80 Year old man charged with felony after shooting intruder....SMH

Originally posted by jhn7537
So this story got me thinking.... Here in Chicago a 80 year old man is being charged with a felony for shooting a 19 year old boy who broke into his home trying to burgularize it. The 80 year old man grabbed his hand gun and shot the man in his right leg, when cops showed up the burgler was arrested, but so was the 80 year old man who was protecting his home. What got me thinking is the fact that there is a story that took the nation by storm, the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident down in Florida. So how is it that Zimmerman hasnt even been charged, but this man here in Chicago, who was protecting his home, is charged with a felony??? Reading the story below you will see that the 80 year old man had 2 weapons convictions, one from 1968 and one from 1994. Does this mean he cant protect himself in his own house? Should he just allow a burgler to steal from him? Should he just call the police and hide in a closet? I hope these charges are eventually dropped by the Chicago PD...

www.chicagotribune.com...

Off the top of my head, after reading the article I would say that he was not arrested for 'shooting' the criminal who broke into his house, he was arrested because of his previous convictions and felons cannot own firearms in most states.

reply to post by jhn7537


Illinois is actually a Castle Doctrine State that allows for the use of deadly force against a home invader. No duty of retreat or warning. Dwellers are immune from prosecution and civil liability.

So the homeowner in this case could have shot the invader in the head, killed him, and only be arrested for possession of a firearm (because he was a felon with several gun related felons on his record)

In my opinion even felons should be allowed to defend their homes, but I understand the need to keep criminals away from firearms.. hopefully a Jury will use common sense that, in this case the poor guy could have been seriously injured or killed by the invader had he not had his weapon.

reply to post by OldCurmudgeon


The article does not say the 80 year old man is a felon. It says he has two previous weapons charges, it does not say he is a Felon or that the weapons charges were felony charges.

After a felon has served his time including the parole period i don't see why they should not be allowed to have guns.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by jhn7537

 

(because he was a felon with several gun related felons on his record)

Where does it say the 80 year old man was a Felon?

Where does it say the 80 year old man had gun related felony charges on his record?

It doesn't. Right from the start of this thread people have assumed he is a felon. The ONLY use of the word Felony in the article is that what the man is being charged with NOW, is a Felony.

The article says he has 2 previous weapons charges. Not gun charges. A weapon can be anything. A gun, a knife, a kitchen knife, a box cutter, a pipe, a rock, anything you can put your hands on today can be considered a weapon depending on how you use it. Even hitting someone with a car is considered assault with a deadly weapon. There are also varying degrees of charges. They could have been misdemeanor weapons charges.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by jhn7537

 

(because he was a felon with several gun related felons on his record)

Where does it say the 80 year old man was a Felon?

Where does it say the 80 year old man had gun related felony charges on his record?

It doesn't. Right from the start of this thread people have assumed he is a felon. The ONLY use of the word Felony in the article is that what the man is being charged with NOW, is a Felony.

The article says he has 2 previous weapons charges. Not gun charges. A weapon can be anything. A gun, a knife, a kitchen knife, a box cutter, a pipe, a rock, anything you can put your hands on today can be considered a weapon depending on how you use it. Even hitting someone with a car is considered assault with a deadly weapon. There are also varying degrees of charges. They could have been misdemeanor weapons charges.

chicago.cbslocal.com...
But Wright is a convicted felon, and is not allowed to own a gun, police said. Thus, he was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, a felony, police said.

The arrest has made

there ya go.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
After a felon has served his time including the parole period i don't see why they should not be allowed to have guns.

That's how I feel with felons and voting too... Once you are free and clear of your charges, I feel they should be able to vote. I dont believe that one bad mistake should take away your voting privleges for good... What's crazy is that I can drink a boat load of alcohol, crash my car, kill someone while doing so and still drive a car again one day, but a guy who commits a felony isnt allowed to vote.........

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon

 

The article does not say the 80 year old man is a felon. It says he has two previous weapons charges, it does not say he is a Felon or that the weapons charges were felony charges.

Very true MrWendal regarding whether the gentleman 'was' a felon... he is now of course:

"Wright was charged with one felony count of unlawful use of a weapon after police discovered he had two prior weapons convictions from 1968 and 1994, officials said. Records show Wright also was convicted of theft in 1990. Wright turned his gun over to detectives."

I attempted to qualify my post originally as 'off the top of my head' and in that we already know that many, many weapons related violations are in fact felonies, albeit Class 4, but still felonies, and given Illinois's history of some of the most stringent (and insane) gun control laws in the country, then I 'might' have guessed wrongly.

Now that I have time, in the interest of accuracy, I will look it up.

Thanks for calling this to my attention...

BTW... I support the gentleman in protecting himself, his family and his home and believe he should not be charged, or the violation placed on his record, and his gun given back to him. Doubt it, it is Illinois.

Happy and proud Life Member of the NRA.

To continue... I did some quick research, but given I do not have facts and details on the previous violations charged to the gentleman, it is impossible to determine whether misdemeanors or felonies.

However I would suggest after a cursory inspection of Illinois Statues that the previous "weapons violations" were either "Class A Misdemeanors" or more likely at least "Class 4 Felonies."

Again, I can't be sure, but you can read the statues yourself and see where I'm going.
isp.state.il.us...

Thanks for links. I did not see anything in the OP's source about him being a felon. This certainly clears some things up and really in my opinion it starts a whole new conversation.

At what point has someone convicted of a felony paid his debt to society?

Here the man is 80 years old, a business owner, and apparently pretty active in his local community. It has obviously been a long time since he was convicted of anything.

This also kind of brings up a whole different point that people have been saying for a long time. Gun laws do not work. Clearly this man, who is a convicted felon, had no trouble getting a firearm.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Thanks for links. I did not see anything in the OP's source about him being a felon. This certainly clears some things up and really in my opinion it starts a whole new conversation.

At what point has someone convicted of a felony paid his debt to society?

Here the man is 80 years old, a business owner, and apparently pretty active in his local community. It has obviously been a long time since he was convicted of anything.

This also kind of brings up a whole different point that people have been saying for a long time. Gun laws do not work. Clearly this man, who is a convicted felon, had no trouble getting a firearm.

Exactly........ I knew some younger kids on the southwest side of chicago who said it was easier for them to get a gun over getting alcohol...... A statement like that doesnt even register with me... How is that possible???

only in amerika ... the rich and criminals have the full protection of the law ...

Originally posted by MrWendal
Thanks for links. I did not see anything in the OP's source about him being a felon. This certainly clears some things up and really in my opinion it starts a whole new conversation.

At what point has someone convicted of a felony paid his debt to society?

Here the man is 80 years old, a business owner, and apparently pretty active in his local community. It has obviously been a long time since he was convicted of anything.

This also kind of brings up a whole different point that people have been saying for a long time. Gun laws do not work. Clearly this man, who is a convicted felon, had no trouble getting a firearm.

Excellent point MrWendal... at what point has someone paid the debt?

This gentleman is clearly a local businesman.. even though it doesn't give specifics I'll bet he helps lots of people in the neighborhood and most importantly... given Illinois's record of being totally anti-gun and their gun control laws this gentleman's first two issues with weapons could have been having purchased a weapon to protect his home and his business.

I don't know how or who would make the determination of who could and could not at some point again own a weapon for hunting, target and especially self protection.

Just thinking there must be a point where an individuals second amendment rights could be reinstated. ??? Just thinkin.