No Charges for Homeowner Who Shot Burglar in the Back

Posted on December 26, 2008 by Denise Nalley

In Illinois, a person can protect their home with deadly force from an intruder if that person enters unlawfully into the home or even into an attached garage. However, it must be in defense of themselves, others or the home during the incident. Once the intruder is leaving – Call the police. Shooting someone in the back while they are fleeing is revenge and would usually be charged as murder.

Last Friday, December 18, 2008, an intruder allegedly entered a home in the 3800 block of North Kedzie and the police were notified regarding a burglary. Monday morning, December 21, 2008, the suspect was found partially covered with snow, across the alley, in the gangway of another house at 3800 North Troy, dead from a gun shot wound to the back. The police stated they believe the intruder fled after he was shot and collapsed in the gangway.

No charges are to be filed against the homeowner. The lack of filing of murder charges here may be arguable since the still unidentified man was shot in the back. I don’t know if there was blood in the house, signs of a struggle or other physical evidence that might indicate the shooting occurred before fleeing.

What I do know is that prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was unconstitutional, it certainly would have been standard practice for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office to file at least a Failure to Register charge regarding the handgun against the homeowner. This, of course, assumes it was a handgun and not a shotgun. Handguns have been banned within city limits pursuant to city ordinance since 1983. The failure to approve any charges against the homeowner regarding the weapon is a sign of the times as Chicago and County officials attempt to keep this handgun ban in effect.

Tags: , ,

Shackled Bank Robbery Suspect Fleeing in Van Shot by FBI

Posted on December 18, 2008 by Denise Nalley

Earlier today, Steven Boyd, an alleged bank robber, was handcuffed and in leg shackles in the backseat of an FBI minivan alone. The FBI special agents left the vehicle running with the keys in the ignition because it was “frigid” outside. Mr. Boyd took control of the vehicle and was shot in the chest by Special Agent #2 because he allegedly tried to run over Special Agent #1. If Boyd was in the vehicle alone, escaping, what was there to gain by running over Special Agent #1?

The press release states that the FBI is continuing its investigation into how Boyd got control of the vehicle. Well, perhaps he climbed from the backseat into the front seat put the minivan in drive and tried to drive away in an attempt to escape. No details were given about why Mr. Boyd was in the van alone, where the agents were standing or what they were doing while Boyd was moving around in the van or if the van had GPS .

Of course, I wasn’t there but Special Agent #2, who was there, commented he shot because he feared for his partner’s safety. It would be interesting to see photos of the bullet hole in the van. Was Boyd shot in the chest from the front or the back? Was Special Agent #1 really in danger or was this incident just really going to be embarrassing? Losing a shackled bank robber along with an FBI vehicle could potentially affect one’s long term career goals.

Again, I wasn’t there, but a man was shot. Just because the man shot was accused of a crime at the time he was shot doesn’t mean he automatically isn’t a victim. Just because the shooter was a “man in blue” doesn’t automatically make that shooter innocent.

Unrelated, but in the same theme, a Chicago Police Officer from the Narcotics Division shot a man while executing a search warrant earlier today. I noted while reading this article that it did not say that the man shot was the subject of the warrant. I also found it notable that while it said the police were allegedly “confronted” by a man with a gun that they mention recovering a gun from the scene as opposed to recovering the gun from his person. Fingerprinting that gun might be helpful, although, I can tell you from experience that it rarely happens outside of homocide cases. 

Tags: , ,

Two Eyewitnesses Recant on Thirty Year Old Murder

Posted on December 8, 2008 by Denise Nalley

Good Detectives investigate crimes, follow where the evidence leads and make arrests based on the evidence.  Sometimes they have to change direction in an investigation if a suspect is shown to have an alibi or if the physical evidence just doesn't match.

Bad Detectives often reach a conclusion of "whodunit" and begin to work backwards from there and that appears to be exactly what happened in the case against, a then 18 year old, Anthony McKinney, thirty years ago. 

On September 15, 1978, the night of the infamous Ali-Spinks fight, a security guard was murdered with a shotgun outside the Masonic Temple between 9:30 and 9:45 p.m..  The Harvey police were first called about the murder at 10:03 p.m.  Detectives saw McKinney running near the scene.  They questioned him and released him the next morning. 

McKinney was charged with murder four days later.  Two alleged eyewitnesses stated they left their homes after the 9th and 10th rounds of the fight, respectively, met up, and saw McKinney commit the shooting.  No physical evidence linked McKinney to the crime.

He waited three years to go to trial.  Only one eyewitness testified at trial. McKinney testified that he watched the entire fight and left his home at approximately 10:30 p.m.  McKinney was found guilty and sentenced to life without parole.

Thirty years later both eyewitnesses have recanted their testimony.  Another witness, Anthony Drake, has given a statement that he was present during the shooting but that McKinney was not present .  Most importantly, the TV logs from the Ali-Spinks fight show undeniably that  the 9th round ended at 10:02:49  and the 10th round ended at 10:07:45.

If the police were first called at 10:03 p.m., they should have been arriving at the murder scene around the time the second so-called "eyewitness" left his home.  So, these two witnesses, who the police believed could not have been outside witnessing a shooting between 9:30 and 9:45.  Sadly, this isn't a case that needed DNA or other advanced forensics to come along to move justice forward.  All it ever needed was the investigating police officers to look at a clock. 

Tags: , , ,