Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Was this shooting justifiable?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jackson,, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Was this shooting justifiable?

    What do you think?

    http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...ner_shoot.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    easy wrote:
    Was this shooting justifiable?

    What do you think?

    http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...ner_shoot.html
    Difficult to say.

    The report states that the robber was shot by the store owner as he "fled to an unoccupied vehicle parked outside". While that may or may not represent a threat depending on the circumstances, the Kent County Prosecutor has shown a strange (for him) appearance of support for citizens who defend themselves in this county.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Of course it was justifiable, why do you ask?

    The real question would be, if he is guilty in the eyes of the law, why is the law so far apart from reality, and what can be done to bring it back in line.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Clio, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    363

    Post imported post

    yes %100, if someone is willing to hold up a store at gun point and is willing to put good people's life in danger then whether fleeing or not i feel he is totally justified.

    lethal force as described by law

    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.


    History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1

    I feel removing him an armed criminal off the streets would fall under section (a)... to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to [b]another individual

    what would stop him from doing that to another individual and end up using it. If you are crazy enough to point it at someone then you are probably crazy enough to use it.

    Woot Woot, law abiding citizen-1 another bad guy-0

    just my thoughts,
    Devery

  5. #5
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Post imported post

    manicdevery wrote:
    yes %100, if someone is willing to hold up a store at gun point and is willing to put good people's life in danger then whether fleeing or not i feel he is totally justified.

    lethal force as described by law

    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.


    History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1

    I feel removing him an armed criminal off the streets would fall under section (a)... to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to [b]another individual

    what would stop him from doing that to another individual and end up using it. If you are crazy enough to point it at someone then you are probably crazy enough to use it.

    Woot Woot, law abiding citizen-1 another bad guy-0

    just my thoughts,
    Devery
    This law finaly shows common sense.We need all our laws to do likewise!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  6. #6
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Recently read about a guy here in NO OC FL that shot a fleeing robber. He spent some time in jail, but was ultimately released when he won his case based on the fact that simply because the robber had turned away did not eliminate the fear or threat to his life because at any time the robber could have turned back around and continued the deadly assault.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Jackson, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    manicdevery wrote:
    yes %100, if someone is willing to hold up a store at gun point and is willing to put good people's life in danger then whether fleeing or not i feel he is totally justified.

    lethal force as described by law

    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.


    History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1

    I feel removing him an armed criminal off the streets would fall under section (a)... to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual

    what would stop him from doing that to another individual and end up using it. If you are crazy enough to point it at someone then you are probably crazy enough to use it.

    Woot Woot, law abiding citizen-1 another bad guy-0

    just my thoughts,
    Devery

    you beat me to it

  8. #8
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    He has been cleared in the shooting! JUSTIFIED!!!:celebrate

    http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local...thief-shooting
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Awesome, but we had better be absolutely sure before we draw or fire.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •