Criminal pulls starter pistol- Store Clerk pulls real gun.

[Bikenut]

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

Being accused of violating someones rights (a fact generally determined only by a court and open to interpretation especially on this forum which has proven to be anti-police) does not equate to armed robbery. So, in the context that you are trying to pigeon hole me into saying my answer would be a resounding "no".

Sir... I respectfully disagree that this forum is anti-police.

What I find this forum to be is populated by well informed folks who know much more than the average citizen about gun laws. And those folks will challenge any misinformation (didn't say you posted misinformation... that is a general statement) with facts about gun laws. Or will request more info to learn what the facts are about the law.

What I have noticed in online forums and in real life is that many officers get their backs up when a citizen dares to question an officer on the law. Why that is isn't important... what is important is that if an officer has a sincere desire to help bridge the chasm between LE and open carrying citizen then an attitude of offering actual legal facts (with cites to the laws involved) and how those laws affect both open carriers and the police during encounters... and why officers do what they do during an encounter... would be most helpful.

To be fair open carriers would further the cause of making guns socially acceptable by not taking out any left over resentment they may have due to an incident with LE in the past.

Or... having typed all of that to be polite... I could have just said:

Squabbling sessions don't get anything useful or productive done regardless of who is doing the squabbling... they only create even more squabbling sessions. So shall we get our excrement gathered in one geographic location and start really communicating?

 

[Hombre]

imported post

northofnowhere wrote:

Hombre, not everyone hates you because your a LEO   There is quite a few people around here, albeit elsewhere as well, that are in fact anti-LEO, many of whom have great reasons to hate a few specific peace officers, but choose to take it out on all LEO's instead.  Please don't group the entire message board as anti-LEO, just as you I am confident, would prefer to not be hated merely for being a LEO, because of a few bad seeds in your apple fields.  We aren't all anti law enforcement, but I am fairly sure most here are anti bad law enforcement

Stereotyping groups is done by most everyone at some point, and usually badly, we aren't all perfect, and our world and country are far from perfect, because of course, not everyone is me and believes in my values.  But we can still get along usually, it just takes a little effort!

Totally agree. I am more "anti bad law enforcement" than most. But thanks for the great points.

 

[springerdave]

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

Being accused of violating someones rights (a fact generally determined only by a court and open to interpretation especially on this forum which has proven to be anti-police) does not equate to armed robbery. So, in the context that you are trying to pigeon hole me into saying my answer would be a resounding "no".

I somehow had an idea:idea: that no would be your response. It is now apparent that in your eyes there is a blue line that separates the alleged felons in question.springerdave.

 

[Hombre]

imported post

springerdave wrote:

Hombre1 wrote:

Being accused of violating someones rights (a fact generally determined only by a court and open to interpretation especially on this forum which has proven to be anti-police) does not equate to armed robbery. So, in the context that you are trying to pigeon hole me into saying my answer would be a resounding "no".

I somehow had an idea:idea: that no would be your response. It is now apparent that in your eyes there is a blue line that separates the alleged felons in question.springerdave.

No....I differentiate between ARMED ROBBERY which is a VIOLENT CRIME and civil rights violations (alleged) which is NOT a violent crime. Apples to oranges.

 

[UCWT]

imported post

on the topic of shooting a fleeing felon....

wasn't there a case in west michigan or lansing area where the guy stole a high end watch and the owner shot at him while he fled?

can't recall much or find anything on it.

 

[Hombre]

imported post

Shooting fleeing felons = a big no-no. Bad guy flees, the imminent threat is now gone.

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

Shooting fleeing felons = a big no-no. Bad guy flees, the imminent threat is now gone.

Agreed. I have no responsibility to prevent a bad guy from running to his next crime... I only have the responsibility to protect me and mine... and a moral obligation to protect an innocent stranger in immediate danger.

You, or your co-workers, go catch him Hombre1... once he runs from me he is your problem.

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

malignity wrote:

zigziggityzoo wrote:

sounds like a bad shoot.

And an idiot, shooting at a fleeing suspect.

I thought it was legal to use force to stop a fleeing violent felon.

Armed robbery + Gun = Violent felon.

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

bad shoot, you CANT shoot a fleeing felon.

You used to be able to, but Detroit f--ked that all up with their CRASH unit. I dont remember the details, but it was something like they would bait criminals into crimes then announce POLICE so they would run then shoot them :lol:

They took that law off the books awhile ago from what I remember. At least as of 2005.

Detroit Police did NOT f*ck it up the courts did.

S.T.R.E.S.S. stop the robberies, enjoy safe streets.

