An elderly Edgewood man was charged with assault Wednesday after police said he threatened two teenagers with a handgun, resulting in Harford County Sheriff’s Office tactical units responding to the scene.
Samuel Chenworth, 80, is charged with two counts each of first degree assault, second degree assault and reckless endangerment in connection with the incident, which began at about 2:20 p.m. Wednesday.
According to Harford County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Monica Worrell, a boy and girl, both 14, were sitting on an electrical transformer box located near Chenworth’s home on the 3400 block of Seabrook Court in the Harford Landing development when Chenworth told them to leave or he would get his gun.
The pair did not move, and Chenworth returned to his home before coming back outside and, according to the teenagers, pointing a handgun at the teenagers. The youths fled and alerted their parents, who called police. Because Chenworth had displayed a gun and returned inside his home with the weapon, Worrell said tactical operations units were among those called to the scene.
However, the situation did not develop into a standoff as Chenworth answered his door when first contacted and cooperated with sheriff’s deputies. According to the Sheriff’s Office report, Chenworth said he retrieved the gun and brought it outside, scaring the two teens away, but did not specifically say he pointed the weapon at them.
(UPDATE 7/21) Chenworth told police that he had experienced problems with youth in the neighborhood in the past. According to the Sheriff’s Office, the agency had not received any calls for service from Chenworth’s residence in the last five years. However, Worrell said the department did respond to one call for service on Seabrook Court in 2007 for a report of juveniles gathering near another residence on that street. It was not clear whether other incidents at Chenworth’s home or elsewhere in the area had occurred but gone unreported to authorities.
Chenworth was arrested and released on $50,000 bond the same day.
A special thanks to Dagger reader Mason Holquist, who tipped us off to this incident. We encourage all our readers to let us know what’s going on, and point out stories we miss.
Thingthatmakeyougohmmm says
So teenagers can set off bottle bombs on somebody’s porch (personal property) and not see anywhere near so much as a day in court, but when someone challenges someone on his/her property after asking them to leave we throw the book…hmm. WELCOME TO MARYLAND!
I’m not saying the handgun was warranted and should not come into play but did he actually point it at the kids or open the door and display it. When in that case little snot nosed Jim and Susy went running to tell their mommies about what the bad man did.
Aaron Cahall says
Good questions. I’ve updated the story with some clarifications: according to the report, the teens said he pointed the weapon at them, while Chenworth himself doesn’t specifically say he did.
But according to the sheriff’s office, a suspect is charged based on their intent as the victim understands it–regardless of specifically pointing a gun or not pointing. The example I was given was, if you walk into a bank, put a finger in your jacket in the shape of a gun, and demand money, you can be charged with armed robbery even though you weren’t “armed” per se.
I’m sure some of our law enforcement community readers can shed further light on the subject.
Paul says
According to what I have studied, First degree assault (with a firearm) is a specific intent crime, with three ways of achieving the crime; specific intent to cause fear of imminent offensive contact, specific intent to cause offensive contact, or gross negligence or reckless disregard for another person by offensive contact + general intent to use a firearm. Specific intent, according to Blacks Law Dictionary, means the intent to accomplish the precise criminal act that one is charged with.
Mental state (mens rea) is almost always established by circumstantial evidence, based on inferences of fact, drawn from a person’s conduct, i.e., words, actions, or surrounding circumstances, and usually by a totality of these circumstances.
Based on the article, it seems there quite possibly was a 1st degree assault as there was a firearm, and it appears that there was an intent to scare the two youths. I don’t think it matters if he pointed the weapon at them. However….
There is the question of on whose property this took place. It seems there are four possible scenarios, three of which do not bode well for the defendant, in my opinion. First, the property belonged to the government (state/county/city); second, the property belonged to BGE (unlikely,as BGE most likely has some sort of easement on someone’s elses property); third, the property belonged to the community. In these three scenarios, it is doubtful the defendant had any legal reason for defending the property. The fourth scenario, the property belonged to the defendant with the transformers being on his property and BGE having the right of easement seems to be the best for the defendant. If this is the case, it would appear the Defendant has a much better case, though I have not researched anything regarding the defense of property. The defendant needs to make sure he gets himself a good attorney as I would bet there will be a civil suit to follow, especially if he is found guilty.
common sense says
Where are you getting your information about bottle bombs? Besides the article states that these kids were near Mr Chenworth’s property.. not on it. You can not be to cautious these days and I will always tell my “snot nosed kids” to come running back to me so I can do exactly what their parents did…. call the police.
Aaron Cahall says
Right, that was the other clarification: I changed it from “on” his property to “near” his property since electrical transformers and a couple inches around them are–I think–usually the property of the utility, and not that of the adjacent homeowners. A small distinction, but I thought it was worth making.
common sense says
Thank you for the clarifications
MacG says
Aaron, do you think it is worth investigating what has happened to Samuel Chenworth in the past to determine if such behavior may have been warranted? This fellow will probably have a trial ($50,000 bail)and if there are prior incidents it will surely come up. Is it worth a follow up story?
Kev says
They were sitting on an electrical box near his house, but that doesn’t mean they were on his property. Even if they were on his property he can’t threaten to shoot them just for sitting on the box (and the electrical box itself isn’t his property anyway even if it is located on his land.) You can use deadly force if you’re in your home and you feel that your life or someone else’s life is in immediate danger which is definitely not the case here. I can understand his frustration, but threatening a couple of kids with a gun in this situation is way beyond reasonable action.
I doubt he had any intention to shoot anyone, but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter if the gun was loaded or even real. The victims obviously thought it was and thought he intended to shoot them. I don’t imagine he’ll end up with jail time (especially given his age), but as part of any plea deal he’ll probably have to surrender all of his firearms, go to some sort of anger management classes or something, and be on probation for awhile.
One of the basic rules of firearms safety is that you never point the muzzle at anything you aren’t willing to destroy. Either this guy really intended to shoot them (in which he should be locked up or be in a hospital for psych treatment) or he’s an irresponsible gun owner (in which case he should have to surrender his firearms.) Either way, he made a very poor choice and should’ve known better.
Poster says
some one please burn edgewood to the ground now!
FUSTRATED says
Why would you suggest something like that. I hate to even ask but just curious to why you would say something like that, are you that evil and mean?
Harfordmom says
shocking.. I have lived in Edgewood for 10 yrs and had kids on my property all the time (which has the stupid electrical transformer box on my property- the box is the utilities property and it sits on my property – it isn’t complicated) yes it is a pain. I have lots of bad kids with bad attitudes and bad parents in the development – kids who don’t listen or respect neighbors or even themselves (you can tell because they are tattoed, pregnant, 15 and getting ready to visit parents in jail – and have 3 boyfriends in gangs…)I didn’t let our 7 yr old play in his own yard it’s so bad and have some kids in my house to simply keep them safe. We also lived in one of The ‘safe areas”
I’ve seen these kids threaten homeowners because they know they can get away with it – they have access to guns and drugs. It is damn scary so I do not blame this man for doing this,all I can say is I closed on the sale of my house last week -I’m out of here finally and I feel very sorry for this man who at 80 must have been very scared – I’m scared at 43-all he did was ask them to leave his property – they didn’t…don’t continue to argue over the stupid box. Let your kids raise hell, not listen to anyone and scare folks but when someone retailiates – call the police ??!?! wow – your to blame here- just so you know.
I fought for this horrid town for 10 yrs and I’m done – see ya..to this little old man – I am sorry you were the one charged – go harford county !!! – an 80 yrs old man vs. creepy kids who didn’t listen to him..I don’t care that he waved a gun – please they are everywhere here – the kids have them too – hope this wasn’t your grandpa..
This is the same group of folks in the school that have continued to fail and yet thought that new buildings were going to cure the problems ??!?! whatever – Bye Edgewood. -I gave up on you- I really liked Harford County but won’t deal with this stuff anymore,and I will pick my neighborhood a bit more carefully next time. I have made many mad by writing this and I don’t care. You should be ashamed not proud.
bel air fed says
scared, frustrated seniors living with fear of crime and death. add sometimes innocent kids to the mix and tragedy is just looming. thank God no tragedy in this instance.
Christie says
A dear friend of mine was killed because he was around other teenagers who were fighting each other NEAR a grumpy old man’s property and the man thought it his duty to fire 5 shots into a group of teenagers…he struck one who was fighting in the leg, and my friend who was just watching the fight got shot in the chest and died on the spot….
I get defending your property and all…if someone brakes in and is attempting to hurt you or kill you then I understand the use of the firearm….but can you imagine how this man would have felt if the firearm accidentally discharged and he killed one of those kids….he would be in jail for manslaughter right now…or if one of the kids had a gun too and felt threatened they could have shot him and been completely justified in doing so (probably would not have the gun legally ) and would still be in trouble….but not nearly as much
People have to think BEFORE acting….this could have gone south VERY fast …. I think the guy got lucky only getting the charges he did
NewtonsLaw says
I feel sorry for this elderly man… he would most likely move if he could afford to do so.
I would be very interested to know of any past history, either with the specific kids involved, or in general.
Seems to me an 80 year old man just doesn’t go to this extreme without good reason.
I guess the guy should have waited untill the kids attempted to bash his 80 year old head in… with his quick reflexes he certainly would have had a chance.
HDG READER says
I agree with NewtonsLaw, there had to have been more incidents, perhaps not with these kids, but with others which may have lead this man to react how he did.
But that still doesn’t make it okay to have threatened the two with a gun, especially if they were technically not on his property.
Rangler says
Brilliance for free; your parents must be a sweehtaret and a certified genius.