Carjacking victim executes citizen arrest

[Euler]

CWBChicago said:→

...
That's according to a Chicago police report documenting the arrest of 18-year-old Darrius Berry.

Officers responding to a call of a "citizen holding an offender" in the 9400 block of South Laflin arrived to find the 39-year-old carjacking victim holding Berry at gunpoint in the street at 6:28 a.m., the report said.
...
He explained that he was sitting in his 2021 Mazda CX9 when Berry walked up to his driver's window and pointed a gun at his head.

"Please give me the keys," Berry told him, according to the report. "I need your car. I'm sorry, sir... Go in the house."
...
Once he was inside, he grabbed his own gun. Then he went back outside. Berry was sitting behind the steering wheel of the Mazda with a firearm on the passenger seat, the report said.
...
He then opened the door to his car, grabbed Berry by the collar, and pulled him to the ground, the report continued.
...
The cops recovered the firearm Berry allegedly left on the Mazda's passenger seat. The report said it had been stolen from a vehicle in the 1400 block of West 90th Street on November 28.
...
He is charged with aggravated vehicular hijacking with a firearm, misdemeanor possession of a firearm, misdemeanor driving without a license, and traffic infractions. Police also cited him for driving in reverse under unsafe conditions and operating an uninsured motor vehicle.

[Wild Bill]

He was probably released before they finished reading him the charges....

[ddan]

I’m pretty sure this is not justified use of deadly force.

[ddan]

Retreat to your home, come back brandishing your blaster and presumably threatening the robber sounds like assault.

congrats on getting the car back and bad guy arrested, but …..

[Bubbacs]

On 1/6/2024 at 12:03 PM, ddan said:

I’m pretty sure this is not justified use of deadly force.

So a gun to his face is ok but putting a gun to the attackers face is wrong?  Was the car AND the attacker still on his property?  Could the attacker have come to the house with his gun?  When will we stop beating up our fellow gun owners and maybe start beating the criminals over the head?  And please don't do that whole "Call the Police" that's what they are for crap!  We sit here bemoaning the response times and how we need to help ourselves thousands of times.  I'll call when I'm safe and toasty and warm inside!  This is the problem with our side, we get every small item of information chewed and then spit out to make us as the bad ones, we did it wrong!!!!!  And then there are those who wonder why we have our rights being stripped away daily and we have no, zero, nada, zilch for a support system like the Anti's have.  At least the moms stick together no matter what even if they get it wrong!  smfh  

[davel501]

On 1/6/2024 at 12:30 PM, Bubbacs said:

So a gun to his face is ok but putting a gun to the attackers face is wrong?  Was the car AND the attacker still on his property?  Could the attacker have come to the house with his gun?  When will we stop beating up our fellow gun owners and maybe start beating the criminals over the head?  And please don't do that whole "Call the Police" that's what they are for crap!  We sit here bemoaning the response times and how we need to help ourselves thousands of times.  I'll call when I'm safe and toasty and warm inside!  This is the problem with our side, we get every small item of information chewed and then spit out to make us as the bad ones, we did it wrong!!!!!  And then there are those who wonder why we have our rights being stripped away daily and we have no, zero, nada, zilch for a support system like the Anti's have.  At least the moms stick together no matter what even if they get it wrong!  smfh  

 

Dude should not have come back out of the house. The threat to his life was over. If he had killed the guy the story would have been that the guy was just getting his life back together and was probably going to be a doctor someday until he was senselessly murdered in the seat of his new car.

 

In other words, the reason that cops don't want to do their job is the same reason you don't want to come back out of the house.

[Smallbore]

There is an Illinois statute authorizing what we laymen call citizens arrest. Anyone have it handy?

[davel501]

On 1/6/2024 at 12:50 PM, Smallbore said:

There is an Illinois statute authorizing what we laymen call citizens arrest. Anyone have it handy?

 

 (725 ILCS 5/107-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-3)
    Sec. 107-3. Arrest by private person.
    Any person may arrest another when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.
(Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

[THE KING]

On 1/6/2024 at 12:30 PM, Bubbacs said:

So a gun to his face is ok but putting a gun to the attackers face is wrong?  Was the car AND the attacker still on his property?  Could the attacker have come to the house with his gun?  When will we stop beating up our fellow gun owners and maybe start beating the criminals over the head?  And please don't do that whole "Call the Police" that's what they are for crap!  We sit here bemoaning the response times and how we need to help ourselves thousands of times.  I'll call when I'm safe and toasty and warm inside!  This is the problem with our side, we get every small item of information chewed and then spit out to make us as the bad ones, we did it wrong!!!!!  And then there are those who wonder why we have our rights being stripped away daily and we have no, zero, nada, zilch for a support system like the Anti's have.  At least the moms stick together no matter what even if they get it wrong!  smfh  

Very well said and how true it is.  

[davel501]

On 1/6/2024 at 1:05 PM, davel501 said:

 

 (725 ILCS 5/107-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-3)
    Sec. 107-3. Arrest by private person.
    Any person may arrest another when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.
(Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

 

Before anyone gets the idea that they're the police - the next several chapters give a ton of special immunities to sworn law enforcement officers even from other states. None of that exists for the unorganized militia.

[ddan]

On 1/6/2024 at 2:08 PM, THE KING said:

Very well said and how true it is.  

Odd words coming from a concealed carry instructor.  So, just to be clear, you applaud and encourage behavior which, after the deadly threat is over, is plainly unlawful and over property? 

[THE KING]

On 1/6/2024 at 1:49 PM, ddan said:

Odd words coming from a concealed carry instructor.  So, just to be clear, you applaud and encourage behavior which, after the deadly threat is over, is plainly unlawful and over property? 

As far as I can see he did nothing unlawful. Justifiable use of force statute allows him to protect his property which he did.  The criminal was not harmed and successfully taken into custody.  

 

People believe he's wrong for going back out to confront the criminal and that is an opinion they have a right to. Others may believe he's justified in his actions and I agree with that. 

[davel501]

On 1/6/2024 at 1:57 PM, THE KING said:

As far as I can see he did nothing unlawful. Justifiable use of force statute allows him to protect his property which he did.  The criminal was not harmed and successfully taken into custody.  

 

People believe he's wrong for going back out to confront the criminal and that is an opinion they have a right to. Others may believe he's justified in his actions and I agree with that. 

 

Your argument is much stronger if you lean on the fact it was a forcible felony. I still disagree with him coming back out of the house, but this is the strongest argument on the citizen's behalf.

 

(720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8)     Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)

[ddan]

On 1/6/2024 at 2:57 PM, THE KING said:

As far as I can see he did nothing unlawful. Justifiable use of force statute allows him to protect his property which he did.  The criminal was not harmed and successfully taken into custody.  

 

People believe he's wrong for going back out to confront the criminal and that is an opinion they have a right to. Others may believe he's justified in his actions and I agree with that. 

This is an interesting discussion, which sent me back to the Illinois statutes 7/20.

regarding property, here is the relevant section:

§ 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

 

(b) is the problematic part in this story.  Was the good guy an aggressor when he went into his house and returned to assault and batter (he dragged him out of the car) the offender?

 

Here’s that part

§ 7-4. Use of Force by Aggressor. The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:

(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or

(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:

(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

So I concede that this may not be plainly unlawful, but I would maintain that it was very unwise.  If he resisted, if his partner(s) got engaged, if a passing good guy or cop saw this unfolding and sought to stop what looks like your forcible felony….. all bad outcomes.

 

I’m glad this one turned out as it did.

Edited January 6, 2024 at 08:24 PM by ddan

[ddan]

What I see this boiling down two is two issues:

 

1. did the good guy become an aggressor when he went back into the house?
2. was he preventing a forcible felony, or had the forcible felony already occurred when his car was taken?

as an extreme example of (2), would it be lawful to round up a posse of gun-otters to chase after the offender, corner him, and take back the car by force at gunpoint? I don’t think so.

[davel501]

On 1/6/2024 at 2:32 PM, ddan said:

What I see this boiling down two is two issues:

 

1. did the good guy become an aggressor when he went back into the house?
2. was he preventing a forcible felony, or had the forcible felony already occurred when his car was taken?

as an extreme example of (2), would it be lawful to round up a posse of gun-otters to chase after the offender, corner him, and take back the car by force at gunpoint? I don’t think so.

 

For some reason the offender never left the scene though. Not sure if the car was a stick shift or what but one could argue that leaving the scene is key to completing the crime.

[John Q Public]

We can't seem to help ourselves delving into arguments that could jam this guy up if he isn't already. All they would have to do is come here and all their homework is done. They might even use what was written here in court.

 

Please try not to make the arguments for the other side. I know they come here to read, a lot of them know the law, on this, less than many of us...  Why help them?

 

JQ

[ddan]

On 1/6/2024 at 3:40 PM, davel501 said:

 

For some reason the offender never left the scene though. Not sure if the car was a stick shift or what but one could argue that leaving the scene is key to completing the crime.

Right.  Lots of ways this could be argued.  You’ll beat the rap but not the ride.  

 

[ddan]

On 1/6/2024 at 4:01 PM, John Q Public said:

We can't seem to help ourselves delving into arguments that could jam this guy up if he isn't already. All they would have to do is come here and all their homework is done. They might even use what was written here in court.

 

Please try not to make the arguments for the other side. I know they come here to read, a lot of them know the law, on this, less than many of us...  Why help them?

 

JQ

Because I believe this guy did something that was very foolish.  Atta-boys may, on the margin, encourage others to disengage, leave the scene of a forcible felony, arm themselves, and re-engage, which is very foolish.  
 

No ASA is going to make a charging decision based on what is discussed here.  They have witness interviews, evidence, etc. We don’t and are simply discussing news reports and how the reports fit into the legal framework of use of deadly force in Illinois.

 

If you draw a weapon, you should be prepared to use it.  Do you really believe it is justified use of force to murder (potentially) somebody over a car which should be insured? I don’t.

 

 

[John Q Public]

First, I was not speaking to your input.

 

Second, I didn't advocate one way or the other, but you did.

 

The state calls, ddan as its next witness. 

 

You are making assumptions, and you know nothing about me. I usually don't elaborate, but.... I would have opted for protecting family and fk the car, but you don't get to make that call. You called me out because you thought I disagreed... You were wrong. The issue here is summery judgement. 

 

Were you there? It's easy to say do this do that, but when someone sticks a gun in your face, all bets are off. 

 

If the person was still on my property, I might have done the same... if he/she only wanted my car then why did they not leave. I am in fear for my life and my wife and daughter, should I let the guy with the gun get in the house? That's just one what if, but you are the authority, on the use of force. 

 

If I get a gun in the face, I'm calling LE, if there is no safe room, I'm going to face the threat as far away from my daughters, as possible. 

 

Until your family is at risk... I would encourage you to pause.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2024 at 10:30 PM by John Q Public

[John Q Public]

PS Yes, they do make, "Adjustments." on what is written here, I have confirmed such. 

[davel501]

On 1/6/2024 at 3:48 PM, ddan said:

Right.  Lots of ways this could be argued.  You’ll beat the rap but not the ride.  

 

 

But he did beat that ride.

[ddan]

On 1/6/2024 at 5:59 PM, davel501 said:

 

But he did beat that ride.

Yes.  I was speaking in the hypothetical that something like this *is* charged.

[ddan]

On 1/6/2024 at 5:24 PM, John Q Public said:

First, I was not speaking to your input.

Well, actually, you asked "why help them?" (them being the prosecutors).

I responded by suggesting that questioning the decisions that this guy is reported to have made is not "helping them," but rather is a worthwhile exercise in thinking through use of force scenarios.  You disagree. Cool.

On 1/6/2024 at 5:24 PM, John Q Public said:

 

 

Second, I didn't advocate one way or the other, but you did.

Yes. I have an opinion. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

On 1/6/2024 at 5:24 PM, John Q Public said:

 

The state calls, ddan as its next witness. 

Cool: a day off work! And a trip to 26th and California! That should be exciting!

My opinions articulated here, if this particular case were tried,  are utterly irrelevant.  My opinions articulated here, if I were being tried for the same thing, are very relevant.  But I'm not going to do this. Ever.  If I escape a deadly threat, I'll count my blessings.

On 1/6/2024 at 5:24 PM, John Q Public said:

 

You are making assumptions, and you know nothing about me. I usually don't elaborate, but.... I would have opted for protecting family and fk the car, but you don't get to make that call. You called me out because you thought I disagreed... You were wrong. The issue here is summery judgement. 

 

Were you there? It's easy to say do this do that, but when someone sticks a gun in your face, all bets are off. 

