74 Year Old Shoots Intruder

[Jeff White]

Looks like the Korean War vet did good. Shouldn't have pursued him and fired again, but it looks like his age will preclude him from being charged with anything.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...497A4775ABAB508B8625718F001FAAEC?OpenDocument

74-year-old shoots intruder
By Denise Hollinshed
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
06/15/2006


EAST ST. LOUIS

Willie Brown said he thought he was back in a foxhole in Korea on Thursday morning when a burglar stood at the door to Brown's bedroom.

"He said, 'I got a knife, don't move,'" Brown recalled.

"I reached behind my back and whipped my gun from under my pillow and said, 'Take this .38,' and I blasted him."

The man, wounded, uttered "Whoops," Brown said, and fled down the stairs. Brown pursued, and fired a second shot, striking the intruder as he jumped through a broken window.

Brown then ran to his front door and fired a third shot as the burglar crossed his yard. That one missed.

But the burglar didn't get away. He tried to flee in a car but several blocks away nearly collided with an unmarked patrol car driven by Capt. Henry Williams of the East St. Louis Park District police. Williams blocked the car until Washington Park police arrived.

The driver, 30, was arrested and taken to an area hospital, where he was treated for the gunshot wounds. Police will seek charges against him today.

Brown, 74, discussed the incident Thursday afternoon as he sat on the porch of the two-story brick house at 3912 Caseyville Avenue that he has lived in for 37 years. Brown, who has five grown children, retired in 1994 from his job with Bi-State in St. Louis.

Brown said he spent 13 years in the Army. He said that during the Korean War, he kept his rifle, a .45-caliber pistol and five grenades with him while he slept in the trenches.

In East St. Louis, he keeps a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson under his pillow. He has been the victim of thieves before, when 24- and 40-foot ladders were taken from his property, but Thursday was the first time anybody got inside his home.

He said that when he saw the intruder in his bedroom at 6:45 a.m., he thought he was back in Korea.

"I could have killed him," Brown said. "I did so much killing in Korea. What jumped in my head was that I was fighting in the war."

The incident was similar to an attempted home invasion at 2 a.m. Feb. 7 at the East St. Louis home of 87-year-old Jacksie Mae King.

King fired several shots through her front door, fatally wounding Larry Tillman, 49. The shooting was ruled a justified killing.

Brown said he has an Illinois Firearm Owners Identification cards for his pistol. Police took the weapon for ballistics tests but told him it would be returned.

Brown said: "I hate it happened like that, but you have to protect yourself."

 

[Chris Rhines]

"Whoops," indeed...

-Chris

 

[mete]

Good for him !!! But the second and third shots were not justified since the BG was fleeing.

 

[CSA 357]

74 OR 47 WHATS THE DIFFERNCE?*CSA*

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

The man, wounded, uttered "Whoops,"

Give him the "Understatement of the Year" award!
Can't really call it a "good shoot" but score one for the good guys!

 

[Jeff White]

CSA357 said;

74 OR 47 WHATS THE DIFFERNCE?*CSA*

The difference is that in many cases (and especially in one of the worst ghettos in the country which is what East St Louis is) the prosecutor will not file any charges against the elderly for doing something like chasing an intruder out of their home shooting at them or here in Illinois possessing a firearm without a valid FOID card) because they want to send a message to the criminal element that it's not smart to victimize the elderly.

While it isn't fair, younger, more able people are usually held to a higher standard.

Jeff

 

[Jenrick]

Comment in violation of the forum's use of force policy deleted.

Jeff

 

[1911Tuner]

Old Men

Said it before...Sayin' it again. Best not mess with a man older than 65 or 70.
They've been there and done that...seen and done all they need to. They figger that they're livin' on borrowed time, and time goes fast for'em. Life in the pen would be like a week in county lockup. They figger that they get free medical and dental...place to sleep and three squares a day...and the time does pass so fast. So hell! Why NOT shoot the little POS...

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Amen. Too bad the current generation doesn't have any respect for them. Liberal parenting at work.

 

[JohnKSa]

Police took the weapon for ballistics tests but told him it would be returned.

And in the meantime, the paper published a photo of him. Hope the bad guy's buddies don't read the paper.

