Jump to content

Yet another shooting-at-car-thieves story


Euler
 Share

Recommended Posts

CWBChicago

CWBChicago said:

A veteran Chicago police officer is charged with felony reckless discharge of a firearm after she allegedly opened fire on juveniles who stole her SUV while she was loading it with groceries outside an Evergreen Park store on Saturday evening. No injuries were reported.

...

Oneta Carney and her husband were loading purchases into their 2022 Toyota 4Runner at Sam's Club, 9400 South Western Avenue, when three males asked if they needed help around 6:45 p.m., prosecutors said.

 

One of the males then opened the SUV's driver's door, climbed in, and drove away with the vehicle. Prosecutors said none of the males threatened Carney or her husband, and none of the offenders displayed any weapons.

 

Carney and her husband ran after the car, and the other two males ran from the scene.

 

But the driver of the stolen SUV stopped momentarily so one of the offenders who was running could climb inside. Carney pulled out her 9-millimeter handgun and fired at the car as it started moving again, prosecutors said. The bullet reportedly struck the ground behind the vehicle.

 

The stolen SUV was moving away from Carney when she fired, prosecutors said, but another car not involved in the incident was moving in her direction. According to the allegations, adults and children were walking in adjacent parking aisles when Carney fired her weapon.

...

Around 8:35 p.m. Saturday, on-duty Chicago cops spotted Carney's stolen SUV in the Loop and tried to pull it over on the 200 block of West Wacker Drive. The vehicle crashed into another car and six males ran from the stolen SUV. Police said a 26-year-old man and five juveniles were taken into custody.

...

A source said some of the offenders are only 11-years-old.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who deserved the SUV more:  she and her husband, or the six of them?  Kimm will showw her what equity is all about when she is ordered to have the SUV fixed and returned to the poor, hungry waifs to sell in order to buy food ... and Air Jordans ... and Gucci watches ... and gold chains ... and gang tats ... and Play Stations ... and lottery tickets ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2021 at 6:11 PM, 2A4Cook said:

Who deserved the SUV more:  she and her husband, or the six of them?  Kimm will showw her what equity is all about when she is ordered to have the SUV fixed and returned to the poor, hungry waifs to sell in order to buy food ... and Air Jordans ... and Gucci watches ... and gold chains ... and gang tats ... and Play Stations ... and lottery tickets ...

 That is negated by the LEO being a double minority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trained police officers should be held to a higher standard, perhaps, than the rest of us in such a situation. I'm not a fan of Foxx but...

 

 - Property theft

 - Fleeing subject

 

It would not be lawful for any of us to shoot in this situation as described.

 

The officer and the offenders should all be reprimanded/punished appropriately once found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited by soundguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Vito,

 

What would your property value threshold be for such a lethal armed intervention?

 

And how would an armed citizen safely (from a legal point of view) make that valuation decision? Very obviously, a car would be in some high value category, but what about someone pilfering a few tools out of a shed?

 

Rich Phillips

Edited by richp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2021 at 7:53 AM, richp said:

Vito,

 

What would your property value threshold be for such a lethal armed intervention?

 

And how would an armed citizen safely (from a legal point of view) make that valuation decision? Very obviously, a car would be in some high value category, but what about someone pilfering a few tools out of a shed?

 

Rich Phillips

 

But then, what would the cut off for how and when to protect property, and what kind of property? For example...

 

This cop is facing a boat load of trouble for shooting someone trying to steal her car....but...

 

It is a fact, that until recently in Rockford, IF you were working in a shop/factory, and you saw someone just going through your toolbox, and had not actually gotten to the point of taking any tool out of it,  you could beat the dog snot out of that individual in front of witnesses. We're talking broken bones and internal injuries. Babbit hammers had other uses besides bashing iron castings into place.  Not to mention the uses of a fourteen inch long 1/2 inch drive breaker bar. The would be thief would be fired and thrown out the door.

 

And IF the tool box owner were charged, the judge would automatically declare the tool box owner innocent and dismiss the case the moment he heard the words "I caught him in my toolbox, without permission." Yes, that did happen a few times over the years, the last time maybe seven or eight years ago. Rockford was a manufacturing town, and every judge knew 'how important a man's or woman's tools were'. "I'll loan a tool to you, but steal any tool from me, and I'll ugly you up so bad, your mother would throw up seeing your face." was the common attitude.

 

So, value of property might determine what the court's response would be, but also the community mores and 'customs'. A beat down for stealing tools was a case of "I caught him stealing my tools and gave him his lumps....books balanced" vs. being shot for swiping a cop's car. Different values on property  compared to different values on the thief's lives.

 

This could be a fun topic for a while

 

 

Edited by Kaeghl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, context is important -- things like public sentiment, as well as prosecution policy and practice. Such issues will always be in play, and any CC lisencee will have to navigate those shoals.

 

But to the point, does Illinois law offer any useful, concrete guidance on the subject of how much property value must be involved to justify the deployment and use of deadly force, if at all?

 

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You stole my livelihood"

On 11/14/2021 at 12:10 PM, richp said:

Sure, context is important -- things like public sentiment, as well as prosecution policy and practice. Such issues will always be in play, and any CC lisencee will have to navigate those shoals.

 

But to the point, does Illinois law offer any useful, concrete guidance on the subject of how much property value must be involved to justify the deployment and use of deadly force, if at all?

 

Rich

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2021 at 4:27 PM, vito said:

... I agree that it would be ideal if deadly force were legally able to be used to prevent property theft or to try to recover stolen property. 

 

I'm not sure what post you're agreeing with, but it's legal to use non-lethal force to protect property.

 

On 11/14/2021 at 12:16 PM, Kaeghl said:

... We're talking broken bones and internal injuries. ...

 

That would be considered lethal force. For "threat of imminent death or great bodily injury," broken bones and internal injuries counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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