My Neighbor shot his step son: developing story.

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

USAF_Vet

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
5,773
Location
Hastings, Michigan
So as I'm getting ready for work this morning, I hear sirens. I blew it of as nothing until I saw them at my neighbors house, one lot down and across the street.

Right now it looks like self defense, since he has already been released from custody. However, there are going to be some other legal questions.

So far this is all secondhand, but the adult aged step son apparently forced entry and was shot by his step father in a physical altercation. All wel and good so far, but I heard he claimed the shot fired was a warning shot and it struck his step son in the stomach. If the claim that it was only a warning shot is true, I wonder how the prosecuting attorney is going to view that. The second thing I see as a potential problem for my neighbor is he is a medical marijuana grower and user. How does medical marijuana impact Michigan gun rights?

The man who was shot is apparently going to live.
 
How does medical marijuana impact Michigan gun rights?
Click to expand...
Don't know about Michigan, but it makes you a prohibited purchaser, federally. Can't truthfully fill out the 4473 or the purchase will be denied.
 
This ATF document is incredibly close to restricting other rights...

The law prohibits a person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" from owning a firearm and/or ammunition. However, the document then goes on to say, without quoting law, that even someone who may lawfully use marijuana is an unlawful user and addict.

This seems to be jumping to assumptions, without proof. Last I was told, innocent until proven guilty applies to all citizens.


The letter also says that "if you (the FFL holder) are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have 'reasonable cause to believe' that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance"

Does this mean that a police officer has 'reasonable cause to believe' that a CCW permit holder is carrying illegally, just because he has a license saying that he can legally carry?
 
However, the document then goes on to say, without quoting law, that even someone who may lawfully use marijuana is an unlawful user and addict. ... Does this mean that a police officer has 'reasonable cause to believe' that a CCW permit holder is carrying illegally, just because he has a license saying that he can legally carry?
Click to expand...

You missed an important point. It is against FEDERAL law to use marijuana. PERIOD. State laws may say otherwise, but federal law trumps state law here. You cannot "lawfully" use marijuana. So, what the ATF is saying here is, if someone is issued a medical marijuana card, that is a strong indicator that they are breaking federal law, and are thus (and in specific) prohibited from buying or possessing a firearm.

Having a permit to do something that ISN'T against federal law (like carry a firearm in your state) isn't evidence of any law-breaking.
 
Federal law. You smoke weed, you can't posses a firearm. Get caught with weed and a gun, it will be costly. IMHO, I would rather have a pothead neighbor with guns, then a boozer. What would be ideal is neither one.
 
Yes, proper application of the Failure to Stop drill is VERBOTEN!
Click to expand...
:scrutiny: Really?

Warning shots are bad ideas. Warning shots that hit someone are VERY bad.

They put you into a legally nasty situation of having to say, "I didn't feel strongly enough that I was in fear for my life that I had decided to shoot this man I thought might attack me, but I shot anyway and I hit him accidentally."

So your affirmative defense for the assault or homicide -- that you had an immediate fear that you would die if you did not shoot to stop the assault -- is damaged by your own testimony. And now you've admitted to an accidental injury or even homicide for which you are and should be liable.

A self-defense case requires that you admit that you shot the attacker, and did so on purpose. You believed you would die if you did not.

An accidental shooting cannot be ruled "justified."
 
I was thinking along the lines of Federally, he is a prohibited purchaser. However, how closely are purchase and possession related here? Michigans marijuana law is only a few years old. Hypothetically, if he owned the guns prior to lawfully growing/ smoking marijuana, would it alter anything?
 
The warning shot statement is second hand at this point. I'm not sure if that is what was told to the authorities or not. I heard it from my wife who heard it from a neighbor, who also happens to be the shooters brother.

I told my wife that if it was a warning shot gone wrong, be could be in serious trouble.
 
Sam1911 said:
You missed an important point. It is against FEDERAL law to use marijuana. PERIOD. State laws may say otherwise, but federal law trumps state law here. You cannot "lawfully" use marijuana. So, what the ATF is saying here is, if someone is issued a medical marijuana card, that is a strong indicator that they are breaking federal law, and are thus (and in specific) prohibited from buying or possessing a firearm.

Having a permit to do something that ISN'T against federal law (like carry a firearm in your state) isn't evidence of any law-breaking.
Click to expand...

Oh okay, I gotcha. My bad
 
Which is why this was just the first part of a properly executed failure to stop drill...
Click to expand...
Ok. But that's not what the man was reported to have SAID. And what he SAID makes all the difference here, which was sort of my point.

"I shot this man who was attacking me..." is a perfectly fine part of your (extremely short) statement to the cops and/or 911.

"I accidentally shot this man I was trying to scare away..." is decidedly NOT something you ever want to say.

But as USAF_Vet has said, he doesn't know for sure that the man said anything on the matter. So it might be a moot point, in this case.
 
Medical Marijuana makes you a prohibited person. IDK, maybe a lawyer could overcome that if he had purchased the gun before the ATF made that rule. The shoot was probably a good shoot because he was released, although claiming "shot to scare" or "shot to wound" does not fit under the legal principal of when it is acceptable to deploy lethal force. What he essentially said was "I shot someone who was antagonistic to me and made me fearful, but I did not feel fearful enough to actually need to use lethal force."
 
So far the news reported that my neighbor was attacked and he shot in self defense. For anyone interested, you can read about it on Fox 17 or MLive. He was released while the case is being reviewed.
 
All wel and good so far, but I heard he claimed the shot fired was a warning shot and it struck his step son in the stomach.
Click to expand...
Let's hope he didn't say that. If he didn't intend to hit his attacker but did, then he was negligent. That will at least extend his exposure to civil suit.
Warning shots are bad ideas.
Click to expand...
And talking to the police after a defensive shooting (beyond the "required" he attacked me/I was in fear for my life/there is the evidence/witnesses) without your lawyer is an even worse idea. It may well be that, in the mental confusion following what he perceived as a deadly attack, he thought it would be "better" to explain he actually didn't want to hurt the guy, so a "warning shot" story sounded good.

Or there may be other explanations...
 
allaroundhunter said:
This ATF document is incredibly close to restricting other rights...

The law prohibits a person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" from owning a firearm and/or ammunition. However, the document then goes on to say, without quoting law, that even someone who may lawfully use marijuana is an unlawful user and addict.

This seems to be jumping to assumptions, without proof. Last I was told, innocent until proven guilty applies to all citizens.


The letter also says that "if you (the FFL holder) are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have 'reasonable cause to believe' that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance"

Does this mean that a police officer has 'reasonable cause to believe' that a CCW permit holder is carrying illegally, just because he has a license saying that he can legally carry?
Click to expand...
As an FFL I think the Justice Dept. should be renamed The Dept. of Injustice. That sentence describes many handicapped and older folks who regularly take the pain medication their Dr tells them too. Maybe the ATF folks could take a look at the Constitution & Bill of Rights
 
Originally Posted by Scimmia
No it doesn't. It specifically states an unlawful user, if their Dr tells them to, it's not unlawful.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does because the Feds say MJ use is illegal regardless of what state law says.
Click to expand...

Scimmia was on to something there, he just didn't carry it far enough. I think the most accurate statement would be:

No it doesn't. It specifically states an unlawful user, if their Dr tells them to and it doesn't violate state or federal law it's not unlawful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Father who shot son charged with firearms violation
Replies
9
Views
1K
TallPine
T
V
  • Locked
My Neighbor's Son Shot with a .38
Replies
2
Views
772
Sam1911
S
P
  • Locked
Medical pot puts down Tulare roots
Replies
1
Views
450
publius
P
T
  • Locked
Range trip with step son yesterday..
Replies
4
Views
713
rayjay
R
D
  • Locked
Taylorsville man shot in self-defense, prosecutors say
Replies
3
Views
414
Car Knocker
C
Back
Top