• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Was this shooting justifiable?

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

easy wrote:
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.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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.
 

manicdevery

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
361
Location
Clio, Michigan, USA
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 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
 

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
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

This law finaly shows common sense.We need all our laws to do likewise!
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

Kimberguy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
367
Location
Jackson, Michigan, USA
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
 
Top