BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« 16 is the new 21 | Main | Two takes on medical tokes »

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Missed it by that much


An 86-year-old man who attempted to help police foil an armed robbery at a Crestwood phone store by firing at the fleeing suspect may not have broken the law, but firearms trainers say he ignored a basic rule of carrying a gun in public: Don't try to be a hero.

Had this unnamed senior brought down the suspect with a bullet between the shoulder blades, this would be a huge national story and exhibit A for backers of concealed carry.

On the other hand, if his wild shot had plugged or even nicked an innocent bystander, the story would be exhibit A for foes of concealed carry.

The decision not to file charges feels right to me, under the circumstances -- upstanding citien trying to do the right thing, heat of the moment, arguably defensible given the robber was armed and therefore a potential danger.




I don't care if he's charged with anything, as long as they take his bang-bang playthings away. I don't want to get caught up in some octogenarian's cops-and-robbers fantasy. (Or anyone else's.)

Agree with Pan, Mr. unnamed senior did not have his life in danger, and while he claims he was worried for the police officer, bunk, this dufus just wanted to shoot some one. Take his permit.

I really don't understand how his shooting at a fleeing person, while under no fear for his own safety, could be both legal and not cause for censure. Revoke his card for unsafe behavior at least. Is there a way take away the permit based, like suspending a driver's license for speeding? Are these permits forever or subject to renewals where eyesight, current training, and general cognitive ability can be accessed?

Well, at least we now know that the concealed carry permit applications that were denied weren't done so on the basis of old age (though I might prefer if they were)...

I in no way feel safer knowing that people like this are carrying; and I feel much less safe knowing that they are willing to intervene in such an incident without having knowledge of the details or communication/ coordination with law enforcement that is already on the scene... It's just a matter of time before one of these vigilantes mistakenly shoots an innocent... Or gets himself shot by law enforcement that is unable to determine if the concealed carrier is a good guy or a bad guy brandishing his weapon...

Supposedly there was an actual police officer chasing the perp. When the officer heard shots, he (very understandably) took cover, allowing the alleged thief to escape.

In effect, Mr. Concealed Carry aided and abetted the crime and obstructed justice. (Police did catch the guy later.)

I'm with Mick.

Too much info left out... was this a sharp minded individual or was this someone who wandered away from a nursing home? Did he take a shot because he thought the officer was in danger or was he playing Marshall Dillon? This is the kind of case though that twist everyone undies but like most things that twist the undies we don't have all the facts

Jay, please read the story in the Trib, there is enough there to see Mr. CCW was way wrong.

If a bad guy was executing people 20 feet away from me and I was backed into a corner with my weapon out, I still would not fire on him unless he turned his attention to me.

Should you choose not to be armed, it's not my place to protect you. I carry for self-defense, not anybody else's (except my family).

How anyone can think this is remotely acceptable is beyond me. Fleeing suspect, officer in pursuit and this nutjob starts firing? He could have hit the officer. And as has been pointed out, he *did* derail the officer's pursuit of the suspect and allowed the suspect to escape (albeit temporarily). And, yes, I'm going to throw the race card in (as you all knew I would), because had this concealed carry nutjob been black, the officer would have assumed he was in cahoots with the fleeing suspect and would have capped him, and most of you on this board would have supported the officer. Take away his permit, yes. But book him too.

Anyway, you can all take whatever shots you want at me on this and the Fine Lines, but probably won't be around. I really don't feel like hearing about how "silly, silly, silly" I am or how I always get "trounced" or whatever other personal insults people want to hurl.

@ Jay

Actually, we do know, and did yesterday...

"The permit holder told police he was about to enter an AT&T store at 4756 W. Cal-Sag Road around noon on Saturday when he noticed the store was being robbed, Crestwood police said in a statement. The man stayed outside to prevent anyone from entering, police said, and after he saw the suspect leaving through a back door, entered the store and chased him.

A police officer also was pursuing the suspect but had to duck for cover when the shots were fired. No one was injured."

He encountered a robbery in progress, and when the perp escaped through the back he pursued him and shot at him... Seems fairly cut and dry to me... Also fairly clear that he was in no danger and was acting as a vigilante and not "defending himself" or "standing his ground"...

Yes, his permit should be revoked for this action! And I also think charges should be brought against him for unlawful discharge of a firearm...

I wonder how much age factored into the decision not to press charges, yet doesn't figure into the ability to get a CC permit. (I also wonder if the old man was a former cop or ex-military.) At least, revoke the permit.

Of course it did happen in Crestwood, possibly more bent than Chicago. Any judgements need to take into account exactly who this guy is/knows which might also explain the resistance of the local police to make an issue of his behavior.

"And, yes, I'm going to throw the race card in"
Wow, who saw this comming?

I don't want an 86 year old driving a car or packing heat in public.

That's what I get Bruce for not reading the story.. rookie error... yes, seemed to be playing Marshall Dillion.... Not a poster child for ccw.

For once, I actually agree with lexi.

It sounds like the gentleman in question in this scenario was in control of his mental and physical faculties. Good for him. What if he wasn't? There's so much that could have gone wrong.

The other day while I was at the gym, I watched an elderly woman cross the from the shop next door to her car parked in a handicapped spot, a distance of maybe 30 or 40 feet. Even with the assistance of her cane, it took her quite some time to cross that relatively short distance and then get in the drivers seat. She then circled the lot twice before locating the exit.

Now picture that same woman wielding a firearm.

Dienne, where do you see the race of the concealed carrier?

@ Tim O.

Excellent point!... I guess it's ok for her to make racial assumptions on the concealed carrier, though I'm fairly sure if anyone assumed the perp was black we'd be called racist...

I guess racism does cut both ways after all... Oh well!

Well, the perp's name was Demetrius. I don't have the statistics right handy, but I'd guess that more than 90% of Demetriuses are black. I'd take that bet any day.

I support concealed carry but this guy was wrong and should have his card revoked.

If he was already in the store when it happened then it is a different story. But he was outside and went in to chase the guy.

@DaveB: I'll take that bet for $1000. Demetrius is a very common Greek name.

Please tell me where I can pick up my winnings.


If this is true, I seriously doubt the man was black. He's 86 years old and probably was Greek. I doubt this name was popular with African Americans in the 1920s, but I could be wrong.

Demetrius was the offender - the guy who robbed the store. As far as I know nobody knows the name or race of the 86 yr old concealed carry holder who fired at him.

Sorry, I thought DaveB was referring to the shooter.

I'm going to agree with the majority here that the shooter should not have done what he did. I'll agree with Eric that the prosecutor made the right decision not to press charges for the very same reasons Eric stated. I'm all for defense of oneself and one's home, and I'll go further than most in those regards, but shooting at a fleeing suspect who represents no likely harm to anyone at that point where it could create harm to others goes too far in my book.

Update: Turns out the shooter is 56, not 86. Same principles apply, IMO.

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group