Accessorizing a criminal act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 15, 2003
Messages
327
Location
Apparently not far enough outside Emperor Daley's
Original article


Gangs in armor
September 6, 2003

BY FRANK MAIN Crime Reporter


Alarmed that dozens of gangbangers have been caught wearing bulletproof vests in the past year, Cook County prosecutors say they need a new law to crack down on criminals using body armor. Yes, a new law will fix everything that the old ones haven't.

A 1997 Los Angeles shootout between cops and robbers demonstrated the danger of bad guys having access to such equipment. The bandits wore full-body armor and fired thousands of bullets from their automatic weapons at the officers, who watched in frustration as the rounds from their 9mm pistols bounced off the robbers. Ten officers and six bystanders were wounded before the cops fatally shot the two assailants.

Michael Smith, a supervisor in the Cook County state's attorney's office, said he did not worry about criminals donning bulletproof vests six years ago.

"But I would say we've seen dozens of cases over a year and a half where criminals are wearing them," he said. "It comes up while we are reviewing felony gun cases. But there's nothing we can do legally about it. Imagine what would have happened if [Salvador] Tapia [who shot six people in a South Side warehouse before police killed him last month] could have done with a vest?" The body armor would have reloaded for him? Drove the getaway car? Covered his exit?

Smith said he plans to approach law enforcement organizations across Illinois to pitch new legislation to target criminals using vests or other body armor.As opposed to targeting just plain criminals

He's proposing a boost in a person's sentence range when he is found to have used such equipment in a felony. For instance, armed robbery carries a sentence of six to 30 years, but under the proposal would land the defendant in prison for 10 to 40 years. Which can be cut down when the gang member rats on another gang member

Smith said he is hearing from officers in high-crime zones on the West Side that they're seeing more bulletproof vests on gang-bangers.

"Some gang members wear them when they are sent out to do a 'hit,' " he said. "Or when they're retaliating against another gang."

Smith did not know of a case of a Chicago police officer getting into a shootout with a criminal wearing a vest.

"But you have the potential for astronomical numbers of innocent people and police officers getting killed," he said. Ok :scrutiny:

As prosecutors prepare legislation for the spring session, they will research where the body armor is coming from, Smith said. "The Internet? Gun shops? Military surplus stores? We'll see," he said. and block the source

A captain in the Harrison District on the West Side -- the district that traditionally posts the highest number of homicides in the city -- said she knows her officers have come across suspects' bulletproof vests.

"We've found the apparatus during search warrants," she said. "But we must leave it there because it is not illegal contraband." Along with, I presume, kitchen knives, flammable liquids, etc. Pesky existing laws! Of course, if they found anything that was contraband, wouldn't the criminal be locked up for it? Or would the body armor stage a jailbreak for them?

Other jurisdictions already have moved to outlaw the use of bulletproof vests by criminals.

California enacted a law shortly after the 1997 shootout to ban violent felons from possessing body armor. Congress also passed a law making it a federal crime to possess body armor after having been convicted of a violent felony.

Smith said he did not want to consider an outright ban on citizens owning body armor because store owners and security guards might have a legitimate interest in buying it to protect themselves. Gee, thanks. Of course, citizens might have a legitimate interest in owning firearms too - never mind.

The push to keep body armor out of criminals' hands is the latest step Cook County prosecutors are taking in an anti-gun violence initiative they have launched with Chicago police and federal authorities. "anti-gun violence initiative" is doublespeak for new laws that won't work any better than the old laws, but hey, they're trying, right?

This year, a special unit of one Cook County prosecutor and two investigators began focusing on weapons that juveniles possess or are shot with. In one case last month, Ray Moore, 24, was charged with shooting four teens in a South Side park after his younger brother complained someone stole his bike. None of the victims was in the park when the theft took place, prosecutors say.

They were surprised to learn Moore, an admitted gang member, legally held a state firearm owner's identification card and bought the .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun in April from a suburban gun shop. Authorities said they are trying to track down two other guns he bought this year. I'm surprised a gang member actually applied for a FOID. Obviously he checked out with IL State Police - gang membership itself isn't illegal, idiot prosecutors!

Charise Kazaglis, the prosecutor in the new unit, said she's already opened 45 gun-possession investigations, interviewed 25 people and executed 15 search warrants. So far, one suspect has been charged with illegally transferring a gun. 1-for-45, I guess the other 44 had valid FOIDs and did a legal transaction. Or the "new unit" is staffed by idiots who can't do a proper, legal investigation that withstands a grand jury

"We're finding they're usually buying them off the street," Kazaglis said. "Sometimes we get the name of the person they bought the gun from. Others say something like, 'Look for the guy in the red car at such and such corner.' " How do these idiots get to be in charge? Where do I sign up ?

Her office works closely with federal prosecutors, who have been cracking down on out-of-state shipments of guns to Chicago from Mississippi, Indiana and other places they say have lax gun-sales laws. EVERYWHERE one can buy a gun has "lax laws" according to IL/Cook/Chicago, unless you're CPD selling out of your trunk

This year, a Chicago gang member, Charles Yarbor, and a Mississippi gun dealer, James Wren, were each sentenced to five years in prison in a gun-running business that imported dozens of assault weapons into Chicago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eureka! Murder, armed robbery, gunrunning, etc. are already illegal felonies, but obviously the solution to theses crimes is to ban body armor. :scrutiny:

Oh yeah, bold is mine :D
 
Last edited:
If they prosecute for felonies committed while wearing body armor, will it include the aggravated assaults, malicious destruction of property, breaking and entering, wrongful death, violation of constitututional rights perpetrated by the Juliet Bravo Tangos when they smash doors, toss in "concussion" grenades, and kill innocent "civilians" in unconstitutional WOSD "No Knock" raids at the wrong stinkin' address!!!

The law must be applied equally, after all.:D
 
>Murder, armed robbery, gunrunning, etc. are already illegal felonies, but obviously the solution to theses crimes is to ban body armor.

No, no, they're only going to ban body armor for CRIMINALS. So when someone is planning to go out and murder, rob, etc. they'll think to themselves:

"I won't wear body armor, because THAT would be illegal".


:scrutiny: :scrutiny: :scrutiny: :scrutiny: :scrutiny: :scrutiny: :barf:
 
What's wrong with this law, already on the books?

"But I would say we've seen dozens of cases over a year and a half where criminals are wearing them," he said. "It comes up while we are reviewing felony gun cases. But there's nothing we can do legally about it.

Well Counsellor Smith, if it's such a problem;

WHY DON"T YOU CHARGE THEM UNDER THIS LAW??

Or is that another thing that's not against the law in Cook County just the rest of the State? :banghead:


720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 1961 Illinois Compiled Statutes
Criminal Offenses
Criminal Code of 1961
720 ILCS 5/

(720 ILCS 5/)

ARTICLE 33F. UNLAWFUL USE OF << BODY ARMOR>> (720 ILCS 5/33F-1) Sec. 33F-1. Definitions. For purposes of this Article: (a) "<< Body Armor>> " means any one of the following: (1) A military style flak or tactical assault vest which is made of Kevlar or any other similar material or metal, fiberglass, plastic, and nylon plates and designed to be worn over one's clothing for the intended purpose of stopping not only missile fragmentation from mines, grenades, mortar shells and artillery fire but also fire from rifles, machine guns, and small arms. (2) Soft << body armor>> which is made of Kevlar or any other similar material or metal or any other type of insert and which is lightweight and pliable and which can be easily concealed under a shirt. (3) A military style recon/surveillance vest which is made of Kevlar or any other similar material and which is lightweight and designed to be worn over one's clothing. (4) Protective casual clothing which is made of Kevlar or any other similar material and which was originally intended to be used by undercover law enforcement officers or dignitaries and is designed to look like jackets, coats, raincoats, quilted or three piece suit vests. (b) "Dangerous weapon" means a Category I, Category II, or Category III weapon as defined in Section 33A-1 of this Code. (Source: P.A. 91-696, eff. 4-13-00.) (720 ILCS 5/33F-2) Sec. 33F-2. Unlawful use of << body armor>> . A person commits the offense of unlawful use of << body armor>> when he knowingly wears << body armor>> and is in possession of a dangerous weapon in the commission or attempted commission of any offense. (Source: P.A. 87-521.) (720 ILCS 5/33F-3) Sec. 33F-3. Sentence. A person convicted of unlawful use of << body armor>> for a first offense shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and for a second or subsequent offense shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony. (Source: P.A. 87-521.)

Open mouth insert foot huh, Counsellor Smith? Perhaps you should attend one of the Criminal Law updates that the police officers in the state of Illinois attend. Maybe it's not your job to know the law, you're just a Supervisor in the Cook County States Attorney's Office. It's no wonder the people I arrest down here who are from Cook county are always whining that you can't arrest me for that it's not illegal in Cook County.

