NationStates Jolt Archive

http://qconline.com/archives/qco/sections.cgi?prcss=display&id=259188


"Officials of the Rock Island County State's Attorney's office have decided that the teen who shot and killed James Teague Jr. was defending himself against an attempted robbery." ...

"Jeff Terronez, Rock Island County state's attorney, said the 16-year-old shot Mr. Teague with a handgun after Mr. Teague stepped out of his vehicle, raised his gun and attempted to rob the teen." ...

"The juvenile has been charged with two felony counts in juvenile court for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and using a weapon without the required identification card, Mr. Terronez said."

Sounds like BS to me.

Sounds like pretty clear self defense to me. But then I could only read what you quoted since the article is only available to subscribers.

Is the State trying to encourage pacifism by punishing those who defend themselves effectively? Because people aren't going to want to defend themselves if they are likely to be punished for it.

I think the point of prosecution is being missed. He wasn't liscensed to carry the weapon or he didn't have the permit on him at the time. That's what he's being charged for. Person A committing a crime doesn't excuse Person B from committing another crime. If he's properly liscensed then the charges will most likely not stand.

Ah yes, because legally requiring someone to be a helpless victim is going to make crime go away. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, because legally requiring someone to be a helpless victim is going to make crime go away. :rolleyes:

Huh?

I think the point of prosecution is being missed. He wasn't liscensed to carry the weapon or he didn't have the permit on him at the time. That's what he's being charged for. Person A committing a crime doesn't excuse Person B from committing another crime. If he's properly liscensed then the charges will most likely not stand.

I got the point. He's being charged for carrying a weapon without a permit. Do you know why he's being charged for that crime? Only because someone else decided to attempt to rob him. Under our current legal system, it does not matter if your crime only came to light as the result of someone else committing a crime on you. You are still guilty of a crime, and can be prosecuted accordingly.

I get that. Legal shit's easy to understand. Ineffective, discriminatory, and unjust policies I have more trouble with, and not on the understanding part.

I got the point. He's being charged for carrying a weapon without a permit. Do you know why he's being charged for that crime? Only because someone else decided to attempt to rob him. Under our current legal system, it does not matter if your crime only came to light as the result of someone else committing a crime on you. You are still guilty of a crime, and can be prosecuted accordingly.
I understand, but if you exempted people from being prosecuted from crimes discovered when a crime was committed on them you would have some quite ridicuous situations. For example, if a drug dealer was assaulted by a rival it would be ridiculous not to prosecute him if you found a load of drugs on him. Or if a house was burgled and the police entered the house to arrest the thief, what would happen if they discovered the homeowner was a serial killer with a stash of dead bodies? You could hardly let the guy off because he was burgled.

I understand, but if you exempted people from being prosecuted from crimes discovered when a crime was committed on them you would have some quite ridicuous situations. For example, if a drug dealer was assaulted by a rival it would be ridiculous not to prosecute him if you found a load of drugs on him. Or if a house was burgled and the police entered the house to arrest the thief, what would happen if they discovered the homeowner was a serial killer with a stash of dead bodies? You could hardly let the guy off because he was burgled.

The policy I was referring to was the requirement of a license to own a weapon. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

The policy I was referring to was the requirement of a license to own a weapon. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
That's fair enough, gun control is a different matter altogether so sorry if I misinterpreted.

I got the point. He's being charged for carrying a weapon without a permit. Do you know why he's being charged for that crime? Only because someone else decided to attempt to rob him. Under our current legal system, it does not matter if your crime only came to light as the result of someone else committing a crime on you. You are still guilty of a crime, and can be prosecuted accordingly.

I get that. Legal shit's easy to understand. Ineffective, discriminatory, and unjust policies I have more trouble with, and not on the understanding part.

Don't get all pissy with me. If you don't think a teen should have to carry a permit to carry a gun, then work to change the law. Otherwise, yes, if your crime is revealed as you protect yourself from someone else's criminal action, you are still culpable. It's not a case of "poor innocent victim" but of "blatant criminal A got schooled by somewhat less blatant criminal B who in turn got schooled by the system."

Don't get all pissy with me. If you don't think a teen should have to carry a permit to carry a gun, then work to change the law. Otherwise, yes, if your crime is revealed as you protect yourself from someone else's criminal action, you are still culpable. It's not a case of "poor innocent victim" but of "blatant criminal A got schooled by somewhat less blatant criminal B who in turn got schooled by the system."

I wasn't getting pissy, Berk. I'm sorry if that's the way it came across.

Don't get all pissy with me. If you don't think a teen should have to carry a permit to carry a gun, then work to change the law. Otherwise, yes, if your crime is revealed as you protect yourself from someone else's criminal action, you are still culpable. It's not a case of "poor innocent victim" but of "blatant criminal A got schooled by somewhat less blatant criminal B who in turn got schooled by the system."
This would be fine, if they could get the permit. Such is not the case, however, and they are banned from having a handgun until 21.

http://qconline.com/archives/qco/sections.cgi?prcss=display&id=259188

Sounds like BS to me.
The teen will probably be convicted of using a weapon without the required identification card but not the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. These things have a way of irritating juries, especially here in the Southern US. Defending yourself is held in high regard here. :)

LOL, strict liability crimes = teh funnay.

Seriously, I feel bad for this kid, but he's definitely going down for at least one, and maybe the other if it is what I think it is.

(This would be a good 2nd amendment test case maybe).

How did a sixteen year old get a gun anyway?

How did a sixteen year old get a gun anyway?


He should not have had one . its not legal for him to be carrying a gun ..ok I'll aggree with that . I wont aggree with the agrivated use thats bullshit .
But things could be worse for him ..instead of facing charges he could be in a hospital recovering from gunshot wounds or in the ground taking a long dirt nap . Shame they could just quitely let him go..now a jury will have to laugh at the prosecuter and do it..unless juvie law lets a judge laugh his / her ass off and do it.

If you think about it the law makes no consideration for him to carry legally (that I know of ).. he could not have reasonably protected himself from a gun weilding assalant because the LAW wont let him , thats got to be taken into consideration when you fight this case , considering the results and the circumstances . How can a law require you to just take it and die ?

The boy got what he deserved. He should have given the man what he wanted and nothing more. It would have been a win-win situation.

:mad: :sniper:

The boy got what he deserved. He should have given the man what he wanted and nothing more. It would have been a win-win situation.

:mad: :sniper:

And with you its so easy to give away someone elses life . :rolleyes:

The boy got what he deserved. He should have given the man what he wanted and nothing more. It would have been a win-win situation.
Not to put too fine a point on this but ... bullshit! You have no idea what's going through the mind of someone who attacks you or robs you or molests you. You have to assume that they're going to kill you and act accordingly. IMHO, the boy did what any sane person would have done and correctly defended himself.

Why does the title of this thread say he was convicted of two felonies ? charged is not convicted . Big difference !