75-Year-Old Man Shoots, Kills One of Six Burglars, Now the Other Five are Charged With Murder

lake county burglar shot killed murder

Bigstock

Six Chicago teenagers — the oldest 18 — attempted to rob a home in the northern suburb of Old Mill Creed earlier this week. They pulled up to a driveway at about 1:15am and attempted to break into the 75-year-old owner’s car.

According to CNN . . .

The resident saw the headlights of the stolen Lexus they were driving in the area of his driveway. Grabbing his firearm, he left the house and went to the outside of his property, according to Nerheim.

Facing “multiple strangers,” he ordered them off his property, but they “continued to advance on him,” [State Attorney Michael G.] Nerheim said.

One stranger had something in his hand, the resident later explained, and believing himself in danger, the resident fired his gun several times, striking one of the defendants with a single bullet, the prosecutor said.

The teens all ran back to the stolen Lexus and drove away, Nerheim said.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the group in the stolen SUV then approached police officers who were working an accident.

A short time later, the SUV pulled up to Gurnee police officers who were investigating a crash near Route 132 and Hunt Club Road.

The 14-year-old who had been shot and a 17-year-old boy got out of the SUV, Covelli said. The 17-year-old asked for help and an officer called for an ambulance and performed first aid. The four other occupants of the Lexus got back in and sped away onto I-94.

That’s when a high speed chase led back into Chicago. State police finally captured the other four suspects when the stolen SUV ran out of gas.

Four people got out and ran away on foot, but a 16-year-old boy, a 17-year-old boy and an 18-year-old girl were arrested by state troopers after a brief chase.

The final suspect, a 17-year-old, was tracked to a dumpster in the 100 block of North Green Street by sheriff’s office K9 Dax and his handler, Deputy John Forlenza, [Lake County sheriff’s office spokesman Sgt. Christopher] Covelli said.

Deputy John Forlenza and K9 Dax

Deputy John Forlenza and K9 Dax (courtesy Lake County Sheriff)

Because the homeowner shot and killed one of the intruders, the five surviving suspects have been charged with first degree murder.

“Illinois law has long held felons accountable for any foreseeable deaths that occur during the commission or attempted commission of a ‘forcible felony.’ This includes the death of innocent bystanders in addition to the deaths of co-felons,” State Attorney Michael G. Nerheim said in his statement obtained by CNN on Thursday.

And the homeowner? “We are waiting for the completion of the investigation before making a final decision on charges surrounding the homeowner,” said Nerheim.

According to reports, the homeowner — who had a FOID card as well as a concealed carry permit — walked out onto his front porch to tell the group to get off of his property. Investigators later found a knife on the property that they believe belonged to one of the six suspects.

comments

  1. avatar Neil says:

    Ohhh… I like this law.

    But it will be catch and release.

    1. avatar HoundDogDave says:

      “But it will be catch and release”

      That’s a silly question. Of course it will, this is Chitcago we’re talking about here. Being charged and spending the day at Juvenal detention daycare is likely all the punishment they will see.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Not quite Chicago. Old Mill Creek is in Lake County. The state’s attorney isn’t Kim Foxx.

        Every state has castle doctrine but that’s not blanket immunity for shooting intruders. It’s just stand your ground within your home. The territory covered may or may not include curtilage which is area outside the four walls you use regularly. That may not matter since the old man was heavily outnumbered and his claim that one of them was armed is backed up by the knife found in his yard. His biggest vulnerability is that he left the safety of his home to confront them instead of calling 911 and remaining behind locked doors.

        There’s a good chance his legal bills will exceed the price of a new car even if he never goes on trial and the thieves don’t sue. That predicament is the reason it’s wise to buy self defense insurance. ACLDN is $135 for the first year and $95 for renewals. My only concern is that their defense fund isn’t bottomless. CCW Safe has no limit but costs several times as much.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          “….ACLDN is $135 for the first year and $95 for renewals. My only concern is that their defense fund isn’t bottomless….”

          ACLDN Board members are what convinced me that I wanted them on my side if I was justified.

        2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          And all that the NRA provides is legal and financial assistance to selected individuals and organizations defending the right to keep and bear arms. Of course it’s been a while since I heard of anyone except the NRA itself receiving legal aid for anything! Instead they have dumped MILLIONS into a legal attorney that does nothing!

