Leonard Boswell, Iowa Congressman, Fights Off Armed Home Intruder

DES MOINES, Iowa — A home invasion at Rep. Leonard Boswell's Iowa farm ended when his 22-year-old grandson fetched a shotgun and aimed it at the intruder, according to a statement from the congressman's office. No one was seriously injured.

The incident started about 10:45 p.m. Saturday when an armed man came in through the front door, attacked Boswell's daughter, Cindy Brown, and demanded money, the statement said. Boswell, 77, heard his daughter's screams, came into the entryway and attempted to disarm the intruder.

As they struggled, Boswell's grandson, Mitchell Brown, got a shotgun from another room. When he pointed the shotgun at the intruder, the man fled into the fields around the house outside Lamoni.

Boswell's wife, Dody Boswell, 75, also was home during the attack. His spokesman Grant Woodard said the whole family is safe and unhurt, aside from some scrapes and bruises.

The family is shaken up, but "they're dealing with it pretty well," Woodard said Sunday morning.

He deferred other questions to the Decatur County Sheriff's Office, which is investigating along with the FBI and other agencies. The office said Sunday that there have been no arrests. Sheriff Herbert Muir wasn't available for further comment.

Boswell, a Democrat, has represented Iowa's 3rd District for eight terms in Congress. He is expected to face a challenge next year from Republican Rep. Tom Latham, who is moving into the district to avoid running against Republican Rep. Steve King after their territories were merged during once-per-decade redistricting that follows each census.

Iowa is going from five to four congressional seats because its population growth hasn't kept pace with the rest of the nation. The new 3rd District will include Des Moines and 16 counties in southwest Iowa.

Comments

[hagagaga]

04:03 PM on 07/24/2011

And this is why the Second Amendment is a wonderful thing.

[Rory Canfield]

11:08 AM on 07/21/2011

Good for Boswell and his grandson, could've gone a lot worse if they waited for the LEO's to show up or hope for the intruder to be considerate enough to leave without incident. From current news reports the actual intruder is considered to be "transient" in the area.

[Diana Arends]

02:38 PM on 07/20/2011

We are excited because our/Ringgold County Iowa's K-9 Murphy was the "dog" used to track the suspects in the Leonard Boswell home invasion. We are very proud of him & Shannon Arends, the K-9 handler. We invite everyone to become a fan of K-9 Murphy at http://www.facebook.com/groups/146251802872
Thanks!!

[QuietProfessional]

12:20 PM on 07/19/2011

All the intruder wanted was money. (Article says that's all he asked for.) Probably down on his luck and out of a job thanks to George Bush, Cheney/Halliburton, and global warming's destruction of the Iowa farm economy.

The granddaughter should have just handed the cash over instead of making such a fuss. Nothing worth anyone get shot over.

/sarc

[Ohio9]

06:31 PM on 07/19/2011

Glad to see you are capable of reading the minds of armed home invaders. Sadly the rest of us don't have that ability.

The bad guy was driven off and nobody got hurt. You can't ask for a better outcome.

[Andy Osinski]

09:33 PM on 07/19/2011

"The incident started about 10:45 p.m. Saturday when an armed man came in through the front door, attacked Boswell's daughter, Cindy Brown, and demanded money, the statement said."
That's DEMANDED, not asked. When you ask someone for something, you don't preface the request by attacking a member of their family.

[Squiriferous]

12:17 AM on 07/19/2011

Leonard Boswell probably just became a right wing Republican overnight. LOL.

[IceBergAhead]

12:49 AM on 07/19/2011

uhhhh... His daughter and family are safe confused squiri liberal...

[EmilyU]

11:18 AM on 07/19/2011

According to reports, he already has an "A" rating from the NRA and is pro-gun and pro-Second Amendment rights.

[Squiriferous]

12:16 PM on 07/19/2011

I mean the attacker is almost certainly on public assistance. Which Democrats usually support. He might be turning a jaundiced eye on these very nice, unrealistic policies that put dangerous thugs on the street and enable them.

[Tao21Zen]

03:09 PM on 07/19/2011

"According to reports, he already has an "A" rating from the NRA and is pro-gun and pro-Second Amendment rights."

And this is what probably kept his situation from turning into a tragedy with lives taken by the armed criminals and calls for more gun control laws.

[ikidunot]

08:10 PM on 07/18/2011

If there's a "hero" here, it's the 22-year-old grandson who got a shotgun and aimed it at the intruder, who then fled.

I'm not entirely sure that waving peace symbol at him would have done the job

[IceBergAhead]

12:52 AM on 07/19/2011

No, but maybe ho;ding up a piece of toast bitten into the shape of a gun, like the one a young boy created and was suspended at school for doing so... maybe that would have scared the criminal intruder!

