Rare - concealed carrier kills robber in Illinois, not charged?

[Arizona_Mike]

Exactly right.

Remember, prosecutorial discretion, when exercised in someone's favor, is a gift. It can't be expected or counted upon. The Subway Vigilante in New York, Bernie Goetz, was prosecuted for both his use of lethal force and his unlawful carrying of a gun. He was acquitted of the former (the jury no doubt found his actions justified) but convicted of the latter (and went to jail for a year).

While I believe Goetz kept shooting for too long and crossed a line, "vigilante" is not appropriate. He's been robbed several times and hurt pretty bad but being working class relied on public transit. He was commuting at the time of the incident not riding the subway to look for trouble.

Mike

 

[Milt1]

With Indiana, Missouri and Kentucky on three sides I bet Southern Illinois is more like all of them than Chicago.
Thanks for prosecutorial discretion because Illinois law would have loved to thrown him in jail.
When I cross that state I use the southern route if at all possible.
I wouldn't want to press my luck but you might find the same in Western Maryland & Eastern Shore, Northern California and Northern NYS.

I fear prosecutors more than anyone else in the criminal/judicial system. I've seen more bad decisions from these so called legal experts than anything else and I wonder what make a person so stupid that they would want to persecute someone in a clearly defined self defense situation. To back up my point, many a convicted rapist will be cleared by DNA evidence and the prosecutor will still swear that they are guilty of the crime in refute of solid evidence to the contrary. These people must have been picked on severely by their peers when they were children. Can't stand any of them!

 

[gun_with_a_view]

It is entirely possible for someone to be not prosecuted for carrying a firearm if they actually had to shoot someone in what is immediately declared (by the authorities) to be self defense, but where it would have been quite likely for them to have been charged for carrying that firearm if they were discovered carrying it under other circumstances

Quite likely that could have gone up the ladder in the Goetz to higher courts but for lack of funding and interest.

Used to be in Texas you could carry the gun and use the gun in self defense, but you couldn't draw the gun because that was brandishing. They fixed that conundrum a few years ago.

 

[Kleanbore]

I fear prosecutors more than anyone else in the criminal/judicial system. I've seen more bad decisions from these so called legal experts than anything else and I wonder what make a person so stupid that they would want to persecute someone in a clearly defined self defense situation. To back up my point, many a convicted rapist will be cleared by DNA evidence and the prosecutor will still swear that they are guilty of the crime in refute of solid evidence to the contrary. These people must have been picked on severely by their peers when they were children. Can't stand any of them!

Your observation that later evidence may contradict the evidence that had been known at the time of a trial does not support a contention that prosecutions are generally based on invalid judgment.

The idea that someone involved in a "clearly defined self defense situation" will likely be prosecuted does not hold water. The justification of the act and the innocence of the actor may seem clear to the actor, but the decision of whether or not to charge and the outcome of a trial will be based on that evidence that can be gathered after the fact.

That evidence will be piecemeal and incomplete. It may or may not indicate that there had been a "clearly defined self defense situation". If the only evidence available is the fact hat one person shot another and that the shooter claimed self defense, if is unlikely to suffice for the self-proclaimed "defender".

In the case of the shooting in Illinois, there seemed to be little question regarding justification.

 

[Malamute]

Licensed carriers from
out of state are permitted to have guns in their vehicles.

That's nice to hear. IL has sure changed in the 5+ years since I left it. I know they offer concealed permits now as well (expensive and a process) but it is good to hear about the travel laws for when I go home to visit.

Out of curiosity, what are the IL laws for transport to and from the range, between homes/shops, etc.? This conversation makes me assume that IL doesn't have a castle doctrine as well. Hard for me to understand as most of my recent years have been in Texas, Nebraska, Arizona, and Nevada, all of which have comparatively liberal gun laws to Illinois. Though, Nebraska will recognize an out-of-state CCL only if you are only in the state temporarily and still carry a drivers license from the state that issued the CCL, otherwise, you must have a Nebraska-issued CCL (with some exceptions).

I sometimes travel in Illinois, Ive looked into this for several years, talked to residents that are shooters and have been asking the same questions, and looked on the Illinoiscarry forum for info. Its my understanding, and if anyone has other info please correct me, but even before Il had a carry system, one could have an unloaded gun in a car so long as it was cased. You could have the ammo next to it, or in your hand, so long as the gun was unloaded and cased, one was legally OK. Residents were required to posses an FOID card to posses a gun, non-residents were not. Non-residents could posses a gun if it was unloaded and cased, and they weren't otherwise prohibited from possessing one. The fed gun travel law also applies I believe, guns that are cased and unloaded are OK, and its not that you have to travel nonstop through the state either.

It can be bad, but I dont believe its as bad as some have made it out to be. I sure as heck wouldn't completely avoid travelling through the state, especially if not going through Chicago. In Chicago, one may be in for problems even if fully within the law, but the recent changes in the carry situation seem to slowly be affecting that. There have been a couple court cases of people having guns in their car, one guy had one in the rear seat console compartment and was arrested, but when it came to court, it was determined that it constituted a case, and he was let off. Theres one or two guys on here I believe that are active in the gun rights scene in Il and up to speed on the current gun law situation. Since a carry law was enacted in Illinois, a non resident with a carry permit, and its been brought up on the illinoiscarry forum, that non residents from states that dont require a carry permit are believed to be OK to posses a loaded gun in a vehicle. I don't know if theres further info on that since I looked last summer.

Edit: This is one of the items I located when reading, It has a link to the Illinois state Police briefings on firearms law. There were several other discussions I read last year, haven't located them on the forum.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32024

 

[Ed Ames]

I just don't know why I would choose to travel through either of the two states in the area that don't have full reciprocity with my licence. Not if I have options. I don't want to have to reveal to my passengers that I'm armed when getting gas, and I don't want to support the economies of places that don't respect my rights.

 

[Milt1]

Your observation that later evidence may contradict the evidence that had been known at the time of a trial does not support a contention that prosecutions are generally based on invalid judgment.

The idea that someone involved in a "clearly defined self defense situation" will likely be prosecuted does not hold water. The justification of the act and the innocence of the actor may seem clear to the actor, but the decision of whether or not to charge and the outcome of a trial will be based on that evidence that can be gathered after the fact.

That evidence will be piecemeal and incomplete. It may or may not indicate that there had been a "clearly defined self defense situation". If the only evidence available is the fact hat one person shot another and that the shooter claimed self defense, if is unlikely to suffice for the self-proclaimed "defender".

In the case of the shooting in Illinois, there seemed to be little question regarding justification.

You have your opinion and I have mine.I'll stick with what I said!

 

[gun_with_a_view]

The OP wrote, "Rare - concealed carrier kills robber in Illinois, not charged?"

Let's see how that works out here: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf...cted.html#incart_2box_nola_river_orleans_news

 

[Kleanbore]

You have your opinion and I have mine.I'll stick with what I said!

My post merely stated the facts as they are--no opinion involved.

Now, if the evidence available to the prosecutor after the fact would support his or her belief that an actor's claim of justification could be disproved beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution would probably proceed. That would cost money--a lot of it.

If the totality of the evidence were then to support the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction would be likely.

But then, there would be little or no basis for characterizing the case as a "clearly defined self defense situation".

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Perhaps the real message herein is military vets may have a leg up in these situations. Don't miss the last paragraph. This guy was truly the wrong guy for these punks to mess with:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2007-06-29/news/0706280729_1_two-men-plantation-police-gun

 

[Milt1]

My post merely stated the facts as they are--no opinion involved.

Now, if the evidence available to the prosecutor after the fact would support his or her belief that an actor's claim of justification could be disproved beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution would probably proceed. That would cost money--a lot of it.

If the totality of the evidence were then to support the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction would be likely.

But then, there would be little or no basis for characterizing the case as a "clearly defined self defense situation".

The "facts" are often very misleading. Case in point the Congress and Senate of the U.S. are supposed to be handing the business of this country for the citizens of this country but they aren't and they don't. Both Democrats and Republicans are spending 60% of their time on Capital Hill raising money for their reelections. That's why they have a favorable rating in the upper teen's or lower 20's by the citizens of this country. I don't know this for a fact but my guess is that most of them are probably lawyers. If we can't trust them there (where they've sworn an oath to do their jobs) we certainly can't trust them in a courtroom.

 

[Kleanbore]

The "facts" are often very misleading. Case in point the Congress and Senate of the U.S. are supposed to be handing the business of this country for the citizens of this country but they aren't and they don't. Both Democrats and Republicans are spending 60% of their time on Capital Hill raising money for their reelections. That's why they have a favorable rating in the upper teen's or lower 20's by the citizens of this country. I don't know this for a fact but my guess is that most of them are probably lawyers. If we can't trust them there (where they've sworn an oath to do their jobs) we certainly can't trust them in a courtroom.

None of that begins to support your assertion that the possibility that later evidence may contradict the evidence that had been known at the time of a trial would show that prosecutions are generally based on invalid judgment.