Is this one self-defense, manslaughter, or murder?

[GreenStormCloud]

And from Detroit we have this story:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/news/Harper-Woods-police-officer-witness-to-man-s-deadly-shooting/-/4714498/11813080/-/oksvusz/-/index.html

HARPER WOODS, Mich. -
The Harper Woods Police Department said one of its officers was a witness to a homicide early Wednesday morning.

In a release, the department said an officer was in the area of Kelly Road and Roscommon Street at about 12:30 a.m. when he saw a man and a woman walking, and another man approaching them from behind.

Police say just as the lone man was about to rob the couple, the patrol officer, who was in the right place at the right time, pulled into the alley and the robber dropped the gun. Sources say the man who was the target of the robbery picked up the gun and shot the robber once.

SNIP (Robber dead)

The 19-year-old Detroit man who fired the shot is in custody.

SNIP

...the case will be presented to the prosecutor who will decide if the shooting is justifiable in self defense or whether the man should be charged with manslaughter or murder.

Of course there are unknows. Did the 19yr old shooter know that a cop had just pulled up?

Personally, I would tend to go easy on the shooter. He was likely terrified and when he saw a chance to get the gun he went for it. He probably had tunnel vision and didn't know the cop was there.

[teddy51]

1. Murder 2 cause he didn't need to shoot the guy because he had the gun. No question about it if it

went down as described! That's just my opinion.

[digonswine]

2. I would not know the charge-

Shooting an unarmed person-not cool

[PavePusher]

20. "unarmed"=/=not a threat

More info on the incident needed.

[petronius]

3. I would say it depends on whether the alleged robber was backing away or fleeing

when the would-be victim grabbed the gun, or whether the robber moved back in when the gun was reached for. In the first case, I'd say murder (although in a purely emotional way I'm inclined to cut a lot of slack), in the second case I'd say self defense...

(You shoulda gone with a poll, here! )

[teddy51]

6. Your right, it would have been a good one. n/t

[notadmblnd]

4. It's not self defense

No need to defend himself after robber disarmed himself.

[ManiacJoe]

5. As currently described, this is most definitely not self defense.

[ManiacJoe]

67. New version of the events in post 61.

That version is clearly self-defense.

[gejohnston]

7. If he dropped it to surrender to the cop,

murder. If he accidently dropped it but continued an attack, maybe self-defense. Depends on MI law and missing details.

[wandy]

8. As described, murder.......

Police on sight.
You have the weapon.
Just hold the gun steady until the police person gets the cuffs on.

Of course their might be more to the story.
If the robber 'charged' before the police got to him.
That would definitely change things.

In that case the robber being shot with his own gun would be sort of poetic justs.

[Straw Man]

23. Well...

Police on sight.
You have the weapon.
Just hold the gun steady until the police person gets the cuffs on.

I wouldn't want to be just standing around holding a gun when the police arrive on scene. I was taught that as soon as the police arrive, you put your weapon down unless otherwise directed by the officer. In fact, the officer may order everyone down on the ground until the situation has been sorted out.

[wandy]

28. I may have mispoke. If the poliece are on sight.......

You do what they tell you.
They can't know what 'side' you're on.
That's got to be one scary job.

[elleng]

9. Self defense/justifiable

[Starboard Tack]

12. Really? Based on what?

Police say the officer spotted a man and woman walking down the alley and another man quickly approaching them from behind.

The officer turned around to investigate. Police say at that point the man who had been walking up to the couple was in front of them. He also had his back to them and was walking away.

Police say the officer pulled up into the alley and as he was exiting his scout car, he saw the man who was with the woman fire one round from a handgun.

The bullet struck the other man in the back. He was rushed to St. John Hospital in Detroit where he was pronounced dead.

Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/macomb_county/harper-woods-police-officer-witnesses-deadly-shooting#ixzz1t7wL6cov

[elleng]

13. Fear.

[Starboard Tack]

14. If he was walking away, what fear?

Did you read that account? There was no mention of robbery, attempted robbery, or that the dead guy ever had the gun. So, the shooter was afraid of the dark alley and has a right to shoot anyone in the back? I think there is more to this story.

[elleng]

15. I expect there's more to it, but I read

'an officer was in the area of Kelly Road and Roscommon Street at about 12:30 a.m. when he saw a man and a woman walking, and another man approaching them from behind.

Police say just as the lone man was about to rob the couple, the patrol officer, who was in the right place at the right time, pulled into the alley and the robber dropped the gun. Sources say the man who was the target of the robbery picked up the gun and shot the robber once.'

I would not charge the shooter.

[Logical]

58. wow, you scare me

[Kennah]

10. This article indicates the dead man was shot in the back

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/macomb_county/harper-woods-police-officer-witnesses-deadly-shooting

If true, that makes this case much worse for the shooter.

It is certainly conceivable the shooter got tunnel vision, did not see the officer, and the officer did not get the chance to call out "Police!"

While the conditions under which shooting someone in the back are justified is a very short list, this does not seem like one of them.

It is possible the 19 year old picked up the gun in an effort to defend and protect himself, he was not familiar with guns, and he did not intend to shoot. If so, that is textbook manslaughter.

[Starboard Tack]

11. It also makes no mention of attempted robbery

or that the dead guy dropped the gun. Just that he was shot in the back while walking away. If that is correct, then murder one would be the charge. If the version of a failed robbery attempt is correct then it's probably manslaughter. The whole story is confusing right now.

[elleng]

16. Murder one?

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

Doubt it. Confusing, yes.

[Callisto32]

17. Murder 1 often requries less "premeditation" than you may think.

Things like lying in wait and poisoning are often considered murder 1, as a matter of course, because there is no way to do them WITHOUT prior planning.

However, in PA the standard for premeditation is more or less "the amount of time it takes to decided to hit the breaks or the gas at a yellow light."

That said, ST is being unrealistic by looking only at the fact that the person was shot in the back. Simply because an assailant is shot in the back, does not mean the shooting was not justified self defense. It is perfectly possible for someone to be in the process of attacking when the assailed decides the assailant is enough of a threat to have to shoot. Assailed produces a weapon, and fires, and in the mean time the assailant took the incredibly short amount of time required to turn around. Shot in the back, does not automatically equal an unjustifiable homicide.

I don't know what happened here, and there are so many variables in such a situation that I'd rather wait for more facts and adjudication than to jump on the internet and speculate about what degree of murder it is, if all we know is that a homicide took place.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. The link I posted claims it was the robber's gun.

Naturally, you ignore that one.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Not at all. I'm just confused.

In your link it would be manslaughter. In the other link, there is no mention of robbery, attempted robbery, the dropping of a gun or that anyone besides the shooter had a gun. Let's wait for some real facts.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Shooting people in the back is doing good for society?

Really?

[Atypical Liberal]

24. This is exactly what I mean when I say I don't have much sympathy for violent criminals.

This is exactly what I mean when I say I don't have much sympathy for violent criminals who die during the commission of their crime.

It seems very obvious from the information provided that this was a botched armed robbery.

The armed robber is now dead.

I see this as a good for society.

Now, if you want to get into the sticky details of the fact that the armed robber dropped his gun, and his intended victim picked it up and then shot an unarmed, fleeing man in the back, yeah, that's bad.

But in the heat of the moment of an impending armed robbery the would-be victim turned the tables on the bad guy and killed him. I can't be very upset with the would-be victim for that.

I surely wouldn't charge him with a crime if it were up to me. The armed robber got what he deserved. He certainly got no less than it seems he was willing to give out.

[iverglas]

27. who has ever asked you to have sympathy for anyone?

This is exactly what I mean when I say I don't have much sympathy for violent criminals who die during the commission of their crime.

You say this as if someone else has expressed sympathy. No one has.

Many people do believe that the law should be obeyed, particularly the law about killing other people.

I surely wouldn't charge him with a crime if it were up to me. The armed robber got what he deserved.

And people like you are exactly why we do have laws to protect others and police to find the people who break them and bring them before the courts, and the courts to apply them.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Once again, you leave me speechless.

Even assuming that the dead guy was a would be robber, which is by no means clear, it is still manslaughter, at the very least. Dropped gun = no imminent threat. Walking away (as the cop reported) = no imminent threat. Jeez, man, do you really think it's OK to shoot people who pose no threat in the back and call it self defense? It doesn't matter if he robbed him and raped the woman, if he no longer poses a threat, you can't shoot him in the back. I hope this shooter doesn't have kids, because they are going to see him for a long time. Thank God you don't practice what you preach.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. I'm not surprised - you always take the side of the bad guys.

Even assuming that the dead guy was a would be robber, which is by no means clear

From the article:

"Police say just as the lone man was about to rob the couple, the patrol officer, who was in the right place at the right time, pulled into the alley and the robber dropped the gun. Sources say the man who was the target of the robbery picked up the gun and shot the robber once. "

Emphasis mine.

So as presented, it sounds to me like it was a botched armed robbery. If it turns out this wasn't the case, I reserve the right to change my opinion on the situation.

From another article:

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/police-identify-victim-of-deadly-shooting-in-alley-20120426-spb

"Witnesses say the couple had just left the ATM and that is when they were followed. Police believe Warlick was possibly about to rob the couple."

Seems pretty clear to me what was going on.

Also according to the article, there is now conjecture that there may have been a second robber working with the one who got shot.

This means that the victim who shot back with the robbers gun may have had reason to believe he was still in imminent danger from another, possibly armed attacker.

it is still manslaughter, at the very least. Dropped gun = no imminent threat. Walking away (as the cop reported) = no imminent threat. Jeez, man, do you really think it's OK to shoot people who pose no threat in the back and call it self defense? It doesn't matter if he robbed him and raped the woman, if he no longer poses a threat, you can't shoot him in the back. I hope this shooter doesn't have kids, because they are going to see him for a long time.

No, it's not OK, but I'm not very upset about it, either. A would-be armed robber has been permanently removed from society directly as a consequence of trying to commit armed robbery. And, as we would expect, this would-be armed robber is an ex-con with an extensive prior criminal history:

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/police-identify-victim-of-deadly-shooting-in-alley-20120426-spb

So no, it's not OK to shoot people in the back and call it self-defense, but I'm not terribly upset that a career criminal with a decade-plus long criminal career got shot dead as a result of an attempted armed robbery. I guess you could say that it was an occupational hazard.

Thank God you don't practice what you preach.

I actually filled out my CCW permit application last week, just because of you.

[Travis_0004]

31. I agree with you

I'm sure we will both get flamed, but I don't really care.

I don't think the person that killed the robber planned on shooting somebody that day. The entire event from the robber dropping the gun to getting shot might have only been a few seconds.

I think the person should not have shot the robber, but I'm not going to punish somebody for the rest of their life for one event that lasted a few seconds. I feel this way because the person who shot did not start the confrontation. The guy who died could have prevented all this by not choosing to commit a crime. If a criminal is committing a crime and ends up dead, its on them, not the person that shot him (in my mind).

If I was on the jury, I would refuse to convict based on what I have read. Of course there will be a full investigation, and its possible I'll change my opinion.

[iverglas]

32. strange logic

The guy who died could have prevented all this by not choosing to commit a crime.

And the guy who shot him could have prevented it all by staying home that night.

So?

Some people really need to investigate the concept of cause and effect.

The cause you assert ENDED when the individual no longer had a weapon and had turned his back, if that is what happened. Period.

[iverglas]

33. why do you say something so completely false?

you always take the side of the bad guys.

You cannot help (in my opinion, of course) but know that this statement is false.

You have not a shred of evidence to support it, and you have all the evidence before your eyes that it is false.

The poster you are making this false allegation about has taken the side of the rule of law in this thread, not of any individual or individuals.

If you have proof that the poster has taken the side of bad guys in some way in the past, you need to offer it.

Otherwise, you are required, by the standards applied to discourse in a democracy, the first and uppermost one of which is honesty, to retract your false allegation.


And if any juries take a look at this one, here's what a jury of your colleagues had to say; I am not the poster against whom the falsehood was leveled, so sorry juror number whatever, but I'm doing as instructed anyhow:

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is not worthy of a hide. And to the alerter . . . brevity is your friend.

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I find it fascinating the amount of energy that people invest in the minutiae of these threads in the gun forum. Since neither of the posters were there, both are speculating about how this event transpired. If AL sees a pattern in ST's behavior, maybe both posters should engage in some self-reflection about how much this all really matters in the grand scheme of things. Ignore is also an option.

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Instead of alerting and writing a big long "The poster was insulting me" paragraph, why not say that which you poured into your alert TO the poster? The poster's OPINION is that you take a view in opposition to his/hers. Refute that opinion with your words--use the very same words you used to tell a jury how annoyed you are at this person for not being on the same side of the issue as you are. A "personal attack" is something like "You are an ugly asshole" or "I hate you because you are stupid." A personal attack is not "I don't care for your opinion," or "You always take the stance of the bad guys." At worst, that is a false characterization, not a personal attack. It's not even necessarily a lie--it's a POV held by the writer. Suck it up and fight back if you don't like the things this person is saying to or about you--don't ask the jury to fight your battles for you. Sorry--I can't vote to hide this, even though I am not Gaga Over Guns. The comments may be blunt but they are not "uncivil," and they are certainly not disruptive. If they are hurtful to you, you need to toughen up or stay out of these sorts of upsetting discussions. Maybe try the IGNORE feature if you're fighting with this poster a lot?

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: just very accusatory and snide

Poor confused (hm) juror #3 ... who might want to take juror #1's advice ...

[Clames]

51. Jury System is often...

...hit or miss. Nice they were on target with this instance.

[Starboard Tack]

34. That is rich coming from you

I "always take the side of the bad guys". Do you realize how ridiculous you look saying garbage like that?
What is a "would-be armed robber"? Someone you think might want to rob someone? The dead guy had no priors for armed robbery or robbery. Looks like he probably had armed robbery in mind, but we don't shoot unarmed people based on what we assume they had in mind.

Enjoy carrying your gun around, we'll miss you.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. Try rooting for the home team once and a while.

I "always take the side of the bad guys". Do you realize how ridiculous you look saying garbage like that?

Unless you consider the truth "ridiculous" or "garbage", no, I don't.

Try rooting for the home team for once.

What is a "would-be armed robber"? Someone you think might want to rob someone?

Oh, gee, I dunno, maybe stalking a couple of people who just withdrew money from an ATM, dropping your gun and then running away. I'd say that would make a would-be armed robber. The police seem to think so, too.

The dead guy had no priors for armed robbery or robbery.

Well, I guess everyone is working on career advancement these days! I guess after a decade-plus of crime it was time to up the ante.

Looks like he probably had armed robbery in mind, but we don't shoot unarmed people based on what we assume they had in mind.

Of course we do. In states like Alabama, we can shoot people when we reasonably believe that someone is about to harm us or others or our property. If you reasonably believe that is the sort of thing on their mind, you can shoot them for it.

Of course in this case the guy dropped his gun. Maybe it wasn't reasonable to think he was a threat anymore, or maybe it was - maybe he had friends, or maybe he had another weapon on his person. Either way, I can't get very upset about an armed robber dying during his failed armed robbery attempt.

Enjoy carrying your gun around, we'll miss you.

I'll think about you every time I carry it. I'm going to post a picture of my permit for you when I get it.

[Starboard Tack]

37. You really believe you're going to get away with shooting people in the back?

In states like Alabama, we can shoot people when we reasonably believe that someone is about to harm us or others or our property. If you reasonably believe that is the sort of thing on their mind, you can shoot them for it.

Of course in this case the guy dropped his gun. Maybe it wasn't reasonable to think he was a threat anymore, or maybe it was - maybe he had friends, or maybe he had another weapon on his person. Either way, I can't get very upset about an armed robber dying during his failed armed robbery attempt.

That's a lot of "maybes" in there. Why would I ever want to be on your "home team"? I have no desire to kill people, no matter how evil they may be. I also have no desire to spend the rest of my life in prison.

[Atypical Liberal]

40. Maybe, it's happened before.

You really believe you're going to get away with shooting people in the back?

It always depends on the circumstances. I remember just a few weeks ago someone posted here of a homeowner who shot a home invader in the back. He was acquitted of criminal and civil charges.

But I'm not arguing for shooting people in the back. I'm saying you are incorrect that you can't shoot someone for "the sort of thing on their mind". In Alabama, if you reasonably believe someone has robbery or burglary or rape or sodomy or kidnapping on their mind, to the point that you believe they are imminently about to act on it, you can shoot them for it.

That's a lot of "maybes" in there.

Yup. Even without them, though, an attempted armed robbery was foiled and the armed robber is dead. Not very heartbreaking, to me.

Why would I ever want to be on your "home team"?

I just think you ought to cheer for the good guys once and a while. You know, the people who stand up to bad guys.

I have no desire to kill people, no matter how evil they may be.

All that is required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. I don't expect everyone to have the guts to do it but at least have the courtesy to give some props to those who do.

[Starboard Tack]

46. You want me to cheer those who shoot others?

I just think you ought to cheer for the good guys once and a while. You know, the people who stand up to bad guys.

