The Fuck? Chicago

[Lewkowski]

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...fight/2628059/

"Five men linked by police to a deadly gang shootout in Austin last week were released from custody after prosecutors declined to charge each of them with a pair of felonies, including first-degree murder.

The mid-morning gunfight, which left one shooter dead and two of the suspects wounded, stemmed from an internal dispute between two gang factions, the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting.

Police sought to charge all five suspects with murder and aggravated battery. By Sunday morning, a Chicago police spokeswoman acknowledged the suspects had “been released without charges.”

The Cook County state’s attorney’s office explained that prosecutors had “determined that the evidence was insufficient to meet our burden of proof to approve felony charges,” a state’s attorney’s office spokeswoman said, adding that police officials agreed with the decision.
"

I'll pause here. This could make sense depending if there was a complete lack of physical evidence whatsoever and no one willing to speak. I would find it improbable but... shit happens.

But this next part... what??

But a police report framed the state’s attorney’s office’s decision to decline charges in a different light: “Mutual combatants was cited as the reason for the rejection.” Mutual combat is a legal term used to define a fight or struggle that two parties willingly engage in.

Last week, Cook County prosecutors came under fire after making a similar argument after a teenager was stabbed to death during a fight in suburban Schaumburg. The family of the victim, 18-year-old Manuel Porties Jr., later told WGN that prosecutors specifically said they weren’t charging the 17-year-old suspect with murder because the fatal fight amounted to mutual combat."

/boggle

[LittleFuzzy]

What? This is what you've been cheering on for years. What did you think "stand your ground" looks like in the real world, Lewk? Laws in this country apply to everyone, remember? You can't pick and choose so only white home-owners can benefit from that stupid standard.

[Ominous Gamer]

When lewk first defended stand your ground legitimizing gang and turf wars were explicitly brought up as an end result of such a stupid position.

So yeah, him playing shocked Pikachu now makes no sense.

[Lewkowski]

What? This is what you've been cheering on for years. What did you think "stand your ground" looks like in the real world, Lewk? Laws in this country apply to everyone, remember? You can't pick and choose so only white home-owners can benefit from that stupid standard.

Stand your ground means you have no duty to retreat in self defense, one side is still the aggressor though.

[Lewkowski]

When lewk first defended stand your ground legitimizing gang and turf wars were explicitly brought up as an end result of such a stupid position.

So yeah, him playing shocked Pikachu now makes no sense.

What's your argument here? That the stand your ground laws in Illinois is the reason for this? I'll let you google why that doesn't make sense.

[LittleFuzzy]

Stand your ground means you have no duty to retreat in self defense, one side is still the aggressor though.

And as we've constantly told you, who the "aggressor" may be is a matter of narrative. It's subjective. Two sides can each feel the other was the one aggressing while they were just standing their ground. And even if there was a clear aggressor, if the state can't get the evidence it needs to disprove one side's narrative or to prove one of it's own. . .

[Lewkowski]

And as we've constantly told you, who the "aggressor" may be is a matter of narrative. It's subjective. Two sides can each feel the other was the one aggressing while they were just standing their ground. And even if there was a clear aggressor, if the state can't get the evidence it needs to disprove one side's narrative or to prove one of it's own. . .

Of course which is why the first part is reasonable, as I said. It is the second part that draws the WTF.

[LittleFuzzy]

Of course which is why the first part is reasonable, as I said. It is the second part that draws the WTF.

Lewk, they're the same thing. That's the fundamental problem with "stand your ground." Use of deadly weapons automatically excludes mutual combat as a matter of legal consensual behavior. . . unless self-defense comes into play. Which it absolutely should not in a mutual combat-type scenario except "stand your ground" principles remove any requirement for even an intent to disengage before resorting to lethal force in "self-defense"

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, they're the same thing. That's the fundamental problem with "stand your ground." Use of deadly weapons automatically excludes mutual combat as a matter of legal consensual behavior. . . unless self-defense comes into play. Which it absolutely should not in a mutual combat-type scenario except "stand your ground" principles remove any requirement for even an intent to disengage before resorting to lethal force in "self-defense"

Stand your Ground isn't a thing in Illinois.

[Aimless]

Stand your Ground isn't a thing in Illinois.

The state Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that there is no duty to retreat in these situations. The end result is a similar situation as can be seen in states with clear SYG statutes. It should be noted that your answer implies that you would've been okay with what happened here, if it had happened in a state with a SYG statute on the books. But it would, of course, have been equally absurd—and it is that horrific absurdity that Fuzzy, OG, and others have tried to explained to you so many times over the years.

[LittleFuzzy]

Stand your Ground isn't a thing in Illinois.

As Aimless pointed out, it IS a thing, just not enacted by statute. What would it matter though? You've frequently trumpeted that principle is what is important. Why aren't you championing these men that have shot down a couple of clear criminals when they got into an altercation? Is it because the shooters aren't middle-to-upper class and white? You insisted that kid who was driven down and lynched had it coming because those three white rednecks had "identified" him as a criminal, and even went so far as to suggest that shooting him was self defense (effectively arguing mutual combat, as here) because he physically tried to stop them from shooting him with the shotgun. Why isn't that good enough to justify the shooting in Chicago? Be honest for once. It's because you're opposed to any action that doesn't see a black man put six feet under or, failing that, at least behind bars for as long as possible.

[Lewkowski]

As Aimless pointed out, it IS a thing, just not enacted by statute. What would it matter though? You've frequently trumpeted that principle is what is important. Why aren't you championing these men that have shot down a couple of clear criminals when they got into an altercation? Is it because the shooters aren't middle-to-upper class and white? You insisted that kid who was driven down and lynched had it coming because those three white rednecks had "identified" him as a criminal, and even went so far as to suggest that shooting him was self defense (effectively arguing mutual combat, as here) because he physically tried to stop them from shooting him with the shotgun. Why isn't that good enough to justify the shooting in Chicago? Be honest for once. It's because you're opposed to any action that doesn't see a black man put six feet under or, failing that, at least behind bars for as long as possible.

Always with the absurd stretch. Obviously if there is evidence that someone was merely defending themselves self defense applies. But there is no mutual combat with guns as was pointed out earlier in the thread. Saying "We don't have enough evidence" is on the surface not an issue if they actually don't have evidence. However to go on and suggest mutual combat is the reason, there's the issue. Hell even Lori Lightfoot, the liberal mayor of Chicago is calling bull shit.

[Dreadnaught]

Stand your ground means you have no duty to retreat in self defense, one side is still the aggressor though.

Yeah, but the Chicago prosecutors (whose title is basically an oxymoron, I agree) are saying that if people engaged in mutual combat also injure someone else they won't hold any party accountable. This is sort of a logical extension of the idea that we should tolerate people who want to [allegedly!] solve their own problems.

Though it's not like guns are legal in Chicago, in fact I think it's illegal to just look at one so it's really malpractice that more people aren't being prosecuted here.