Champaign Police respond to Douglass Park damage, seeking more information
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (WCIA) — The Champaign Police Department is looking for information on people who damaged and attempted to access the concession stand at Douglass Park.
At 1:50 p.m. on Wednesday, Champaign Police were called to the park for the report of criminal damage. According to the department, officers were advised that on Tuesday, unknown people had tried to gain access to the concession stand but were unable to do so.
Urbana woman targeted by 'brushing' scam USPS is warning Americans about
After they couldn't get inside, the suspects damaged exterior fixtures at the park including security cameras.
This investigation remains active, and Champaign Police are seeking witnesses who may have information on the parties involved in damaging the property. Anyone who has information on this situation is asked to call the department at 217-351-4545.
Additionally, those wishing to remain anonymous can submit tips to Crime Stoppers by phone at 217-373-8477(TIPS), on their website or on the P3 Tips app.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller can't make America white. LA is paying for his impotent rage
Donald Trump loves authoritarian theater, but let's not forget that Stephen Miller is also to blame for the violence and chaos in Los Angeles. Last week, the right-wing Washington Examiner reported that Trump's deputy chief of staff called a meeting with the top officials at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to "eviscerate" them for falling far short of the ridiculous goal he set of 3,000 deportations a day. In their desperation to keep Miller happy, ICE has already been targeting legal immigrants for deportation, mostly because they're easy to find, due to having registered with the government. ICE agents stake out immigration hearings for people with refugee status and round up people here with work or student visas for minor offenses like speeding tickets, all to get the numbers up. But these actions were not enough for Miller. "Why aren't you at Home Depot? Why aren't you at 7-Eleven?' he reportedly screamed at ICE officials. One ICE leader protested that the agency's lead, Tom Homan, said they're supposed to be going after criminals, not people who are just working everyday jobs. Miller reportedly hit the ceiling, furious that arrests aren't widespread and indiscriminate. Trump has repeatedly implied he was only targeting criminals, but as Charles Davis reported at Salon, that conflicts with his promise of "mass deportations." Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at far lower rates than native-born Americans. The expansive efforts to find and arrest immigrants in California, which kicked off the protests, appear to be a direct reaction to Miller's orders to grab as many people as possible, regardless of innocence. But Miller doesn't seem to care about crime. Or, perhaps he thinks having darker skin should be a crime. For Miller, the goal of "mass deportations" has never been about law and order, but about the fantasy of a white America. His desire to deport his way to racial homogeneity has always been not only deeply immoral, but pretty much impossible. His impotence shouldn't breed complacency, however. As the violence in Los Angeles shows, petty rage can lead to all manner of evils. The term "white nationalist" is often used interchangeably with "white supremacist," but it has a specific meaning. White supremacists think the government should enshrine white people as a privileged class over all others. White nationalists, however, want America to be mostly, if not entirely, white — a goal that cannot be accomplished without mass violence. That Miller appears to lean more into the white nationalist camp is well known. In 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center reviewed a pile of leaked emails Miller had sent to media allies that illustrated his obsession with white-ifying America. He repeatedly denounced legal immigration of non-white people and endorsed the idea that racial diversity is a threat to white people. He longed for a return to pre-1965 laws that banned most non-white immigrants from moving to America."Trump's mass deportation project is actually a demographic engineering project," Adam Serwer of the Atlantic explained on a recent Bulwark podcast, pointing to the administration's expulsion of legal refugees of color while making exceptions to the "no refugee" policy for white South Africans. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau defended the exception by claiming that "they can be assimilated easily into our country." But it's clear this language is code for "white." By any good-faith definition of the word, thousands of non-white people targeted for deportation have also assimilated. They have jobs. They get married. They have kids. They are part of their communities. Sure enough, a sea of MAGA influencers have responded to the Los Angeles protests like parrots trained quite suddenly to say "ban third world immigration." Charlie Kirk from Turning Point USA followed up by praising Steve Sailer, a white supremacist who peddles debunked "race science" falsely claiming skin color and ethnicity controls IQ. The Groypers, a Hitler-praising group that doesn't even pretend not to be racist, was ecstatic to see MAGA leaders edge closer to openly admitting to being white nationalists. Miller's whites-only dreams aren't going to happen, though it's unclear if he's delusional enough to think otherwise. White non-Hispanic Americans are 58% of the population, according to the Census. That means nearly 143 million Americans — most of whom are citizens— fall outside the strict parameters of what white nationalists like Miller would see as "white people." Even if the Trump administration met its unlikely goal of deporting 11 million people, this would still be a racially diverse country by any measure. And it's becoming more diverse: the non-white population is younger and having more children. If it feels gross to treat human beings like a math problem, that's because it is. But that's what we're dealing with: an administration, led by a would-be strong man and his little deputy, that can't engineer American demographics, no matter how hard they might try. MAGA Republicans flip out when liberals correctly point out that diversity is America's strength. But what really makes them crazy is knowing, deep down, that diversity is America's inevitability. This impotent rage factor is important for understanding what's happening in Los Angeles. Trump and Miller can't achieve their whites-only dreams, so they're lashing out violently at communities, like in southern California, that remind them of their powerlessness in this department. Make no mistake: the Trump administration is the instigator here, and not just because they sent ICE in to start nabbing people willy-nilly. As Judd Legum of Popular Information carefully detailed on Monday, the violence began because Trump called the National Guard. Before that, the protests had been relatively small and contained. The Los Angeles Police Department released a statement commending the protesters for their cooperation and peacefulness, which led to a demonstration "without incident." Trump started the chaos by sending in the National Guard. He wants violent visuals for right-wing media to run on a constant loop to serve his authoritarian agenda. When the protesters in Los Angeles didn't give Trump the imagery he wanted, he deliberately escalated and lied about the reasons. Now he is celebrating his victory because of the violence he unleashed. He's not subtle, and it's a failure of the media every time they report on the "violence" without noting that Trump was the instigator. Small, weak men can cause a lot of damage. No one should be complacent about either the violence in Los Angeles or the thousands of lives being destroyed by these deportation schemes. But it's also important to not be cowed by Trump and Miller's theater, which they put on in no small part to conceal the myriad ways they will never be as all-powerful as they promised their supporters they would be. Understanding this can help people find the courage needed to fight back, because the best shot that MAGA has at winning is if their opponents give up the struggle. Already the administration's overreach is creating a backlash:
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
You won't beat ICE with violence
President Donald Trump is spoiling for a violent fight on American soil. In response to protests in Los Angeles against his mass deportation regime — a small number of which have turned violent — Trump deployed thousands of National Guard members and roughly 700 Marines. He's been pining to invoke the Insurrection Act for years, and now that his administration is filled with sycophants, he just might do it. As Trump flails for a justification to turn the force of the most powerful military in the world on its own citizenry, a tiny but disproportionately destructive element of the L.A. protests is essentially acting in service of Trump's ambitions to crush dissent. I'm not pearl-clutching about the optics of flying Mexican flags or trying to tone-police protesters' mean words to cops. I'm not talking about nonviolent lawbreaking or other civil disobedience — which Trump has already, outrageously, likened to violence. And despite the right-wing media panic that Los Angeles is in a state of anarchy, most of the city is completely unaffected by the unrest. I'm talking about the masked vigilantes beating driverless Waymo cars with their skateboards before setting them ablaze. I'm talking about looting of shoe stores, cannabis dispensaries and an Apple store — among other places of business. Some advocates will deny that arson and theft constitute violence — as long as the impetus for the protest is the correct kind. I disagree, but regardless of what I think, history has shown that most Americans are unlikely to respond positively to such tactics. What should be considered easily and universally condemnable, however, are acts of cowardly and nihilistic violence. Dropping rocks, bricks and e-scooters off overpasses, throwing Molotov cocktails or shooting commercial-grade fireworks at human beings (whether or not they work in law enforcement) don't constitute free speech. They're attempted murder, and they're unjustifiable. A spokesperson for Unión del Barrio — an independent Latino political group that organizes workers and immigrants — said in an Instagram video: 'What has happened these days weren't acts of vandalism or crime; they were acts of resistance against a government that is kidnapping our fathers, our mothers, our wives, our husbands, our children.' Though the organization isn't speaking for other groups involved in the protests, the aforementioned incidents are indeed crimes, and they make the much larger, peaceful protest movement look dangerous. They undermine the protests' righteousness against the Trump administration's overt racism, wanton brutality and relentless lawbreaking. They won't win any hearts and minds, they won't liberate people rounded up by ICE agents, and they won't do anything to thwart Trump's authoritarianism. Nor will rioters win a street war against the LAPD, much less the Marines. So what's the point, other than the vibes? There have already been reports of law enforcement using excessive force on protesters and journalists. The Los Angeles Times reported that an LAPD helicopter flew over a crowd and announced: 'I have all of you on camera. I'm going to come to your house.' And while the American public still generally approves of Trump's mass deportation policies, the extreme tactics and the choices of targets of ICE's raids (like green card holders and children) are increasingly less popular. Images of police and the military attacking peaceful protesters won't increase Trump's approval ratings. That's why activists and community leaders who support the protests need to unequivocally condemn violence and looting. Period. Full stop. To be sure, condemning violence probably won't stop Trump from doing whatever he's planning on doing, but if the protests are clearly nonviolent, it's a lot harder to convince the American people that violent government crackdowns on demonstrations are justifiable. I covered police and prosecutorial abuses for years as a reporter, including violent law enforcement crackdowns on protests. I witnessed and wrote about unjustified and often brutal assaults by police on demonstrators during the summer 2020 protests following George Floyd's murder. But I also witnessed incidents of rioting and looting surrounding some of those same protests. These typically occurred after huge groups of peaceful demonstrators had marched through a certain area, trailed by police. Once the main demonstrations and their police escorts left the area, I saw much smaller groups of young men seize the opportunity left by the vacuum of authority. They broke windows, stole merchandise and attacked parked cars. The destruction seemed to be the point. Many activist leaders and advocates at the time denied what was happening