But it wasn't self-defense?

[Euler]

CWBChicago said:→

It is one of the most shocking and consequential shootings Chicago has seen in recent years: A 16-year-old boy was shot dead steps from The Bean in Millennium Park during a large gathering of teens in May 2022. And it was caught on video.
...
[Marion] Richardson, wearing an orange hoodie and ski mask, walked slowly on a plaza near The Bean, nearly encircled by dozens of other teens and preteens, some wearing ski masks of their own. That circle appeared to be closing in on Richardson.

As bystanders recorded with their phones, [Seandell] Holliday suddenly sprung into view, landing on Richardson's back and wrapping his arms around Richardson. In the same blink of an eye, another teen seems to throw a punch at Richardson, and the crowd moves closer.

During the chaos, as Holliday hung on Richardson's back, a single, muffled gunshot was heard, followed by a chorus of screams as panic swept through the crowd.
...
Seconds later, officers who heard the gunshot saw Richardson drop a handgun as he ran from the scene, prosecutors said. Richards allegedly stopped, picked the gun up, put it in his waistband, and continued running. He was arrested nearby.
...
But, the judge said, prosecutors failed to prove Richardson committed second-degree murder or aggravated battery.

"It is not clear from the evidence or from any of the videos who had the gun or who fired the shots. It is as likely that Mr. Holliday had the gun and it accidentally went off when he was tussling with Mr. Richardson as it is that Mr. Richardson had the gun," the judge explained.
...

I'm not sure there are any good guys in this story, but everyone agrees that a large group attacked the defendant. Then the lead attacker was shot. Then the apparent victim was charged with murder. Now people are shocked that he was ruled not guilty. Self-defense appears not to have been mentioned. Welcome to the city.

Edited November 28, 2024 at 07:37 AM by Euler

[solareclipse2]

On 11/28/2024 at 1:33 AM, Euler said:

I'm not sure there are any good guys in this story, but everyone agrees that a large group attacked the defendant. Then the lead attacker was shot. Then the apparent victim was charged with murder. Now people are shocked that he was ruled not guilty. Self-defense appears not to have been mentioned. Welcome to the city.
 

 

From the excerpt you shared, self-defense was not mentioned because there is no evidence of who originally possessed the gun and who fired it. How would would self defense enter the picture? 

[John Q Public]

It they had claimed self defense he would have been convicted. :O I'm only slightly kidding.

[ealcala31]

On 11/28/2024 at 10:13 AM, John Q Public said:

It they had claimed self defense he would have been convicted. 😮 I'm only slightly kidding.

If he claimed self-defense, Richardson would have had to admit he pulled the trigger. His lawyer, seeing all the chaos on the videos, said let's take the chance and let the judge figure it out. Good call. What I don't understand, is that it is very difficult for a criminal to win a self-defense case. I've read many articles where 3 or 4 gangbangers jump on one guy, the guy defends himself and kills one of them in self-defense. It's almost always a conviction for something; murder, second -degree murder, manslaughter, etc. I am of the mind-set that self-defense is a human right for everyone, obviously, depending on circumstance.

[John Q Public]

Hmmm. Perhaps carrying without a permit, or as a felon, you may not claim self defense at all as you are in the commission of a felony, and as such, you are not allowed to claim self defense with said weapon.

 

IDK just thinking out loud.

[ealcala31]

On 11/29/2024 at 9:56 AM, John Q Public said:

Hmmm. Perhaps carrying without a permit, or as a felon, you may not claim self defense at all as you are in the commission of a felony, and as such, you are not allowed to claim self defense with said weapon.

 

IDK just thinking out loud.

I can see a conviction for a firearm violation, but self-defense, I can't see how anyone could lose the right to self-defense in a legitimate self-defense case. Criminal or not...

[soundguy]

On 11/29/2024 at 9:56 AM, John Q Public said:

Perhaps carrying without a permit, or as a felon, you may not claim self defense...

 

In the old days, before the IL CCL and when new handguns were not allowed in Chicago, it seemed to be routine that otherwise law abiding citizens defending themselves would only lose their self defense gun, yet not face other charges including firearms possession in the home or outside of the home. This extended to at least one accidental death caused by a minor showing Dad's pistol to his best friend, which was not a self defense case.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[John Q Public]

I hear you, but this is Illinois.

 

I think it's in FOID law, and also tied to a "Forcible Felony," or a felony in which you were the aggressor. I don't know the whole story, but from what I hear, this guy wasn't the aggressor at least at the time when the guy jumped on his back. We don't know what happened before that event. 

 

Basically, if this person used a firearm while/after the commission of a felony involving force, you do lose your right to defend yourself with deadly force and claim self defense. Maybe someone will look it up in FOID and post it for us. 

Edited November 29, 2024 at 05:22 PM by John Q Public

[John Q Public]

Say, not this guy, but another situation, this person shot wounded, or killed someone he would now be fleeing after a force felony and not entitled to use a firearm for defense. There could be an out if the person no longer posed a threat and ceased all hostile intent, AND tried to get away from the mob, then maybe he might be able to use the firearm, but IMHO if he still had the firearm, (I know we don't know who had it here, but say he still had it) Are you still a threat? I think yes. 

 

In any case I put this forward as a mental and law exercise, not to convict or approve one way or the other only for something to ponder.

[Euler]

Merely possessing a firearm is not a forcible felony. In Illinois, forcible felonies are (720 ILCS 5/2-8) any "felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual," specifically (but not necessarily limited to) "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,^[sic] kidnaping,^[sic] aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement."

If anyone is wondering, "burglary" without the "residential" in front of it legally means "commercial burglary." Colloquially, it means both.

In any case, even in Illinois, felony firearm possession is not forcible. Self-defense necessarily means that the person is not the aggressor. If some hypothetical other person (say you) shoots someone in self-defense, then flees, it may not look good, but a sensible person wouldn't necessarily stick around to get killed by the attacker's friends/accomplices. Running away doesn't turn self-defense into murder. (The thing to avoid is revenge. Revenge turns self-defense into murder.)

Would a prosecutor still try to convict the defender? That can happen anywhere, but that's a different problem, not the law.

[John Q Public]

You left out the end in which it states, "and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

 

So if someone was carrying and made a threat like I'm going to shoot you, even verbal, you have committed a forcible felony and without a FOID the loaded gun itself can be a felony as well. 

 

The question then becomes, if I commit/ting/ted a forcible felony, can you use a firearm for self defense. I have come to the conclusion that, in most cases, the answer to that question is no. Again, not saying that's what happened here, just posing questions and seeking to talk it out for knowledge sake. 

 

Thanks for joining in @Euler

 

 

[Smallbore]

I suppose the layman's uneducated question would be how does "fleeing from" still constituted a " threat". I believe we all acknowledge the to need for police to have the authority to pursue. If the non police victim pursued his attacker is he not now in the wrong being the threat?

[John Q Public]

I see that question as neither lay, nor uneducated. It's a valid question. There is law to back it up as well. From memory, When someone has clearly retreated from all threatening, or unlawful actions, and are now longer an immediate threat, then deadly force is not permissible. 

 

Say someone breaks into you home and you draw on them, they put up their hands and back out the door. Deadly force is not warranted, nor lawful. One could argue they were in the comission of a forcible felony, but it becomes less clear at that point. I might make commands to have them get on the floor, but if they didn't comply and simply backed away and left would I shoot? No I would not. If they have a gun, they are an immediate threat, no matter which way they are going at the time. I watched two cops shot and killed from a bad guy running away and fired shots striking and killing both perusing officers. The officers did not fire when in pursuit, no doubt afraid they would get jammed up for shooting at the fleeing suspect. That's tragic, and I have decided, as long as there is a gun in hand, I will engage until the gun or the man is down. That's not to say I will chase them, if you chase then the roles change and you could/would be considered the agressor, since the threat was no longer immediate. 

 

The statue also says, if they are committing a forcible felony, you may use deadly force if you believe you, or your family is in fear for their lives.  

 

Also, none of this really means anything to an DA who think they can convict you, even if it was a justified shooting. Everyone who carries should have insurance...  It may give a DA pause in bringing sketchy charges if you have the dream team on speed dial. You sure as heck don't want a PD in such a case and you don't want to spend your life saving defending yourself. 

 

 

\

 

Edited December 1, 2024 at 06:55 PM by John Q Public

[davel501]

On 12/1/2024 at 12:48 PM, John Q Public said:

I see that question as neither lay, nor uneducated. It's a valid question. There is law to back it up as well. From memory, When someone has clearly retreated from all threatening, or unlawful actions, and are now longer an immediate threat, then deadly force is not permissible. 

 

Say someone breaks into you home and you draw on them, they put up their hands and back out the door. Deadly force is not warranted, nor lawful. One could argue they were in the comission of a forcible felony, but it becomes less clear at that point. I might make commands to have them get on the floor, but if they didn't comply and simply backed away and left would I shoot? No I would not. If they have a gun, they are an immediate threat, no matter which way they are going at the time. I watched two cops shot and killed from a bad guy running away and fired shots striking and killing both perusing officers. The officers did not fire when in pursuit, no doubt afraid they would get jammed up for shooting at the fleeing suspect. That's tragic, and I have decided, as long as there is a gun in hand, I will engage until the gun or the man is down. That's not to say I will chase them, if you chase then the roles change and you could/would be considered the agressor, since the threat was no longer immediate. 

 

The statue also says, if they are committing a forcible felony, you may use deadly force if you believe you, or your family is in fear for their lives.  

 

Also, none of this really means anything to an DA who think they can convict you, even if it was a justified shooting. Everyone who carries should have insurance...  It may give a DA pause in bringing sketchy charges if you have the dream team on speed dial. You sure as heck don't want a PD in such a case and you don't want to spend your life saving defending yourself. 

 

 

\

 

 

The phrase you are looking for is "regaining the mantel of innocence". Masad Ayoob articulates it most clearly. 

[Euler]

The facts are undisputed. Richardson was walking alone in the park (not in your home or any other strawman argument), when he was attacked without warning by a group of people. None of that is a felony (on his part). He probably had the loaded firearm in his possession, which is disputed and a felony, but not a forcible one.

It may be hard to imagine, but pretend for a moment that Illinois is a constitutional carry state. In that case, his firearm possession wouldn't even be a crime, much less a felony.

The firearm possession is also irrelevant to the murder charge. If a CCL-holder (which Richardson isn't) takes a firearm into Grant Park (where CCL-holders are not legally permitted to possess firearms) and gets violently attacked by a gang who clearly intend serious bodily injury or death, it is not murder if he defends himself with lethal force just because the firearm possession is illegal, not even in Illinois.

Richardson probably also isn't an angel. The gang picked him as their victim for a reason, probably gang-related. That also is irrelevant in this case.

Edited December 2, 2024 at 03:16 AM by Euler