Posted on 10/26/2003 4:41:29 AM PST by lifacs
Sunday, October 26
Teen pulling prank killed by neighbor
By Sarah Eisenhauer and Cynthia Kopkowski, Palm Beach Post Staff Writers Sunday, October 26, 2003
A birthday celebration capped off by an early-morning round of mischievous doorbell ringing ended in the death of a Boca Raton-area teenager early Saturday after a neighbor who believed his home was about to be burgled shot and killed the boy, deputies said.
Mark Andrew Drewes, a popular Pope John Paul II High School sophomore who celebrated his 16th birthday at a party Friday night, died from a single gunshot wound at Delray Medical Center. The shooting occurred shortly after 12:30 a.m. in the Woodbury neighborhood, a quiet, upper middle class neighborhood in the Boca Del Mar region.
The man who shot Drewes, Jay Steven Levin, 40, was not arrested, Palm Beach County sheriff's spokeswoman Diane Carhart said. Investigators questioned Levin at his home at 6115 Woodbury Road and collected evidence but did not take him into custody, Carhart said.
"He's a homeowner there," she said. "He was very cooperative."
The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office will review the evidence and determine whether Levin's actions were justifiable self-defense or grounds for criminal charges, spokesman Mike Edmondson said.
When Levin, a Palm Beach County businessman who lived alone, was awakened from his sleep by a knock at the door early Saturday, he armed himself with a handgun and answered it, deputies said. He told deputies he saw someone he believed was holding a weapon.
Levin fired one shot, hitting Drewes, according to deputies. The boy ran into a neighbor's yard and collapsed.
"He feared for his life," Carhart said of Levin, adding that the teenager was 6-feet-2 and 210 pounds. "So he's a big 16-year-old."
Gathered at a family member's home Saturday morning, Drewes' relatives disputed Levin's self-defense claim and said they were furious that he was not arrested and charged with a crime Saturday.
"How can they call that self-defense?" said a family member who asked not to be identified. "If they thought it was a burglar, what kind of burglar knocks?"
The previous night, the large family and a bunch of friends had gathered at the house on Woodbury, where the Drewes have lived for about 10 years, for birthday cake. The teenager had been eagerly looking forward to three things: his 16th birthday, when he would be able to trade in his learner's driving permit for the real thing; the family party; and his school's homecoming dance Saturday.
"It was such a good day," said his grandmother Patricia Drewes, who drove from her Stuart home for the birthday party. "He was so happy. He told me it was the best day of his life."
Throughout the evening Friday, Drewes and his friends darted back and forth between his home and the fall festival at nearby St. Jude Catholic Church and school, where he graduated from eighth grade two years ago.
About 11:30 p.m., Drewes and a friend decided to go for a walk, family members said.
"They were playing knock on the door and run," said one family member. "They were being silly. They weren't bad kids."
Family members said the teen who was with Drewes told them he was not holding anything in his hand.
Investigators did not find a weapon on the victim, Carhart said. They confiscated Levin's handgun as evidence, she said.
Carhart said ringing doorbells and running is not generally considered to be a crime.
Family contends teen was shot in back
The sheriff's office would not release the name of the teenager who was with Drewes Saturday morning. Nor would it confirm the family's assertion that morgue officials told them Saturday afternoon that Drewes was shot in the back.
Carhart said the sheriff's office did not know when an autopsy was to take place.
A shirtless and red-eyed Levin answered the door to his neatly landscaped home Saturday morning, but said only, "I can't talk to you," in response to a reporter's questions.
State records show Levin ran his own business called Caxin Consulting Inc. from his home since 2001. He filed papers dissolving that corporation in August. Before that, he was listed as president of two other businesses, which are now inactive, the Halifax Group Inc. and L&L Accounting Inc.
Levin has a concealed weapons permit, according to state records.
He has lived at 6115 Woodbury, which has a market value of $195,000, since December 1996, according to county property appraiser records. It's on the next block from the Drewes home, several houses up the street.
