You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
burglar's family gets 270 grand
- Thread starter youngunz4life
- Start date
Uncle Buck
New member
I do understand that what the people who owned the car lot did was wrong. I do agree they should have called the cops.
But what rankles me is the fact the (Original) criminals' family made money on his crimes.
But what rankles me is the fact the (Original) criminals' family made money on his crimes.
Was the knife in his hands?
Sounds to me like the guy was retreating and trying to leave the scene.
When that happens its time to let the police do thier job and for us not to be judge, jury and executioner.
Unless I am reading the story wrong ( I could be) the storage shed where he was hiding was on the mans property. I know laws are often different for businesses and homes, But I think of it like a criminal went and hid in a backroom in my home.
The bottom line is none of us were there, looking at the location on Google maps I do not even see a small "shed" so the shed was either very small, is no longer there or they are misidentifying the larger structures on the properties as "sheds". The shooter was never convicted of any criminal wrongdoing. The criminals family is getting paid for something that resulted from their criminal relatives actions. That just doesn't sit right with me.
That being said, shooting at a fleeing unarmed suspect (dead guys accomplice) is typically not legal but was clearly done in this case after re-reading the article.
That being said, shooting at a fleeing unarmed suspect (dead guys accomplice) is typically not legal but was clearly done in this case after re-reading the article.
Carry_24/7
New member
This is why we have to "wargame" situations in our heads (if you have not taken a formal shoot/don't shoot course within your lifetime).
Some folks say, "you don't know what you will do in a particular situation until faced with it." That is true only if you have never trained for the situation, and "mental wargaming" along the lines of the law is training.
Some folks say, "you don't know what you will do in a particular situation until faced with it." That is true only if you have never trained for the situation, and "mental wargaming" along the lines of the law is training.
Stressfire
New member
Could someone clarify for me? Despite that the shoot was questionable, and I'll leave it at that, how is the family able to bring suit? Isn't there legislation of some sort that disallows criminals or their families from profiting from the commission of a crime?
Why is the family permitted to sue for damages that would not have been done had the deceased not committed a felony?
Why is the family permitted to sue for damages that would not have been done had the deceased not committed a felony?
Crazy88Fingers
New member
Apparently the jury felt the shooting was unjustified and the robber's family was a victim of a "wrongful death". Or something like that.
If the guys had chosen not to shoot into the shed...the family would have made nothing.
The two guys were the luckiest men on earth the grand jury no billed them.
If the perpatrator ceases to use force and desists or retreats or surrenders you have sucesfully defended yourself. It is morally wrong to pump the perpetrator full of lead and take a life just because you can. We expect the law of the land to honor our constitutional rights to keep an bear firearms. We as responsible gun owners should in turn honor the spirit of the laws that let us defend ourselves. I would submit that the spirt of that law is not taking another life when it is not necessary.
The two guys were the luckiest men on earth the grand jury no billed them.
If the perpatrator ceases to use force and desists or retreats or surrenders you have sucesfully defended yourself. It is morally wrong to pump the perpetrator full of lead and take a life just because you can. We expect the law of the land to honor our constitutional rights to keep an bear firearms. We as responsible gun owners should in turn honor the spirit of the laws that let us defend ourselves. I would submit that the spirt of that law is not taking another life when it is not necessary.
kilimanjaro
New member
Some states do indeed have laws that prevent the filing of a civil suit when a crime was being committed, apparently not this one.
Grand Jury's ignore things more often than you think. It seems to me more often than not people in righteous shootings are hassled by the courts while others slide by. I will try to find the article tomorrow but this happened in Waukegan IL about three years ago.
Armed guy robs a convenient type store at gunpoint, gets the money from the clerk and runs outside then proceeds to flee on a bicycle. The clerk then went for a stashed gun, ran outside and popped the guy right there in the street while the criminal was trying to peddle away. The guy died and the store clerk was NEVER convicted with any crime whatsoever last time I checked. My memory might be fuzzy but I thought that the grand jury refused to indite. I can't seem to find a link to the story that is still good and has a lot of details but I will search a bit more tomorrow and post one if I can find it.
Armed guy robs a convenient type store at gunpoint, gets the money from the clerk and runs outside then proceeds to flee on a bicycle. The clerk then went for a stashed gun, ran outside and popped the guy right there in the street while the criminal was trying to peddle away. The guy died and the store clerk was NEVER convicted with any crime whatsoever last time I checked. My memory might be fuzzy but I thought that the grand jury refused to indite. I can't seem to find a link to the story that is still good and has a lot of details but I will search a bit more tomorrow and post one if I can find it.