The fact was the courts decided that there was a disproportionate body count in shootings of blacks to Whites. The court refused to consider the overwhelming number of robberies by Blacks in a city that was populated predominately by Black citizens. It is a fact that most of the black community wanted STRESS to stay but the media only interviewed thugs on the street types and their families who were upset bubba was in jail. Coleman A. Young made it a media circus and we all know Young was a criminal himself as evidenced by multiple US Justice Dept investigations of his money laundering and drug trafficing operations where some of his officers were in fact arrested at Detroit city airport during a drug shipment that was obviously for Young but the courts even though had tons of evidence let him go because of racial tentions not because of lack of evidence. The evidence on him could have convicted Santa Claus in any other Juridiction.

STRESS worked and the shootings were not because the cops were trigger happy, it was because the robbers were, and not very good shots, thus lost the gun battles.

Political correctness, racial tentions and a criminal mayor caused the problems. NOT STRESS. They were damned good cops, and highly dedicated to the people of that city.

The law was not taken off the books, it was Mayor Young who changed "Detroit Police departmental Policy" or whats called "Standing Orders" by the Detroit Police Dept. It is still legal to stop a violent fleeing felon if his actions are a danger to the community at large and an armed robber fits the criteria.

Frankly the robber was quite lucky as you are not required to ask him to put his gun down, I would have stopped the threat without the Hollywood warning "drop your gun" and most officers you better believ would also stop the threat and should. Once you commit a violent felony with a weapon you loose all rights to courtesy.

PS: the event that started the ball rolling against STRESS was a bloody shootout at a Big Boy on Mack ave. Where several armed robbers and shooters entered to do a robbery unaware that several stress officers were there eating. Needless to say a bloody gun battle ensued and planet Earth was less a few violent thugs. The event was made a media circus by the then Leftist thugs in the meia. If you are old enough to remember back then and I am, many Detroit Media types were hard core leftists, and no matter what the Police did it was made into an event.

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

Hombre1 wrote:

Shooting fleeing felons = a big no-no. Bad guy flees, the imminent threat is now gone.

Last time I checked the courts ruled otherwise. if the Violent Fleeing felon is a potential threat to society and he was obviously, then you do have the right to stop him from fleeing with the use of force.

Certain Jurisdictions have made this police for the Officers, but for the General public Departmental Policy does not apply. Frankly the Depatrmental policy is in error.

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

Hombre1 wrote:

Shooting fleeing felons = a big no-no. Bad guy flees, the imminent threat is now gone.

Agreed. I have no responsibility to prevent a bad guy from running to his next crime... I only have the responsibility to protect me and mine... and a moral obligation to protect an innocent stranger in immediate danger.

You, or your co-workers, go catch him Hombre1... once he runs from me he is your problem.

The kid was lucky really and so was the robber. Once he got up off that floor the kid could have punched a few holes in him because the kid had NO idea the armed robber did have a backup weapon.

The robber was lucky because once he went to the leval of armed felon he could have been shot with no "please lay your gun down" courtesy warning and the courts would have sided with the kid/employee. My life is too valuable to me and I will not warn and give the violent offender an opportunity to kill me. Once he rose to a threat to my life and the lives of others I shoot. PERIOD! I will have a conversation with the bad guy later.

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

UCWT wrote:

on the topic of shooting a fleeing felon....

wasn't there a case in west michigan or lansing area where the guy stole a high end watch and the owner shot at him while he fled?

can't recall much or find anything on it.

running away as unarmed with watch doesn't seem to rise to a threat to ones life. But I think the laws need to be changed to protect the victims not the felons.

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

Bailenforcer wrote:

Hombre1 wrote:

Shooting fleeing felons = a big no-no.  Bad guy flees, the imminent threat is now gone.

Last time I checked the courts ruled otherwise. if the Violent Fleeing felon is a potential threat to society and he was obviously, then you do have the right to stop him from fleeing with the use of force.

Certain Jurisdictions have made this police for the Officers, but for the General public Departmental Policy does not apply. Frankly the Depatrmental policy is in error.

People v. Couch (1990) in the Michigan Supreme Court held that Tennessee v. Garner was
-civil rather than criminal action;
-did not affect Michigan's Fleeing Felon Rule; and
-that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter.

 

[Anthony_I_Am]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

James_Liv_Co wrote:

P.S.

YOU CANNOT SHOOT A FLEEING FELON.

Read People vs. Couch.

I wonder where those rounds went? Some bystander? Someones car or house?

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

Anthony_I_Am wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

James_Liv_Co wrote:

P.S.

YOU CANNOT SHOOT A FLEEING FELON.

Read People vs. Couch.

I wonder where those rounds went? Some bystander? Someones car or house?

Good question, but remember not every one shoots wildly. My shots are well calculated and hit the mark. I would hope everyone does the same.

But we must also remember the bad guys don't give a damn who they shoot, and when a Police officer who doesn't train shoots guess what? They hit everything except the intended target. Want to prove this point? Visit a Police shooting scene in Detroit, all too often the officers spray and pray.

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

Anthony_I_Am wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

James_Liv_Co wrote:

P.S.

YOU CANNOT SHOOT A FLEEING FELON.