Levin's doorbell was not the only one the boys rang Saturday morning. Residents up and down the 6100 block of Woodbury reported being awakened by ringing doorbells and knocks shortly after midnight. Most said they sloughed it off or answered the door, found nobody there and went back to bed. But a second round of frantic pounding and shouting from Drewes' friend minutes later caught their attention.
"It was pounding, pounding," said Lauren Hahn, one of several residents who talked to the boy through her front door, then called 911. "He said 'Call 911. My friend's been shot.' He was hysterical."
Droopy-eyed neighbors repeated the same story as they gathered Saturday morning in small groups up and down the block, some just a few yards away from blood stains where Drewes fell.
Carol Quiroga, who lives across the street from Levin, heard nothing outside as she made her way to bed minutes before the shooting -- no arguing, no scuffling. A loud "pop," broke the silence, followed by someone saying calmly, "Call 911" once, then again, she said. What sounded like a boy's voice came next, saying "Help. I need help."
She expressed the same disbelief shared by Drewes' family and several neighbors.
"What is so important that you are defending that you need a gun?" said Quiroga, the mother of two teenage boys, before breaking into tears.
"Teenage boys do things like that," she said.
Determining whether Levin's actions were protected by the state's self-defense laws now falls to State Attorney Barry Krischer's office. Someone can use force to protect his home if he think it's being burgled, Edmondson said, but it can only equal the force he's being threatened by.
And that law doesn't generally protect homeowners who use deadly force against someone coming into their yards or on their sidewalks, Edmondson said. That's considered trespassing.
"A trespass would not constitute a breach of someone's safety," he said.
If Krischer's office determines that Levin acted legally, the case is closed, Edmondson said. If the state attorney believes it was an unjustified killing, worthy of a second-degree murder charge or a lesser offense, he will charge Levin. If the evidence isn't clear-cut and could point to a first-degree murder charge, then Krischer will refer it to the grand jury, Edmondson said.
A man in Louisiana was cleared of wrongdoing in 1993 after he shot a Halloween-costumed Japanese exchange student knocking on his door looking for a party in 1992. He turned himself in after a grand jury had indicted him on charges of manslaughter in the killing of Yoshihiro Hattori of Nagoya, Japan. Hattori's friend testified in the trial that he was carrying a camera when they knocked on Rodney Peairs' door.
A shattered Drewes family Saturday described Mark as an A student and soccer player, the type of kid who easily made friends with just about everyone he met. More relatives from Brazil are expected to arrive today, along with Mark's father, Gregory, who is captain of a private yacht and was in France Saturday.
Many of Drewes' classmates would learn of his death at Pope John Paul II High's homecoming dance Saturday night, said the Rev. Guy Fiano, the school's president. Counselors were scheduled to be on hand at the dance and Monday at the school, a Catholic private school attended by 925 students, including 250 in Drewes' sophomore class. A prayer service is planned Monday for the "very well loved" student, Fiano said.
"It's very, very sad," he said. "I think it's going to be a very stressful week."
Student called 'very polite, very respectful'
Word began to spread Saturday morning through St. Jude's festival, a few blocks from where the shooting occurred. Standing amid the cotton candy vendors and whirling carnival rides, several attendees recalled the slain teenager as friendly and well-liked.
Classmate Danielle Denofa, 16, put her hand over her mouth and gasped when she heard the news.
"He was really nice," said Denofa, who attended YMCA teen camp with Drewes this summer. "I can't believe that happened."
Tracy McCarver, who taught Drewes math at St. Jude Catholic School, remembered him as a "very polite, very respectful" youngster with "a good sense of humor."
After this afternoon's youth Mass at St. Jude, members of his Life Teen group, a faith-based social organization, are expected to attend a special meeting, said Kevin Cleary, the church's religious education director and youth minister.
"Everyone's in a state of shock because of the senselessness of it," he said. "He was a boy's boy."
