"My Officers Did Nothing Wrong."

Springfield Police Chief Joe Behl has defended his officers in several brutal attacks on civilians. The latest is a chase involving a 14-year-old boy who had headphones on and was unaware that he was being followed by police. A lone officer followed the boy for two blocks on the 2100 block of Lawrence Ave. When the boy finally noticed the officer, he told the officer that he would not speak with him alone and that the officer could come to speak with his mother. He was one block away from home. The officer gave chase and tackled the boy in full view of his mother, aunt, and several family members. In the meantime, the officer dropped two magazines from his vest and one was picked up by a 10-year-old.

In City Council meeting yesterday, Behl defended his officers and upheld his view that citizens should always "comply" with a "lawful order." He has no idea that even his language is offensive. Four alderpersons questioned the chief about the incident and asked if there was anything the officer could have done differently, reiterating that this was a child. Behl dug ten toes down, as if the police are always right, and Black kids are always wrong. The boy and his mother were at City Council, and this was the first time they heard that the boy was even being charged with anything. The charge was "resisting arrest." The chief explained that when police fill out an incident report, they also have to enter a charge. (This sounds insane to me, but the video is furnished.)

Today, I attended a meeting with the boy's mother and aunt as they discussed the situation with Behl. This came at the suggestion of an alderwoman. Before last night's city council meeting, Behl had no intention of talking to the family or the community. In attendance at the meeting were Tiara Standage of the Purple Coalition and Intricate Minds; Ken Page, president of the local ACLU and former president of the NAACP; and Sangaman County Representative Reggie Guyton, Assistant Chief Brian Leach, and Deputy Chief Dodd.

By this morning, Behl's story had changed. "We're not charging him with anything right now," he said. He mentioned a "test bed" with The Outlet, so that Mike Pelon can "help guide him in the right direction." Later, Mike Phelon and several from the Outlet joined, while I, Ms. Standage, and Representative Guyton were told to leave because I asked the following question: "Who is going to guide the police in the right direction?" Behl's response was that his officers did nothing wrong, and "This meeting is over. You three can leave." He was pointing to me (Dr. Johnson), Ms. Standage, and Representative Guyton.

Now, a "Terry stop" is a reasonable suspicion stop. It is referred by Terry V. Ohio, a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1968 which states that, under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." Behl contended that, because the police officer determined that this Black 14-year-old "fit the description" of a perpetrator in a crime five blocks away, he could be treated like a suspect or perpetrator. When Alderman Williams questioned Behl in City Council, Behl's responses were loaded with Terry stop assumptions. But today when Behl outlined the description that this child supposedly fit, it was obvious to us that the description was not really a description at all:

"12-to-14 year old Black boys. Three wearing black and one wearing green." That's it. That's all of it. But remember, Behl insisted last night and again this morning that his officers did NOTHING wrong.

So, of course, some of us were surprised when Behl mentioned a "diversion" program, that is totally voluntary, involving the child being enrolled in a program at The Outlet to put him in the right direction. Representative Guyton asked under what circumstances the police assume that the child needs to be "guided in the right direction." Behl answers by saying he can't tell the mother's story, but the child is already "justice impacted." The mother explains that, months ago, the boy made new friends and found out they were not the right friends, because they stole a car. But she said that no charges were ever filed against her son, as he was not involved. Behl says, "He's still a suspect." Hmmmm. So I have questions:

• Are suspects now officially considered to be "justice-involved?" Maybe there are some loose definitions floating around, because my understanding of a justice-impacted individual is someone who has been formally charged. Am I wrong?

• I still have the same question that got us put out of the meeting: Who will guide the Springfield Police in the right direction? Their issue with Black people in this city needs to be addressed very seriously, and this mayor will not address it.

• What is Behl's problem will automatically putting Black people in a "perpetrator" category? He calls people criminals who have never been charged with a crime (i.e., the bystanders that defended the 19-year-old child who was punched by Officer Walter).

• Why does he keep calling out "diversion programs?" Putting the child in a program at the Outlet is not a diversion program. Just like trying to get Ms. Standage to perform free publicity for the police was not a diversion program. Diversion programs are for formally charged and convicted first-time offenders.

  This child still hasn't been charged for any involvement in the car theft, and Behl vacillates on charging him with anything in this latest incident, depending on who is in the room at the time!

Well, in the end, the child still wasn't charged with anything, won't be, and also will not have to go through some made-up diversion program at The Outlet. Why? Because Behl was wrong the entire time! But he will never admit it. He'll just stomp his feet like a baby and put you out of his office when you suggest it.