When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re stealing your car?

[aGameOfThrones]

Janique Walker knows the cost of a split second.

Her younger brother, 17-year-old Charles Macklin, was killed while trying to steal a Jeep from a Chicago fire lieutenant on the West Side last August. The lieutenant had left the Jeep running, and Macklin jumped behind the wheel.

The lieutenant ran in front of the Jeep and shouted, “Get out,” according to a police report. When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest.

Macklin’s last words were, “Sorry, bro,” according to the police report. The teen died on the pavement. He did not have a gun on him.

The lieutenant had a concealed carry license. He was not charged and he was not disciplined by the department, according to spokesman Larry Langford.

Walker, 20, has organized protests, started a Facebook page and launched a hashtag on Twitter. She says she hasn’t given up hope of getting justice for her brother.

She believes her brother was found guilty by one man with a gun. Walker said her brother should be alive to stand before a judge and take responsibility for his actions.

“When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?” she asked. “Even if (Macklin) did that, if he did steal the car. You’ve got insurance — let him go to jail. I would’ve rather had to get a call to go bail him out of jail than to get a phone call that he’s dead.”

Walker organized a protest where her brother was killed. As they marched, she said she was approached by more than one person who said they witnessed the shooting. One woman said she saw Macklin lying on the pavement, struggling to breathe.

“She’s traumatized about it,” Walker said. “I get that. I couldn’t imagine watching a little boy dying in front of me either.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...523-story.html

[Zippyjuan]

Most laws are written which allow you to use "minimal reasonable force" to defend yourself and your property. Killing is generally not "minimal reasonable force" unless you can prove you felt your own life was in danger.

I was on a trial recently which hinged on "minimal reasonable force". Two guys in a bar. One drunk, one not. Drunk guy accuses the sober one of touching him. They have a discussion for a couple minutes. Somber guy winds up (with a glass in his hand) and hits the drunk one hard enough to knock him off his feet (and damage his eye). Sober guy continues to chase drunk guy until friends pull him back. Sober guy says he felt "threatened" and in "mortal danger" even though he was the one who threw the first punch when he made no efforts to either push the drunk away or to just walk away from the situation (we had video but no audio from the bar of the confrontation). Two jurors decided they agreed that he could have felt threatened. But the response should be "minimal" and "what a reasonable person in a similar situation would do" according to the law as given to us- hitting that hard before being hit yourself seemed like something not reasonable and minimal. Our decision had to be unanimous so it was a hung jury.

[TheTexan]

When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest.

Clearly, the Officer was in fear of his life. I'm glad he's OK.

[TheTexan]

Most laws are written which allow you to use "minimal reasonable force" to defend yourself and your property. Killing is generally not "minimal reasonable force" unless you can prove you felt your own life was in danger.

Except in Texas where you can shoot someone for stealing a snickers bar (as long as it's night time)

[dean.engelhardt]

Quick Google search came up with this:

In Illinois, you may use regular force in just about any self-defense situation. Deadly force is that which is intended to kill or cause great bodily harm. ... You may not use deadly force to protect property unless you are doing so to prevent a forcible felony.

I suppose the fireman get the benefit of a doubt with forcible felony. Chalk this up to; just because it is legal doesn't make it right. Then again, it is Chicago where people usually get shot anyway.

[thoughtomator]

A jury in South Carolina would line up to shake your hand.

[Krugminator2]

I suppose the fireman get the benefit of a doubt with forcible felony. Chalk this up to; just because it is legal doesn't make it right. Then again, it is Chicago where people usually get shot anyway.

I think just the opposite. I'm morally okay with shooting people who steal cars. I don't think it is a good idea only because of the risk of going to jail.

[fedupinmo]

Their argument is always, "go ahead and let him steal it, insurance will pay!" How about, don't steal it in the first place. Our legal system should discourage theft in the strongest way possible, and this incident was a perfect exercise of that.
So does Jeniqua think he should be shot if the owner doesn't have full coverage on their car? Or should the owner just take the loss and let it go?

[TheTexan]

Their argument is always, "go ahead and let him steal it, insurance will pay!" How about, don't steal it in the first place. Our legal system should discourage theft in the strongest way possible, and this incident was a perfect exercise of that.
So does Jeniqua think he should be shot if the owner doesn't have full coverage on their car? Or should the owner just take the loss and let it go?

This time it was a car, but what if he was stealing a TV? What if he was stealing a candy bar?

Any attempts to draw a line somewhere would be entirely arbitrary, which is why only Officers should be allowed to administer violent road-side justice

[Danke]

This time it was a car, but what if he was stealing a TV? What if he was stealing a candy bar?

Any attempts to draw a line somewhere would be entirely arbitrary, which is why only Officers should be allowed to administer violent road-side justice

What if they steal your horse, can you still hang 'em down there in Texas?

[timosman]

Their argument is always, "go ahead and let him steal it, insurance will pay!" How about, don't steal it in the first place. Our legal system should discourage theft in the strongest way possible, and this incident was a perfect exercise of that.
So does Jeniqua think he should be shot if the owner doesn't have full coverage on their car? Or should the owner just take the loss and let it go?

Life isn't without risks. How about that?

[Weston White]

Hold yaz' horses, the dumbass left the vehicle running, and was shocked to discover some scumbag was in the process of stealing it...

Somebody, please lock up this $#@!, $#@!:

Sec. 11-1401. Unattended motor vehicles. Except for a law enforcement officer or an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle performing his or her official duties, no person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, removing the key from the ignition, effectively setting the brake thereon and, when standing upon any perceptible grade, turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway. An unattended motor vehicle shall not include an unattended locked motor vehicle with the engine running after being started by a remote starter system.
(Source: P.A. 100-435, eff. 8-25-17.)

[euphemia]

I can't believe anyone is even asking this question. When a punk wants someone's property enough to steal it, he does so at his own risk. He took the risk and lost. That's on him.

[timosman]

Hold yaz' horses, the dumbass left the vehicle running, and was shocked to discover some scumbag was in the process of stealing it...

Somebody, please lock up this $#@!, $#@!:

Two wrongs don't make right.

[Weston White]

Two wrongs don't make right.

If you $#@! up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

[euphemia]

If you $#@! up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

Um, no. Nobody has a right to anyone else's property, no matter what is it or where they find it.

[Krugminator2]

If you $#@! up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

That's the most insane thing I have ever read.

I'll continue to blame the thief.

[DamianTV]

What if they steal your horse, can you still hang 'em down there in Texas?

In Nevada, stealing a horse way back in the day was a crime that was punishable by death, because a persons horse was their lifeline. Before cars were invented, if you took a mans horse, it put the victim at a seriously high risk of death, hence the severity of punishment.

One of the oddball laws we still have on the books is that it is illegal to refuse a person a glass of water if they come to your front door and ask for it. Its still on the books, but has never been removed, but I dont think anyone has been charged with breaking that law for the last 150 years or so.

The point being that a Car is a persons Lifeline today. This is akin to stealing your horse back in the day. Your TV is not a Lifeline, nor is a snickers bar. A car however, is. You ALWAYS have a Right to protect your property due to the nature of the law. Criminals may or may not be prosecuted by the law so there is little guarantee that a person will achieve Justice. The trouble is that Justice leaves a person to pick up the pieces. When something is stolen, there is little chance that the thing that has been stolen will ever be returned. This punishes the victims of the crime when their ability to protect their property is violated, thus, the criminals win.

Time and time again, we see that Govt thinks it has authority to control every aspects of a persons life. DO you have a Right to protect yourself? Govt would say you have NO Right to protect yourself from Govt, now go hire a Lawyer. Hence, fearmongering of guns. NEVER ask for permission for a Right. That is the exact opposite of what a Right is. I have a Right because $#@! You thats why. Same goes with protecting your property. Are they stealing your Lifeline, your car? Yes? Then shoot the mother $#@!er and stop asking goddamn permission to protect yourself from thieves. Where you shoot them depends on the judgement of the person whose $#@! is being stolen. Are they armed? No? Try and shoot them in the leg. Are they trying to attack you? Yes? Then shoot the mother $#@!er in the head and put them in the ground. We have enough thieves in high positions of power that they are not gonna spend more than five minutes investigating what they consider to be a petty crime, like stealing your car, which is the average persons lifeline to get to and from work. We all know that Insurance Companies will refuse to pay at every opportunity, and if your car is stolen, they sure as $#@! wont pay for lost wages due to the theft of your car. Nor will a thief be able to repay you for those lost wages, in the event they are caught and convicted, which again, puts the burden on the victim. Is shooting someone for stealing your car extreme? Sure, but so are the consequences of having your lifeline removed.

The structure of our legal system needs to enable the people to take responsibility, thus, have authority over fixing their own problems with minimal necessary intervention by Govt.

So why dont we look at it from the point of view that if you dont want to get shot, then dont steal other peoples $#@!? This idea of defending real criminals has to stop.

That ought to stir up some controversy and debate.

[timosman]

If you $#@! up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

Wallets don't have steering wheels.

[Danke]

Um, no. Nobody has a right to anyone else's property, no matter what is it or where they find it.

The majority does.

[Danke]

"The point being that a Car is a persons Lifeline today."

I think that would be hard to argue with replacement insurance, public transportation, Taxis, etc.

[timosman]

"The point being that a Car is a persons Lifeline today."

I think that would be hard to argue with replacement insurance, public transportation, Taxis, etc.

Unreasonable burden on the owner?

[timosman]

Is there a possibility it did happen in a way different from what is being described in the OP? One bullet?

[euphemia]

"The point being that a Car is a persons Lifeline today."

I think that would be hard to argue with replacement insurance, public transportation, Taxis, etc.

Sorry, pal, I disagree. My car is paid for and is in good condition, according to the ASE certified mechanic that looked at it yesterday. My husband was darn near killed in 2016 by an old rich witch texting, and we have suffered the loss of that car ever since. Insurance never replaces a vehicle because cars depreciate. I used Lyft twice yesterday and it was way more expensive than the operating costs of my vehicle. There is no public transportation to my mechanic. None.

We are responsible drivers. We have both been totaled by irresponsible drivers and never got full replacement value for our cars.

[euphemia]

If some little punk decides he wants to steal my car, I will chase him down and beat him senseless with my cane. That's not a joke.

[timosman]

If some little punk decides he wants to steal my car, I will chase him down and beat him senseless with my cane. That's not a joke.

How would a punk like that appear in your neighborhood?

[oyarde]

Guy must have a nicer vehicle than I do . I may or may not kill him depending on my mood . If I did I would feel bad about it later so hopefully not . I do not like to feel bad about killing people , under normal circumstances it does not bother me , just have a few beers and forget about it . Does he deserve it ? I am actually ok with both opinions on that .

[TheTexan]

What if they steal your horse, can you still hang 'em down there in Texas?

No but you can shoot them

We don't really hang people anymore, except for maybe the occasional colored

[Danke]

Sorry, pal, I disagree. My car is paid for and is in good condition, according to the ASE certified mechanic that looked at it yesterday. My husband was darn near killed in 2016 by an old rich witch texting, and we have suffered the loss of that car ever since. Insurance never replaces a vehicle because cars depreciate. I used Lyft twice yesterday and it was way more expensive than the operating costs of my vehicle. There is no public transportation to my mechanic. None.

We are responsible drivers. We have both been totaled by irresponsible drivers and never got full replacement value for our cars.

Depends on the Insurance you have.

Have you thought about a used motorcycle, that would be cheap transportation as you shop for your replacement vehicle.

Carpooling?

[timosman]

No but you can shoot them

We don't really hang people anymore, except for maybe the occasional colored