I have "stood up" to a lot of bad guys in my life and put quite a few of them behind bars. I never thought of using a gun to accomplish that.

I don't expect everyone to have the guts to do it but at least have the courtesy to give some props to those who do.

Don't talk to me about guts. It doesn't take guts to shoot someone in the back. Your ideas of right and wrong are myopic and incredibly foolish.

[Atypical Liberal]

47. I want you to cheer when good people triumph over bad people.

Just deserts, and all that.

Don't talk to me about guts. It doesn't take guts to shoot someone in the back. Your ideas of right and wrong are myopic and incredibly foolish.

You'd be upset no matter where they were shot. You are ever the champion of the poor misunderstood criminal. Your ideas of right and wrong are just...wrong.

[Starboard Tack]

48. Show me one post where I champion criminals.

You are ever the champion of the poor misunderstood criminal.

You sir, are full of shit. You think because I don't support your brand of vigilante justice that I coddle criminals. Just the opposite. Your notions of justice are criminal. Time and again you have supported criminals including this instance.
You supported the assholes who were convicted of kidnapping the teenage girls. Now you are supporting and defending the killer of an unarmed man. You are the champion of the "poor misunderstood criminal", not me. You obviously understand nothing of criminal justice and the law. I imagine you also support the death penalty. Correct?

[Atypical Liberal]

50. See, your very wording gives you away.

Now you are supporting and defending the killer of an unarmed man.

See, your very wording twists the truth and gives you away.

This was not just an "unarmed man", as you would have it. He was an unarmed man who just seconds before he dropped his gun was about to commit armed robbery.

He was an armed robber.

But you refuse to call a spade a spade. Why is that? Why are you so insistent on referring to this man as if he were just walking down the street innocently and was shot for no reason at all? Why do you work so hard to try and ignore what this man was doing just before he got shot?

I imagine you also support the death penalty. Correct?

And, as par for the Starboard Tack course, you are wrong. I do not support the death penalty. I do not trust the state to have the authority to execute its citizens. It has been shown in countless cases to railroad justice, especially upon the poor.

[Starboard Tack]

52. LOL. Let's look at your wording.

This was not just an "unarmed man", as you would have it. He was an unarmed man who just seconds before he dropped his gun was about to commit armed robbery.

He was an armed robber.

So now you are clairvoyant. You, who weren't there know that a dead guy was about to commit an armed robbery. You are probably correct, but you don't know that as fact. That's why we have courts and a judicial system. Then you state "he was an armed robber". Where is your evidence of that. All we know is, it looked as though he was about to rob the couple, but instead dropped his gun and walked away. That does not constitute armed robbery. Your ignorance of the law is astounding.

Why are you so insistent on referring to this man as if he were just walking down the street innocently and was shot for no reason at all? Why do you work so hard to try and ignore what this man was doing just before he got shot?

The answer to both your questions is "I don't!" The dead guy was very probably a would-be robber and general ne'er-do-well. We are not discussing the guilt or innocence or character of the dead guy here. We are commenting on the shooter and his culpability, which you seem unable to grasp. It is illegal to shoot people who pose no threat. Period.

I do not support the death penalty. I do not trust the state to have the authority to execute its citizens. It has been shown in countless cases to railroad justice, especially upon the poor.

OK, you don't trust the state to kill people who have been tried and convicted, but you approve of killing suspected would-be robbers by armed citizens who are under no threat. And you talk about railroading justice. You have no clue as to what the word means, in legal terms. There are many here who disagree with me on some gun issues, but I don't see anyone who shares your views. Not that that makes you wrong, but you really need to step back and look at the absurd comments you make.

[Atypical Liberal]

57. I stopped reading here.

You are probably correct

Thank you.

[iverglas]

53. oh, you know!

What is a "would-be armed robber"?

Shoot them for the crimes they are going to commit!

It's a hell of a lot better solution to firearms violence than limiting access to the weapons commonly used to commit crimes (which, yes, formerly non-criminal people do) and that sort of thing.

Hell, that would tread on somebody's freedoms or something.

Shoot suspicious looking thugs for the crimes they're going to commit, and there's no harm done at all.

I'm thinking you really do need to get with the program here.

[Starboard Tack]

55. You mean I should "root for the home team"?

I wonder if that's a euphemism for "shoot one for the home team", which raises another question. Who the fuck is on this home team besides AL?