    2. avatar Art out West says:

      First degree murder seems excessive in this situation. It should probably be second degree murder. They didn’t p!an to kill their fellow felon.

      Still, the state should hang second degree murderers including teenaged murderers.

      1. avatar Purity of Essence says:

        In many states, if someone is killed during the commission of a crime all accomplices will be charged with first degree murder. Seems fair to me. Maybe don’t conspire to commit felonies.

        1. avatar Donald says:

          Or get a different and better grade of friends.

      2. avatar Mike V says:

        That’s a curious take. You think what they’re charged with is excessive and would rather they be charged with a lesser crime, but then still want them executed?

        1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          That’s not what he was saying. They planned to rob/steal so 1st degree burglary would be appropriate for that, while 2nd degree murder is the charge for murder that isn’t planned. Punishment should fit the crime, murder is murder and should be executed for it. Manslaughter is not murder, it is death caused by mitigating circumstances, so death would be excessive.

          It doesn’t matter in leftist hellholes like Illinois, because criminals rarely serve time for anything in that state. There are more “law-abiding” citizens who are falsely accused and incarcerated in that state than real criminals – considering most of the criminals are in government!

    3. avatar BusyBeef says:

      Only for 5/6.

  2. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

    That home owner’s efforts will be rewarded by the state with legal action against him for leaving his house I’ll bet.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Even in the People’s Republic of Illinois, I think the home/property owner should be in pretty good shape. There is no legal jeopardy stepping outside to tell trespassers to leave your property. And I see no legal jeopardy for having a self-defense handgun on your person when telling trespassers to leave. Finally, I see no legal jeopardy for using that handgun in self-defense when SIX healthy/fit teenagers come at you, regardless of whether or not they have any visible weapons in hand.

      1. avatar TomC says:

        You should be correct and I would expect a jury to see it the same way.

        But prosecutors in Chicago have been known to go either way on self-defense cases. I expect that the decision whether or not to charge the homeowner will depend on several factors, none of which have anything to do with either the law or justice.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          not chicago.
          not even close.
          crimeisha would let these yoots go free for funnin’.
          watch what lake county does.
          they’re all lucky they weren’t in mchenry county. five deaths.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          My bet is that who will be charged/not charged depends entirely on who is which color. Which should not matter at all.

      2. avatar Dan W. says:

        Should and is are sometimes different. He should have the right to torture them all to death and profit from selling their organs but alas we live in a backwards society.

      3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Read the story of Mr. Love, farmer in Illinois. Went to help after a car accident (late at night) and was attacked by druggies. Shot one and the DA charged him with murder. Why? He had a gun with him. No sane person carries a gun outside of the home, Right?
        The story was printed here at TTAG

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Anyone want to bet that the five surviving suspects will be out on bail today?

    Bonus odds: anyone want to bet that the courts set bail for the five surviving suspects at $10,000 or less for each suspect?

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      OK, I accept your wager! Since you offered the wager, I may set the terms. I will wager you 1/5 of Woodford reserve that the boys are not out today.

      I’ll be happy to provide my shipping address at your convenience, thank you!

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Okay, I had to look that one up, looks interesting:
        https://www.woodfordreserve.com/

        1. avatar Ginder12 says:

          Woodford is good booze. I have a taste with my morning coffee.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yes, Woodford is very smooth and needs no chaser. I keep a bottle in a cairn of rocks on the mountain, it offers a nice respite from a brisk morning walk. It seems to keep very well, no matter the weather.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Woodford Reserve is the basis for a legitimate Mint Julep, I have a big bottle slowly going down at each Kentucky Derby.

      2. avatar Miner Never a 49er says:

        Miner, never a bright fellow, they weren’t all boys. But truth or facts as never been your purpose, propaganda and trolling on the other hand…

        And you definitely should provide your shipping address, again not to bright.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          We shall see how the matter plays out, the day isn’t over so my worthy opponent may yet prevail.

          Of course, we will rely upon the actual facts in the matter, as official documents filed with the appropriate court shall show.

          And what concerns should I have regarding posting my shipping address? Do you really think that individuals on this POTG forum would be willing to risk federal charges by engaging in some sort of skulduggery regarding my post office box? Surely you jest.

          Regardless it is up to my worthy opponent, uncommon, to honor his commitment should the need arise.

          As always, I remain, your faithful servant.