He called Drewes a "delightful" young man who could be relied on to help with every pancake breakfast, raffle and car wash that cropped up on his youth group's schedule. Before every Sunday night Life Teen meeting, Drewes was there setting up tables, Cleary said. When they ended, Drewes stayed to clean up.
"He was a beautiful, beautiful boy," said his aunt, Renata Piza. "He goes to church every week. He was so excited about turning 16."
Grandmother Drewes said he always greeted her on the phone by saying, "I love you, Nana."
"He's what you'd call the ideal son, just too good to be true," she said. "If there was some way I could understand this. It was so pointless."
sarah_eisenhauer@pbpost.com,cynthia_kopkowski@pbpost.com
No. But I don't think it applies in this case. Prior to purchase yes, after purchase, no.
Before the 1968 GCA, many states such as mine, CA, did have mandatory safety training for minors, over 12 years and under 18, to receive "Hunter Safety Training" before they could be issued a hunting license. The NRA was the state mandated organization named to provide that training. No one, in those days objected. Least of all, the parents.
What some of you are trying to imply is that there was no gun control before the '68 GCA or the Brady Bill, but there was. We controlled ourselves. We feared our Dad's more than the sheriff. A gun store owner could refuse to sell a firearm and he wouldn't be sued. Now he would be. Now it is the movies and other children that teach children how to, or rather how not to, handle guns. I consider ignorance to be a real "infringement" on my rights.
Among those of us that hunt, the unsafe were shunned and not invited hunting the next year. I don't think it is infringement if the other hunters along the slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are trained in the safe use of a hunting rifle. Quite frankly, it is your duty to yourself and your family, other hunters AND the 2nd. Amendment that you do seek training. I know you'll disagree with that, but two of my hunting partners are now watching this post, over my shoulder on this computer at my office, and are moving their heads in agreement.
I do not believe the 2nd Amendment applies to children, period. To shoot a gun is a privilege afforded to a child by the childs parents. When the child is an adult, 18 or 21, the 2nd Amendment applies. If you have a problem with age, or "Maturity Qualifications", take it up with the Constitution. It sets the age at being able to represent your neighbors in Congress at 25yrs and your state in the Senate at 30yrs. Oh, and since "Everyone can grow up to be President", any Natural citizen cannot do that until they are at least 35 years old. Is that "infringement"? I don't think so, I think it is the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
Do you also support state-mandated potty training?
For you, personally? Yes!
You're obviously unaware of the large numbers of home invasions, murders, robberies, and rapes that are iniated by a knock at the door.
A prudent man or woman would not only be prepared for such scenarios, but prepared to prevail should they occur.
Likewise, a prudent man or woman would extend common-sense courtesies to others when at their door. This includes hands out of pockets, and standing several feet back from the door.
Crowding the door, or pretending (cognizantly or not) to have a hidden object, is asking for trouble.
//////////////////////////
Perhaps you should also investigate LITERACY training? In the VERY post to which you were responding with this gross distortion of my view of gun-safety training, I had already posted the following for ALL to see:
Training is not an infringement -- and no one I know ever said it was, so your post is inaccurate at best.
In fact, training is our friend.
However, MANY of us say (and correctly, so) that state-mandated training requirements are an infringement.
"Sorry about the rant, I just needed to say that.
If us ol' geezers want to push that pendulum back, it is time to start befriending and mentoring the younger generation, not viewing them with unwarranted derision and suspicion."
--------------------------------------------------------
Nice rant....
Can't say that I disagree with much of anything you said.....
Best FRegards,
But there are laws against harassment.
BTW, a wall which minors like to climb could end up being an "attractive nuisance" and become a liability. Check into that. Anyone who has had a child climb their motorcycle unbidden should be familiar with the term.
What I fail to understand in all this is why the guy didn't arm himself with something really good like a Streetsweeper. You pop a round into the chamber on that sucker and they'll stand up at attention and await your next command.
