Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Woman Slashed (By Employee) At Gainesville Wal-Mart
WCJB TV-20 News ^ | 12/17/06 | Michael Maurino

Posted on 12/17/2006 9:03:33 PM PST by Roberts

One local teen went to a store to go shopping and ended up taking a trip to the hospital after a fight with an employee.

Now the store employee is facing jail time after slashing her across the neck.

Gainesville Police say the 17-year-old teenage girl was visiting the Wal-Mart on Northwest 13th Street.

She had walked out of the store, but went back when she thought she left her cell phone in a shopping cart.

Detectives say she approached 18-year-old Wal-Mart employee Darius stacy, who was retreving the carts, and asked if he had the phone.

The two started arguing, and then shoving each other before Stacy pulled out a weapon.

"The employee had a box cutter and he cut the 17 year old in the throat," said GPD Sgt. Keith Kameg. "Fortunately, they were non life threatening injures."

The young woman was treated at Shands U-F for a cut that extended from her left ear to her windpipe.

Stacy is being charged with attempted murder.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: florida
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
Darius Stacy has a career in the NBA or the NFL. Disgusting.
1 posted on 12/17/2006 9:03:35 PM PST by Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Roberts

This would not have happened if Wal-Mart had union employees.
/sarc

WTF is wrong with Florida?


2 posted on 12/17/2006 9:07:47 PM PST by GnuHere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

Aw Hell naw!...I know girlfriend didn't go there!


3 posted on 12/17/2006 9:09:34 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Why can't Republicans stand up to Democrats like they do to terrorists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roberts
"The employee had a box cutter and he cut the 17 year old in the throat,"

I hope this POS is charged accordingly.
4 posted on 12/17/2006 9:09:59 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Cutting Wally ping :)


5 posted on 12/17/2006 9:10:37 PM PST by upchuck (What's done is done. And if we don't get our stuff together, it'll be done to us again in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roberts; aculeus; Billthedrill; Senator Bedfellow; Petronski; Constitution Day; Thinkin' Gal
The young woman was treated at Shands U-F . . .

Unpromising at first glance but who knows . . .

6 posted on 12/17/2006 9:11:45 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

Not just cut in the throat:

"The young woman was treated at Shands U-F for a cut that extended from her left ear to her windpipe."

Attempted murder.


7 posted on 12/17/2006 9:12:01 PM PST by Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
I hope this POS is charged accordingly.

The article sez, "Stacy is being charged with attempted murder."

8 posted on 12/17/2006 9:12:34 PM PST by upchuck (What's done is done. And if we don't get our stuff together, it'll be done to us again in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
I hope this POS is charged accordingly.

Attempted murder is pretty according.

9 posted on 12/17/2006 9:12:42 PM PST by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GnuHere

Don't blame the state, blame the individual. I should know - I live in California.

There must be something seriously wrong with that guy's mentality if he drew a deadly weapon and went for a throat slash over a minor argument. He's a dangerous psychopath and should be treated accordingly. Thank God he's 18 so no slap on the wrist juvie court for him.


10 posted on 12/17/2006 9:13:19 PM PST by JillValentine (Being a feminist is all about being a victim. Being an armed woman is all about not being a victim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

Here's more on it.


Man held in throat slashing attack

By DEBORAH BALL

Sun staff writer
December 17. 2006 6:01AM

A Gainesville Wal-Mart employee was arrested late Friday after police say he slashed a teen's throat with a box cutter during an argument over a missing cell phone in the Wal-Mart parking lot.

Darius J. Stacy, 18, of 6136 NW 26th St., was retrieving carts from the parking lot on NW 13th Street at 8 p.m. when the 17-year-old girl, with whom he is acquainted, approached him about her missing cell phone, police reported.

The pair began to argue and pushed each other for about 30 seconds before Stacy reached into his back pocket and pulled the box cutter out, according to witnesses.

Witnesses said that Stacy then slashed the teen's throat, which left behind a 7-inch-long cut from below her left ear to about the center of her throat. The teen's larynx was injured and she underwent emergency surgery at Shands at the University of Florida, officers said. Her injuries were not considered life-threatening.

Officers said Stacy ran from the parking lot to a drainage ditch behind a nearby grocery store where he hid his orange work vest and the box cutter. His mother later brought him to the Gainesville Police Department, police said.

A manager at Wal-Mart declined to comment about Stacy's arrest Saturday.

Stacy was charged with attempted murder by police and was being held on $50,000 bond Saturday night at the Alachua County Jail.

http://gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061217/LOCAL/61217020/-1/news


11 posted on 12/17/2006 9:14:10 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

But did she get her phone back?

Thankfully, she wasn't seriously injured by this...this...

this, whatever won't get me banned.


12 posted on 12/17/2006 9:14:24 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roberts
Black Youth with a criminal history it seems after googling and finding this in the same area...

http://www.police.ufl.edu/upd_crimelog/data/2004/04-13.htm

Seems he was a thief also... and like to steal ... from women ...

13 posted on 12/17/2006 9:14:41 PM PST by LowOiL (Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: jazusamo

Well, at least his mother brought him in to the cops instead of wailing, "But my babyyyyy couldn't have done anything wrong! You're just perpetuatin' the cycle!"


16 posted on 12/17/2006 9:17:25 PM PST by JillValentine (Being a feminist is all about being a victim. Being an armed woman is all about not being a victim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Beat ya by a few seconds... smile


17 posted on 12/17/2006 9:17:31 PM PST by LowOiL (Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine
Well, at least his mother brought him in to the cops instead of wailing

He has a history... of stealing ect..

18 posted on 12/17/2006 9:19:01 PM PST by LowOiL (Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GnuHere

Too much diversity?


19 posted on 12/17/2006 9:19:02 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (Only liberals and RINOS can escape full speed through cracks that would challenge a cockroach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LowOiL

I'm surprised it is on the net, is that a mistake, or was he tried as an adult or something?


20 posted on 12/17/2006 9:20:56 PM PST by ansel12 (America, love it ,or at least give up your home citizenship before accepting ours too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; SittinYonder
Your are both right that's what he was arrested for. I have my doubts as to whether he will be rightfully tried for that charge though (plea deals etc.). I also would have added assault on a minor.
21 posted on 12/17/2006 9:22:22 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine

Yep, that's good. I'll bet she was one ticked off mother.


22 posted on 12/17/2006 9:22:49 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I'm surprised it is on the net, is that a mistake, or was he tried as an adult or something?

Open case probable still investigating.

23 posted on 12/17/2006 9:23:23 PM PST by LowOiL (Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell

But, um, diversity and tolerance is the answer to all of society's ills.

jk/ I fall more into the Tancredo camp.


24 posted on 12/17/2006 9:24:42 PM PST by GnuHere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

I think the Walton family is going to make this young lady very wealthy. A store employee on store grounds willfully injures a customer. I see a 7 figure judgement or settlement coming up.


25 posted on 12/17/2006 9:25:58 PM PST by exhaustguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine

What do you want to bet it is Wal-Mart that is going to end up paying...


26 posted on 12/17/2006 9:26:21 PM PST by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

Oh my gosh. She could have bled to death. That's quite an over reaction to an argument. I hope they throw that punk so deep in jail that he never sees the light of day again.


27 posted on 12/17/2006 9:27:27 PM PST by NRA2BFree (May you always have love to share, health to spare, and friends that care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
"How many times do I have to tell you, slash the prices!"
28 posted on 12/17/2006 9:27:53 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Ok, that made me chuckle


29 posted on 12/17/2006 9:28:59 PM PST by LowOiL (Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GnuHere

So do I.


30 posted on 12/17/2006 9:29:14 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (Only liberals and RINOS can escape full speed through cracks that would challenge a cockroach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

Gee, I guess "sales associates" at Wally World just aren't what they used to be.


31 posted on 12/17/2006 9:40:33 PM PST by garyhope (It's World War IV, right here, right now courtesy of Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

Only one unanswered question...did he have the cellphone?


32 posted on 12/17/2006 9:43:25 PM PST by trussell (Proud to be a Jesus Freak! / Happy camper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine

I carry a gun in the small of my back...I don't think it would be wise for someone to try this with me. Even if he cut me, I'd still aerate him before they hauled me off in the ambulance.


