Lansing Michigan Fatal Home Invasion

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bobbarker

Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
200
Location
Michigan
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=13810485

This really grinds my gears. Obviously the investigation is in it's early stages, but from what is known at this point, it should be a fairly clear-cut case of self defense. Police receive a call of a home invasion, and while en-route to the scene, get word that shots are fired. They arrive to find the invader deceased, shot by a person in the residence.

Yet they are calling this the first murder of the year in lansing.

The only saving grace is that towards the end of the article it notes the detectives are investigating to decide what, if any, charges to bring. I sincerely hope they pay more attention to the "if any" portion of that statement.
 
Well it is a murder, its just whether or not its justified by self defense. Sound like clear cut self defense to me and the fact no charges are being brought seems to confirm this.
 
Usually "homicide" is the correct term for one person killing another. Murder is reserved for unlawful and willful killing of another.

Both are illegal acts. However, there can be an affirmative defense to the homicide charge if you were compelled to commit that act in the effort to save your life.

...

So, since we're not a "bad news repository," I'm putting this in S&T. What information can be gleaned from the available accounts that might instruct us in how to face our own moment of danger?
 
We don't know the facts of this happening---time will tell
The media in MI does not like a person defending themselves against a criminal.
They do not like the Castle Doctrine--- They would much rather report that some guy killed a bunch of people----makes a story that they can cry for the criminal for months.
Go fly a kite MI media. You suck.
 
They investigate to verify self-defense. Could be the intruder knew the occupant and intended no physical harm. Perhaps only wanted to talk or retrieve personal property. No way of knowing without an investigation. Last I heard we can't shoot people for trespassing.
 
I live in East lansing and I have closely watched this case unfold. Not all the details are known.
In Michigan, deploying and using a firearm can only be done when threatened with deadly force or rape. Deadly force cannot be used to protect property. I know the law very well because I have a CPL and the legal portion of the CCW class was extensive.
I still don't know the details relating to the incident. Yet, if the home owner was not threatened with deadly force by a weapon the shooting could very well become a manslaughter charge, possibly and again I don't have all the facts.
For example if I went into the living room with my handgun and found a perp who sees me then bolts to the outside door to escape I cannot shoot-the only option I have is to call 911. The perp in this case opted to escape, not attack and just because he is in my living room does not justify shooting him.
Plus, even in a clearly defined self defense situation in which a perp is killed, one has to expect a civil suit from the perp's family which can be very costly. The deployment and firing of a handgun is very serious and each situation weighed carefully.
 
shootingthebreeze said:
In Michigan, deploying and using a firearm can only be done when threatened with deadly force or rape. Deadly force cannot be used to protect property. I know the law very well because I have a CPL and the legal portion of the CCW class was extensive.
Click to expand...
Simply not true. The point of the castle doctrine is to say that if someone breaks into your house, you can assume they're not there to share a cup of tea. They don't have to present a deadly weapon for you to take action.
 
2wheels, not by Michigan law. There has to be a clear deadly threat before a weapon is deployed and fired. I will have to find the Lansing State Journal article and copy and paste it-pay attention to the last sentence in that article.

I had many points clarified by the lawyer who gave the legal portion of the class during our break.
 
I will have to find the Lansing State Journal article and copy and paste it-pay attention to the last sentence in that article.

Please don't- we don't need copyright violation hassles here. Posting a link to the article will be sufficient.

lpl
 
shootingthebreeze said:
There has to be a clear deadly threat before a weapon is deployed and fired.
Click to expand...
No, there does not have to be a "clear" deadly threat. You need only believe that you're in danger of bodily harm, and it's pretty safe to assume that if you're home when someone breaks in they'll do you great bodily harm if given the chance.

You make it sound as if someone can break into your house and do whatever they want as long as they don't show you a gun. Simply not true.

Michigan Castle Doctrine
 
That's really what I meant Lee not copy and paste article but link. Thank you for the correction.
The newest link is of today:
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...-year-old-Lansing-man-killed-over-the-weekend

And in this link is today's article which states that the homeowner could very well be charged-the person who was killed was not armed.
In the other article, the last sentence stated the '06 expanded law which states paraphrasing that deadly force can only be used if one is threatened by deadly force or rape.

Per my CCW class too, property in Michigan cannot be defended with deadly force.

You have to know the law before deploying and firing a handgun. The house owner in question could face manslaughter charges. The home invader was not armed. Though I still do not know all the details, I feel that the shooting was unjustified.
 
2wheels, I would always err towards extreme caution before using my handgun and it would only be used if I was clearly in imminent danger of deadly force.

As I stated earlier, if I had a handgun in my hands and discovered a perp in my living room and the perp bolted towards the outside door to escape I would let him escape because I would have already called 911. He escaped upon seeing me-no justification to shoot-he was not attacking me.

Each situation has to be weighed because of the seriousness in discharging a firearm.
 
Here is "Sweet Home Alabama", that would be ruled 99.9% of the time...JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.

That which is committed with the intention to kill or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it.
 
Last I heard we can't shoot people for trespassing.
Click to expand...

depends on the state.

IN the western midwest we have laws on the books that as long as it is clearly posted you can use deadly force on a tresspasser if they are in the act of trasspassing on property that contains livestock or beasts of burden. This is a law aimed at cattle rustlers and horse thieves.

there have been a few times we have had to fire warning shots when some tresspassers just would not get the clue to leave our ranch back home. most of the time they are hunters who have tresspassed (and many times cut the fence) if that is the case we hold them until game warden and or sherrif arrive .
 
shootingthebreeze:

The attorney who presented to your class either was ill-informed, or you misunderstood. An uninvited person being in your home, in the middle of the night, is sufficient to assume they are there with ill-intent.

Most prosecutors will not require the homeowner to conduct a polygraph of the perp to ascertain their motive.

I'm no lawyer, and I thank-God that I am not! But, the gentleman who instructed our MCPL course was the 27-year director of the Oakland County S.W.A.T., and is a criminal defense attorney. His opinions run in direct contrast to the attorney who spoke to your class.

Geno
 
They investigate to verify self-defense.
Click to expand...

Right. In the past, there have been numerous times when people have called the cops to report things like home invasions, attempted robberies, attempted murders, and other acts of self defense that in reality were none of those things.

...it should be a fairly clear-cut case of self defense. Police receive a call of a home invasion, and while en-route to the scene, get word that shots are fired. They arrive to find the invader deceased, shot by a person in the residence.
Click to expand...

Right, they only have one side of the story initially. Just because they were called doesn't mean those that called were telling the truth.
 
Posted by Geno: shootingthebreeze: The attorney who presented to your class either was ill-informed, or you misunderstood.
Click to expand...

What part of this statment by shootingthebreeze is it that you bleive is not correct?

In Michigan, deploying and using a firearm can only be done when threatened with deadly force or rape. Deadly force cannot be used to protect property. I know the law very well because I have a CPL and the legal portion of the CCW class was extensive.
Click to expand...

I will not copy and past sections from the code, but here is something written by attorney Steve Dulan and published by the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners; let's look at this relevant excerpt first:

Essentially, deadly force is only authorized in self-defense when preventing: great bodily harm that could lead to death, [great bodily harm], or rape (known modernly in Miichigan as sexual assault.) The individual using deadly force in legitimate self defense must have an actual belief that he is preventing one of those three things, and that belief has to be reasonable under all the circumstances. In other words, a jury would have to agree that, if they were in the same situation, they would share that same belief that great bodily harm, death, or sexual assault were about to occur.
Click to expand...
That sounds very consistent with the statement made by shootingthebreeze to me.

The article goes on to point out that, since the passage of what is commonly referred to as Michigan's "castle doctrine" law in 2006, a person using deadly force is presumed to have had a reasonable belief that he or she was faced with imminent danger of one of those three things, provided that (1) the incident involved breaking and entering into a home or place of business or an attempt to drag someone from an automobile and (2) the person using deadly force honestly believed same.