 

[Dionysusigma]

They make no mention of what else he might have. Remember, he used to sleep with a Garand, a 1911, and a few pineapples.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Good for him !!! But the second and third shots were not justified since the BG was fleeing.

Incorrect. I'm going to go with the logical assumption that since the shooter wasn't charged with a crime, all the shots were justified. Most states rule that it is completely justifiable for lethal force to be used to prevent a felon from leaving the scene of a crime, precisely what the bad guy was doing. It's not okay to murder the badguy for revenge, but since lethal force is being used, well, they call it lethal for a reason.

The guy was being threatened with a knife, for crying out loud.

-edit
As mete and Jeff White point out below, my statement of "most states rule [...]" is not accurate. Read on for more details.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Kudos to the old gentleman!

"Take this .38"

It should be a movie line.

 

[mete]

Weedwhacker, 'most states' ? I 've had very good training and it's always been stated that once the BG turns to leave he is no longer a threat and therefore you are not justified in shooting him. It may be that in some states the police can shoot a fleeing felon but, as Ayoob says, that doesn't mean he won't get into serious trouble if he does.....Don't take my comments as sympathy for the BG, it should have been fatal.

 

[Jeff White]

Weedwhacker said;

Incorrect. I'm going to go with the logical assumption that since the shooter wasn't charged with a crime, all the shots were justified.

Well it might be logical, but it's not right. Is there some requirement for laws to be logical?

Most states rule that it is completely justifiable for lethal force to be used to prevent a felon from leaving the scene of a crime, precisely what the bad guy was doing.

Actually there was a decision by the US Supreme Court in the late 1960s in a Tennesee case that effectively ended shooting at fleeing felons. Sorry but it's just not done any longer, not by the police and not by civilians. No states have laws that allow you to shoot a fleeing felon after that ruling.

It's not okay to murder the badguy for revenge, but since lethal force is being used, well, they call it lethal for a reason.

The guy was being threatened with a knife, for crying out loud.

After the threat ended, use of deadly force by Mr. Brown was nothing but murder for revenge. I'm sure Mr. Brown probably didn't feel like it was revenge, he was most likely shooting to prevent his escape, but that is no longer legal. Hasn't been for almost 40 years.

This incident happened in East St Louis, Illinois. Here is the applicable Illinois law:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.


(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

Looks like a pretty good law, even provides protection from civil litigation. It would appear that Mr. Brown's use of his .38 caliber revolver meets those criteria. But only to shoot while the attacker was standing in his bedroom door. Because the minute he turned to flee, the threat of great bodily harm or death to Mr. Brown ended.

If you read a few paragraphs farther you'll find this:

(720 ILCS 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑4)
Sec. 7‑4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

As you can see, the aggressor (the intruder in this case) can't claim self defense unless he withdraws. The minute he turned tail and ran he indicated clearly to Mr. Brown that he desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force.

Mr. Brown gave up all of his legal protection from criminal and civil charges when he pursued the man he wounded shooting at him. I doubt he'll be sued, because he probably doesn't have enough assets to make it worth an attorney's time. And the states attorney has already said he won't file charges. So it looks like he's free and clear. But his firing at the intruder while he was fleeing was in no way, shape or form legal.

I suggest that you do some serious research and talk to a criminal lawyer where you live before you shoot at a fleeing felon. It will probably save you from a lot of trouble.

Jeff

 

[hoji]

Also depends on what the BG said as he was leaving. If he was spouting off about coming back with his crew and popping caps in a mofo, then the homeowner could be justified in continuation of force.
Also it looks like he was suffering a PTS moment{ Post Traumatic Stress } and has a good defense if it comes to that. This man is a war veteran. Woke up and saw Charlie in his foxhole, did what needed to be done.

BTW.... Whoops.....ROFLMAO

 

[WeedWhacker]

Jeff White,
I'll have to take your word about Illinois law - I don't plan on visiting the state (just no interest). As for this:

No states have laws that allow you to shoot a fleeing felon after that ruling.

That same court case decision said otherwise (with some caveats which are met in this case):

Eighteen others allow, in slightly varying language, the use of deadly force only if the suspect has committed a felony involving the use or threat of physical or deadly force, or is escaping with a deadly weapon, or is likely to endanger life or inflict serious physical injury if not arrested. 18 Louisiana and Vermont, though without statutes or case law on point, do forbid the use of deadly force to prevent any but violent felonies. 19 The remaining States either have no relevant statute or case law, or have positions that are unclear.

