Round-Up: Law & Order; Crime & Punishment
Thursday, Aug 13, 2009 - Posted by Mike Murray
[Posted by Mike Murray]
* Police seize 26 weapons on Northwest Side
A specialized Chicago Police unit recovered 26 weapons while executing a search warrant at a Northwest Side home Tuesday night, police said. […]
Nobody was home when the warrant was executed, but officers did recover 26 weapons in the residence — including handguns and assault rifles, Greer said.
- I advocate ‘common sense’ gun laws, but it’s busts like this one that make me question strict gun regulation like Chicago’s hand gun ban. Criminals don’t follow the rules, so it does seem like it might just be red tape for law abiding citizens. It’s a complicated issue, but I am sure Todd will have more to say on the subject. LOL
* More potential Degorski jurors dismissed
* Drug dealer takes the stand in murder case
When Eric Kaminski showed up to a Pilsen apartment building on Feb. 5, 2004 - the last day the Oak Lawn man was seen alive - he thought he was looking at a paint job he could do on the side.
Instead he was ambushed by a dirty Chicago police officer who dug the bullets out of Kaminski’s dead body before ordering Daniel Nevarez to bury Kaminski in the basement, Nevarez testified at in his own defense today.
Prosecutors say that Nevarez, not accused crooked Chicago cop Jerome Finnigan, killed Kaminski.
“You’re going to bury him or you’re going to dig three (graves)” Nevarez said Finnigan ordered before digging out slugs from Kaminski’s head and shoulder with needle-nose pliers. “I’m making sure this s— doesn’t come back to me,” Nevarez testified the officer told him.
* Cabdriver’s lawyer wants to make a deal
An attorney for the Buffalo cabdriver who accused Blackhawks star Patrick Kane of beating him over a 20-cent fare dispute said Tuesday he’s hoping the issue can be settled with his client being compensated out of court.
The comments from attorney Andrew LoTempio to WGN-AM radio come after the Buffalo News reported that cabbie Jan Radecki was driving his cab without a valid driver’s license after several drunken driving arrests.
The statement also follows LoTempio’s comments on Monday that he thought the incident, which landed Kane with a felony robbery charge, was “blown out of proportion.”
-I can’t wait till I am super wealthy so I can just commit crimes and pay the victim to drop the charges. That way I can still be a jerk while also having no legal consequences. BTW- insert sarcastic tone here.
- Lakefront Liberal - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:14 am:
If we accept the statement that “criminals don’t follow Law X” as an arguement to get rid of Law X, doesn’t it follow that we would get rid of all laws since criminals, by definition, are people who have broken a law?
- fed up - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:21 am:
Mike
Maybe if your rich and well known you will do mothing wrong and people will accuse you of committing crimes in hopes that you will pay them to go away.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:37 am:
The Patrick Kane incident is much ado about nothing. It was 4 a.m. on the Chip Strip in Buffalo, and there was probably a question as to who was drunker, Kane or his cab driver.
Mike’s recent escapades sound a lot more entertaining.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:40 am:
LL,
The problem with the Chicago gun law currently is that the Supreme Court ruling means that the law in Chicago is unconstitutional - one challenge away from extinction. So, if I possess a handgun in Chicago and am caught with it am I a criminal or a victim of over-reaching politicians? BTW, what about those citizens who defend their lives with a gun in Chicago who are not charged with the unlawful possession of said gun? Aren’t they criminals, too? Isn’t that selective enforcement? The States Attorney apparently doesn’t agree with the letter of the law in those cases. Seems to me they are accepting of the reality that people do, indeed, have the right to keep and bear arms, especially to save their own lives. Curious.
- Johnnyc - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:45 am:
“I advocate ‘common sense’ gun laws, but it’s busts like this one that make me question strict gun regulation like Chicago’s hand gun ban. Criminals don’t follow the rules, so it does seem like it might just be red tape for law abiding citizens.”
