So if I am understanding this... the prosecutors decided not to prosecute these people who sprayed a residential neighborhood with bullets because it was a conflict between two sides.

Or in their thinking: "It was two groups of dark skinned people shooting each other in a neighborhood of dark skinned people. I see no crimes."

No wonder so many communities don't trust the police and the justice system.

[removed]

Reminds me of the Mutual Combat Law they have going on in Chicago.

That is exactly the "legal theory" that the prosecutors cited. They should be disbarred for failing to competently and diligently represent their client (the people of Chicago).

>Two of the suspects have since been killed. Another, identified by a witness, told police: “I didn’t pull the trigger.”

Ah yes, the old "I didn't do it" defense.

I know you're just ACABing for the cheap karma, but

>investigators believe they solved his homicide years ago when they arrested members of South Side Chicago’s “Perry Avenue” gang. But prosecutors in 2019 declined to prosecute and police were forced to release the suspects

The activist DA elected by "so many communities" failed, here, not the police.

[deleted]

[removed]

Oh fuck off, man.

"No wonder communities don't trust police and courts."

beat

"It's not the court's fault, it's the law."

You're just spewing whatever nonsense you think will get you an upvote.

It may not work all the time, but it it’s much more successful than the “I absolutely did do it” defense.

Just a guess, but if they can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shooter was the aggressor, it would be a failed prosecution anyways... so they save some time and money and skip prosecution.

[removed]

And there is the problem with our current legal theory of self defense. It makes gun battles between groups of people unjusticiable... In effect, you can legally commit murder, if you know that the people you are shooting at will shoot back.

... and there's no record of it with context, or witnesses (unless you wait for them to draw.)

It's not great, but is there a better suggestion?

Based on the state attorney's comments "the two sides were mutual combatants". So it's Def your first thought. Non-whites killing non-whites in a known gang area. But, two of the suspects are dead now but they don't say how.

Police: “I mean, he said he didn’t do it. Case closed!” 😎

?? The police solved the case. It's the DA's Office that decides to charge or not charge. Kim Foxx refuses to charge these cases and uses every loophole she can find to keep these gangsters out of jail. The Police Union and Mayor Lori Lightfoot have both lodged formal complaints against the DA's Office for not prosecuting violent crimes using the "mutual combat" exception.

[removed]

And marginally more successful than “If I did do it…”

[removed]

We can thank Kim Foxx for this travesty. One among many.

>Police say the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office cited the possibility that the two sides in the shooting on May 30, 2018, were “mutual combatants” — a disputed legal concept that’s a throwback to duels between nobles or prearranged gunfights in the Wild West.
>
>That prosecutors passed on charges on those grounds raises questions about whether Chicago gangs can literally get away with murder when it’s unclear who initiated a shooting and who returned fire in self-defense.

The solution is you prosecute everyone on both sides for attempted murder.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

So are the Prosecutors too corrupt or too scared to do their jobs?

Which is slight more successful than the "make a mix tape about how it did it" defense.

[removed]

[removed]

From my time on jury duty, the prosecution’s job is not to prove anything “beyond the shadow of a doubt,” it’s to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

You have the right to defend yourself from someone shooting at you, even if you are a minority in an area with gang violence. We cannot apply laws differently to suburbanites and to “people that look like they’re in a gang”.

There is no legal basis to charge someone who uses violence only after they are attacked unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt they did not have a legal justification to use force.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

>Prosecutors also cited “inconsistent witnesses” as a reason to not prosecute. Two of the suspects have since been killed. Another, identified by a witness, told police: “I didn’t pull the trigger.”

"Wrap it up boys, he said he didn't do it so there's nothing more we can do"

What about "I missed"?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]