The Gazette
At 17, Macyo January was too young to purchase a firearm. But according to police, that didn't keep him from stealing them.
Investigators on Wednesday said the gun used to kill Fort Carson Staff Sgt. David Dunlap and his wife Whitney Butler on Jan. 14 had been stolen from a nearby home a month earlier as part of a slew of burglaries allegedly committed by January.
The weapon - a Walther .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol - was taken Dec. 6 during a burglary, a quarter mile from where the newlyweds were slain by an intruder, Colorado Springs police detective Donald Chagnon testified on the second day of a multi-day hearing.
Police previously testified Dunlap and Butler were killed one at a time, after coming home from their respective jobs to check on a burglar alarm reported by ADT, their home security provider.
Whitney Butler and David Dunlap. (Facebook)
Butler and Dunlap each died of a single gunshot wound in what prosecutor Reggie Short described Wednesday as an "execution-style attack."
The gun evidence - made public for the first time Wednesday - came on a day of testimony in which El Paso County District Judge Deborah Grohs ruled that prosecutors have enough evidence to try January in the murders. The judge ruled that January also will face trial in a series of previously unsolved burglaries, including a disturbing crime in which a 71-year-old woman was beaten and robbed in her home twice in four months. January also is charged with a daytime burglary involving an assault on a 15-year-old girl home sick from school.
He was ordered held without bond.
Still to be decided is an issue that could have significant bearing on January's sentence, should he be convicted of the crimes.
January, who was 17 at the time of the killings, was charged as an adult in District Court where, if convicted, he faces a life sentence with the chance of parole after 40 years. Prosecutors fear that a transfer to Juvenile Court could shave years from his sentence.
Grohs is expected to decide the issue Thursday, when testimony is expected to conclude.
January, his legs shackled, sat impassively at the defense table during the hearing. He didn't turn to acknowledge those in the gallery, including his grandparents and relatives of the slain couple.
His first criminal conviction came at age 14, and after further disciplinary problems January landed in a series of custodial programs, including a substance abuse treatment center, a wilderness program designed to address "antisocial thinking," and ultimately a group home in Stratmoor Valley from which he escaped in September 2012, according to testimony.
January was adopted by his grandmother at a young age after his mother's parental rights were terminated because of "drug and alcohol issues," Cheney said. She also supervised probationary sentences against January's younger brother and older sister, she said.
Testimony is expected to continue at 8:30 a.m. Thursday.
I usually oppose trying youthful offenders as adults, but in this case I'm not so sure. To do so is tantamount to giving up on the kid in the hope of locking him up and throwing away the key. In this case that might just be the best option.
But, getting back to one of our favorite themes, do you think the owner of the gun, the victim of the theft by January has no part in this? Isn't it fair to inquire how the gun was stored and if the theft could have been prevented?
Isn't the fact that there are bad boys out there like Macyo January all the more reason why gun owners must be more responsible in the way they store their firearms at home?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
What's clear is that this idiot was a screw-up from early days. I doubt that forty years will be enough to straighten him out. Sending him to summer camp certainly didn't work.
ReplyDeleteMike, Not too long ago you even questioned the security of a gun store outfitted with alarms, video, and where at one point the burglar couldn't escape from at one point.
ReplyDeletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/05/north-carolina-teen-breaks-into.html
Perhaps we could take this a step further and suggest that the elderly lady and young girl bear some responsibility for not properly securing themselves and thereby preventing their assault. And certainly the parents of the girl should bear some responsibility also.
My guess is that the firearm was secured in this big gun vault called a home. And that someone, possibly Mr. January himself committed a felony to acquire the firearm. Keep in mind that this miscreant had progressed to the point that anyone who was unlucky enough to actually be in their homes when he decided to break into them, has earned themselves a beating, and in two cases being murdered.
And finally, where were the police in all of this? If the alarm company called the two murder victims, why weren't they called? I seem to recall, not long ago, you and possibly Laci that was saying that an alarm system was much better than a firearm for preventing these crimes? Not working real well.....
Good point on the security system. I was wondering the same thing about them responding rather than the police.
DeleteAs for Mike's statement about going after the gun's owner, he's shown in the past that regardless of the measures taken to secure guns, if they are defeated, especially by a minor, he doesn't think they're enough. No matter how much you spend, somebody can crack your security/safe and then Mike wants you stripped of rights and maybe jailed.
So, are those all good reasons to make it easier for guys like this to steal guns? Because no safe is 100% impervious to international safe crackers does that mean we should make it easy by keeping the gun in the night stand drawer?
DeleteThat's not what I'm arguing against. As I said back in the Safe Storage post, I encourage people to use safes--I oppose your advocacy for laws that hold them responsible for not having whatever a judge, who may be biased, determines to be "good enough" safes.
DeleteUnless people are constrained by law to do the right thing, your encouragements aren't doing enough. That's why a half-a-million guns are stolen a year. A federal law requiring guns to be safely stored in the home might cut that in half.
DeletePeople have the right to store their legally owned property in any way they see fit. The only person responsible in a theft is the thief.
DeleteAren't the thieves constrained by the law?
DeleteSince you've said that you want them "constrained by law" to use safes, I guess we're going to call this "Encouragement of Voluntary Safe Storage"?
DeleteAs for your actual point, I proposed language below that might be a way for you to clarify what you mean by safe storage.
Having a law such as that might reduce the number of thefts, maybe even by more than half. However, imposing the death penalty for stealing a gun or using it in a crime would also likely reduce gun thefts and gun crimes greatly.
I think how we go about fighting crime matters as much as the results. I would oppose the death penalty idea because it is using a severe punishment (in this case the most severe) to punish a less severe crime.
The reason I oppose your proposal is that I see the priority as being wrong--changing the focus from the thief who stole property to the owner who just lost his property. If he didn't make it hard to steal his property, whether by not locking up a gun or by not locking his car that was just stolen, the theft has punished him enough for his stupidity. The thief is the one responsible if he uses the gun in a robbery or sells it to another criminal so that he can rob people.
I would rather see enhanced penalties for people who steal guns and further enhanced penalties if they sell them to other criminals. (That being said, enhanced within reason--to a level that fits the crime, not exceeds it).
To TS's sarcastic question I'd say theft is already cut in half by the laws against it. Now we need to give gun owners the same motivation to do what they know they ought to do.
DeleteTo Greg's inanity I'd say yes, the thief is the only one responsible for the theft, but the gun owner is the only one responsible for the improper and unsafe storage of the gun.
An owner who stores his property in his property has every right to expect that others will leave it alone. You, Mikeb, have no business telling others how to keep their belongings.
DeleteI'm sure he just wanted their TV or something. Why didn't they just let him have it instead of shooting this misguided child! Your property is not worth the life of another!
ReplyDelete(Likely blog coverage had this worked out differently)
DeleteT., I think you're getting mixed up. He wasn't shot, he did the shooting.
DeleteYes he did. I was speculating on the coverage here had the 17 year old been shot when the home owner found him in their house with a gun. Did you not pick that up from the parenthetical?
DeleteAw now come on now Tenn, Mike will never honestly answer that.
DeleteThe truth is he is a Mr touchy feelie when it comes to criminals.....
And the stupidly liberal justice system continues the problem by sentencing his after the fact accomplice to a youth corrections program...
ReplyDeleteWe will surly see this mope on the crime has no consequences blotter in a few years just like his poor misunderstood hommie.
http://www.lakewyliepilot.com/2013/09/25/2087034/headlinedetails-emerge-in-double.html
A 19-year-old Colorado Springs man who tried to hide the murder suspect was sentenced Sept. 3 to three years in a youth corrections program. The man, Jerel Couch, pleaded guilty to accessory to burglary.
So how about it Mikey why is this ass not doing real hard prison time instead of youth corrections?
ReplyDeleteThomas,
DeleteMy guess is they flipped him and will be testifying against his buddy in return for the youth program. It will also give him some hope to survive by avoiding a real prison where being a snitch is a Capitol crime.
They could have flipped him and still sent him to three years in an "adult" prison, instead they played all soft and concerned about his juvi status (and since when is 19 not an adult)
DeleteThe prosecutors office should be held to account for crap sentencing...
