While looking at the homepage of the Chicago Tribune just now for reports on the number of shootings and murders in Chicago, I read how Lake County handles allegations of stolen political signs.
A little differently than in McHenry County, where all it apparently takes for an arrested suspect to be cut loose (without being charged) is for his boss to call a prominent lawyer who calls the sheriff, who lets it roll downhill from there to a detective to give the suspect, freed of his handcuffs, a ride back to his car 15 miles away.
What happens in Lake County? Ms. Patricia Fix gets elected - she is the Fix who is "in" in Lake County.
Well, first, the person, a lawyer accused of stealing signs but who hasn't been charged, is an assistant state's attorney in the Lake County (Ill.) State's Attorney's Office. She had political signs of an opponent in her vehicle. She says she had them because an overzealous supporter had taken them. She was placed on unpaid administrative leave on November 1.
Obviously, what she should have done - immediately - when her supporter showed up and wanted to give her the signs, was to call her opponent and explain what happened. She should have ordered the supporter to take the signs directly to the opponent. Well, duh.... But to keep them in her car?
Compare how sign theft is handled in Lake County with how it's handled by the McHenry County Sheriff's Department.
Lake County - attorney gets put on unpaid leave. Investigation underway.
McHenry County - sign company employee gets arrested, but then not charged and turned loose.
Lake County - newspaper reports
McHenry County - not a word in the newspaper
Lake County - matter proceeds through channels
McHenry County - MCSD acts as cop, judge, jury - all before suspect even gets to jail
I am reminded of the day in 2010 when I was driving down Route 47 toward Huntley and spotted a damaged political sign of opponent Mike Mahon, pulled out of the ground and left there to blow away. I guess I should have picked up the sign and put it in my car (and just waited until the next time I saw Mike somewhere (if ever)). Instead, I called Mike and told him about his sign. And Mike would have done the same for me.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
8 comments:
Wow, those cases are totally similar so your article makes total sense. (for those of you new to the WA I am kidding!)
I am trying to think of two cases that are more different (as a bad example of how crappy your logic is--and it's actually eluding me).
In the first case a person removes signs from his property, he's not stealing them, he's removing them. In the second, a person is taking signs of a competitor off of other people's property. I know the difference is totally lost on you, but I doubt it's lost on anyone else.
Come on, Ray. You're a lawyer. You should understand when crimes are committed.
The first case was a criminal case of theft, as the deputy fully understood. That's why he arrested Steve, handcuffed him and hauled him off to the pokey.
Steve had no authority to remove the signs; at least, I assume the contract between the sign company and the property owner merely stated if, in fact, there was a contract and if, in fact, it did so state, that no sign of an opponent could be placed on the property.
At most, there was a violation of a contract. That's a civil matter. The sign company needed to send a letter to the property owner. You should know that.
Then the property owner could have removed the offending sign, ending the violation of the contract. If he didn't, the remedy for the sign company would be found in civil court.
Sheesh!!!
Umm, no. Perhaps you should look up the word theft, then you won't think that every taking is a theft.
Without looking it up, theft is when someone takes someone else's property with the intention of permanently depriving them of it's use.
So without further ado ... you leave you (insert piece of personal property here) on my real property. I take it and put it in a box labeled "lost and found." Did I take the property: sure. Did I commit the crime of theft: umm, no. Because I never intended to deprive you of that property.
Most crimes require a person to have a specific intent to commit the crime. Without that specific intent, there is no crime.
End of law lesson. That will be $147,000.00.
Do I get a degree or diploma for my $147,000?
If the box marked "Lost & Found" is locked up in your garage for a few years, you still planned to find the owner; right?
The "permanently deprived" is an interesting twist of words and especially since they showed up the the detective's report about Steve's case.
There has got to be a word to describe Steve's case and how his way out the door was greased. I'm glad he didn't slip and fall.
If I recall the events correctly - the sign was ripped down off of the posts by "Steve" - rendering it useless and destroying Mr. Chirikos' property. Steve was caught when he went back the next day to pull the rest of the sign off of the posts. The deputy saw the sign in the back of Steve's car and having already had a theft report on file from the previous day, arrested Steve. Also, according to Mr. Chirikos, he had the property owner's permission to place the sign on the property, thereby making Steve's unauthorized actions a theft. End of story.
Umm, no, not even close. There is no end of story here because there is no intent ... or at least you can't prove it.
Why don't you guys apply as state's attorneys, cuz my job would be WAAAAY easier. You all seem to think how you feel about a matter means something ... it doesn't, you miss an element of a crime and there is no crime (I know sounds like a tough system, but we call it the American System).
Do you see how it doesn't matter if the sign poster has permission from the owner, it is the intent of the sign possesor ... go back to the drawing board guys ... it's been fun.
Thanks, Ray. I'll remember "intent" the next time the U.S. Government over-deposits in my checking account by $2,000,000. I won't "intend" to deprive the Government of its money by keeping it safely tucked away for the day when they remember that I got it.
And my quick "side-trip" to some off-shore paradise was really just a trip that I'd had in mind for years.
While it could be hard to "prove" that Steve intended to deprive Chirikos "permanently" of his sign, a jury might rather quickly decide that Steve was guilty.
Of course, he would have had to be charged first, and MCSD skillfully (?) side-tracked the arresting deputy by deciding way in a advance that all Steve had to do was say he didn't do it, and they'd give him a ride back to his car.
It's sad how bad your example is, but I will use it anyway.
The US gov't accidentally puts 2 mill in your account.
Example 1: You never check your balance for two years. You don't even know it's there .. you have no intent to take it.
Example 2: You discover it and take it to the islands ... You have the intent to deprive the gov't of the funds.
You say that a jury might find ...etc, etc, ... when you have a case so clearly not a violation of the law ... it never gets to the jury ... at worst I would take it to bench trial, but it probably doesn't get that far because the prosecutor would dismiss it.
Sigh.
Post a Comment