Eghad said:If the perpatrator ceases to use force and desists or retreats or surrenders you have sucesfully defended yourself. It is morally wrong to pump the perpetrator full of lead and take a life just because you can. We expect the law of the land to honor our constitutional rights to keep an bear firearms. We as responsible gun owners should in turn honor the spirit of the laws that let us defend ourselves. I would submit that the spirt of that law is not taking another life when it is not necessary.
Well said. Precisely so.
Stressfire
New member
It is morally wrong to pump the perpetrator full of lead and take a life just because you can.
Agreed. Just doesn't sit well that the family (or anyone) should stand to profit from the albeit unsuccessful commission of a crime.
In all likelihood, however, the case will be appealed out the wazoo.
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=23&t=327706
A good copy of the story I was talking about in Waukegan over on the AR15 forums.
A good copy of the story I was talking about in Waukegan over on the AR15 forums.
According to police, Brandon Starks, 20, of North Chicago entered People's Market grocery store at 901 8th St., near Lincoln Avenue, around 7 p.m. armed with a gun and demanded money from the store clerk.
Soon after Starks left the store, the clerk went out and shot Starks several times as Starks tried to leave the scene on a bicycle, said Waukegan police Cmdr. Wayne Walles.
Starks was shot twice in the upper body and once in the lower body before collapsing in front of a house in the 800 block of 8th Street.
No charges have been filed against the clerk pending an investigation by the Police Department and the Lake County State's Attorney's Office, authorities said.
Walles said the clerk did not own the gun he fired at Starks with and did not present a firearm owner's Identification when interviewed by police.
Crazy88Fingers
New member
Patriot86, the robber in your story was armed with a gun (I wonder if he had his FOID) so he is still a threat from a distance. Even if fleeing, it would only take him a fraction of a second to turn around and be an imminent threat again.
I've seen other stories where people shoot robbers, armed with guns, in the back and they were considered justified.
I've seen other stories where people shoot robbers, armed with guns, in the back and they were considered justified.
The robber was actually shot outside, in the street, yes he could have turned around and fired but If memory serves he was shot while peddling away. I believe the grand jury declined to indict him. Regardless of that, the point is I am showing their is no rhyme or reason behind grand jury decisions. They are not always based on what is lawful and what is not.
An interesting post, and also a great mental game.
I think the shooting was totally unjustified, but it appears that these men only had one gun between the three of them so maybe aren't too well versed in the inner workings of gun laws. An interesting counter argument might be that I'm sure in many countries today, and in our own country probably 100 years ago, you can be shot to death for almost anything. I know it is non withstanding, but if you're going to "do the deed" you must be fully prepared to deal with the consequences.
You poke the bear a couple of times, he might just bite your head off.
I think the shooting was totally unjustified, but it appears that these men only had one gun between the three of them so maybe aren't too well versed in the inner workings of gun laws. An interesting counter argument might be that I'm sure in many countries today, and in our own country probably 100 years ago, you can be shot to death for almost anything. I know it is non withstanding, but if you're going to "do the deed" you must be fully prepared to deal with the consequences.
You poke the bear a couple of times, he might just bite your head off.
So, the clerk killed a man who no longer presented a valid threat, using a gun that wasn't his, to protect a meager amount of money that wasn't his?Soon after Starks left the store, the clerk went out and shot Starks several times as Starks tried to leave the scene on a bicycle, said Waukegan police Cmdr. Wayne Walles. (...) Walles said the clerk did not own the gun he fired at Starks with and did not present a firearm owner's Identification when interviewed by police.
Good thing I wasn't on that grand jury.
Tom Servo, I agree with you, and it's probably good for him that I wasn't, either.
I don't know the background or the area, but that won't stop me from wildly speculating... ok, maybe not all that wildly.
I suspect this probably happened in an area that is getting really fed up with robberies; and I suspect the decedent had a prior record. Those two can combine for grand jury or jury nullification, in circumstances where one would otherwise expect the accused to be toast.
I don't know the background or the area, but that won't stop me from wildly speculating... ok, maybe not all that wildly.
I suspect this probably happened in an area that is getting really fed up with robberies; and I suspect the decedent had a prior record. Those two can combine for grand jury or jury nullification, in circumstances where one would otherwise expect the accused to be toast.
Last edited:
Catfishman
New member
What the hell else were they supposed to do?The three men were accused of keeping an armed vigil over the auto lot and firing on the first burglars they saw.
Get robbed until they were out of business or dead?
'hold them at gunpoint' in the dark? Really? That's just what I want to do. Hold an unknown number of armed, drugged robbers at gunpoint in the dark.
It's easy to criticize after it's over but think about what the business owners knew and when they knew it.