I read this today and didn't really know what to think. I guess since all the facts are not known it would impossible to draw a conclusion, but I am curious to see how this plays out. http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ng/-/1719418/11813080/-/13tsxsxz/-/index.html
On the face of it, I'd call it a crime. IF events are accurate, the "would be robbery victim" should've left the gun alone and let the officer handle the situation. Like you, I'm also curious to see how this turns out.
Perhaps... Robber pulls gun on this guy and then sees a police cruiser pulling into the alley, gets scared and drops the gun. The "victim" sees a "car" pulling into the alley, sees the perp drop the gun, decides not to take any chances and shoots him. I wonder if the LEO had already lit up his patrol car or if it was just headlamps. I have feeling this guy is in trouble...
Doesn't matter if the police cruiser had flashers on. If the report is accurate about the event (and events might not be anything like what the report describes), the would be victim is in serious legal hot water, and damned lucky he didn't get himself killed by the officer on scene. The report is horribly written, not even mentioning that the robber had a gun at all until the point where it said he dropped it. The new, ever-lowering journalistic standard. The shoddy report makes me wonder if the robber actually meant to drop the weapon in surrender, or that he simply fumbled his gun for some other reason like suprise at the police just showing up. The only way this guy will stay out of jail is if the robber was going to pick up the weapon again.
I wasn't really commenting on whether or not it *mattered* if the cruiser flashers were on or off, but rather was wondering what this guy was thinking when he did this.
There's no way this goes down as self defense. The "robber" dropped the gun, and was then unarmed and no longer a threat. The act of bending down, picking up the gun, and shooting an unarmed person, criminal or not, police presence or not, is a crime. If the robber had attacked or otherwise presented some sort of threat to the guy, then he would have a shot. On the face of it, as reported, he's going to end up in jail for a while.
On the face of it, you're right. But as we know from other, more infamous, self defense claims of late, the facts are not available to the public and so all we can do is speculate.
A short news piece with video outlining more details in the case. Sounds like someone wanted some street justice. http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ing/-/4714498/11813080/-/oksvusz/-/index.html Note to self: Don't find yourself walking down a back alley near Detroit in the middle of the night.
If you do find yourself walking down a back alley near Detroit in the middle of the night, be well armed and check 6 regularly.
Well, that makes things a little more interesting. I'm ignoring what the anchors said, as they clearly had no idea what they were talking about, but the on scene reporter added an interesting detail, that the guy dropped the gun and turned to leave, going past the officer. I'm surprised the officer hadn't stopped him, unless he wasn't out of the car yet. If the guy was shot in the back, or was otherwise retreating, I don't see how this becomes anything less than murder.
Moral of the strory, dont pull a gun on people, try to rob them, or you may get shot/killed. Im for the guy who shot the robber. I have no tolerence for criminals. Would I have shot the guy, I dont know, had to be there, but Im not a trigger happy gun owner either. I know my rights, my responsibilities, my limits. The more criminals that are taken off the streets, the better our world will be. I dont like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders, as Uncle Ted said.
I feel that the robber got what he deserved, now for the guy who shot him I feel he is a huge legal mess. The information needed to make a good call on this is just not there in the article as usual. I hope for the shooter the report is one sided and inaccurate.
I think he did too, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy who shot him was wrong and is going to prison. The info isn't there? The robber dropped the gun. The intended victim picked up the gun and shot the, now, unarmed robber. How is that not enough info?
Hard to tell if the guy wanted to be a bad ass and drop some thug, if he was freaked out and wasn't paying attention to surroundings and didn't notice the cop or what. Either way, dumb ass move being where he was, and yet the robber lost all rights, IMHO, as soon as he pulled a gun. sigh, glad im not on that jury.