The Streetsweeper was classified as a "destructive device" under BATF rules when Lloyd Bentsen was Secretary of the Treasury (which ran BATF until recently). It more closely resembles an oversized revolver, with a 'wheel' type magazine, than any conventional shotgun. Loading the firearm is innocuous enough, operating it is, by all accounts a definite attention-getter. It was designed to put a lot of lead pellets either in the air at a mass of rioters, or better, to skip those shot off of the pavement into the advancing mob, usually trying to hit them in the legs. Rate of fire is fast enough to sweep from one side of an urban street to the other before the mob has advanced very far, hence the name "Streetsweeper". Facing only a couple of riot patrol police with these would generally give a mob second thoughts. To my knowledge, the weapon is South African in origin.
If you mean the distinctive noise a pump shotgun makes when racking the slide, that might be a deterrent--as might be the distinctive sound of a semi-automatic pistol slide going into battery--or if Law Enforcement came calling (wrong address-no knock warrant) you just might get yourself killed.
It appears you would bet all your chips on passive defense items, which is your right. Maybe walls, signs, and locked gates are appropriate where you live.
Criminals, Mad Dogs, children, and lunatics are notoriously bad at reading signs and following directions.
Walls and high fences are not appropriate where I live, and can create a hazard in winter. I have the means to defend myself when needed. My wife can do so as well, without the need to hide behind walls other than those of our home. To date, we have not had to kill anyone (nor have we done so).
Often, a pistol bullet is survivable, depending on placement and the type of bullet used. A shotgun at close range is devastating.
Your posts seem antagonistic toward using firearms for defense. Not everyone can afford walls, locked gates and private security.
In the case of this event, there may well have been an inappropriate use of a firearm--with tragic results. The courts will have to sort this out. They can get the facts and act appropriately.
In literally millions more instances each year, firearms are used in self defense, more often than not without requiring a shot to be fired. The mere presence of the firearm in the hands of the potential victim is sufficient deterrent.
Review my posts. You will find that I have repeatedly stated that the person who did the shooting may well have been in the wrong, but that we do not have the full picture.
Apparently, the local Law Enforcement folks did not see the need to arrest the shooter or file charges at the time, which says there was at least some significant question in their minds about whether the shooting was unjustified.
It seems you would hold all firearms owners responsible for this event.
If a drunk runs over someone's 5 year-old at three AM, would you blame all drinkers? all drivers? or would you wonder what the 5-year-old was doing in the street at 3 AM?
Whatever extenuating circumstances are involved, the simple fact remains, the kid would be alive today if the kid hadn't been screwing around the guy's house at all.
Inasmuch as I am a hardcore defender of the Second Amendment, I am not sure where you are coming from.
Have you heard my use of the First, Second and Third as a demonstration that the Founders looked to French history as their rationale for the Bill of Rights? Taken together those three amendments even support the idea that the Founders were desirous of protecting America as a "Protestant", not just "Christian" nation.
In the interest of clearing up some misconception, I'd like you to cite the post where I said that.
As for defending the Second Amendment, show me where I have not.
As for 'victims', I see firearms as a means of preventing one from joining their ranks. While that does not stop good, honest, people from becoming victims through the criminal use of firearms, it does level the playing field somewhat. If this six foot, two hundred pound 'child' was harassing or even terrorizing someone, then he placed himself in harm's way. While I cannot argue (in absence of the facts) that the punishment is in any way appropriate for the crime, the fact remains that if the 'child' had not been there, he would not have been killed.
Certain legal constraints have been applied to the use of deadly force, at a minimum, these should be observed. Consider them Rules of Engagement.
As others have pointed out (and I agree), just because the legal parameters are met, there is not necessarily sufficient moral cause to use lethal force. Beyond the legalities, moral or other issues may apply, depending on the individuals involved.
This in no way abrogates the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, merely urges the responsible use of those arms.
As for Christianty being a founding force in the formation of this nation, the fact is pretty obvious when one considers that several colonies were founded to escape religious persecution, by Catholic and Protestant denominations alike. The Magna Carta and English (pre- and post-Anglican)Common Law were definite factors in the attitude of the Founders toward individual rights, even though those rights were not conferred on everyone equally.
