Brandon Ross Charged With Murder After Police Fatally Shoot 15-Year-Old Companion

A 16-year-old boy has been charged with murder after a Chicago police officer fatally shot his 15-year-old friend Wednesday on the South Side.

Brandon Ross and his friend Tatioun Williams allegedly robbed a man at gunpoint in the 7000 block of South Cregier Avenue Wednesday evening, and were confronted by police officers a short time later, the Chicago Tribune reports.

When the officers told the teens to stop, Williams, who was holding the gun, allegedly turned in the officer's direction, Fox Chicago reports. Fearing for her life, the officer shot the 15-year-old, killing him.

"They could have taken him to jail, they could have done anything but taken his life," Williams' mother told the Tribune Thursday.

Under state law, police can charge someone with murder when an accomplice is killed during the commission of a crime. Even though Ross didn't pull the trigger, he was charged as an adult with murder and armed robbery. He was ordered held on $900,000 bail Friday.

The teens allegedly took a wallet and iPod from a 27-year-old man before the shooting.

Comments

[Tao21Zen]

10:21 AM on 07/21/2011

Follow up to this account:

The Chicago Tribune's Jason Meisner ran a follow-up story regarding the Tatioun Williams incident, reporting that Williams' friend, 16 year old Brandon Ross, has been charged with felony murder and armed robbery. The story quotes the 27 year old robbery victim as praising the police, saying "they did an excellent job" and "if they respond as speedy as they did yesterday that could cut down on criminals getting away." Thank you Mr. Robbery Victim. Despite the fact that the robbery victim said Williams pointed a gun in his face during the robbery, the police officers said Williams pointed a gun at them when they ordered him to stop, and a gun was recovered at the scene, along with the robbery victim's wallet and ipod, and Brandon Ross has given the police a videotaped statement admitting he and Williams plotted the subject armed robbery, the Chicago Tribune continues to quote Lois Pickett, Williams' mother, as saying Williams would never carry a gun. Really? So, the robbery victim and police are making all this up? They planted the gun? Give it a break Chicago Tribune.

http://goo.gl/8OQjv

[Tao21Zen]

10:11 AM on 07/21/2011

having re-read the story I am drawn to the statement "and were confronted by police officers a short time later." I will concede that I believe the time interval between the robbery and the confrontation with officers is important. If it was in fact a very short time, saw within seconds or minutes, then I see this as an extension of the robbery situation and yes, this kid deserves felony murder for being a willing participant in the robbery and its aftermath.

If it was, say, hours after the robbery was over and this was a post robbery investigation, I could see the teen not being a "willing participant" to the act of his friend pulling a firearm on police.

But, with the limited information I have so far, I tend to want to side with the police on this one.

[ElmCreekSmith]

09:49 AM on 07/21/2011

["They could have taken him to jail, they could have done anything but taken his life," Williams' mother told the Tribune Thursday.]

Have to get past the part where he was turning towards the police officer with a gun in his hand before you could take him to jail, mom.

Glad to see that Illinois has the same Felony Murder law as Oklahoma.

ECS

[Tao21Zen]

10:16 AM on 07/21/2011

"They could have taken him to jail, they could have done anything but taken his life," Williams' mother told the Tribune Thursday."

Also, he could have done anything but used a firearm to victimize someone else (the person he robbed) and then anything but turn the firearm on the police.

It is funny how the family of criminals always blame police for taking their criminal's life and at the same time NEVER acknowledge his or her responsibility for victimizing others.

[Tao21Zen]

09:34 AM on 07/21/2011

Typically when someone gets killed and a firearm is involved there are calls from the anti-gun crowd for more gun control. The pro-gun side responds saying that current laws are not being enforced, no new gun control laws would have prevented this type of tragedy and that what is needed is stricter sentencing for criminals so they are not able to offend.

Well guess what. This is a case where the pro-gun side is absolutely correct. Here you have criminals illegally carrying firearms is one of the nations strictest anti-gun areas, using these firearms to victimize the innocent, and even turns his firearm on a police officer. As a result, one of the criminals victimizing the innocent is shot dead by police and his accomplice is charged with the killing.

This is win for the pro-gun side. It is sad that so many are complaining about this outcome. I wonder just how many out there complaining that one criminal low life is dead and the other is being charge with his murder are anti-gun supporters that would otherwise support more new anti-gun laws punishing the law abiding for the actions of these criminals.

[Sambal Badjak]

01:45 PM on 06/25/2011

Why anyone would choose to side with the criminals is beyond me? The police could shoot them both dead or if the man they were robbing was carrying a weapon, he could have shot them both. In the end, it may be sad that some morons had to die, but the quality of society would be better without either of them as part of it.

Bleeding hearts, the overly politically correct and sympathizers are ruining this once great country.

[LouGots]

06:25 AM on 06/19/2011

Here we go again with another felony murder case.

