Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
A Cook County grand jury has declined to indict a man on a first-degree murder charge in connection with a December shooting that left a woman dead when she was struck by a stray bullet in Austin.
The case appears to be the first of it’s kind brought in the county since the state’s felony murder statute was changed as part of the SAFE-T Act — a landmark criminal justice reform bill that became state law last year.
The rewritten felony murder law was designed to narrow who could be charged with the state’s most serious offense — which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison — to a person alleged to be directly responsible for committing the murder. […]
Andrews faces a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. None of the current charges are eligible for probation. […]
“For decades, the legal system has relied on the practice of overcharging to coerce guilty pleas. Specifically, the felony murder rule has enabled the state to prosecute people for someone else’s actions, and sometimes even the state’s own actions,” the [Cook County Public Defender’s] office said. “As a result, far too many people in Illinois have served or are serving decades-long sentences for murders they did not commit and did not intend for anyone else to commit.”
* Richard Irvin campaign…
In response to the news that a man responsible for the shooting death of an innocent bystander will escape charges for her death due to JB Pritzker’s pro-criminal law, Mayor Richard Irvin released the following statement:
“An innocent life was lost, and the violent criminal will not be held accountable for her death because of the dangerous policies in JB Pritzker’s pro-criminal law. Unfortunately this is just the beginning of increases in crime and violence as more parts of this law take effect. Illinoisans deserve to feel safe in their communities, and need a Governor who will protect the working class over the criminal class.”
Just yesterday, Irvin launched a petition to repeal the dangerous anti-police policies that have empowered criminals and crippled law enforcement throughout Illinois.
I’ve asked the governor’s campaign for a response.
* Media advisory…
MEDIA ADVISORY: HGOP Calls for Repeal of SAFE-T Act After Pritzker Law Lets Criminal Evade Justice
WHO: House Republican Leader Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs), Representatives Patrick Windhorst (R-Metropolis), Dan Ugaste (R-Geneva).
WHAT: House Republican legislators will discuss the devastating real life consequences of abolishing Illinois’ felony murder rule, a critical component of the SAFE-T Act.
WHEN: 11 AM on Wednesday, February 9, 2022.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell, Jr…
Hey Rich, the SAFE-T Act did not abolish the felony murder rule, it just changed it.
Now to be charged with felony murder, you or another participant in the underlying felony have to be the cause of the death.
So if people A, B and C were accused of robbing a bank together and either A, B or C killed D; A, B and C can still all be charged with felony murder no matter who pulled the trigger.
The change basically says to be charged with felony murder, you or someone in your group has to be accused of murdering someone.
The rule was routinely abused; cops chasing someone in a car, the cops runs into someone in a chase, they charge the guy being chased with murder.
…Adding… Restore Justice Illinois…
In 2021, Illinois narrowly tailored its felony-murder rule. The necessary change only ensures someone is culpable for first-degree murder before they face our state’s harshest possible punishment.
Today, Illinois House Republican members are holding a press conference to call for repeal of the SAFE-T Act and to mislead the public about the scope of the Act’s changes to the felony-murder rule.
FACTS
• The SAFE-T Act did not abolish the felony-murder rule.
• The change brought Illinois into line with the majority of other states.
• Under the current law, prosecutors may still charge people with felony murder in a variety of scenarios.
• The SAFE-T Act only narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule. It removes the possibility of charging a person with first-degree murder when the killing was committed by a third party (i.e. a store owner or a police officer).
• Felony-murder is still a viable charge, and prosecutors can continue to use it to hold people accountable for deaths caused by themselves or other participants in the underlying felony.
• Lesser - but still severe - charges are always available in cases where felony murder is not appropriate. Many of these charges include long prison sentences with no possibility of parole or early release due to rehabilitation.Before the SAFE-T Act, Illinois had one of the broadest felony murder laws in the country. People were charged with first-degree murder when a police officer, store owner, or other third party killed someone. Some states don’t have felony-murder laws, and in the majority of those that do, people can only be held accountable for deaths they or their co-defendants cause. The SAFE-T Act moved Illinois into that category.
Under the current law, a person can be charged with murder when they or their co-defendant directly cause the death but not when a third party kills someone.
Charging people with felony-murder, which is first-degree murder and carries a minimum sentence of 20 years (45 years if a gun is used), is an overreach in cases in which a third party kills a co-defendant. People convicted of first-degree murder today must serve their entire sentences; Illinois does not offer time off for rehabilitation nor does it offer parole-for-release opportunities to people 21 and over convicted of murder.
Long sentences do not deter crime. They continue to cause pain in the communities already torn apart by violence and over-incarceration. We need evidence-based responses to violence in Illinois’s communities.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Pritzker campaign…
Travis Andrews is facing a serious sentence, which will result in him going to prison for a long time if he is found guilty. Additionally, prosecutors still have a host of other charges available to them. The fearmongering from Republicans continues to know no bounds. Richard Irvin knows better than anyone the severity of felony charges without the possibility of parole, considering his marketing materials and how much money he’s made freeing criminals from accountability. The GOP’s near-constant exploitation of crime for their personal, political gain is disappointing, but not at all surprising.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:20 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I thought the murder was bad but then I read the part about Republicans pouncing.
Comment by PounceDoer Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:31 am
The felony murder rule runs contrary to the general principal of our criminal law that people should be punished for their own acts and not the acts of others. In this case, the victim was shot by someone other than Andrews. Andrews should be charged with all his other crimes, and the actual shooter should be charged for the killing, if appropriate. This is a terrible tragedy, but this reform was needed and should remain in place.
Comment by Actual Red Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:31 am
So he’s still being charged for the crimes be actually committed
And not for the ones he didn’t
And thr GOP wants people to call this an evasion of justice?
Comment by Nick Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:41 am
We know prosecutors lie. We know Cook County prosecutors lie. We know that James Murphy, specifically, is a Cook County prosecutor who lies. How would James Murphy know what happened in supposedly secret grand jury proceedings?
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:44 am
Someone who did not commit first degree murder is not being charged with first degree murder. This is a good thing.
There is little rhyme or reason to punishments on the books, let alone how they’re applied. Van Dyke got less than 4 years for shooting a deranged kid who was walking around him, avoiding him. But Irvin thinks this person deserves 20? Minimum?
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:45 am
Unfortunately, felony murder has not been abolished.
Comment by Get real Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:48 am
On the other hand, in Georgia, the murder of Arbery, all 3 men basically got the same sentence even though only 1 was the shooter. But because chasing the guy down was a felony, they all were on the hook for murder. Just doesn’t make sense to me. Honestly wonder if supporters of this change would publicly say it’s bad the 2 non shooters got a felony murder wrap.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:50 am
So Sad that Melinda Crump an innocent person was killed due to the criminal actions of another. Due to the so-called criminal justice reform, this defendant will escape a lengthy prison sentence. Call it reform all you want the Dems’ own this, and it will play strong in the 2022 election.
From the Sun-Times…
“In years past, prosecutors routinely charged defendants with murder if someone died during a crime — even someone shot by police responding to a crime. Those cases will also be harder to bring under the new law”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:51 am
Did I missread the article? They charged a guy that didn’t fire the shot with murder? But, they haven’t charged the person who did fire the shot?
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 8:56 am
Perrid, spot on.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:02 am
== Andrews faces a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. None of the current charges are eligible for probation. ==
So the gripe here is instead of facing 20 years he’s facing 14 years? Gimme a break.
Cops should do some police work and find the actual triggerman if they want someone to charge with murder.
Comment by ChicagoVinny Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:03 am
Seems like they could easily fix the law to address situations where an individual discharged a firearm. The typical pushback against felony murder stemmed from cases where someone was sitting in a car as a lookout for a burglary and would end up getting the death penalty because the co-conspirator ended up murdering someone.
Comment by Chicagonk Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:09 am
Perrid, no. If they didn’t murder someone, they should not have been charged with murder. Accessory to murder would work (if GA has that as a charge that can be brought).
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:15 am
This is why I was shocked JB and the DPI have gone after Irvin’s defense career.
Why on earth would you make this election about “soft on crime” when, as OW says, Governors own?
Comment by SWSider Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:18 am
Those pesky Republicans are always pouncing.
Comment by Hamlet on the Potomac Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:21 am
==We know that James Murphy, specifically, is a Cook County prosecutor who lies. How would James Murphy know what happened in supposedly secret grand jury proceedings?==
This was completely disproven. He didnt lie. Please catch up.
the PDs Office has forever fought against felony murder because they don’t like lookouts getting convicted. Are we cool with that? The insanity of the felony murder rule now is that it is no different than plain old accountability. If you intend, you get charged. What this reform did, was let a man who started a gunfight, in public, resulting in the death of a grandma, will not be held accountable. He didnt intend to kill? what, was he shooting to warn? This will not be the only example.
Comment by laughable accountability Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:25 am
“As a result, far too many people in Illinois have served or are serving decades-long sentences for murders they did not commit and did not intend for anyone else to commit.” - Cook County Public Defender’s Office. they just drove the car, planned the burglary, directed someone into the path of a man with a gun, never thought there would be any danger….
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:26 am
==this defendant will escape a lengthy prison sentence==
He will, assuming the prosecutors have the goods, get the proper sentence for the crimes he committed.
==Why on earth would you make this election about “soft on crime” when, as OW says, Governors own? ==
I’m sorry, who, exactly, do you think wants to make crime a major issue in the election? =
Why on earth would you make this election about “Soft on crime” when you’re a practicing defense attorney?
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:26 am
=== This is why I was shocked JB and the DPI have gone after Irvin’s defense career.
Why on earth would you make this election about “soft on crime” when… Governors own?===
What is it, “go after your opponent’s strength” kinda thing?
They may be trying to make things “Irvin”, and try to define Irvin before Irvin can define himself?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:26 am
===The rule was routinely abused; cops chasing someone in a car, the cops runs into someone in a chase, they charge the guy being chased with murder.===
This is the primary reason why it was changed. It was another example of how police were not being held accountable for their behavior and was perceived as causing reckless behavior to continue unabated in addition to being explicitly unjust.
Maybe it’s not unjust to the political party that defines itself by loyalty to Donald Trump and has prioritized defending their members who declared war on the American people, but from a neutral standpoint charging someone with 1st degree murder when they did not directly cause the death seems pretty unjust and was out of line with what other nations are doing.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:27 am
==Honestly wonder if supporters of this change would publicly say it’s bad the 2 non shooters got a felony murder wrap. ==
I would. People should get punished for the crimes they commit, not the crimes people standing next to them commit. It’s not a hard concept, and if it means some guys I find repugnant get shorter sentences, well, my personal distaste is not and should not be a factor in meting out justice.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:28 am
The update makes it seem like my “counterexample”, the Arbery murder, may not actually be a counterexample. My bad
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:31 am
Were second degree murder or manslaughter charges presented to the grand jury? If not, this is prosecutorial malpractice.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:31 am
==Instead, prosecutors argued Andrews was responsible for Crump’s death because he started a shootout.
Andrews allegedly told detectives he had gone to Austin to buy marijuana when someone in the dealer’s car threatened his girlfriend. Andrews got a .380-caliber revolver from his mother’s house and later fired it at someone he saw standing a block away, prosecutors said.
That person, who hasn’t been identified, fired back at Andrews, and shell casings found where they had been standing matched the bullet that killed Crump, prosecutors said. ==
Ask the average voter if they think the guy who started the shootout should be charged with murder even if it wasn’t their round that killed someone during the shootout. How do you think they will answer? This isn’t the guy waiting in the car when someone sticks up a gas station. This plays into some of the biggest fears (rational or not) about crime, people indiscriminately firing guns and an innocent bystander getting killed.
It’s going to make a heck of an ad for the ’soft on crime’ narrative and it’s going to be tough to counter with a logical rational argument.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:34 am
Reposting my regular reminder: sentence enhancements (including the felony murder rule) do nothing to actually reduce crime.
In this particular case, the defendant can still be charged with attempted murder because he still started a shootout with a drug dealer. Attempted murder carries the same sentence as felony murder would.
This is literally meaningless from a practical standpoint, and the entire article is just fake outrage by people who want voters mad.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:35 am
==Ask the average voter==
Criminal justice is not, and ought not, be decided by a poll.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:36 am
Surprised this whole case hasn’t been tossed due to the mutual combat rule.
Comment by Brian Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:37 am
===This is why I was shocked JB and the DPI have gone after Irvin’s defense career===
Irvin is criticizing Pritzker’s pardons and clemency approaches after having earned a significant income helping people that were guilty of the crimes they committed receive lesser sentences and be convicted on lesser charges. If the political process was really a straightforward debate between two parties in front of a neutral audience, Richard Irvin would avoid illustrating that not only is he onboard with the idea of pardons and commuting sentences, that he made a career of doing that for pay.
So what’s to stop him from implementing a pay for pardon approach similar to the former Governor of Kentucky? After all, he believes in the right to a legal defense and due process — but only if you pay him for it.
Police unions and individual LEOs have flocked to support the Republicans because the Democrats sought to enact reforms that would hold police accountable for crimes that they commit while in uniform, police misconduct, and when they outright murder other people. The people who identify as “pro-police” in the United States are not actually in favor of a justice system or due process, they’re in favor of a status quo that was developed and established during a time where police forces deliberately and intentionally oppressed people of color and ignored crimes committed against victims of color while also brutalizing those same people themselves.
“Law and order” is just a label. It has nothing to do with the motives. “Pro-police” is just a stand in for “white supremacist.” You could argue it’s not a dog whistle, but the Republicans have been using coded racist language for decades and “Pro-police” is the new “protect our neighborhoods.”
In the long run it doesn’t really matter what kind of position the Pritzker campaign takes on this issue because they aren’t courting the white nationalist/pro-police oppression of people of color vote and the people who are motivated by the political positions that Richard Irvin and the other GOP elected officials and candidates are putting forward don’t actually care about justice or law and order.
They want the police to oppress people who they don’t like and that’s what they’ve wanted since 1865. It’s just new labels for an old concept that has nothing to do with justice.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:46 am
I wonder what that ‘routinely abused’ means.
Comment by Blue Dog Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:53 am
I appreciate the effort on this blog to bring actual context and facts to this discussion as opposed to what I know a lot of other news outlets will do. I especially appreciate when Rich reaches out to or prints statements from experts in the field who explain things plainly that they deal with every day.
In the summer of 2020 a whole bunch of folks in and around politics and media marched, posted black squares on their social media, and declared that “things need to change.” Thankfully some things did change. And now many of the same people are using those changes to try and swing us all back to the same system that took us to a place where we needed to march and speak out. I grow tired of the same GOP playbook over and over again that finds some community to demonize or hold up as a bogeyman to get votes. I want them to be better than that but they really aren’t.
Comment by Anchors Away Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:54 am
“HGOP Calls for Repeal of SAFE-T Act”
Get rid of the police body cam requirements, because some guy who didn’t murder someone isn’t being charged with murder.
Sure. That seems like a rational response to this issue.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:54 am
===This plays into some of the biggest fears (rational or not) about crime, people indiscriminately firing guns and an innocent bystander getting killed. ===
This sort of thing happened at the Oakbrook shopping center. Where did they get the idea that they could shoot wildly in a crowded shopping mall? They were out of Cook County and their violent habits spilled over into DuPage County. Irvin is going after the voters who think these crimes should be cracked down on.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:56 am
== And now many of the same people==
I don’t think it’s really that many of the same people, although obviously one candidate for Governor has been all over the place on the issue.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:59 am
= - Nefarious Veneer - Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:22 am:
Never forget that Jim Durkin is from the DuPage County political era that brought an end to the death penalty because of prosecutorial misconduct and scandalous abuses. =
Durkin is not from Dupage County politics - he’s from Cook and was a Cook County States Attorney. We are trying to reduce misinformation, not encourage it.
Comment by ponderings Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:02 am
==Where did they get the idea that they could shoot wildly in a crowded shopping mall?==
I think you’ll find that most criminals have a rather disordered thought process and aren’t really responding to cues from the political process.
==Irvin is going after the voters who think these crimes should be cracked down on. ==
And cashing checks from the criminals, you left that part out, I can’t imagine why.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:10 am
@Oneman- asking people what they think and letting the mob make the decisions are not the same thing.
I probably fall into the tough on crime crowd, but sitting back an looking at this rationally it appears the law has been applied appropriately. They guy still faces numerous charges, serious charges, for the crimes he committed.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:10 am
==Ask the average voter==
Criminal justice is not, and ought not, be decided by a poll.
Arsenal - Isn’t that exactly what a jury trial amounts to?
Comment by Papa2008 Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:15 am
@- Homebody - Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 9:35 am:
===Reposting my regular reminder: sentence enhancements (including the felony murder rule) do nothing to actually reduce crime. ===
Violent criminals in prison are not going to carjack, rob, or murder people as long as they are locked up.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:19 am
==Arsenal - Isn’t that exactly what a jury trial amounts to? ==
Nope. Judges, jury instructions, and the appeals process exist.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:20 am
=Isn’t that exactly what a jury trial amounts to?=
Jurors are tasked with weighing the facts and law to determine if a defendant is guilty. They are given specific instructions to that effect. A poll is nothing more than an attempt to gauge unfettered opinions. And yes, we would not want criminal justice to be decided on polls. When certain crimes become “popular” amongst a group violent insurrections are easily dismissed as “legitimate political discourse.”