[ikidunot]

02:38 PM on 07/20/2011

Clearly we should prohibit children bring toast to school!!

[David Carson]

02:59 PM on 07/21/2011

there is a problem with school administrators when they start suspending 8 yearolds for playing cops and robbers or pointing a finger and saying "bang" or suspending any K-12 student for an NRA/firearms related cap/shirt

[Michele Kobus]

05:29 PM on 07/18/2011

This is what was said to me by a regressive conservative regarding Civil Rights:

"Sorry to break the news to you, but every law can be repealed.
There are no "rights" but those which the governing power chooses to grant and respect"

Or does that apply to non 2nd Ammendment rights only?

[eaglespark]

06:16 PM on 07/18/2011

"There are no 'rights' but those which the governing power chooses to grant and respect"

Wrong, of course-- the government does not "grant" or give us "rights".
Human rights are presumed to be existent, regardless, but:
"In practice, you only have the rights you are willing to fight for." ;>)

[Michele Kobus]

06:23 PM on 07/18/2011

On this we can agee, eaglespark. You keep fighting for your rights and I will keep fighting for mine.
I doubt that you and I agree very much on this issue - I don't like guns much, don't own any and am not all that interested in anything about them. Just because I don't like them or don't want to own one does not mean that I would want to take them away from responsible people.
Peopel have honest disagreements about things like this. Above all else, I appreciate a civil disagreement/discussion.

[David Carson]

10:36 PM on 07/18/2011

MIchele--the entire BOR is worth fighting for, the 2nd no less than the rest. For me, the 2nd amendment is worth fighting because I have worked in some dodgy areas of Los Angeles county (and having just turned 50 with a bum knee), I view effective (armed) self defense as important for me and my mother (who is less than 5 feet tall).

[Michele Kobus]

12:08 AM on 07/19/2011

FAir enough. I am not unreasonable on the subject. There are legitimate reasons to own weapons, self defence being the most obvious. I would not be in favor of restricting responsible people such as yourself from owning weapons you feel you need.
I'd like to find an effective way to keep the really dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people like Loughtner, Cho (the VMI shooter) and the kid who shot up our local shopping mall. I don't know how to make that happen, what we are doing now is obviously not working because these incidents continue to occur.

[Michele Kobus]

05:24 PM on 07/18/2011

Once someone takes a shot at a Republican darling you will see action. Like when Hinkley shot Regan. DC gun ban, Brady Law.
Wait and see.

[JimInHouston]

06:43 PM on 07/18/2011

"Wait and see. "

Wow. It's truly amazing that you think we are such hypocrites. You don't know us at all.

[SkyCap]

06:56 PM on 07/18/2011

PATRIOT Act, Bush era deficits, illegal wiretapping by NSA, torture...

We've got our reasons. Maybe you just don't know yourselves.

[Michele Kobus]

12:25 AM on 07/19/2011

I think the facts speak for themselves. The only time the GOP passed any kind of gun control was right after Regan was shot = the ban on guns in DC. Now that Obama is there, you think it's a good idea for people to walk around the Capitol armed.
Yes, I think you are hypocrits. On this and many many other issues.

[SeriesSeven]

06:53 PM on 07/18/2011

So does "wait and see" implicitly mean that you are threatening to take a shot at a "Republican darling". Leftie wacko.

[Michele Kobus]

12:15 AM on 07/19/2011

Wow that was a real leap. No threat was implied and you know it. I hate being around guns, will not allow them in my home, do not know how to use one, will not learn how to use one, in fact I refuse to even touch them.
I am no threat to anyone unless they get close eough to hit or kick me - I know how to defend myself.

[GBFive]

03:05 PM on 07/18/2011

Yet another sad example of youth gun violence. I wish the NRA would stop telling kids to solve problems with guns.

[From my cold dead hands]

07:19 PM on 07/18/2011

The NRA is planning on arming fetuses......who woulda thunk they are pro-life?

[janet41652]

08:59 AM on 07/20/2011

The NRA doesn't tell kids to do that, and you know it. If you have ever attended a NRA gun safety class you would learn more about them. The NRA just protects our rights to carry one. There are bad areas of town that do promote solving problems with guns. (south side of town) Kennesaw, Ga had an old law on the books that says everyone has to carry a gun. Of course the law is not enforced, but the murder rate is tiny.

[TexasBahr]

01:04 PM on 07/18/2011

I think I would have fired the shotgun into the path of the fleeing intruder even though I understand that the best time to fire is when the intruder in actually in your house. The shotgun; however, is not the best gun for firing at someone in the house for obvious reasons.
If one shoots an intruder while the intruder is actually in the house, that is self defense (assumes that the intruder has a weapon). If you fire on an intruder outside of the house I believe I have been told that you could be held liable.

