Would you Illini explain this to a furriner?

skidmark · Oct 10, 2011

First Rule of a Gunfight: An off-duty deputy shot and killed a 16-year-old and critically injured three others during a robbery at a Rockford [IL] pizzeria. The deputy involved in the Saturday night shooting is a 29-year-old U.S. Army veteran who served in Iraq, according to Winnebago County Sheriff Richard Meyers. Meyers did not identify the deputy, who was put on paid administrative leave. The deputy was talking with a friend at the restaurant when the suspects entered the business, acccording to Rockford Police Chief Chet Epperson. One of the suspects pointed a handgun at the deputy and his friend. A struggle ensued and the deputy used an employee's handgun to shoot the suspects. The 16-year-old, identified Monday morning as Michael Sago of Rockford, died at the scene. Epperson says the other three suspects were treated for life-threatening injuries. (Why didn’t the deputy have his own gun?)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...thers-during-robbery-20111003,0,2549590.story

First, how come the deputy did not have his own gun? Is he not covered by LEOSA?

Second, how did an employee manage to have a gun? I thought you folks had laws against that (as well as any possible employer policies).

Thanks for un-confusing me.

stay safe.

Ken56 · Oct 10, 2011

Good question, why didn't the LEO have his own gun ? think he learned anything there? He is lucky he is alive and bravo to him for cleaning up some of the scum out there. 16 or not.

4th amendment violation..........worth thousands

4th AND wrongfull arest...........worth 10s of thousands

what Skidmark has at the bottom of this post in faux deutchenspraken...........priceless.

very funny.

MKEgal · Oct 11, 2011

skidmark said:
First, how come the deputy did not have his own gun?
Second, how did an employee manage to have a gun?

From reading other threads about this incident, apparently it's OK to have a gun in your own house or business. (Chicago has its own rules.)
But yeah, why didn't the LEO have his own SD tool?
Of all the people you'd think would recognize the need for protection...

Ken56 said:
4th amendment violation... worth thousands
4th AND wrongful arest... worth 10s of thousands

Only in some parts of the US. Mine certainly didn't net me tens of thousands.
Hope Skid/User get a friendly judge &/or jury for the 1983 suit.

jayspapa · Oct 11, 2011

MKEgal is correct that you can have a gun on your own property or business . Also , if you have permission of the property owner , you can carry on their property. It just has to be unloaded and cased going between the two places.

As far as the LEO not having his own gun , I have known a couple LEO that didn't carry off duty. I am located in the far South end of the state though. Some people just never learn.

lockman · Oct 12, 2011

It also baffles me. I am fighting to be able to carry and this guy can carry 24/7 anywhere in the state with rare exception and does not carry. I guess the deputy was exercising his right to carry or not to carry. I don't have that luxury.

RetiredOC · Oct 12, 2011

skidmark said:
First, how come the deputy did not have his own gun? Is he not covered by LEOSA?

Second, how did an employee manage to have a gun?

Like Google is so difficult to use? Or are you one of those entitlement children who demands that everything be provided for them by someone else?

But because I'm in a generous mood this morning I'll give it to you:
(720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1)
Sec. 24-1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

“(a) a person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

*** (4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun, taser or other firearm.” 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4)(West 1994).

If you bothered to do your own research you would have found out that possession is legal at a business
stay safe.

EDIT: Since I copy pasted your rude comment to respond to yourself I had to correct some spelling errors. You are welcome.

xd shooter · Oct 12, 2011

Very condescending Schlitz, Congratulations. :uhoh:

RetiredOC · Oct 12, 2011

xd shooter said:
Very condescending Schlitz, Congratulations. :uhoh:

xd shooter · Oct 12, 2011

Probably best just to add to you to my list...

edit..Ahh MUCH better...

RetiredOC · Oct 13, 2011

xd shooter said:
Probably best just to add to you to my list...

edit..Ahh MUCH better...

I lol'd

EDIT: I find it interesting and maybe sad that so many people are offended by comic relief. Instead of growing thick skin it seems too many people are baby'd by their parents their whole life. It's okay to laugh and enjoy the internet, you shouldn't take everything so seriously.

skidmark · Oct 14, 2011

I see that my friend Shlitz is still under the disability of not being able to recognize subtlety and irony when confronted with them in written form. Perhaps I should put little notices in parentheses when ever something other than the absolute literal meaning is implied? (no subtlety or irony)

And yes, it is ironic (no irony) that someone who deals with the dark side of life on a daily basis does not se a need to carry the means to protect himself from that dark side when he is off-duty/out of uniform. Especially since, as a member of the Only Ones, he can do so while those around him cannot. (irony)

stay safe.

RetiredOC · Oct 14, 2011

I don't even know the meaning of what you just said... but it touched my heart.

Sent using Tapatalk

lockman · Oct 15, 2011

Schlitz said:
Like Google is so difficult to use? Or are you one of those entitlement children who demands that everything be provided for them by someone else?

But because I'm in a generous mood this morning I'll give it to you:
(720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1)
Sec. 24-1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

“(a) a person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

*** (4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun, taser or other firearm.” 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4)(West 1994).

If you bothered to do your own research you would have found out that possession is legal at a business
stay safe.

EDIT: Since I copy pasted your rude comment to respond to yourself I had to correct some spelling errors. You are welcome.

Paragraph (4) has been amended by HB183 and now reads a bit more permissive:

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state; or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,

firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or
........

junglebob · Oct 17, 2011

lockman said:
It also baffles me. I am fighting to be able to carry and this guy can carry 24/7 anywhere in the state with rare exception and does not carry. I guess the deputy was exercising his right to carry or not to carry. I don't have that luxury.

Apparently that deputy agreed with the Illinois State Police leadership that you should use car keys, a nail file, or just vomit on an assailent and not carry a gun, and of course you can always call 911.

hermannr · Oct 26, 2011

Why did the Deputy not have his own weapon?

Clue, (I think) in the writeup. I do not know IL law and LE procedures, but here in WA when you are a LEO and are on "administrative leave" that means you have been in a LE shooting. Basically, you are not a active duty LEO, (even though you are still being paid) until the internal investigation has been completed. This means you are relieved of your service arm during that period also.

So, here in WA, LE has other methods of being able to legally carry their own private weapon,,,,BUT in IL? Maybe that is why he was not armed with his own service weapon????

skidmark · Oct 27, 2011

hermannr said:
Why did the Deputy not have his own weapon?

Clue, (I think) in the writeup. I do not know IL law and LE procedures, but here in WA when you are a LEO and are on "administrative leave" that means you have been in a LE shooting. Basically, you are not a active duty LEO, (even though you are still being paid) until the internal investigation has been completed. This means you are relieved of your service arm during that period also.

So, here in WA, LE has other methods of being able to legally carry their own private weapon,,,,BUT in IL? Maybe that is why he was not armed with his own service weapon????

Maybe you missed the sequence of events. THe deputy shot the kid and then was placed on administrative leave.

When he shot the kid he was "off duty" - probably meaning not in uniform and not on active patrol as plainclothes/undercover.

[begin rant]Cops are never "off duty" when they want to impose the majesty of their office, as opposed to making a legal citizen's arrest just like any of the rest of us could do.[/rant]

stay safe.

Would you Illini explain this to a furriner?

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

Ken56

Regular Member

MKEgal

Regular Member

jayspapa

Regular Member

lockman

State Researcher

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

xd shooter

Regular Member

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

xd shooter

Regular Member

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran

lockman

State Researcher

junglebob

Regular Member

hermannr

Regular Member

skidmark

Campaign Veteran