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:20 am
find charges possible for those who start violent and criminal actions. I do not feel sorry for them, I feel pain for the victims.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:23 am
== Criminal justice is not, and ought not, be decided by a poll. ==
Between the election of Judges, States Attorneys, and legislators who draft and pass laws, criminal justice is determined ultimately by voters. If elections are anything, they are very effective polls.
In a way the nature of our criminal justice system to a large degree is determined by a poll every couple of years.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:28 am
If the felony murder guilt-by-association type playbook is okay, then let’s see the Repubs sponsor a felony murder for cops rule: charge all the officers who were on scene with Jason Van Dyke with murder in the death of Laquan McDonald (or any citizen). What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Since the “law and order” (small town and exurban white people) types want criminal charges enhanced, how about serious felony 10-20 years penalties for cops who falsify reports? If it was up to these guys and the police unions, police would not even be wearing body cams.
Comment by Payback Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:30 am
==In a way the nature of our criminal justice system to a large degree is determined by a poll every couple of years. ==
“In a way” and “to a large degree” are doing an awful lot of work in this sentence.
The fact remains that criminal culpability is determined by a trial with a finder of fact tasked to determine if they are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal defendant committed all of the elements of a crime. Not by “the average voter” saying whether or not someone “should” go to jail.
You don’t have to like it, but a huge portion of our criminal justice system, including about a third of the Bill of Rights, is designed to insulate trials from the political process.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:36 am
@Pappa2008. Jury trials vs polls
Juries hear the details and context of the event from the perspectives of the prosecution and defense. Poll’s don’t offer those perspectives. The GOP’s relentless efforts to keep the status quo with their white nationalist base Is despicable.
Comment by Froganon Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:45 am
==Juries hear the details and context of the event from the perspectives of the prosecution and defense.==
More to the point, juries are tasked solely with establishing the facts of a situation. If facts A, B, and C are true, then the Defendant committed a crime. It’s not about “should” it’s about “is”. Well, “was”. You’ll excuse some artful conjugation, lol.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 10:55 am
Something doesn’t add up here. Under the Public Defender’s description of the new law, this incident seems like it could still be charged as a murder. And remember, grand juries are a tool for prosecutors (insert cliche about indicting a ham sandwich.) If this grand jury was unwilling to approve murder charges, it might be because the states’ attorney didn’t push it. I have a hard time believing a group of ordinary citizens in the grand jury room at 26th Street knows the details of the SAFE-T Act.
Comment by Roman Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 11:02 am
All of the soft on crime nonsense was pure pandering to progressives and equity advocates. Guess what - all we got was more crime along with innocent victims as the criminals go unpublished
Comment by Sue Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 11:05 am
==as the criminals go unpublished ==
Personally, I don’t think criminals should get book deals.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 11:11 am
From Restore Justices update;
–• The SAFE-T Act only narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule. It removes the possibility of charging a person with first-degree murder when the killing was committed by a third party (i.e. a store owner or a police officer).–
Now I’m curious, do we charge a Store Owner in that case? That doesn’t seem right either. Seems wrong to blame the person who’s simply at work for trying to defend themselves from a criminal assault.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 11:19 am
@JS Mill
I’d get this if it was someone driving the car.
==So if people A, B and C were accused of robbing a bank together and either A, B or C killed D; A, B and C can still all be charged with felony murder no matter who pulled the trigger.
The change basically says to be charged with felony murder, you or someone in your group has to be accused of murdering someone. ==
Whilst the person you were shooting at wasn’t part of your ‘group’ but the person you fired at then returned fire and struck someone else and killed them I think a murder charge shouldn’t be out of the question. He didn’t fire in self-defense because his life was at immediate risk. He shot at a guy who was likely out of range who was standing there. I think most people would think they should have responsibility for the final outcome of their actions and the chain of events they started in what seems to be more or less the same event.
I get and agree where the approximate cause is a stretch. The chase example makes sense to me.
I guess I don’t see the first person to start shooting to start a gun battle where the result is someone dead isn’t a stretch. I don’t see why they shouldn’t be charged with murder just because it was the other party that fired the fatal shot. It seems the explanation is that if someone started shooting on ‘his side’ and with him and killed someone he could be charged with murder in that case, but because the guy who fired the fatal shot isn’t on ‘his side’ he shouldn’t be. It seems shooting at someone from a distance results in someone getting shot as a direct or indirect result of you shooting at someone isn’t a huge stretch of proximity.
If the guy he shot at, shot someone 30 minutes later looking for the guy, totally with you there. But this, man it seems you should have criminal liability for the results of the gun battle you started not just for the nature of your participation.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 11:23 am
=Guess what - all we got was more crime along with innocent victims as the criminals go unpublished=
Well today is your lucky day because not only is Andrews being punished by Rich is publishing it.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 11:29 am
“The GOP’s near-constant exploitation of crime for their personal, political gain is disappointing, but not at all surprising.”
Yep. It’s who they are and have been for so long, stoking reactionary white fear of the black and brown criminal and throwing more jails and cops at the problem—that and making the richest even richer while cutting/opposing government help for lower-income urban communities.
The ILGOP could start being a change party if it ditched white fear and went with a holistic approach, but it’s impossible with that base. When Griffin jumps in, it will probably be torrents of white fear exploitation.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 11:42 am
Until there are a line of republicans condemning January 6th, condemning statements of cover up and denial about an effort to overturn a legitimate election, condemning the type of attacks on Deb Conroy, condemning misrepresentation of law intended to infuriate a segment of your base inappropriately… Until that line forms and until that condemnation is done in the strongest and most direct way… why should any of us listen to anything that they have to say? Time to return to truth and honesty, and acting with honor and integrity. Otherwise… I for one won’t give you or your message the time of day.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 11:43 am
@ Dupage:
== Violent criminals in prison are not going to carjack, rob, or murder people as long as they are locked up. ==
You’re talking about specific deterrence (preventing a particular individual from engaging in repeat behavior). I’m talking about general deterrence, i.e. discouraging an offender from committing the act in the first place.
Sentencing enhancements do not work at all as a form of general deterrence. Americans fetishize punishment, and it has not only failed to reduce crime in any meaningful way, but it also has been a massive drain on our resources for no useful reason other than satisfying lust for vengeance.
Sentencing length for individuals should absolutely be particularized and appropriate to the individual, and yes, likelihood of re-offending could and likely should be a factor at the time you decide to sentence. But I am definitely against mandatory minimums or unnecessary enhancements which do not directly relate to a useful, evidence-based purpose.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 11:59 am
Mitchell’s description reminds me of the guy in American History X who was working in the laundry with Edward Norton who stole a TV and was charged when he dropped it and broke the foot of the officer chasing him.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 12:26 pm
Man some bitter people on here today. Standing up hard for a law that’s going to have serious election ramifications.
Will the Dems in the city lose seats over the SAFE-T Act? No don’t see that happening.
Will Dems in the Cook suburbs and collars lose because of this? I’d bet one or two at least. People move to suburbs for schools, and safe neighborhoods. The SAFE-T Act is going to be played heavily in suburban races. As it should be.
Comment by Tomorrow is yesterday Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 12:29 pm
===. Guess what - all we got was more crime along with innocent victims as the criminals go unpublished
But this guy is being punished. Seriously, did anyone read the story? Or is anyone going to ask why the District Attorney didn’t file an appropriate charge for the death? Nothing stopped them from doing that.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 12:30 pm
===Standing up hard for a law that’s going to have serious election ramifications.===
Now do that for Abortion.
I’d wait a few months (… and months) before predicting anything in the suburbs.
Otherwise… Irvin woulda clarified his own abortion position… and not default to “crime”
It’s so early, petitions aren’t *even* filed
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 12:32 pm
==Standing up hard for a law that’s going to have serious election ramifications.==
It’s really something that the most repeated defense of charging someone for a crime that someone else committed is “oh boy this’ll be good negative ads against the Democrats”.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 12:32 pm
Biden cleaned Sanders’ clock in the primary, which may indicate that “defund the police” is a fringe movement and not representative of many Democratic voters. Police do one of the noblest and toughest jobs. It’s great that the Biden bailout got more funding for them, and anything that helps them. Doing that job, they deserve great pay, benefits, job protections and the rest.
However, let’s also listen to those who are in great pain over institutional racism, who could be the next victims of it. They are being demonized and called things like “woke mob” clearly to trigger fear and hatred. Violent crime and police reform seem like things all sides could and should work on, instead of fear hustling and only throwing more police and jail at the problems.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 12:48 pm
I prosecuted Antonio Lowery in the 1990s in a jury trial in which he was found guilty of felony murder. He and two young men stuck-up three other young men, who were walking in a Chicago neighborhood on their way to the Riviera to see a concert. One of the victims gained control one the gun, fired one shot at the fleeing Lowery, and accidentally shot and killed a woman named Norma Sergent who was walking at the intersection a block away. The Illinois Supreme Court had this to say: “It is equally consistent with reason and sound public policy to hold that when a felon’s attempt to commit a forcible felony sets in motion a chain of events which were or should have been within his contemplation when the motion was initiated, he should be held responsible for any death which by direct and almost inevitable sequence results from the initial criminal act.” https://casetext.com/case/people-v-lowery-47
Comment by Retired prosecutor Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 1:04 pm
I’m sure the white liberals will gladly let Andrews move into their neighborhood after he serves his 14 years sentence.
Just like the Equality Gala. Do as I say not as I do.
Comment by Almost the Weekend Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 1:13 pm
==I’m sure the white liberals==
What a weird demographic cohort to highlight, given that we know that the law in question was drafted and pushed by the Legislative Black Caucus.
==will gladly let Andrews move into their neighborhood after he serves his 14 years sentence==
And you must’ve misread that law, because it doesn’t limit our options to “convict him of a crime that someone else committed” or “be glad when he moves in to your neighborhood.” I can find someone distasteful and still not think they’re guilty of any particular crime. I’m a practicing attorney, I can assure you that my personal distaste is not a factor in any criminal statute.
That being said…I live across the street from a convicted criminal. I’ve shared an apartment building with people struggling to leave behind the drug trade. I can’t say I always enjoyed it, but I would suggest that it’s a lot more common than you seem to think.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 1:23 pm
“So what’s to stop him from implementing a pay for pardon approach similar to the former Governor of Kentucky? After all, he believes in the right to a legal defense and due process — but only if you pay him for it”
Wow, this is a pretty big leap. I’ve yet to meet an attorney who is pro bono all the time. I hope we all believe in due process and the right to mount a legal defense. Irvin being a defense attorney and preaching a tough on crime approach is contradictory for sure. But the job of a defense attorney is to mount a competent legal defense for his/her client. Let’s not pretend Irvin is the only defense attorney in Illinois who gets paid to defend alleged (and actual) criminals and tries to get them the best deal possible.
Comment by Note checker Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 1:46 pm
If these guys really want to use this case to sway voters, wouldn’t it help to explain what actually happened in the case? None of their comments make any sense without context.
Comment by The Velvet Frog Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 2:06 pm
==If these guys really want to use this case to sway voters, wouldn’t it help to explain what actually happened in the case?==
Probably not- “when you’re explaining, you’re losing”. But you have identified a hurdle in this story getting to critical mass.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 2:18 pm
So it’s hard to imagine a ton of public outrage over a 14 year sentence for a guy who didn’t fire the bullet. If this is the best “soft on crime” example they can find they’re not in good shape.
Comment by The Velvet Frog Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 2:33 pm
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 12:48 pm:
You might want to pull out a calendar and review your timeline of events.
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 3:24 pm
=== You might want to pull out a calendar and review your timeline of events.===
What timeline? Most of us were there, maybe a few of us lived in a cave at the time.
1.” Biden cleaned Sanders’ clock in the primary.”True.
2.”..defund the police” is a fringe movement.” True
3.”Biden bailout got more funding for them.” True
After that some great opinions.
Maybe you should visit your friend Google. It must feel neglected.
Comment by Da big bad wolf Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 3:37 pm
“all 3 men basically got the same sentence”… because all three men acted in concert in order to corral and murder a Black man…attempting to run away…from three assailants blocking his escape.
Comment by Dotnonymous Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 3:50 pm
=== I’m sure the white liberals will gladly let Andrews move into their neighborhood after he serves his 14 years sentence.===
“gladly let”
How does this “letting” process work?
=== That being said…I live across the street from a convicted criminal.===
My boss mentioned he was an excon about five years after I started working for him. I was surprised. You know how it is, you spend more time with the people you work with than your own family. He was the nicest guy. I never asked him what for and he never mentioned it again.
Comment by Da big bad wolf Wednesday, Feb 9, 22 @ 6:42 pm