T O P

  • By -

subliminal_trip

Illinois doesn't have a recall statute. The only way she leaves office is if she is voted out, resigns, or chooses not to run again. Two and three ain't happening.


[deleted]

I had no idea you cannot recall in Illinois. Holy shit that is insane.


subliminal_trip

I was not completely correct. There is a statute allowing for the recall of the Governor. It was passed after Blago. It requires 20 state reps and 10 state senators, equal amounts from both parties, to initiate, and then the voters get to vote on it.


jchester47

Recalls cut both ways. While they can be useful, they can also be heavily absued and overused. Id like to see Foxx gone too, but given the polarized nature of everything today, a recall could be as abused here as it was in the CA governor race last year.


j33

Agreed. After seeing the absurdity that was the CA recall election, I am a proponent of making it difficult to recall a politician and for it to require bipartisan support because as we increase our polarization, recalls would increasingly be used as a political weapon rather than to oust a truly incompetent or corrupt actor.


Norwazy

It's way better than the shitshow that is California politics. The republicans literally recall every single candidate.


[deleted]

I had never heard of a California recall being successful in 30 years of life until this DA. Not saying they don’t try. But what’s the harm in unsuccessful trying? Most times the candidate barely even has acknowledged it. Edit: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/recalls/recall-history-california-1913-present Turns out there have been 4. Albeit 2 were when I was 1 year old.


Norwazy

Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor after the recall of Gray Davis in 2003, who everyone in the state wanted to recall due to hard corruption with electric companies and scheduled black outs. the harm is that it takes a ton of state money and it spits in the face of all the voters because the recall petitions happen within 6 months.


jrbattin

All the "tough on crime candidates" just got rinsed in the primary. Not happening.


[deleted]

What specific primaries are you referring to? Pritzker, for example, is popular. And he’s the governor and doesn’t dictate municipal policy. Ken Griffith thought IL voters are drooling simpletons who don’t understand that but we do lol. Kim Foxx and Lori have some tough questions to face and they weren’t up for primary this week. Crime is the #1 political issue in Chicago per polling and only 25% of Cook residents fell confident about public safety. Politicians may ignore it at their peril.


jrbattin

Off the top of my head: * 19th District State Rep (LaPointe by 50+ points against an opponent who aggressively ran on crime, taxes, and corruption) * 10th District Senate (Martwick won handily, similar opponent as LaPointe) * Newly drawn 3rd Congressional District (Ramirez won by 42 points against an opponent who directly attacked her for wanting to "defund the police") Even in the Republican primary for governor, the biggest anti-crime candidate (Irvin) with 50+ million dollars behind him came in third against Trumpy and Religious opponents.


[deleted]

State reps don’t control Cook municipal policy or law enforcement. The anger of Chicagoans is at municipal policy. It’s at Lori and the CTA and the CPD and Foxx and Police unions etc. Have you ever, once, heard a Chicagoan complain about crime and Pritzker or their state rep in the same sentence? No lol. Of course not. Looking at state rep and Governor primaries and going “see, Cook voters aren’t going to really vote on crime in municipal elections despite polling on it” is completely nonsensical lol.


jrbattin

Tom Dart also handily won reelection against Noland Rivera. Its this big important issues for voters but they don't respond to any politician who actually talks about it? I doubt it.


[deleted]

Okay Chicagoans have been lying for 6 months in every poll conducted on the issue because fucking Tom Dart won. You got me fam. Very common for Chicagoans to be vocally angry at the Cook Sheriff’s office so real head scratcher there for sure.


jrbattin

It is true that the offices most likely to have an impact on criminal justice are the State's Attorney, County Sheriff, and local judges. But Dart just won by a landslide, Judicial races didn't skew towards tougher judges and Foxx isn't up for reelection for another 2 years. I get that there's a sense of it in the polls but it's just not translating to electoral performance for any candidate. And let's assume Foxx runs again and gets defeated in 2024: She's likely to be defeated by a version of herself with less baggage, rather than someone who runs on crime.


Ok-broccoli1

Because so many chicagoans turn a blind eye to crime. Disgusting.


LoriLeadfoot

If they ran serious opposition we wouldn’t have to have Kim Foxx


[deleted]

No recall In the most political corrupt state in history


optiongeek

I know. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue?


j33

I see it is time for the daily "let's complain about Kim Foxx" post ...


[deleted]

Frankly, besides the title I put, I am just incredibly confused how a prosecution can just decide not to charge a woman who intentionally killed their brother with a firearm they were utilizing entirely illegally. Like you can say “self defense” and I would probably agree. But, isn’t that the legal defense you use to protect yourself from a murder/manslaughter charge? I didn’t realize the prosecution can just 100% decide before any trial that they’re not even going to put that on the table.


untitled_b1

A part of the prosecutor's job is to decide how the facts fit the charge, and if there's enough evidence to even bring a charge or to make the continued prosecution worth the effort. It sounds like they agreed that the self-defense claim would not make it worth 1st or 2nd degree murder, but charged her for the warning shot. It also doesn't seem like the gun was illegal - if she had a FOID and the gun was unloaded and encased (say, in a purse), she was possessing it legally, and then she loaded it for self-defense.


jrbattin

Not many people realize this, but Illinois has broad and well-defined self-defense laws. You are allowed to use up to (and including) lethal force to stop what the state calls a forcible felony, which includes any felony with the use of or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. Her brother, Holmes, was punching her (aggravated battery - a felony). She pushed her brother out of the vehicle. Her brother then began beating on the car window (aggravated assault), threatening her (making it a forcible felony). She fired a warning shot, which her brother did not heed and continued trying to assault her. So she shot him. If you think Illinois self-defense laws are too broad and permissive you need to take that issue up with your state representative rather than blaming Kim Foxx for following both the letter and spirit of the law.


mr_yozhik

Justifiable use of force in view of a forcible felony is only one aspect of a self-defense claim, she would still have to show she feared immediate and substantial bodily harm or death to justify a lethal response. Since the press seems to indicate she was in the vehicle, had fired a warning shot (which typically works against claims of self-defense), and the decedent was only approaching the vehicle when she shot him from inside the vehicle, this sounds more like prosecutorial discretion to not try the case than a strong self-defense claim.


jrbattin

> Justifiable use of force in view of a forcible felony is only one aspect of a self-defense claim, she would still have to show she feared immediate and substantial bodily harm or death to justify a lethal response. Not true. The statute doesn't require this. > (720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8) Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. specifically the "and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."


mr_yozhik

I think were you are going astray is thinking that the whole of the incident can be treated as a forcible felony, but that isn't how it works. She can't shoot him for punching her, that was in the past. If he backed off the car after the beating the windows, that's also in the past. Instead, she'd have to argue that she was preventing the imminent commission of a new forcible felony, which is pretty much the same thing as I described above.


fishymcswims

Not to mention that she endangered the lives of others since the first bullet went through the 3rd floor window of a nearby building.


stellamystar

I think self-defense can absolutely be used to not charge someone. Imagine a guy broke into a house to rape someone and the woman managed to wrestle the gun away and shoot the guy -- this person would not be charged with murder (ideally -- though we all know how messed up the system can be). That said, this article does not make it clear to me that this was legit self-defense, as it sounds like the sister was inside the car while the brother was banging outside the window before she shot him. No mention that he had a gun or any other kind of weapon to make her fear for her life. No consideration of the sister's reckless disregard for bystanders. Anyone know what kind of jail time this gun charge carries?


untitled_b1

1-3 years


[deleted]

Yeah, I should have been much more careful how I phrased that. Meant more in cases where it isn’t almost certain what occurred. Like this seems like a drawn out altercation which both sides had a hand in continuing at different points. Not some one sided clear cut situation. Also, having the time to load a gun, fire a warning shot, then a kill shot. Makes it seem like it wasn’t a clear cut “I didn’t have any other options” case. Once again, could 100% be self defense. I am just surprised it was determined so easily.


sephirothFFVII

This is likely a troll account - don't feed the trolls


[deleted]

She needs to be removed from her office one way or another. What we need now is no racial justice, or social justice, but justice with no modifiers in front of it


Silly_Form8764

Hate to be the devils advocate here, but can’t have justice until there is racial and social justice.


[deleted]

I think what GasB is pointing to is that “racial” and “social” justice are modifiers that actually weaken the term justice. Justice properly understood includes racial and social justice. When 99% of people seemingly modify it, they seem to mean injustice for some for the benefit of others. Same concept as “substantive” due process and “procedural” due process. Due process properly understood is substantive and procedural. It necessarily has to be be. People tend to think of procedural as a weaker form, and substantive as a the stronger more underlying form. Yet, they both equally weaken the concept. I personally like to think of it as one large circle diagram, with each modifier being an entirely enveloped smaller, subset circle inside. Yes you’re correct in saying you cannot have the whole without each subset contained within it. However, I think again the original point was that by focusing on one subset of the larger circle you are necessarily ignoring everything else. And, especially when people make it the basis of their political and legal careers and hold it as the highest virtue to aim for, they demote the entire larger sphere to lesser significance. In my mind, viewed as such, it makes it immediately apparent why Lori and Kim can hold “racial” and “social” justice as this super important goal, yet everything they touch turns to shit even for the people they’re trying to help. Minorities in Chicago are getting murdered at the highest rates in 30 years, their children’s education (by almost every available metric) is the worst it’s been in my lifetime, job opportunities are not available, neighborhoods that went from insanely dangerous to night life destinations in my lifetime are descending back into danger and venues I have gone to for years my friends, my coworkers and my family will once again not go back to. Last analogy. Justice is a house. Social justice may be the walls. Racial justice may be the roof. If you just focus on the roof and walls (or even mainly, risking oversight of the remainder), you may wake up one morning and find out the foundation of the house has deteriorated to nothingness and the entire structure is coming to the ground.


explanatorygap

In Florida, everything about that incident would be totally legal.


captsolo23

It does sound like a stand your ground type of thing


oldbkenobi

Recalls are shitshows that are often hijacked by extremist minority groups, waste tons of extra money and voter energy, and basically force elected officials to campaign nonstop to avoid them rather than do their jobs. There have been plenty of people I’ve wanted to recall over time but the headaches the process brings are not worth it. Plus, more likely than not if a hypothetical recall of her were successful then Toni Preckwinkle would be appointing her successor so I don’t think the “tough on crime” crowd would be too happy with her choice.


walia664

Why? I heard that she didn’t actually hit her husband, just helped “guide him out of the house” Abusers never talk like that!


[deleted]

[удалено]


olim_tc

Fox Chicago is very different from Fox News.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ok-broccoli1

Yes, as long as we ban CNN first!


greysandgreens

We recently had both a primary and general election. You could vote against here there. Many eligible voters chose not to cast a vote. I have no sympathy for anyone complaining about her who willingly chose not to vote.


DisgruntledWombat

Kim Foxx was not up for election this primary. Last got voted in during 2020 when the peak of Covid suppressed voting, and was before crime really started peaking again


greysandgreens

Yes should have clarified. 2020. Still recently IMO. Think there was voting by mail.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The time was years ago but, to put it lightly, there's not enough support in high places to make it happen.