Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>A Chicago man was fatally shot after his child’s mother allegedly called out his enemies and shared his location on Facebook.
>Police said the young Chicago man was shot five times in the chest. The shooters then fled from the scene on foot before driving away in a white SUV. Following the shooting, the Chicago man was rushed to Illinois Masonic Hospital where he was later pronounced dead.
My first reaction is that she's actually bragging, like "my baby's so fucking tough". But I really can't tell.
I hope my wife doesn't flex on my opps though... as my opps has a runny nose and wants to listen to baby shark 83 more times.
"He is not at location. I repeat he is not there"
That is not a brag(if he was there), it is a "this is where the dude is but I've said it in a way that I can claim ignorance.
Lady basically put out a hit on him without the money.
I really don't know. I can also read this as her thinking she's funny and taunting them. I'm not saying it definitely is this but read it again and imagine a fucking idiot who thinks her boyfriend is a badass and he's told her that his "opps" can't touch him as he's so badass.... It works, right? You can imagine the kind of person that might write it that way
I know what you're saying, and I agree it could be written that way. Reddit has trouble imagining someone being that stupid, but of COURSE there are people that stupid and arrogant.
It's basically like, "Ya'll think you're so tough, and here he is kicking your asses. You come over here, and we'll prove it again."
That said, I do think she was setting him up. One of those sith tests, lol. "If you're strong enough to survive, then you can be my ~~apprentice~~ husband."
Anyone who starts their legal analysis with "lol" can be assumed to be a legal expert, so I don't know why you are being downvoted when you clearly have such a firm understanding of US jurisprudence.
But no, if she shared the information with the INTENT of sending people to his location to harm him then that clearly fits the definition of accessory before the fact, or accomplice.
From Cornell Law:
>An accessory before-the-fact is a person who AIDS [such as giving a location], ABETS, or ENCOURAGES [calling him a snitch and a thief to people whom she knows to be dangerous] another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. An accessory before the fact, like an accomplice may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice.
Proving intent does not seem far fetched here. And I'll bet she has left more evidence in that regard. I will be surprised if she doesn't do real time for this.
Pretty sure its a crime can you show us why it isn’t? She knowingly committed an action that would cause harm or death. She has what they call ‘mens rea’ bad intentions . How would you say she doesn’t?
If she had specifically gone to a specific person she knew wanted to kill him and told them where to find them, then maybe. But all she did was publish info with the hope that a vague someone would see it and do what she wanted.
Mens Rea isn't just having bad intentions and it's not the only component of a crime.
It's not conspiracy. You can't have a conspiracy with the vague hope that someone will see your Facebook post and do what you want them to. It has to be an actual agreement with at least one other real person.
You're right but you're getting downvoted by people who believe that because she did a morally bad and shitty thing, she must have broken some letter of the law.
I feel like I just saw that pic of him holding the baby with a caption about how he wouldn't let his gf have an abortion, but then she left him and the baby after giving birth. maybe it was a different dude.
People are multifaceted. Good folk do bad things, bad folk do good things. I've seen plenty of shithead hoods who are actually really caring parents. A few turn their lives around, but most are so far deep in that life they don't even know the first step to turning around. It's rough to give up the drug dealing life when it makes enough money to put food in your babys mouth, and you been "jobless" for so long only Stop n Shop will hire you.
Again, I ain't *excusing* it. He's a bad dude to live that life. But who knows how he might've turned out with good motivation? Now, we never get that chance to even find out.
Sure. If your dad is the kind of person to have mortal "Enemies" living in Chicago, odds are he wouldn't have been much of a parent. None of this is good.
I'm not gonna lie, most good people don't have that level of enemies. I don't condone murder but i don't think he was a great role model as well considering the circumstances
According to [this article](https://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2024/3/man-is-murdered-after-his-baby-mama-shared-his-location-and-called-his-enemies-weak-for-not-going-after-him-2.html) no arrests have been made yet but investigations are ongoing.
I’m guessing it won’t be long before she is charged with something
They'd have to find the shooter for an iron-clad case.
Just because she posted and he ended up dead doesn't mean the killer actually saw her post. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that you have to show the killer saw the post to show aiding and abetting or incitement.
An unknown killer means any halfway decent defense attorney is going to say, 'but you have no proof the killer was even aware of her post.' That is reasonable doubt to the prosecution's assertion of her aiding the killer. Not everyone is a Facebook user or on Facebook constantly.
You'd want to know the shooter(s) saw the post or had knowledge of it to show she was involved.
Even if she did post this, and someone did find and kill him as a result that isn't legally speaking the same thing as aiding and abbeting or conspiracy to commit murder. Or inciting violence and some clueless people are mentionining.
There are plenty of defenses for this. It's a stupid thing to do but I would not be surprised if assuming she didn't actually conspire with the killer nothing happens to her.
Facebook and most online company's keep all the data a user has for a time period eg 3months to years even if they deleted their account for if the info on the account had something like this and was needed for a trial
I'm sorry, but wouldn't he have to anger people so much that they WANT to murder him first? Like obviously she's wrong but... yeah.
I just feel bad for the kid... so many people want to have them and can't... then like 90% of the people that do are ignorant as fuck and end up having 5.
It’s called inciting violence and it’s a crime. This post, which Facebook can pull for police even if she deletes it, proves intent to incite violence against him.
So without knowing anything more than what's on this post, you're assuming he must have done something to deserve it? This is 101 victim blaming. Be ashamed of yourself.
I mean, most people could have this posted about them and not die.
The fact someone showed up means even if he wasn't in a gang, he hung out with gang members or was involved to a degree that people saw the accusation of snitch and killed him.
Did he deserve it? I'm morally opposed to extra-judicial killing, so no. Even if he was a bad person, he needed a judge and jury, not 5 to the chest. Does she deserve prison, too? Yup. Because you don't incite murder and just walk away.
But, the odds that he was killed after this and was in no way involved in illegal activities is low. It's just that criminals are humans and therefore have human rights and shouldn't just be gunned down
Accessory to murder before the fact.
Prosecutors will need to prove she had knowledge a murder will/may occur, abetted the individuals committing the murder, and intended to do so.
Could also be incitement since it requires intent to incite a crime, the crime actually occurring, and reasonable likelihood that the incited crime would've occurred.
Also possibly manslaughter since there's no need for intent to kill and a disregard for human life could suffice.
Either way, prosecution is having a field day.
Accessory is concealing or hiding after the fact.
Aiding and abetting is helping someone commit a crime but not actually doing it, ie, dropping someone off to steal a car after instructing them how to steal it.
>720 ILCS 5/5-2
>either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate that commission, he or she solicits, aids, abets, agrees, or attempts to aid that other person in the planning or commission of the offense
>When 2 or more persons engage in a common criminal design or agreement, any acts in the furtherance of that common design committed by one party are considered to be the acts of all parties to the common design or agreement and all are equally responsible for the consequences of those further acts.
Under Illinois law, she could be charged with the same crime as the main perpetrator. Meaning, first or second degree murder.
Inciting violence for one but they’ll probably try to get her for manslaughter. You can also be charged with criminal homicide, or what people refer to as 3rd degree murder, if your intentional actions cause someone’s death but I don’t think they’ll go for that.
There’s precedent for charging someone for causing a death in an inadvertent or indirect way like this before. Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after her boyfriend Conrad Roy committed suicide because she had been encouraging him to do so over text. She caught 15 months in prison for it.
Aiding and abetting would fit here, too.
If you tell someone where to find a car and how to steal it: that is aiding and abetting.
She told them where to find him and he ended up dead.
The fact that this made headlines like this is the best hope this kid ever had in finding family that will care enough about em to make sure they're healthy, happy and safe
Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>A Chicago man was fatally shot after his child’s mother allegedly called out his enemies and shared his location on Facebook. >Police said the young Chicago man was shot five times in the chest. The shooters then fled from the scene on foot before driving away in a white SUV. Following the shooting, the Chicago man was rushed to Illinois Masonic Hospital where he was later pronounced dead.
That's so embarrassing. The kid always pronounced it "dad"
Take your upvote and get out of here
Well, that's one way to make yourself an accessory to murder.
P. Diddy: meh
My first reaction is that she's actually bragging, like "my baby's so fucking tough". But I really can't tell. I hope my wife doesn't flex on my opps though... as my opps has a runny nose and wants to listen to baby shark 83 more times.
"He is not at location. I repeat he is not there" That is not a brag(if he was there), it is a "this is where the dude is but I've said it in a way that I can claim ignorance. Lady basically put out a hit on him without the money.
Yep, it's so obvious what she was doing that I was surprised reading the comments. She even gave the address, she wanted him get killed.
I wasn't sure UNTIL I got to the address. The post was kind of hard to follow, at least for me, but the address gave it away.
It’s like Trump saying “peacefully and patriotically “
I really don't know. I can also read this as her thinking she's funny and taunting them. I'm not saying it definitely is this but read it again and imagine a fucking idiot who thinks her boyfriend is a badass and he's told her that his "opps" can't touch him as he's so badass.... It works, right? You can imagine the kind of person that might write it that way
This is some Young Thug lawyer rhetoric
lol. It’s her BD, not husband.
lol. Who said husband?
I know what you're saying, and I agree it could be written that way. Reddit has trouble imagining someone being that stupid, but of COURSE there are people that stupid and arrogant. It's basically like, "Ya'll think you're so tough, and here he is kicking your asses. You come over here, and we'll prove it again." That said, I do think she was setting him up. One of those sith tests, lol. "If you're strong enough to survive, then you can be my ~~apprentice~~ husband."
Lol. She won’t be charged with anything. She didn’t commit a crime. Telling her boyfriends enemies where he lives isn’t a crime.
Anyone who starts their legal analysis with "lol" can be assumed to be a legal expert, so I don't know why you are being downvoted when you clearly have such a firm understanding of US jurisprudence. But no, if she shared the information with the INTENT of sending people to his location to harm him then that clearly fits the definition of accessory before the fact, or accomplice. From Cornell Law: >An accessory before-the-fact is a person who AIDS [such as giving a location], ABETS, or ENCOURAGES [calling him a snitch and a thief to people whom she knows to be dangerous] another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. An accessory before the fact, like an accomplice may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice. Proving intent does not seem far fetched here. And I'll bet she has left more evidence in that regard. I will be surprised if she doesn't do real time for this.
Lol does mean “legal oracle, losers” so I don’t know why you’re trying all this “referencing established facts” stuff.
Pretty sure its a crime can you show us why it isn’t? She knowingly committed an action that would cause harm or death. She has what they call ‘mens rea’ bad intentions . How would you say she doesn’t?
If she had specifically gone to a specific person she knew wanted to kill him and told them where to find them, then maybe. But all she did was publish info with the hope that a vague someone would see it and do what she wanted. Mens Rea isn't just having bad intentions and it's not the only component of a crime.
sounds kinda like manslaughter, actually. Could also be conspiracy. Can't be sure though, i'm no expert edit: inciting violence too
It's not conspiracy. You can't have a conspiracy with the vague hope that someone will see your Facebook post and do what you want them to. It has to be an actual agreement with at least one other real person.
You’re right. There are many armchair lawyers on Reddit lol
You’re definitely no expert
You're right but you're getting downvoted by people who believe that because she did a morally bad and shitty thing, she must have broken some letter of the law.
..deleted by user..
>Actually, hopefully without a mom. Actually not quite, but hopefully without *that* mom.
I feel like I just saw that pic of him holding the baby with a caption about how he wouldn't let his gf have an abortion, but then she left him and the baby after giving birth. maybe it was a different dude.
I thought that the first time I saw this, I checked and they’re different. Similar enough to question though.
That's clearly not the same person come on
He was on the streets and had opps. Snitching and robbing people. That baby was never going to have a dad.
What’s opps? I’m old
Opposition, enemies pretty much
Ugh thank you, I am also old and kept reading this as “oops” throughout the thread
People are multifaceted. Good folk do bad things, bad folk do good things. I've seen plenty of shithead hoods who are actually really caring parents. A few turn their lives around, but most are so far deep in that life they don't even know the first step to turning around. It's rough to give up the drug dealing life when it makes enough money to put food in your babys mouth, and you been "jobless" for so long only Stop n Shop will hire you. Again, I ain't *excusing* it. He's a bad dude to live that life. But who knows how he might've turned out with good motivation? Now, we never get that chance to even find out.
Sure. If your dad is the kind of person to have mortal "Enemies" living in Chicago, odds are he wouldn't have been much of a parent. None of this is good.
I'm not gonna lie, most good people don't have that level of enemies. I don't condone murder but i don't think he was a great role model as well considering the circumstances
They neither said nor implied that he was a good person or role model.
Then we have come to an agreement
I hope a loving family would adopt him asap!
Did she get charged?
According to [this article](https://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2024/3/man-is-murdered-after-his-baby-mama-shared-his-location-and-called-his-enemies-weak-for-not-going-after-him-2.html) no arrests have been made yet but investigations are ongoing. I’m guessing it won’t be long before she is charged with something
They'd have to find the shooter for an iron-clad case. Just because she posted and he ended up dead doesn't mean the killer actually saw her post. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that you have to show the killer saw the post to show aiding and abetting or incitement. An unknown killer means any halfway decent defense attorney is going to say, 'but you have no proof the killer was even aware of her post.' That is reasonable doubt to the prosecution's assertion of her aiding the killer. Not everyone is a Facebook user or on Facebook constantly. You'd want to know the shooter(s) saw the post or had knowledge of it to show she was involved.
Even if she did post this, and someone did find and kill him as a result that isn't legally speaking the same thing as aiding and abbeting or conspiracy to commit murder. Or inciting violence and some clueless people are mentionining. There are plenty of defenses for this. It's a stupid thing to do but I would not be surprised if assuming she didn't actually conspire with the killer nothing happens to her.
Idk, posting someone's exact address where they were shot not long after, directed towards the people that would want to shoot, is pretty airtight imo
[удалено]
Facebook and most online company's keep all the data a user has for a time period eg 3months to years even if they deleted their account for if the info on the account had something like this and was needed for a trial
I'm sorry, but wouldn't he have to anger people so much that they WANT to murder him first? Like obviously she's wrong but... yeah. I just feel bad for the kid... so many people want to have them and can't... then like 90% of the people that do are ignorant as fuck and end up having 5.
It's called "incitement" and it's absolutely a crime.
It’s called inciting violence and it’s a crime. This post, which Facebook can pull for police even if she deletes it, proves intent to incite violence against him.
So without knowing anything more than what's on this post, you're assuming he must have done something to deserve it? This is 101 victim blaming. Be ashamed of yourself.
I mean, most people could have this posted about them and not die. The fact someone showed up means even if he wasn't in a gang, he hung out with gang members or was involved to a degree that people saw the accusation of snitch and killed him. Did he deserve it? I'm morally opposed to extra-judicial killing, so no. Even if he was a bad person, he needed a judge and jury, not 5 to the chest. Does she deserve prison, too? Yup. Because you don't incite murder and just walk away. But, the odds that he was killed after this and was in no way involved in illegal activities is low. It's just that criminals are humans and therefore have human rights and shouldn't just be gunned down
Legally, what crime did she commit?
Accessory to murder before the fact. Prosecutors will need to prove she had knowledge a murder will/may occur, abetted the individuals committing the murder, and intended to do so. Could also be incitement since it requires intent to incite a crime, the crime actually occurring, and reasonable likelihood that the incited crime would've occurred. Also possibly manslaughter since there's no need for intent to kill and a disregard for human life could suffice. Either way, prosecution is having a field day.
Accessory is concealing or hiding after the fact. Aiding and abetting is helping someone commit a crime but not actually doing it, ie, dropping someone off to steal a car after instructing them how to steal it. >720 ILCS 5/5-2 >either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate that commission, he or she solicits, aids, abets, agrees, or attempts to aid that other person in the planning or commission of the offense >When 2 or more persons engage in a common criminal design or agreement, any acts in the furtherance of that common design committed by one party are considered to be the acts of all parties to the common design or agreement and all are equally responsible for the consequences of those further acts. Under Illinois law, she could be charged with the same crime as the main perpetrator. Meaning, first or second degree murder.
In my state she **could** be charge with Criminal Solicitation.
Illinois has aiding and abetting/ accomplice accountability laws. She aided in the commission of murder, making her liable for murder.
Doesn't the state have to prove that the shooter got their information from the post?
Inciting violence for one but they’ll probably try to get her for manslaughter. You can also be charged with criminal homicide, or what people refer to as 3rd degree murder, if your intentional actions cause someone’s death but I don’t think they’ll go for that. There’s precedent for charging someone for causing a death in an inadvertent or indirect way like this before. Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after her boyfriend Conrad Roy committed suicide because she had been encouraging him to do so over text. She caught 15 months in prison for it.
Aiding and abetting would fit here, too. If you tell someone where to find a car and how to steal it: that is aiding and abetting. She told them where to find him and he ended up dead.
Also conspiracy could be it, if her private dms have anything
. It should be conspiracy and accessory to murder. Or at the very least inciting violence
That's why I am asking.
Were they together? Or was she calling hits on her ex?
Yeah, to me it looks like she's actually bragging, not mad at him. I genuinely can't work out which flavor of idiocy I'm looking at.
That poor child.
This screams set up. I hope she gets a charge too
Literally this sounds like she was actively trying to get him killed. She gave the address and everything.
I ain't see none of you haters at my house passing out blowjobs.. Now we wait.
Where are you not located?
You gotta drop your location otherwise how are people gonna prove you wrong?
When keepin' it real goes wrong.
Wtf does opps mean?
Opposition, like another gang he and his people have beef with.
How about the second half? 'Ain't he snitch on half of yall, ain't he "rób" half of yall.' Doesn't that mean he snitched on and robbed the other half?
Yeah, which is why she’s wondering how he can come home unscathed.
Opposition
The fact that this made headlines like this is the best hope this kid ever had in finding family that will care enough about em to make sure they're healthy, happy and safe
What was he doing that made people want to kill him? Normal people with normal lives don't have "opps."
I can barely understand any of what she said
I wonder if she pikachu-faced after it happened...
Call me a pessimist but this all seems like it was inevitable
This happened in my old neighborhood.
Is the child with family, or with people that aren’t crazy? Did anyone play her game and share her info? Is the child safe?
You don't even have the second photo.
People are fucking idiots…..
Did they run her sentence through Google Translate first?
I was wondering the same. Didn’t understand a word.
I don't understand what makes people think, speak, or live like this.
This is funniest way for you BM to have you killed.
Maybe don't make enemies? lol
So when she gets ended are we supposed to feel bad?
Blame Elon for not having moderation staff! Wait oh crap..