Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > Concealed Carry & Self Defense
o

Notices

Concealed Carry & Self Defense All aspects of Concealed and Open Carry, Home and Self Defense.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-31-2017, 06:25 PM
hostler hostler is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southcentral PA
Posts: 605
Likes: 173
Liked 968 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve in Vermont View Post
Update: Just to be clear I'm referring to LEOs shooting at a fleeing vehicle, NOT civilians who don't have the authority to do so.
What?
Are you James Bond (license to kill)?
There is no special "authority" to use deadly force.
Everyone, regardless of profession, operates under the same laws, they don't change based on profession. Law enforcement officers are just given more lee way in the use of force.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-31-2017, 06:58 PM
keith44spl's Avatar
keith44spl keith44spl is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Red River Valley
Posts: 7,690
Likes: 13,045
Liked 28,605 Times in 5,151 Posts
Default

.


Shootin at fleein felons ain't what it used to be.........






"Shoot low Sheriff, he's riding a Shetland!!!"




.
__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #53  
Old 01-31-2017, 08:38 PM
DWalt's Avatar
DWalt DWalt is online now
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,483
Likes: 236
Liked 28,949 Times in 14,015 Posts
Default

I just saw the news about that Minnesota shooting on YAHOO news. Indeed, not a good idea for a homeowner to shoot at anyone fleeing the scene, either running or driving, even after an attempted home invasion.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #54  
Old 02-01-2017, 04:35 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Depends where you are. In MI, it's "legal" to shoot a fleeing felon whether they are a threat or not and whether the felony was violent or not. A person I know did just that and killed the two occupants of the car with one shot. From a 2" .38. It was a "good" shooting.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-01-2017, 04:38 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by STCM(SW) View Post
The case here was the BG stole a SUV and was driving away.
Owner fired one shot from a 9mm, hit the bad guy in the head killing him.
Trial held, 11 woman, one BP agent on jury found him "Not Guilty".

BTW, county has to pay for all his lawyers fee's..........
Why was he charged in the first place? Washington State is one of only three states where it's still legal to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. Unless they recently changed the law there.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-01-2017, 06:11 PM
Jupiter01 Jupiter01 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 157
Likes: 643
Liked 112 Times in 69 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by federali View Post

These untrained people simply can't or won't understand that the laws of self defense are a legal minefield, especially in a blue state where you're guilty until proven innocent.
Not being LEO, I think I understand that generally, if/when the goblin breaks off an encounter/flees, if a person keeps pursuing, they become the aggressor, and are subject to criminal penalties. Not just in "Blue" states, but generally, in nowaday's society you become a "bad person", just for owning or carrying a gun, let alone daring to shoot at some poor person, and regardless of why, you will likely be charged.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-01-2017, 06:43 PM
KSDeputy's Avatar
KSDeputy KSDeputy is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 465
Liked 1,574 Times in 700 Posts
Default

We were trained to never, ever shoot at a moving vehicle. If we were to disable the driver, then we have a 3,000 lb. missile that could go anywhere. Whatever happens then is our fault. Don't ever do it.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #58  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:12 PM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColbyBruce View Post
If more criminals were met with force there might be fewer of them to deal with.
There no doubt WOULD be fewer of them to deal with, but it still must be done in justifiable situations.
__________________
Stay protected my friends.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:16 PM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Depends where you are. In MI, it's "legal" to shoot a fleeing felon whether they are a threat or not and whether the felony was violent or not. A person I know did just that and killed the two occupants of the car with one shot. From a 2" .38. It was a "good" shooting.
Can you provide a source for this law?
__________________
Stay protected my friends.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #60  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:49 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protected One View Post
Can you provide a source for this law?
See People V Couch (Michigan case).

People like to cite TN V. Garner. What they don't tell people in "CPL School" is this: TN v. Garner was a civil case. Not a criminal case. It did not set precedent for criminal law. AFTER TN V. Garner most states passed criminal statutes to make it a crime to shoot people unless the shootee was a potentially serious or deadly threat to the shooter or others or was fleeing a violent felony. MI did not. Nor did WA last time I checked. But that may have changed for WA. I only know about MI.

Police Department policy complies with TN V. Garner, obviously. But while you may be successfully held civilly liable for shooting a non-violent fleeing felon, you can't be prosecuted. Believe me, Every now and then you get a cop who screws up and shoots a non-violent fleeing felon. They'd love to hang them by the balls, but they can't. Not in this state. Same rules for cops and non cops. One cop shot a 15 year old kid in the back while the kid was fleeing after trying to steal a car. "The public" wanted him charged with murder. They couldn't charge him. They fired him but he got his job back.

Here's one to bring up when your buddies want to talk about "stopping power" or how retired girl cops can't shoot.
Quote:
LIVING WITH KILLING: Ex-cop never had fired at anyone, but this time, she says she had to

December 16, 2003

BY CECIL ANGEL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Adela Rivera never fired her gun at anyone in 20 years as a Detroit police officer.

