Gun owner: I, not cops, got bad guy

[Richard G]

Jan. 22, 2004
Chicago Sun-Times

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:

Click on the link below to read the letter.

http://www.ofcc.net/article1742.html

[WildCat]

I don't blame the police chief for saying that, he's appointed by the city so has to cite the company line.

I'll bet he thinks his home is safer w/ a handgun though, as do all the Wilmette city council members who exempted themselves (and all future council members) from the handgun ban.

Ain't hypocricy grand? You do as you're told, we don't have to follow the rules we make for you...

[Tony]

*sits quietly and awaits the barrage of anti-freedom hate.*

[Darat]

Seems a like an “open and shut” case. However several things in his letter struck me, especially from this extract:

...snip...

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.

...snip...


I thought first of all 13 minutes to respond is probably not too bad from when the alarm went off however when I then realised that the police (according to the letter) only responded after a 911 call I question the police's efficiency.

Secondly I can not agree with him that it would have been "cowardly" to "cower" in a bedroom or other room. (It sounds like the guy only had one gun, what would have happened if he hadn't been able to get to it because of the lay out of the house?) I think it can be very sensible to hide in times of danger, I think it is wrong to assert that this is a "cowardly act".

I am very surprised, by the way, that the guy didn't get his locks changed the next day...

[ingoa]

Did the burglar have any weapon? I didn't see one mentioned.

Shooting an unarmed intruder is manly in America?

[Darat]

Originally posted by ingoa
Did the burglar have any weapon? I didn't see one mentioned.

Shooting an unarmed intruder is manly in America?

Considering the culture of the USA I think it is reasonable to make an assumption that a burglar would be armed with some form of firearm and I don't see how it can be a reasonable expectation for someone to determine the armed or not status of a burglar before deciding to shoot.

I am however more ambivalent about the idea that the home owner should have given a warning before firing, if there was no obvious immediate danger to himself or family. (i.e. Not too happy with the idea that people can with impunity shoot even a burglar in the back if they are fleeing the house.) But again I think it is too much to ask anyone in these circumstances to always act in a calm and collected manner, I know I certainly wouldn't be able to.

[ingoa]

Considering the culture of the USA I think it is reasonable to make an assumption that a burglar would be armed with some form of firearm and I don't see how it can be a reasonable expectation for someone to determine the armed or not status of a burglar before deciding to shoot.

Maybe that's it.

In Europe one wouldn't assume that a burgler is armed with a gun. Why should they? If caught you would multiply your jail time even if you haven't used it. And lawful citizens are also not armed.

If the burglar was not armed DeMar would almost certainly end up in front of a court in Europe. But he probably would get a jail sentence on probation.

[subgenius]

The comment by the police chief is galling because virtually no cop would ever venture outside without a gun, even while off duty.
My recently retired cop brother has had to shoot people several times. Once he emptied his gun into a crackhead who kept coming. Another time he got ambushed when he responded to an armed robbery at a McDonalds. He walked in and up to the counter when the manager mouthed "He's behind you with a gun."
My brother turned around to see the guy pointing a gun at him saying "Don't go for it man."
My brother nonetheless drew his gun and shot the guys balls off.
We're glad he's retired now.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by subgenius
My brother nonetheless drew his gun and shot the guys balls off. We're glad he's retired now.
I'd always wondered where eunuchs came from.

[Tmy]

What kind of dumb ass burgler returns the next day????

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Darat


Considering the culture of the USA I think it is reasonable to make an assumption that a burglar would be armed with some form of firearm and I don't see how it can be a reasonable expectation for someone to determine the armed or not status of a burglar before deciding to shoot.

I am however more ambivalent about the idea that the home owner should have given a warning before firing, if there was no obvious immediate danger to himself or family. (i.e. Not too happy with the idea that people can with impunity shoot even a burglar in the back if they are fleeing the house.) But again I think it is too much to ask anyone in these circumstances to always act in a calm and collected manner, I know I certainly wouldn't be able to.

True enough!

I do not think there has ever been a case in the USA where someone was convicted as a result of shooting someone who was in the process of breaking into someone's home in the night (doing so implies that the thief is very sneaky by gaining access at night when the residents would be asleep, and it violates the old adage that "a man's home is his castle"). The District Attorney knows full well that it would be very, very difficult for a jury to convict someone that was acting to defend his home and family in the dead of night from a person who is about to rob him, so in most cases, they do not even bother to file charges against the person.

I have heard of a few cases where the someone who used a firearm to defend his home was actually a person who was not supposed to have a firearm in the first place (such as a convicted felon), and what happens is that the person is brought up on ownership of weapons violation charge as opposed to an illegal use of that weapon.

[Ed]

Originally posted by ingoa
Did the burglar have any weapon? I didn't see one mentioned.

Shooting an unarmed intruder is manly in America?

How does one ascertain that except post hoc?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Darat


armed or not status of a burglar before deciding to shoot.

I am however more ambivalent about the idea that the home owner should have given a warning before firing, if there was no obvious immediate danger to himself or family. (i.e. Not too happy with the idea that people can with impunity shoot even a burglar in the back if they are fleeing the house.) But again I think it is too much to ask anyone in these circumstances to always act in a calm and collected manner, I know I certainly wouldn't be able to.

And the purpose of the warning is..........?

Is not being in the midst of the commision of a crime warning in and of itself?

[Thanz]

Why do you bother keep posting these anecdotes? It is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the United States has a serious gun violence problem. The cause of that problem is a matter of some debate. But it seems counter-intuitive in the extreme to suggest that more people having more guns will help reduce gun violence.

I feel that many in the United States need to change their attitudes toward guns and their love of them. Or maybe Michael Moore is right and that there is a culture of fear in the United States. One thing I am certain of - scaring people into owning guns is not a great solution to the problem of gun violence.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Darat
....

I am very surprised, by the way, that the guy didn't get his locks changed the next day...
I'm confused... Where does it say there was concern that the burglar or anyone else had a set of keys to the victim's house?


Edited...
OOps.. I've been corrected.. I have now read the story more carefully...

Thanks Iconoclast....

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm confused... Where does it say there was concern that the burglar or anyone else had a set of keys to the victim's house?
Right there in the article, the very first sentence in fact.

[KelvinG]

Y'know, I'm starting to get the feeling that RichardG likes guns.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ed


And the purpose of the warning is..........?

Is not being in the midst of the commision of a crime warning in and of itself?

First of all I wouldn't equate burglary with a possible death sentence - which a shot from a gun could quite easily mean; so I do think there is a matter of proportional retaliation/defence involved in any of these cases.

But the main reason why I don't think it is bad to suggest that a homeowner should consider a warning shout is more along the lines of a "mistaken identity" break-in. For instance perhaps the "burglar" is in fact the homeowner's teenage child who had been grounded sneaking back in or a neighbour a bit drunk and made a mistake with the house.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Darat

I thought first of all 13 minutes to respond is probably not too bad from when the alarm went off however when I then realised that the police (according to the letter) only responded after a 911 call I question the police's efficiency.

I grew up in Wilmette. Being a generally safe and insulated community, most of the police force packs it in at 10pm. 13 minutes would be a GENEROUS estimate considering the manpower they have on duty at that hour. I should also note that the Wilmette police are extremely competent in comparison to surrounding communities.

Secondly I can not agree with him that it would have been "cowardly" to "cower" in a bedroom or other room. (It sounds like the guy only had one gun, what would have happened if he hadn't been able to get to it because of the lay out of the house?) I think it can be very sensible to hide in times of danger, I think it is wrong to assert that this is a "cowardly act".

He clearly stated that his children were asleep in their rooms. Would you trust the tender mercies of an intruder of 13 minutes in that situation? I certainly wouldn't, and to trust your family's safety to chance to protect your own ass IS cowardly.

I am very surprised, by the way, that the guy didn't get his locks changed the next day...

Ah, so the onus is on the victim, I see. That poor, poor intruder, being lured back the that home because the locks weren't changed. I hope you never get jury duty, pal.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by ingoa
Did the burglar have any weapon? I didn't see one mentioned.

Shooting an unarmed intruder is manly in America?

About as manly as taking advantage of an innocent family while they sleep. My only regret about the situation is that he didn't kill the SOB where he stood. Should he have asked the intruder if he was armed? Should he believe the answer? Should he risk his life unnecessarily to detain the intruder without harming him?

You seem very interested in handing the criminal every advantage in this situation. Why?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Darat


First of all I wouldn't equate burglary with a possible death sentence - which a shot from a gun could quite easily mean; so I do think there is a matter of proportional retaliation/defence involved in any of these cases.

If you're talking about a cop responding to a call, perhaps.

We're talking about a homeowner with a family to protect. He has no idea if the intruder's intent is robbery, rape or murder. He doesn't know if he's armed but knows it would be foolish to try to find out before neutralizing the situation.

Any reasonable citizen would assume the worst and react accordingly. You're bitching about legal procedure, but the father was reacting to an INTRUDER in his house. An intruder has no rights, can't you see that?

But the main reason why I don't think it is bad to suggest that a homeowner should consider a warning shout is more along the lines of a "mistaken identity" break-in. For instance perhaps the "burglar" is in fact the homeowner's teenage child who had been grounded sneaking back in or a neighbour a bit drunk and made a mistake with the house.

Please, the stupid bastard came back 2 nights in a row. Save your hypotheticals for the kindergartners, because anyone can see right through them. If you want to lend any validity to this fairy tale hypothesis, let's see some examples.

[Richard G]

A direct result of this home invasion...

Bill protecting Illinois gun owners against intruders introduced
http://newshound.de.siu.edu/spring04/stories/storyReader$245