If the firefighter had let the thief drive away, could the firefighter be charged with aiding and abetting?

Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against a person who, through criminal negligence, allows another person to die.

A person who leaves car running with keys in it is negligent.
Wonder if he would leave his wallet on a counter while he went back to get something he forgot while in a store.
I grew up in NYC area. I NEVER leave keys in a car or unlocked. Plus wallet is carried in 1 front pocket , Airweight in other

Why are we searching for made up reasons to make somebody a criminal?

So if I leave my front door unlocked and cracked open while I'm in the back yard, I'm negligent?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I won't comment whether the shooting was justified or unjustified (more so because we don't have all the details), however, in my thinking it's advantageous that these things happen. While I personally would not shoot someone driving my car away, the car thief does not know that. The more of them that get shot adds to their worry that I might, and makes it less likely I will ever need to draw. Further, if I do draw, the robber has no idea if I'm a rational legal expert who wouldn't shoot unless a specific set of conditions are met, or if I'm a trigger happy hot-head looking to poke some holes in his hide.

I don't care if the car was running with the door wide open. How is that really different, than if the door was locked and the keys in his pocket? Is it some how better to jump in a running car that doesn't belong to you, than bust out the window, slide hammer out the ignition lock and then start it up and drive it away? Not one bit in my mind. It isn't yours to do either. Is it smart to leave your car running and the door unlocked? Not in most places, but, then, in Montana in the winter time most parking lots you could take your pick of several cars. Heck, I am sitting in Washington state and my pickup is 900 miles away sitting outside an empty house with the keys dangling in the ignition. Its still my truck, it still stealing to take it. How hard it is to take hasn't got anything to do with it. Taking some one else property without permission is thief. PERIOD. As far as I am concerned the world is now a better place, thanks to the Fireman.

Zero sympathy for junior and his total lack of morality. Yes, I do feel for his relatives, it always hurts to lose people. If one of my brothers decides to sky dive without a parachute, it will hurt me when he dies, despite the fact that I will know it was entirely his own fault. If he hadn't figure out it might be dangerous we have failed miserably as a family. What was he thinking??? What was the car thief thinking????

Do Stupid Stuff!
Win Stupid Prizes!

This thief qualifies for the Darwin Awards. The firefighter did a public service and took him out of the gene pool.

Here's why I think the unlocked, running car matters.

Walking up to an unoccupied running vehicle with the doors unlocked and stealing it is non-violent felony theft. The way I understand it a civilian can use physical force to stop non-violent felony theft, but not deadly force (except in a couple states).

Taking a vehicle by force (carjacking or armed robbery) is a violent, forcible felony where you can use deadly force pretty much anywhere.

The kid that got shot wasn't armed and from the article didn't threaten anyone. He just opened the door, got in the car, and tried to drive off.

I have two problems with it.

1) From the information in the article, it was an unjustified use of deadly force.

2) It looks to me like the fire dept LT, because he was a Chicago fire dept LT, got a free pass on something any other citizen would have been charged with. Especially in Chicago.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I'll have to look for the 80's SCOTUS decision on use of deadly force by police. IIRC unless IL law has changed fire fighters have the power to cite, and arrest. The decision basically said that if the fleeing felon was a danger to the public that deadly force was legal to stop the fleeing felon. Before this decision it was legal in IL to shoot a fleeing suspect of a forcible felony. It may be questionable since the vehicle was unlocked if it was a burglary.

No matter what I think though the prosecutor made the final decision whether to file charges. States attorneys in IL have long used the power to not prosecute crimes for various reasons.

While I agree there is a big difference between a car jacking and getting in a running car and driving away. There is NO difference between driving away in a running car and stealing one that is locked with no keys.

Thats like saying it is somehow better to rape a woman in a bikini in a park than one in a full length dress at home. The victim was negligent your honor because they made it easy for me for me to do something I knew was wrong? Thats such a great excuse

Do I think that the Fireman should get a pass and Joe citizen be prosecuted? No, I think they both should get a public service award. I personally believe people have the right to protect property of real value using deadly force. Don't want to have deadly force used? Don't steal. Pretty simple.

Montana at one time had lots of horse thieves and rustlers. It then had Vigilantes, Granville Stuart, and plenty of hangings. Now it doesn't have much rustling, horse theft, armed robbery, or for that matter car theft.

While both are theft locked/unlocked a case of breaking into a car is burglary in IL if laws have not changed. Burglary is a forcible felony.

Rape(sexual assault) is a forcible felony in IL. Though before the law was changed a spouse could not be raped by the other spouse. IIRC the law was changed sometime in the 80's.

If the thief was the ne'er do well son of a well connected father this story would probably be quite different,but it really boils down to whether he drove at the lt.or past him

My point about the rape's wasn't about whether either was forcible. Point was that it was no better to do it to an easy victim or a difficult one. Locked car verses running unlocked car. Either example the simple fact remains that no mater how easy the victim makes it for you to commit the crime, it is still a the same crime. Don't matter if it is a drunk passed out woman laying strip naked its still rape. Might be a real dumb position to put herself in, but it doen't make the perpetrator one bit better for taking advantage of the situation.

Pedestrians have the right of way. If I lay down in the middle of the highway I am liable to get ran over. Very True. Still does not give anyone the right to WILLFULLY run over me. If I leave my car running and the door unlocked it may well get stolen. But, you don't accidentally get in a running car and drive away or accidentally rape a passed out woman. YOU make a willful choice, knowing it is wrong. Just because the victim made it easy is ABSOLUTELY no excuse and changes nothing in my book.


The definition of a forcible crime isn't the point to me. Far as I am concerned (not IL) taking my property is a no no.

The judges, lawyers and legislators can argue about it all they want.

If somebody shoots some one who is stealing their property as far as I am concerned HOOORAY.

Would I shoot someone if I seen them get in my car and drive away?
Of course not. I do wonder if shooting holes in my own car while somebody was sitting in it would get me charged with reckless endangerment. I doubt it in Fergus County. Just a random thought. LOL

Yeah but if you step in front of the moving car, i would argue you are putting yourself in harms way & giving an excuse to shoot? Its a car, its insured, not worth the effort & hassle Imo. Unless you have guns in the trunk or a kid in tne backseat, call the cops & your ins.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Sorry, that is just a stupid statement. In most stayes, that is exactly what younare reqd to do.. Deadly force to prevent a theft is generally a prsecutable offense. Not saying that is right but it is the law.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

It may well be that the firefighter could articulate the manner in which the actions of the criminal did present a potentially lethal threat. The test is not whether the perception was factually correct, but whether the perception is reasonable. We don't know enough about the circumstances here to second guess the prosecutor's judgment of that, and since the event seems to have happened 10 months ago, it probably was not a snap decision by the State's Attorney. Given the biases of the Cook County SAO, I have to believe they had some serious thought before not charging. It may well be that they perceived that a jury of twelve decent people just might not care about the offender, too, or maybe the reviewing ASAs didn't no telling. I personally, and our office in general, have decided to not prosecute cases that might technically be crimes, because we knew that a jury would not convicted for any one of several reasons.

I cannot agree with the action of leaving the car running and unsecured - it's just dumb and there can be civil consequences if something bad were to result. It is a traffic infraction here and unlawful in most if not all places. Sometimes I have my car running for some reason, like needing AC for my dogs - but I carry a spare key and lock it.

The owner was legally entitled to run in front of the car in attempt to stop the offender, even if that was tactically stupid. I can easily see it being a visceral response, implemented before the rest of the possibilities came through the conscious mind.

There are lot of things one can critique about the way this happened. I won't advocate the course of action of the firefighter, nor will I say I would do the same thing. However, the "facts" presented in most news articles of this nature, especially when put forward by the apologists for the criminally feral (and his sister sure has to qualify for that status) are often incomplete if not just flat out wrong.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

fredj338: My statement about aiding and abetting was purely sarcastic.
I see the words"justified" and "unjustified" used in this thread a lot. It appears some folks may think the thief was "justified" because the car was running and the door open. And the firefighter was "unjustified" for protecting his property/life.
Maybe the firefighter was standing in front of his car and then moved out of the way when the thief started driving away. The firefighter was close enough that the thief saw him. The thief certainly heard the firefighter hollar to get out of the car. The thief had to have seen the firefighter draw his weapon.
This thief had a severe case of terminal dumba**

Even if they charged him our juries in Texas would let him off.
Car thieves, car jackers and thieves just won't get any sympathy in Texas. I like Texas law. And if there is no other
way to stop him from escaping with property it don't have to
be at night.

Texas Statute 9.41 (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

Sure. Let the insurance pay for it...and then we wonder why our insurance premiums keep going up and up.

There's a real simple reason for it. It's because we let the Charles Macklins of the world steal cars, wreck them, and get away...or receive minimal consequences for their actions...and we're fine as long as the insurance takes care of it. Right?

Obviously Macklin's sister doesn't understand that insurance companies aren't benevolent benefactors who just give out free money to unfortunate victims of her brother's felonious crimes. Nope. Insurance companies are businesses who are in the business of making money. When they find that they are shelling out a lot of cash because the amount of vehicle thefts are increasing, they naturally raise their premiums. Heck....they aren't stupid!

As long as the Charles Macklins and their ilk are slapped on the wrist and let out on bail, as his sister had preferred, auto insurance premiums will continue to skyrocket.

In an article I read, his sister states that she "hasn't given up hope in getting justice for her brother." I hate to be the one to tell her this, but I'm pretty sure he already got it.

Just my view from the saddle.

__________________
Pack light and cinch tight.

Actually, 9.41 refers to use of force OTHER THAN deadly force. 9.42 talks about DEADLY force and limits its use to certain crimes. Theft of property is one of those crimes, but only if it is occurring at night and only if there is no other reasonable means to retrieve the property.

I only clarify this because I think Texas gets a bit of a bad rap. The “property theft at night” justification is really the only thing that sets Texas law apart from most other states, and it’s way too open to interpretation for most intelligent people to want to exercise it.

“Criminally feral”

THAT is without a doubt the best thing said in this entire thread.

I’ll have to use that, with proper attribution to Doug M, in the future.

__________________
Reg. Magnum wants/Rossi wallet

They’ll subrogate against somebody. Rest assured . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

This thread as more errant conjecture than the world news tonite.


Let's all just hope that the Lt. Fireman comes out ok in this lit'l dust-up.


That fireman is far more likely to save a life in his line of work....Than any car thief.




.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

*
Feel free. I came up with that as a means of describing the behavior of that population without using terms that had been twisted to have racial connotations. It's pretty hard to do with this with "criminal feral".

FWIW, to cite it correctly, that would be Douglas R. Mitchell, JD, MPA.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Sounded like a good a shoot as any to me.

Well we agree on the dumbA part, but me. I am not shoooting some dumbA kid for stealing my insured car. Cheaper & easier to just call the cops & file the insurance report. Besides, I get a new car.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Lets see... He left the keys in it. He left it running. He left it unlocked. He did all 3 with something SO valuable he needed to kill someone over it. Now just where is THIS IDIOTS responsibility stored up? Now I can't lock my Jeep with a soft top but I sure as heck never walk away from it with the darn thing running or even the keys still in it! Just put a sign on it that says: PLEASE PLEASE STEAL ME MY OWNER IS A MORON.

You’re assuming that there was time to think. I’m sure it was over in a second. There’s nothin to indicate he was trying to be a tough guy. It’s a normal reaction to get in front of property you don’t want taken.

I don’t have an ounce of sympathy for this kid. I’m sure that wasn’t his first criminal offense. God knows how many he got away with, where his victims were screwed. He had insurance? Not everybody has theft insurance. And judging by his mother’s response, the kid never had a chance. Society is a better place without him.

Where I get lost is I don't understand what sympathy for the kid or his past record have anything to do with this. Other than he got killed, I don't see it being about him at all. He gets my vote for the most unsympathetic person on the planet.

As a society, is America at the place where we're saying it's lawful (and moral) to kill people for simple theft? The kid didn't break into the car. The firefighter left it running with the doors unlocked. Like firesticks mentioned a couple posts back, it must have really meant a lot to him.

People complain about how barbaric radical Islam is. Rightly so, but they're just lopping off hands for theft.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Since you all brought it up, this is how I see it.

I maintain that dead is a very serious issue, not only because it is permanent either. The apostle John records Jesus pleading with the leaders and the people saying, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come." (notice it's 'sin' and not 'sins', which means He's talking about the condition into which we're all born, not some individual bad deeds) That is not a condition anyone should leave this life.

Young adults do some pretty dumb stuff, as did most of us here. While I never stole anyone's car when I was young, I can look back at some of the really dumb stuff I got caught up in and see how it's possible. The tiny blip of time into which we now exist will pass; nobody makes it out of here alive. The forever that we try to ignore is coming, regardless. The thief likely died in a condition that will seal his eternal fate; the firefighter (if he likewise is also in the same condition) will have the exact same fate.

We spend thousands of hours researching the best retirement plan, for a time of life we are not guaranteed, but stubbornly refuse to even spend a couple hours examining the word to determine whether it might be true. Yeah, we'll happily trust whatever negative thing someone else says about it, but never bother to take the time to investigate it for ourselves. I did, and it's true.

Busting a cap in a dumb kid for stealing a car might rid the planet of another thief, but it also creates an irreversible situation for which I would not like to be responsible. Going to guns is a last resort, and so far from what we know about this situation, it appears to have been the first. If someone steals my car, and there's a gun on my belt and a cell phone in my pocket, my choice between the two means there's still time for the dumb kid to find his way out of the condition.

