Posted on 10/23/2009 6:56:28 AM PDT by marktwain
In 2008 an enraged, deranged known drug dealer/crack cocaine smoker attempted a violent attack on a Central Illinois man. The FOID-carrying victim pulled his legally owned, legally carried, unloaded, disassembled, non-functioning, encased semi-automatic pistol, inserted the magazine, readied a bullet and stopped the attack abruptly.
The crackhead had a spiritual awakening, a "Come to Jesus" moment. Possible instant death creates instant deep thinkers.
Police responded. Police rejected the gun owner's vehicular carry methods. Plus, the gun wasn't unloaded immediately after the event. Police arrested the gun owner on a questionable felony and several questionable misdemeanors. The legitimate, recordless, lawful defender was victimized twice - once by the drug-induced predator, then by police.
Eventually plea bargaining, he pled guilty to the least misdemeanor to get the government out of his life. The judge returned his gun, forcing state police to reinstate his Firearms Owner Identification card. Obviously, the defendant was within his legal rights to transport and defend. Police weren't happy.
The Illinois Supreme Court just unanimously ruled a vehicle's enclosed center console is a legitimate legal carrying case for transporting firearms per Illinois Criminal Code, Sec. 24-1. All justices sided with legal gun owners on methods of transporting and carry, central to the Second Amendment birthright arguments of self-defense.
More cases on gun rights, civil rights, constitutional rights, human rights and self-defense rights are pending. Eventually, Illinois will have legal license to carry for self-defense. Eventually, police will have to support law-abiding gun owners' rights over criminals' rights.
still....better to be tried by 12, then carried out by 6.
Where are the names of the officers?
Please, someone, tell me this is a parody....
It would be great if this man were allowed to mount a civil suit against the police.
I wonder how many thousands of dollars this citizen had to pay to get to this point? What a travesty.
In my ‘limited’ experience with the police; I have found that a great deal of the time, the way the police treat me is reflected upon how I treat them. Now, I was not there; I neither know the officer, nor the ‘victim’.
But, knowing how I would react when I responded to a shooting; if the ‘victim’ was aggressive, rude and unprofessional; the natural response would be to return the favor.
Makes me wonder.
It apparent where you stand when you put victim in quotes.
if the ‘victim’ was aggressive, rude and unprofessional; the natural response would be to return the favor.
Your default response, I see.
I don't believe they were convicted but the police treated them like criminals and so did the prosecutors.
It really depends where you are.
Perhaps, but they WILL continue to get elected.
Between King Richard the least of Chicago and the Democratic leadership in the Illinois General Assembly, I cannot see CCW passing in Illinois soon. They are firmly convinced that the peasantry shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves.
First, he is a victim, not a “victim”.
Secondly, the guy just had his life threatened so some slack should be cut regardless.....but hey, that’s just me.
Finally, they did not shoot when he very well could have. That warrants a LOT of slack for any perceived (not the word perceived) infractions, which are questionable here.
Personally I think the guy should sue the city for millions.
they did not shoot=he did not shoot
I wasn’t there either but I think this is all the result of a giant gummi bear...
Obama would love to treat all gun owners as criminals.
Actually,that “they”, meaning the police did not shoot the victim is a wonder,as big city cops are trained to assume anyone not in police uniform who is holding a gun is a criminal.
In my experience, I have not encountered a whole lot of jack-booted Nazi thugs in the police department. Most of the cops I have met, are ordinary people, like you and I. As such, I respect the police, I treat them with respect - and I have never had a policeman treat me unprofessionally or without respect.
Now, maybe you have experiences different from mine; and unlike you, I do not pretend that I know you and make value determinations on your character based on your response. You see, that is what we call ‘respect’.
What I have seen, is a driver get pulled over for speeding; and mouth off to the police officer. This idiot wound up with speeding, reckless endangement, exhibition driving, failing to yield and failing to use his turn indicators - when he could have gotten off with just a warning. Some room-mates are born idiots, others grow into the them. But, if he had simply acknowledged his error, and treated the cop with the bare minimum iota of respect, he likely would have gotten off with a warning.
Do you know how the shooter reacted when the cops showed up? Were you there? Do you know anyone, or have any information not presented in the article? Journalism is dead; the job of a journalist is not to tell of events and cover stories - it’s to make everything as biased as possible, so they can sell papers. This could very well be a case of that, you aren’t hearing both sides of the story. Do these cops have a habit of harassing gun owners who shoot in self-defense? I certainly didn’t see any indication of that in the article - so I question what element is missing.
Really? Based on what? Because a bottom-feeding journalist said so? What evidence do you have that he acted, or treated the police in a manner conducive to support his story? Generally speaking, cops are people like you or I. They deal with the lowest denominator on a constant basis, they put up with a lot of crap.
Now, I would assume that if this had happened to me, I would shoot and kill the attacker, call the police and remain armed until the police arrived. As they arrived, I would remove my clip, eject the shell, and lock the action open, then place the gun on the hood of my car, raise my hands above my head, step away from my car, face the police and make it clear that I am surrendering to them. I would tell my side of the story, and let the police investigate the crime scene to verify my story. Chances are that you might do something very similar.
What we do not know is what this man did. Was he caught robbing the body? Does he have any criminal records (abuse, DUI, resisting arrest, assault?) Did he refuse to drop his weapon until threatened by the police? Did he resist or treat the cops abusively? Now, I have no problem with an investigation into this matter. I love the fact that the cop cars have a video recorder mounted in front of their vehicles, so an investigator can see what happened.
But, I do think that basing your decision on a story written by a journalist that only presents one side of the story is a bit silly. Why are there no comments or narratives from the cops point of view? What did they encounter when they arrived? Funny that those facts are missing, as they are a part of the story.
Now, if the cops are indeed in the wrong, the city would not want me on the jury, as I would award the guy millions. Not because this event is worth millions; but because you hit the city council with the only stick that they feel - money. The mayor feels the loss in his funding, and he takes actions on the cause of his suffering. But, so far we only have a very biased story told by a bottom-feeding journalist. This is not either a well researched, nor well written story. It's written to provoke an emotional outburst, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
You seem to be missing the point that it is not only the policy but the law in the state of Illinois that the police harass people who keep and bear arms by charging them with a felony.
Certainly you do not believe that the police would not have charged this man with a felony if he had been polite.
There is a great online video of a lawyer explaining why one should remain silent whenever there is a possibility of being charged with a crime. The lawyer points out that there is virtually no chance whatever of changing the mind of a police officer who has the authority and inclination to charge a felony.
Hodar, you still enquouted “victim.” The man was attacked. If he acted inappropriate with the police, I would think he had an adrenaline dump. Stories from college roommates is not in the mix of this situation.
Sounds like the police prefer the ‘’p-ss on the victim’’ approach.
That might be a natural human reaction but it is not a professional reaction. Police are paid to be professional
If there is a cause to be charged with a felony, a felony will likely be filed. However, if things are a bit questionable, how you react will certainly affect the outcome. The point of this article that bothers me, is the lack of perspective given by the author. Journalism has lost what little respect I ever had for it.
Make the cops look bad - that sells papers. Doesn’t matter what the facts are, always put the cops on the defensive. Where are any observations provided by the police? Why didn’t the journalist present both sides of the case, and let the reader make up his own mind?
No, that wouldn’t sell a paper. Instead, of printing a story about a man shooting a rabid Rottweiler to save a child; the story is written about a sadistic bastard shooting a family pet.
Where are the facts? What felony was he charged with? Why were the charges dismissed? We aren’t talking about a lot of journlistic work here; we are talking about a lack of journalistic integrity. The facts are known, after all, the case has been settled and is a part of the public record. The journalist obviously has access to the facts, but deliberatly withheld them. Why?
No, Police are paid to enforce the law. They CHOOSE to do it professionally, however when they are not treated with a bare minimum of respect, like anyone else, they will have the means to react in any manner they please. Of course, he will be held accountable for his reaction.
Play with the words if you like. Weather a police officer acts professionally or not shouldn’t be a choice.
You’re making some fair and reasonable points. As is usually the case, there’s more facts left out of every news story than those included. It could be a story about cowboy cops. It might not be. But apart from what the cops did, I would put fault more on the stupid prosecutor that tried to make an example of this case.
Chicago has a reputation of being a “gun control” place, so it does not surprise me that the victim was prosecuted.
My impression of you comes from your putting quotes around victim. Putting quotes around that implies “so called victim.”
You state you do not know the facts, but you see nothing wrong with “police” prosecuting “victims”.
Nope. It’s Illinois.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.