33 posted on 12/17/2006 9:47:27 PM PST by trussell (Proud to be a Jesus Freak! / Happy camper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: exhaustguy; DB
[I think the Walton family is going to make this young lady very wealthy. A store employee on store grounds willfully injures a customer. I see a 7 figure judgement or settlement coming up.]


I see it, too, but I really don't think it's the store's fault. They certainly couldn't have done anything to prevent this turd from attacking the woman out in the parking lot employee or not.

Maybe they could have refused to hire the guy knowing that he had a past criminal record, but I would bet that if WalMart had a policy of refusing to hire an adult worker because he had a past record for theft as a juvenile then the s*** would hit the fan as Jesse Jackson and his bunch of fellow extortionists rode into town to protest WallyWorld's racist hiring policies, and millions of brain dead but compassionate Americans would go along with it.
34 posted on 12/17/2006 9:50:05 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: trussell
[I carry a gun in the small of my back...I don't think it would be wise for someone to try this with me. Even if he cut me, I'd still aerate him before they hauled me off in the ambulance.]


Stories like this are why I decided to start taking martial arts training a few months ago. The school I go to emphasizes real world situations exactly like this where a person attacks you or others with a weapon and you need to quickly take them down to the ground and make sure they can't get back up.

I absolutely support the idea of responsible, law abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons for the purpose of taking down violent criminals, but there are so many times when some well practiced and well disciplined barehanded self defense is appropriate. If this guy had tried pulling a knife of any of the black belt ladies in our school, HE would have been lucky to leave in an ambulance.
35 posted on 12/17/2006 10:04:07 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: trussell

I wish there were a lot more responsible people like you who carried handguns. We WOULD be a lot safer.


36 posted on 12/17/2006 10:07:15 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

LOL


37 posted on 12/17/2006 10:07:32 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Prayers for our patriot brother, 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub, now more than ever my FRiends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

I agree that it is not Wal-Mart's fault, but it is another example when PC collides. I remember that Casey's (like 7-11 but in Iowa) got into trouble for firing a fuel delivery driver who was an alcoholic. Think about that for a minute. Talk about your Catch 22.

If the man had a violent criminal record, then Wal-Mart should be well within their rights (and in my mind their duty) to refuse to hire the person. Someone who has property crimes would not be expected to be violent so refusal to hire could be difficult (and also more of a defense for Wal-Mart). Of course it does not make sense for a thief to be hired by a store. On the other hand how can criminals ever rejoin society if no one employs them (kind of like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables).


38 posted on 12/17/2006 10:10:08 PM PST by exhaustguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

The law in my state also gives me the right to protect a stranger, outside of my home, if I notice they are in danger of imminent death or serious bodily injury. I wish it were that way all over.


39 posted on 12/17/2006 10:12:36 PM PST by trussell (Proud to be a Jesus Freak! / Happy camper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GnuHere

Easy call. It is spelled: "Black Hooligan"


40 posted on 12/17/2006 10:12:56 PM PST by dk/coro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: exhaustguy
In an ideal world, the scumbag who cut her would recompense her and make her whole, but we know THAT isn't going to happen.

The next best thing would be for the scumbag to go to jail for a long time and for WalMart to be big enough to offer to pay her for her medical bills and also a modest amount of cash to cover her trauma and scarring (a four inch long scar from her neck to her ea is a big deal for a woman) even though they may not be technically liable for it. Should that happen, I also hope that the woman also be big enough to accept it and not look at this as winning the lottery and holding out for the big bucks for herself and some slimy lawyer.
41 posted on 12/17/2006 10:20:01 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

Although a firearm is by far the most effective means of self-defense, I agree that martial arts training can be very effective and helpful - as a primary source of self-defense in places where guns aren't allowed, or as a way to buy that extra second or two to get at the gun.

And I would have loved to see a story about a wannabe thug getting his ass kicked by one of those black belt ladies.


42 posted on 12/17/2006 10:21:33 PM PST by JillValentine (Being a feminist is all about being a victim. Being an armed woman is all about not being a victim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: trussell

Your about page says your home state is Colorado. I need to look up the law in my state to see how much leeway a person has in using force to protect others, but seeing as how I live in Illinois...


43 posted on 12/17/2006 10:23:57 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Roberts

Boxcutters don't kill people, people kill people. Rosie O'Donnell and Babawawa will be banning all boxcutters tomorrow on The Phew.


44 posted on 12/17/2006 10:26:52 PM PST by I'm ALL Right! ("Tolerance" is only required of Conservatives and Christians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GnuHere

What does"diversity"have to do with this case?Some young punk who happended to be black commited a very dangerous and stupid crime.Send him away for a long stretch.Case closed.
If a white kid did something similiar,would you make the"diversity"comment?


45 posted on 12/17/2006 10:35:55 PM PST by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: JillValentine
[And I would have loved to see a story about a wannabe thug getting his ass kicked by one of those black belt ladies.]



That did happen. Several years ago, one of our black belt ladies was attacked by a man in a parking lot after midnight; he pulled a knife on her and told her to get into his car.

She beat him down to the ground in a few seconds with some very aggressive kicks to the groin, ribs, neck and head, and he regained consciousness just in time to enjoy the trip to the hospital. She didn't get a scratch.

I'd like my daughter to take martial arts classes but you need a lot of dedication to really make it pay off-- and she's 13 right now with interests all over the board and she can't seem to pay attention to one thing for more than five seconds. :^)
47 posted on 12/17/2006 10:38:39 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: trussell

Thanks.

cutting, pasting and printing now for later reading.


48 posted on 12/17/2006 10:40:22 PM PST by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
Wow...lets try that again

Illinois laws about using a firearm in defense are as follows:

ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION


(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑4)
Sec. 7‑4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑8)
Sec. 7‑8. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
(a) Force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, within the meaning of Sections 7‑5 and 7‑6 includes:
(1) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the
person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and

(2) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which
the person to be arrested is riding.

(b) A peace officer's discharge of a firearm using ammunition designed to disable or control an individual without creating the likelihood of death or great bodily harm shall not be considered force likely to cause death or great bodily harm within the meaning of Sections 7‑5 and 7‑6.
(Source: P.A. 90‑138, eff. 1‑1‑98.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑9) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑9)
Sec. 7‑9. Use of force to prevent escape.
(a) A peace officer or other person who has an arrested person in his custody is justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody as he would be justified in using if he were arresting such person.
(b) A guard or other peace officer is justified in the use of force, including force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, which he reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑10) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑10)
Sec. 7‑10. Execution of death sentence.
A public officer who, in the exercise of his official duty, puts a person to death pursuant to a sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, is justified if he acts in accordance with the sentence pronounced and the law prescribing the procedure for execution of a death sentence.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑11) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑11)
Sec. 7‑11. Compulsion.
(a) A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense punishable with death, by reason of conduct which he performs under the compulsion of threat or menace of the imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, if he reasonably believes death or great bodily harm will be inflicted upon him if he does not perform such conduct.
(b) A married woman is not entitled, by reason of the presence of her husband, to any presumption of compulsion, or to any defense of compulsion except that stated in Subsection (a).
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑12) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑12)
Sec. 7‑12. Entrapment.
A person is not guilty of an offense if his or her conduct is incited or induced by a public officer or employee, or agent of either, for the purpose of obtaining evidence for the prosecution of that person. However, this Section is inapplicable if the person was pre‑disposed to commit the offense and the public officer or employee, or agent of either, merely affords to that person the opportunity or facility for committing an offense.
(Source: P.A. 89‑332, eff. 1‑1‑96.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑13)
Sec. 7‑13. Necessity.
Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)


(720 ILCS 5/7‑14) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑14)
Sec. 7‑14. Affirmative defense. A defense of justifiable use of force, or of exoneration, based on the provisions of this Article is an affirmative defense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
 

49 posted on 12/17/2006 10:42:16 PM PST by trussell (Proud to be a Jesus Freak! / Happy camper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

print the next one instead...better formatting, easier to read. Sorry, something went terribly wrong in the original posts formatting. :(


50 posted on 12/17/2006 10:45:10 PM PST by trussell (Proud to be a Jesus Freak! / Happy camper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson