Incidentally, we note that the appellate court interpreted Hickman as limiting the use of retaliation to the conduct of a police officer acting in the line of duty. We reject the court's narrow interpretation of Hickman. 59 Ill. 2d at 94. This court did not state expressly or impliedly that a robber's expectation of retaliation should be limited to police officers. Hickman's reliance on Payne, which concerned the retaliation of an ordinary citizen, is evidence that this court did not intend to limit the use of retaliation to the conduct of an officer acting in the line of duty.
Defendant posits several unavailing arguments.
He argues first that Marlon's act was an intervening cause because it was not foreseeable that Marlon would act as a vigilante and take the law into his own hands. It is true that an intervening cause completely unrelated to the acts of the defendant does relieve a defendant of criminal liability. 117 Ill. 2d at 176. It is not the law in this state that the defendant's acts must be the sole and immediate cause of death. 129 Ill. 2d at 247.