Man, 73, kills robber holding shears to wife's neck By BILL BRYAN Post-Dispatch 11/19/2003
A man in north St. Louis County was home watching "Death Wish," a movie about a vigilante who hunts down criminals, when he saw his wife held hostage by a robber holding shears at her neck.
Allowed to get his wallet, the homeowner retrieved his pistol instead and shot the intruder to death, county police said Wednesday after sorting out details of the previous evening's incident.
It happened about 8 p.m. Tuesday in the 11500 block of Lares Drive, a usually quiet neighborhood just east of New Halls Ferry Road and north of Interstate 270.
The residents asked police not to reveal their names. The man and family members declined interview requests.
Police gave this account:
An intruder, 26, broke into the home through a basement window and tore down a curtain to tie over his face as a mask. The woman encountered him in the basement and he forced her up the stairs to confront her husband.
Police said the husband, 73, was watching the movie on TV when the stranger approached, demanding money and holding 4-inch shears to the throat of the woman, also 73.
The homeowner told the intruder he had to get his wallet from the bedroom, but he got a handgun instead. When he emerged, she pulled away and he opened fire.
The robber grabbed the wife again and pulled her through the front door with him, but then let her go and ran. He collapsed across the street, where he was pronounced dead.
The woman was treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.
The dead robber was identified through fingerprints, but his name was withheld pending notification of relatives.
Privately, police officers praised the outcome, saying that burglars should take a lesson from it.
County detectives said they believed the dead burglar might be responsible for other home invasions and burglaries.
Earl Garvin, a neighbor, said he had known the homeowner for 30 years. "He's such a nice man. He's a very fine guy."
Posts: 686 | From: Texas: Hullabaloo, Caneck! Caneck! | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Willard (Mike) Scott Worldwide Camaro Club North Carolina state Rep. 2001 SS convertible with all SLP opts. Sunset Orange Neutral top Neutral leather http://community.webshots.com/user/wmss Posts: 737 | From: Siler City N.C. | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I keep a gun next to my bed too. and i would have done the same thing. good for him Posts: 1579 | From: Portland, OR. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Sorry, I dont. There are too many guns in this country.
If you know anyone who works in an ER, then you would understand why.
Some statistics -
In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain the second leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., particularly among youth
posted
What was the old guy really aiming at? Lucky he didn't kill his wife, which is the result of most of these type of incidents. I believe most law enforcement agencies wouldn't condone what he did.....but I am glad it worked out for him. How many people would have their hand shaking so badly they couldn't aim straight?
Posts: 1163 | From: Rochester Hills, Mi | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by JeffY: What was the old guy really aiming at? Lucky he didn't kill his wife, which is the result of most of these type of incidents. I believe most law enforcement agencies wouldn't condone what he did.....but I am glad it worked out for him. How many people would have their hand shaking so badly they couldn't aim straight?
I would say from the age of the man he was brought up in a time like I was when your father and grandfather took you hunting at 10 years old and taught you all about guns and safety with them along with right and wrong and good and bad. I got my first 12 gauge shotgun when I was 10 and was allowed to hunt alone with it. I am almost 61 and can still hit a dime at 25 feet with a handgun with either hand every time. It was a whole different generation and to bad soon not many of us will be left
Posts: 737 | From: Siler City N.C. | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
FireChicken
11 Secret Herbs & Spices
Member # 2067
posted
quote:Originally posted by Mike2001SS:
quote:Originally posted by JeffY: What was the old guy really aiming at? Lucky he didn't kill his wife, which is the result of most of these type of incidents. I believe most law enforcement agencies wouldn't condone what he did.....but I am glad it worked out for him. How many people would have their hand shaking so badly they couldn't aim straight?
I would say from the age of the man he was brought up in a time like I was when your father and grandfather took you hunting at 10 years old and taught you all about guns and safety with them along with right and wrong and good and bad. I got my first 12 gauge shotgun when I was 10 and was allowed to hunt alone with it. I am almost 61 and can still hit a dime at 25 feet with a handgun with either hand every time. It was a whole different generation and to bad soon not many of us will be left
I was raised in a similar style. Besides, at the age of 73, its probably a pretty good bet he was a WWII veteran, and most of the vets I know can shoot the eyes out of a jumping jackrabbit.
As the forefathers said, "Give me liberty, or give me death".
Posts: 686 | From: Texas: Hullabaloo, Caneck! Caneck! | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
I disagree that EVERYONE should have a fire arm. Most are too big of idiots to drive, do you really want THEM to have guns.
But I'd have done the same thing and yes I have a carry/conceal permit and carry a gun most of the time. But the main thing is knowing when NOT to fire, most people don't have enough sense to carry a weapon.
--------------------
Kevin Villier, 2002 SS #186 - 6M with Hurst and "short-stick", TT, navy blue, chrome SS wheels, Bilstein suspension, SS grill, BMR STB, BMR chrome-moly panhard rod, SLP loudmouth, Direct-Flo lid with Holley Power Shot filter, mallory polished MAF ends, 4.10 gears, PPC LT's. 336 rwhp, 345 rwtq
posted
The last time I checked, it is every U.S. citizen's right to keep and bear arms should they choose (unless they've done something to nullify that right by law) based on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I'm not sure how that is done in other countries, however. There's no stupidity test you have to pass to own one legally, so I don't know why anyone could think they are a better judge of character as to who gets to own a gun or not. If you take away the right to own and bear arms, you might as well take away the first amendment, too. But wait, that isn't fair, is it? Then what is? You can never predict with 100% accuracy what someone MAY do ahead of time. But in this man's case, his right to own a firearm perhaps saved his and his wife's life. And if two lives were saved by that gun that took one life, then the good of the outcome outweighed the bad. The man didn't have his gun with him, and more than likely never needed to use it until this incident. You could have asked him months ago if he'd use it on someone and you might have gotten a hesitation before his answer. But ask him now if he's glad he had it. All of that probably happened in a blink of an eye and who knows if any of us would react the same way in that instance. By the accounts of the story, the man was doing what the gun laws were intended to do, and that allowing him to protect his home and family against a domestic threat. If someone proves they can't be responsible with a firearm, then it's a different story. I don't see that in this case. I can't see how anyone could think they could do away with the right to keep and bear arms when we can't even get a non-right such as illegal drug use/distribution under control.
-------------------- Mike '02 #6906 pewter/M6/leather/hardtop Posts: 577 | From: Aiken, SC | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, what the 2nd amendment says is: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right to bear arms was granted for a militia as our forefathers did not want to have a standing army at the beck and call of a king or ruler. Most gun rights advocates neglect to quote the complete amendent. As the Militia is now the National Guard, then only memebers of the National Guard should have weapons! Of course, this will never happen.
The US history is a history that includes guns-Billy the Kid, the wild west, Elliot Ness and the Untouchables, etc. Its part of US history and folklore more so here then in any other country.
(I am not advancing any gun-rights or anti-gun-law stance here! I can see both sides of the argument, Not intending any flame war!) Posts: 1163 | From: Rochester Hills, Mi | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by JeffY: Most gun rights advocates neglect to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.quote the complete amendent. As the Militia is now the National Guard, then only memebers of the National Guard should have weapons! Of course, this will never happen.
I know what it says, and most anti-gun rights advocates always seem to errantly want to push the militia (or National Guard) issue as the only reason and only persons to be able to have guns. Which has yet to be proven. But when it says "people" in the constitution, it means all citizens. And whether you're for it or against it, individual "gun rights" exist. It's for the common defense at a national level, and disallows the federal governement from disarming the people. Period.
The 2nd amendment is basically to allow the people the right to keep and bear arms. Their intent was to provide for a citizen-based militia, and thus allowed all citizens the right to keep and bear arms since this is what would be making up the said militia. There is NO historical documentation to prove that the original intent was for the militia to be the only ones to be able to keep and bear arms. In the old days, if people were called to the militia, then they would be required to bring arms and ammunition supplied by themselves. Some states also mandated that those ineligible to serve also keep arms and ammunition at home.
The key word in all of this is "people". It didn't say "militia". For instance, "We the People" in the declaration of Independence didn't mean "We the militia", it meant all U.S. citizens that wanted to be free, and therefore "people" in context of the 2nd amendment is interpreted the same, as meaning U.S. citizens.
There is no flaming taken on my part, everybody has to believe in SOMETHING, even if they believe in nothing. I'm a law-equality and rights advocate. If you test this in a court, you will be granted the right to keep your gun every time as long as you're obeying federal, state, and local laws. The bottom line is, it is a right given to the people, and whether anyone likes it or not is not the issue; it's a right, not an extended privilege (Ex: having a driver's license). We could go at this all night, I suppose, but I will let it go here and still stand by my conviction that it is a lawful, non-felonous individual's right under the Constitution to be able to lawfully own a gun should he or she choose.
Posts: 577 | From: Aiken, SC | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by el ess1: The last time I checked, it is every U.S. citizen's right to keep and bear arms should they choose (unless they've done something to nullify that right by law) based on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I'm not sure how that is done in other countries, however. There's no stupidity test you have to pass to own one legally, so I don't know why anyone could think they are a better judge of character as to who gets to own a gun or not. If you take away the right to own and bear arms, you might as well take away the first amendment, too. But wait, that isn't fair, is it? Then what is? You can never predict with 100% accuracy what someone MAY do ahead of time. But in this man's case, his right to own a firearm perhaps saved his and his wife's life. And if two lives were saved by that gun that took one life, then the good of the outcome outweighed the bad. The man didn't have his gun with him, and more than likely never needed to use it until this incident. You could have asked him months ago if he'd use it on someone and you might have gotten a hesitation before his answer. But ask him now if he's glad he had it. All of that probably happened in a blink of an eye and who knows if any of us would react the same way in that instance. By the accounts of the story, the man was doing what the gun laws were intended to do, and that allowing him to protect his home and family against a domestic threat. If someone proves they can't be responsible with a firearm, then it's a different story. I don't see that in this case. I can't see how anyone could think they could do away with the right to keep and bear arms when we can't even get a non-right such as illegal drug use/distribution under control.
So you think it's ok for a mentally unstable or retarded person to own a gun?
No way.
and it's not about gun control, it's about the fact that NOT EVERYONE SHOULD OWN A GUN because I know people that just should not own a gun.
and if you care to meet them, I'd be happy to introduce you to my uncle. He's 55 and has the mentality of an 8 year old.
Why?
He did to many drugs as a kid. He has no job, live off of SS income and can not manage the $600 a month he gets.
If you told him to, he would carry a gun around loaded. And probably shoot someone by accident.
So yes, I feel that I AM a better judge of character as to who should and should not carry a gun. If you disagree with me, you can meet him.
right to bear arms, yes. Everyone should own one? NO.
Posts: 2502 | From: Binghamton, NY | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by KevinA: So you think it's ok for a mentally unstable or retarded person to own a gun?
No way.
and it's not about gun control, it's about the fact that NOT EVERYONE SHOULD OWN A GUN because I know people that just should not own a gun.
I agree with you somewhat. No, I don't think children under 18 (with exceptions), documented mentally unstable folks, people undergoing psychiatric treatment, or people convicted of a felony or domestic violence should own a gun. (list is not all-inclusive) And thankfully, neither does the government. But just because you or I think someone isn't stable enough to own a gun isn't enough grounds to take away their constitutional right to own a firearm on our opinion alone, unless we're qualified in the proper medical field to make such a judgement. That's the hard facts of it. You may want to do so out of the best interest of the person and the public, and that's understandable.
I'd bet a lot of us wandering around the Maine Institute of Technology may be considered "mentally retarded" by their standards, so who is left with that judgement and to what standard? We can argue little fine points like this ad nauseum forever and get nothing accomplished. I am coming from strictly a constitutional-rights context, applicable to reasonable, rational, law-abiding U.S. citizens. There are always some exceptions and disqualifiers to nearly every situation, and I'm sure everyone can come up with an example. The big point is that you are allowed to own a gun by rights in the U.S., unless certain disqualifiers are actualized.
For the record, I have never owned a handgun, but if I felt the need to protect myself, family, or property from evil-doers, I have that right to go and arm myself with one. (sorry this thread got hijacked) Back to the original thought, the old guy did what he had to do, and I support his action to protect his family, because he did it in accordance with the laws.
[ 29. November 2003, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: el ess1 ]
Posts: 577 | From: Aiken, SC | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by chrisL: Sorry, I dont. There are too many guns in this country.
In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain the second leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., particularly among youth
Well then......I guess we all better turn in our vehicles since they are killers too.
quote: "According to IIHS statistics, 42,815 people died in 2002 in automobile crashes, making it the leading cause of death for Americans under 34 and costing the economy about $200 billion."
Next step is to take away Steak Knives and Hammers...
Posts: 700 | From: Fighting the Nazis of the world..... | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
FireChicken
11 Secret Herbs & Spices
Member # 2067
posted
quote:Originally posted by MMMM_ERT:
quote:Originally posted by chrisL: Sorry, I dont. There are too many guns in this country.
In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain the second leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., particularly among youth
Well then......I guess we all better turn in our vehicles since they are killers too.
quote: "According to IIHS statistics, 42,815 people died in 2002 in automobile crashes, making it the leading cause of death for Americans under 34 and costing the economy about $200 billion."
Next step is to take away Steak Knives and Hammers...
I always liked my dad's definition of gun control...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
