Suspect in Hadiya slaying indicted on 141 counts of murder

[Dari]

anyone figure out the legal basis for the charges?

seems fing weird

I'm interested as well but, truth be told, prosecutors have far more powers than judges these days. Who gave it to them? The electorate, that's who. I'm sure the prosecutor had her interns burn the midnight oil finding everything they can to bury this beautiful being so deep that he'll never see freedom again.

 

[Wreckem]

Its common to an extent. 141 is probably the highest, but there are many cases with 50-100 counts of murder(especially when guns are involed) for 1 death.

Each count is more or less an ALTERNATIVE argument/theory. Most get dropped well before trial once all the evidence gets sorted out. He'll only be convicted of 1 count of murder.

You charge for everything to cover your ass and then drop charges as they no longer fit.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no point banning it in Chicago when the murderers can just go outside the city limits or to a different state to procure these weapons. This problem needs to be tackled at a federal level. NYC has this problem where gunrunners move between Virginia and New York to ply their trade. Clamp down hard on guns nationwide and this problem will disappear. But people think it'll infringe their Jesus-given right to fight the government, like a .22 will stop an army from marching into your neighborhood.

I find it funny that lefties like to argue that a rag-tag force cannot fight a professional army. Have they completely blanked out all the complaining they did about Iraq during the Bush presidency?

 

[Dari]

I find it funny that lefties like to argue that a rag-tag force cannot fight a professional army. Have they completely blanked out all the complaining they did about Iraq during the Bush presidency?

Put another way, you're basically equating owning something with knowing how to use it. Fact is, rag-tag forces are only as good as the experience they have. Americans have not experienced a real war since the Civil War. We don't have the experience of fighting an internecine conflict. Should civil war break out, a gun may become invaluable, but so will knowing how to shoot, survive, and thrive with the most basic of gears. Most gun owners, let alone Americans, will not be able to cope.

 

[cubby1223]

No, you grow the fuck up. The victims in these shootings are real. Their families are real. The pain is real. You may not be able to relate to them because or race or economic status but many of them are good, hard working people. It's not funny when assholes like you or waggy make light of the fact that Chicago politicians, are doing the best they can to stop the violence given their limited means. They can make it illegal within the city limits but they cannot setup a fortress-like city to prevent guns from coming in. Assholes like you would bitch and whine about your ridiculous rights when real people are dying. Fact is, criminals abuse our system and it's time to address this guns-right issue head on.

Sorry, you lost the my respect when you complained of "Jesus-given rights". When you've calmed down, re-read what you wrote. I mean, you're saying I'm some evil heartless person when what I suggest we should be focused on changing the conditions that give rise to gangs. Or, let's fight the corruption in Chicago politicians draining the city of money that could have instead been used to benefit the troubled neighborhoods.

It's a very simple equation, guns do not equate to violence, but gangs do equate to violence. This is why the violence is largely isolated into a few areas around Chicago.

Like I said before, grow up.

 

[drebo]

No, you grow the fuck up. The victims in these shootings are real. Their families are real. The pain is real. You may not be able to relate to them because or race or economic status but many of them are good, hard working people. It's not funny when assholes like you or waggy make light of the fact that Chicago politicians, are doing the best they can to stop the violence given their limited means. They can make it illegal within the city limits but they cannot setup a fortress-like city to prevent guns from coming in. Assholes like you would bitch and whine about your ridiculous rights when real people are dying. Fact is, criminals abuse our system and it's time to address this guns-right issue head on.

So ban criminals. They're the ones creating the victims and the pain.

Perhaps if the Chicago politicians weren't so corrupt, they might have the money to invest in bigger prisons or more police.

Seriously, a gun is a tool. Nothing more. It doesn't pick its own targets and it doesn't fire itself. A person is required to make those choices and perform those actions, and it's the person who needs to be held responsible.

You think that banning guns nationwide will make any difference what so ever? Criminals are criminals by virtue of the fact that they don't follow laws. If they want someone dead, they're still a criminal, and a law isn't likely to stop them from obtaining a way to kill people.

So, why don't you grow up and start holding people accountable for their own actions?

Or would you rather live in a state where the government told you which direction to piss when the wind was blowing?

Those who would give up their rights for the illusion of security are far more dangerous than any criminal.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No, you grow the fuck up. The victims in these shootings are real. Their families are real. The pain is real. You may not be able to relate to them because or race or economic status but many of them are good, hard working people. It's not funny when assholes like you or waggy make light of the fact that Chicago politicians, are doing the best they can to stop the violence given their limited means. They can make it illegal within the city limits but they cannot setup a fortress-like city to prevent guns from coming in. Assholes like you would bitch and whine about your ridiculous rights when real people are dying. Fact is, criminals abuse our system and it's time to address this guns-right issue head on.

