.JPG)
. . . . Except in Chicago, where they're reasonably confident.
Photo by Oleg Volk
If today's headline surprised you, then you might be missing one salient fact:
The armed citizen who shot three men who allegedly attacked him and his companion with a baseball bat and a pistol was a Markham police officer, and so was his companion. Since the people who defended their lives with a handgun were what National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea might call "Only Ones," it was politically safe even for high-ranking "exempt" members of the Chicago and Markham police departments to praise their courage and decisiveness , and no one felt obligated to make the standard political statements that always seem to follow any incident where a plain old citizen defends herself from a robber, a rapist, murderer or mugger:
- "Although it happened to work out for the best this time, we do not encourage civilians to take the law into their own hands," or . . .
- "It's usually a lot safer just to give them what they want and comply with all their commands," . . .
- "It's great that this citizen was able to defend herself, but this is the sort of thing you should really leave to the police. We'd rather you call 911 and be a good witness."
The Chicago Way: if the man in this photo turns out to be a
police officer, he's a hero. If he's a carpenter, a day trader or
a cab driver, he's a felonious vigilante.
Photo by Oleg Volk
Clearly, all available evidence indicates that the defenders in this case did the right thing. Once you're outnumbered and under deadly attack in some dark backyard, it's a little late to call the cavalry for help. In fact, the case was considered so straightforward that Chicago detectives questioned the shooter, the Cook County State's Attorney's office declared the shooting justified, and the Markham Police Department is already talking about how soon the shooter can return to work--all in the same day. All that is appropriate; the shooter earned his congratulations and his hassle-free trip through the legal process by responding with alacrity and precision to a lethal attack. Chicago police are being exhorted to "be warriors" by their bosses, and that's what this Markham officer apparently did. Everybody won in this situation, in short, except the people who failed so spectacularly at victim selection. Happy ending, freeze frame on laughter, roll credits and let's switch to a commercial while we cue up the next bit.
Photo by Oleg Volk
Except . . .
Except that I can't help but wonder what would have happened if one or two things had been different. For instance, what if the Three Little Thugs had thumped an average Chicago citizen with a baseball bat instead of the Warrior of Markham? Well, that would probably have saddened our happy ending considerably in one of two possible ways.
First, given that we're talking about an average Chicago citizen, and it's against the law for such people to own handguns in Chicago, much less carry them, chances are that our hypothetical citizen would have been unarmed. Most knives can't be carried legally in Chicago, either, nor can sticks or batons . . . . even possession of defensive pepper spray is a crime in Chicago! Given these facts, our hypothetical citizen was probably unarmed when the Three Little Thugs bashed him with a baseball bat, so chances are that he had no way to make them stop. At best, he was certainly beaten and robbed; at worst, he was murdered there in that south side backyard because he took the awful chance of answering a Craigslist ad to buy a car after dark in Chicago. But there's another way things could have gone pear-shaped for our hero if he were a non-police citizen. What if our hypothetical average citizen were armed after all?
Ask any honest Chicago cop how many otherwise law-abiding people ignore Chicago law and carry an illegal, unregisterable handgun with them every day; If there are no "exempt" bosses around, most will admit that it's a lot more common than most people think. Of course, even armed with a handgun, our hypothetical average citizen would still need the mindset, the presence of mind, and the sheer grit that the Warrior of Markham displayed. But even if she had managed all that, stopped her attackers and won the day, she would have had another battle coming--against the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois. She would almost certainly have been arrested and had her weapon confiscated, probably along with any others she owned at home, whether legally or not. Her Illinois Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card would have been revoked (if she had one; if not, that would have been added to the charges.) Whether she actually got prosecuted and convicted of Unlawful Use of Weapons plus Possession of an Unregisterable Firearm would have depended, to some extent, on the kind of publicity the shooting generated. A sympathetic public might have forced the same Cook County State's Attorney's office that lauded the Warriors of Markham to let the average citizen off with a stern warning and a $10,000 bill from her lawyer, but such things are never guaranteed. And even in that relatively rosy scenario, the hypothetical average citizen would almost certainly have to listen to newscasters, columnists, and city and police officials describe her as a "vigilante," "gunman," or "suburban cowboy." All of this would be undeniably legal, and many would argue that it would be appropriate. If you think so, leave a comment and tell everyone why--but keep in mind that our hypothetical average citizen and the Warriors of Markham are exactly alike in their actions. The only difference between them is in what they do for a living. The right to defend oneself depends on such odd distinctions in Chicago, but it should not.
Comments
The political machine in Chicago and the PD's in the area cannot afford to have armed citizens capable of self defense. It really is that simple. There is so much official corruption, and outright crime committed by themselves that their worst fear is of a self-reliant public. Surely we have not forgotten Officer Abate? Who was protected from his nearly murderous drunken assault on a woman less than half his size. Unfortunately, his is not a unique case in Chicago.
Were I the kind of miscreant Chicago politicians and too many of her cops are, I would want my victims disarmed too. Thankfully I am much better than that, as is most of mankind, except in Chicago.
A friend of mine's son was robbed in the Water District for the load of meat on his truck. He was tricked out of his cab by a man wearing a white smock and bump cap who told him " We're working overtime today, we may as well get you unloaded and out of here. If you'll unlock your doors and back in, we'll get you unloaded."
As he unlocked the doors he said the two largest black arms came around his chest, picked him off the ground and just held him, while others unloaded his truck and made off with the meat. Whereupon he was set down and left to go on his way.
His father was extremely angry and of course scared when he heard about it. I told him "Be thankful these guys were pros who just were in it for the profit, instead of gangbangers who would have killed him to make their bones, or Chicago cops who may have done the same thing. As we were both familiar with Chicago, he thought about it for about a second and said, "You're right."
Thus it is in Chicago.
Chicago politicians and its police department have had an aversion to citizens being armed, ever since the days of Prohibition. The worst part about this, is the fact that Chicago's voters vote them in again and again and again. Stupid sheeple.
We're going to work on that. ;)
Don't forget a armed robbery was performed in the loop last friday in broad daylight across the street from Chicago's city hall. The robber was using Chicago's public transportation system as well!
www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/fannie-may-candies-shop-in-loop-is-robbed.html
Pistol free Chicago's looking more like the wild west every day.
It's too bad that folks don't understand the reason they are 'in the here and now' is due in no small part to successful natural selection. The simple fact is their ancestors successfully defended themselves, and their offspring, against all threats as did their great great ancestors before them dating back to prehistoric times. Times change, but threats remain the same. It's just human nature.
People have a natural and instinctive right to self defense that predates any law and cannot be regulated by any government, and anyone who tries to regulate such a right should held in great contempt and suspicion. I like to think of it this way, if someone were held against their will, threatened, and were forcibly restrained from defending themselves, they are considered a hostage.
Chicago's gun control sounds like the original gun control law in New York: Tammany Hall politicians, whose corrupt friends didn't like having their strong-arms shot by armed citizens when they were being mugged. How many of the Cook County politicians and police officials are being paid so that only the crooks have guns?
On another (somewhat related) note: I see that the push for another "assault weapons" ban is beginning. "60 Minutes" ran a story last night where Leslie Stahl asked a guy at a gun show "is this an assault weapon" (AR15 sporter). Then she had Diane Feinstein on, who said that she and her friends in congress and the administration were just awaiting the "right moment" to push a law through. She with the California CCW license who has been quoted as saying of handguns: "Mr and Mrs America: start turning them in!"
Most of us here at the Markham Police Department support conceal carry for citizens. We would like to see it restricted to U.S. citizens, with no criminal records and some type of actual training with the weapon to be quailified.
Markham PD, that is great to see! I hope I didn't give the impression that the average cop in a car is opposed to concealed carry for all citizens--I know that isn't the case, not even in Chicago itself. All you have to do is find somebody who doesn't owe his career to Daley or some other clout monster, and they'll tell you.
Any news on how the Warriors of Markham are doing? There was talk of them being back from leave after three days off . . . do you think they'll be back that soon?
In any case, thanks for being the police and the good guys.
Thank you. The officers are doing well and will be back at work soon. We did a live interview today with WVON radio today during the rush hour. Radio personality Cliff Kelly talked about the fact that Chicago residents cannot defend themselves with guns. He is against the gun ban. He stated that when he was an Alderman in Chicago, he voted against the ban. Hats off to him and the other supporters of the Second Amendment. Keep up the good work!
I have 2 legally registered firearms in my home in Chicago...Pretty much the only person I know that has gone through the hassle. I am 100% convinced that as a "regular" guy, if I fired on an intruder I would wind up in Cook County Jail with the thugs, and the DA would make an example of me. Middle class white guy discharges a firearm in gentrified tourist neighborhood? Media goldmine!
Thanks for providing such clear and interesting reading!
On the bright side, Chuck, you'd be famous!
The problem would most likely be in your choice of attackers. Through careful research, the staff here at the Near-Palatial Headquarters of the Chicago Gun Rights Examiner (NPHCGRE) have determined that people who get shot while committing forcible felonies are almost always young men, who are inevitably just on the cusp of turning their lives around. The tragedy is invariable; it always turns out that the poor guy was planning to quit drugs, go to community college, get a job and start paying child support--until he was gunned down in the flower of his youth by some callous soul like you, who needed no better reason than an airy, "Hey, I love my family, and I won't let this guy hurt them or me."
I think it's related to the movie cop "Law of Retirement," where the closer you are to retirement, the more likely you are to take a bullet. Must be the same for criminals.
Chuck, if you're still reading, a question: do you think you have a pretty good handle on who else in your neighborhood owns guns, whether in compliance with the registration requirements or not? One thing I'm always fascinated by is the tendency for Chicago-area gun owners to stay in the closet . . . what do you think?
Hi Don,
I can say with almost absolute certainty that not only do the people in this neighborhood not own a gun, but from my experience (except a few select males) they have never seen one in person, held one, let alone fired one. I get stares of disbelief when they find out I have several.
I am not from this part of the state, and I agree that it is shocking how anti-gun the average person is in Chicagoland. However, even a limited critique of the news/paper/media in general uncovers staunchly left - anti-gun sentiments. We do also live in the most anti-gun city in the entire country.
Chicago says you do not have the right to own a handgun (easily the most functional firearm for immediate personal defense), can't carry it if you had one, can't carry a knife (longer than 2.5 in), can't have a baton, and women can't carry pepper spray. All illegal. Good thing the criminals follow the law or we'd all be screwed!
Woah, your article was truly food for thought. We need to be able to protect ourselves, especially if we're women and especially if we're up against a criminal who would use a weapon on us!!
Depite what that arrogant stuffed shirt idiot moron mayor RICHARD DALEY thinks there is a 2nd amendment and it means what it was origionaly written for so if his royal snottiness might think were not living in a monarcy and he certianly is no nobleman just a annoying little worm
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!