I'm guessing they want him to plead and avoid a trial. As Mikeb has said, the justice system is into constant wheeling and dealing. Getting a plea deal is a sure thing.
DeleteNumbers came out earlier this year or last saying that between 90 and 94% of cases end in pleas (can't remember the exact percentage). There aren't enough Public defenders or prosecutors to give the cases the time they deserve to try them. We'd do better paying more salaries for them than for the guys sitting at the speed traps.
DeleteI'm sorry to disappoint you guys, and I apologize to my bleeding-heart friends, but I think this is an exception to my general rule of not trying kids as adults. This is a bad boy who's had too many chances already. I say, lock him up and throw away the key.
DeleteHere we agree, Mikeb, sort of. He should have been locked up a long time ago.
DeleteAh ah ah Mikey, I am not talking of this verminous little sack of excrement that is just now getting the prison sentence that he should have years ago, I am talking about the scumbag that harbored this filth,
DeleteShouldn't he be doing hard time in the state "pound him in the ass prison", not "3 to three years in a youth corrections program."
sounds like he is getting off easy with an expunged record after 3 years.
This is the classic case than gun owners use to talk about self-defense, but you always find a way to put a gun control spin on it, don’t you?
ReplyDeleteWithout any information on the theft you are automatically assuming capability on part of the gun owner. As I suspected and noted on the other thread, to you if a gun gets stolen that means it wasn’t stored good enough. I asked you about a specific example, but you didn’t answer (at least as of last time I checked). You said one can mount a small handgun box to the floor or wall. So, I’ll ask again using this scenario: a homeowner has one handgun. She buys a $100 handgun lockbox for storage. She mounts it to the wall next to her bed (screwed into the studs). A thief breaks into her home when she is not there. He walks into the bedroom and sees the box mounted to the wall (a lot easier to spot than if it were hidden). He takes the same crowbar he used to pry the front door open and tears it off the wall. He walks off carrying the gun box, a jewelry box, and a laptop. Should she be charged with your crime of “making a theft too easy”?
No.
DeleteMike,
DeleteThanks for answering TS's question. If that is your position, then your model "safe storage" law would need to reflect that in the language, perhaps defining "safe storage" as "storage in any locked container secured to the structure's wall or floor using screws or bolts, or by being built into a wall or floor; also storage within a safe or vault room."
I would still have an issue with the principle of charging someone for "making theft too easy," but your proposal would be far more reasonable, might convince more people, and wouldn't be susceptible to challenge as a backdoor way to price poor folk out of the gun market.
And what happens when that doesn't "drastically reduce" gun thefts? What I described is as easy to defeat as your average front door.
DeleteNot all burglars come equipped with crow bars and other tools. Many, perhaps most, are opportunistic thieves who take the path of least resistance. They would be thwarted by just about any kind of safe. They'd grab the jewelry and stereo and beat it.
DeleteAnd of gun thefts were reduced from 400,000 a year to 300,000 a year, you wouldn't call for more enhanced requirements?
DeleteThe above of course ignores the fundamental principle of supply and demand- that thieves will be sure to bring a crow bar (or use the tools that are in the house they just broke into) to be able to feed the black market as prices rise.
And what if the entire house is more secure than a box screwed into wood? If one puts bars on the windows and a good aftermarket security bolt, are they exempt from needing to also screw a box to a wall?
Your fear of the slippery slope is exaggerated. The speed limit for cars is a good comparison, if I may. It's reduced traffic fatalities but no one's demanding that we lower it to 35 mph, are they?
DeleteA balance will be found also with gun control vs. the freedom for qualified people to own and use guns. That's what most people want.
Your side's arguments would demand that we keep going down the slippery slope--after all, no matter how much we reduce deaths, gun thefts, whatever marker we're using, you will argue that you can cut them in half again by getting your way.
DeleteYou even acknowledge that you might want to take things further than your current proposal with your statement about eventually finding a balance.
But keep on saying we're lying and exaggerating. It's the only tactic you seem able to rely on.