Different states handle this issue differently. My state, Pennsylvania, requires that the death be a criminal homicide committed by the defendant or an accomplice.. Police or victim justifiable shootings do not quality.

If anyone doesn't like his or her's state's rule, get it changed. Personally, I think Pennsylvania's rule makes more sense in terms of causation, although the Illinois rule has foreseeability going for it.

[ao78]

01:57 PM on 06/16/2011

This is disgusting and sad. We have several young men on trial in Jacksonville right now under nearly identical circumstances. Tried to rob someone, cop shot one of them, now the (unarmed) accomplices are on trial for murder along with a laundry list of charges related to the death of their friend. How is that justice? The charges for crimes they actually committed is enough to put them away for a long time. It's sad to see this is a trend beyond Florida and makes me question the strength of the original charges when law enforcement feels the need to CYA to this extent.

[Tao21Zen]

09:48 AM on 07/21/2011

"The charges for crimes they actually committed is enough to put them away for a long time."

No they aren't. For a number of reason criminals are constantly given light sentences and/or only doing fractions of the actual sentences they receive. The prison system is a revolving door for criminals. If this wasn't the case, there would be no need for enhanced mandatory sentencing like 3-strikes laws, felony murder laws, etc.

"How is that justice?"

That is the "justice" that law abiding innocent people, tired of being victimized by pathetic criminal low lives, has called for. It called "protecting the community." Harsh sentences like this could serve as a deterrent to others, but at the very least, it takes a violent career criminal off the streets, saving potential future victims.

Some would even call it Karma. This is one criminal that has probably victimized a long list of innocent people, now he gets to reap his rewards for those life choices.

[LCaseyK]

11:37 AM on 06/08/2011

"They could have taken him to jail." When? After he used the gun to fire at one of the police officers? Sorry, but the use of a gun in a crime is an invitation to be shot by police responding to the crime. It's a shame that this 16 year old won't live to see his 17th birthday, but only because taking a human life is not something to be taken lightly. The bigger shame is that his parents never taught him right from wrong and that he chose to place himself in the position to be shot. My sympathy really goes to the police officer who found himself in the untenable position of having to take a life to protect his own and others.

[Dr Arthur Ide]

11:40 AM on 06/05/2011

Brandon Ross (age 16) and his friend Tatioun Williams (15) allegedly robbed a man at gunpoint then the fifteen year old turned the gun on a police officer. Justifiably the police officer killed Williams for the crime of attempted murder. In keeping with the law, Ross is to be charged for murder as an accessory. This is just and right and fair. When any person attempts to kill another, that person forfeights his or her life, and those who help him or her are accessories and should be executed. That has been the law since the days of Hammurabi, and it is right and good. I hope that the 16 year old gets as a minimum life in prison, but he should be executed.

[anti politricks]

04:35 PM on 06/06/2011

a 16 year old boy should not charged with murder WHEN HE DIDN'T KILL ANYONE.

if the officer shot both children dead, you would come up with some excuse to cover her again.

[LibertarianJon]

09:58 AM on 06/07/2011

I wouldn't have been opposed to the officer shooting both of them if they were both armed, and threatening. Lock up criminals and throw away the key, age doesn't matter.

[LCaseyK]

11:33 AM on 06/08/2011

BUT HE CAUSED SOMEONE TO BE KILLED. If he didn't start off this chain of events by setting out to rob someone with a gun, then his friend would not have been shot. He is responsible for his friend's death by joining him in a robbery with a gun.

[lawman69]

11:57 AM on 06/09/2011

You might not have heard, but the law has actually gotten a bit more civilized over the course of the last four thousand years.

Also, just to point out what should be obvious, the kid in question *did not* at any time actually "attempt to kill another."

[LorenK1]

11:49 PM on 06/09/2011

I don't follow your reply. The concept of felony murder is actually something that has arisen in the last 150 years. The young man participated in a robbery in which a gun was used, armed violence. Under the rules of felony murder, if someone is killed as a result, regardless of whether that weapon fired the fatal shot, the young man is responsible for that death, a "but for" test, but for his use of the weapon in the commission of a crime, a person would not have been killed.

[arachne646]

09:25 PM on 06/04/2011

Cops in the US are less well paid and less well trained than in Canada and in Europe. Canadian police face unknown situations in multiethnic urban areas and are expected to be able to use their words and brains before tasers when dealing with a non-physical or pre-physical threat. This teenager was not necessarily shot by the police officer in self-defense, but because he was in possession of a gun, the officer's right action will be unquestioned in court, as it almost always is. Society expects a lot of its police; only part of any society gets it. Well-screened, trained and compensated officers also need a structure that reviews and investigates incidents of violence with the public for the officers' well-being and an objective view of police conduct.

[cresudek]

07:58 PM on 06/01/2011

What an asinine law that is. Charged with murdering someone you didn't even kill or get someone else to kill.

