CCL/employee shoots jewel thief

[Euler]

CWBChicago said:→

A jewelry store employee shot a would-be robber during a holdup attempt in the Loop on Saturday morning, Chicago police said, sending the offender running out the door with no proceeds but two gunshot wounds.

The alleged robber, 27, entered a store in the first block of North Wabash shortly before 11 a.m. and tried to break into a jewelry case, according to information from Chicago police and a source familiar with the initial investigation. But a licensed concealed carry gun owner inside the store wasn't having it.

They pulled out their firearm and shot at the bumbling bandit, striking him in the buttocks and abdomen. CPD referred to the shooter only as "a person" inside a "commercial business," but a source said he works at the jewelry store.
...

If he was an employee, it doesn't matter that he was a CCL-holder (mostly). It also doesn't sound like lethal force was justified, but the cops cut him a break (maybe because of the CCL, but maybe because the cops don't like jewel thieves).

[John Q Public]

Robbery is a force felony....  not that I would shoot someone over stuff unless they were armed and I was afraid for life or GBH.

[ragsbo]

There is a lot of information missing from that report so can't say if it was justified or not. I would think shooter would have to explain why he was in fear for his or someone else's life or threat of serious bodily harm.

 

But I also  think it is funny and down right karma that the maggot was shot in the butt!!!!

[Euler]

CWBChicago said:→

Prosecutors in the Cook County state's attorney's office who've reviewed evidence in Saturday's shooting of a smash-and-grab suspect inside a downtown Chicago jewelry store are weighing possible charges against the would-be thief and the licensed gun owner who shot him.

That's according to two sources familiar with the investigation.
...
Just a step from the front door, he swings his right hand into the front of a jewelry display case several times. While he's trying to smash through the glass, a man behind the counter draws a pistol, racks the slide, and fires as the thief appears to be turning toward the door.
...
Legally speaking, a robbery is much different from a burglary or theft in that robberies are crimes in which property is taken by using force or the threat of force against a person.

However, two sources said that prosecutors who reviewed the video ... have argued that the thief did not appear to be presenting a threat to anyone's physical well-being, and he may have even been leaving when he was shot.

The attorneys were eyeing the possibility of filing charges against both men or, should the men decide it's mutually beneficial, not filing any charges at all. A final charging decision was still pending at midday.
...

Mutual combat?

[Tip]

On 2/25/2024 at 2:37 PM, ragsbo said:

There is a lot of information missing from that report so can't say if it was justified or not. I would think shooter would have to explain why he was in fear for his or someone else's life or threat of serious bodily harm.

 

But I also  think it is funny and down right karma that the maggot was shot in the butt!!!!

Why would he need to explain that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
That is NOT the only justification written into the law….

[ragsbo]

On 2/25/2024 at 5:03 PM, Tip said:

Why would he need to explain that? 🤷🏻‍♂️
That is NOT the only justification written into the law….

Such as??????? 

[Tip]

On 2/25/2024 at 8:53 PM, ragsbo said:

Such as??????? 

To prevent the commission of a forceable felony

[Euler]

Self-defense is an affirmative defense which justifies lethal force only to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. The video appears not to document any such threat. The employee can still testify to it, but he's going to have to make a case.

As for the ASA dropping all charges, these are two separate crimes. Theft isn't justified by the illegal use of lethal force by the employee. Illegal use of lethal force by the employee isn't justified by theft. Violation of the law isn't harm to the other party. It's harm to the community, "the people of Illinois," which is whose interests the ASA is supposed to represent.

[davel501]

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

    Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

    (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 defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. 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 imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or 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.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28- 04.)

 

 

    (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.)

[Bitter Clinger]

That's what I thought the law stated.

 

Thanks for posting.

 

[Jeffrey]

Monday AM QB here..

 

I've seen the video.  I haven't heard the audio.  Threatening someone's life while breaking glass and attempting to steal some jewelry simultaneously would give me pause to think about my own life being threatened.  Who knows what was said?

[ragsbo]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:45 PM, Tip said:

To prevent the commission of a forceable felony

Which doe NOT apply to this situation! SO again I say he would have to convince the jury he was in fear for his life or serious bodily injury (or such to a third person)

[soundguy]

Police prosecuters and courts do not always go by the letter of the law in charging a shooter defending himself. I remember robbery incidents in Chicago where the victims defended themselves (their stuff) by shooting the perp long before CC back when handguns were essentially banned in the city. I can't imagine much has changed.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[spanishjames]

On 2/26/2024 at 9:28 AM, ragsbo said:

Which doe NOT apply to this situation! SO again I say he would have to convince the jury he was in fear for his life or serious bodily injury (or such to a third person)

Robbery and Burglary are both Forcible Felonies.  Dude deserved to get shot. 

 

 

[Euler]

The video doesn't show robbery. It only shows smash-and-grab theft.

[cnwfan3]

On 2/26/2024 at 1:26 PM, spanishjames said:

Robbery and Burglary are both Forcible Felonies.  Dude deserved to get shot. 

 

 

 

Neither Robbery or Burglary happened, it was theft.  Robbery is theft through the use of force.  Burglary is breaking and entering into someplace illegally (where theft or robbery may, or may not have been committed).  Theft is just taking something that is not yours.  Since he didn't use force to commit theft, and he did not illegally enter the place, what he committed was theft.  Theft is not a forceable felony.  This could be why they are considering charges. 

 

https://www.usnews.com/360-reviews/services/home-security/burglary-vs-robbery

[ragsbo]

On 2/26/2024 at 1:26 PM, spanishjames said:

Robbery and Burglary are both Forcible Felonies.  Dude deserved to get shot. 

 

 

I won't disagree that the maggot deserved to get shot in the butt; but per law, not justified unless there is something we don't know.

[spanishjames]

On 2/26/2024 at 3:15 PM, cnwfan3 said:

 

Neither Robbery or Burglary happened, it was theft.  Robbery is theft through the use of force.  Burglary is breaking and entering into someplace illegally (where theft or robbery may, or may not have been committed).  Theft is just taking something that is not yours.  Since he didn't use force to commit theft, and he did not illegally enter the place, what he committed was theft.  Theft is not a forceable felony.  This could be why they are considering charges. 

 

https://www.usnews.com/360-reviews/services/home-security/burglary-vs-robbery

720 ILCS 5/19-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 19-1)
    Sec. 19-1. Burglary.
    (a) A person commits burglary when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, freight container, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense shall not include the offenses set out in Section 4-102 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.

[Euler]

A business open to the public implicitly invites everyone/anyone inside. So he didn't enter "without authority." Theft? Yes. Burglary? No.

[ealcala31]

Most jewelry stores have a buzzer to let you in, which means every customer could be denied entry b4 they even enter the jewelry store. Not a typical, open to the public, storefront. How much theft constitutes a felony? He was using force to destroy the display case and whatever he attempted to steal, if he was successful, was it a 10K watch or a 2K necklace. Does that become felony theft. He was willing to break his hand to steal, I would think he would not hesitate to use his hand, leg, or whatever to injure anyone in the jewelry store. We beat ourselves up destroying our own, I am not. I hope he doesn't get charged and uses this as a valuable lesson.

[Smallbore]

As a layman I don't really care if you call him a robber, a burglar or a thief. Once he shattered a display case he entered in a violent, riotous, tumultuous manner. I will react accordingly.

[cnwfan3]

On 2/26/2024 at 4:16 PM, spanishjames said:

720 ILCS 5/19-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 19-1)
    Sec. 19-1. Burglary.
    (a) A person commits burglary when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, freight container, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense shall not include the offenses set out in Section 4-102 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.

 

Yes, burglary the intent to commit a felony or theft entering a place without authority.  That's the difference between theft and burglary.  If the person was allowed to enter (thus with authority) it's just theft.  That is why shoplifting is considered theft and not burglary.

 

I don't disagree that he didn't deserve what he got, but according to the law, he didn't commit robbery or burglary, which are forceable felonies.  He only committed theft which is not a forceable felony.  

[Hatchet]

Throwing out there, once he started breaking the case I would imagine he no longer has authority to remain in the building and or asked to leave. Would that not bring it to Burglary?

[TomKoz]

On 2/27/2024 at 6:22 AM, Hatchet said:

Throwing out there, once he started breaking the case I would imagine he no longer has authority to remain in the building and or asked to leave. Would that not bring it to Burglary?

Bingo 

[Smallbore]

How is this guy not committing robbery? He is violent. Under the UUW defense of dwelling only "felony" is stated not "forcible felony". Though a business is not a dwelling the employees could be said were at that time dwelling there. Violence should be a tipping point. Does the law really side with (protect) an invited quest (where ever) once he becomes violent?

[Quiet Observer]

Am I missing something? Posters are referring to a video, but I do not see any links.

[soundguy]

On 2/27/2024 at 9:27 AM, Quiet Observer said:

Am I missing something? Posters are referring to a video, but I do not see any links.

 

Early-ish report from two days ago.

Clerk and robber both in custody.

 

 

 

From 11 hours ago...

Legal expert says justified.

Clerk and robber both released.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/would-be-robber-chicago-jewelry-store-worker-shot-released/

 

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

[Euler]

On February 27, 2024 at 06:22 AM CST, Hatchet said:→

... once he started breaking the case I would imagine he no longer has authority to remain in the building ...

If that were the legal standard, then all crimes would be burglary, thus rendering any distinction meaningless.

On February 27, 2024 at 08:43 AM CST, Smallbore said:→

... How is this guy not committing robbery? He is violent. ... Though a business is not a dwelling the employees could be said were at that time dwelling there. ...

Violence means an attack on a person. An attack on an inanimate object (display case) isn't violence, no matter how strong or frenzied.

A dwelling is where people reside, not where they are simply alive at any given moment. If everywhere people go in a living state is a dwelling, then everywhere is a dwelling, again rendering any distinction meaningless.

[cnwfan3]

On 2/27/2024 at 6:22 AM, Hatchet said:

Throwing out there, once he started breaking the case I would imagine he no longer has authority to remain in the building and or asked to leave. Would that not bring it to Burglary?

 

I'm not saying he is committing burglary, robbery or theft, that's for the police to decide.  I'm just pointing out what the law says regarding what is a forceable felony and why they may or may not charge the employee.  Personally, I think the thug got what he deserved.  But keep the law in mind if it ever comes down to being in the same situation.  What we see as a clear case of self defense, robbery, or burglary many not be viewed the same by law enforcement.

[Quiet Observer]

Could it be pleaded down to vandalism? Was it an emotional act of frustration? Did he stop hitting the case because his anger was abated or that he realized he could not break the glass to get to its contents?