Question of the day
Thursday, Aug 15, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* NBC 5…
Five teenagers were charged Tuesday evening after a 14-year-old boy was killed in a shooting that authorities say stemmed from an attempted car theft in the north suburbs, sparking a police chase that ended in dramatic arrests caught on camera in Chicago earlier in the day.
The five teens, one 16-year-old, three 17-year-olds and an 18-year-old were charged with first degree murder, according to police.
Although all four juveniles are being charged as adults, they are being held at Vernon Hills, while the oldest suspect, identified as Diamond C. Davis, is the only one who was sent to Lake County Jail.
“The teens were charged due to them being in commission of a forcible felony, when the 14-year-old victim was shot and subsequently died as a result of being shot during the commission of a burglary,” indicated the Lake County Sherrif’s Office in a statement.
* ABC…
Armed with a revolver, the homeowner told authorities he was standing on his porch, yelling at them to leave, when two of the individuals “quickly approached him,” Covelli said. The man said he saw that one of the teens “holding something in his hand,” so he discharged his firearm at least three times out of fear for his and his wife’s safety.
The homeowner then called 911 to request an ambulance, and the teens fled, Covelli said.
About three miles from the man’s home, officers from the Gurnee Police Department responded to a crash involving an SUV, Covelli said. When the officers approached the 2015 Lexus, two people exited the vehicle — one of whom had a gunshot wound to his head.
The four people who were still in the SUV fled the scene “at high rate of speed,” reaching 120 mph on Interstate 94 as they were chased all the way back to Chicago by law enforcement officers from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, the Gurnee Police Department and Illinois State Police.
* Tribune…
“The felony murder law is in place to discourage people from committing forcible felonies, because if someone dies during the commission of a forcible felony, then it’s first-degree murder,” [Lake County State’s Attorney Michael Nerheim] said.
Illinois is among the minority of states with the broadest possible application of the felony murder rule, said Steven Drizin, clinical law professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
Drizin said the scope of the Illinois law can be problematic, especially when defendants are teenagers, who tend to commit crimes in groups and are more impulsive and less deliberate in their actions.
“The legislature needs to act to narrow the scope of Illinois’ felony murder rule,” he said, citing the Lake County case as an example. “Especially in light of the fact that the penalties for both the underlying felony and murder are severe — and in the case of murder, mandatory. There is more than enough room to adequately punish these teenagers by sentencing them within the range of sentences for the burglary charge.”
* Dahleen Glanton…
House Bill 1615, introduced in January by state Rep. Justin Slaughter, D-Chicago, would ensure that anyone who does not personally inflict an injury during the course of a felony is not charged with first-degree murder. Only the culpable person would face charges. That’s how it should be for everyone, but especially for children. […]
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that youthful offenders lack maturity and are therefore more reckless and impulsive than adults. Anyone who has raised a teenager knows this.
It is wrong to charge teenagers with a murder they clearly did not intend to happen and likely never even considered might happen. […]
They fled in the stolen SUV, leading a bevy of law enforcement officials on a high-speed chase from Lake County to Chicago before running out of gas.
For that, they deserve to be punished. They do not deserve to spend decades of their young adult life behind bars for a murder they did not commit.
* The Question: Should Illinois’ felony murder rule be narrowed? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
bike trails
- Just Observing - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:30 am:
It is absolutely ridiculous that these teens would face murder charges. It might be one thing if they killed an innocent bystander while fleeing from the police or something, but the child that is dead was one of the perpetrators himself. Although I am troubled that the kid that was killed was only 14 and the other teens I believe were much older — so they likely pressured or coached this kid into coming along.
- NoGifts - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:31 am:
Voted yes because we know what murder is. If you aren’t killing someone you are not committing murder. You should not be charged for a crime you didn’t commit.
- Progressive Guy - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:32 am:
This is just horrible no matter how you slice it. The kids are old enough to know better. The homeowner (according to what I read above) called police only AFTER he shoots one of them to death. It’s a tragedy in every direction.
That said, for the crime of attempting to steal a car and threatening with a weapon, we have summarily sentenced one child to death already.
