defendant posits that he did not exercise one of his two remaining peremptory challenges to remove juror Bauknecht because he had already allocated those challenges to remove other prospective jurors. As previously indicated, we conclude that defendant has waived his challenge in this regard. a. The Application of Waiver to This Case This court has repeatedly stated that “we will review the trial court’s ruling on a challenge for cause only when an objectionable juror was forced upon a party after it had exhausted its peremptory challenges.” (Emphasis added.) Grady v. Marchini, 375 Ill. App. 3d 174, 179, 874 N.E.2d 179, 184 (2007) (citing Flynn v. Edmonds, 236 Ill. App. 3d 770, 779, 602 N.E.2d 880, 885 (1992)). See People v. Green, 199 Ill. App. 3d 927, 931, 557 N.E.2d 939, 942 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Here, defendant challenged juror Bauknecht
holding that where a defendant does not use all of his or her peremptory challenges the defendant may not complain of prejudice for failure to dismiss prospective jurors holding that the defendant was precluded from asserting error where the defendant had used all of his peremptory challenges and did not ask for more holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause holding that a white defendant can object to the exclusion of minority jurors through the use of peremptory challenges holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner