Waukegan Talk

I'm putting the Daily Herald article here and link as it has 120 comments already!! On the News Sun site you can vote whether the clerk was justified or not.



Daily Herald
Waukegan store clerk fatally shoots robber, may face criminal charges
By Lee Filas | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 10/14/2008 12:27 PM | Updated: 10/14/2008 3:53 PM

A 20-year-old man who used a gun to rob a small Waukegan store Monday night was shot and killed moments later by a store clerk who chased him into the street, police said in a news release today.

Police are also searching for a second suspect, who they say did not enter the store but aided the robber and escaped despite being struck by a car while fleeing.

Brandon Starks, 20, of the 2000 block of Hervey Avenue in North Chicago, died of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest, Lake County Coroner Richard Keller said today.

In the Waukegan police department news release, Cmdr. Wayne Walles said Starks entered People's Market, at 901 8th St., at 7 p.m., brandishing a gun and demanding money from the store clerk. After the clerk turned over the money, Starks fled.

According to the release, the clerk grabbed a pistol from under the counter, ran out the door and saw Starks trying to flee northbound on Lincoln on a bicycle. The clerk fired several shots and struck the suspect twice in the upper torso and once in the leg.

Starks continued to ride the bicycle for a short distance before falling to the ground unconscious on Lincoln, Walles said. He was taken to Vista East Medical Center where he was pronounced dead at about 7:15 p.m.

Police have not released the identity of the store clerk.

Walles said police later discovered a second suspect fled the area on foot, Walles said in the release. As that suspect tried to run away, he was struck by a car near the store. Despite being hit by the car and injured, the accomplice got up and fled the area, according to the release.

Police said the second suspect is in his late teens or early 20s, tall, thin and last seen wearing a long-sleeved red shirt, black shorts and black and red tennis shoes.

Walles said criminal charges against the clerk are being reviewed by the police department and the Lake County State's Attorney's office.

However, Walles added, the clerk did have the required paperwork to obtain and carry a firearm, Walles said.

Lake County Assistant State's Attorney Steve Scheller said it is legal for the business to have a firearm on the premises as long as the person with the weapon has a valid firearm identification owners card.

He added the decision whether to charge the store clerk will not come until later this week or early next week.

Walles said it's unclear why the clerk had a gun at the store, but confirmed there have been numerous theft and other disturbances at the location in the past two years.

"That's one of the things we are reviewing in the case," he said. "But, at this time, we are unclear on why the clerk had a gun in the store."

Anyone with information is urged to contact Waukegan Police at (847) 599-2608.

Few residents living on Lincoln in the subdivision surrounding the stand-alone corner store were out Tuesday, but those who were discussed the incident.

"I thought it was kids playing with cap guns," said resident Tony Gonzalez, who added he heard about five shots fired Monday evening.


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=242609">http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=242609</a><!-- m -->

I would guess that criminal charges will be brought against the clerk. The robber had already left the scene of the crime, so there was no longer any threat or imminent danger, which would not allow any self defense claim.

Maybe there was no imminent danger, but if I had just had a gun pointed in my face, my judgement might not have been the best. And as far as I'm concerned (call me for jury duty), when the robber threatened someone's life, his life became open game.

guest300 Wrote:I would guess that criminal charges will be brought against the clerk. The robber had already left the scene of the crime, so there was no longer any threat or imminent danger, which would not allow any self defense claim.

The Tribune has a very well written story on this: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-waukegan-shooting-15-oct15,0,3213846.story">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 3846.story</a><!-- m -->


The clerk violated FOID law (According to the Tribune and News-Sun). He should be prosecuted for violating Illinois FOID law. The issue of a threat of imminent danger would have come into play twice. There was no longer a threat of imminent danger to the clerk once the robber fled the store. Then after the clerk chose to follow the robber outside another threat of imminent danger was created. The clerk should be prosecuted because the threat of imminent danger was gone when the robber left the store. The threat of imminent danger can come and go in an instant but once the robber fled the clerk was free of imminent danger thus he should not be immune from prosecution.

I Luv Lucy Wrote:Maybe there was no imminent danger, but if I had just had a gun pointed in my face, my judgement might not have been the best. And as far as I'm concerned (call me for jury duty), when the robber threatened someone's life, his life became open game.

This is not the 'Wild West', where you go out on the street and start firing at someone fleeing from you. That course of action is reckless and can endanger the lives of innocent citizens. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way defending the robber, but once the robber fled the store the clerk's course of action should have been to call 911 and provide details to the Police so they could do the job of apprehending the offender.

The clerk should get a slap on the wrist sentence if convicted.How come so many ex-cons choose Waukegan and vicinity as a place to live? Maybe they should be awarded Section 8 vouchers or some other form of subsidy and be sent to live in Barrington. Economic diversity is a good thing.

So many cliché's come to mind on this one... :roll:
.
"Thou shalt not steal"; (the kid would have not died)
"An eye for an eye"; (here it's, use of a gun for a gun)
"If at first you don't succeed, try and try again"; (store clerk took 3 shots)
"Aim straight, shoot once and don't miss. You might hit your loved one"; (or an innocent bystander)
.
You got any?
.

The first thought came to my mind was, "good, now no one else will try and rob him", but after reading Danno and Guest300's response, I've changed my mind. Like you guys said, the robber had LEFT THE STORE, and the Clerk ran out after him. Had I been the Clerk, I would have been relieved that he had left, and would have just called 911. A lot of people will think like I did, at first.

This young man had just been released from jail for home burgulary. He also had a record for school vandalism. He was not a good boy making a one time bad decision. Breaking the law seems to have been a way of life for him. While the clerk should have had a FOID, he probably made a good decision doing what he did. While there is no way to prove this,I am willing to bet that that boy would have used that same gun he used at the store again and again in more crimes had this not happened. It is too bad the boy did not learn his lesson in jail and stop commiting crimes. It could have saved his life.

julia Wrote:This young man had just been released from jail for home burgulary. He also had a record for school vandalism. He was not a good boy making a one time bad decision. Breaking the law seems to have been a way of life for him. While the clerk should have had a FOID, he probably made a good decision doing what he did. While there is no way to prove this,I am willing to bet that that boy would have used that same gun he used at the store again and again in more crimes had this not happened. It is too bad the boy did not learn his lesson in jail and stop commiting crimes. It could have saved his life.

So you think a death sentence is appropriate for a previous record of burglary and vandalism?