Now a Detroit bar owner, she fired it recently. Once. The single bullet killed two men, who police say were attempting to run over her manager after they had been assaulting and robbing customers in the bar's parking lot.

The shooting has left a number of people reeling. Rivera says she is depressed that she took the lives of two people. And the men's families are asking why Rivera has been cleared by prosecutors and police.

"I never thought I'd . . . I would kill two people," said Rivera, 49. "It was a tragedy. It was a terrible tragedy, and I'm sorry it happened."

Barbara Gordillo, the sister-in-law of one of the men said: "How could she just kill two people and get away with it? I think the cops covered for her. I really do believe it."

Rivera owns Adela's Place, a neighborhood bar she opened six years ago on a lonely stretch of Fort Street in southwest Detroit, where on Nov. 1 she had the fatal encounter withDorian Gordillo, 22, and Rosalio Becerra-Santoyo, 31, both of Detroit.

The following is according to Rivera and police:

It started out like any other Saturday night.

Adela's Place is a former country-and-Western bar that caters mostly to Mexican immigrants. Patrons danced to the house band, Fantasia, under dimmed lights. Rivera worked the door, checking IDs.

Suddenly, a man, who looked injured, ran past Rivera and straight to Salvador Cuevo, the manager, who was behind the bar.

"Salvador comes and grabs me at the door and says they're robbing customers outside, let's go," Rivera recalled.

As Rivera and Cuevo rushed out, a second customer ran past them.

Detroit police homicide investigator Barbara Higgins said one of the victims said Gordillo and Becerra-Santoyo were sitting in Gordillo's black Dodge Neon, claiming they needed help with a flat tire.

When the man approached, Gordillo and Becerra-Santoyo left the car, grabbed the man by the neck and hit him in the back of the head with a beer bottle. They both demanded money.

Upon seeing Rivera and Cuevo, Gordillo and Becerra-Santoyo jumped back into the car, which was pointed toward the parking lot gate.

"I'm trying to pull the driver out of the car, and I saw Salvador on the passenger side, and then I saw him run to the front of the car," Rivera said.

She pulled out a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson that was tucked in her waistband.

Cuevo was standing 10 feet in front of the car, trying to get the remote control to close the gate.

Rivera noticed Gordillo had put the car in drive and, she said, stepped on the gas.

"All of a sudden, the car just went, and there was no place for Salvador to go," Rivera said.

She fired her gun. Just once.

The bullet entered the left side of Gordillo's neck, just below his ear, according to the Wayne County medical examiner. It punctured his throat, exited the right side of his jaw and slammed into the left side of Becerra-Santoyo's chest, near the nipple.

The wounded Gordillo kept driving. He missed Cuevo by 2 feet as he sped through the gate, which had closed only halfway.

The car was found about 2:30 a.m. Nov. 2 by an off-duty Detroit police officer at McKinstry and the I-75 service drive, about four blocks away. The driver was slumped over the wheel, his door open and one foot sticking out. The passenger was sitting upright with a bottle of Bud Light in his hand. Both men were dead.

Last edited by RSanch111; 02-02-2017 at 12:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:21 AM
fyimo's Avatar
fyimo fyimo is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 18,773
Likes: 6,048
Liked 5,762 Times in 1,992 Posts
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWalt View Post
I just saw the news about that Minnesota shooting on YAHOO news. Indeed, not a good idea for a homeowner to shoot at anyone fleeing the scene, either running or driving, even after an attempted home invasion.
+1 what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-02-2017, 01:39 AM
Dvan34 Dvan34 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: So. CA-Imperial Valley
Posts: 410
Likes: 459
Liked 479 Times in 167 Posts
Default They can come back to haunt you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE PILGRIM View Post
Say something nasty about the fleeing felon's mother.
Get him to turn toward you and charge you.
Then shoot him.
When he's running away it's really hard to claim your life is being threatened.
Remarks like these can be very embarrassing, particularly when prosecutors search Social sites to determine a person's posted remarks.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-02-2017, 09:10 AM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
See People V Couch (Michigan case).

People like to cite TN V. Garner. What they don't tell people in "CPL School" is this: TN v. Garner was a civil case. Not a criminal case. It did not set precedent for criminal law. AFTER TN V. Garner most states passed criminal statutes to make it a crime to shoot people unless the shootee was a potentially serious or deadly threat to the shooter or others or was fleeing a violent felony. MI did not. Nor did WA last time I checked. But that may have changed for WA. I only know about MI.

Police Department policy complies with TN V. Garner, obviously. But while you may be successfully held civilly liable for shooting a non-violent fleeing felon, you can't be prosecuted. Believe me, Every now and then you get a cop who screws up and shoots a non-violent fleeing felon. They'd love to hang them by the balls, but they can't. Not in this state. Same rules for cops and non cops. One cop shot a 15 year old kid in the back while the kid was fleeing after trying to steal a car. "The public" wanted him charged with murder. They couldn't charge him. They fired him but he got his job back.

Here's one to bring up when your buddies want to talk about "stopping power" or how retired girl cops can't shoot.
Thanks for the information. I, being me, will have to do my "due diligence" and verify it.

That's quite the story about the lady former cop. I think she caught a break with the direction the bullet went after ricocheting and passing through the first guy. Obviously, she was using fmj ammo.
__________________
Stay protected my friends.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-02-2017, 09:11 AM
shocker's Avatar
shocker shocker is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 550
Liked 1,427 Times in 666 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Depends where you are. In MI, it's "legal" to shoot a fleeing felon whether they are a threat or not and whether the felony was violent or not. A person I know did just that and killed the two occupants of the car with one shot. From a 2" .38. It was a "good" shooting.
As far as I know as a MI CPL holder this is absolutely incorrect. If I did something like that I would expect to spend 10 or more years in the local state prison in Freeland, MI.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-02-2017, 09:46 AM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
See People V Couch (Michigan case).

People like to cite TN V. Garner. What they don't tell people in "CPL School" is this: TN v. Garner was a civil case. Not a criminal case. It did not set precedent for criminal law.
My research indicates that TN v. Garner WAS a criminal case....not civil.
__________________
Stay protected my friends.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-02-2017, 10:30 AM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protected One View Post
My research indicates that TN v. Garner WAS a criminal case....not civil.
Faulty research, I don't know what to tell you there.....
Quote:
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[2], is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.[1]:563-7

Limitations of Impact

Garner brought his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which extends to citizens protection from violations of their civil rights by "persons," including persons acting in their official capacity as officers of the states. Accordingly, the Court's holding under this Section sets a standard that state police departments must comply with. In practice, however, the Garner case has had less impact on state-level police practices than originally may have been anticipated. This is because Garner, and a subsequent case, Graham v. Connor, 490 US 386 (1989), established that the reasonableness of an officer's use of force, whether against a fleeing suspect or otherwise, is to be determined from the perspective of the officer under the circumstances that were apparent to him or her at the time. As the Graham court made clear, this deferential standard prevents most second-guessing of an officer's judgment about use of force. Indeed, it may be that Garner's legacy is not so much one of changing the use of deadly force by police as it is of eliding use of force policies and practices by shifting them from the statutory to the customary. [2]
Quote:
Thanks for the information. I, being me, will have to do my "due diligence" and verify it.

That's quite the story about the lady former cop. I think she caught a break with the direction the bullet went after ricocheting and passing through the first guy. Obviously, she was using fmj ammo.
No prob, I'm here to help! If you ever get a chance, ask a Wayne County prosecutor about it. There are more cases like this than you hear about in the news. On the "bad shooting" side, there was a security guard a few years ago, came home to find his garage being burglarized. He was armed and yelled for the burglar to stop after the guy fled. The guy DID stop. The burglar, as I recall, said something like "go ahead and shoot me." So the guy did. Was charged with Second Degree Murder, or something like that. If the guy had kept running after being told to stop and the homeowner would have shot him in the back, it would have been a good shooting. Guy could have been held civilly liable, but not criminally charged.

There have also been cases where the cops shot fleeing car thieves who weren't a threat. They can be fired or otherwise disciplined and the department held liable, but not criminally charged.

Another case involved an EMS tech. He came home and caught a guy stealing his car. He fired a shotgun at the guy and killed him as he fled in his car. No charges.

Last edited by RSanch111; 02-02-2017 at 11:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-02-2017, 10:32 AM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shocker View Post
As far as I know as a MI CPL holder this is absolutely incorrect. If I did something like that I would expect to spend 10 or more years in the local state prison in Freeland, MI.
You're wrong. Do the research beyond what they tell you in CPL class. If you or anyone you know ever gets in that type of situation in MI and your lawyer tells you to plead guilty to a criminal charge, I'd get a new lawyer......! And hire me as your investigator.

The thing you have to consider is that in a CPL class they're getting paid to get your your permit, not give you a law class. Most cops don't even know about this angle of the law because they don't tell you that kind of thing in the police academy either. Cops have no business shooting a non-violent felon because of the civil ramifications, so they're not going to teach them about Michigan's "fleeing felon" rule. If you want to know the law, you have to look at the case law beyond statutes and beyond a $100.00 CPL class. I know plenty of lawyers who don't have a good grasp of deadly force law. Which is another lesson: If you're charged with a force-related crime, don't use your uncle the real estate and trust lawyer for free advice..... It irks me that people who take a CPL class or read a book written by a self-proclaimed gun writer/expert think they have a good grasp of the law. When it comes to the law, the devil is in the details and the law is always changing.

When I was in the police academy a million years ago, (but after TN V. Garner), they told us: "You can only shoot people fleeing from an Arson, Criminal Sexual Conduct I (rape) and Homicide".... so a lot of cops thought that was the "law". It wasn't. But in a police academy, where the only legal requirement to get in is to have a high school diploma or GED, you have to be very specific, not too nuanced and teach to the "lowest common denominator". In a CPL class, the lowest common denominator is even lower.

Quote:
Laws, rules keep cops from removal
Charges can't be brought if suspected felon is shot

May 17, 2000

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
and JOE SWICKARD
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

Sometimes, laws and regulations thwart officials when they try to get rid of a cop for a questionable shooting.

Detroit police executives and prosecutors agreed in 1995, for instance, that a rookie cop was wrong when he shot an unarmed teenager who was tampering with a car. But they couldn't kick him off the force or put him on trial.

"We fired him," Police Chief Benny Napoleon said. "The arbitrator gave him his job back."

The officer, Archie Arp, declined to comment.

On the night of Aug. 23, 1995, Arp was off duty and dropped in to visit his girlfriend at a bar on Joy Road near West Parkway. Arp, 45, had been a cop for a year.

Arp was in the bar a few minutes, police and court records show, when he was asked to check out the parking lot because a kid was seen messing with a car.

Moments later, gunshots were heard and 14-year-old Charles Clay lay dying on the street. Clay was about 90 feet from Arp, and a screwdriver with a 4-inch blade was near the youth's body.

Arp told investigators the youth ran but suddenly turned on him with a shiny object that Arp believed was a weapon. It was the screwdriver.

The autopsy showed that Clay had been shot in the middle of the back. The bullet's path through his body indicated that he may have been running when hit.

Even so, Sgt. Arlie Lovier of the special assignment squad, who was the officer in charge of the homicide investigation, said it was "a good shooting," with no violations of criminal law or department regulations.

The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office wanted to charge Arp, but couldn't. The office determined that a criminal case was impossible because a Michigan Supreme Court ruling said it was legal for anyone -- civilian or police officer -- to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. Assistant prosecutor Michael King said he regretted that he could not bring state charges, "but I feel bound" by the Supreme Court ruling.

However, prosecutors issued a news release indicating that the shooting could be a "civil violation of the deceased's federal rights to be free of unreasonable arrest."

In a September 1995 letter to the police department, county prosecutors said Arp's story wasn't supported by facts, and his use of deadly force appeared to violate department policy.

The police department held hearings and fired Arp, but the dismissal was overturned on appeal in 1998. Arp was suspended for six months, and is still with the department.

Clay's family sued in Wayne County Circuit Court in 1995. The city settled the case for $1 million a year later.

Last edited by RSanch111; 02-02-2017 at 10:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-02-2017, 11:20 AM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Also for you Michiganders.... Here's a good resource for legal updates. They usually send out an update on any significant search and seizure law. It's a good way to win bar bets with cops who haven't been to in-service training since the new laws!

MSP - Legal Updates
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #69  
Old 02-02-2017, 11:59 AM
shocker's Avatar
shocker shocker is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 550
Liked 1,427 Times in 666 Posts
Default

Michigan's Self Defense Statute
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:19 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shocker View Post
Michigan's Self Defense Statute
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's from Michigan's "Self Defense Act" aka "Castle Doctrine". It applies to self defense and does not modify the "Fleeing Felon" rule. "Self Defense" is different than "Fleeing Felon" just as "Fleeing Felon" is different than "During the Commission of a Felony". You can shoot a guy while he's FLEEING your car after trying to steal it and not be shooting in "self defense" but not WHILE he's stealing it (and not be criminally charged). What you posted does not define a crime or modify "fleeing felon", it only defines a "self defense" shooting. Again, when you shoot a fleeing felon, you are not shooting in "self defense" and that section of criminal procedure does not apply, the fleeing felon rule does. Also, Crimes are defined in the Penal Code, which is in the 750's section. Procedure is 780's.

To put it another way, shooting under the "Self Defense Act" is not the only circumstance under which deadly force is justified, either by cops or non-cops.

Last edited by RSanch111; 02-02-2017 at 12:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-02-2017, 01:10 PM
chperez chperez is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 12
Likes: 1
Liked 6 Times in 2 Posts
Default

After reading this thread I wonder why people even bother carry a gun in the United States.

Sure you have the Second Amendment, but that just says you have the right to own as many guns as you want, but if you use one of them to defend yourself, kill a fleeing criminal (who might hurt someone else later on) or protect your home or family, you're going to end up either in jail or bankrupt after the trial.

Honestly it makes more sense to get a good life insurance policy and let the criminal kill you, at least that way the civil rights people (Apparently only criminals have Civil Rights) are happy and your family gets some money.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-04-2017, 11:10 AM
tirod tirod is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Liked 30 Times in 17 Posts
Default

If they are fleeing, they are not a lethal threat.

The issue is that the public doesn't know the law, and more of them are carrying. What they think they know - word of mouth - is usually wrong.

Like a certain travel ban - read the actual language, it's no different than the previous Administrations 19 travel bans. It's not about religion.

No, you can't shoot a fleeing felon unless you know for an irrefutable fact that they are still out to kill other humans. Like, wearing a bomb vest, or leaving a trail of bodies behind them you witnessed.

Take a bunch of teens, a pak of beer, a baseball bat, and load them in a truck on a country road bashing mailboxes. They passed by a local residents home and it wasn't the first, second, OR third time. He stepped out on the porch because he had expected them to show up and fired once. Killed a passenger in the truck.

The proceedings lasted three years off and on, he was finally acquitted.