        2. avatar Miner Never a 49er says:

          I say you’re not to bright because you bet 20% of a bottle, 1/5. Had you said a fifth… 750ml…a metric fifth…4⁄5 quart… one fifth of a gallon…or even a bottle of Woodford, you would have bet a FULL bottle.

          But no, you used 1/5 or 20%, again not to bright.

          Finally, I don’t know what the TTAG faithful would send you, but since you offered, there’s only one way to find out. Honestly, I am kinda curious (they can be a creative bunch), so get it out there, and post results here.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Please forgive me if some are confused about the term 1/5, here in hillbilly land when you say 1/5, everyone knows you’re speaking of 1/5 of a gallon, the standard measure for spirits.

          There are standard measurement schemes for all the various substances, at times they can seem arcane, but are indeed useful.

          For instance, many don’t realize that a pound of feathers actually weighs more than a pound of gold.

          Either way, I patiently await the response from my good friend, Mr. uncommon.

        4. avatar Miner Never a 49er says:

          Miner, you really need to stop, you’re making yourself look ridiculous, even Hillbillies don’t say “I want ‘one-fifth’ a bottle”. Why? Because as I stated above that is 20%. The term is a “fifth”, even in your West Virginia.

          However, if you still want your 1/5 then I encourage Uncommon to purchase a fifth bottle of Woodford, drink 4/5, and send you the remaining 20% of backwash. Bet you’ll still drink it.

          Oh as for feathers and gold, this something dumb people use to try and look smart (what a surprise you brought it up), by conflating three different measurement systems and three different standards of a pound.

      3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “I’ll be happy to provide my shipping address at your convenience, thank you!”

        Oh, no, I’d *much* rather personally put the money in your hand.

        What’s your home address? 🙂

      4. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Ahhhhhh! Woodford Reserve. My go-to Bourbon.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      And for bonus points, you say bail will be set at $10,000, or less for each individual.

      I also except your terms regarding the bonus points, and I set the bonus points to add an additional bottle of quality absinthe, your choice but no dregs, please.

      You may also send the absinthe to my shipping address, which I will kindly provide at your convenience.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Oh ho, my good man! It looks as if the stars have smiled upon your worthy servant in this, the bonus points you suggested.

        “A Lake County Judge set bail at $1 million for each of the defendants, who are due back in court on September 5. The four juveniles will be housed at the Hulse Juvenile Detention Facility in Vernon Township, while Davis is held in the Lake County Jail, according to the Sheriff’s Office statement.”

        Mr. uncommon’s offer set a limit it $10,000 or less, so let’s cypher this out. Let’s see, $1 million is 100 times the $10,000 limit limit set by uncommon.

        I look forward to spending the l’heure verte, thanks to my friend, Mr. uncommon, gratitudes to you, sir!

      2. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

        The 18 year old will get no bail. I believe he has a record. They will likely pin this on him and maybe one of the other older boys.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Miner49er,

      The fine print on this arrangement stipulates that all bets are off if the proceedings were/are outside of Cook County, Illinois.

      Apologies Miner49er. It was fun while it lasted.

      Look on the bright side: you expanded my horizons to Woodford Reserve and the subtleties of liquor measurements.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        My good man, surely you jest!

        You offered a wager, I excepted your wager. You are bound by the statement you made:

        “Anyone want to bet that the five surviving suspects will be out on bail today?

        Bonus odds: anyone want to bet that the courts set bail for the five surviving suspects at $10,000 or less for each suspect?”

        There is no “fine print about cook county” in your wager offer, it makes zero mention of location as a factor in the wager.

        A gentleman’s word is his bond and I expect you to make good upon your wager.

        I believe a basic tenet of the conservative philosophy is a requirement for ‘personal responsibility’ for all actions, words and deeds.

        Please confirm your integrity as a man by responding or else all be forced to consider that you have no honor as a man.

        Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, I await your response with interest.

  4. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

    Chicago, giving Mos-Eisley a run for “scum and villainy.”
    Somewhere in Chicago a cow and a lantern need to become better acquainted.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Mrs. O’Leary awaits her instructions…

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      Nah, they just need an influx of Jedi knights — say, two hundred of them.

      I presume that liberal DAs are weak-minded enough to be subject to Jedi mind tricks. 🙂

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Hhhhmmmm. Night. Disturbance outdoors at a residence. Homeowner does not call police. Homeowner leaves safety of residence and goes out to confront the disturbance. Without knowing the circumstance, homeowner carries a firearm to confront the disturbance. Homeowner confronts apparent car thieves. Firearm discharge ensues. One “thief” is shot, and dies later.