Charging people who commit crimes with murder if their victims die makes total sense. Charging them if their accomplices die seems seriously heavy handed. Their friend is dead. They are facing all sorts of charges already. It’s too much.
- OutOfState - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:32 am:
I agree it should be narrowed but not eliminated. In the case of teenagers, the rule places prosecutors and judges in a difficult position. But for adult criminals who can fully understand their complicity in deaths by their accomplices hands, the rule should remain.
- Lt. Guv - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:35 am:
I voted yes. The punishment should fit the crime. There’s a difference between murder and accessory to murder.
- Almost the weekend - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:38 am:
I disagree these teenagers drove all the way from Chicago to a small rural town in Lake County. They had plenty of time to think about their actions and consequences. And that’s not even including they were already driving in a stolen car. In a perfect world judges and prosecutors would be able to use their own discretion, but unfortunately history has showed that doesn’t work.
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:39 am:
Yes narrow the rule perhaps to not apply it for dead accomplices. These teens are facing a litany of other charges already and will face serious time even if the murder charge is dropped. Keep felony murder in place for situations where victims, bystanders, or police are killed.
- Nagidam - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:43 am:
Narrow it. I get the tough on crime argument that you are trying to deter this criminal behavior. But getting charged with murder because of someone else’s actions I think is unacceptable.
These young adults are being charged because a friend got killed by a guy defending his home. I don’t fault the homeowner but these kids did not set out to kill. In this instance if the homeowner was killed I think murder charges would apply.
- HJohn - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:43 am:
One other problem with this rule is it discourages whistleblowing among accomplices.
Imagine you agree to rob a store after hours, and after breaking in you find the owner is there, and your colleague kills them. If you blow the whistle on them, you get charged with murder, so you keep your mouth shut. Yes, it’s true that if they weren’t involved in the crime they wouldn’t have this problem, but that is another issue as to whether or not the person tagging along is a murderer.
There was a case documented on TV a while back where a guy loaned his care to his roommate, who killed his girlfriend. The guy who loaned him the car was asleep in his bed when the murder happened, but was charged with murder for loaning him the car because his roommate said “I’m gonna kill her.” How many times to people say that a figure of speech?
He cooperated with police, and ended up charged with murder as a reward. Wrong? perhaps. Murderer? not a chance. Not sure how this turned out.
- Jocko - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:46 am:
==The others did what you might expect immature, scared teenagers to do==
With respect to Ms. Glanton, I have to say “Umm, No.” Their actions suggest a considerable amount of illegal (likely criminal) activity in their short life.
- Steve - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:46 am:
I voted no. The law needs to deter individuals from crime. Hopefully , some people will think about not stealing cars.
- Klaus VonBulow - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:50 am:
I voted yes because of law enforcement and states attorney’s like this:
Former Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran says“wrong people” moved into Lake County
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:51 am:
No - Participate in a crime where someone is killed, you should pay the penalty. Charging a minor as an adult is a totally different question.
- Enviro - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:55 am:
Just Observing ==Although I am troubled that the kid that was killed was only 14 and the other teens I believe were much older — so they likely pressured or coached this kid into coming along.==
This is exactly why the teenagers should be in custody and charged with at least second degree murder.
- Collinsville Kevin - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:04 pm:
Voted yes. Dumb law.
- Cassandra - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:12 pm:
Yes, of course, but I’m wondering about the homeowner. Was it necessary to shoot the kid. Why not get/stay inside the house and call 911 and have the police handle it. No object (as, the car)
is that important.
This will probably not be a popular reaction in a country which is still deeply tied to its gun culture and a stand your ground mentality.
- Dotnonymous - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:15 pm:
Voted Yes…murder is a matter of degree.
My old man always admonished me to be careful who I rode with…and he was right.
Less guns…more parenting…are easy words to say.
- Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:17 pm:
Do those advocating for a lesser charge believe that people who are currently in jail under that statute should be resentenced/retried or released?
The driver of the stolen car put hundreds of people other drivers at risk during the chase. One does not only need to want harm someone, but can have craven right indifference to the well being of others.
What’s dumb is that this crew with a criminal record was let loose on the general public to continue in their criminal activities.