Was that kid a lethal threat to him? I read too many who think it was justified. Certainly not his parents.

We need to balance our response to the actual need. Not what our buddies around us would thump their chests and say they would do.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #73  
Old 02-04-2017, 06:11 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
No, you can't shoot a fleeing felon unless you know for an irrefutable fact that they are still out to kill other humans. Like, wearing a bomb vest, or leaving a trail of bodies behind them you witnessed.
Depends what state you're in. For the most part, you're right. In Michigan, for example, you're wrong.

Quote:
The proceedings lasted three years off and on, he was finally acquitted.
Why was he acquitted?

Last edited by RSanch111; 02-04-2017 at 06:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-04-2017, 06:15 PM
mstem's Avatar
mstem mstem is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Clarksville, VA
Posts: 962
Likes: 4,374
Liked 1,068 Times in 478 Posts
Default

Shoot at a vehicle in Virginia & you have earned yourself a trip to prison.
__________________
I'm 67. I don't do timeouts.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-04-2017, 06:32 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstem View Post
Shoot at a vehicle in Virginia & you have earned yourself a trip to prison.
Hey stem, what if you shoot at street signs?!?!?! I just spent some time on and around Black Mountain on the Harlan County, KY, VA border and every sign I saw up there had been shot multiple times!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-04-2017, 06:58 PM
T2C's Avatar
T2C T2C is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: CONUS
Posts: 112
Likes: 40
Liked 81 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal44 View Post
IMHO, he got what he deserved.

He should consider himself lucky he didn't hit anyone.
Exactly! Apparently activating his brain housing group was not part of his defensive pistol plan.
__________________
Train to win
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-07-2017, 07:42 PM
Marshal tom Marshal tom is online now
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cedaredge Co.
Posts: 2,274
Likes: 11
Liked 2,729 Times in 969 Posts
Default

Back in the early 70's a fellow officer stopped an individual who fled from the stop when the officer already had his license and registration in hand. Said officer ran to his car and took chase along with half the officers on Marthas Vineyard Island where I was employed at the time. The bad guy had tried to run several police cars off off the road during the chase.
The Sergeant said that the guy had been using the vehicle as a weapon and authorized the officer to shoot at the fleeing car. My fellow officer put a .357 through the rear bumper of the vehicle. The chase was eventually ended and the next day officers went to the bad guys house and arrested him for multiple MV charges without incident. Luckily I was not there at the time. Could have turned out very poorly for all concerned but no charges were filed and no civil action taken. Way Stupid!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-08-2017, 08:41 AM
hostler hostler is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southcentral PA
Posts: 605
Likes: 173
Liked 968 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Running from the police on an island.?......That guy must be a real genius.
Then again, chasing the guy wasn't all that bright either.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:12 AM
TXSWFAN's Avatar
TXSWFAN TXSWFAN is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 430
Likes: 179
Liked 822 Times in 180 Posts
Default

Laws vary from state to state. In Texas, force and deadly force can be used to protect property, even if it's your neighbors. And you can shoot at the car if it's fleeing the scene with your stolen property.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Joe Horn shot two burglars outside his neighbors house in Pasadena, TX and was no billed by the Grand Jury.

Joe Horn shooting controversy - Wikipedia
__________________
Smith & Wesson beat four aces

Last edited by TXSWFAN; 02-08-2017 at 11:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:23 AM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Also for you Michiganders.... Here's a good resource for legal updates. They usually send out an update on any significant search and seizure law. It's a good way to win bar bets with cops who haven't been to in-service training since the new laws!

MSP - Legal Updates
Thanks for posting the link! That is VERY helpful.
__________________
Stay protected my friends.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #81  
Old 02-08-2017, 11:28 AM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Hey stem, what if you shoot at street signs?!?!?! I just spent some time on and around Black Mountain on the Harlan County, KY, VA border and every sign I saw up there had been shot multiple times!!!!
That's called "target practice" down there!
__________________
Stay protected my friends.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-08-2017, 02:01 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protected One View Post
That's called "target practice" down there!
Yeah, better the signs than my truck. Someone even shot up the "Welcome to Virginia" sign on the top of Black Mountain.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-09-2017, 10:23 PM
Whitwabit Whitwabit is offline
US Veteran
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 1,351
Liked 2,660 Times in 1,302 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Also for you Michiganders.... Here's a good resource for legal updates. They usually send out an update on any significant search and seizure law. It's a good way to win bar bets with cops who haven't been to in-service training since the new laws!