[LCaseyK]

11:31 AM on 06/08/2011

No, it is not asinine. There are consequences that can reasonably be expected when you commit a felony. One of those is that someone could get shot. He could have avoided that consequence by not committing the felony, but chose to do so. Holding him responsible for all consequences of his actions is appropriate, since he set in motion the ultimate end.

[cresudek]

11:59 AM on 06/08/2011

It is stupid. He didn't pull the trigger, he didn't pay someone to kill the guy. If the guy hadn't gone along, he wouldn't have died.

[Tao21Zen]

10:28 AM on 07/21/2011

He is a criminal that participated in an armed act of victimizing an innocent person. His act of participating in that makes his responsible for both that act and the immediate aftermath that followed. Sorry, criminals know the laws they break as I am sure they have friend or know others that have been charged in a similar fashion and, knowing the law and what they could face, they still choose to commit their crimes. So yes, they should pay the price.

[Monk2001]

01:41 PM on 05/31/2011

The comment section boils down to a decision on a police state. AND those who are obviously in full support of it. How far sighted they are......

[LCaseyK]

11:28 AM on 06/08/2011

It has nothing to do with a police state and everything to do with the reasonably expected consequences of your actions. This young man chose to go rob someone with a gun. A reasonably expected consequence of that act is that the gun will be used or someone may use a gun to stop him. Since he intended to use the gun in the commission of a crime, the law holds him responsible for all reasonable consequences of that act even if he did not do it himself. He should not have started the chain of events if he did not want to be responsible for the reasonably expected consequence.

[Jason N]

02:37 PM on 06/08/2011

"This young man chose to go rob someone with a gun. A reasonably expected consequenc­e of that act is that the gun will be used or someone may use a gun to stop him. Since he intended to use the gun in the commission of a crime, the law holds him responsibl­e for all reasonable consequenc­es "

Might wanna try reading. The one who had the gun was the one who was shot.

[Tao21Zen]

10:33 AM on 07/21/2011

I am in more support of the person being robbed having a legally armed firearm and he being the one to takes the life of this criminal dirt bad.

It really upsets me when areas ban citizens from having the means to defend themselves, forcing them to have to rely on police; and then, when the police are able to intercede, the police are criticized as being too harsh on these criminals.

[AMlegion]

12:49 PM on 05/31/2011

Its never good when a kid dies so young.
They are old enough there to realize what kind of situation they put themselves into.
The murder charge is rough. did he try and stop his buddy from truning towrads the cop with his gun? If he did the cop would not have been thranted enough to pull the trigger. He could have controlled his own murder charge.
I hope the officer can sleep with a clear conscience.

[Tao21Zen]

10:38 AM on 07/21/2011

"Its never good when a kid dies so young."

Unless the "kid" is a violent criminal that has and would other wise continue to victimize others.

"I hope the officer can sleep with a clear conscience­."

Yeah, his conscious should be torn up for removing a violent criminal from society and thus making society just a little bit safer.

Some on people. THESE ARE VIOLENT CRIMINALS THAT VICTIMIZE THE INNOCENT. if they can't live peacefully within society and its laws then I have no problem with them being removed from society.

[Kenneth D Price]

10:44 AM on 05/31/2011

The title should have read "Shot" vs "Shoot". In-fact, read the first paragraph.

[senor boogie woogie]

08:07 PM on 05/30/2011

Hello, my fist post!

Felony murder laws are BS and all this person should be charged with is the armed robbery. The crime should only pertain to the criminal's own actions, or the actions of his partner. If the partner kills everyone in the room during the robbery, yes, the non killing partner should face the same penalty of murder. But having a cop kill your partner (self defense or not) and hanging the killing on the other criminal is again, BS.

I am not necessarily against charging the partner with a crime of death of the other partner, but with possibly a 5-10 year penalty. If two crackheads rob a liquor store with pellet guns, the intent is not to hurt anyone. Why should Crackhead Number 2 pay with life behind bars if a cop kills Crackhead 1, mistaking a pellet gun for the real thing? If nothing else, felony murder laws allow the officers to act recklessly and blame their mistakes on the perpetrator. See the problem?

[still hopeful at 55]

09:46 PM on 05/30/2011

so if i have no intent to hurt anyone, why do i have a gun?

[David Carson]

12:27 AM on 05/31/2011

collecting of historically interesting firearms, self defense, competition etc

[From my cold dead hands]

11:41 PM on 05/30/2011

There is no problem. If you point guns at other people to commit a crime, then ANY deaths that occur as a result of that are your fault. If two bozos rob a liquor store and convince the proprietor that they are using real guns, and one of the bozos gets shot and killed by the proprietor or anyone else, how is that the fault of anyone but the bozos?

[lawman69]

12:01 PM on 06/09/2011

That's idiotic. Some events are direct outcomes of one's actions, and some events are beyond one's control. There's no point whatsoever in holding someone criminally responsible for events that spun out of his control. Charge him with armed robbery, sure. Murder? No.