Non defensive shooting in Kalamazoo, MI


skipjack_1st

New member

Red Hat

New member
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

New member
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.
 

kwo51

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

Landor

New member
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

Thank God I'm alive!
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.
 

skipjack_1st

New member
I dare say that if it were me, I would also probably confront the criminal. I do not feel however that I would use deadly force to stop him from fleeing. Now if he were to threaten my life in some physical way, all bets are off
 

calmp9

New member
I dare say that if it were me, I would also probably confront the criminal. I do not feel however that I would use deadly force to stop him from fleeing. Now if he were to threaten my life in some physical way, all bets are off
The decision to confront could end up being a bad one. You don't know what's going to happen. You say that you wouldn't use deadly force to stop a fleeing criminal, but how do you know that for sure? This is a stressful situation and emotions will be running wild. You just never know.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,085
Messages
621,522
Members
74,090
Latest member
foxran
Top