IL- Shaun Kranish case dismissed

[phorvick]

From Shaun...

I went to court today, and Judge Steven Vecchio ruled according to the law, as it is written, despite pressure from the state to "legislate from the bench" on this entirely POLITICAL issue.

The charge of Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons was dismissed with prejudice because I was exempt from prosecution according to the exception firearms may be transported that:

(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,

firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;

 

[romma]

Good for Shaun...

 

[fletcher]

Sounds good. This was from a while back, wasn't it?

 

[Autolycus]

Yes. He is over on www.icarry.org if you want to learn more about it.

 

[pacodelahoya]

That's one for the good guys.
All of you that downed him, I hope that crow is real tasty.

 

[MrFabulous]

I hope he sues them for malicious prosecution. Or, at the least, he goes after the mall security. I seem to remember him going through a pretty sordid ordeal with them when he was detained prior to arrest.

 

[kermit315]

can somebody shed some light on this, i am not familiar with it.

 

[XavierBreath]

Click here.

 

[Soybomb]

All of you that downed him, I hope that crow is real tasty.

I don't recall anyone saying that he would lose, just that his actions ranged from irrlevant to harmful with regards to carrying weapons in IL. That was sure my position.

 

[crazed_ss]

All of you that downed him, I hope that crow is real tasty.

*grabs spoon and fork*

Anyone got any Louisana brand hot sauce?

 

[HiroProX]

Now, he should sic the most rabid ambulance chaser to be had on them, without mercy.

 

[kermit315]

^^agreed, and thanks XavierBreath for the link.

 

[sctman800]

Can someone please explaign?

"dismissed with prejudice"

I figured this would end up like it did. Screw him around so as to cost him a lot of money, time and worry then dismiss the case so that no precident is set and they are free to do the same thing to someone else. Hopefully Shaun will get a good lawyer and sue the mall police and everyone else involved. Jim.

 

[kermit315]

it means that the same set of charges cant be brought against him again for fear of double jeapordy.

IANAL

 

[Autolycus]

Hopefully he wil get lots of cash. I suspect he will use it for the freestate project or for Illinois CCW. He really is a dedicated young man and I am ashamed that so many Illinois gun owners would not rally behind him.

 

[ilbob]

Hopefully he wil get lots of cash. I suspect he will use it for the freestate project or for Illinois CCW. He really is a dedicated young man and I am ashamed that so many Illinois gun owners would not rally behind him.

I like Shaun's stand on guns. Some of his other pronouncements I have a much harder time with. If you are going to rally around someone, that someone needs to be as pure as you can get, or the other side will use it against you.

I suspect he has a better shot at getting cash from his first arrest at the college. It would appear on the face of it to be a deliberate retaliation by the college administration using their police department against someone who non-violently (and very politely and non-confrontationally in fact) espoused a point of view they did not approve of.

The second arrest and subsequent legal mess seems to have been handled by the authorities in a pretty cautious way. While they inconvenienced him substantially, it is going to be hard to get a jury in Illinois to disagree with what the cops did.

 

[damien]

Any More Info?

Honestly, this is the most positive thing I have heard out of Illinois in a while (not counting victories just stopping the Antis in the General Assembly). I wonder if there is any way to get an appelate ruling on this rather than just one judge. The law is rather obvious, however.

Is there any more info on this yet? The Rockford Register Star has yet to write a piece, Sean has not posted the order. Sean has posted a very minimal message on icarry.org. I can see from Winnebago County's web site that this charge was indeed dismissed on 7/16/07.

I would love to know more about this and how we can make sure all Illinois judges rule the same way.

 

[M110]

The DA can still file an appeal. He might not be out of the woods just yet.

 

[jaholder1971]

Forget going after the cops or the State's Attorney: They own the courts, or the courts own them.

Best deal is to go after the mall, the Security Guard company the mall contracts and the security officers individually.

 

[Hypnogator]

The DA can still file an appeal. He might not be out of the woods just yet.

Yes, but the case was dismissed with prejudice. The judge's dismissal may be reversed, but the finding will only apply to similar future arrests. To re-try Kranish would be double-jeopardy.

 

[crazed_ss]

To re-try Kranish would be double-jeopardy.

Was he found "not guilty" or were the charges simply dismissed?

Can they not charge you again of the charges were simply dismissed?

 

[Don Gwinn]

Congratulations, Shaun! (And yes, a LOT of people absolutely did say they expected him to be convicted.)

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE: When a case is dismissed for good reason and the plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim.

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE: When a case is dismissed but the plaintiff is allowed to bring a new suit on the same claim.

In other words, the judge is saying that the prosecutors should not go back, dot all the i's and come try again next month. Their charges are flawed in a basic way and cannot be salvaged (in this case, they have charged him for doing something that isn't against the law.)

 

[XD_fan]

By dismissing the case with prejudice the judge is telling the DA this wasn't just a mistake on the part of the judical system but improper prosecution. This goes a long ways towards guranteeing a postive outcome in a civil case.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Yes, BUT, as Shaun pointed out, it also means the judge's dismissal itself can be appealed.

Which is as it should be, if you think about it. Would you want a legal system in which a single judge could dismiss your case, tell you not to bother refiling it, and you had no recourse? He'd have his own little fief.

 

[romma]

You can bet the Chicago steamrolling lawmakers will close this little flaw in their system lickety split!