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Update

For those who will whine about it being FOX, at this time they are the only ones with an update.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/police-identify-victim-of-deadly-shooting-in-alley-20120426-spb

HARPER WOODS, Mich. (WJBK) - The victim of a deadly shooting that was witnessed by a Harper Woods police officer has been identified as an ex-con with a lengthy criminal record.

Police say Hasan Khalid-Issa Warlick was shot and killed in an alley off Kelly Road. He has convictions dating back to 2001 for Breaking and Entering and drug violations.

A Harper Woods police officer says that he saw a couple walking in a dark alley and Warlick was following them. The officer decided to investigate so he turned his car around and followed them. That's when the officer witnessed the man who was part of the couple shoot and kill Warlick.

Witnesses say the couple had just left the ATM and that is when they were followed. Police believe Warlick was possibly about to rob the couple.

A little bit more is available at the link.

The shooter was arrested and is in custody while the investigation is proceeding.

[jeepnstein]

26. Probably not self defense.

It might be an uphill battle to get a conviction, depending on all the facts of the case. I can't see murder on this one but I don't know Michigan law.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Murder.

Sucks, but he had no justification to shoot, other than, likely, a predator/prey response to a person fleeing.

He had the gun, the guy was fleeing, back turned, and then the shot was fired.
The initial victim cannot claim 'fear' for personal safety at that point.

He went way, way too far.

[hack89]

38. Hopefully he will have a sympathetic jury. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Why sympathetic?

Don't get me wrong, I don't know that the 'book' should be thrown at him either, by a vindictive jury, but I am curious why he should be shown a jury biased in either way?

Yes, he was a victim of a crime, but the response was disproportionate to the injury the initial victim received.

[hack89]

41. Only if he is charged with murder

it was not murder - manslaughter but not murder.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. But he committed murder.

Based on the facts as stated in the article, of course. There certainly may be additional circumstances. But based on just the article, I think a jury would convict on murder in the 2nd, unless it was 'sympathetic', which sounds like 'biased' to me.

I carry. I am an advocate for self defense. But based on the assumption of accuracy on the article, I would vote to convict on murder 2. I would not have done what he did. It was wrong.

[hack89]

44. We will see. nt

[Starboard Tack]

49. Could still be murder if the prosecution can convince a jury of premeditation.

Not impossible, considering the shooter picked up the gun. That moment of decision implies premeditation. However, it is more likely that he will plead to, or be found guilty of, a lesser charge like negligent homicide.

[Atypical Liberal]

42. Only because the criminal was a butterfingers or saw the police and ditched his gun and ran.

The guy was pretty obviously bent on armed robbery. He was willing to threaten, and presumably deal death to get the cash those people had just taken out of the ATM. He valued the lives of those two people at whatever cash was on them.

And then, either due to clumsiness or cowardliness, he backed out at the last second.

Since we are the good guys, we have to say, "Oh, well there Mr.-armed-robber-who-two-seconds-ago-was-about-to-use-deadly-force-to-rob-me, now that you've dropped your gun and are hopefully no longer a threat to me, I will be magnanimous and let you run away and go about your business until the adrenaline wears off and you work up the courage to pull a gun on someone else.

But I'm not really that upset that in the heat of the moment the victim decided to turn the tables on the robber, and I hope he fares well in court.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. I cannot excuse a disproportionate response to a hypothetical.

Yes it is likely the couple may have been robbed if he had not dropped the gun.

It is not certain that the robber would have even gotten away, even if the initial victim didn't know the cops were right there. Just like it is not certain the robber would have harmed the initial victims.

I am 'sympathetic' in that I take a strong response to the idea that handing over your stuff is even a good idea in that situation. Fuck anyone who wants me to buy my own safety because they are holding a gun. But he wasn't holding a gun. He wasn't presenting a threat.

To argue that he had any right to stop the robber for to prevent a future crime, is to acknowledge this was truly an act of vigilantism, not self defense.

Unacceptable. His act threatens the ability of others to justifiably defend themselves when under actual threat, because issues like these are used to alter laws that might otherwise protect a true victim defending him or herself from a true threat.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Your sanity is greatly appreciated.

Really.
Somebody has to explain life to him, because some of the essentials are definitely missing. I've tried , but he might be more willing to listen to you. Good luck.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Please view the update video below. Interesting new information. N/T

[Taitertots]

54. Legal or not, If I'm on the jury he is going to walk.

Living in the Metro Area, there actually is a very slim chance I will be.