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/08/03/michigans-castle-doctrine-law-and-you/

An uninvited person being in your home, in the middle of the night, is sufficient to assume they are there with ill-intent.
Click to expand...
More from attorney Dulan:

An individual who breaks in to one of the places listed above may not present a deadly threat and it is possible that in some circumstances, use of deadly force may be still considered disproportionate. However, the presumption is that someone who breaks into a home or business, or who attempts to drag a motorist from a car, does mean to do something that calls for deadly force in self defense. However, the presumption is that someone who breaks into a home or business, or who attempts to drag a motorist from a car, does mean to do something that calls for deadly force in self defense.

This statute gives the benefit of the doubt to the home or business owner or motorist. However, it is not a blanket license to kill. Remember that a firearm is always considered deadly force and use your guns wisely, judiciously and effectively. The presumption raised by this statutes is rebuttable. Meaning, that a bloodthirsty or negligent individual who shoots at someone who is found to have been clearly not a threat, may still run afoul of the law.
Click to expand...

We do not know a lot about the incident at hand. Reportedly, an "intruder" was shot and killed. How did he get in? What transpired? It's all going to hinge on the evidence.
 
Kleanbore said:
The article goes on to point out that, since the passage of what is commonly referred to as Michigan's "castle doctrine" law in 2006, a person using deadly force is presumed to have had a reasonable belief that he or she was faced with imminent danger of one of those three things, provided that (1) the incident involved breaking and entering into a home or place of business or an attempt to drag someone from an automobile and (2) the person using deadly force honestly believed same.
Click to expand...
This is the part that doesn't go along with what shootingbreeze wrote. He implied that if you don't see a deadly weapon, you have no right to defend yourself. That part isn't true. The presumption is that if someone breaks down your door wearing a ski mask at 3:00 in the morning, he is there to do you harm. You do not have to verify through sight or any other means that he possesses a deadly weapon.

I quote this from Shootingbreeze: "There has to be a clear deadly threat before a weapon is deployed and fired." "Clear" implies that you have some objective way of knowing your life is in danger. The only objective way would be to see a deadly weapon. And I would argue that if you wait to see a gun, you're dead already.
 
The real issue is that the law provides a presumption that an act of breaking and entering creates a basis for a reasonable belief, etc., and that the presumption is rebuttable (that's usually the case even if it does not say so in the code).

No, you do not have to see a weapon; I missed that in the later post by shootingthebreeze. However, if the evidence indicates that the intruder either did not break in or try to break in, or that having done so he had indicated that he would depart, or that he did so for purposes other than threatening the occupant with death, great bodily harm, or rape, justification may well not have existed.

The fact that the intruder did not have a weapon would not negate a basis for a reasonable belief, but combined with other evidence it could make a defense of justification difficult.

As in all cases involving the use of deadly force, justification will hinge on evidence related to whether the actor had reason to believe that shooting was necessary.

"Castle laws" (and castle doctrine established by legal precedent) greatly and rightfully reduce the need for a homeowner whose occupied domicile has been entered unlawfully (and with force, in some jurisdictions) to provide other evidence supporting a reasonable belief that imminent danger existed, and they usually eliminate any duty to retreat from or within the home, but they are not a license to shoot if shooting can reasonably be avoided.
 
Kleanbore said:
As in all cases involving the use of deadly force, justification will hinge on evidence related to whether the actor had reason to believe that shooting was necessary.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And every case is different depending on circumstances.

This case, now quite famous, still hasn't resulted in any jail time for the homeowner in spite of the fact that the BG wasn't armed, and the homeowner chased and shot the guy a block from his house. I believe the first trial resulted in a hung jury, and the judge in the case was clearly on the side of the homeowner. But this is Detroit. I think everyone agrees that he's guilty, and that he should have let the guy go. But living in Detroit is a whole different animal. My point being that every case is different, and circumstances play a big part in the outcome. Tigh Croff Case
 
This happening is very strange.
The police won't talk about it.
The newspapers are keeping their ignorant mouth shut.
The public has no idea what happened--but the speculators are enjoying themselves.
Stick around for the next thrilling chapter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top