Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog
Please furnish a link to a factual source for that information, or post a link to the applicable Michigan law(s) that validate that.
I have a pretty good imagination. But if you're still talking about shooting a fleeing criminal in the back, I'm having a hard time imagining a rationale for that. I would understand someone doing that out of pure anger, frustration, or revenge, but not sure those reasons would hold up in court.
As someone else says, if someone's running away from you, you'd have a hard time convincing the cops he was a threat to you.
|
You don't need to convince them he was a threat to you. Only that a felony was committed and that he committed it and was fleeing.
Quote:
People v. Couch
Annotate this Case
436 Mich. 414 (1990)
461 N.W.2d 683
PEOPLE v. COUCH
Docket No. 85979, (Calendar No. 6).
Supreme Court of Michigan.
Argued April 3, 1990.
Decided September 26, 1990.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting *416 Attorney, and George E. Ward, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, for the people.
Kenneth R. Sasse and James A. Waske, for the defendant.
BOYLE, J.
We agree with Justice ARCHER'S conclusion that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1; 105 S Ct 1694; 85 L Ed 2d 1 (1985), did not "automatically" modify this state's criminal law with respect to the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon. Post, p 441.
As Justice ARCHER explains, Garner's pronouncements regarding the constitutionality of the use of such force are inapplicable to private citizens such as the defendant. Regardless of the defendant's status as a private citizen, however, the prosecution's argument that 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. Clearly, the power to define conduct as a state criminal offense lies with the individual states, not with the federal government or even the United States Supreme Court. While the failure to proscribe or prevent certain conduct could possibly subject the state to civil liability for its failure to act, or for an individual's actions, if that state, for whatever reason, chooses not to criminalize such conduct, it cannot be compelled to do so.
Moreover, we fail to see how Garner can be applied "directly" in any event, since the Court in that case concluded only that the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon who posed no harm to the officer or others was "unreasonable" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. In other *417 words, Garner was a civil case which made no mention of the officer's criminal responsibility for his "unreasonable" actions. Thus, not only is the United States Supreme Court without authority to require this state to make shooting a nondangerous fleeing felon a crime, it has never even expressed an intent to do so.[1]
Unlike Justice ARCHER, however, we decline the opportunity to change the common-law fleeing-felon rule with respect to criminal liability to conform with Garner. Not only does this Court (and therefore the Court of Appeals) arguably lack the authority to do so, even prospectively, given the Legislature's adoption of and acquiescence in that rule, we must resist the temptation to do so. The question whether the common law, which allows the use of deadly force by a citizen only to apprehend a felon who is in fact guilty, has outlived its "utility" (post, p 440) is a matter of compelling public interest, demanding a balancing of legitimate interests which this Court (and therefore the Court of Appeals) is institutionally unsuited to perform. In short, it is a question for the Legislature.
|
Google it yourself. The law is not vague. People V. Couch. Also a local case involving a Detroit cop who shot an unarmed 15 year-old in the back for tampering with a motor vehicle. Archie Arp. Google that. County wanted to charge him but could not. There are many cases in and around Detroit over the years that have demonstrated this "fleeing felon rule". They don't like to publicize it though.
Even if it's an non-violent felony, the rule holds. Sorry if you don't WANT to believe it, but it's true. You can always contact a Wayne County prosecutor to verify.
They also don't explain the "fleeing felon rule" to cops in the police academy, one, because they cover criminal law in about 10 classes, and two because they don't want cops shooting people out of department policy. And three, because in the police academy they have to teach to the "lowest common denominator". It ain't law school. After TN V Garner police departments re-wrote their deadly force policy to conform with Garner. That didn't make it illegal to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. The department could be held civilly liable, and they could fire the officer for a violation of policy, but they officer could not be charged criminally. In fact, Archie Arp, in my above example, got his job back after they fired him.
Several cases I recall playing out during 30 years on the PD and dealing with prosecutors: Doctor sees someone trying to steal his Jag in the parking structure. Pulls his gun and chases the guy. He finds the guy hiding under a car and shot him. He was charged. Bad guy was not fleeing.
Security guard comes home to find a guy breaking into his garage. Pulls his gun and gives chase. Guy stops and puts his hands up and says: "Go ahead and shoot me." So the homeowner does. He was charged, but would NOT have been if he had shot him in the back while he was running. I was sitting in the prosecutor's office and those words were right from his mouth.
Another one, EMS technician comes home and sees someone stealing his car. Fires shots at the guy as he's driving away and kills him. No charges.
I win a LOT of bar bets with that one. Lots of attorneys are clueless on that issue too, unless they practice criminal law and civil law involving shootings. Another reason not to call your uncle the real estate lawyer when you shoot somebody.