80 year old man shoots home intruder

**AngryVoter** · 29-05-2010, 12:31 PM

An 80 year old man in Chicago shot and killed a home intruder while in the process of protecting him and his wife. Because Chicago has a law against handgun ownership, he could be facing charges. Talk about absurd. Here's the story.

**Major Sinic** · 29-05-2010, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by AngryVoter

An 80 year old man in Chicago shot and killed a home intruder while in the process of protecting him and his wife. Because Chicago has a law against handgun ownership, he could be facing charges. Talk about absurd. Here's the story.

The report says that the man has not been charged, and that the Supreme Court is currently considering whether the Chicago gun laws are constitutional.

If he were to be convicted of any crime I imagine, if common sense were to prevail, his penalty would be no more than a slapped wrist.

**Insane Uncle** · 29-05-2010, 03:20 PM

Angry,

I can see your knee jerking on this and have to laugh at the expertise of FOX news (which is non U.S. owned, forien interest editorial soft news). The whole idea is to make you mad so the full facts are obscured... Gotta Love that Rupert Murdock guy (last I heard he was a Turkish citizen... but he changes frequently). One of the most effective ways to lie is to tell the truth... just not all of it.

Shall we examine the facts in evidence? The Chicago gun laws are thus: Handguns in Chicago must be registered with the police. It is illegal to register handguns (excepting registered handguns pre 1983). Effectivly bannig such weapons within the municipality.... Sound like a hienous felony to you? Well it isn't. It's a misdemeanor!

MISDEMEANOR!~ Maximum penalty 1 yr in the slammer (local) or $500.00 fine... NOBODY but a repeat offender gets the max. One of the beauties of our legal system is it is slanted towards defendants... The liklyhood is he be fined 50 bucks for the possesion charge.

Now here is the crux of the biscuit. He killed the guy on the steps. I have been told by the police on several occasions, to make sure the body falls INTO or across the doorway or can show that he fell from inside the doorway out.... In this instance the dead perp got a shot off and that will be the extenuating circumstance... So self defence, no charge there.

The real question here is why does Rupert Murdock want to destroy your confidence in our U.S. justice system? (which happens to be the best in the world) That is what the media slant is designed to do... The next time you get angry over some crap in the "news"... Count to ten take a deep breath and follow Insane Uncles mantra:

Follow the money.... and it will lead you to the truth.

**Tantal** · 29-05-2010, 04:39 PM

I've got that warm and fuzzy feeling in my heart knowing that there is one less criminal left to terrorize the honest, law-abiding citizens of Chicago. Sure, there are still plenty left, but it's a start.

**stevectaylor** · 29-05-2010, 05:13 PM

over here, he would most likely be guilty before his trial.

**The Silver Eagle** · 12-06-2010, 12:02 AM

I understand the fact that Chicago has a law, but still, Chicago is an area that has
a History of crime. Any family man should be able to possess a handgun for protection
of his family or self defense. If he didn't have his handgun more would have been
dead than this intruder. Chicago will have to face up if it wants to charge this man
with murder. He acted in defense and the intruder himself posed a threat.

Also in the article it mentioned home invasions "frequent?" He had a duty then
as the lawyer stated to hold his handgun. The man is 80 years old! He needed
to protect himself in some way from threat of these home invasions.

**Opinionated** · 12-06-2010, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by stevectaylor

over here, he would most likely be guilty before his trial.

That's not quite true is it? Sure if you shoot someone in the back with an illegal firearm and your barrister argues you were suffering from delusional paranoia then a jury is going to think 'maybe it's best for society if this person is locked away for a bit', but I doubt very much there is a jury in the land that would find anyone guilty of more than a lesser charge if the intruder where in the midst of a violent attack at the time of his death.
Also contrary to popular belief we do still have the principle of 'innocent until proven' even if we unfortunately indulge in trial by media first.

**Streetwalker** · 13-06-2010, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Opinionated

That's not quite true is it? Sure if you shoot someone in the back with an illegal firearm and your barrister argues you were suffering from delusional paranoia then a jury is going to think 'maybe it's best for society if this person is locked away for a bit', but I doubt very much there is a jury in the land that would find anyone guilty of more than a lesser charge if the intruder where in the midst of a violent attack at the time of his death.
Also contrary to popular belief we do still have the principle of 'innocent until proven' even if we unfortunately indulge in trial by media first.

Any intruder wether violent, running away or otherwise deserves all he gets,both barrels included.
The first rule of government is to protect its citizens yet we have laws and judges that missmanage these laws who protect not the citizen but those who live their lives outside the law.
We would all protect our families against intruders so why are we in a position where we could be prosecuted for doing so,Its wrong

**Major Sinic** · 13-06-2010, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Any intruder wether violent, running away or otherwise deserves all he gets,both barrels included.
The first rule of government is to protect its citizens yet we have laws and judges that missmanage these laws who protect not the citizen but those who live their lives outside the law.
We would all protect our families against intruders so why are we in a position where we could be prosecuted for doing so,Its wrong

I totally disagree. The only intruder who deserves 'all he gets, both barrels included' is the violent intruder or one who threatens violence, and in that instance only, I agree with you. The mere fact that an intruder is in your premises should entitle you to take their life should be abhorrent to any civilised human being with any sense of justice.

For instance a youngster of say twelve or thirteen, unarmed, sees an open window and a set of car keys and a wallet on the table. In he goes and the householder having heard a noise enters the room. He turns and starts to run away and the householder shoots him in the back with his shotgun, and kills him. You post suggests that this should be acceptable. Surely you don't really mean that?

Whilst I accept that the intruder in this, admittedly extreme, example is an unprincipled scumbag, and he would probably be let off with a caution by our dysfunctional legal system, assuming that the police could be bothered to get off their backsides and catch him in the first place, surely even this would be preferable to killing him?

**Streetwalker** · 13-06-2010, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

For instance a youngster of say twelve or thirteen, unarmed, sees an open window and a set of car keys and a wallet on the table. In he goes and the householder having heard a noise enters the room. He turns and starts to run away and the householder shoots him in the back with his shotgun, and kills him. You post suggests that this should be acceptable. Surely you don't really mean that?

No I dont mean that ,because I wouldnt feel threatened by a twelve year old,though an 90 year old women might.

How do you know wether or not the intruder is violent or not,do you wait and see ,let him run away and come back armed to the teeth with his scumbag mates for seconds ? No ,Take them out at the first opportunity,let them know our homes are no go areas and we will all sleep more comfortably at night.