Read People vs. Couch.

I wonder where those rounds went? Some bystander? Someones car or house?

Are you asking...or leading to something?

 

[Bailenforcer]

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

Hombre1 wrote:

Shooting fleeing felons = a big no-no. Bad guy flees, the imminent threat is now gone.

Last time I checked the courts ruled otherwise. if the Violent Fleeing felon is a potential threat to society and he was obviously, then you do have the right to stop him from fleeing with the use of force.

Certain Jurisdictions have made this police for the Officers, but for the General public Departmental Policy does not apply. Frankly the Depatrmental policy is in error.

People v. Couch (1990) in the Michigan Supreme Court held that Tennessee v. Garner was
-civil rather than criminal action;
-did not affect Michigan's Fleeing Felon Rule; and
-that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter.

Agreed:

[align=center]People v Couch
S. Ct Michigan, 1990
Author:- Sam Biers[/align] Public Authority
Relevant Facts: Df used deadly force to effectuate a citizen’s arrest of a fleeing felon.
Legal Issue(s): Whether a private citizen has the right to use deadly force to attempt to apprehend a fleeing felon?
Court’s Holding: No, the Garner rule does not apply to criminal matters. Garner was civil action.
Court Rationale: Garner 's pronouncements regarding the constitutionality of the use of such force are inapplicable to private citizens. The power to define conduct as a state criminal offense lies with the individual states legislatures, not with the federal government or even the United States Supreme Court. Not only does this Court (and therefore the Court of Appeals) arguably lack the authority to change the fleeing felon rule or state criminal law, even prospectively, given the Legislature's adoption of and acquiescence in that rule, we must resist the temptation to do so
Plaintiff’s Argument: Garner applies directly to change this state's fleeing-felon rule fails because it is premised upon the notion that the United States Supreme Court can require a state to criminalize certain conduct


Excert here defines the case and the courts refusal and admonishment that NO Federal court and or US Supreme court can over rule the State laws regarding this issue. This is pretty clear, you have the right to stop a fleeing felon in Michigan.

Court Rationale: Garner 's pronouncements regarding the constitutionality of the use of such force are inapplicable to private citizens. ((The power to define conduct as a state criminal offense lies with the individual states legislatures, ))not with the federal government or even the United States Supreme Court.


So until The Michigan State Legislature changes the laws we do in FACT have a right to stop a fleeing felon with FORCE!

Now would I shoot a felon fleeing with only a watch? Probably not based on just that.
Would I stop a violent Fleeing Felon who was armed, chances are I will and would.

 

[UCWT]

imported post

Bailenforcer wrote:

UCWT wrote:

on the topic of shooting a fleeing felon....

wasn't there a case in west michigan or lansing area where the guy stole a high end watch and the owner shot at him while he fled?

can't recall much or find anything on it.

running away as unarmed with watch doesn't seem to rise to a threat to ones life. But I think the laws need to be changed to protect the victims not the felons.

like i said i can't recall all of it.

think he was armed and the watch was crazy expensive. robber stole watch fled and the owner shot at him in a busy downtown setting.

ring any bells for any one? i want to say it was like 4 or so years ago.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

UCWT wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

UCWT wrote:

on the topic of shooting a fleeing felon....

wasn't there a case in west michigan or lansing area where the guy stole a high end watch and the owner shot at him while he fled?

can't recall much or find anything on it.

running away as unarmed with watch doesn't seem to rise to a threat to ones life. But I think the laws need to be changed to protect the victims not the felons.

like i said i can't recall all of it.

think he was armed and the watch was crazy expensive. robber stole watch fled and the owner shot at him in a busy downtown setting.

ring any bells for any one? i want to say it was like 4 or so years ago.

In Michigan this would be a crime for a larceny of less than $20Kfor a first offense/conviction. Equal to and greater than $20K, for a first offense/conviction lands the person with a felony. With two or more and any subsequent offense/conviction of $1k to $20k would be a felony. If it was a Rolex then maybe...

 

[UCWT]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

UCWT wrote:

Bailenforcer wrote:

UCWT wrote:

on the topic of shooting a fleeing felon....

wasn't there a case in west michigan or lansing area where the guy stole a high end watch and the owner shot at him while he fled?

can't recall much or find anything on it.

running away as unarmed with watch doesn't seem to rise to a threat to ones life. But I think the laws need to be changed to protect the victims not the felons.

like i said i can't recall all of it.

think he was armed and the watch was crazy expensive. robber stole watch fled and the owner shot at him in a busy downtown setting.

ring any bells for any one? i want to say it was like 4 or so years ago.

In Michigan this would be a crime for a larceny of less than $20K for a first offense/conviction.  Equal to and greater than $20K, for a first offense/conviction lands the person with a felony.  With two or more and any subsequent offense/conviction of $1k to $20k would be a felony.  If it was a Rolex then maybe...

yeah i think the price on the watch was above 20 k