MSP - Legal Updates
Interesting web site for the legal updates .. thanks wish Illinois had a site that displayed our new laws ..
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-10-2017, 12:53 AM
Mahalo_.32 Mahalo_.32 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 181
Likes: 86
Liked 131 Times in 65 Posts
Default

Things to NOT DO as a gun owner!!
That projectile could have gone through a window, door or wall and killed a baby in a crib. You are accountable for every shot you take and responsible for the damage it does up and until it.
__________________
M&P 357sig,G31 357sig,M&P 9
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-10-2017, 12:53 PM
DevilDog72's Avatar
DevilDog72 DevilDog72 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Mansfield, Texas
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 11,499
Liked 2,888 Times in 947 Posts
Default

Personally, the threat is over. Be a good witness, take down the plate number, color and make of vehicle and report it to the cops. Too many things to go wrong shooting at a fleeing auto. None of them good.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-10-2017, 01:05 PM
ParadiseRoad's Avatar
ParadiseRoad ParadiseRoad is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,774
Likes: 17,025
Liked 39,804 Times in 7,848 Posts
Default

...just tell them the car was trying to back over you...
__________________
A Country Boy Can Survive
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-11-2017, 01:24 AM
shouldazagged shouldazagged is offline
Absent Comrade
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 19,336
Likes: 53,737
Liked 38,386 Times in 11,801 Posts
Default

Is everyone aware that this thread was opened in October of 2014?

Just thought I'd ask.

Carry on.
__________________
Oh well, what the hell.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-18-2017, 09:38 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 14,499
Liked 9,263 Times in 3,702 Posts
Default

Oh GADS. Lots of confusion here.

The shooting involving Officer Arp may well have been as he described it, but the offender turned faster than Arp perceived it. That dynamic was known then, but not well enough, and I can tell you that most criminal practitioners, including my fellow prosecutors don't know enough about that research to then correctly apply the law. The time period relevant is measured in portions of seconds, and properly assessing such an event requires real expert consultants, not former command officers. There are maybe 1000 lawyers in the U.S. who have any business commenting on use of force law or practicing in that arena. (I write and teach about this kind of stuff when not at work, and sometimes there.)

Next: Garner was in fact a civil rights case, a 1983 action in which the 4 amendment analysis for use of force by a COP on a fleeing felon was considered and narrowed. (The facts were the result of a crime, but that does not make the case a criminal case.) In part one of the reasons it was narrowed is that agencies who had been doing hallucinogens with the Good Idea Fairy had prohibited most or all such shootings (for no good reason). Garner in and of itself does not apply to anyone but LE. This is similar to the damage being done now by the morons with bars and stars who have policies more restrictive than the Constitutional and statutory standards, and who think anyone but the offender has a duty to deescalate any given encounter; as a matter of both Constitutional and statutory law, only the offender does.

HOWEVER, some states changed their use of force laws after Garner and Graham (also a 1983 case) to reflect those cases. Most, as far as I know, made similar changes for both LE and civilians, but YOU are responsible for knowing the law in your state. In WA, see RCW 9A.16.050, available on the official legislative website at RCW 9A.16.050: Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.. A private citizen in WA cannot shoot at most fleeing felons. In the case in Spokane (one in which I would not have shot), the shooter claimed, and the jury believed, that the offender turned while driving as if armed and presenting a threat. The offender's family is all up in arms about the acquittal and was trying to find a lawyer to do a civil (wrongful death, a state tort) case; as far as I know, they have found no one, because any lawyer good enough to do the case knows that no one with a brain will care. See my signature line.

Can there be good reason to shoot a fleeing felon? Yes. For most civilians, not likely - I suggest that unless you see an offender shoot at a cop, and then flee while still armed, hold your fire. Not because I even arguably give a hoot about offender safety, but because at least in some areas, the prosecutor will go full Mosby and make your life more of a hell than you can comprehend.

Generally, one should avoid internet legal advice; this forum is decent, but there are people from all over the country (and world) on it, and the variation can make a difference. The odds of legal (or any other) advice on ARFcom being sound are so bad that you should just avoid the whole place unless you want to feel like the grader in Billy Madison. Want good info, look for a copy of Urey Patrick and John Hall's excellent book; although directed at LE, it's very good in general, and we need good info about the law out there anyway. Most of the media reports about LE use of force are between stupid and purely dishonest. (I wish the third edition, due any time, was out; I have the second.)
__________________
NHI, 10-8.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-18-2017, 09:44 PM
Muss Muggins's Avatar
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: bootheel of Missouri
Posts: 16,855
Likes: 6,981
Liked 28,085 Times in 8,897 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug M. View Post
Generally, one should avoid internet legal advice; this forum is decent, but there are people from all over the country (and world) on it, and the variation can make a difference. The odds of legal (or any other) advice on ARFcom being sound are so bad that you should just avoid the whole place unless you want to feel like the grader in Billy Madison. Want good info, look for a copy of Urey Patrick and John Hall's excellent book; although directed at LE, it's very good in general, and we need good info about the law out there anyway. Most of the media reports about LE use of force are between stupid and purely dishonest. (I wish the third edition, due any time, was out; I have the second.)
Should one also avoid internet advice about internet legal advice?
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-18-2017, 09:49 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 14,499
Liked 9,263 Times in 3,702 Posts
Default

I knew that might come up, and is a reasonable question. I don't have time to paste in the detailed stuff about the law, but one can look at the Washington State Bar's lawyer directory and see that I am one, and google the address given and see that I am a prosecutor. I do mostly civil stuff (including LE legal) now, but have also been a criminal DPA with a good bit of experience in both juvenile offenders (from MIP to serious violent such as rape and assault cases) and adults in felony court, and I did some criminal appeal briefs for the criminal division last year.
__________________
NHI, 10-8.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #91  
Old 02-19-2017, 03:53 PM
filipows filipows is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 128
Likes: 53
Liked 71 Times in 33 Posts
Default Shooting at a fleeing vehicle

Quote:
Originally Posted by STCM(SW) View Post
The case here was the BG stole a SUV and was driving away.
Owner fired one shot from a 9mm, hit the bad guy in the head killing him.
Trial held, 11 woman, one BP agent on jury found him "Not Guilty".

