Why shouldn't someone who participates in an armed robbery , and will share in the proceeds thereof, be responsible for all homicides that occur during that armed robbery?

Yesterday, in a column about Illinois’ new "SAFE-T Act," I explained how the new law makes it safer for armed robbers and other felons using guns to escape prosecution for at least some of the homicides occasioned by their armed robberies.

To understand how this happens, consider the following scenario:

Imagine you are a 20-year-old man. One day you decide you can make some money if you steal some jewelry from Mrs. Harris, a little old lady who owns a little jewelry shop that you pass every day.

You then ask your friend, Max, to act as your lookout. You take along a gun just in case you need a way to force the old lady into her back room so you can escape.

Your friend takes up his position across the street as lookout. When you enter her store, you push Mrs. Harris out of the way and begin scooping up jewelry. She screams. You draw your gun, but only to threaten her. As you do, a customer enters the shop. Startled, you spin and in a nervous reaction, fire without thinking, instantly killing the teenage girl, Mary Jones.

Officer Blue, just two shops away, hears your gun shot, and draws his gun. He investigates. You see the officer with gun in hand first. Thinking only of escape, you shoot striking the officer. Before he dies, Officer Blue gets off three shots.

The first strikes you in the leg. His second shot misses you, but strikes Mrs. Harris, killing her instantly. As Blue spins and crumples to the ground, he squeezes off his third shot, which somehow strikes and kills your friend, the lookout.

In the hospital, your court-appointed attorney informs you that the state's attorney has charged you with armed robbery with a gun. That you expected. He then says you also are charged with four counts of felony murder.

You are charged with murdering Mrs. Harris, Mary Jones, Officer Blue and Max, your friend.

You are stunned. Doesn’t murder require an intent to kill? You had no such intention. Your only intent was to commit a simple armed robbery and then escape. Furthermore, you didn't kill the shop keeper or Max; Officer Blue did.

Your attorney explains you committed your armed robbery a week too soon. He tells you Democrats in the Legislature just passed a new law called the SAFE-T Act. It was apparently enacted and signed by the Democratic governor, who now are making it safer for criminals to commit armed robberies.

Now, when somebody is killed during your armed robbery, you can't be charged with murder, if those killed were killed by somebody other than you or one of your co-defendants. Unfortunately for you, the law is not retroactive. It makes the streets safer only for armed robbers who committed their armed robberies after the effective date of the SAFE-T Act.

But, you ask: "How can I be charged with killing somebody I didn't kill? That's injustice!"

Your public defender explains: "You intended to rob Mrs. Harris. And when you took the gun along, you intended to use it at least to facilitate your escape. But as a rational man, you knew there was a substantial probability you might have to use the gun. Otherwise, why take it? Moreover, it was entirely foreseeable, if you committed this robbery, somebody might be killed. You also knew the police might be called to the armed robbery, and they might shoot either you, or miss you and kill someone else.

"That too was reasonably foreseeable.

"You put into motion everything that happened in that jewelry store. Everybody knows that armed robberies can go wrong and a natural and probable consequence of an armed robbery is that a perpetrator, a responding cop, a passer-by or even a lookout can he struck and killed by a bullet.

"You knew and could foresee that your armed robbery could result in all those deaths. You chose to act in disregard of the reasonably foreseeable consequences. You are not an innocent victim. You were the prime mover of all these events."

"Even if your buddy, Max, hadn’t been killed, he could have been charged with murder, too, even though he never fired a shot. He, too, acted in disregard of the reasonably foreseeable consequences."

So the issue is this: Should an armed robber and his accomplices be responsible for every death that occurs during the course of an armed robbery? Or just those deaths that he or his accomplices personally cause?

Look at it from a different angle: Would any of the people in my scenario be dead if the armed robber and his accomplice hadn’t decided to rob Mrs. Harris’ store? Absent this armed robbery, all these people would still be alive. The robbers set the whole train of events in motion, and they knew – as anyone would – that in any armed robbery with a gun, victims, bystanders, cops and even fellow robbers could get killed. Thus, the murder charges

The deceptively labeled SAFE-T Act, like Illinois' bail "reform," is a fraud upon the public enacted into law by fools who lack the common sense to hold public office.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 19, 2022

Armed robbers applaud Illinois Legislature's revision of the "Felony Murder Rule"

What follows are the opinions of a curmudgeon and retired judge. It comes in two parts, with the second to follow tomorrow.

On Sunday, Jan. 30, 2022, The Dispatch-Argus, in what can only be fairly described as an act of gross journalistic malpractice, irresponsibly turned the front and second pages of its paper over to a group of activists, labeling themselves "Injustice Watch."

In that article, deceptively titled, "Felony murder called flawed," the Dispatch-Argus allowed "Injustice Watch" to portray as a victim a convicted murderer named Gerald Berry, who when he was 20 years old knowingly and intentionally allowed himself to be persuaded by his friends to join them in perpetrating a residential burglary and armed robbery to obtain some "quick money." That armed robbery resulted in the deaths of one of the homeowners and one of Berry's armed robber friends.

According to the Injustice Watch article, Berry said, "It was just shocking … It was unbelievable because that’s not what we thought was going to happen."

Berry's complaint is that he was unjustly found guilty of not just the death of the homeowner, but also the death of one of his armed robber buddies. Berry, who remained in the get-away car and knowingly and intentionally acted as the lookout, is portrayed in the article as a victim of a bad law.

Really?

Today, it seems clear that if you are an activist group, claiming to be against "injustice," you can write up an absurd and dangerous "bill" and easily persuade the Democrats in the Illinois Legislature to pass it, and Illinois' Democratic governor to sign it into law. It's simple. Give it a cutesy name, such as "SAFE-T Act," and the Democrats will trip over themselves to vote for it. I blame the Democrats in the Illinois Legislature because they have absolute control of both the House and Senate.

The "SAFE-T Act," however, is aptly named. The act makes crime a whole lot safer for armed robbers and other felons using guns to escape prosecution for, and the conviction of, murder for at least some of the homicides occasioned by their armed robberies.

To see why, compare the words of the old first-degree murder statute with those of the new "SAFE-T Act."

The prior Illinois first-degree murder statute read:

"A person who kills an individual without lawful justification, commits first-degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death, he is attempting or committing a forcible felony ..."

Under that statute, if anyone was killed during the course of the armed robbery, all of the armed robbers were liable to be prosecuted under the felony murder rule for every death that rose out of the armed robbery.

A felony murder was a homicide that occurred during the perpetration of a "forcible felony." The legislature had defined the term "forcible felony" to include the crimes of armed robbery and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

The new "SAFE-T Act" reads:

"A person who kills an individual without lawful justification, commits first-degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death, he, acting alone, with one or more other participants, commits or attempts to commit a forcible felony ... and in the course of which or in furtherance of such crime or flight therefrom, he or another participant causes the death of another person."

Previously an armed robber was indictable for every death that occurred during his armed robbery. Now he is liable only if he, or one of his accomplices, does the killing.

It shouldn't be too difficult to see how this change makes it harder to prosecute criminals in the deaths of people, deaths that wouldn’t have happened if people like Gerald Berry hadn’t taken part in forcible felonies.

When this column continues tomorrow, I’ll present a situation that will make it clear why the new "SAFE-T-Act" is a bad law, and why the changes it made to the murder statute makes prosecuting crimes harder; why it makes sense to be able to prosecute people for murder even if they didn’t pull the trigger.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 18, 2022

Dear Government: Be Consistent on Bodily Choice

Do you have an absolute right to make decisions about your body? Yes or no?


When it comes to abortion, it is extremely difficult to find any prominent Democrat holding national office who would say, "a woman does not have an absolute right to make decisions about her own body!" Tulsi Gabbard tried and was savaged.


But what about when it comes to women being subjected to President Biden's Covid vaccination mandates? If a woman "has the absolute right to make decisions about her own body," how can any president make them for her?


On Sept. 9, 2021, Vice President Kamela Harris, while hosting a Reproductive Rights Roundtable in the vice-president's Ceremonial White House Office, advised the participants that:

"The President and I are unequivocal in our support of Roe v. Wade ... and the right of women to make decisions for themselves, with whomever they choose, — about their own bodies.... the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision; it is their body." 


"When people are able to design their lives in a way that they can determine their own futures, we are a stronger democracy and we are a stronger nation.

"When people are able to make choices without government interference for themselves — in terms of their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their family, in consultation with whomever they may choose — we are a stronger society."

But if the president and vice president are indeed unequivocal in their support of the right of women to make their own decisions about their own bodies, and that that right is not negotiable, where do the president and vice president get off telling every woman — not to mention every man in America — that they must, in some cases, wear Covid masks and that they have to get vaccinated under penalty of being discharged from our Armed Forces, or being fired by their employers for failure to comply?


If you are a Democrat, one of Biden's or Dr. Anthony Faucci's disciples, your rational argument will immediately appear:

"The Covid does not only affect the woman. If she contracts Covid she can infect her children, her husband and indeed any person with whom she comes into contact. That transmission can cause sickness, hospitalization and even death to the infected person. Therefore, in this instance, the interests of the state — the public welfare —override the woman's otherwise non-negotiable right to make her own decisions about her own body."

The gist of your position is that a woman does not have the absolute right to make decisions about her own body, if it might cause death or serious sickness to another individual.


If that, indeed, is your justification for the distinction that you draw, then to be logical and rational, you must ask at least the following questions.

"When a woman exercises the right of control over her own body and aborts her child, doesn't that choice absolutely guarantee the death of the child in her womb?"

Is the child in its mother's womb merely a "part" of its mother, like a finger or a mole, or is it a separate human person in temporary residence? Does the child carry its own unique DNA, or does it possess only its mother's DNA?


If your justification for overriding a woman's non-negotiable right to absolute control of her own body, and mandating that women get Covid-vaccinated, is that they might transmit Covid, which might result in another human's death, then how can you justify allowing a woman absolute control of her own body when aborting will with certainty result in the death of the child in her womb? Or don't children's lives matter?


This op-ed does not argue that abortion is never justifiable. Nor is it an argument the State can never mandate public health measures such as mass vaccinations. It is an argument against a government taking utterly inconsistent positions.


Our constitutional right of freedom of speech is not absolute. Libel, slander, and incitement to riot have never been deemed guaranteed free speech.


The right to freely practice the religion of your choice does not give you license to eat your neighbor's children.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on February 4, 2022