Self Defense Shooting in Taylor

Venator · Aug 31, 2012

smellslikemichigan said:
he's pretty good, he gives the legal portion of rick ector's CPL class. he's well versed in open carry and covers it pretty thoroughly in the class.

I was just referring to the Mr. Obvious comment he made. But I guess many don't know that, so I'm sorry.

“You should only use your firearm as a tool of last resort when you have to protect yourself from death, great bodily harm or criminal-sexual assault,” says Johnson.

smellslikemichigan · Aug 31, 2012

I'm sure he was dumbing it down for the masses...

Sent from my DROID RAZR MAXX using Tapatalk 2

detroit_fan · Aug 31, 2012

The victim (the shooter) has been released, police have not decided if he will face charges. I think the taylor pd has too many witnesses that will testify to self defense to even try to move forward with this case. The PD admitted that their evidence shows what witnesses say- the bicyclists caused the accident then attacked the man, so i guess that is a good thing.

Rockhunter 1620 · Sep 2, 2012

TheQ said:
The guy in the truck never got out of the truck. He could have drove away also.

The law reads the deadly force must be "neccisary". This angle has been discussed on MGO many times.

The prosecution may argue the truck driver could have rolled up his window and/or hit the gas.

If the driver had left the scene, he would have been charged with "Leaving the scene of an accident", but more importantly, do we not have the right to "stand our ground" to defend ourselves againt such an unwarranted physical assault? And it is a proven fact that the human fist can very much be, a deadly weapon. Many a man throughout history has lost his life at the hands of another man, not possession of any weapons other than just his fists.

backenj · Sep 2, 2012

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with NO DUTY TO RETREAT if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

IMO he did't need to drive away. It seems (a) applies.

ken243 · Sep 2, 2012

backenj said:
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with NO DUTY TO RETREAT if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

IMO he did't need to drive away. It seems (a) applies.

+1

HKcarrier · Sep 2, 2012

Does anyone ACTUALLY THINK THE GUY WOULD BE CHARGED FOR LEAVING?!!? Give me a break. There is NO WAY I would be charged with "leaving the scene" if the other person started beating on me and i sped away... I would then call 911 and explain what happened, why I left, and return when instructed to. Hopefully after idiot had been arrested.

There's no way they're going to charge you with leaving the scene when you are fleeing from an assault. Give me a break.

stainless1911 · Sep 2, 2012

There was a CPL vs Cagefighter thread on MGO where the CPL holder would have likely won, except that he left the scene. There is more to it than that, but leaving is where it started to go downhill.

backenj · Sep 2, 2012

257.617 Accident resulting in serious impairment of body function or death; stopping required; reporting to police agency or officer; violation as felony; penalty.
Sec. 617.

(1) The driver of a vehicle who knows or who has reason to believe that he or she has been involved in an accident upon public or private property that is open to travel by the public shall immediately stop his or her vehicle at the scene of the accident and shall remain there until the requirements of section 619 are fulfilled or immediately report the accident to the nearest or most convenient police agency or officer to fulfill the requirements of section 619(a) and (b) if there is a reasonable and honest belief that remaining at the scene will result in further harm. The stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.

WilDChilD · Sep 2, 2012

stainless1911 said:
There was a CPL vs Cagefighter thread on MGO where the CPL holder would have likely won, except that he left the scene. There is more to it than that, but leaving is where it started to go downhill.

There was way more than that. And if he would have followed HKcarriers advise instead of going home to pound a few beers ( which is what I would do if I had already been drinking and didn't want anybody to think that) might not have turned out so poorly for the guy. Trying to beat on the msp trooper that responded might have been part of the problem too.

detroit_fan · Sep 2, 2012

HKcarrier said:
Does anyone ACTUALLY THINK THE GUY WOULD BE CHARGED FOR LEAVING?!!? Give me a break. There is NO WAY I would be charged with "leaving the scene" if the other person started beating on me and i sped away... I would then call 911 and explain what happened, why I left, and return when instructed to. Hopefully after idiot had been arrested.

There's no way they're going to charge you with leaving the scene when you are fleeing from an assault. Give me a break.

I don't know if he would have or not, and really you don't either. We can guess what would have happened, but none of us really know. Unless of course you have a crystal ball, in which case I woudl like to ask you what monday's lotto numbers will be.

stainless1911 · Sep 2, 2012

WilDChilD said:
There was way more than that. And if he would have followed HKcarriers advise instead of going home to pound a few beers ( which is what I would do if I had already been drinking and didn't want anybody to think that) might not have turned out so poorly for the guy. Trying to beat on the msp trooper that responded might have been part of the problem too.

I think he had been drinking as well. As far as assaulting the police? 100% pure fabrication, video, or it didnt happen.

He tried to cover up his drinking with more drinking, the police covered their assaulting him, by charging him with one. Of this, I am absolutely certain.

HKcarrier · Sep 2, 2012

stainless1911 said:
There was a CPL vs Cagefighter thread on MGO where the CPL holder would have likely won, except that he left the scene. There is more to it than that, but leaving is where it started to go downhill.

That guy never called the cops... never reported that he pulled his gun in SD... went home, got trashed.. (could have been drunk at the scene, who knows) and all around handled the situation like crap... that is even if it went down that way...

detroit_fan said:
I don't know if he would have or not, and really you don't either. We can guess what would have happened, but none of us really know. Unless of course you have a crystal ball, in which case I woudl like to ask you what monday's lotto numbers will be.

The guy in Ohio on the Ohio CCW forums SHOT a guy and left the scene... called 911, dispatch told him site was secured and to return. That's the same thing that would have happened to the driver here. I don't need a crystal ball.. similar things have happened.

stainless1911 · Sep 2, 2012

HKcarrier said:
That guy never called the cops... never reported that he pulled his gun in SD... went home, got trashed.. (could have been drunk at the scene, who knows) and all around handled the situation like crap... that is even if it went down that way...
.

I think he was drunk at the scene. Did not know he failed to report though.

Gort · Sep 2, 2012

backenj said:
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with NO DUTY TO RETREAT if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

IMO he did't need to drive away. It seems (a) applies.

Agree on this, It was a choice the individual made.

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

To reasonably believe with the knowledge of, aggressive behaviour, car jacking, K2 cannibalism, gang killings, robbery,
all can cause imminent great bodily harm within seconds, Not much time to judge if deadly force is necessary, the knowledge of the criminal history tips the scale in the outcome, if the aggressor fits the story.

stainless1911 · Sep 2, 2012

Gort said:
Agree on this, It was a choice the individual made.

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

To reasonably believe with the knowledge of, aggressive behaviour, car jacking, K2 cannibalism, gang killings, robbery,
all can cause imminent great bodily harm within seconds, Not much time to judge if deadly force is necessary, the knowledge of the criminal history tips the scale in the outcome, if the aggressor fits the story.

Yep, it doesnt say that all conditions must be present, it says,

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

Rockhunter 1620 · Sep 3, 2012

HKcarrier said:
Does anyone ACTUALLY THINK THE GUY WOULD BE CHARGED FOR LEAVING?!!? Give me a break. There is NO WAY I would be charged with "leaving the scene" if the other person started beating on me and i sped away...

There's no way they're going to charge you with leaving the scene when you are fleeing from an assault. Give me a break.

Obviously you have not spent much time in Taylor or have had much conversation with members of Taylor's law enforcement agency, their primary focus is little more than revenue generating through ticket givin or just takin and writtin reports after the fact of or with any incident, the only time they actually do their job correctly is when there is a pile of witnesses screamin fer justice, and those folks are told to step back and be quiet.

backenj · Sep 3, 2012

Rockhunter 1620 said:
Obviously you have not spent much time in Taylor or have had much conversation with members of Taylor's law enforcement agency, their primary focus is little more than revenue generating through ticket givin or just takin and writtin reports after the fact of or with any incident, the only time they actually do their job correctly is when there is a pile of witnesses screamin fer justice, and those folks are told to step back and be quiet.

Please refer to post #29. It wasn't a deadly accident, but it would have been safer to leave and call the cops from a safe place. But then again, he has no duty to retreat. Justifiable IMO.

detroit_fan · Sep 3, 2012

HKcarrier said:
The guy in Ohio on the Ohio CCW forums SHOT a guy and left the scene... called 911, dispatch told him site was secured and to return. That's the same thing that would have happened to the driver here. I don't need a crystal ball.. similar things have happened.

With all due respect, what does an incident in OH have to do with this? Different states have different laws, and different cities have different prosecutors. Unless you have an example from Taylor I don't know how you can be so sure of yourself.

DanM · Sep 3, 2012

backenj said:
257.617 Accident resulting in serious impairment of body function or death; stopping required; reporting to police agency or officer; violation as felony; penalty.

The accident didn't result in serious impairment of body function or death of either the bicyclist or the driver. This law doesn't apply. But, continuing for sake of discussion . . .

backenj said:
or immediately report the accident to the nearest or most convenient police agency or officer to fulfill the requirements of section 619(a) and (b) if there is a reasonable and honest belief that remaining at the scene will result in further harm.

The driver probably didn't have a clue that remaining at the scene would result in further harm, until the bicyclist, like a crazy person, rushed him and started pummeling him. All witness statements reported indicate, by then, the driver had knuckles in his face and it's kinda hard to drive away in a controllable manner from that.

Self Defense Shooting in Taylor

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member