Claims of self-defense clears intended victims in weekend homicides

Chicago police investigators cleared two men in separate cases of homicide, after self-defense claims were substantiated, according to police.

Shortly after 1:00 a.m. Sunday, a 29 year-old man reportedly knocked at the door of Alexander Padilla of the 2000 block of North Spaulding Avenue, according to police department News Affairs spokesperson Officer Thomas Donegan. The man, identified as Gilbert Matthews of the 4900 block of West Eddy, then kicked in the door and began firing a handgun at Padilla who jumped behind a couch and grabbed a weapon of his own.

Donegan said Padilla returned fire, striking Matthews in the chest. Matthews then stumbled to an alley in the 3300 block of West Armitage where he collapsed with his handgun still in his hand.

Padilla then fled to his sister's house where he notified police and gave an account of what happened. The investigation, conducted by Area 4 Homicide investigators, revealed the shooting was in self-defense, therefore freeing Padilla of homicide charges.

Padilla, however, was charged with unlawful use of a weapon and possession of a controlled substance. He is scheduled to appear in court at an undetermined time.

In an unrelated case, a 32 year-old man was cleared of murder charges after he told police he was confronted by a 20 year-old gunman as he entered his residence in the 3800 block of South Michigan Avenue. The gunman was then accompanied by a second man, who then entered the house and separated fromt he original gunman looking for valuables.

Unbeknownst to the gunman, the unidetified brother of the intended victim was already in the residence behind a door. After slamming the door into the second gunman's face distracting the first gunman, the intended victim then struggled with the gunman, wrestling the gun away and firing one shot that struck Darren Hickman of the 500 block of East 36th Street in the back.

Later, an unidentified person dropped Hickman in the embergency room of Profident Hospital where he was pronounced dead from his wound. Area 1 Homicide investigators have been unable to determine the identity of Hickman's accomplice, who was not believed to be injured.

Donegan said no charges would be filed against the intended victims of the robbery, citing self-defense.

Black Rev Jakes is the pro-2d amendment, pro-self defense mayoral challenger to Gun-grab Daley. Socialist Daley's other opponent is a Black pro-Capitalist computer consultant. It will be interesting to see how this "historically Black" paper ties the issues to the candidates.

The Chicago Defender & Sengstacke Enterprises was sold today, after being the victim of a confiscatory capital gains tax on the death of its owner 5 years ago. That estate tax is wiping out the family wealth of a whole generation of the successful Black community in Chicago.

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

These guys in the Blue Zone that get charged with unlawfull possession after defending themselves need to get aquainted with the legal principle of competing harms.

As an example of a competing harms here is the Maine statute describing it.

Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
Part 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Chapter 5: DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; JUSTIFICATION

§103. Competing harms

1. Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid imminent physical harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]

2. When the actor was reckless or criminally negligent in bringing about the circumstances requiring a choice of harms or in appraising the necessity of his conduct, the justification provided in subsection 1 does not apply in a prosecution for any crime for which recklessness or criminal negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish criminal liability. [1975, c. 499, § 1 (new).]

Section History:
PL 1975, Ch. 499, §1 (NEW).

What it basically means if following the law would have resulted in much worse result the person breaking the law is justified in breaking the law.

A guy in the midwest last year (Minnesota or Wisconsin I believe) was convicted felon who while walking down the street with a pistol in his possesion heard a woman crying for help in an aparment.

He rushed in and stopped a rape in progress and was not charged with the felon in possession of a firearm because the local DA knew the locals wouldn't convict and the guy had a genuine defense option.

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.