Man charged in stray bullet killing of woman, 69

imported post

http://www.thetimesherald.com/artic...+charged+in+stray+bullet+killing+of+woman++69

DETROIT — A 19-year-old who police said robbed another man with a fake handgun and was shot at while fleeing was charged Saturday with murder in the death of a 69-year-old Detroit grandmother killed by the gunfire.

Antwan Hall of Detroit was charged with felony murder in the Wednesday afternoon death of Geraldine Jackson, the Wayne County prosecutor’s office said. If convicted, he faces life in prison without parole.

“She was ... an unintended victim who was tragically killed as a result of a course of conduct the defendant set in motion,” Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in a statement.

Prosecutors didn’t know whether Hall had a lawyer. He was scheduled to be arraigned Sunday in 36th District Court.

Jackson died after a bullet went through the wall of her northwest side home and struck her in the chest. The shot was fired by a 65-year-old who told them he was aiming for a man who robbed him and stole his vehicle, police said.

The prosecutor’s office said no decision had been made Saturday on whether to charge the older man.

According to prosecutors, Hall approached the older man about 1:45 p.m. and, after a brief conversation, pulled out what looked like a handgun and ordered the man into the basement of a house.

The gun turned out to be fake, investigators said.

Hall took the man’s wallet, keys and cell phone and fled in the man’s sport utility vehicle, prosecutors said. He crashed into a tree and jumped out of the SUV after the man fired at the vehicle.

The older man fired again at Hall and missed, but a bullet went into Jackson’s home and struck her, prosecutors said. Jackson was taken to a local hospital, where she died.

Jackson was the second person in Detroit in four days slain by gunfire intended for someone else. Avondre Donel, 15, was on a friend’s porch May 9 in northwest Detroit when he was killed in a drive-by shooting.

That shooting remains under investigation by police.

imported post

this would be an absolutely correct application of the castle doctrine

imported post

I think the shooter will also be charged, you cannot shoot at someone who is fleeing. Only police can shoot at a fleeing felon, once he fled he was no longer a threat.

imported post

this statement leads me to believe that he will not be charged.

“She was ... an unintended victim who was tragically killed as a result of a course of conduct the defendant set in motion,” Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in a statement.

no mention of the actual shooter. i guess we'll have to wait and see.

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

this statement leads me to believe that he will not be charged.

“She was ... an unintended victim who was tragically killed as a result of a course of conduct the defendant set in motion,” Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in a statement.

no mention of the actual shooter. i guess we'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

I would not blame them if they do charge him. Had the unintended victim been shot by him during the initial encounter I would feel differently, but he shot as someone that was most likely no longer a threat was attempting to leave, thus resulting in someone elses death . We must all use discretion when we discharge our firearms, and in a populated city...

imported post

choover wrote:

smellslikemichigan wrote:

this statement leads me to believe that he will not be charged.

“She was ... an unintended victim who was tragically killed as a result of a course of conduct the defendant set in motion,” Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in a statement.

no mention of the actual shooter. i guess we'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

I would not blame them if they do charge him. Had the unintended victim been shot by him during the initial encounter I would feel differently, but he shot as someone that was most likely no longer a threat was attempting to leave, thus resulting in someone elses death . We must all use discretion when we discharge our firearms, and in a populated city...

Click to expand...

a fleeing felon with a firearm is always a threat

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

choover wrote:

smellslikemichigan wrote:

this statement leads me to believe that he will not be charged.

“She was ... an unintended victim who was tragically killed as a result of a course of conduct the defendant set in motion,” Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in a statement.

no mention of the actual shooter. i guess we'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

I would not blame them if they do charge him. Had the unintended victim been shot by him during the initial encounter I would feel differently, but he shot as someone that was most likely no longer a threat was attempting to leave, thus resulting in someone elses death . We must all use discretion when we discharge our firearms, and in a populated city...

Click to expand...

a fleeing felon with a firearm is always a threat

Click to expand...

Not one worth shooting at when it could risk others. The story says the 2nd shot that struck the woman came as the 19 year old had exited the truck, dropped the gun and was running away. A bad shoot in my book, and a innocent person died because of it. Manslaughter is my guess.


http://www.freep.com/article/20100515/NEWS01/100515014/1001/rss01

imported post

I think the shooter is going to get charged, rightfully so. You shouldnt be shooting at a carjacker as they are driving away in a residential neighborhood. Can't help but think if the carjacker saw the shooters gun on his hip istead of concealed, this may have been avoided. At least until this 19yr old peice of human excrement found a different victim to rob. Take note that this waste of sperm tossed his weapon and ran like a beeeaaatch as soon as found out he fk'ed with the wrong person.

imported post

You cannot shoot someone who is running. I would have him charged, and then given that rare suspended sentence. Its a warning to others, and I dont think it will happen to him again.

imported post

stainless1911 wrote:

You cannot shoot someone who is running. I would have him charged, and then given that rare suspended sentence. Its a warning to others, and I dont think it will happen to him again.

Click to expand...

you can't make that blanket generalization about shooting someone who is running. it's not true in all cases. without having all the details, it's hard to say whether this was a good shoot or not in the eyes of the law. we all know it wasn't an intelligent shoot, based on the innocent bystander being killed. but we'll have to wait and see if the shooter is charged or not.

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

choover wrote:

smellslikemichigan wrote:

this statement leads me to believe that he will not be charged.

“She was ... an unintended victim who was tragically killed as a result of a course of conduct the defendant set in motion,” Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in a statement.

no mention of the actual shooter. i guess we'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

I would not blame them if they do charge him. Had the unintended victim been shot by him during the initial encounter I would feel differently, but he shot as someone that was most likely no longer a threat was attempting to leave, thus resulting in someone elses death . We must all use discretion when we discharge our firearms, and in a populated city...

Click to expand...

a fleeing felon with a firearm is always a threat

Click to expand...

Someone recently said about a case like this:

"you can't make that blanket generalization about shooting someone who is running. it's not true in all cases."

I wonder who said that....

imported post

i think you're confused about who is being charged with murder. i'll give you a clue, it's not the shooter.

imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:

HankT wrote:

smellslikemichigan wrote:

choover wrote:

smellslikemichigan wrote:

this statement leads me to believe that he will not be charged.

“She was ... an unintended victim who was tragically killed as a result of a course of conduct the defendant set in motion,” Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in a statement.

no mention of the actual shooter. i guess we'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

I would not blame them if they do charge him. Had the unintended victim been shot by him during the initial encounter I would feel differently, but he shot as someone that was most likely no longer a threat was attempting to leave, thus resulting in someone elses death . We must all use discretion when we discharge our firearms, and in a populated city...

Click to expand...

a fleeing felon with a firearm is always a threat

Click to expand...

Someone recently said about a case like this:

"you can't make that blanket generalization about shooting someone who is running. it's not true in all cases."

I wonder who said that....

Click to expand...

i think you're confused about who is being charged with murder. i'll give you a clue, it's not the shooter.

Click to expand...

Weak. Changing the subject....

The right guy was charged with murder. That's not an issue under the law.

But we seem to have a relatively incompetent and out-of-control shooter--regardless of whether he gets charged or not.

Sad. He ruined at least a couple of lives. The 69-year-old woman's and his own.

imported post

that is the subject. and if not, why would you just jump into a forum to repeat a statement? seems like a waste of time and energy and completely non-productive.

imported post

This is my take so feel free to disagree.

the deadly force law

imminent death, great bodily harm, sexual penetration to you or someone else.

If someone is willing to hold a gun to my face he is more than likely going to do it to someone else, so IMO if I were in the same position as the victim in this situation I would be preventing imminent death or great bodily harm to someone else at the point of him fleeing, unless the robber has a way of proving that this was going to be the his last armed robbery and that he was not going to do this kind of thing to anyone else or the courts try saying that putting a gun in someone's face is not a danger of great bodily harm or death I do not see how the deadly force law does not apply.

with that said, one less bag guy.