I have commented only on what was reported and the decision, as reported, to re-engage, which I think is a poor decision.

On 1/6/2024 at 5:24 PM, John Q Public said:

 

If the person was still on my property, I might have done the same... if he/she only wanted my car then why did they not leave. I am in fear for my life and my wife and daughter, should I let the guy with the gun get in the house? That's just one what if, but you are the authority, on the use of force. 

Not at all an expert.  That's why I went back to the relevant statutes.  Indeed, I backed off my initial position of "deadly force in defense of property is a no-no."  

On 1/6/2024 at 5:24 PM, John Q Public said:

 

If I get a gun in the face, I'm calling LE, if there is no safe room, I'm going to face the threat as far away from my daughters, as possible. 

 

Until your family is at risk... I would encourage you to pause.

 

 

 

I agree 100% with your closing sentence, though I'd add myself to the "respond forcefully if at risk" list.

We are looking at this differently, and that's fine.  I believe it's harmful to commend and encourage behavior which, as reported, puts people's lives and freedom at risk.

You take the view that having this discussion is potentially harmful to this individual. Also fine.  

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully.

 

 

[Bubbacs]

Lot of "What if's " as usual.  What IF he had shot and killed the guy?  He didn't.  "What if" he and others chased the guy down and cornered him?  He didn't.  Like everything in here anymore it's all what if and maybe or the best "well if they want to charge"!  Read what happened and go with that just once.  Jesus H. Christ maybe we should hand in our guns.  We want them then we become P****s about everything.  You know who did it wrong?  The guy who we read about getting arrested and or getting shot and this guy did neither.  Again SMFH

[mikew]

A half-mile but a world away in Beverly, the carjackers came back a couple days later, and they were not bringing a gift basket.

There is no unspoken rule honor among today's super predators in treatment of their victims, who often get pistol-whipped and shot.

For all we know this guy sitting in the car was checking what the alley and back of the house looked like on google maps.
Or checking in with his accomplice.

 

I can't vault the victim.
 

[JTHunter]

On 1/6/2024 at 1:57 PM, THE KING said:

As far as I can see he did nothing unlawful. Justifiable use of force statute allows him to protect his property which he did.  The criminal was not harmed and successfully taken into custody.  

 

People believe he's wrong for going back out to confront the criminal and that is an opinion they have a right to. Others may believe he's justified in his actions and I agree with that. 

 

I also agree.

There is nothing wrong with making a "citizen's arrest" when you have been the victim of a felony.  This man was the victim and, while going back out may not have been the smartest thing, I don't blame him either, esp. when he had the restraint to NOT shoot the perp.

[Smallbore]

Are we not all in agreement that choosing to return to the car was stupid. At that point what the law allows or doesn't is not important. Yes later it is. First surviving a violent encounter with an attacker with a gun then the victim returning with a gun for what ever reason is stupid, stupid, stupid. Never choose to go into a fight without know the enemy's capabilities nor without over whelming force. Even then without being leo one is stupid, stupid, stupid. No property is worth dying over yet alone the legal hassle. A dead husband ain't much good.

This guy is darn lucky and a good example for what not to do.

[Windchaser]

On 1/6/2024 at 3:58 PM, ddan said:

Do you really believe it is justified use of force to murder (potentially) somebody over a car which should be insured? I don’t.

 

 

In some respects, yes I believe criminals should be in fear for their lives when they decide to commit armed robbery. We as a society have gotten way too soft on crime that today's criminals have no fear of being caught. They know the outcome will most likely be a slap on the wrist. There are no consequences for today's criminals. You do know that horse stealing was a capital offense in the old west. The horse is equivalent to someone's car today.

[Bubbacs]

On 1/6/2024 at 3:58 PM, ddan said:

 Do you really believe it is justified use of force to murder (potentially) somebody over a car which should be insured?

Please can we stop with the hypotheticals?  He DID NOT murder anyone.  Did you last weekend?  You could have potentially right?  Mans car was still on his property.  I have the right, at least from all the posts here, to carry on MY property and to defend same!  If I don't have that right then why are we fighting to keep it?  You can't be swaying from left to right on whether you want the right or you don't.  We stand together and we take our lumps together.  If all this forums (or some guys) is going to do is second guess anyone and everyone who uses a gun and how they use it, we are already done, finished!