We wrote last week about 81-year-old Homer Wright who defended his Chicago tavern from a burglar by shooting the intruder in the leg. The only fly in his successful self-defense ointment was the fact that he’s a twice convicted felon and thus unable to legally possess a gun. But Homer got some good news when, during a court appearance yesterday, prosecutors took the path of least popular resistance and dropped the weapons charge against the octogenarian. Not willing to let sleeping dogs lie, though, Wright says he’ll re-arm himself . . .
The coppers confiscated the gun Wright used against Anthony Robinson. So, in a blatant violation of his right to STFU, he’s vowed to a suntimes.com reporter to do it all again.
Wright said he will buy another one if he gets the chance.
“I’ll get arrested again, if somebody be breaking in here. I’m going to use it,” Wright said.
“If the opportunity presents itself, I sure am,” Wright said. “If somebody came by with one that’s clean, I’m gonna buy it.”
Wright said it’s unfair that he has been left with nothing to defend himself.
Valid as that complaint may be, Mr. Wright’s just given a hypothetical future DA plenty of ammunition to prosecute him should an un-armed hoodie-wearing miscreant let himself into the bar in search of booty again. Never mind the fact that people will probably be beating a path to his door for the chance to sell him a new mohaska. Illegally.
We never recommend that anyone break the law. And even if your record is pure as the wind driven snow on Lake Shore Drive, broadcasting how ready you are to use your gun on someone opens up an unnecessary world of potential future legal hurt. In Homer’s case, the damage is pretty much done. Here’s hoping he never has to use that gun he doesn’t have. Or may buy. Or not.
I’m hearing more and more talk about how the things you say in the media, especially Internet postings can hurt you if someone tries to prosecute you for a DGU.
How about the opposite – could it be of some help if your attorney digs up a history of stuff you’ve said and/or posted, and it was nothing but reasonable stuff like advocating knowing all of the laws, avoiding trouble at all costs and de-escalating conflict, etc…
Probably inadmissible hearsay evidence.
“How about the opposite – could it be of some help if your attorney digs up a history of stuff you’ve said and/or posted, and it was nothing but reasonable stuff like advocating knowing all of the laws, avoiding trouble at all costs and de-escalating conflict, etc…”
Nope. Nobody cares about the all good things people do. Make one tiny mistake and they nail you to the cross. Doesn’t matter if you were a miracle worker or even the son of god. Do you think anyone gives Hitler any credit for his advances in medical science? Nope.
“Do you think anyone gives Hitler any credit for his advances in medical science? Nope.”
—–
You don’t suppose that’s due to the manner in which those advances were made, do you?
Well, of course. The point, however, was that no matter what good you do in your life, only the bad stuff is remembered.
Back on topic, this is an amazing situation, especially in a place like Chicago. So many people (even most pro-gun folks) believe felons are no longer humans and no longer have a need to defend themselves. Everyone keeps advocating all these cozy little exceptions to the 2nd amendment. This is a perfect example of why the right to keep and bear arms should never be infringed, ever, to anyone, period (except people still in prison for their crimes). If a prisoner can be trusted enough to be released back into society, what difference does it make whether they can legally access a gun? They’re gonna get ’em anyway.
The constitution was written in support of the greater good: Freedom. If everyone has a gun, the felons won’t be so free to use ’em except to protect themselves. Otherwise, we’ll see a sharp decline in the life span of felons and far fewer of them. Now how can that be bad? This is why you don’t see any exceptions for anyone, in the 2nd amendment.
The issue of gun rights is black and white. Shades of gray will ruin the day.
Only on TTAG and MSNBC is Hitler brought up in the same sentence with this 81 yo hero/felon.
Volkswagen seems to be doing pretty well.
Worst analogy ever.
*Facepalm*
I swear – my humor is just wasted on some of you…
George Zimmerman is a good example of someone that lead a charitable life and worked with black people to help them and is now demonized. If and when they dig up dirt they will bury you with it.
Yes, George is likely a life long Democrat no more – and for good reason.
So it’s not enough that he willfully broke the law and got away with it. But now he is publicly stating he is going to again willfully break the law, after complaining that he didn’t get his illegally owned gun back.
Thanks for making us look good as gun owners a-hole.
I CANNOT believe he got away with this in Illinois, let alone Cook County, let alone the City of Chicago.
I am sure that if it happened to me, I would have gotten the same treatment right? Because I am sure the demographic, and current political/media atmosphere had NOTHING to do with it.
He’s 81. Big deal. Why do we have to be up in arms over what an 81 yo says?
Old guys can get away with a lot of sh!t, not to mention that in most states, crimes against elderly victims have enhanced punishments.
Do you really think that prosecutors want to put old guys in jail? Their medical treatments alone would bankrupt the state penal system.
You may have misread the article, he is a convicted felon in Chicago. They get preferential treatment here no matter what. If your a law abiding citizen you’d be on your way to stateville!
He might just be sly enough to broadcast he’ll re-arm and put a cap in dat ass to dissuade any future breakins while actually not getting himself another gun.
regardless, this guy would (judging purely by the limited information available) be an example for someone who is convicted of a felony, paid his dues and should have had his rights fully restored.
+1 He is a poster boy for the restoration of rights for felons.
Well, maybe and maybe not. I’m glad he’s not going to be prosecuted and he’s entitled to defend himself, but “poster boy?” I’m not leaning that way.
His willingness to break the law and announce that he’s going to do so, combined with two previous felony convictions, makes me think that he’s a crusty old bastard who’s about as trustworthy as a scorpion and twice as dangerous.
I agree. I’m not partiularly pleased that the gun charge was dropped. That’s pretty ass backwards of the no felons can have guns laws which I generally agree with. What felony was he convicted of, was it gun related?
Wright had two prior weapons convictions in 1968 and 1994 and he was convicted of theft in 1990. He’s a serial offender.
If the weapons convictions were in Chicago, we may have to take them with a grain of salt.
+1
Point taken.
I agree that he should STFU, but good for him. It seems he fears neither the state-sanctioned criminals nor the free-lance ones.
It seems he fears neither the state-sanctioned criminals nor the free-lance ones.
Based on Wright’s stellar record, they should be afraid of him.
“And even if you’re record is pure as the wind driven snow on Lake Shore Drive, broadcasting how ready you are to use your gun on someone opens up an unnecessary world of potential future legal hurt.”
Just wanted to bring to your attention that “you’re” should be “your” here. Sorry for the pickiness! This is a great article!
Thanks. Text amended.
Come on, he’s a convicted felon in CHICAGO! He’ll never be treated the same as the lowly peasants who work hard and pay taxes without breaking the law.
You’re confusing him with a convicted politician.
You guys are just jealous be’s badder ass than you.
This seems a pretty standard case of “lawful” versus “moral,” and in Chicago especially, those two seldom trod the same road.
Comments are closed.