was violence, as if the livelihoods of people working at a small business that was burned to the ground can simply be replaced by insurance reimbursements (which also rarely cover the total value of property lost). Some even attempted to justify rioting by citing the Martin Luther King Jr. quote 'a riot is the language of the unheard.' But they ignored what Dr. King said moments earlier: 'Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.' The American public, which at first had been overwhelmingly sympathetic to those protests in 2020, began to sour on the demonstrations months later, as they were increasingly perceived as dangerous and out of control. The movement was popular. The violence wasn't. Violence isn't just morally objectionable; it's strategically foolish in protests against the government. The hypocrisy of Trump's sending the Marines into Los Angeles to protect police is off the charts — given his mass pardons of Jan. 6 rioters who brutally attacked Capitol Police. And deploying the military to confront civilians — the same week he's throwing an ostentatious military parade that just happens to coincide with his birthday — only telegraphs his intentions. Trump's escalations demonstrate that he wants to provoke demonstrators into violence. It only makes it easier for him to go full authoritarian and to frame violent crackdowns as a necessary remedy to violence. It's incredible that this needs to be said, but dropping bricks off of overpasses onto police cars will not make Americans sympathetic to protests against ICE crackdowns, nor will they lead the government to de-escalate. Excusing or justifying any incidents of violence — however rare they might be — in otherwise peaceful protest movements is a losing tactic for winning popular support. And it's a hopeless tactic to use against the state, which has a legal monopoly on violence. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Posse comitatus, or America beware
June 10 (UPI) -- For good or ill reasons, few Americans are aware of the Latin phrase posse comitatus and what it means. President Donald Trump's federalizing the California National Guard and ordering a battalion from the 7th Marine Regiment at Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles against the explicit refusal of Gov. Gavin Newsom to accept assistance brings the term into focus. It means organizing a group to confront lawlessness. In 1878, responding to the abuses of the Union Army in law enforcement after the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Posse Comitatus Act was signed by President Rutherford Hayes. In part, that law read: "From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force need the expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." The law was amended in the Patriot Act to expand the use of the military but not regarding law-enforcement roles. That requires the president to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 that, in part, grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military and federalize the National Guard to suppress insurrections, rebellions or civil disorder within the United States. The last time the Insurrection Act was used to authorize the use of federal troops was in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush responded to the riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict was delivered acquiting the four LA police officers of murder. The recent LA riots broke out over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials arresting and detaining people accused of illegally entering the United States. A great majority of Americans -- 80-90% -- agree on deporting undocumented migrants with criminal records and who are dangers to the community. An equal number of Americans oppose deporting those people here illegally who are now part of the community and -- rather than being threats -- contribute to society. But the politics of immigration and the profound disagreements between the two political parties, not the riots, is the issue. In that regard, both Trump and Newsom are responding accordingly to their bases. However, make no mistake: The Trump-Newsom dispute, including a lawsuit filed against the government for federalizing the National Guard, is a symptom and sign of the dreadful state of American politics. Trump may have been very clever playing to his base that favors "peace through strength" abroad and at home. Both the Guard and Marines have been assigned to protect federal buildings, installations and employees not, repeat not, to conduct law-enforcement tasks. Yet, that has not been widely advertised to allow most Americans to believe that the military will have a wider use. And Trump has not authorized the Insurrection Act to that end. Newsom and Trump are using this crisis to make opposite points when the reality is different. Had this been a Republican-controlled state, whether Trump would have reacted or not is debatable. However, it is entirely reasonable that any president would be committed to protecting federal assets. Had Trump made this argument clear from the beginning, Newsom's response might have been different. But that would have defused the crisis, ironically, in neither of their interests. Tragically, politics demand exploiting these riots for clearly political and not security or public safety reasons. Trump was arguing that the law was on his side in deporting undesirable undocumented migrants. Newsom was asserting that the governor should be consulted first; that federal forces were not needed; and the president was using this to advance his agenda. As Inspector Renault in the movie Casablanca famously remarked, "Gambling at Rick's. I'm shocked!" In these circumstances when rationality and common sense are missing in action, immigration poses an impossible dilemma: what to do with millions who have integrated into U.S. society yet have broken the law in entering the United States illegally? A tragedy can be seen as a clash to two justified views. These people broke the law. That cannot be ignored. Yet the vast majority of these individuals are now part of the U.S. polity. The future is self-evident. This dilemma will only worsen as will virtually all political issues on which the nation is divided. In these incendiary conditions, if the Insurrection Act were wrongly invoked, the effect will likely provoke the rebellion it is meant to prevent. So beware America. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company, and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with General The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