*Note to readers; Downstate cops get a lot of lip from the criminal element from Cook County who find their way South. It's usually something like "You can't give me a ticket for no front license plate, I'm from Cook County and in Cook County, we don't have to have a front license plate." Or "You can't tow my car for having no insurance, they don't do that in Cook County!" I always thought that it was because they were too busy with serious violations to enforce those or that if they towed every car in Cook County without insurance, they'd have to lease barges on Lake Michigan to store them all. Apparently it's because the supervisors in the States Attorney's Office don't know what the law is.

Jeff
 
"Michael Smith, a supervisor in the Cook County state's attorney's office, said he did not worry about criminals donning bulletproof vests six years ago."
He has been out of touch for a long long time.

Sam
 
Am I the only one that noticed that this idiot reporter keeps calling them "Bulletproof Vests". "Body Armor", "Bullet-Resistant", "Ballistic Protection"--whatever. But not "Bullet PROOF".
 
Jeff White:

How can anybody be expected to know the law when pre-emption and "home rule" seems to work both ways? Or is it intended to work that way?

Fed Constitution says "blah blah militia blah shall not be infringed,"
IL Constitution says "subject to the police power (whose?), RKBA shall not be infringed -----> which seems unnecessary and is definitely vague
Cook County says "subject to the County Board, infringe away" ----> the board is NOT a "police power"
Chicago ordinances say "subject to the City Council, infringe away" ----> questionable "police power" since aldermen are "peace officers" allegedly

City overrides state, when convienient. Could it override Fed, if (for example) 2nd Amendment is interpreted in favor of RKBA and a nationwide CCW was passed?

ROFL about the mobile criminal element. At least if you get them downstate, the charges may stick!
 
Is Chicago trying to corner the market on leftist extremist stupidity? We've got cops owning guns that end up in the hands of killers, mayors calling for more so-called "gun control" laws, detectives who continue grocery shopping instead of dealing with armed robbers, and...

Other cities are going to start to feel slighted pretty soon!
 
According to that law Jeff White posted, I have committed felonies with reckless abandon in my youth.

Fencing jackets are made of Kevlar - I usually had the sabre with me as well. :rolleyes:
 
Cellar Dweller,
I don't believe this was a case of pre-emption. It's a simple case of a supervisor in the Cook County States Attorney's Office not knowing that there was a law already on the books.

As for charges sticking down here..it's the same as anywhere else, sometimes the do and sometimes they don't. But I have personally heard "They don't do that in Cook County" several times. Last time I was assisting with a hit and run investigation. The suspect was a young man who had recently moved to town from Chicago with his mother and brother. Allegedly he had gotten into an argument with his mother, backed out of his driveway at a high rate of speed, right across the street into his neighbors driveway, striking the neighbors car. Had damage to both vehicles, paint transfer on the suspects car, and broken tail light lens from the suspects car in the victims driveway. After the usual denials, I finally got him to own up to it. The victim agreed to not filing charges for leaving the scene of a property damage accident if we would do a standard accident report and let the insurance take care of it. So I'm trying to get insurance information from the suspect and mom keeps stonewalling. "We just moved down and I haven't unpacked the box with the policy in it yet." Well you have to carry proof of insurance in your vehicle. I told her we needed the policy information for the report. "Well, I'll go look." she said. After about 10 minutes she hadn't looked (I was getting VIN and DL information from her son during this time.) I told her, "Ma'am we have to have that to finish the report. If you're not even going to look, I can tow the car and you can get the car back when you show up with proof of insurance, if you don't really have insurance, just tell me, I'll issue the citation and we'll be finished here." That did it; "You can't tow my car for not having insurance!! They never do that in Cook County, it's not legal, you can't do it here!!" To which I replied; "Dispatch, 120, send the duty wreaker to my location." Yep, the law must just be different up there. :rolleyes:

CatsDieNow,
Were you in the commision or attempted commision of an offense while wearing your fencing gear? If not you weren't violating the statute. I don't know if anyone has ever been charged under it. But it's there. Another example of our legislature protecting us. I don't know what they think they are protecting us from, but it must have made them feel better at the time. After all, if you're going to commit an offense in the first place, are you not going to wear body armor because it's illegal to do so while commiting the offense? I can see it now. Head dirtbag to holdup team; "Man take that body armor off, don't you know the Cook County States Attorney's offices will fry your dumb butt if you get caught with it. Armed robbery is cool with them, but they just don't think it's sporting to wear body armor. :what:

Jeff
 
It's against the law in CA for felons to have guns.
It's against the law in CA for criminals to have a bullet resistent vest while in the commission of a crime.

Why don't the criminals in CA obey the law? Don't they know what they're doing is illegal and that they could get into trouble for it?
 
The blatent Stupidity and Ignorance of Cornyfornia never ceases to amaze me, it's like a horor movie crossed with an asylum...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top