Devery

imported post

manicdevery wrote:

This is my take so feel free to disagree.

the deadly force law

imminent death, great bodily harm, sexual penetration to you or someone else.

If someone is willing to hold a gun to my face he is more than likely going to do it to someone else, so IMO if I were in the same position as the victim in this situation I would be preventing imminent death or great bodily harm to someone else at the point of him fleeing, unless the robber has a way of proving that this was going to be the his last armed robbery and that he was not going to do this kind of thing to anyone else or the courts try saying that putting a gun in someone's face is not a danger of great bodily harm or death I do not see how the deadly force law does not apply.

with that said, one less bag guy.

Devery

Click to expand...

And one less grandmother. Maybe the the bad guy would have done this again, maybe he would not have, but the shooter did for a fact kill someone.

imported post

choover wrote:

manicdevery wrote:

This is my take so feel free to disagree.

the deadly force law

imminent death, great bodily harm, sexual penetration to you or someone else.

If someone is willing to hold a gun to my face he is more than likely going to do it to someone else, so IMO if I were in the same position as the victim in this situation I would be preventing imminent death or great bodily harm to someone else at the point of him fleeing, unless the robber has a way of proving that this was going to be the his last armed robbery and that he was not going to do this kind of thing to anyone else or the courts try saying that putting a gun in someone's face is not a danger of great bodily harm or death I do not see how the deadly force law does not apply.

with that said, one less bad guy.

Devery

Click to expand...

And one less grandmother. Maybe the the bad guy would have done this again, maybe he would not have, but the shooter did for a fact kill someone.

Click to expand...

by the result of an armed robbery.

edit to add: and what would give you the inclination that this would be his last. i see more of a maybe in the "maybe he would have done this again statement.

i would like to see more facts to the shooting a fleeing suspect details. did he see a real gun and thats when he ran? i want to know more facts before i go on assuming things. I have lost people who are innocent bystanders and that is one of the worst things on this planet. thats all for now

Devery

imported post

I like how this played out. Unusual these days, but the way it really should be. I would not have followed this course of action, but as a judge, or as a member of the jury, I would not convict him either.

imported post

manicdevery wrote:

choover wrote:

manicdevery wrote:

This is my take so feel free to disagree.

the deadly force law

imminent death, great bodily harm, sexual penetration to you or someone else.

If someone is willing to hold a gun to my face he is more than likely going to do it to someone else, so IMO if I were in the same position as the victim in this situation I would be preventing imminent death or great bodily harm to someone else at the point of him fleeing, unless the robber has a way of proving that this was going to be the his last armed robbery and that he was not going to do this kind of thing to anyone else or the courts try saying that putting a gun in someone's face is not a danger of great bodily harm or death I do not see how the deadly force law does not apply.

with that said, one less bad guy.

Devery

Click to expand...

And one less grandmother. Maybe the the bad guy would have done this again, maybe he would not have, but the shooter did for a fact kill someone.

Click to expand...

by the result of an armed robbery.

edit to add: and what would give you the inclination that this would be his last. i see more of a maybe in the "maybe he would have done this again statement.

i would like to see more facts to the shooting a fleeing suspect details. did he see a real gun and thats when he ran? i want to know more facts before i go on assuming things. I have lost people who are innocent bystanders and that is one of the worst things on this planet. thats all for now

Devery

Click to expand...

I did not say I had a inclination he would not, I stated maybe he would have maybe he would not have. The bottom line is we should all be responsible for everything we send downrange. The guy shot at someone running away and a innocent died because of it. Period. Someone running away from you is no longer a direct threat to you.

imported post

choover wrote:

I think the shooter will also be charged, you cannot shoot at someone who is fleeing. Only police can shoot at a fleeing felon, once he fled he was no longer a threat.

Click to expand...

Just because the guy is turned away does not mean the threat has disappered. The crook could turn and attack at any time. So the victum is still in fear for his life.