People are getting sick and tired of being victims. People are getting sick and tired of paying ever-increasing insurance premiums. People are getting sick and tired of revolving door courthouses where no one is ever held accountable for their actions.

About a year ago my sister-in-law (retired teacher, early 80's) was walking into a store when store security personnel were chasing a shoplifter out the door. The thief smashed into my SIL, knocking her to the ground, leaving her with a broken hip, broken ribs, and concussion. The bum went through court without any jail time, a fine that he has never paid, and orders to pay restitution that Sis is unlikely ever to see.

Over the past 30 years or so my home has been burglarized 5 times. At one time I found it very difficult to renew my homeowners insurance policy.

I have lost track of all the stuff stolen from my property (lawn mowers, wheelbarrow, ladders, utility trailer, etc). My personal vehicle has been broken into half-a-dozen times (once cost me $320 to replace a window broken so a *** could steal a pack of cigarettes from the console).

I've had a man try to rob me in broad daylight while walking out of a store with a 12-pack of beer. No jail time, couple years unsupervised probation (he was a twice-convicted felon on probation at the time).

Just about everyone I know has had similar experiences, and they are all getting sick and tired of putting up with it.

I'm not advocating anything, not even suggesting anything, but I don't think it will be very long before some folks just start taking matters into their own hands. Calls to police to report crimes might decline, while calls to have someone remove the dead guy from the alley behind the house might go up.

Rant over (for now).

I know it’s fun to speculate what happened and whether or not the FF acted lawfully, but there are way too many facts missing to make a meaningful argument either way - Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest.

I think we've gotten AWAY from that, actually. Steal a horse in the Old West (equivalent to a car in those days) or rustle cattle and they would string you up from the nearest tree...HOWEVER, at what point do you draw the line these days? A candy bar? A bottle of beer? A car? What type of car justifies shooting? Pinto or Corvette?

That being said, making a major shoot/no shoot decision in a split second like that is a tough one...impossible to say for sure what anyone would do unless they were put in that situation. Can you live with the consequences?

That's a polite way to put it. We have other words for it down around where I live.

Theft of tangible property is mentioned in 9.41(b) and if the owner of the tangible property is on the scene and believes that
the theft cannot be prevented he can use whatever force is necessary to prevent the theft. This has came up before.
A case in point was Joe Horn's killing of three undocumented
individuals in Pasadena, Texas. The Prosecutor took it to a grand jury and it was no billed. And even if it had went to
a jury he would have likely been found not guilty in Texas.
In the case in Missouri, the teen attempted to run over the
fireman. Missouri law applies and I figure he will be found
not guilty if tried. If the thief is trying to run him down I
expect nothing will come of it.

Regardless of our individual interpretations of the law, please keep in mind that a “no bill” by a grand jury does not set a legally binding precedent for any future case. Further, Mr. Horn asserted that he was “charged at” and “in fear for his life” which moots the property theft argument and takes that specific case into entirely different territory. While you may be right about Texas juries, I sincerely hope neither of us ever has to test our respective positions on this. Be safe,
Doug

My stuff is my stuff but , if you are fine taking a life over stuff, esoecially insured stuff, I think you need a look in the mirror. Yep. Its not 1876, your actions while possibly legal, may still cost you more than the car in legal fees & time off work.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

We were taught to NEVER fire at a moving automobile. If you kill or seriously disable the driver, then you have a several thousand pound projectile running around uncontrolled, which can injure or kill others.

its pretty hard to convict a disabled veteran and elderly for
protecting his property. While I own property I live in the
Ghetto and rent from a slum lord. I can protect my own
stuff cheaper than I can spend $2500 to stay in a high rise
with all that protection. Lots of thieves have been killed in
Texas for taking stuff that was not worth their life. Its their
decision to take it and ours to defend it, and the juries will
decide it. And I don't have any problem looking in the mirror.
If I were not willing to defend my property I would not carry
a gun.

Tough situation. I was in this scenario decades ago when I lived in an apartment. I had a silent alarm on the car that alerted my pager if someone tampered with the car. The pager goes off, I look out the window, and there's a teenager prying the lock out of my car door. I grab my gun, go to the door, but decided I really didn't want to kill him over that car. As it turned out a few seconds later some people came walking down the sidewalk and he ran off.

Hopefully he was just a stupid kid doing stupid kid things....and grew up, got an education, and is a good American.

One criminal is dead, one idiot is going to have a nasty civil suit, at best.

I own property but I am in no hurry to move. Not long ago
one of the complex criminals who was a maintenance man at
the time asked me if I knew what the other residents called me?
I said no and he said "Two Guns" because of my habit of carrying two guns, a Glock SH 30 45 caliber and a Smith & Wesson 38 Special. While I have had late night knockers and
petty vandalism, so far I have never been mugged, never been
robbed and never been broken into partly because someone in
my residence is always armed.

The Police Lt. want be tried and if he is he want be found guilty
because when he blocked the escape of the thief tried to run him down. That's aggravated assault placing the fireman in
danger of his life. Missouri I am sure has a Stand your Ground
Law and he had every right to stand in front of his own vehicle.
Case closed. The attempt by the thief to run him over is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

I am reminded of the woman who was the son of a police
officer elderly in PA. She was not charged with a crime but
she went out after the burglar who kicked her door in pursuit
of him. The prosecutor knows that would be hard to convict
her for that. Technically once he left her residence she could
not legally pursue him shooting at him. I have heard no more about that incident. The individual was shot and in critical
condition.

There are quite a few people assuming stuff in this thread. Several people have thrown out their little scenarios of what happened and how. So I threw mine into the hat.

There is a fine line between "assumption" and "opinion". You can call what I said assumptions, or you can take it as my opinion on the firefighter's mindset and attitude...either way is fine with me.

Speaking of "assuming" things? What do you call making guesses about how many crimes he got away with?

I don't particularly have any sympathy for him, either. Don't mistake my analyzing a report and forming an opinion about it as any sort of sympathy.

Shooting the car thief was not necessary, that's the bottom line for me. The shooter was stupid to step in front of the moving vehicle. Here's another assumption on my part: He's been watching too many action-superhero movies. Lethal Weapon immediately comes to mind.

I don't know (or care about) what's left to say about this whole thing. The car thief is dead. The shooter wasn't charged. His firefighter buddies are probably giving him pats on the back and buying him drinks. Maybe he'll even get a new Jeep out of it, who knows.

I did read one report somewhere that stated he was "upset" about shooting the guy. I don't have any sympathy for him, either.

Not my carnival, not my clowns.

I have no idea whether the vehicle was moving or not before
he stepped in front of his own vehicle. However if Missouri
has a stand your ground law, he certainly has the right to
stand in front of his own vehicle and has no duty to retreat
from any place where he can legally be. Do you know for sure
the fireman vehicle was moving when the fireman stepped
in front of it or if the fireman was trying to stop the thief
from committing a felony? It looks to me like the car thief just
had the bad luck of trying to pull off a grand auto car theft while the owner was
standing his ground. I expect he may have told the car thief
to get out of his vehicle.

Whoever raised the kid should have taught him not to steal
other peoples "stuff". I have no sympathy for the kid either.
As for the police lieutenant, he is out a lot of paperwork time
that tax payers or paying for because the kid's parents did not
teach him not to steal cars. The incident might deter another
kid from going down the same path.

Read the linked article by the OP in Post #1.

Excellent point if your right. I was not aware that fire fighters
had the right to cite and make arrests.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of bringing this angle up. I, too, have a little problem with the cavalier attitude of, “Big deal. Insurance will cover it”., causing everyone’s rates to go up. Someone on here just posted heartbreaking pics of his stolen and wrecked GTO. A fate this firefighters Jeep won't face. As far as this situation goes, is the guy safe from a civil lawsuit?

Just in case anyone still cares at this point. This incident occurred back in August of 2017, and the prosecutor’s office ruled the shooting justified a few days later. I can find no reference to a civil suit, but the family usually has about three years to file one. Someone from Illinois can correct me on that.

If an armed individual comes onto my property and shoots my dog or my horse, then I will assume that the next target will be me and that I am in danger of death or great bodily harm. That's when I start shooting.


In an unarmed individual comes onto my property and is trying to steal my horse, he will be greeted with one of my Winchesters. I don't think I can justify shooting a horse thief in Douglas County, Nevada, but I'm pretty sure I can justify busting his nose with a rifle butt.

Years ago after working a couple of carjackings/auto thefts. I had an idea. Briefly, a device is wired into the ignition of a vehicle. You have another device similar to a remote door lock device. If the vehicle is stolen, you activate the device in the vehicle with the remote device. That starts a timer and after a few minutes, the ignition is cut-off, and the car can't be started. You want the thief to get away for a few minutes so that he will just abandon the vehicle, not walk back to you.


One of my friends, a Silicon Valley multimillionaire, thought it was a good idea and had one of his employees do some research on a patent, Unfortunately, some had been granted a patent some months before. Unfortunately, no one has ever done anything with it.

A simple vacuum switch would cut off engine once it accelerated. Once engine reached vacuum adequate vacuum the closed switch would short out the ignition. Similar to how a outboard stops running when the key is turned off by the kill switch.