Chicago Man Charged after shooting burglar in home... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Man Charged after shooting burglar in home...


HKLovingIT
03-27-2012, 10:20
Read for yourself...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-elderly-man-shoots-burglar-in-englewood-both-charged-20120326,0,3175723.story

More to the story than first blush.

Interesting responses from neighbors as well.

Sgt. Rambo
03-27-2012, 10:31
Ugh... it is what it is. He's prohibited for a reason but good for him at the same time. Hopefully get thrown at in court. I bet if he could tell young people something it would be don't do anything to screw up your gun owning rights.... it may come back to haunt you.

cowboy1964
03-27-2012, 11:43
"This man has done nothing wrong"

I'm glad the guy was able to defend himself and all but he DID commit a felony by having a firearm. So don't stand there and say "he did nothing wrong".

DScottHewitt
03-27-2012, 13:27
"This man has done nothing wrong"

I'm glad the guy was able to defend himself and all but he DID commit a felony by having a firearm. So don't stand there and say "he did nothing wrong".

I always thought you culdn't get a liquor license if you were a felon, either. But I guess I am wrong.

rjflyn
03-27-2012, 13:57
I always thought you culdn't get a liquor license if you were a felon, either. But I guess I am wrong.

I dont see where it said hes a felon, just past gun charges. Now they are charging him with a felony due to Chicago's messed up handgun laws, I would surmise if he would have had a shotgun he might have been fine.

DScottHewitt
03-27-2012, 14:00
I dont see where it said hes a felon, just past gun charges. Now they are charging him with a felony due to Chicago's messed up handgun laws, I would surmise if he would have had a shotgun he might have been fine.

Two prior weapons convictions. I guess they could have been misdemeanors....

A6Gator
03-27-2012, 15:10
You gotta be careful when you drag that spotlight over on you. It lights up all the stuff around you too...:supergrin:

INJoker
03-28-2012, 05:41
The guy is a 40-year bar owner and veteran on the South Side of Chicago and there are seriously people on this board who would expect him NOT to keep some heat handy?

Wow. GT sure has changed... :(

Sgt. Rambo
03-28-2012, 05:46
The guy is a 40-year bar owner and veteran on the South Side of Chicago and there are seriously people on this board who would expect him NOT to keep some heat handy?

Wow. GT sure has changed... :(

Better to be judged by 12??? I guess that REALLy applies here... I WOULD expect him to have some heat but now that he used that heat, its gonna get REALLY hot for him. Double edged sword I guess.

hamster
03-28-2012, 09:00
If the justice system saw fit to release him to the general public, then I have no problem with the man defending himself in his own home/property.

jpa
03-28-2012, 10:29
At first glance it sounded like he was a convicted felon, but apparently Illinois just added a new twist to their prohibited persons laws. Based on the wording that he was convicted of "2 weapons offenses" it sounds like this is what he's being charged with. Hopefully the SA drops the charges (not likely) and he can go about fixing his background so he can possess a firearm again.

720 ILCS 5/24-1.7)
Sec. 24-1.7. Armed habitual criminal.
(a) A person commits the offense of being an armed habitual criminal if he or she receives, sells, possesses, or transfers any firearm after having been convicted a total of 2 or more times of any combination of the following offenses:
(1) a forcible felony as defined in Section 2-8 of
this Code;
(2) unlawful use of a weapon by a felon; aggravated
unlawful use of a weapon; aggravated discharge of a firearm; vehicular hijacking; aggravated vehicular hijacking; aggravated battery of a child as described in Section 12-4.3 or subdivision (b)(1) of Section 12-3.05; intimidation; aggravated intimidation; gunrunning; home invasion; or aggravated battery with a firearm as described in Section 12-4.2 or subdivision (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), or (e)(4) of Section 12-3.05; or
(3) any violation of the Illinois Controlled
Substances Act or the Cannabis Control Act that is punishable as a Class 3 felony or higher.
(b) Sentence. Being an armed habitual criminal is a Class X felony.
(Source: P.A. 96-1551, eff. 7-1-11.)

TSAX
03-28-2012, 10:40
tagged







:50cal:

oldman11
03-28-2012, 11:03
Oh yeah, way to go Chicago. Give the criminals free reign but throw a guy in jail for protecting himself and his family. I guess the same "familias" that ruled Chicago back in the 30's and 40's are still ruling.

Roger1079
03-28-2012, 11:21
If the charges are not dropped, he should be extremely thankful he didn't kill the intruder.

Good for him for defending himself, however the situation does not excuse the fact that he is prohibited for whatever reason.

This is definitely a "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." situation.

IrishSheepdog54
03-28-2012, 11:34
Chicago: A city where criminals can do what they please and citizens cannot protect themselves.

DScottHewitt
03-28-2012, 11:42
The guy is a 40-year bar owner and veteran on the South Side of Chicago and there are seriously people on this board who would expect him NOT to keep some heat handy?

Wow. GT sure has changed... :(

No. Illegal activity has always been frowned on and violates TOS.....


That said, he had a choice and he made his. But now that choice might have consequences

JK-linux
03-28-2012, 11:47
.....

OctoberRust
03-28-2012, 11:57
No. Illegal activity has always been frowned on and violates TOS.....


That said, he had a choice and he made his. But now that choice might have consequences


Define "legal"

Many of the handgun laws Chicago/IL has are illegal. After all the bill of rights should hold supreme to local/state laws.

This story seems to me he was well within his 2nd amendment rights.

So, looks like nothing illegal here happened.

Bren
03-28-2012, 12:04
"This man has done nothing wrong"

I'm glad the guy was able to defend himself and all but he DID commit a felony by having a firearm. So don't stand there and say "he did nothing wrong".

You seem to be confusing "right and wrong" with "legal and illegal." I don't care if he was a convicted felon sex offender on parole, he did nothing "wrong."

Bren
03-28-2012, 12:05
If the justice system saw fit to release him to the general public, then I have no problem with the man defending himself in his own home/property.

Damned if you do, dead if you don't.

arushus
03-28-2012, 13:07
Damned if you do, dead if you don't.

Thats pretty good, I like that...

DScottHewitt
03-28-2012, 13:14
Alleged illegal activity.

Possession of a firearm under the quoted laws. Which includes two previous firearm convictions, which he had.....


Whether the law is Constitutional or not, he broke it. Let him take it to the SC, like others have done, and won.

DScottHewitt
03-28-2012, 13:15
Define "legal"

Many of the handgun laws Chicago/IL has are illegal. After all the bill of rights should hold supreme to local/state laws.

This story seems to me he was well within his 2nd amendment rights.

So, looks like nothing illegal here happened.

It did until a higher court overturns the laws he was arrested under. MacDonald went the SC and won. Let him do the same.

HKLovingIT
03-28-2012, 13:24
In the article it says he has two prior weapon offenses. I don't know if that means firearm or something else. Maybe he got picked up with a knife or something when he was younger. :dunno:

The original article has been updated with some video and further details now. I love how Wright just laughs at the lib reporters asking him if what he did was right. The chuckle of a man that has had to live on some mean streets and knows that sometimes the only person that's going to save you, is you.

Appears the burglar broke in twice in the same night. Second time he got shot.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-elderly-man-shoots-burglar-in-englewood-both-charged-20120326,0,3175723.story

Apparently the home owner's 75 year old wife was also present and woke him at 4:00 AM when the intruder broke in. It would appear, based on new quotes and comments by neighbors and businessmen in the neighborhood, that despite some past mistakes, he's a pretty stand up guy and well liked in the community.

Here is another report with more details on Wright's priors and also in the article details about the pretty bad homicide rate in that area.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/homer-wright-elderly-chic_n_1382797.html

Mayor was asked about it, but declined to comment.

I hope the case against him gets dropped.

JK-linux
03-28-2012, 14:30
.....

redbaron007
03-28-2012, 14:46
He should say it was his wife's gun. :supergrin:


:wavey:

red

wuvmyglock
03-28-2012, 14:51
The law is the law.. If he broke it then he can face the consequences..

HKLovingIT
03-28-2012, 14:53
The law is the law.. If he broke it then he can face the consequences..

That is true. There is also justice. So I hope the judge gives him justice via a couple hours of community service or a small fine.

DScottHewitt
03-28-2012, 16:21
Maybe the gun is his wife's? Did it say he was already convicted for having the gun this time, or that he was charged with having the gun this time? If he has only been charged this time thus far, then it is alleged. I think he gets a trial or hearing, but it's Chicago, so maybe not.

G. Gordon Liddy got interviewed after he got out of prison.....

Reporter: Mister Liddy, you don't own any firearms do you?
Liddy: No. But Mrs. Liddy has a nice collection.

{PARAPHRASED PROBABLY}

tim12232
03-29-2012, 12:31
takes an 80 year old man to take out the trash in Chicago, then he's arrested for it!
he did nothing wrong, the only thing I have read about his prior was theft which I am pretty sure wouldnt prohibit him from owning a firearm. Secondly any new law the IL has passed would not necessarily be retroactive would it?

Warp
03-29-2012, 17:16
You seem to be confusing "right and wrong" with "legal and illegal."

Happens a lot.

DScottHewitt
03-30-2012, 09:53
takes an 80 year old man to take out the trash in Chicago, then he's arrested for it!
he did nothing wrong, the only thing I have read about his prior was theft which I am pretty sure wouldnt prohibit him from owning a firearm. Secondly any new law the IL has passed would not necessarily be retroactive would it?

From the article:

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. In the 1990 and 1994 cases, Wright got probation.

Doesn't say specifically what the prior weapons convictions were, but one was from 1968

SCmasterblaster
03-30-2012, 10:04
I hope that they gave him his gun(s) back. The victim's friends may come calling.

bear62
03-30-2012, 11:38
There are LOTS of places to live outside Illinois....... Don't know how gunnies survive there.......:faint:

DScottHewitt
03-31-2012, 08:00
There are LOTS of places to live outside Illinois....... Don't know how gunnies survive there.......:faint:

Now you did it. That sets people off.


They don't like to be reminded they can move to a better place.

My favorite is the Kali people who won't move because they "have a good job". You have a great paying job, but no way to keep a scumbag from taking all your money away from and killing your family.

Priorities much?!?!?

Roger1079
03-31-2012, 08:33
Now you did it. That sets people off.


They don't like to be reminded they can move to a better place.

My favorite is the Kali people who won't move because they "have a good job". You have a great paying job, but no way to keep a scumbag from taking all your money away from and killing your family.

Priorities much?!?!?And thats why I love Florida. I have a good job and the laws are always on the side of the victim.

Kind of ironic to actually say that with the current Sanford, FL situation though.

steveksux
03-31-2012, 08:47
Surprised nobody has dug up details of his prior convictions. Not sure what to make of that. His supporters would be saying stuff like "its only shoplifting" or whatever if it was minor.

When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither is on your side, bang on the table...

Sounds like the guy is well respected, upstanding guy, just protecting his family. Hard to say though, everyone is an upstanding guy once they get in trouble with the law. Everyone is a saint once they get shot for pointing a gun at the cops.

Randy

Darkangel1846
03-31-2012, 09:38
Well if your black you can break the law and shoot someon that is not attacking you. It would be interesting to see how this turns out. He should have used a shotgun and not a pistol.

donsls6
03-31-2012, 14:26
Well if your black you can break the law and shoot someon that is not attacking you. It would be interesting to see how this turns out. He should have used a shotgun and not a pistol.
Was wondering how long before the color of his skin became the topic for some:yawn: So predictictable.

ScottieG59
04-01-2012, 23:00
Well, this puts the mayor in a tough situation if he does not wish to be tough on an 80 year old defending his place and family. The article does not elaborate on the prior issue that prevented the permit and/or possession of a firearm. There should be a means for this man to protect himself even with a prior criminal record.

I do not think this will become the rallying point to change things due to the prior issues, however, there should be a method through which this man does not get charged harshly.

He picked a rough business. My grandmother had the same sort of business and was frequently robbed, not just burglarized.


Out there in fly-over country...

jpa
04-04-2012, 07:37
Prosecutors dropped the charges already.

donsls6
04-05-2012, 12:08
After having the charges dropped he now says he wants to get another gun because the police have not returned his.

oldman11
04-05-2012, 13:33
If they aren't going to charge him with anything, by law they have to return his gun. If I was him I would be getting a good attorney and go after the Police Chief and get my gun back. Ok, I forgot he had a prior. Just what was the prior? This could make a difference.

donsls6
04-05-2012, 17:33
As much as I believe his was justified in doing what he did, he is a convicted felon who should not have had a gun because of his felony conviction. Saying that, I too would also have had a gun to protect me and my family from the low-lifes out there.

redbaron007
04-06-2012, 08:00
As much as I believe his was justified in doing what he did, he is a convicted felon who should not have had a gun because of his felony conviction. Saying that, I too would also have had a gun to protect me and my family from the low-lifes out there.


He may be just helping his wife get HER gun back. :supergrin:


:wavey:

red