Mike, what in that article makes you think that these guns were possessd by “law abiding citizens”? 26 weapons, including assault rifles? If you really, really need to have a gun in your home then you have the option of moving to the suburbs. By having these guns in their home in Chicago they are by definition NOT law abiding citizens.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:48 am:
Part of being a small town liberal is that I am an occasional hunter and do own a shotgun. I believe in bans on automatic weapons, but not handguns, shotguns, or semi-automatic rifles. I don’t understand why we can’t meet on a common ground of background checks and weapon sales tracking. Criminals are still going to have guns, but responsible citizens can keep theirs as well.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:52 am:
–I don’t understand why we can’t meet on a common ground of background checks and weapon sales tracking. Criminals are still going to have guns, but responsible citizens can keep theirs as well.–
Because, like abortion, it’s too good an issue to give up for fundraisers on either end of the political extremes.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:02 am:
Johnnyc,
So, if I am an otherwise law-abiding person and live in Chicago and possess a handgun I am a criminal (even if the Bill of Rights states otherwise). There are multiple cases where law-abiding Chicago residents use illegal handguns to shot, injure and even kill another person (the real criminal invading the home of your so called criminal). The law-abiding citizen who, in your mind, has commited a crime by possessing the handgun now compounds that crime by using it to murder another human being. Can you explain why the States Attorney doesn’t file criminal charges against the homeowner? Do you really think that the SA would even consider such nonsense?
- Johnnyc - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:23 am:
“Can you explain why the States Attorney doesn’t file criminal charges against the homeowner?”
Please give an instance where this has happened. And until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it is still the law. Unfortunately for you, you are not simply to allowed all laws that you believe to be unconstitutional.
Plus, as I stated above, if you don’t want to abide by the City of Chicago’s ordinances, don’t live in Chicago (as it looks like you don’t). Problem solved.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:33 am:
I seem to recall in the past that homeowners in Wilmette and Oak Park have been changed under their village gun laws when they pulled a gun on burglars in their homes.
There certainly was a famous case of the gas station owner in Oak Park — Austin at the Ike — who was charged more than once for flashing a piece at would be robbers.
Of course, Oak Park is a nuclear-missile-free zone as well, per village resolution.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:43 am:
Johnnyc,
I don’t feel the need to give you any such instances - I am not a walking public record. If you live in Chicago you can’t not be aware of the several instances in recent years where some poor elderly person shoots an invader only to be hailed a hero with no charges filed. If you can’t remember those instances you either don’t live in Chicago or are not willing to admit that this has happened. I am not the entity that decided to forgo filing charges against the old lady - it was the States Attorney who decided not to file the charges. How do you explain why the chief law enforcement entity in Cook County has failed to file charges against the perpetrator of the crime (the old lady)? For myself, I would continue to possess my handgun while living in Chicago knowing that if I were to use same to protect myself I would not be charged unless you were the States Attorney. The law likely will be challenged and dropped as it has elsewhere. I am sure grandma isn’t going to get rid of her S&W while waiting for that to happen.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:46 am:
DD, I certainly don’t remember any instances of a little old lady or anyone shooting an intruder in Chicago in recent years. Not a one.
- Johnnyc - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:54 am:
“I don’t feel the need to give you any such instances” DD, then I don’t feel the need to take your argument seriously. I do not remember any such instance. Not saying it didn’t happen, but I’ve certainly never heard about it. Wordslinger actually gave some instances that are easily google-able. You have not.
Even if this was true, you have yet to refute my point. Persons in Chicago are breaking the law, whether or not you think it is a dumb or even valid are beside the point.
- Johnnyc - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:54 am:
Correction- persons in Chicago who possess guns
- dupage dan - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:55 am:
Johnnyc,
Just for fun I spent a few minutes looking up a few cases. Not hard to find.
= Husband shoots home invader to death
Originally ran here as:
“Husband shoots home invader to death”
by Annie Sweeney, Staff Reporter
Chicago Sun Times
November 23, 2001
BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS — A Buffalo Grove man was shot and killed early Thursday after he allegedly stormed into a West Side couple’s bedroom and demanded to see the woman’s breasts, police said.
The shooting was ruled justified and charges were not brought against the man who fatally shot Curtis Reed once in the chest, Chicago police said.
