- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,889
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
WILMINGTON — A clothing store co-owner who took the law into his own hands and fatally shot a teen who had broken into his business and seriously wounded a second underage intruder, agreed to plead guilty today to manslaughter and a weapons charge.Lee A. Turner, 29, then co-owner of the Fly 365 stores in Wilmington and Dover, faces up to 50 years at sentencing in December but prosecutors have agreed to recommend no more than seven years of incarceration. He faces a minimum mandatory sentence of five years.
Turner had originally faced first-degree murder and attempted murder charges.
Deputy Attorney General Ipek Medford said today prosecutors agreed to the deal given the law and the facts of the case. Medford said prosecutors believe Turner was reckless, as defined by state law, on June 17, 2012, when he shot and killed 15-year-old Naj’m Hickmond and wounded an 11-year-old boy that was with Hickmond.
In addition, Turner was a convicted felon with a criminal record who was prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. Turner, whose arrest record dated to when he was 14, had previously been convicted of aggravated menacing and weapons charges and several probation violations.
Because of court rules, prosecutors would not have been able to discuss Turner’s criminal background or the fact he was prohibited from having a gun with a jury had the case gone to trial as scheduled next month.
Medford said what happened at Turner’s Fly 365 store at 1510 W. Fourth St. around 5 p.m. was “a tragedy.”
Details of the shooting had been placed under seal by police and prosecutors at the time of Turner’s arrest. But in court today, Medford said there had been a string of burglaries at the Wilmington Fly 365 in the weeks and days leading up to the shooting, including several times on June 17, 2012. The store had been closed for several months but there were still clothes and other items inside.
Medford said Turner had been in New Jersey when he heard about the burglaries and returned to Wilmington.
When he was inside the West Fourth Street store cleaning up the mess burglars had left behind when they ransacked it, a group of people who had burglarized the business earlier in the day returned and broke in again through the back entrance, Medford said.
Turner reacted by killing one and shooting a second. “The defendant Lee Turner was reckless in his assessment of the necessity to use deadly force,” Medford told the judge.
It was unclear if the two boys were inside the store or outside the store when they were shot.
According to the unsealed affidavit of probable cause, Hickmond was shot once in the back and the 11-year old was shot twice in the mid-section and survived. Court papers indicate a group of at least five others could be seen on video fleeing from the scene.
The affidavit indicates Turner also fled the scene without calling police.
Turner’s attorney, Michael Heyden, said Turner had been surprised by the two intruders and is “very remorseful,” for what happened.
Heyden acknowledged his client had a criminal past but said he had turned his life around, was a father of two and had become a productive and valuable member of the community, having opened two clothing stores and secured contracts with several big name companies. Turner even led a coat drive in 2010 with United Way of Delaware and Delaware State University on the first anniversary of opening his Dover location.
Turner, dressed in a while prison clothes, did not speak in court beyond answering yes-or-no questions and admitting to the charges of manslaughter and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
Superior Court Judge William C. Carpenter Jr. accepted the guilty pleas, ordered a pre-sentence investigation and set Turner’s sentencing for December 6.
The shootings happened during a particularly violent week in Wilmington in 2012 where four people in the city were killed by gunfire over a five-day period, prompting calls for action from the community for a stepped-up police presence.
There is no "right" way to proceed in such cases, only the least worst. Three lives have been messed up already and nothing is going to change that.Is this the right way to proceed here?
Was it self defense?
Defending one's property?
Or is the fact that the shooter had a criminal past with restrictions against owning a gun all that matters?
Shot in back? Maybe not even inside store?
Thoughts?
As a side note, I couldn't help spotting the old media-scum trick of reporting the maximum possible sentence for the type of charges while ignoring all the circumstances that would inevitably reduce that. To suggest this man ever really faced a 50 year sentence is a flat-out lie and in this example, it is at least blatantly obvious. I only mention it because I've seen at least one reply here by someone caught out by the trick.
prosecutors have agreed to recommend no more than seven years of incarceration. He faces a minimum mandatory sentence of five years.
Of course I read the whole thing. My point is that there is no legitimate reason to mention the 50 year figure at all. It's become such common practice for the media to report the sum of the maximum sentences for the class of charges brought even though it almost never has any reflection in reality. They obviously couldn't help themselves despite having the blatant contradiction in the very next phrase. They don't normally have the contradiction and so it is much more effective spin. I picked it out because it makes for a clear example of common bad practice.So what's so "media scum" about it?
Other than maybe some people didn't bother to read the whole thing?
Of course I read the whole thing. My point is that there is no legitimate reason to mention the 50 year figure at all. It's become such common practice for the media to report the sum of the maximum sentences for the class of charges brought even though it almost never has any reflection in reality. They obviously couldn't help themselves despite having the blatant contradiction in the very next phrase. They don't normally have the contradiction and so it is much more effective spin. I picked it out because it makes for a clear example of common bad practice.
The store owner should have simply asked the intruders to leave and then billed them for damages later.Is this the right way to proceed here?
Was it self defense?
Defending one's property?
Or is the fact that the shooter had a criminal past with restrictions against owning a gun all that matters?
Shot in back? Maybe not even inside store?
Thoughts?
There is no "right" way to proceed in such cases, only the least worst. Three lives have been messed up already and nothing is going to change that.
It isn't a fact though. Even without the prosecution recommendations, there was literally zero chance of him being sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. Even if it could happen, it would be grossly inconsistent with previous sentences for similar offences so immediately overturned on appeal. The only reason for including it in the article is because a 50-year sentence is more dramatic than a 5-year sentence and drama sells more papers and/or gets more hits. It's ultimately all about money.The legitimate reason might be because it's a fact.
I think you're blowing those few words way out of proportion.
Sure, but that doesn't solve anything. The dead are still dead, the injured are still injured and his life is just as messed up. I can't see such a no-win situation as having a right way. That's not the same as saying the outcome is wrong, I'm just not willing to celebrate it.Sure there is a right way.
He was in possession of a firearm.
He is a felon.
What is the problem?
No celebration at all.Sure, but that doesn't solve anything. The dead are still dead, the injured are still injured and his life is just as messed up. I can't see such a no-win situation as having a right way. That's not the same as saying the outcome is wrong, I'm just not willing to celebrate it.
Happened just that way down the street from me.Seems so simple. Just say he took the gun away from one of them in a scuffle and turned it on them when they attacked him.
Seems so simple. Just say he took the gun away from one of them in a scuffle and turned it on them when they attacked him.
They attacked him by running away (shot in the back)....and possibly outside of the store itself?????
possibly?
"Possibly" they were attacking him outside the store.
Wild shots in self defense when being attacked can hit anybody anywhere. Accidents happen.
Better than pleading guilty in this instance.
The 11 year old was surely a threat to his life.... :roll:
Robbery and "being attacked" are two very different things.
It's pretty obvious the shooter was not being attacked. It's also pretty obvious the kids robbing his store were trying to run away when shot and NOT attacking him.
I'm guessing since the shooter took the plea the evidence is STRONGLY against him.
I'd say robbery is an attack but whatever...
for pete's sake..I said he should have tried a different tack than pleading guilty and made a hypothetical suggestion of how he could have said he wrestled the gun from one of the robbers and shot him in self defense...a HYPOTHETICAL alternative to saying "Hi officer, I'm a convicted felon and this is my gun and I killed them on purpose"...jeeminy christmas..
The affidavit indicates Turner also fled the scene without calling police.
So you're all in favor of convicted felons telling lies to cover up killing children with illegally obtained guns? Nice.
Also I'm guessing the shooter didn't say anything like you suggest to the cops based on this:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?