tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post540855407832193248..comments2023-10-16T07:06:52.428-05:00Comments on Armed and Safe: East St. Louis clerk who killed robber not facing chargesKurt '45superman' Hofmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-9697545730591440852009-11-23T16:04:09.068-06:002009-11-23T16:04:09.068-06:00SA, as always, you make a good case for your posit...SA, as always, you make a good case for your position. Let me run a hypothetical by you, though.<br /><br />Let's say I'm carrying a loaded handgun as I go about town--a felony (aggravated unlawful use of a weapon) in Illinois. Let's say, furthermore, that I'm clumsy with my concealment, and the gun is seen. Let's then say that the police are called ("Man with a gun!"), and rush to the scene to save the day. Let's <i>finally</i> say that in their hurry to get this dangerous felon (me, in our hypothetical story), they run over a little old lady crossing the street, killing her.<br /><br />It's my understanding (I might be wrong) that responsibility for an accident involving officers responding to a felony call is laid at the feet of the felon in question.<br /><br />That would mean that, under this law, I'm on the hook for murder, despite doing nothing but carrying (albeit clumsily) a gun for self-defense. In fact, if the person hit by the police car had not been a little old lady, but a gangbanger running away from whatever misdeed he had just committed, I'd <i>still</i> be on the hook for murder.<br /><br />Granted, that's a somewhat long string of hypotheticals, and quite unlikely, but it's where we can end up with such laws.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-20650264252406153202009-11-23T14:26:03.122-06:002009-11-23T14:26:03.122-06:00Have to disagree. The accomplice and the dead guy ...Have to disagree. The accomplice and the dead guy both decided to rob someone. Someone died as a result of that decision. That death is a direct result of them taking action on that decision. While the clerk did not commit murder (unjustifiable homicide) because his actions were justified, the accomplice did commit a crime where someone died. From his perspective that death was unjustified homicide (murder) because of their actions of attempted felony. Absent their actions no one would have died, as he was a guilty player in that action someone did. I agree with the murder charge levied against the accomplice.<br /><br />Unlike the analogy presented by TOC, the son is not guilty of the sins of the father if he did not participate, though some would immorally visit such upon the son, it is wrong. In this case the chargee was an active participant and was guilty of the same sins as his partner. Sins which caused death.straightarrownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-82526243229101441162009-11-22T21:03:40.750-06:002009-11-22T21:03:40.750-06:00Not a bad analogy, ToC.Not a bad analogy, ToC.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-48455885484028674402009-11-22T20:59:53.223-06:002009-11-22T20:59:53.223-06:00With the murder charge of the surviving suspect, I...With the murder charge of the surviving suspect, I believe it is similiar to a son being guilty for the sins of his father.Top of the Chainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15055086209635663306noreply@blogger.com