decision of the jury in my opinion does not have any foundation in the evidence that was presented at trial there was a willful and wanton standard because the village of bolingbroke had a police officer officer block  lane with his light his lights still activated and the traffic light in front of him still red as five pm on a sunday morning there were no weather conditions at issue here and answer when he entered the intersection he noted in his peripheral vision that the white for the cross traffic in front of him was yellow when he entered into the left turn lane to enter into the intersection he slowed upon entering into the intersection and then when he entered into the intersection he was struck by his off duty boss the defendant carter you larry who was traveling northbound on delaware through the intersection on his way home at no point does any of the evidence that was presented at the trial support a jury finding of willful and wanton in this situation what's the what's the speed limit on cross street there the speed limit on delaware was twenty five because it is entirely forty and his testimony is that the highest rate of speed he ever reached was the speed limit and that he was going forty when he entered into the left turn lane and then slow before entering into the intersection  that because of light amount of traffic and the time of day that it was and he could see that the light for the cross traffic upon entering the intersection his his testimony actually was that it was yellow when he entered the left turn l could see the northbound double work traffic light yellow and upon crossing over into the intersection believes that it turned to right so in his frame of mind there was not going to be any traffic coming and he did see the defendant at the very last minute when he entered the intersection but at that point there was nothing he could do to avoid him if he actually saw the guy coming in and then let it go then we're talking about intentional right to have but it seems to me the evidence supports somebody said he decided to play the odds are in the us and drove through this red light when there's action you know against a red light so i mean i was i don't think he intentionally collided with a car right  certainly think that his negligence probably could be his actions probably could be considered actions but whether or not their life rise to the level of a reckless disregard for human life i mean his testimony his frame of mind and just around all of his actions indicate that only for a police officer who is stopped on problem facing east bound who was also wanted different call for a domestic situation which officer block was previously tailing officer regular lotto to follow her on that call he then got dispatched on to this subsequent call the trial proceeding was fairly seamless it started with procedures for our routine calls emergency calls and priority calls during this particular situation officer block that gave testimony that he was perceiving as counsel indicated to a call that stated this careful female saying he's that he's dead obvious or blocked was not the primary officer responding to the situation he was a secondary officer respond situation and lieutenant carter larry i gave testimony that this would be classified as a priority incident meaning that both your li or siren are required but you must stop at all intersections to adverse traffic signals officer blocking testified that you believe this was an emergency situation at any rate in see situation required all lights and sirens so in this scenario officer block neither apply the priority designation or the emergency designation when responding to this call in addition to that it was argued that he did not apply the due care that is required to do caution and care as required according to the illinois that one receiving calls in this particular situation officer block if the justification of why he did not follow procedure why he did not stop at the intersection properly and look at traffic before entering and why he did not even know what the procedure was is that it was five o'clock in the morning that traffic conditions were light and that you didn't want to disturb the residence in the neighborhood he realizes that used traveling through a neighborhood at this time and he does not feel it's necessary to use the lights and the sirens to notify other motorists on the roadway of his in his intention to travel through the at her signal at the intersection strangely enough for a motor vehicle collision you have the testimony of three police officers who witnessed the collision or at least at the scene of collision officer regular lot of testify that she was sitting at the intersection and in a red light and had not moved any time prior to this impact or she testified there was a vehicle in front of and all parties testified that there was a vehicle in the left hand through lane so in order for officer black to go into this intersection against the red traffic signal he had to go around traffic over in the right and the left hand lanes enter into the left turn lane and proceed straight through the intersection when he initiated from dispatch to go to this call is that ham activated the dash cam was played for the jury on three separate occasions they had an opportunity to see how this collision occurred and compare it to his testimony his testimony indicating that he slowed before entering the intersection and that the traffic light how he observed the traffic light as he's traveling forty miles per hour looking up at the traffic light and observing not his traffic light but the traffic light for lieutenant larry's direction of travel north from green to yellow and then ultimately what was said today read that was not indicated in the video review now officer black have the opportunity to get up and stand before the jury in conjunction with the video play and show where he thought that occurred the jury is the trier of fact they have the ability to determine whether or not the willful and wanton standard was justifying it in this case and the application of that standard was correctly explained to them in the delivery of the jury instructions during the course of the trial there were no he did not follow any justifiable police officer reasoning in burning through this residential neighborhood of forty miles an hour and going to the adverse red light other than saying he didn't want to wake up the neighborhood by turning on a siren which converse lead gives the other motorists on the roadway no indication in this blind intersection that e's going to bust through the intersection illusion the jury there was no jury finding that was unreasonable there was no jury finding that was arbitrary and there was sufficient evidence to base th however in this particular case if you have video evidence as to how the collision occurred it was watched three times by the jury you have multiple police officers testifying and there's really no general disagreement as to what the color of the light was at the time you enter the intersection officer regulator was sitting in a row of light she was also proceeding to a call she did not know through the advert for there may have been a different classification as to what type of she was going to or it might have been the same in this situation officer why he put the safety of others at risk he was clear in his explanation as to why he did that and that amounts to reckless conduct it's clearly reckless conduct there was some stated within the briefs there is a there's argument as to indicate that by a lay sure of it is heard of police department will constitute some evidence of willful and wanton and therefore in conjunction with the factual evidence that was presented in this age which was ample not only was this a blind intersection that officer black knew about before this illusion occurred but he did not follow the police protocol for pursues or for i'm sorry for responding calls  signal in a siren those situations many of those cases cited indicate that during a pursuit situation which is wholly factually different from what were presented here that there's different findings as to whether they're required to use a signal in the siren or not however in a majority of those cases if not all those cases the result was the offending party that was fleeing the officer ended up striking another vehicle causing an injury it wasn't the officer or the officer reckless conduct in pursuing that person that caused the actual impact there were deaths in certain situations post trial motion she cited to us in the city of chicago indicating that in conjunction with the factual evidence it was proper her and agreed upon by the far east to submit the general order twenty nine which was included in the jury instructions as well as multiple statutes for the state of illinois and not only that but the willful and wanton statute and and the negligence  now those were explained by the judge when read to the jury and they were also explained by counsel and the differences between those two the jury's finding this case was not arbitrary there are members of the community drawn to serve on a jury they can easily use their own experience in determining whether they thought this police officers found it was reckless in what he did and what he said why why he didn't follow the police job order and why they determine to come up with his own protocol when responding to this all and why through this intersection and i would  finding they have the opportunity to view in full speed whether or not he actually slowed before entering the intersection and whether that slowing before the intersection really amounted to much because supply certainly owes a duty to other drivers on the road but also as a village a bolingbrook police officer he owed a duty to the public at large to the individuals that were involved in this entire situation to the ones that were to enter this intersection these are all things that he had to take into consideration when he received the call from dispatch and given the circumstances the way that they were his actions don't exhibit a reckless disregard for human life he slowed upon entering the intersection the police department themselves to not reprimand him for any of his actions he went under one of police review board where they determined him to not be at all for the accident even his own boss did to either misunderstood what willful and wanton bent or misapplied it to the circumstances in the situation