Jump to content

Foxx’s Office Says CPD Is Arresting The Wrong People


mauserme

Recommended Posts

I don't often agree with Kim Foxx but her statement that gun possession is not an act of violence is the same argument we've made for a very long time.

 

https://www.wbez.org/stories/kim-foxxs-office-says-cpd-is-arresting-the-wrong-people-to-curb-gun-violence/5f78bab4-584e-4188-afc9-9dedfb0565c5

 

 

Kim Foxx’s Office Says CPD Is Arresting The Wrong People To Curb Gun Violence

By Chip Mitchell

Friday, June 11, 2:05 p.m. CTUpdated 6:11 p.m. CT

 

As Chicago cops contend with an annual summer spike in gun violence and try to tamp down a shooting surge that began more than a year ago, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx’s office is challenging one of the city’s core policing strategies.

 

Foxx’s office this week held a webinar for journalists with data visualizations about a steady increase in Chicago police arrests of people who have no prior convictions but are caught illegally carrying a gun. It’s an approach that dragged more than 1,400 people into the criminal justice system last year. Those that are convicted get a label that dims job and life prospects and arguably decreases public safety in the long term.

 

“The evidence doesn’t show that the drivers of the violence are the people who’ve been arrested for nonviolent gun offenses,” wrote Sarah Sinovic, a spokeswoman for the office, referring to illegal possession of firearms. “State’s Attorney Foxx has long said we need to invest more in violence prevention and a more holistic approach to address the root causes of violence.”

...

According to data visualizations displayed by Foxx’s office during the webinar, CPD gun arrests have nearly doubled since 2014. That increase is mainly due to arrests for gun possession, a crime that Foxx’s office deems “nonviolent” because the gun is not used or fired.

 

Matthew Saniie, the office’s data chief, acknowledged that people who view guns as inherently violent may have difficulty treating their illegal possession as nonviolent. But prosecutors, he said, “have no idea if that person who possesses the gun has any intention of using that gun in an illegal way beyond possessing it or if they’re going to create violence with it.”

 

“It’s an important distinction,” Saniie said.

 

One chart displayed by Foxx’s office suggests that the increase in CPD’s gun-possession arrests owes mainly to street stops of people with no prior convictions. From 2011 to 2016, those arrests never exceeded 300 a year. Each year since then, however, has brought a big increase. By 2020, there were more than 1,400 and Saniie said CPD is on pace to exceed that number this year.

 

CPD arrest numbers for violent gun crimes, meantime, have trended down over the years, according to the presentation. So has the rate at which CPD solves shootings.

 

Saniie even criticized CPD efforts to seize guns — efforts that netted 11,343 firearms in 2020 and 5,148 this year up to Friday, according to the department.

 

“It’s a pretty staggering number,” Saniie said, “but less than 20% of those guns ever get linked back to any type of shooting.”

 

Saniie concluded that the arrests that come with those gun recoveries sweep up too many people who are not fueling the city’s violence: “It’s a question of arresting the right people.”

....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure this is just Foxx's echo of the Supreme Court decision that came down Thursday, June 10, Docket 19-5410, Borden v United States.

 

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Kagan, joined by the other 2 "liberal" justices plus Justices Gorsuch and Thomas, simple (otherwise illegal) possession of a firearm is not a violent crime. For the firearm possession to be violent, the perpetrator must use (i.e., discharge), attempt to use, or threaten to use the firearm in a crime.

 

It's not a 2A case, so I didn't create a thread for it in 2A Case Discussion forum. The issue in the case was whether simple possession of a firearm during the commission of crime was justification for adding a mandatory 15 years to the sentence as a violent crime "enhancer."

 

It's an odd combination of justices for the majority, with the ones all the way on the right in agreement with the ones all the way on the left. The dissenting minority were the ones usually considered to be in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Residential burglaty can be a non-violent offense,but if the criminal.has a gun in their possession and gets caught are the cops supposed to ignore it?What are they carrying it for?Same thing with vehicular burglary,retail theft and the list goes on.Foxx's office is also notorious for downgrading charges from felonies to misdemeanors,so there's also alot to consider there.They tell the cop's to get illegal guns off the streets then tarnish their image as they try to do so.I have no problem with an honest person carrying to protect themselves ,even without a license,but I wouldn't believe anything that Foxx's office put out as being the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we don't... we harp and carp about getting the criminals off the street. It boggles my mind when I see another violent attack done by an offender with dozens of arrests and several convictions of criminal activity. Why were they out in the first place.

 

My philosophy is that if you can't be trusted with a gun you can't be trusted out in polite society. If you can be trusted out in polite society you should retain and be able to exercise all of your rights.

 

It's hard to accept but we will always have bad people on the street. What we need to do is, from cradle to grave, return to teaching people right and wrong and holding them to that standard.

My wife just read a news article that stated a person is killed every 18 hours in a road rage incident. My guess is that 103% of those incidents occurred after one person disrespected another. Not that disrespect justifies murder but how much violent crime could be prevented if we just returned to a society where we treated each other with respect (even if we didn't actually respect them)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the statement from the State's Attorney's office. My view is that a person who is not a prohibited person should not be arrested for the mere possession of a firearm unless there is evidence of an intent to use it unlawfully or you are engaged in a forcible felony. This policy of the Chicago Police Department to arrest anyone possessing a gun without the proper permission slips from the state has not resulted in a reduction of the outrageous rate of violent crime plaguing the city of Chicago.

To dramatically reduce the rate of violent crime within the boundaries of the city of Chicago, the Chicago Police Department must do a proper job of investigating crimes, arresting the alleged offenders, and assisting in the prosecution. Until that is done all of the rhetoric is for naught. During the last thirty years, how many murders have occurred within the boundaries of the city of Chicago? How many people have been wounded? How many offenders committed these wretched crimes? How many of these offenders have been arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for their dastardly acts? How many have gotten away with murder? What is the effective arrest rate? (Arrest and conviction equals effective arrest rate. Forget about "cleared by arrest.")
The person carrying a firearm for self defense, for protection, is not the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they out in support of constitutional carry? If they don't think someone needs 16 hours of approved training and a CCW card to carry, then they should work to pass constitutional carry. This is big news!

 

 

No they just want unequal enforcement of the law, dropping or not filing charges against certain groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we don't... we harp and carp about getting the criminals off the street. It boggles my mind when I see another violent attack done by an offender with dozens of arrests and several convictions of criminal activity. Why were they out in the first place.

 

IL legal system works like this.

 

Politicians tell cops not to arrest so many criminals.

If a cop does arrest a criminal, the state's attorney is likely to plead down or drop the case.

If the state's attorney actually decides to prosecute, the judge is likely to dismiss or find guilty on lesser charges, and suspend sentences.

If a judge DOES manage to actually incarcerate someone, the state prisons are overcrowded so gotta parole those people quickly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...