    Where is the imminent deadly threat not caused by homeowner taking initiative to escalate the situation?

    Thugs, criminals and gangers are not going to be charged with “gun crimes”, but an apparent law-abiding citizen using a gun? Juicy prosecution target; easy win.

    1. avatar Grumpy says:

      Homeowner did call police right after shooting according to the Sun Times Article. Knife found at scene. He should be ok.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Homeowner did call police right after shooting…”

        Yes, after.

        How many times have we seen the homeowner charged because going outside to confront created a deadly situation, rather than being the result of one? We already had the commotion a coupla years back where a homeowner heard noise in the garage, shot the burglar, and was charged because the homeowner was not threatened until opening the door to the garage.

        Great thought and caution should apply when contemplating going outside with a gun, intending to sort out one or more break-in artists.

        1. avatar Bcb says:

          No. Anyone has the right to go and check whatever they want on their property at any time. If someone attacks them it’s all on the attacker. You are arguing someone isn’t within their right to walk down their driveway to their vehicle?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You are arguing someone isn’t within their right to walk down their driveway to their vehicle?”

          Nope, but knee-jerk reactions based on “I know my rights” often lead to folly. What you contend is entirely jurisdictional. What is the self-defense law where you are? Where I live, there is no mandate to retreat when confronted, but self-defense law doesn’t support defending against an attack that was brought on by confronting others (and this jurisdiction is not unique in the nation).

          Coming upon an assault on another, and confronting the attacker is not the same as leaving a residence to confront suspected/possible thieves. If you read the article closely, the resident didn’t just hear an unexpected noise, then go outside to see if some animal was making all the racket. No, he observed what he perceived to be an attempt at stealing his car. At that point, he was safe within, and should have called police. Going outside can so easily be construed as “looking for trouble”.

          Not knowing the actual jurisdiction, it is impossible to know the law there. But I wouldn’t just assume the homeowner’s cause was/is just, therefore he is free from arrest and charge.

        3. avatar GunnyGene says:

          More thought in some States than in others. And where I live the thought process would focus on finding my NVG’s during a night time encounter, not potential legal problems, or any of that other Big City horse manure.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “finding my NVG’s ”

          That would be the tool to have.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      There’s no law that says you have to cower in your house when you think someone’s trespassing. If you go out to confront a trespasser and they get violent, well then you get what we have right here. Which is the way they wanted it. So, they got it.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “There’s no law that says you have to cower in your house when you think someone’s trespassing.”

        Proclaiming there is “no law”, as in none anywhere in the nation, regarding limits on dealing with trespassers is a bold one, don’t you think?

        Everything depends on self-defense laws in your locale. Know them. In my burg, trespassing is a misdemeanor, a ticket, not a “crime”. But unless such persons pose an immediate and deadly threat just by being on your property, you have no authority to escalate the matter until use of a firearm in defense is necessary.

        The underlying caution is do not presume one’s righteous indignation is Kryptonite to being charged with a crime as a result of a deadly outcome to an altercation. In my jurisdiction, a person standing across the street holding a knife or ball bat, announcing the intent to cross over and beat you is not justification for firing shots at that person…unless the person is in position to deliver deadly force, immediately. The “victim” must disengage, withdraw. Pulling a gun, and shooting across the street would be considered a crime because the “victim” was not actually under imminent threat simply due to “fightin’ words” from a distance of fifty feet or so. This is not “duty to retreat”, but a mandate to not escalate to a condition where deadly force in defense is necessary.

        Again, before charging out of the house, know the self-defense laws in your area.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Or, simply live in Texas.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Or, simply live in Texas.”

          Been watching that. Every county along the Tex-Mex border is blue, and Dimwitocrats own all the major cities. The blue wave of cockroaches continues the inexorable flow eastward.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Or, simply live in Texas.”

          Much better, out in the counties, *after dark*… 🙂

        4. avatar Roymond says:

          How can being armed on your own property qualify as escalating anything? Are we really supposed to disarm if we step out on our porches to see what’s going on when someone is tampering with our property?

          I think it would be a no-brainer that SCOTUS would rule that there is no duty to disarm, so if he was armed before leaving the house then rationally it shouldn’t be an issue.

          But then this is Illinois….

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Are we really supposed to disarm if we step out on our porches to see what’s going on when someone is tampering with our property?”

          It is important to understand interlocking laws. In my area, deadly force in protection of property is not permitted. Essentially, if someone is stealing stuff from your driveway or yard, you risk jail for presenting a gun. Same if you see burglars across the street.

          You may confront your burglars and try to chase them off….but not with a firearm. In such cases, leaving the safety of the residence with a gun on your person can (and likely will) be construed as intent to shoot, when you can remain indoors (not under imminent threat to life and limb) and call police. This “intent” changes you from a defender to a perp.

          Along with prohibition of deadly force in defense of property outside, it has been claimed that defense of property inside is also prohibited. The underlying law in both conditions is a person is not under imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Castle doctrine can apply regards imminent threat to persons, and be unavailable when using a gun to defend property inside your residence.

          All this is why it is so important to understand, thoroughly (maybe even more than your defense attorney), the self-protection law where you live. A belief in righteous defense is not going to overcome the statutes.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Hankey, excellent reference to cool hand Luke, one of Paul Newman’s best roles.

        You know, Mr. Newman came to West Virginia to research his character in the movie, and visited many locations in Southern West Virginia to pick up accurate mannerisms, accent and slang. I think he hit it pretty well, it’s a classic.

      3. avatar GS650G says:

        “There’s no law that says you have to cower in your house when you think someone’s trespassing”
        You don’t live in NJ, do you?

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      I agree. Generally it is more more legally sound to tackle these situations defensively. Castle Doctrine is more widespread and even without it prosecutors will have a much harder time convincing a jury that a defendant should have done something else while people tried to literally get in his house.

      If you’re lucky you won’t have to worry about that but unless you’re sure about your jurisdiction’s prosecutor- why risk it? For some principle of being able to throw nogoodnicks off your land?

  6. avatar Dog of War says:

    It’s probably a safe bet that the 14 year old purp will be include in a list of underage victims of ‘gun violence’.

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      It’s an absolute fact.

    2. avatar Darkman says:

      Who Cares. One less thug banger on the street. Where it falls in the statistical analysis is irrelevant. The common good has been served. At least in part.

      1. avatar Dog of War says:

        Well personally I do care and I even think it’s an absolute travesty that this even happen. I’d even go so far as that I actually care more about the lives of these kids more than the activist that make their living using shootings like this for fodder for their cause. I’m just complete aware of the reality that it’s not the gun’s or access to guns that caused this issue. It’s Chicago’s problems with rampant criminal culture and the politicians and activist that would rather screech about it than work on fixing that cities issues.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Those kids you care about would kill you for your car, or phone. Save your charity and compassion for those who truly deserve it and make the most of a bad situation.

    3. avatar Micah says:

      These days kids can’t even drive stolen cars to strangers’ houses and confront them with knives in the middle of the night, without the risk of getting shot. What is this world coming to?

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    “The final suspect, a 17-year-old, was tracked to a dumpster”

    There’s where garbage belongs.

    1. avatar Jon says:

      OK. That made me smile. But you must be over 70 to joke like that.

  8. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Most miscreants are so stupid they don’t know about felony murder and are SURPRISED( but I didn’t shoot nobody!) when charged. The looks on their faces must give LEOs some satisfaction.

    1. avatar Neil says:

      This.

      But I have no faith anything real will happen.

      Chicago does need another cow/lantern event to clean it up.

  9. avatar Popeye the Sailor Man says:

    Doubt that murder in the 1st degree will stick. Maybe if the prosecutor tried a 2nd degree charge, but I think they’re being overzealous, and they’ll get off. What disturbs me is that the homeowner is likely going to face charges, and if not, it will only be because a knife was found at the scene and not because 6 people were advancing on him.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      homeowner will not be charged.
      a federal statute is being applied here.

  10. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Too bad he didn’t bag all six of the vermin.

  11. avatar enuf says:

    It is not fair and it is not right but a prosecutor always has the option to file a charge and try to convict no matter how obvious it is to the rest of the civilized world that the act of self defense was justified. Even if the law as written is on the homeowner’s side, the prosecutor can grand stand, or simply punish the homeowner by bankrupting him with defense lawyer fees.

    The death of the 14 year old is on the heads of his accomplices. Tragic but not the homeowner’s fault. Thinking as the elderly guy I am, if six people were advancing on me like that what choice would I have? Go all action movie star good guy kung fu on them? That’s a fantasy. They’d beat me to very bloody and dead pulp in no time.

    He had no choice at that moment but to shoot. Who got hit by those bullets is entirely the fault of who was doing the crime.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Recently I had a guy, in all seriousness, argue that “You don’t need more than 6 rounds for self defense”. Yeah, right. And if just a couple of those 6 kids had guns instead of a knife, the guy would have needed a hell of a lot more firepower than most handguns provide. Of course he might have had a “weapon of war” and we can’t have that, how can we?

  12. avatar TommyGNR says:

    If the media really cared about safety they would publisize events like these as much as possible. it would deter criminals

  13. avatar JakSte says:

    This happened in Oak Mill Creek in Lake County in Illinois. The Chicago and Cook County (police and) legal system won’t be involved. Those guys came out of Chi to an upper class area far out of the city to cause this trouble.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    Yep it AIN’T Chicago or Cook county…dindu don’t do. That’s why Chiraq’s violence matters. It’s spilling over in other area’s(like Lake co. IL & IN). And my neighborhood😫

  15. avatar retmsgt says:

    In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it’s Second Degree Murder. Partaking in a criminal activity, someone dies, the accessories are responsible. I sat on a jury trial for just such a case. The accused was part of the crew that went to collect a drug debt. Wasn’t even in the building when the dealer ended up dead. The way the judge explained the law, the accused was held responsible.

  16. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    What’s that saying, “Don’t pick a fight with on old man, cause he might just shoot you…”

  17. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Good point Rock. My ex and I split in ’09. I finished raising the kids. Married my daughter away last spring. Son is well on his way in his chosen profession. Dad will be leaving us any day now. Mom won’t be far behind. What have I got to loose?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m there with you, Flag, nothing left to do except what’s right. Without fear.

  18. avatar Bill Johnson says:

    I would mch ratherr be a Member of the USCCA. They are a Amazing organization .

    https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/membership/

  19. avatar " keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    I just go along with ” I was with him, he tripped on a rake and killed himself during the buggery” Murder Law. What’s it do anyway? Make it to scary to help someone rob someone. Yeah that aught to do it, because if it’s one thing a young hamster is worried about, it’s breaking the law. Wouldn’t want that.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      I figured you’d just bite ’em and hope the wound gets infected. ‘Cause Possums root around in dumpsters after dark…

  20. avatar Doc says:

    If you conceal carry look at U.S. Law Shield, great company low cost.

  21. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Andrew Branca over at law of self-defense did another of his amazingly interesting legal analyses of this case.

    His first statement was you are never under any circumstances to talk to the press. If the press needs a statement that is the job of your lawyer.

    He also said this is a rural area and it is reasonable to investigate a property crime as the sheriff will take a very long time to respond. In a more urban situation with rapid police response time is it may not be reasonable to go out and confront trespassers or car thieves.

    He states that the fact that a group of teenagers attacked a 75-year-old man makes a disparity of force such that deadly defensive force is justified.

    His last statement was that the headline should have read “ elderly man Successfully defends against mob of teenage murderers”. Or perhaps “Another 14-year-old attempts murder. Thousands of 13 and 14 year old have been convicted of murder and are in US Prisons”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “He also said this is a rural area and it is reasonable to investigate a property crime as the sheriff will take a very long time to respond. In a more urban situation with rapid police response time is it may not be reasonable to go out and confront trespassers or car thieves.”

      I.E., know the local laws regarding use of a firearm for self-defense; don’t assume nuthin’

  22. avatar Hannibal says:

    The one criminal who at least got out of the car to try and get his mortally wounded friend help should catch a lesser charge than the rest of them that ran off.

    1. avatar retmsgt says:

      What lesser charge, tampering with evidence?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “What lesser charge, tampering with evidence?”

        Nicely done !

  23. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    I am not sure in Illinois, but in most states the local prosecutor, whatever the title, has to stand for local election. That means more than a law that can be twisted to suit the desires narrative. In an ex-urb or rural county, the likelihood of prosecution of the homeowner would be low and of the bangers would be high. Same for conviction. If this had happened in Chicago or any other Democrat controlled city, it would be another story. The lesson to bangers should be clear. Stay in your own hood.

  24. avatar GS650G says:

    Hopefully the old guy won’t be disarmed for everyone’s protection while they “investigate” because those dudes are probably thinking they need one less witness around to help their case.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email