Teen shot dead and another injured after suspected home invasion in Detroit

[SpartanDem]

Last edited Wed Apr 9, 2014, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Detroit Free Press

Another Detroit homeowner appears to have gunned down intruders at his house.

In the latest in a string of such fatal shootings, a 47-year-old man is in custody after police said he shot two people who had broken into his home on Detroit’s west side this morning.

A 19-year-old man is dead and his partner, a 19-year-old woman, is in critical condition, according to Detroit Police spokesman Sgt. Michael Woody. The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office will decide if the shooting was justified.

They were both taken to DMC Sinai-Grace Hospital, where the man was pronounced dead on arrival.




Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20140409/NEWS01/304090071/Man-dead-home-invasion-shooting-Detroit

---

On some level it's sad that someone so young is gone even if they were a jerk ass criminal, but it seems like we've had at least half dozen of these incidents in the city since the new year. Maybe some of these people will start getting the message.

[brentspeak]

1. Unless there's something else we don't know

This would appear to be a case of legitimate use of a firearm in self-defense.

[840high]

2. Yes.

[exboyfil]

3. If he shot at them after they exited the house

He might be in some trouble.

[marble falls]

7. "Might be", did the home owner have a reasonable expectation they were going outside to get weapons

or a confederate?

[exboyfil]

20. Will be

Of course you do have the case in Texas in which a dancer's car was shot at as it left and she was killed. The guy walked event though at best it was a contract dispute (whether he contracted for sex which is illegal or just for dancing which is legal).

I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who fires a rifle in the neighborhood at a fleeing burglar. I may standing on that street as well. My policy is to barricade and wait for the calvary.

[marble falls]

37. Ever been to Detroit? The cops have neighborhoods they've announced they will not patrol.....

the thought I get here is maybe the home owner is sitting stash house.

[BeatleBoot]

4. The Detroit Police Chief encourages homeowners to protect themselves

in this manner.

[christx30]

14. Because their police department is so

underfunded and undermanned that it'll take sometimes a day or 2 for a cop to get out there.
Homeowner did the right thing. Teenager shouldn't have tried breaking into that house. It's terrible, but an expected outcome.

[warrant46]

56. Breaking into someones house to steal

Is a good way to meet your maker in Detroit

[christx30]

60. And one can avoid death

and seriously injury by not breaking into someone's home. It's not like it happens accidently. A person has to conceive of the crime, plan it out, and execute it. Part of the planning will, or should, involve "Do I stand a good chance of getting shot?"

[warrant46]

61. Although to be fair---

Don't go to the Disco and get drunk and attempt to return home to the wrong address.

[christx30]

62. Drunk guy, late at night in Detroit

attempting to get into a locked door? The key doesn't work, so he's going to be either pounding on the door, telling his wife/girlfriend/roommate to answer the door, or he's going to try to get into a window. I can see how that would be dangerous to one's health. If I'm a homeowner and someone does that, I'd at least be opening the door quickly holding a baseball bat and telling the drunk to step along. Again, can be avoided by not getting drunk at a club and either walking home alone or driving.
I haven't done that in close to 20 years. Don't really find it fun.

[warrant46]

63. Where I live Northern Wisconsin A/K/A Wistucky

A local county jury wouldn't convict anyone who shot a home intruder.

[leftyohiolib]

5. were they armed? the robbers i mean

[IronGate]

6. Does it matter?

[Ash_F]

8. Yes

Unless Michigan has a really loose castle doctrine.

[YarnAddict]

10. I think if I had been the homeowner,

I would have assumed that they were armed, and prepared to kill. Assuming anything less could have resulted in him being killed.

[Ash_F]

12. OK, but you would still be subject to the laws of the state you live in, afterward.

After you do whatever it is you think you would do.

Even here in Texas, with among the loosest castle doctrine laws, facts such as whether they are armed are always relevant.

[IronGate]

11. No.

Every state has Castle Doctrine, if someone invades your home, you have the right to use force, including deadly force on the intruders whether they're armed or not.

[Ash_F]

13. Wrong. /nt

[IronGate]

15. Then show us the law that says it matters if an intruder is armed or not.

Bet you can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of many states.

[Ash_F]

16. You should not use wikipedia as a source.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-951

&quot 1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:"

So, if the police think that he did not have reasonable belief of bodily harm ect, then they could charge him. Whether the trespassers were armed would be a factor in whether they would make such a determination.

A determination they have not made yet, which is why he is still in custody.

[IronGate]

17. And you should understand that any unlawful intrusion into a home

is considered a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Curious that you left this part out.