You might not consider the "kid" a "potential victim", although he was (because it's quite clear he became a "victim"). If he'd had a firearm, as you suggest, would that have prevented his assailant from firing on him?
In a few days we will hear more about this case.
We didn't have to wait a few days. Here's the article about the coroner reporting, FUR SHUR, that the kid was SHOT IN THE BACK.
Whole 'nuther story. Guy's going to have to prove some stuff he's not likely to be able to prove.
God have mercy on his soul.
Like any other tool, it can be abused or used for evil purposes in the wrong hands. People have been killed with hammers, wrenches, ice picks, even a leg of mutton (and that before it was cooked).
Anyone who claims to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment should not need this spelled out for them.
In North Dakota, where I live, anyone engaged in criminal activity loses their ability to claim victimhood if they suffer injury in the process, by State Law. I am not familliar with Florida law.
We do not know (nor will we from the article posted) whether this was a lone incident, or just one more in a string of harassment. We do not know if the homeowner had other reasons to fear for his life, death threats, etc. which were unrelated to the kid. As far as victimhood goes, the fact remains that if the kid had not been screwing around on the guy's doorstep, he would have not been shot. That appears to be the first in a series of bad decisions which led to his death. Actions have consequences.
Now, before you twist that, I am not defending either party in this case. It appears, especially in view of your second post, that both were wrong, just one has paid more heavily for it at this point. What consequences they will have for the homeowner remain in the hands of the courts, but at the least, he can expect to lose everything he has unless he can mount an impressive defense.
Regardless of the actions of the persons involved, I still strongly believe that being armed is the first and best defense against the violent criminal element, and I will continue to embrace that responsibility.
From the article:
"A 16-year-old boy killed during a seemingly innocent late-night prank was shot in the back, according to emergency room records.
Please note, that this is not an autopsy (Coroner's report), but is more in the form of a press release by the attorney for the family, who has stated intent to file a wrongful death suit.
Also from the article: Levin has not been charged in the shooting. His attorney, Bo Hitchcock, did not immediately return a phone message Sunday. Mike Edmondson, spokesman for Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer, declined to comment on the hospital report.
While I'm content to wait and see what the coroner says, but I am also willing to admit it'd be really hard to mix up entry and exit wounds.
If this is the case, and the guy back-shot him, Guy's going to have to prove some stuff he's not likely to be able to prove. and God have mercy on his soul. are two statements I sure can't argue with.
In his straits, I'd get the best lawyer money can buy, too.
It is up the courts, now.
Ballistics probably won't tell much, per se, but wound channel angle might, powder burns (if present), location of the bullet either inside or outside of the body (if recovered and if a through and through wound with little or no deflection off of skeletal elements).
Blood and tissue distribution in the grass/on the sidewalk, etc. from an exit wound could provide the location at the time of the shooting, and to some degree the angle of the shot. (Warm climate, wait a day and watch for flies--they'll locate the meaty bits.)
Anyway, Levin's world, and life is on the line here. He's going to figure if he stays out of prison, he can relocate and work to pay the bills, whatever they are.
I have to believe that the prosecutor selected charges which have some likelyhood of producing a conviction or which they deem appropriate to the offense. Mitigating circumstances might include an unrelated death threat or other factors we will not read about in the papers. Keep in mind that most newspapers are owned by media outlets which are anti-gun and which are perfectly willing to hang any CCW permit holder (even though he probably didn't need a permit in his home), just to further the 'Dodge City' myth.
I own a bodyshop. At 11:30 pm one night, I heard a knocking at my front door. I jumped out of bed and grabbed a small .22 handgun. I answered the door. There was a black man standing there. The first thing he tried to do, was take a step into my house. I showed him my gun, and he was startled and stepped back. To make a long story short, it was a man I had given an estimate to , 2 weeks prior to this. He wanted to talk about fixing his car.
I told him to leave and find someone else to repair his car. No way I wanted to work on a guys car that would pull a stunt like this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.