Make My Day

Law Forum

In another thread chekitty mentioned a Colorado law.

Governments take SOO much care of burglars as well as of criminals of different types...

The fact that the homeowner had weapon in posession without permit for more then 10 years and the police knowing that fact (guns were registered before, what happened when the permit's term expired?) took no effort to take them away clearly shows this law isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I totally agree Barb. I'm glad they're not charging this man for shooting the burglar. The report indicates that a series of cat burglaries in the area were committed when the assailant KNEW that people were home. That's just plain scary. If someone broke into my home while I was there, you bet you a$$ that I would take that as a personal threat to my person, not just my property. ESPECIALLY if kids are in the house. I agree that it would have been better to have the alarm system activated, that way police would be notified immediately. But having reports of burglaries in the area, shouldn't a robbery detective have been staking out the neighborhood anyway?
I can't believe this crook was stupid enough to go to the same house TWICE in a row.

chelktty:

This burglar proved really stupid also because he went to a hospital with gunshot wounds.

The arguments Carpenter (the chief of police) has not to confront criminals are just best wishes.

1. Currently, no country can provide its citizens with immediate police reaction. Somewhere police is better, somewhere worse, but there're many cases when criminal and victime are left one by one. There may be no possibility to call the police at all (say, street robbery).

2. Domestic arguments become homicides more oftenly with means of cooking knives, axes and other homestuff.

3. People, who bring out cases of firearms' accidents always forget the cases when a crime was stopped because there were armed citizens.

Only one important thing: a person who uses firearm, must be effectively trained, physically and psychologically to do it. Otherwise it's no use to have one.

The fact of giving one a firearm licence should mean that the person:
- can shoot,
- is a able to shoot at a human in case of danger (some people can't),
- well aware of legal consequences,
in addition to common requrements of sanity, etc..

Ok I know this might be a little off topic, but we as a nation might expect less crimes if we didn't give away so many rights to criminals and instead severely punished the guilty.

I googled information on Singapore Crime and Punishment, having remembered that teen Michael Fay, an American tourist in Singapore was sentenced to jail and caning for spraying 2 privately owned cars with graffiti. (If I caught someone spray painting on my car, I'd want to whip him with a cane too!) Anyway I remembered people in the U.S. being upset that this poor boy (spoiled brat) was getting caned, that it was too severe a punishment.

However I submit that if we had more severe punishments for crimes here as they do there, that perhaps we would see a decline in criminal offenses, just as there has been in Singapore. In most cases, the caning is done in public, which may at first sound barbaric, but it's done to deter other potential offenders from committing similar acts. If people are fully aware of what WILL happen to them for committing a crime, they're less likely to commit it.

But here people know that if they devise a clever defense scheme BEFORE committing the crime, that they'll receive less time in prison. Or with the aid of a slick attorney, it's possible to even file a suit holding the criminal's victim(s) liable for the consequences of the crime or avoid any time at all in prison. A prison mind you, that has social rooms for playing cards, board games, computer rooms, television, libraries, learning centers, gyms, basketball courts and conjigal visit campers. Why would someone in the U.S. with a criminally disposed mind care if they spent time in prison? It's not really a severe punishment anymore.

Here's a link to a site with a chart outlining cases and their punishments in Singapore. There are 2 columns next to the offense synopsis; time spent in jail and # of lashes from the cane. Some of the offenses are pretty comical, but the seriousness of the punishment is what makes it one of the safest places in the world to visit and live in.

http://www.geocities.com/law4u2003/

chelktty:

In the materials that you've posted there is the statement that self-defence may be used in defending one's property.

1.Let's take the case of a car being stolen. Is it right to shoot and kill the offender in this case? Lets consider this story:

someone sees that his or her car is being driven away. Is it right to shoot at the driver? The case mentioned in the text on your link proves it isn't, since the owner was considered as the person who had started the fight.

2. The case Michael Fay. How do you think, to what extent should owners of property be allowed to defend their property? E.g. a car is being painted, windows/mirrors being broken, radio being stolen?
Here we come to the question of price of damage that allows using deadly violence.

I believe that the punishment must be severe for the potential criminals to consider seriously if their play is worth the risk.
But, the most important thing that law-enforcing organisations ensure that the punishment is hardly to be avoided.

Wilmette police proved itself ineffective. They had burglaries in their area of responsibility and couldn't cope with them.
Instead, they accuse the man on illegag possession of the firearms!

Interesting points, but what I was relating about the case of Michael Fay in Singapore was not that it should be an offense punishable by death at the hands of the victim, but rather that his punishment was caning in view of the public, detering potential criminals from committing similar acts. The caning didn't kill him, but it was a painful and humiliating punishment none the less.
The point I was trying to make was that if we had punishment similar here in the United States, perhaps criminals wouldn't be as apt to commit their crimes.

But to answer your question, never do I ever think it is justified to use deadly force against someone who is stealing a car. It's a CAR! A materialistic thing that can be replaced. Human beings can't.

Section 18-1-706, C.R.S in the referred material says about defending property is self-defence.

I thought that it'd be interesting to look at the case of Michael Fay in connection to "self-defence" term.

Because when we speak about defending property, we have the price of the loss.

About caning: I think that the USA had this kind of punishment years ago as well as

Village Board and Police Chief got an earfull last evening ...

Source wbbm780.com ( a local all news radio station )
..................

Wednesday, January 14, 2004, By Bob Roberts
WBBM Newsradio 780

(Wilmette, IL) -- The Wilmette Village Board heard a barrage of criticism of the suburb's handgun ban, and the decision to press charges against a homeowner who shot an intruder. But they showed no desire at Tuesday night's board meeting to make change.
Two former trustees who voted to approve the ordinance reaffirmed their support.

Former trustee Mary S. Ryan even called it her "proudest moment." But 23 of the next 25 speakers spoke against it, although fewer than half said they lived in Wilmette.

Police Chief George Carpenter said, based on his experience, guns kept in homes were far more likely to be used against Wilmette residents in domestic quarrels or for suicides than for protection. He urged residents to dial 911 instead.

But many of the gun advocates who spoke were far angrier with trustee Bernard Michna. Michna said he had also been the victim of a break-in when he lived in Chicago, but said he believed the board was "unanimous in that there will be no change in the handgun ordinance."

One speaker used giant cue cards to illustrate his points. Others used sarcasm.

"If we hear someone screaming, may we then come out of our locked rooms and, brandishing our phones, confront the perpetrator?" asked an incredulous Henry Koslowski.

Gun advocates chuckled as Conceal Carry, Inc., President John Birch mocked the ban. "Anything that attracts criminals to your town and away from mine, is a good thing," Birch said. "I want to assure you I support your law. Keep your law and I request that you also ban knives, crowbars and maybe automobiles."

Brent Hansen of Wheeling pulled out a wad of money, waved it at the trustees and said, "I'm going to give all my money in my wallet to the defendant who is being abused by your ordinance."

Still others were blunt.

"I don't want to be the guy hauled out of my house under arrest when I shoot someone for breaking in," said Kevin
Baxter, of Hampshire.

"What happens if somebody breaks into a home three months from now and kills the family," asked Derek Theclas of Wilmette. "I believe that anyone who would break into a home would have a weapon to protect themselves against the homeowner, so I don't see why we can't have…the right to defend ourselves against that trespasser."

Two Chicago radio talk show hosts even spoke against the ban, claiming listeners identifying themselves as being from Wilmette told them overwhelmingly that they were upset by the ban and the charges filed against 54-year-old Hale DeMar.

One said, "The arrogance of the trustees is appalling," and both suggested that residents defeat trustees and village board candidates who support the ban.

Village President Nancy Canafax, the last remaining member of the board that approved the ban, reminded opponents that the measure passed six weeks before an election in which its supporters won resoundingly.

"All I can says is that this community has felt secure for 15 years with this gun control," she said. "I think our residents agree with our chief, who says it has provided more safety than it has prevented harm.

She then invited opponents to test their support at the ballot box. "There's another election soon, and we'll see," she said.

DeMar, the owner of the Oak Tree Restaurant, 900 N. Michigan Av., shot Morio Billings, 31, twice on Dec. 29. Billings had allegedly broken into the DeMar home, at 35 Linden Av., in Wilmette, for the second time in two nights. He was arrested after seeking treatment at St. Francis Hospital, in Evanston, for gunshot wounds to the side and leg.

Billings is being held in the Cermak Hospital unit of the Cook County Jail in lieu of $3 million bond on two counts of residential burglary and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

DeMar is charged with failure to have a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card, and of violating the Wilmette ordinance.

An article exemplifying this as a clear case against gun control and criminalizing self-defense. As info:
.........................

The Threat of Gun Control
by Doug Hagin
14 January 2004

The ultimate result of gun control will be the criminalizing of self-defense.

Think for a moment of the rights that Americans enjoy. Which is the most precious ? Which is the most fundamental ? Which of our rights can we truly not be free without ?
Freedom of speech ? Freedom of religion ? How about Freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures ? Yes these are all hallmarks of a free society. Yet there is one freedom which protects these and all our other rights in America. That right is found in our Constitution in the form of the Second Amendment.

Yes truly the right of Americans to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental of all our liberties. The Founders were brilliant men. They knew our rights came from the Creator and they formed a nation based on respecting and defending those rights. They also knew that those God-given rights would last only as long as the American people held the right to own guns.

Think of it, without the freedom to own guns we are unable to defend our other rights. Without the Second Amendment the rest of the constitution is hollow and meaningless. By its very nature any government will, over time become greedy and start to encroach on the rights of its people. The founders certainly knew this and put the right to own guns as the ultimate defense against government intrusion upon our liberties.

This truth is why the battle against gun control is so crucial to preserving America's freedoms. None of our constitutional rights have been so maligned or attacked, as has the right to keep and bear arms. And the price if we lose this struggle is clearly illustrated by a case out of Chicago.

There Hale DeMar, a 54-year old homeowner, is facing prison time for owning a gun. A local ordinance bans ownership of handguns, a clear violation of the constitution, and Mr. DeMar has found himself in hot water for daring to exercise his constitutional right to defend his home.

The trouble for DeMar began when an intruder broke into his home on December 29th. DeMar shot the intruder twice and protected his family from whatever the criminal had planned for them. Now he faces up to a year in prison, for simply doing what the Second Amendment guarantees him the right to do, own a gun.

The tragedy of this case is very clear to see. The ultimate result of gun control will be the criminalizing of self-defense. And this case borders on that. The attitude of the authorities in Wilmette, Illinois, where DeMar lives is frightening to anyone who loves freedom.

Police Chief George Carpenter said the charges show the town's "serious concerns" about the shooting. How about the concern for the right to be secure in our homes ? Or the concern for our right to protect ourselves ?

Carpenter made some very troubling statements about DeMar and the charges he faces. "The outcome of the matter in this case was very fortunate for the homeowner. We much prefer, for the safety of the home, that a resident who finds himself in this situation immediately lock the door of the room he is in and dial 911."

Really Chief Carpenter ? There is no "safety" in the home once an intruder has chosen to violate the law and break in. Mr. DeMar chose to be prepared to protect his home and now he is facing a jail term ?

Not content to pass judgment on DeMar for standing up to law breakers Chief Carpenter continued his nonsensical remarks. "Wilmette residents are much safer without handguns in their homes. We see handguns stolen, used in domestic arguments or suicides. Those are far more likely outcomes than when you would actually need a handgun to defend yourself."

Apparently Chief Carpenter has been drinking the gun grabbers Kool-Aid pretty regularly if he believes such ignorant statements. As I wrote just last week well over 2 million Americans use guns to defend themselves annually in America. Maybe Carpenter does not approve of self-defense ?

Chief Carpenter did express some concern for DeMar however. "He strikes us as a good man with a good heart who did something that apparently came naturally to him. That's why it is important the Wilmette Police speak out now."

Speak out about what, Chief Carpenter ? People not surrendering to criminals ? People defending themselves and their families ? Why would any law-enforcement officials speak out against these things ?

Chief Carpenter also said he did "regret" the intrusion of the family's "privacy".
Well that ought to ease their concerns, shouldn't it ? If Mr. DeMar goes to prison for exercising his constitutional rights they should thank Chief Carpenter for his "regrets" ? If some other family actually follows Carpenter's advice and dials 911 and hopes help arrives in time they might be killed in their own home but they will have Chief Carpenter's "regrets" ?

The question of gun control is truly a question of liberty. Will we be free to defend ourselves ? Or will we leave ourselves at the mercy of criminals and the gun control laws criminals love ?

..........

Source: ???

There is an amusing point in Chief Carpenter's words about HANDGUNS.

Imagine, DeMar'd used a 12 or 10 gauge shotgun loaded with buck-shot?
The burglar would have his arm amputated as minimum.

When people are wounded with a handgun they typically receive less damage, at least they die less frequently.

I still think it's ridiculous that the homeowner is facing any kind of charges whatsoever. Because he should have locked himself in a room and called 911 instead?!? This guy broke into his house the next night after ALREADY ripping it off before! He KNEW people were in the house when he broke into it. There were children in the house as well. You can't convince me that a person breaking into a house that he knows to be occupied isn't a threat to that family!
I'm glad that the community is voicing their oppinions about this, but I can't understand why officials won't drop the charges against the homeowner. I guess they're not interested in getting re-elected for another term.

Do NOT shoot at the guy stealing your vehicle...because you MIGHT hit your vehicle! Now...I have to say...charges or not...someone comes into MY property with the intent to do anything other than deliver the morning paper, my mail or a pizza...he is GOING DOWN!!! I'd hurt him so bad then give him the phone and tell him to call the cops to save his a$s!

This is lke the Tony Martin case in the UK, this guy was robbed by the same people 3 time in a year everytime he called the police they were always to late and could not arrest the person due to lack of evidence, on the third incident Martin shot the guy and killed him he alwys claimed he did not want to kill him just hurt him, but Martin still went to jail. Nearly everybody in the UYK backs what he did because we all believe you have a right to protect your home, except the governmnet who keep telling us criminlas have rights to. In fact if somebody breaks in to my house I have to wait for him to attack me first because if I do not I can get done for assault can you believe that.

YEP!!! I guess if I had to...I'd cut myself with a knife if there was a burglar in my home...that way, I could do away with him and say he tried to gut me!!! Cuz, there is no way someone would leave my home on his own if he was there in the first place against my will!

TearUUP,

The situation of self-defence at home happens quite seldom in comparison to self-defence in the street.

Exactly...but...in the event that it ever does happen... I just don't think that it's right to defend yourself...(lethally or not)...if someone enters your house unlawfully!!! I would do ANYTHING to protect my family! I know that you could turn that around to say that if I did do that then I would be placing myself in the hands of the law by doing so and that really wouldn't be helping out my family in the long run...but I just can't look at it like that! If someone were to bad mouth my wife...I don't care who they are or what they do...I would punch em in the eye!

I have got 2 big dogs so I will let anyone that breaks in take thier chances.

Same here...but that is the same as shooting someone...the intruder could just as easily sue for the fact that you didn't have your dogs under control at the time of the break-in!!! I have a dog that is 3 quarters wolf and she got a hold of a neighbors cat that was in our garage...the cat was killed with it's neck broken in less than a second! The friggin' neighbors tried to press charges saying that our dogs are out of control!!! They don't bark, dig, or anything else, as a matter of fact they are inside dogs al night and most of the day! And the freakin' cat was IN MY GARAGE!!! My dog was just protecting her territory, and for a while the cops were going to try and make the charges stick!!! BS!!!

I think it is alright because the dog as you say is protecting it's terrtory, plus you could just say the dog was provoked by the intruder, I have never heard of a case where a dog was destroyed or an ownere used by an intruder that got attacked, I think it is like the police dogs biting a criminal if you break the law ya take your chances

Anthony Olszewski

Last modified: 01/16/2004 10:19:06



The Giant Breeds Certainly Intimidate Through Sheer Bulk, But German Shepherds And German Shepherd Mixes Really Make The Best Guard And Attack Dogs
Before using a dog to protect you, your family, and your property, legal realities need to be considered. Many municipalities in the United States have enacted "vicious dog" laws. These seem to be, for the most part, anti-ethnic youth laws. As with many so-called "quality of life" statutes, enforcement is generally sporadic, arbitrary, or based on complaint. In any case, read your local codes. It will be senseless to spend time training a dog, only for it to be impounded and possibly destroyed. The safest course is to not make a nuisance of yourself. If the dog torments your neighbors with barking, property damage, and attacks on their pets and children, expect them to retaliate, legally or by other means. If the same people perceive your pet as a valuable source of protection for themselves, as well as for you, good will will be engendered.

In some locales, the law prohibits the possession, training, or use of a dog to inflict bodily harm. If this is your situation, you might wind up in the same prison cell as the burglar that was bitten by your dog! Most likely, even in these precincts dogs still can be used as alarms to warn of the approach of intruders.

Force applied through a dog raises the same issues as the application of force through weapons or your fists. Were you reasonable in a perception of an immediate threat to your physical safety or that of others? Could you have summoned the police? Would an alarm or warning have sent the malefactor running?

I am not an attorney and am definitely not aware of every law and every court case for every community as applies to guard dogs. Consult a local lawyer before proceeding with the training of a guard dog.

It has been said, "I'd rather be in the hands of twelve jurors than six pallbearers!"

Another issue must be faced before initiating protection training. A dog that is haphazardly trained to SIT or COME is better than one with no training at all. The same is not true for aggression conditioning. Your dog has probably been taught from birth not to bite and not to growl. You are now about to modify or remove those inhibitions. Is the dog in a home environment? Does the dog interact with strangers? If either of these factors are true, then you must be completely certain of the dog's disposition and that you have control over the animal. The dog must instantaneously respond to "NO", "SIT", "DOWN", "STAY", and "COME". The idea is for the dog to protect you and your family from harm, not for him to inflict it on you! I have seen two lackadaisically trained dogs that had to be destroyed. Both attacked a series of innocent people , working up to mauling their owners.


There is a difference between a guard dog and an attack dog, though, quite possibly, a single dog can serve in both capacities. A guard dog patrols what he considers as home turf. Canine aggression is here clearly an extension of territorial instincts. The guard dog generally is expected to work on his own, without the owner or trainer being present giving commands. An attack dog works under the orders of his human superior. This sort of dog is expected to perform anywhere under any circumstances. Upon command an attack dog will threaten or attempt to stop anybody. The person will very likely be posing no threat to the dog. Here we are dealing more with the canine hunting patterns. A guard dog is very much a reflection of a human police officer, for we expect judgement and discretion of both. An attack dog is very much a weapon, just like a gun. We don't want an attack dog to think, just to function smoothly. Here all thought, and responsibility, rests with the operator.

One thing about dogs I was thinkng about while reading your article is that a dog barking at an intruder is normally enough, put yourself in the postion of an intruder, you are about ot break in and you hear a dog barking in the house would you honestly risk it?

Do I have a steak loaded with sleeping pills?

There are a lot of STUPID criminals out there, you have to admit! They do some of the most idiotic things!

The stek with sleeping pills very funny
But you are right there are total idiots out there. There was a stroy on the news about a guy who robbed the petrol station where he worked, no mask or nothing fool

What an idiot! Um...by the way boss...I won't be coming in today!

The Boss: You told me you were sick!!! And here I find you robbing my store, well...you're STILL NOT getting paid for today!

Do you see my point though? I bet there are cases where people have broken into someone's house then tried to sue because the dog got a hold of their a$s!

Oh yeah very probably

And that would be MY luck!!!
Burglar: Help police...I was just minding my own business while climbing in through TearUUp's window...when out of nowhere his dog just attacked me for no reason! Then, TearUUp grabbed me and beat the living $hit out of me and put a gun to my head! All for nothing!

Yeah I totally agree I mean if you are going to walk into the lair of a monster then you got to accept that the monster will kill you.

I'm not saying your a monster tearUup

But you get criminals saying "it is my right not to be attacked" but what about our rights of not being robbed

I AM IF SOMEONE COMES IN MY HOUSE WITHOUT MY CONSENT!!! Damn skippy I am!!!

Well, I had my car vandalized once by a guy I had gotten into a fight with... but my neighbors keep a pretty good eye on my house during my absences...(They are worried that I won't be there for them if they need my help) so, I tracked the guy down and vandalized his vehicle while he was in it!!! Other than that, I have never been a victim of any type of crime involving my residency! The thing about burglars, (in relation to this Wilmette story) is that the unlocked houses scare em off because they think it's a set up!! The tougher the house to
get into...the richer the spoils in their eyes!!!

THAT doesn't even really scare em' off! In criminal psychology we learn that most criminals believe that it is a bluff when someone puts up a sign, never really thinking that someone will actually shoot at them or even catch em'! It is also commonly an adrenaline rush! Some people don't burglarize because they are hurting for cash, but because it gives em' an adrenaline high seeing what they can get away with and how often! If someone was to almost catch em' or almost hurt them...all the more of a challenge!

"criminal psychology?"

What?

i find it funny how there's a seperate branch of psychology for people who break the law. as if they think different than other people, as if it's some kind of mental disease or something.

Well, Criminal psychology is what people study for Law and such, then there's abnormal which is sort of hand in hand with criminal...there is a whole lot to psychology!!!

i think i'm going to try to take a criminal psychology class to see if it's as ridiculous as i think it might be.

i read 1984 for the first time a couple weeks ago and I'm looking at things like "that book wasn't that far out there... yikes!" As if the things legislators come up with on paper dictates how the humans should behave and people who do not behave that way are a psycological anomoly or something and need to be specially and carefully studied.

TearUup is criminal psychology like profiling?

The Wilmette homeowner who shot the burglar, wrote a letter to the local newspapers. Take a minute to read it if you can. Powerful stuff.


............................

Gun owner: I, not cops, got bad guy

January 22, 2004

Three days after Christmas, someone broke into the DeMar family home in Wilmette through a dog door, stealing a television, an SUV and the keys to the home.

The next night, Hale DeMar was prepared for a return visit. With his children upstairs, DeMar, 54, shot burglar Morio Billings, 31, in the shoulder and calf, police said.

Billings was caught at a nearby hospital and charged with felony residential burglary and possession of a stolen car, authorities said.
And, in a move that has drawn criticism, DeMar was cited with breaking Wilmette's ban on handguns and with failing to update his firearm owner's identification card.

The misdemeanors are unlikely to bring jail time. Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter did not criticize DeMar for protecting his family but said homes are safer without handguns.

DeMar, in a letter sent to the Chicago Sun-Times, is now speaking out:

Village Trustees ... Stick to Parade Schedules & Planting our Parks

Many of us have experienced a sense of violation upon returning to our homes, only to find that someone else has been there. Someone else has trespassed in our bedrooms, looting and stealing that which is readily replaced.
Many of us, still haunted by that violation, will never again have a sense of security in our own homes.

Few, however, have awakened to realize that they had been violated as they slept in their beds, doors locked, as family dogs patrolled their homes. For me, the seconds until I found my children still safely tucked in their beds were horrifying. The thought that a young child may have been hurt or abducted was incomprehensible.

The police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, promising to increase surveillance. Little comfort, since the invader now had keys to our home and our automobiles. The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences.

What is one to do when a criminal proceeds, undeterred by a 90-pound German shepherd, an alarm system and a property ... lit up like an outdoor stadium? And now, he had my house keys and an inventory of things he'd like to call his own.

Would the police patrol my dead-end street as effectively the second time as they had the first? Would my small children be unharmed the next time? Would the career criminal be satisfied with another automobile, another television or would he feel the need, once again, to climb the staircase up to the bedrooms, perhaps for a watch or a ring or a wallet, again risking little?

Would my children wake to find a masked figure, clad in black, in their bedroom doorway, a vision that might haunt them for years? Would the police come again and fill out yet another report, and at what point should I feel comfortable that the 'bad guy' got everything he wanted and wouldn't return again, a third time?

I went to the safe where my licensed and registered gun was kept, loaded it for the very first time and tucked it under the mattress of my bed. I assured my frightened children ''that daddy would deal with the bad guy ... if he ever returned.'' Little did I imagine that this brazen animal was waiting in the backyard bushes as I tucked my children into bed.

Fifteen minutes after bedtime, the alarm went off. Three minutes after the alarm was triggered, the alarm company alerted the police to the situation and 10 minutes later the first police car pulled up to my home, but only after another call was made to 911, by a trembling, half-naked father.

I suppose some would have grabbed their children and cowered in their bedroom for 13 minutes, praying that the police would get there in time to stop the criminal from climbing the stairs and confronting the family in their bedroom, dreading the sound of a bedroom door being kicked in. That's not the fear I wanted my children to experience, nor is it the cowardly act that I want my children to remember me by.

Until you are shocked by a piercing alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don't suggest that some village trustee knows better and he/she can effectively task the police to protect your family from the miscreants that this society has produced.

This career criminal had been arrested thirty times. He was wanted in Georgia and for parole violations in Minnesota. How many family homes had he violated, how many innocent lives were affected, how many police reports went into some back office file cabinet, only to become some abstract statistic? How is it that rabid animals like this are free to roam the streets, violating our homes and threatening the safety of our children?

If my actions have spared only one family from the distress and trauma that this habitual criminal has caused hundreds of others, then I have served my civic duty and taken one evil creature off of our streets, something that our impotent criminal justice system had failed to do, despite some thirty odd arrests, plea bargains and suspended sentences.

Hale DeMar, Wilmette

...........................
Source: Chicago Sun Times

Good story OBAF!!! I remember once when I was a kid hearing about this guy that ran a locksmithing operation and made duplicate keys of everyone that walked into his business! He wound up going on a massive burglary spree on all the houses that he had helped his customers get back into and cars were stolen, etc. The funny thing...the guy was like 75 years old!!!

Word here is that not only did the police charge Mr. De Mar, but they charged the intruder with a "lesser charge" than they could have.

Apparently with the charges as they stand Mr. De Mar cannot claim "neccescity", thus it hurts his defense and it also opens the door for a lawsuit by the criminal.

I don't know about level of charges ... maybe tear does ? ... but I am just trying to figure out why these folks are exacerbating the situation for Mr. De Mar.

Does this help?

Prosecutors declined to charge DeMar in the shooting because they concluded he acted in self-defense. They did charge him with violating the North Shore suburb's handgun ban and with breaking a state law by failing to renew his Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card after it expired in 1988. The first charge carries a $750 fine; the second up to a year in jail, a $2,500 fine or court supervision or probation.

That DeMar would face any charges in a case of self-defense irked some in Wilmette and elsewhere. But officials had little choice since DeMar violated the handgun ban.

That fact won't mollify many gun-rights advocates, some of whom packed a village board meeting Tuesday to complain that DeMar should not be punished for defending his family. "My Plan A is to call 911 and keep the family upstairs," said one Wilmette resident. "But my Plan B is to have a loaded firearm and put a bullet in the intruder."

Despite the emotional meeting, there's no reason to repeal Wilmette's ban, which was enacted in 1989. Certainly the value of a handgun ban in a low-crime community like Wilmette is mainly symbolic. This is a town, after all, that has had no homicides since 2000, and averages only a handful of other serious crimes every year.



If I go further, it dips into Gun Bans and Firearm laws which is a whole other topic!

Tear ... I guess I wasn't clear ...

The Wilmette Police apparently charged the INTRUDER with a lesser charge than they could have, making it harder for DeMar to argue HIS case as well as leaving him open to being sued by the guy he shot ... because with the level at which the INTRUDER is charged, DeMar can't claim "neccesity".

From the previous letter/article:

Billings [the intruder] was caught at a nearby hospital and charged with felony residential burglary and possession of a stolen car, authorities said

Aha...my bad! They probably charged the criminal with "Unlawful entry" or something similar! Who knows? They have taken the focus off the criminal and focused the crime on the INNOCENT guy!

I agree with that! I am not one to call the cops...I myself DO NOT LIKE them, but I will not bad mouth em'...but for them to downplay the criminal and to criticize DeMar...hmmmm???