BTW, county has to pay for all his lawyers fee's..........
Here is a link to the story in the Seattle paper.

Spokane man acquitted in shooting death of fleeing thief | The Seattle Times


The key to the defense and acquittal was defendant thought the driver of the fleeing vehicle was preparing to shoot at him.

Last edited by filipows; 02-19-2017 at 11:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-19-2017, 04:52 PM
Oldog Oldog is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Even law enforcement folks can get in trouble for shooting at a fleeing felon. Never a good idea for a civilian from a legal standpoint, and practically speaking, the shooter is very unlikely do do any damage to the flee-er.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-20-2017, 02:14 AM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug M. View Post
Oh GADS. Lots of confusion here.

The shooting involving Officer Arp may well have been as he described it, but the offender turned faster than Arp perceived it. That dynamic was known then, but not well enough, and I can tell you that most criminal practitioners, including my fellow prosecutors don't know enough about that research to then correctly apply the law. The time period relevant is measured in portions of seconds, and properly assessing such an event requires real expert consultants, not former command officers. There are maybe 1000 lawyers in the U.S. who have any business commenting on use of force law or practicing in that arena. (I write and teach about this kind of stuff when not at work, and sometimes there.)
The fact that Archie Arp was not charged had less to do with how fast the kid turned around and much more to do with Michigan's fleeing felon rule. Same rationale as the People V. Couch case and a number of others.

I don't have the prosecutor's denial statement handy, but I'd be willing to bet that if you completed a FOIA and got it, it would cite the fleeing felon rule. Even the headline of the article alluded to the "rule" that kept the prosecutor from recommending a warrant. There is no "rule" that says "If a person shoots a person in the back and claims it was in reaction to a deadly threat, there can be no prosecution". That would be a question for a jury to decide, I would think.... Also, considering the climate of Wayne County (Detroit) where a white cop, off-duty, at a bar, shoots a black 15 year-old in the back, while he was running away, and says he confused a screwdriver for a gun.... If they could have charged him, they would have. Larry Nevers used what he thought would be non-fatal force on Malice Green (an adult, unemployed crackhead) and said he saw what he believed was a weapon, AND felt Green trying to get his gun. Not only was he charged with murder after Greed died, then tried, convicted and re-tried and re-convicted, the Chief of Police declared "We will convict here." and the Mayor called the cops involved "Murderers" the day after the incident. Nevers would have been better off, legally, if he'd shot the guy while he was running away.

Also, there's no way the prosecutor in Wayne County is going to talk publicly about the "fleeing felon rule". They'd be afraid of a bloodbath! I'm surprised they haven't passed a law in MI, like just about every other state, that criminalizes the shooting of a "non-violent" fleeing felon.

Here's one from Washington that took place well after TN V. Garner. Is it legal in WA to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon as long as the deadly force turns out to be not deadly???

Quote:




Prosecutor won't charge man who shot burglary suspect with bow and arrow

By Tony Lystra / The Daily News Jul 16, 2010 0

Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur said she will not prosecute a Kelso man who shot an arrow into the buttock of a suspected fleeing burglar late last year, but insisted Friday she is not encouraging vigilante justice.

In an interview, Baur said her decision is by no means a license for Cowlitz County residents to open fire on people they believe to be committing crimes.

"If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."

Kelso police said that around 11:45 p.m. Dec. 13, Scott Allen Schwingdorf, 33, heard glass breaking at his neighbors' vacant home in the 1100 block of 10th Avenue North and spotted Galen Louis Crayne of Longview walking away from the residence with a brown box tucked under his arm.

Schwingdorf, who had armed himself with a hunting bow, shot a fleeing Crayne in the left buttock with a broadhead arrow, police said.

Crayne, who survived the shooting, broke the arrow off and fled in a truck that was waiting at Cliff's Hilltop Market about two blocks away, authorities said.

In a carefully worded statement released late Thursday, Baur said Washington State law allows citizens to "use reasonable force to defend property they own or have been entrusted with."

"It appears that Mr. Schwingdorf acted to stop a person he believed was fleeing after committing a residential burglary at a house he had agreed to watch," Baur's statement said.

Baur said Schwingdorf chased Crayne for about a block, calling repeatedly for him to stop, then fired his bow once on 10th Avenue near the corner of Burcham Street. (Previous accounts in the newspaper misstated where the shooting occurred.)

Schwingdorf shot Crayne, also 33, from a distance of about 90 feet, Baur said.