Reed, 42, kicked in the basement door of the apartment building in the 3800 block of West Monroe at 4:20 a.m., ran up the back stairwell and directly into the bedroom on the first floor, where a 57-year-old woman and a 58-year-old man were in bed, Area 4 Violent Crimes Detective Mike Miller said.
The couple had heard someone enter their home and were ready when Reed burst into the bedroom, police said. The man reportedly responded to Reed’s demand by pulling out a handgun and firing.
Reed did not appear to have ransacked the home or to have tried to steal anything, Miller said.
“He stormed upstairs and into the bedroom and said to the woman: ‘Show me your [breasts],’ ” Miller said. “And at that point, the husband fired.”
Miller said police do not think Reed knew the couple, nor were they sure why he chose that home.
Reed was pronounced dead at 6:30 a.m. at the Cook County medical examiner’s office.
——————————————————————————–
Husband shoots home invader to death
Originally ran here as:
“Suspected burglar is shot, killed”
Chicago Tribune
November 23, 2001
A Buffalo Grove man was shot and killed early Thursday as he tried to break into a West Side Chicago apartment, police said.
Curtis Reed, 42, died of a chest wound, the Cook County medical examiner’s office said.
Residents of an apartment in the 3800 block of West Monroe Street heard someone breaking in about 4:10 a.m. A male resident fired one shot from his revolver, police said. No charges are expected against the man. =
Note that no charges were expected to be filed against a person you assert is a criminal.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:08 am:
DD, it’s possible that the man in the case you cited had a grandfathered, registered handgun. That’s allowed under the 1983 ordinance.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:13 am:
wordslinger,
That fact is not mentioned in the article. There have been cases where it was made clear that the gun was not registered but the SA declined to file charges. I don’t keep a file of these things with me at all times - who does? Find me a case where the States Attorney filed charges agains a citizen who had an illegal gun who used same to protect himself during a home invasion. It has never happened.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:20 am:
Here’s another case - it should be noted that the SA declined to file charges against the shooter “due to insufficient evidence”. If the shooter had had a “legal” handgun, I think the article would have mentioned it.
=Homeowner won’t be charged in shooting
December 24, 2008 12:20 PM | 24 Comments
No charges will be filed against a homeowner who shot and killed a man who police believe had broken into his home on the Northwest Side late last week.
Police learned of the connection to the Friday break-in when the suspect was found partially covered by snow Monday morning in a home’s gangway in the 3800 block of North Troy Street, said Chicago Police spokesman Daniel O’Brien.
An examination of the body later found the man had been shot in the back, and detectives tracked the case back to a burglary report from Friday afternoon in the 3800 block of North Kedzie Avenue, just across the alley.
Police believe the suspect ran across the alley behind the home after he was shot and collapsed in the gangway.
During an interview with detectives, the homeowner admitted to shooting at the man during the burglary.
On Tuesday night, the Cook County state’s attorney’s office rejected charges against the homeowner, O’Brien said.
Tandra Simonton, a state’s attorney’s office spokeswoman, said murder charges were rejected against the homeowner because of insufficient evidence.
Also, handguns are banned in the city of Chicago under a 1983 ordinance, but O’Brien said the paperwork did not show that the man faces any gun charges.
The man who was killed, who went by at least two different names in records, had yet to be officially identified.=
There are more - you all know of cases where a law-abiding citizen in Chicago shoots a bad guy with an illegal gun and is not charged. The SA won’t do it. Nuff said.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:27 am:
DD and Johnny C, this includes references to Wilmette and Oak Park cases where gunowners were charged under their village bans.
The application of the law, or lack thereof, is not black and white here are around the country where there are gun bans.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36162.html
- dupage dan - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:36 am:
wordslinger,
charged but not convicted. Important to note that the charges in the Wilmette case were not filed by the states attorney but by the village for violating the handgun ban. The case was ultimately dismissed.
- Ken in Aurora - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:47 am:
Uh, guys… I believe the question of prosecution for self-defense usage of a firearm in the People’s Republic of Chicago is is moot because of the following statute:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K24-10.htm
- Johnnyc - Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 4:32 pm:
What was your point again? That one case in Chicago where someone was not charged due to “lack of evidence” is in some way an aknowledgment by the City of Chicago that people should carry guns? Tortured logic at best.