Non defensive shooting in Kalamazoo, MI

[skipjack_1st]

Read the article...

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/...l=7&thispage=1
I find the statements made by the P.D. concerning justification of the shooting interesting. Pretty much flies in the face of everything I've been taught / read as far as the use of deadly force. I wonder if his sentaments might have been different had the homeowner not died?

[Teufel]

Doesn't seem to be too much to it.

[Red Hat]

I find the statements made by the P.D. concerning justification of the shooting interesting. Pretty much flies in the face of everything I've been taught / read as far as the use of deadly force. I wonder if his sentiments might have been different had the homeowner not died?

I read the article and I didn't see anything the PD said and I didn't see anything unusual about the justification. Can you elaborate?

[skipjack_1st]

Fink said the laws allow a citizen to use force against another person if a felony has been committed, the force is necessary to apprehend the person or prevent his escape or the person has used force against the citizen.

1st - He goes out and confronts the BG outside. (No physical threat to him if he stays inside and calls the police).

2nd- Up until the physical encounter, no FELONY had necessarily been commited.

3rd - Then to use deadly force in stopping the fleeing perp, which now again of no physical threat to him.

It has been hammered home in nearly every training/reading/discussion that in Michigan, you had better be in "fear for your life", before using deadly force. This was until the assault nothing more than a property crime which in Michigan is not grounds for deadly force, (or so I thought).

To re-iterate, I guess I found it interesting in light of my training / beliefs.

[Red Hat]

I read about Michigan's Castle Doctrine. It's good for anything but outside of your home. That's a very weak doctrine.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Le...02_41800_7.PDF

[kwo51]

The lawyers are going to have a good time with guy. It could go both ways.

[tattedupboy]

The lawyers are going to have a good time with guy. It could go both ways.

Well, since the homeowner is dead, we'll never know.

[Leader]

I read about Michigan's Castle Doctrine. It's good for anything but outside of your home. That's a very weak doctrine.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Le...02_41800_7.PDF

We have updated that law......
Stand Your Ground

Now you can defend yourself anyplace you have a legal right to be.

[Landor]

You will find that some people will confront the bad guy. I am not a big property kind of guy. A car or anything in it is not worth my life. Some feel it is. What is theirs is theirs. Even though in this case the bad guy did not have a gun the home owner could not of known that.

[tattedupboy]

You will find that some people will confront the bad guy. I am not a big property kind of guy. A car or anything in it is not worth my life. Some feel it is. What is theirs is theirs. Even though in this case the bad guy did not have a gun the home owner could not of known that.

You're right, but it's nice to know that the law is behind people who do use deadly force to stop a crime. My feeling is that if someone is in my home or vehicle, where I have a right to be whenever I want, it does not matter whether they're trying to harm me or not. I have a right to be there and he doesn't and I will use whatever force necessary, deadly or otherwise, to get him out.