No charges inLansing home invasion

[HOWARD J]

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110205/NEWS01/102050315/No-charges-in-Lansing-home-invasion-shooting

Being drunk & invading a persons home can get you shot in MI

 

[Kleanbore]

This is later information regarding the events discussed here.

According to the new reports, the guy pushed in uninvited, shoved and struck the residents, refused to leave, and was killed.

The prosecutor took almost a month to make a decision to not charge the resident; photographs showing the injuries to the resident are cited by the prosecutor as "proof" that an assault occurred. (For what little that it's worth, my lay reading of the statute seems to indicate that the state bears the burden of proof to show that the resident did not believe that he was endangered).

That so much time and effort were involved in reaching a decision to not charge the resident in a castle doctrine state should serve as a warning to those who believe that castle laws alone always automatically justify the shooting of an uninvited intruder.

From the S&T standpoint, the lesson here, it would seem, is to not open the door.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

Kleanbore, message 2 I could not have written your comment better.

 

[HOWARD J]

Another lesson here: If you are the type of person that turns into a real jerk when you drink---maybe you should think about staying sober.

 

[mgkdrgn]

From the S&T standpoint, the lesson here, it would seem, is to not open the door.

That would be correct, because once you OPEN THE DOOR, the castle doctrine does not apply (at least not here in SC). Some one has to break into your home to invoke the castle doctrine ... that doesn't happen if you open the door ... YOU "broke the seal" on your home .. not the intruder.

 

[HOWARD J]

In MI---the castle doctrine covers you on your property, in your car or any place you have a legal right to be--if you feel that you life is threatened.
Stop putting the blame on the old guy for defending himself & his wife from some nasty drunk.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Poor homeowners had to wait a Month to get cleared. Sounds like the DA needs a swift kick to get the lead out next time.

 

[Kleanbore]

Stop putting the blame on the old guy for defending himself & his wife from some nasty drunk.

Don't confuse anyone here with the wife of the deceased.

I think most of us feel that the shooter was justified. When I said that the lesson is to not open the door, I meant that, had the resident not done so, he and his wife would not have been threatened, he would not have been injured, he would not have had to shoot anyone, and he would not have risked prosecution. His bank balance would be higher, also.

My wife and I have learned that lesson well, from the misfortunes of others.

 

[HOWARD J]

We will never know why he opened the door--maybe because he is 60 some years old.
He may not be as sharp as he was once---but he was smart enuf to have access to a
gun---maybe he has been on this forum ?

 

[BBQLS1]

It appears the link is broken.

 

[ZCORR Jay]

I would have to agree that opening the door was the major mistake. I used to live in a busy area and from time to time cars would break down and people would go door to door asking for help. Ya never know what their intentions are. It was a not so upscale area so we never opened the door.


I never thought about how opening the door could void the castle doctrine but I could see how that makes sense to a politician.

 

[Kleanbore]

I never thought about how opening the door could void the castle doctrine but I could see how that makes sense to a politician.

In some states, the presumption of imminent danger exists whenever a person enters a house unlawfully, but in others, the unlawful entry must be made "forcibly" or "with force". The definition of that in law or case law may vary among states, but one might think that the reason for including that stipulation has to do with having a higher standard of evidence regarding intent.

In Michigan, the words "breaking and entering" are in the code.

 

[HOWARD J]

You folks can harp on the shooter all day---but remember--IT WAS FOUND TO BE A GOOD SHOOTING ( IN MI) NO CHARGES FILED.
Also: the relatives of the deceased can't sue.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Howard J: You folks can harp on the shooter all day---

I have not seen any indication at all that anyone here is harping on him.

but remember--IT WAS FOUND TO BE A GOOD SHOOTING ( IN MI) NO CHARGES FILED.

Not to parse words, but what happened is that the prosecutor decided to not prosecute. While he did say that the shooting was justified, and I have seen no indication from anyone here of any disagreement with that, that is not at all the same as a jury verdict; he could change his mind (most unlikely), or his successor could awlays choose to pursue charges (unlikely, one would think, based on what has been reported).

The only definitive and irreversible finding that it was a "good shooting" (if there ever is really such a thing as a good shooting) would be a trial and an acquittal. We are very fortunate that it didn't go that far, but the absence of an acquittal just may shed some doubt on the strength of the shooter's protection against a civil suit. This is a new and largely untested area of the law.

I do not point this out to be argumentative, and as a matter of fact, based on the reports, I am entirely sympathetic to the residents.

I mention these points so that people who may not have thought about them understand that favorable decisions by officers on the scene, by the district attorney, or even a by a grand jury are not the same as an acquittal. People who have experienced such things should not make any public statements about the subject, or put anything in writing afterwards; nor should they make any statements to the police without having an attorney present.

In a case involving a law for which there is no statute of limitations, that "cone of silence" should stay in effect for the rest of one's life.