- Dotnonymous - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:19 pm:
Was it necessary to shoot the kid. - Cassandra
Although a matter for a court to decide…I had the same initial reaction.
- Responsa - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:27 pm:
This was one elderly armed homeowner late at night against a bunch of teen criminals. They took their shot buddy with them when they left and then dumped him and left him behind to be taken to the hospital by police at the accident site only later. Who knows if he could have been saved. There is nothing about this case that warrants sympathy for the teens. I have zero problem with the current law being applied to the others in this case.
- nope - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:37 pm:
here’s a difference between murder and accessory to murder.
No there isn’t. That’s called accountability doctrine.
- Enviro - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:37 pm:
This law is designed to stop and punish gang activity. We really need more laws to stop the gangs, not less. The teens in this case should at least face charges of second degree murder of this 14 year old child.
- West Sider - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:41 pm:
The punishment for car theft should be the punishment- there was no justification for arms( the homeowner could retreat) and there is no public interest in over charging the teenaged accomplices. To one here “deserved to die”- for an eight year old car.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:43 pm:
-No one here-
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:49 pm:
==Why not get/stay inside the house and call 911 and have the police handle it.==
Adrenaline. You’re expecting a logical response to an illogical act.
I’m surprised the assailants didn’t bail upon first contact. Why risk confrontation, unless that is the original intent?
- Blue Dog Dem - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:56 pm:
Voted no.
- Kane County Frank - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 12:56 pm:
We should keep it. How about, don’t commit felonies and then, you don’t have to worry about something going wrong and going to prison for murder?
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 1:07 pm:
IF you want laws to mean something and for those of us who want to obey the laws then you can’t leave this way. Murder should involve some direct or directly related activity that leads to death. These boys din’t go out to murder anyone. They should face appropriate punishment, not just restorative justice.
- A Jack - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 1:12 pm:
Voted yes. Manslaughter seems like the more appropriate charge, not first degree murder.
- sunshine state - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 1:14 pm:
Narrow it. There is a man in IDOC today who has been there since he was 13, because he waited in a car while his adult cousin went into a house to buy drugs and killed the dealer. The adult shooter has since been released but this man, who was 13 the night he waited in the car for his cousin, has now spent decades behind bars because of this law. It’s a waste of that kid’s life and the state’s resources.
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 1:16 pm:
No. Too bad for the kid’s family, who maybe should have known where the fourteen year old honors student was at 02:00. With respect to the homeowner, there should be a law on the books that prevents lawsuits against him for protecting his home and family. Illinois has no “duty to retreat” statute, thankfully.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 1:24 pm:
The whole story is incredibly sad. I had to piece together the facts from several stories.
The kids in the car were all relatives. The oldest is an 18 year old woman, two of the 17 year olds are her twin brothers, the other 17 year old, the sixteen year old, and the 14 year old who died are all cousins of everyone else in the car.
After fleeing the scene, they stopped to get help for the shot kid 15 to 20 min later– one of the 17 year olds got out of the car with the 14 year old and called out to the police for help. The other occupants of the car drove off.
The youngest kid, in particular, I can easily see how he could have been led astray by the others. And to me, he looks like a scared child in the pictures.
And even the woman, who knows what her relationship is with her brothers? Did they look up to her as the ringleader, or did they pull her along with them?
The whole thing is both tragic, and chaotic. I would support modifying the felony rule for juveniles *at least* to not apply when one of their number is shot by police or their victim or otherwise in self-defense.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 1:32 pm:
=== The driver of the stolen car put hundreds of people other drivers at risk during the chase. ===
And the driver should face charges for evading police, reckless driving, etc. — not murder.
- Newcomer - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 1:35 pm:
I voted as Yes. Young, impulsive kids do not always have the foresight to understand that by agreeing to steal something, they could end up on the hook for murder too.
- Dotnonymous - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 1:41 pm:
This is what Judges used to be for…analyzing facts and determining causes in order to impose the proper criminal sentence.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 2:30 pm:
Voted yes. Some state’s attorneys like to run on their murder conviction rate. When you count “accessories” as murders, it artificially inflates that conviction rate.
- A Well-Regulated Commenter - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 2:33 pm:
Voted yes. As others have said; charge them for the crimes they did commit, not the one they didn’t. Frankly, it’s ridiculous.
- Kim Foxx would have instead given them a ride to the next one - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 2:49 pm:
A group of teens driving 35 miles in a stolen vehicle to an exurban residence were not selling Cutco knives. They’re not out TP-ing a house spontaneously. They were involved in organized crime, and it’s been rampant. Police in Cook have had their hands tied. At the very least, all you (Steve Stone voice) youngsters out there will learn car theft and burglary in Lake County is a bad idea. At the best, those surviving and charged will sing.
My elderly mother lives alone in Lake County. The idea organized violent crime is moving north is terrifying.
- logic - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 3:02 pm:
I read that a knife was found near where the youths approached the elderly homeowner. I suspect they weren’t offering to cut up his food for him. the homeowner’s quick action may have saved his own and / or some other innocent person’s life.
- Enviro - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 3:11 pm:
@12:41 ==there is no public interest in over charging the teenaged accomplices==
Maybe it is in the public interest to stop what appears to be organized criminal gang activity from spreading into the suburbs.
- none - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 3:19 pm:
Some state’s attorneys like to run on their murder conviction rate.
No they don’t. Please cite an example.
- Pink Spruce - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 3:49 pm:
The felony-murder rule in Illinois should be narrowed from a causation theory (the crime caused the killing) to an agency theory (a criminal agent committed the killing), IMO.
- Myles Mannerd - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 4:58 pm:
No. These charges can and likely, will be pled down for some. They are all accomplices in this crime and responsible for the death of a 14 year old. You don’t get a pass for being “only the get away driver.”
- Nick - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 5:16 pm:
Yes.
These laws don’t have any use in terms of deterring crime. And they don’t serve any purpose in terms of actual justice. They should be charged for the crimes they actually committed, not for a hyped up charge they didn’t commit.
- Glenn - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 5:22 pm:
There is the question of whether the shooter was really protecting himself or only protecting his property.
If the thieves did not actually threaten deadly force then the shooting was not justified and the shooter should be charged with murder.
That’s the way I remember the CCL instruction was explained.
- Dan Johnson - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 6:11 pm:
Here is a good piece in the Sun-Times making the case for voting yes (actually abolishing it - we don’t have a misdemeanor-felony Rule because that is ridiculous on its face. We should charge people for their conduct not the conduct of others.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/8/15/20807715/felony-murder-rule-illinois-gurnee-teens-lake-county-restore-justice-jobi-cates
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 7:21 pm:
==If the thieves did not actually threaten deadly force then the shooting was not justified and the shooter should be charged with murder==
So what constitutes “threatening deadly force” when you are elderly, armed, on your own property, and a young intruder is running toward you (and can likely disarm you if he gets close enough)?
Please don’t forget that the homeowner is the victim here, and the (deceased) young man is one of the perpetrators. The homeowner should receive a marksmanship award, not criticism. I just don’t get “Illinois” sometimes.
- South Side Sam - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 8:19 pm:
Expect the charges will be dropped.
Oh wait. It happened in Lake County.
- Anon III - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 8:34 pm:
===They do not deserve to spend decades of their young adult life behind bars for a murder they did not commit. ===
Glanton and the Trib assume the question. The question is, did they commit a murder. The answer is yes. It has been for centuries under the felony murder rule. This is first semester law school stuff.
Did the 14 year old who was shot intend to die? Did his Chicago family expect their 14 year old would be shot in Lake County at 1:15 a.m.? No and no. It was the commission of a crime that was the cause of this death. The crime was intended.
Voted no.
- Glenn - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 8:38 pm:
Since I didn’t witness the offense I said “IF”.
“If the thieves did not actually threaten deadly force”
Nor did I write the law.
But you can count on that question being brought to the fore in a trial.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 9:50 pm:
A kid riding in a car has no idea what his friend might do an hour later. The felony murder law assumes a criminal conspiracy but doesn’t have to prove one. It’s too broad in its application.
- Jocko - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 10:11 pm:
==A kid riding in a car has no idea what his friend might do==
If the six of them are driving a stolen car at midnight on a Tuesday night to a suburb 35 miles north…one can assume it’s nothing good.
- Yooper in Diaspora - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 10:15 pm:
Just seems deeply wrong to charge with murder those who did not fire a weapon. There is plenty to rightly charge the teens with as it is.
- Joe Metro - Thursday, Aug 15, 19 @ 11:03 pm:
I’d sleep better if it was an aggravating factor and not its own charge. I’m not opposed in principle to the idea of holding co-offenders responsible for deaths that happen during a felony. I don’t like the idea of charging juveniles as adults with felony murder.
- Big Rock - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 12:16 am:
Hey, boys will be boys/S
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 12:19 am:
Glenn, this is the link to the statute. Nobody is going to confuse me with a lawyer, but I believe this case is covered in the first two paragraphs. If the facts are as reported, the kid didn’t even need to be holding a weapon; running at the homeowner would be grounds for self defense.
Personally, I think that Texas has it right, that a person should have the absolute right to protect themselves and their property.
- Just Me 2 - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 12:21 am:
Since only one man pulled the trigger only one man is guilty of murder, eh?
How many murders were there in the sponsor’s district last year? Maybe he should focus on lowering the crime rate; not on giving murders a break.
Example: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-double-murder-hit-charges-20190815-akwlp6wvcjdqtik2psygmjzz2i-story.html
- South Side Sam - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 6:55 am:
A 14 year old kid out at 1:00 AM on a school night ? Hard to understand why parents allow this .
- Tim - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 7:10 am:
They are charging based on the law in place, correct? Easy solution. Change the law. I voted no because I expect the prosecutors to follow the law as it is written, not how they would like it to be. Simple concept that seems to be too difficult for many to grasp. Don’t like the law? Re-write it and get it passed.
- NoGifts - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 8:09 am:
-Tim- I think the question was if the law should be changed.
- Glenn - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 9:54 am:
—running at the homeowner would be grounds for self defense.—
If that is the law then the jury will be the finder of fact.
It has not yet been determined that the 14 year old deceased had been running at the shooter.
Many in this forum have prejudged the facts of this case.
My interest is the in what the outcome of a trial will be after the facts have been judged and determined.
If it was not the 14 year old who ran at the shooter, then what is the shooter’s responsibility for shooting at someone other than the person who caused the shooter to fear for his life.
Was the 14 year old shot in the back of his head, indicating that the presentation of the gun, or that a previous shot that may have missed had caused the 14 year old to run away.
My wife and I were once targeted by two men for a robbery but they ran away after they saw me reach for my gun.
I did not attempt to administer justice by shooting at their backs.
- Anonymous - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 1:33 pm:
==It has not yet been determined that the 14 year old deceased had been running at the shooter.
Many in this forum have prejudged the facts of this case==
For that matter, it hasn’t been legally determined that the 14 yo or the homeowner were even involved, both you and I are making our assumptions based on what was reported in the news and related here. Obviously, the facts of the case will be established in court. And if they are as were reported (with the kid running toward the homeowner), I believe the statute allows him to avoid prosecution. I guess we’ll see. You got lucky with the “They ran when they saw me reach for my gun” story, typically that’s not how that turns out. You were correct not to throw shots at a fleeing perp.
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 1:34 pm:
Sorry, 1:33 was me.
- revvedup - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 2:38 pm:
To Anonymous at 1:33, who stated the line about “They ran when they saw me reach for my gun”. Actually that happens about 70% or more according to research; amazing things happen when bad people suddenly realize their intended victims won’t be.
And YES to maintaining the felony-murder rule as is, because it places blame where it belongs–on criminals and accomplices.
- Glenn - Friday, Aug 16, 19 @ 3:22 pm:
A few years ago a man and a woman were assaulted by two young men in Park Ridge near my home while walking home from a fireworks display.
One of the assaulting young men was entering college in the fall. The victim stabbed his assaulter numerous times and the stabbing was found to be justified.
I have been troubled by the thought that had he attacked me he may have died from gunshot wounds.
Plus the thought that my neighbors knew that I shot their young white son would have been very uncomfortable.