[Logical]

59. Wow, you scare me as much as the robber.

[Taitertots]

60. Why are you so afraid of me?

I'm not hiding in an alley waiting to rob and potentially murder you.

[Atypical Liberal]

61. Update, video from the pregnant victim.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Harper-Woods-shooter-waits-for-Wayne-County-prosecutor-s-decision/-/1719418/12157648/-/14ioojiz/-/index.html

Still waiting for the prosecutor to make a decision.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Very interesting new info. Thanks.

From the video we learn:
The dead guy tried to rob the couple. He pulled a gun and forced them up against a fence. He threatened to kill the pregnant girl. He wasn't just thinking about doing it - he tried to do it.

The shooter grabbed the gun from the robber. It wasn't a case of the robber throwing the gun down.

That means that the defender acted under a huge adrenalin dump and in a real hurry. Likely it happened in less than a second. He grabbed the robber's gun, and as soon as he had control of the robber's gun fired it. The robber likely spun to run away as soon as he realized that he no longer had control of the gun and before the defender could get the pistol into a firing grip. We are talking about less than one second. Not one second of detached reflection but one second in a life/death fight. The defender was running on autopilot when he pulled the trigger.

It will be very hard to find a jury that will convict. The defender was fighting for the life of his pregnant girl-friend and will be viewed with sympathy.

[Atypical Liberal]

64. But hey, in that micro-second he wasn't a threat anymore!

Give peas a chance!

[Starboard Tack]

65. This is a completely different account

Who knows what to believe anymore?

[GreenStormCloud]

66. This one is consistent with the others, just more details.

However, it doesn't support the spin you tried to put on it. You tried so hard to make the dead robber just an innocent gun victim, only to find out he was just a common career criminal street thug, and the shooter was defending his pregnant girlfriend's life.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Nonsense. I put no spin on it.

There was no mention of pregnant girlfriend or grabbing the gun or that there had been any kind of confrontation in the original story. Now, we need to see how much truth there is to the new version. And what does her being pregnant have to do with anything? Except more emotionalism.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. Read you own post # 14.

Clearly at odds with what was in the OP.

[Starboard Tack]

70. Which was based on this report

Police say the officer spotted a man and woman walking down the alley and another man quickly approaching them from behind.

The officer turned around to investigate. Police say at that point the man who had been walking up to the couple was in front of them. He also had his back to them and was walking away.

Police say the officer pulled up into the alley and as he was exiting his scout car, he saw the man who was with the woman fire one round from a handgun.

Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/macomb_county/harper-woods-police-officer-witnesses-deadly-shooting#ixzz1tdaQx9tV

No spin on my part.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. Why did you choose to believe that one over the OP?

And now that additional details have come out, and the shooter Imari Jackson has been released you say that you don't know whom to believe. Face it, you sided with a violent armed criminal.

[Starboard Tack]

72. I sided with nobody and still do not.

I watched the girl's interview. I'm unconvinced. Too many contradictions, but I lean toward the patrol officer's account, which said consistently that the shooter shot the guy in the back as he was walking away. I don't care what was in the dead guy's mind or what he did before, the facts, so far, indicate that he was shot in the back and that is still murder. You can try to spin it, but it doesn't change that little fact. Even when the victim is a bad guy, or a really bad guy, it's still murder. That's why we have laws, so people can't just go around shooting "bad" guys.

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Depends upon when the shot is fired.

If you grapple with a bad guy for the gun and you fire as soon as you gain control of the gun then it doesn't matter where the bad guy gets hit, even if it is in the back. You fired in the heat of the instant while in active combat with a person who was threatening your life.

If you wait, even a few seconds, and then fire as he is leaving, then it is likely to be some form of manslaughter.

I seriously doubt the guy was walking away. He had just tried an armed robbery, had struggled with the "victim" and had his gun taken away. Likely he was going to run away, but was shot as soon as his back was turned.

There is a narrow window of time during which having your back turned means nothing. How can you tell that he isn't about to do a spinning back kick or some other martial arts move that involves temporarily presenting your back to your opponent? He may still be in the fight and you aren't required to wait and see. If you do wait, even for a couple of seconds, then you need to see some further hostile activity from the attacker.

I suspect that the defender fired as soon as he got the gun positioned in his hand. That would be consistent with the huge adrenaline dump and the stress of the situation.