immunity."

Don't ask your men and women to face personal liability, unless you are willing to risk your own personal wealth.

If this country is "systematically racist," as claimed, fix the problem at the top as well as the bottom. If you believe that every cop — black and white — is a racist, do you really believe Biden and Pelosi, et al., aren't?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on June 8, 2021

Copyright 2021

John Donald O'Shea