[EmilyU]

02:20 PM on 07/18/2011

It all depends on where you live. State laws vary a great deal.

[OdinsEye]

05:07 PM on 07/18/2011

"If one shoots an intruder while the intruder is actually in the house, that is self defense (assumes that the intruder has a weapon). If you fire on an intruder outside of the house I believe I have been told that you could be held liable. "

Please do not assume this is true. Each state has their own laws and in some states what you said is true, while in others it is untrue.

[scottishboy]

12:52 PM on 07/18/2011

Good for him and his grandson for pointing a shot gun. I guess defending yourself does make sense.

[BreezyinVA]

01:30 PM on 07/18/2011

Why wouldn't it?

[eaglespark]

03:05 PM on 07/18/2011

Good question. "Self-defense" certainly makes sense to me, but in some countries (like Australia and the UK) you are required to give the government a "reason" for wanting to own a gun in order to get a license before legal purchase. "Self defense" is not a "good/government-approved reason"-- I am not making this up. I also note that in "may issue" American states like California, generic "self-defense" is not an adequate reason for issuing a concealed carry permit by some sheriff's departments. Dianne Feinstein claimed that her life was specifically threatened, I believe, in order to get one. Being an Elite Person of some sort helps too, of course. Hunting and gun club target shooting are examples of "reasons" in the UK for which you may legitimately want and use a firearm (of a government-approved type, of course). God help you in the courts if you ever actually kill anyone with a gun in self-defense. The Tony Martin case in England comes to mind. The original charge and sentence for him was "murder" and "life in prison", before he got legal help and ended up with parole for manslaughter...

[IceBergAhead]

01:03 AM on 07/19/2011

That's a question millions of liberals who vote against the 2nd can't answer.

[emlr]

12:29 PM on 07/18/2011

Reminder to repugs...
Dems are also armed and are willing to use them if necessary.

[Tao21Zen]

01:05 PM on 07/18/2011

Yes and, with the exception of the far left elitists, the majority of them are traditionally moderate southern Dixiecrats. You know, the segment of the democrat base that the far left shifting party has steadily marginalized and neglected over the last few years.

[SkyCap]

03:43 PM on 07/18/2011

Elites--I'm having trouble understanding exactly what the GOP means by this. Surely not just 'money,' because you all worship money. I think it means people who have educations, too. People who believe in any politics other than laissez faire libertarianism.

The only money you respect is in the hands of "fine" southern gents who got lucky on mineral rights or inherited an oil field or farm ground.

[IceBergAhead]

01:04 AM on 07/19/2011

Soon to be voting the Republican ticket 2012.

[CelticMajic]

01:10 PM on 07/18/2011

Finally an issue that many members of both parties can agree upon, the right to keep and bear arms, and you reject the partnership?

[emlr]

01:12 PM on 07/18/2011

Where do I reject that?!?

[des111]

11:54 AM on 07/18/2011

i wonder if, being a democrat, Congressman Boswell supports the White House agenda to strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms...
How ironic that would be...

[emlr]

12:27 PM on 07/18/2011

The White House has NO such agenda! Stop lying. And get yourself educated.

[Tao21Zen]

12:41 PM on 07/18/2011

And the state of Louisiana and city of New Orleans didn't have an agenda set out to strip gun owners of their firearms. But then hurricane Katrina came along and they did just that. Whether or not that is what the administrations agenda is today, it is easy for conditions to evolve into such with the anti-gun laws they want enacted (such as mandatory registration).

[des111]

02:29 PM on 07/18/2011

Most of the bad positions the WH takes is covert, counting on people such as yourself to drink the kool-aid they give you. Here's the education you missed. (All you do is look at Obama's voting/endorsement records):
FACTS:
-Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
-Barack Obama nominated now Attorney General Eric Holder, who just last year in a brief to the Supreme Court, argued that “the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms,” that it only protected government militias’ rights to guns. He claimed that the Second Amendment posed no obstacle to implementing gun bans.
-Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.
-Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.
-Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”
-Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
-Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.
-Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.
These are the facts in which i base my, as you say, UNEDUCATED opinion. Where may i ask, did you derive your brilliant position on this matter?

[Micah-R]

11:28 AM on 07/18/2011

Does anyone else think he should have shot the guy? Who knows, maybe the gun wasn't loaded.

[EmilyU]

02:22 PM on 07/18/2011

Not while his grandfather was fighting with the guy. To risky.

Not once the guy turned to escape. Illegal.