So someone living in rural Alaska shouldn't be allowed to own firearms because gang members in Chicago like to shoot at each other? Why is it OK to infringe on the rights of hundreds of millions of individuals across the entire country to stop gun violence that is primarily happening in specific large cities? Will banning guns actually lead to a significant reduction in shootings happening between gang members given that it hasn't yet? Is banning guns a better solution than attempting to address the socioeconomic situation specific to the neighborhoods where gun violence is the worst? Do you agree with the sentiment that liberty is more important than security?

 

[Dari]

Sorry, you lost the my respect when you complained of "Jesus-given rights". When you've calmed down, re-read what you wrote. I mean, you're saying I'm some evil heartless person when what I suggest we should be focused on changing the conditions that give rise to gangs. Or, let's fight the corruption in Chicago politicians draining the city of money that could have instead been used to benefit the troubled neighborhoods.

It's a very simple equation, guns do not equate to violence, but gangs do equate to violence. This is why the violence is largely isolated into a few areas around Chicago.

Like I said before, grow up.

These communities and Chicago have their own problems but gun culture exacerbates it. If we can focus on one or two, why not all three?

So ban criminals. They're the ones creating the victims and the pain.

Perhaps if the Chicago politicians weren't so corrupt, they might have the money to invest in bigger prisons or more police.

Seriously, a gun is a tool. Nothing more. It doesn't pick its own targets and it doesn't fire itself. A person is required to make those choices and perform those actions, and it's the person who needs to be held responsible.

You think that banning guns nationwide will make any difference what so ever? Criminals are criminals by virtue of the fact that they don't follow laws. If they want someone dead, they're still a criminal, and a law isn't likely to stop them from obtaining a way to kill people.

So, why don't you grow up and start holding people accountable for their own actions?

Or would you rather live in a state where the government told you which direction to piss when the wind was blowing?

Those who would give up their rights for the illusion of security are far more dangerous than any criminal.

Your argument is weak as seen by other advanced countries that have limited access to guns.

So someone living in rural Alaska shouldn't be allowed to own firearms because gang members in Chicago like to shoot at each other? Why is it OK to infringe on the rights of hundreds of millions of individuals across the entire country to stop gun violence that is primarily happening in specific large cities? Will banning guns actually lead to a significant reduction in shootings happening between gang members given that it hasn't yet? Is banning guns a better solution than attempting to address the socioeconomic situation specific to the neighborhoods where gun violence is the worst? Do you agree with the sentiment that liberty is more important than security?

Limiting access across the board helps. I don't think an Alaska hunter would have much use for some of the weapons the murderers in Chicago are putting to use.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Limiting access across the board helps. I don't think an Alaska hunter would have much use for some of the weapons the murderers in Chicago are putting to use.

So you ban handguns and the like. But the gang members still want to kill each other. So they get rifles or shotguns. And then you ban the rifles or shotguns. But now you're affecting the hunter who has never and will never fire a gun at a human with the intent to kill them. Where does it end? Even if you get rid of all the guns, the gang members are going to keep killing each other. It's a systemic problem that is not going to be solved in the slightest by restricting access to a specific product. The only chance to see an improvement is to change the culture. Getting rid of guns does nothing to address the culture of violence that exists in inner cities. It's a feel-good measure that doesn't actually accomplish anything at the end of the day because regardless of how hard guns are to get, criminals will still get them. Do you think the law-abiding citizens who buy guns now are only doing it to file off the serial numbers and sell them to gangbangers?

 

[waggy]

So you ban handguns and the like. But the gang members still want to kill each other. So they get rifles or shotguns. And then you ban the rifles or shotguns. But now you're affecting the hunter who has never and will never fire a gun at a human with the intent to kill them. Where does it end? Even if you get rid of all the guns, the gang members are going to keep killing each other. It's a systemic problem that is not going to be solved in the slightest by restricting access to a specific product. The only chance to see an improvement is to change the culture. Getting rid of guns does nothing to address the culture of violence that exists in inner cities. It's a feel-good measure that doesn't actually accomplish anything at the end of the day because regardless of how hard guns are to get, criminals will still get them. Do you think the law-abiding citizens who buy guns now are only doing it to file off the serial numbers and sell them to gangbangers?

even if you ban ALL the guns possible. Gang bangers are still going to have them.

legal and honest people will fallow the law and turn them in.

 

[drebo]

Your argument is weak as seen by other advanced countries that have limited access to guns.

Oh, you mean like the UK, whose violent crime rates are substantially higher than our own?

Yeah, that's real good.

People like you should be locked up. My rights are not yours for the taking just because you don't agree with them.