In her statement Baur said: "Had Mr. Schwingdorf acted with intent other than to stop a fleeing felon, or had the force used resulted in death, or had any of his assumptions been incorrect, his actions would be outside the realm of necessary or reasonable, and the charging decision would likely be different."

Crayne, who faces trial in September for residential burglary, could not be reached. His mother, Jacquelyn Crayne, of Longview, said she is angry with the prosecutor's office for not filing charges against the man who shot her son.

"We don't want people out burglarizing places," she said. "But it is not somebody else's responsibility to do something about it. You should never be allowed to do what that man did. He is by no means trained to recognize or assess a situation properly. It's not his right."

Schwingdorf declined to comment on the record Friday. Juries in several Cowlitz County cases this year appeared to side with defendants claiming to protect themselves. In one case a jury acquitted a man accused of waving a gun at nightclub bouncers who had just forcibly boosted him from a club. In another, a Woodland man who shot a home builder four times and claimed self-defense was sentenced to nine months in jail after a jury chose to convict him of a lesser charge.

Jacquelyn Crayne said Baur feared that Cowlitz County juries favor defendants claiming to protect themselves or their property. Baur, she said, "didn't want to lose a case."

Baur said earlier this year that she was taking the previous cases into consideration in weighing whether to charge Schwingdorf. But she said Friday that "losing a case is not something I've ever been afraid of."

Baur, who is being challenged for re-election in November by public defense attorney Tom Ladouceur, said politics did not influence her decision. "If I was worried about that, I would have done something in December... (and) it would have died down by now," she said. "I wanted to take my time with this one and take everything into consideration."

In this narrow set of circumstances, Baur said, the law simply "does not support a conviction." She cited a state law that allows citizens to use force to protect "personal property lawfully in his or her possession" as long as "the force is not more than is necessary."
Get news headlines sent daily to your inbox

In a statement, Baur said that on the night of the shooting, Schwingdorf was in his garage when he heard glass breaking at his next door neighbors' house, which had been left vacant by a recent fire. The neighbors had asked Schwingdorf to keep an eye on the residence, the statement said.

Schwingdorf, according to Baur's account, told his mother to call 911. He grabbed a bow and arrow, which was nearby in the garage, and stepped outside, where he found Crayne, authorities said.

(Police reports have identified the suspected burglar as Crayne, but Baur said her written statement to the newspaper does not mention Crayne's name because his case has not yet been resolved and she is ethically barred from commenting on it publicly.)

Schwingdorf told Crayne to stop, Baur's statement said. Instead, Crayne ran. Schwingdorf gave chase and called repeatedly for him to stop and put down the box, but Crayne continued running, Baur said.

"To prevent the man from escaping with his neighbors' property, Mr. Schwingdorf shot an arrow at him," Baur's statement said. "The arrow struck the man in the buttocks, causing serious injury."

Crayne broke off the arrow's shaft and fled in a truck, the statement said. Crayne was arrested in February on suspicion of burglary.

Jacquelyn Crayne said the arrowhead remained lodged in her son's pelvis for nearly six months until he underwent surgery to remove it.

"He still has a limp," she said.

Last edited by RSanch111; 02-20-2017 at 02:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-20-2017, 12:52 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car... Shooting at a fleeing car...  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 14,499
Liked 9,263 Times in 3,702 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
The fact that Archie Arp was not charged had less to do with how fast the kid turned around and much more to do with Michigan's fleeing felon rule. Same rationale as the People V. Couch case and a number of others.


Here's one from Washington that took place well after TN V. Garner. Is it legal in WA to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon as long as the deadly force turns out to be not deadly???
*
As to the first, hard to tell. What was said by the prosecutor in Michigan may not have reflected good knowledge about the speed at which these events happen and offenders turn. There is good research readily available, but most lawyers don't have a clue about such.

Whether or not the force used ends up being lethal is not part of the analysis of justification; it is not even arguably relevant. However, prosecutors have virtually unfettered discretion on whether or not to charge, which due to separation of powers analysis, almost never can be lawfully impacted by the legislature or judiciary. There is lots of good case law on this.

The obligation of a prosecutor is not to obtain convictions or kowtow to the whims of the populace, but to do justice. (Compare this to the knowingly frivolous prosecutions of the of the Baltimore PD officers by Mosby, based on lying to the court, concealing exculpatory evidence, and bias. There is a reason she has a bar complaint pending and is being sued; she might well lose her immunity due to her conduct.) Charging the dude with bow might have been lawful, but would have served no just purpose. I've refused to charge cases for such reasons myself; I recall one in particular in which the "victim" bellyached to my boss and was told off in no uncertain terms.
__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Last edited by Doug M.; 02-20-2017 at 12:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sheriff In County Near Here Run Over And Killed While Trying To Stop Fleeing Felons. charlie sherrill The Lounge 26 07-26-2010 03:42 AM
People fleeing Oklahoma ladder13 The Lounge 21 12-16-2009 12:33 PM
Fleeing shoplifter? Farmer17 The Lounge 37 10-02-2009 01:44 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)