[jabbaciv]

11:06 AM on 07/18/2011

I'm a liberal and a gun owner. We do exist, amazing, right? Shotguns are great for home defense. A wise gun owner knows when to shoot and when not to shoot. Fortunately the 22 year old was a wise gun owner. If the intruder had still been grappling somebody, pulling the trigger might have injured or killed a family member.

Claiming you need a high capacity magazine for home defense is ridiculous. If you can't get someone with 15 rounds you won't get them with 30. I have a 30 round magazine for my Remington 590 .22LR. It is not for home defense, or for hunting, it's because I enjoy going to the range and shooting 30 times. For home defense, I have a .40 S&W carbine with ten round magazines.

There is a reason for having an assault rifle, and a reason for having a 30 round magazine, and that reason is that you want to kill a lot of things without having to reload. If you're worried about the country being invaded, or a totalitarian military coup, or violent insurrection, a military style rifle with a high capacity magazine is ideal. This is an entirely legal and 2nd amendment justified reason to want an AR-15. You don't have to pretend you want an M-4 with red dot scope and foregrip just to chase off burglars.

[Tao21Zen]

11:47 AM on 07/18/2011

Wow, seriously? You said you have a 30 round magazines for one your firearms because you "enjoy going to the range and shooting 30 times." Then you say "[t]here is a reason for having an assault rifle, and a reason for having a 30 round magazine, and that reason is that you want to kill a lot of things without having to reload." So which is it? Do you have your 30 round magazine so you don't have to reload so often at the range target, shooting paper targets or so you can "kill a lot of things without having to reload."?

I'm sorry if I wrong, but your post makes you sound like the typical liberal gun-owning elitist to me. My reason for having X is justified but everyone else's reason isn't.

[jabbaciv]

12:51 PM on 07/18/2011

It's a 22LR, if I was using those 30 rounds for anything other than plinking I'd be an idiot. Bigger calibers, like 5.56 or 7.62, you're looking for things to kill, or to shoot at a target without having to reload.

I don't pretend that fun at the range constitutes a seriously justifiable reason for having a 30 round magazine, and if I'd been legally prevented from buying it, my heart would not have been broken. I'd just have 3 10-rd magazines and go through them.

[jabbaciv]

01:00 PM on 07/18/2011

"I'm sorry if I wrong, but your post makes you sound like the typical liberal gun-owning elitist to me. My reason for having X is justified but everyone else's reason isn't."
-----
You appear to have missed where I specifically said
"This is an entirely legal and 2nd amendment justified reason to want an AR-15."

When I'm back in the States in a couple weeks here, I plan to get a Kel-Tec sub-2000 that takes 30 round Glock 17 magazines, and a couple of 30 round Glock 17 magazines. I am not doing this for home defense, I'm putting them in the basement for if the excrement hits the fan. It's no different from what the Swiss do.

[EmilyU]

02:27 PM on 07/18/2011

"Claiming you need a high capacity magazine for home defense is ridiculous. If you can't get someone with 15 rounds you won't get them with 30."

By the expired federal law, one which the gun controllers want to bring back, 15 shot magazines are "high capacity" and would be banned.

Besides, people could make the same argument saying, "Claiming you need a high capacity magazine for home defense is ridiculous. If you can't get someone with 1 round you won't get them with 15."

This argument can easily be refuted for the simple fact that police almost always carry high capacity magazines.

"There is a reason for having an assault rifle"

Assault rifles are machine guns and are restricted items under federal law.

"You don't have to pretend you want an M-4 with red dot scope and foregrip just to chase off burglars."

Several noted arms instructors recommend exactly that, albeit a semi-auto M-4, for home defense.

[jabbaciv]

02:48 PM on 07/18/2011

"Several noted arms instructor­s recommend exactly that, albeit a semi-auto M-4, for home defense."

Then they're idiots.

There's a midpoint between banning all guns and allowing all guns. The absolute fanatical rigidity on both sides of the debate helps nobody. Should people with a history of mental problems be able to buy a gun whenever they want? Felons? Should a 50 round drum in a full auto rifle be legal for civilian ownership? If there are lines to be drawn, we'll all get a lot further by actually discussing what those lines should be, instead of just having one side say "Nothing! Single shot hunting rifles only!" and making that law when they're in power, and the other side saying "Everything! 30 round magazines in whatever caliber you like and everybody gets one!" when they're in power.

If 15 round magazines were banned under old laws, who says they should be banned under new ones? Why aren't gun magazine sizes restricted by caliber instead of capacity? A .45 with a 15 round magazine is going to be damn heavy, but a 9mm with a 15 round magazine is pretty standard. For semi-automatic rifles, 20 seems like a good number, the military uses 20 round magazines fairly widely.

There is discussion that can be had on this, middle ground that could be reached, except that nobody is at all interested in reaching it.