This "can't shoot a fleeing felon at all" theory also makes no allotment for the split-second judgements which must be made in armed confrontations, even when the weapon is a knife. What is the first thing to do when someone finds themself in a gunfight? Find cover. A "fleeing" felon may not necessarily be leaving.

I will, however, grant that once the criminal was out of the victim's house and still retreating, there is no further justification for lethal force. I am glad that law enforcement seems to take into account the stress involved in such an event, remembering who, after all, is the criminal.

-edit for clarification
This means that I do indeed believe that his second shot was justified, even though it was described as "jumping out a window". Anyone who witnessed the debate regarding the hotel/motel security video of an Ohio CCW-holder shooting a fleeing would-be robber will recognize the difference between the actual situation, and after-the-fact analysis.

 

[dogngun]

Post that was in violation of the forum's use of force policy deleted....

Jeff

 

[Ranb]

Good for him !!! But the second and third shots were not justified since the BG was fleeing.

I have to disagree with the above statement. The bad guy was not on his knees or lying on the floor and begging for mercy, neither was he handcuffed and waiting to be taken away. He was retreating, possible a strategic retreat. The smart thing for the victim to do was exactly what he did; keep shooting until the threat is gone.


Ranb

 

[1911Tuner]

Fleeing Felon/Slippery Slope

Be very careful about pursuing a fleeing felon...especially if he has a weapon.
It can be construed that...after he has broken off the engagement and run...if you go after him, YOU then become the aggressor, and HE now
has the legal right to use lethal force in defense of HIS life.

 

[Snarlingiron]

I am quite sure that the old gentleman meant the 2nd and 3rd shots in the most kind and loving way. Thus meeting the standards of this kind and loving non threatening but still gun toting group!

 

[jeepmor]

US laws only prove

None of us is as dumb as all of us.....

When taking courses about self defense and firearms, isn't the training to keep shooting until the BG goes down, not turns and runs away.

I don't want to argue legalities, but we have some messed up laws in this country. So, since he ran, and the guy continued to shoot, does that open him up for civil suits? I'm sure some lawyer has already inquired the poor victims bank account and assessed whether or not they would be representing the BG for getting shot, but not killed.

Sure, if BG flees, stop shooting, but the second shot sounds quite legitimate. The third one sounds like a potshot. But it did insure the guy kept running.....away.

 

[Trueno]

I'd gladly be the first in line to shake the hand of Mr. Brown for his bravery and courage, not only in wartime but peacetime. I would be grateful to have neighbors like him.

ps: If there was a line to stand face to face with him and chastise him for his actions with "what ifs" and "possibles" etc etc etc, who here would be first in that line?

pps: hoji, excellent point and very well put. A bad guy turnin' his back might (evidently) fool some of those that posted above, but then again they would only have the chance to be fooled once...kinda like Harry asked, do ya feel lucky? Well do ya?

I pity the fool,
(sorry, couldn't help it)

t

 

[El Tejon]

Whoops indeed!

Hopefully more mopes get the word not to mess with the "helpless" people out there. Firearms transform the "helpless" into the "capable"; this is why firearms are so hated by politicians.

Logic in the law? Well, it depends . . .

Ordinarily one cannot pursue and shoot down evildoers in retreat, unless (you knew that there HAD to be expections) the evildoer is believed to be a threat to third parties.

In the case at screen, at least there is an argument for any slimy tilecrawler that the armed evildoer could have attacked other innocents so Mr. Brown was well within his rights to press his counterattack. Of course, at this stage, as Jeff mentions, it is more a question of prosecutorial discretion that blackletter law.

 

[XavierBreath]

I actually just blogged on this incident without having read this thread.

It's good to hear Jeff's perspective and his conclusion that Mr. Brown will not be charged. I was a bit concerned about the old gent's third shot myself. In Mr. Brown's defense, his home is two stories, and he pursued the intruder downstairs first. He fired the ill advised third shot out his front door after the intruder jumped out a window to escape though. Not only was the intruder fleeing, but that bullet stops somewhere. In a neighborhood that can be bad juju. It seems Mr. Brown is a very honorable and lucky man.

I'd still buy his dinner and leave the tip.