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

[Ash_F]

18. And you should understand how a subclause works

The main clause is still in effect. That is why it is called a subordinate clause.

[IronGate]

19. Which is exactly why he was fully justified in using deadly force.

Probably the only reason they're still holding him is to determine if he shot them as they were leaving.

No where in the statute does it say being armed is a factor on whether or not deadly force can be used.

An intruder breaking into your home is considered a threat which can result in imminent death or great bodily harm.

[Ash_F]

21. It is relevant to whether he would have reasonable belief of bodily harm at the time

That and many other factors. For example, if they were leaving, as you have suggested they may have, there could be an argument that he still felt that he was in danger because they could have still turned and shot him. This is not uncommon.

Conversely, if he came home and found them unarmed, cornered and cowering in a closet, pleading for mercy(a personal anecdotal story), it would probably be unjustified to kill them in that scenario, because it would be hard to say that he was fearing for his life at such a sight.

We don't know. The story does not say much. "Reasonable belief of bodily harm" does not rest on any one factor, such as flight or being armed, but a totality of factors.

[IronGate]

22. Excellent answer.

If they were leaving through the window and hadn't turned around and he was still shooting, he may be in trouble, because at that time, they're no longer considered an imminent threat.

I'll wager that the home owner won't be charged.

[7962]

24. If somebody kicks down your door, I think its safe to assume you're in danger of being harmed.

Which is why I am against "no-knock" warrants. There is little evidence that can be disposed of in the short time it takes to announce yourselves as police before breaking down the door.

[Ash_F]

35. Maybe. I can think of one case as precedence that agrees with you.

Best answer I got: It depends.

[X_Digger]

40. You really should have quoted the next bit..

Sec. 1. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

[Ash_F]

41. Oh my dog, read post #18 /nt

[X_Digger]

43. I did.. you seemed to miss the point.

A person using deadly force is presumed to have a reasonable belief of grave bodily harm if the intruder broke in and the person using force knew it.

That's all it says. I even helpfully highlighted those bits. No 'subordinate clauses' malarkey required. It's English, if convoluted legalese English.

That is castle doctrine, passed in 2006 in Michigan (SB 1046).

[Ash_F]

44. It is not convoluted legalese. It is plain English .

You don't know what you are reading.


Cheers.

[X_Digger]

46. Do you dispute my simpler sentence?

If so, break it down and show me how your interpretation differs.

The 'main clause' is about a person being PRESUMED to have "an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur" when a person breaks in.

Heck, the title of the bill was "An Act to create a rebuttable presumption regarding the use of self-defense or the defense of others."

[Ash_F]

48. sigh

rebuttable presumption

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rebuttable+Presumption

[X_Digger]

51. I know what a rebuttable presumption is, thanks.

But none of that goes to your point about "whether he would have reasonable belief of bodily harm at the time".

The homeowner is presumed to have held that belief (a rebuttable presumption, but a presumption nonetheless) under the circumstances (a breaking and entering).

That's the default position, the starting point- it's up to the police to rebut that presumption. The homeowner could refuse to say another word to police, and the state (absent some evidence like security camera footage or a statement from the co-robber) would have to defer to the justifiable use of force.

[Ash_F]

57. "it's up to the police to rebut that presumption"

I know. But in the course of questioning should he let slip that he did not believe he was in danger, or said something like "I didn't see a gun, but they were trying to run out the window and I wasn't about to let them get away, I'm sick of these punks ect ect"

Well then he might be in trouble. And rightfully so. Indeed, if he wants to avoid prosecution, he should keep his mouth shut.

Real world example and this is about as innocuous as it gets: A friend found a teenager trapped in his garage. How was he trapped, you ask? He was wheelchair bound; one of the heavy motorized kind. He could get the garage door open but once he was in and looking around, he got his wheelchair wedged between some junk, and it was much too heavy for him to move on his own. Apparently, he was stuck there for quite some time until my friend got home and freed him.

He possibly could have been a threat if he had a gun or something, I guess, but it would have been pretty barbaric to fetch a gun and kill him. And even under Texas' loose castle doctrine, I doubt a reasonable jury would have concluded that he would have had a reasonable fear of bodily harm from this person.

But maybe they would have, it is Texas and the kid was black. Thankfully we'll never know because said friend did not, in fact, shoot him.


I realize the teens in this story were not wheelchair bound, but the point is reasonable bodily harm is determined by all facts, including whether they were armed. It is not irrelevant. It is very relevant.

If my friend drove into his garage and found the kid in the wheelchair pointing a gun, that would have changed the circumstances.

My own case was finding and elderly woman, who somehow broke the door to our laundry room overnight. I opened the door and smoke billowed into my face and I thought 'fire'. Then she came out from behind the darkness. Startled the crap out of me. I still didn't kill her though.

PS - The smoke was crack

[NickB79]

72. It's reasonable that two 19 yr olds could beat a 47-yr old to death

With their fists and feet. And in a pinch, any number of objects in the home itself could be picked up as a weapon in a fight.

So yeah, your own link screws your argument.

[Ash_F]

73. 15 year olds. /nt

[NickB79]

74. The OP says 19 yr olds

A 19-year-old man is dead and his partner, a 19-year-old woman, is in critical condition, according to Detroit Police spokesman Sgt. Michael Woody.

[Ash_F]

75. See post 69 /nt

[X_Digger]

39. Should the homeowner have to ascertain that before defending himself?

If the intruder isn't armed, should that limit the response the homeowner can take?

[Ash_F]

42. It depends.

I can think of three circumstances where I, or someone I know, found an intruder in their home, and no, in none of those cases should we have killed them.

[X_Digger]

45. No it really doesn't.

No homeowner should be required to ascertain the armed status of an individual breaking into their house.

I can imagine innocuous circumstances, too. However that doesn't translate into a duty to all homeowners to ask the bad man breaking into the house what he's got in his pockets before defending himself.

[Ash_F]

47. No, but it also doesn't mean you can shoot them no matter what and get away with it.

"Haha you are on my property. GOTCHA!"

No, it doesn't work like that anywhere. Thankfully.


The investigators will ask that homeowner all kinds of questions, some of which are going to be whether he saw a weapon or whether the teens announced that they had weapons. So yes it is relevant. And rightfully so.

That doesn't mean that they would charge him and I am not commenting on whether they should.

[X_Digger]

49. Where's this 'on my property' business?!? This is about someone breaking and entering your home. n/t

[Ash_F]

50. While you are getting sidetracked...

...we don't even know if this was a break-in. At the moment, we just know it was a home invasion. The window could have been unlocked.

[X_Digger]

55. Err.. Home Invasion includes B&E in MI..

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2843g4yf55mhf1xy45zabp0o55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-110a

2) A person who breaks and enters a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, a person who enters a dwelling without permission with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, or a person who breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling, commits a felony, larceny, or assault is guilty of home invasion in the first degree if at any time while the person is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling either of the following circumstances exists:

(a) The person is armed with a dangerous weapon.

(b) Another person is lawfully present in the dwelling.

(That's first degree, there are lesser offenses for second and third.)

[Ash_F]

58. All break-ins are home invasions; but not all home invasions are break-ins

They have to enter forcefully to be a break-in. Hence the 'break' in break-in.

Edit - This is not correct. There has to be an occupant for it to be home invasion. If there was no occupant, it would have been called a burglary or criminal trespass, depending on intent.

[X_Digger]

66. HI 1st degree requires an occupant. 2nd, 3rd do not.

e.g. -

(3) A person who breaks and enters a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, a person who enters a dwelling without permission with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, or a person who breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling, commits a felony, larceny, or assault is guilty of home invasion in the second degree.

[someone else]

53. Not all state's castle dotrine the same

Here in CA we can't shoot a home invader unless we can show he meant us harm. He can walk in the door and walk out with your tv and you can't shoot him wunless he poses a threat, subjective as that is.

[Ash_F]

59. Even in Texas, you have to show you had no other reasonable way to get your TV back

...without getting hurt.

[yeoman6987]

77. The homeowner is 100 percent right in this case.

If I was on this jury, I would acquit in 2 seconds. NOBODY deserves to have their home broken into.

[Ash_F]

79. Well it is a good thing you aren't.

For one, you haven't heard from the surviving teen, the homeowner himself, or any other possible witnesses to the shooting. You haven't surveyed the scene, or the dead teen's body.

You don't know the full story. Nobody deserves to have their home broken into, but that doesn't mean that anyone who sets foot in another person's home must be killed regardless of any other circumstances. See post #57 for a couple of personal examples.

[meanit]

23. "Does it matter?"

That comment pretty much sums up the problems that people have with the gun culture.

[IronGate]

25. I could care less about guns,

my comment was meant to mean that it doesn't matter if they're armed or not, the act of breaking into an occupied home is a deadly threat in and of itself, whether or not the intruders are armed.

[leftyohiolib]

27. did it matter whether trayvon martin was armed or not ?

[IronGate]

29. What does Trayvon Martin have to do with this thread?

Was Trayvon Martin breaking into an occupied home when he was shot? For that matter, was he committing any crime when he was shot?
Maybe you can tell us how this home invasion has ANYTHING to do with the murder of Trayvon Martin?

[meanit]

65. The homeowner

obviously surprised the burglars, he was armed, and they appeared to be fleeing. With that loaded rifle in his hand, it sounds like he had full control over the situation. Why shoot? Because the law said he could?

[leftyohiolib]

26. did it matter whether trayvon martin was armed or not ?

[IronGate]

28. Trayvon Martin didn't home invade anyone or do anything illegal.

Has nothing to do with this thread.

[leftyohiolib]

33. being armed or not does matter in that situation and this one

home invasion itself isnt a license to kill. btw that's why zimmerman confronted trayvon

[IronGate]

36. When someone breaks into your home while you're there,

are you expected to ask if they're armed or not? NO, they're not required to.
If someone breaks into my home while I'm there, I'm going to assume the worse and take appropriate action, even if it means using deadly force, if during the confrontation, the intruder(s) are leaving, I'll let them go and try to get as best a discription as I can for the police.

Tayvon was doing nothing illegal at the time of his murder, the subjects of this thread were, so there's no comparison.

[awoke_in_2003]

64. I am far from a gun nut...

I advocate registration, background checks on all sales, and periodic mental evaluations. That being said, if someone breaks into my house, I will assume them armed. One would be stupid not too.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

9. That's my old neighborhood

this is so sad.........

[yeoman6987]

78. Yes it is.

Nobody deserves to be robbed. The days of having a safe environment seems to be over for everyone. Why these two 19-year olds thought they could go into someone's home and steal or worse is beyond me. Something needs to be done to stop these break ins.

[rollin74]

30. Sounds like a legit use of force

If the criminals were inside the house, as a result of a home invasion, when the shooting happened

I have no problem with the home owner shooting them and probably would have done the same

[IronGate]

31. Ahhh, but Trayvon Martin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014776203#post27

which I'm still trying to figure out how Trayvon has anything to do with a home invasion.

[philosslayer]

32. Then why is the shooter in custody?

Its sad how many on a so-called progressive website are all so happy when teenagers are gunned down. Is property really more important than a human life?

[IronGate]

34. They broke into an occupied home,

which can be construed as a life threatening act.\
As to why he's in custody, probably because they're determining whether or not it was a justified shooting.

[NutmegYankee]

68. Probably to establish the facts surrounding the shooting

As for Progressive website (I prefer Liberal myself), I know of very few people who do not believe they have an inherent right to defend themselves. Breaking into an occupied home is considered intent to cause serious harm.

[valerief]

38. The biggest criminals are the ones running Detroit. nt

[philosslayer]

52. No, the ones who are, and have run, Michigan

The good folks running Detroit have made some mistakes, but the billions stolen from them by the State of Michigan are the real reason they're in the situation we are in. Eager to blame the victims, aren't you....

[valerief]

71. Uh, the state of Michigan runs Detroit. nt

[upaloopa]

54. We're they shot in the back while fleeing!

We're they fleeing with stolen property?
Just asking because it says they were shot while fleeing which tells me the shooter wasn't in danger when he shot.
Of course the defense is he had a right to shoot invaders but if not in danger it is killing for killing's sake.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

67. Someone who decides to invade my home,

and put me and my wife in fear of our lives for the unknown intent of the intruder, needs to decide whether the act is worth the risk to his life, not me.

[SpartanDem]

69. Update: Suspected intruder killed by homeowner was 15 years old

"Police say a Detroit homeowner opened fire on two home invasion suspects Wednesday morning, fatally wounding one.

Detroit police Sgt. Michael Woody says the two suspects, a male and a female, broke into the home on the 19000 block of Asbury Park just before 6 a.m. Woody says the 47-year-old homeowner fired several shots with a rifle, striking both suspects after they broke a window and tried to get in."

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/25218623/suspected-intruder-killed-by-homeowner-was-15-years-old

And the family saying in the video "Nothing your house was that valuable" who are they to judge the value of other people property?

[ileus]

70. I suppose the owner considered his life of some value.

[Niceguy1]

76. and 15 year olds can kill

As one almost did somewhere in California in a home invasion. ..

Too bad for the kid but it was entirely his fault.

[yeoman6987]

80. Hopefully a lesson is learned here

Do not try to break into someone's home if you value your life. If it changes one potential criminal, it is worth the life lesson.