Law sides with home owners in SW Michigan

[jimster]

Another justifiable shooting in SW Michigan.
The powers that be have been siding with the good guys the last several shootings in Michigan.
The latest one where two young BG's were casing out a neighborhood, and asked to move on a few times....they came back to an empty house which was being watched by a neighbor, he caught them breaking in, chased them, shot one of them, and held them both for the police.
The BG that got shot lived....both BG's were unarmed, but story has it the one that got shot reached into his pocket at some point.
The powers that be went by the law, that says if you think your life is in danger....ect...
Evidently the bullet did not enter exactly into the front of the BG either.
When the police arrived, the good guy was holding both BG's...with a pistol in each hand. (hehe)

BG's been taking a beating here in Michigan for some time now.

[sniperVLS]

Wow, I wouldnt dare try that in here in Ohio.

The shooter was watching a house that wasnt even his?

[jimster]

Well, now in the paper tonight, they reported one of the BG's did have a gun, although when this was reported a couple nghts ago on the local news, they reported the BG's were unarmed.  I guess the police did find one after all, according to the latest report.
They ruled that when one of the BG's stuck his hand in his pocket, it was reasonable for the good guy to assume he was in danger.

Yes...the shooter was watching his neighbors house, at the request of the neighbor, who had to kick these guys off his property already once before. So he watched, and caught them breaking in.  The BG's were driving a stolen van to boot.
There is a law here in this state where you can stop a felony in progress, although it would be wise to be careful in doing so.
I guess in this case, they ruled the shooter was reasonable to think he was in danger when the criminal reached in his pocket.

They have been pretty good to the good guys in this area in shootings, even though there were a couple that could have been picked apart, they seem to be leaving the good guys alone here.


There also have been cases where robbers were shot in the back while trying to leave with money, they justified this shooting also. Even though the robber never showed his gun, had his hand in the pocket.
There was also one where a guy was running around a families house and pounding the windows and yelling in the middle of the night. Scared the pants off the whole family. The good guy went out on the porch to find out what was up, bad guy lunged toward him, and he got more than a few 9mm holes in him. He wasn't armed, and he died. They let the good guy off on this one too...although, kind of questionable.....

Anyway...at least they are not picking apart the good guys, and it's sending a message to the BG's I would imagine.

[DWTim]

It's ridiculous that a weapon should justify use of force, then we get into meaningless comparisons of the relative destructive power of the weapons. That's nonsense. What if the attacker is 250 lbs and the victim is your child, but your child has a shotgun? Not only should the law allow for situations where you believe your life hangs in the balance, but it should also extend to risk of being disfigured, disabled, or coerced to commit harm or other criminal acts, and extend to anyone else in your home. It should also include the defender's right to protect his property and livelihood from destruction or theft. "Retreat" requirements for home defense are asinine; if you're on your property, you've already "retreated" as far as you can go.

Of course, that's all just my opinion, since the law around here requires that I only use deadly force if I feel that my life is in danger. And I'm all about following the law. Nice to hear that common sense is prevailing elsewhere, though.

[jpred1]

Id think 95% of everyone here would agree.

[Dusty Miller]

That guy is REALLY lucky he does not live in S. CA or the SF Bay area.  He'd be toast before the story hit the news stand!

[jimster]

Well Dusty, I hear stories about how some states dn't let you fight back against the bad guys.
Guess the bottom line is, if we feel strongly enough, we won't live in those places.
I doubt it will get better in those places, as states start letting people alone when they defend themselves, and more are, I can see the BG's migrating to the places you mention....they need to make a living too I guess, and it only sems natural if it gets dangerous for them in one state, they go to one of the ones you mention.

As it should be I guess....each state makes it's own bed.

[rockbilly]

I recently read that 14 states currently have laws on the books that permit the use of deadly force if you percieve your, or another's life to be in danger. In addition, several of the states have also passed laws preventing an individual from being sued in a civil court for using deadly force.

I question the stability of some of the individuals that are concealed carry holders, and fear some may act too swiftly, but support the law since it should send a message to the bad guy that there is a very good chance that they may get shot during the commission of the crime.

I understand crime rates have dropped in locations that have the law. :wink: