Charges considered against driver in bicyclist's shooting in Taylor, MI

[daddymikey1975]

Charges considered against driver in bicyclist's shooting in Taylor | Wayne County | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Evidently, someone was being attacked in their vehicle, shot one round into the attacker's chest, killing him.

 

[Steeler]

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out. I just can't see myself bringing out a gun because someone swings at me thru a window. Just drive forward and roll it up, hes already headed to jail for assault.

 

[dt420]

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out. I just can't see myself bringing out a gun because someone swings at me thru a window. Just drive forward and roll it up, hes already headed to jail for assault.

+1. Like you said, you are in a car and he has no weapons, just drive forward.

 

[CathyInBlue]

If the MSM is reporting accurately, then there must have been multiple witnesses to attest to the fact that Enoch tried crossing against the light, then got violent. Sounds like cut and dried self-defense to me.

 

[pack-indy]

^ He will have to prove that he was fearing for his life; hard to do against an unarmed opponent and you are in a car. Given the information, I can't see lethal force being justified.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The article said he was being beat through his window. If he had already put the car in park which is what most people would do after an accident, he likely would have been hard pressed to do much of anything.

Imagine sitting in you car, strapped in by the seatbelt and I am punching you in the face, how easy would it be do something.

 

[eldirector]

Wonder what MI's law is on this. Indiana is pretty clear. No "fear" needed to stop an attack on your occupied motor vehicle.

 

[CitiusFortius]

The article said he was being beat through his window. If he had already put the car in park which is what most people would do after an accident, he likely would have been hard pressed to do much of anything.

Imagine sitting in you car, strapped in by the seatbelt and I am punching you in the face, how easy would it be do something.

If you can reach for a gun then you can put the car into drive. Put your left arm up to shield your face, duck down to the right and drive away. Everybody lives.

 

[pack-indy]

^ Exactly. It takes as much, if not more effort to draw a gun while seated and strapped in. I've taken the Suarez class on vehicle gunfighting two weeks ago and it was a real eye opener in many aspects. Personally, I can't see how his use of force could be justified. If he had a weapon, no questions asked. If he was in a secluded area and was getting his head stomped in, no questions asked. One shot fired center of mass vs unloading on him? It just doesn't add up to me

 

[jbombelli]

Technically justified or not... put me on his jury and he won't be convicted.

Sometimes people get what they ask for. You ride your bike, go running red lights, ride into vehicles and then attack the drivers for being in your way while you break the law, and I have no sympathy for you if and when they shoot your stupid ***.

Maybe it's not how *I* would have handled it, but it's how the VICTIM handled the AGGRESSOR.

You don't want to get yourself killed? Don't start **** with people.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Rep inbound.

 

[Ted]

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out. I just can't see myself bringing out a gun because someone swings at me thru a window. Just drive forward and roll it up, hes already headed to jail for assault.

+1. Like you said, you are in a car and he has no weapons, just drive forward.

^ He will have to prove that he was fearing for his life; hard to do against an unarmed opponent and you are in a car. Given the information, I can't see lethal force being justified.

If you can reach for a gun then you can put the car into drive. Put your left arm up to shield your face, duck down to the right and drive away. Everybody lives.

^ Exactly. It takes as much, if not more effort to draw a gun while seated and strapped in. I've taken the Suarez class on vehicle gunfighting two weeks ago and it was a real eye opener in many aspects. Personally, I can't see how his use of force could be justified. If he had a weapon, no questions asked. If he was in a secluded area and was getting his head stomped in, no questions asked. One shot fired center of mass vs unloading on him? It just doesn't add up to me

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.......

 

[Disposable Heart]

Indiana's law is clear and would likely be a non-issue here. But Indiana is not Michigan. Anyone here have MC (Michigan code?) references?

 

[Ted]

Indiana's law is clear and would likely be a non-issue here. But Indiana is not Michigan. Anyone here have MC (Michigan code?) references?

SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.Sec. 2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

 

[Ted]

Here's a fairly comprehensive legal analysis of Michigan's law.

The New Self Defense Act: Defensible or Dangerous? | Schwartz Law Firm | Farmington Hills, Michigan, Oakland County, Detroit

 

[rockhopper46038]

Not quite sure I would have done what the driver did, but I wasn't there so I won't second guess his actions. Based on the story, if he is charged and I ended up on the jury I would work toward jury nullification.

 

[Mackey]

^ Exactly. It takes as much, if not more effort to draw a gun while seated and strapped in. I've taken the Suarez class on vehicle gunfighting two weeks ago and it was a real eye opener in many aspects. Personally, I can't see how his use of force could be justified. If he had a weapon, no questions asked. If he was in a secluded area and was getting his head stomped in, no questions asked. One shot fired center of mass vs unloading on him? It just doesn't add up to me

Agreed.

Many people seem very comfortable with the idea of unleashing lead on people who "deserve it."

This guys trip through the legal system will likely make him regret the day he pulled that weapon.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I have no trouble whatsoever unleashing lead on someone that is in the process of doing me bodily harm.

So, everyone that disagrees with that is somehow sure they can overcome any aggressor at any time? I do not fight anymore, if you wish to fight I may just choose to shoot your dumb ass, because I am to tired to have my ass kicked while I am sitting in my car, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

According to that post of the MI self defense act sounds pretty cut and dry NOT GUILTY to me especially when the idiot on the bike was breaking the law and then assaulting him. He played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

 

[CarmelHP]

Technically justified or not... put me on his jury and he won't be convicted.

Sometimes people get what they ask for. You ride your bike, go running red lights, ride into vehicles and then attack the drivers for being in your way while you break the law, and I have no sympathy for you if and when they shoot your stupid ***.

Maybe it's not how *I* would have handled it, but it's how the VICTIM handled the AGGRESSOR.

You don't want to get yourself killed? Don't start **** with people.

Pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter.