Lansing Michigan Fatal Home Invasion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Posted by Howard J: This happening is very strange.
The police won't talk about it.
Not so strange. Silence during a criminal investigation is standard.

Stick around for the next thrilling chapter.
Exactly. However, we should not expect a lot of detail. The shooter will either be charged or not, and the reason given will be either that the authorities believe that the evidence indicates that he acted lawfully, or not.

One might surmise that there are apparent indications that the basis for justification is not entirely clear cut, but that could well be erroneous. Where I live, a decision to not charge the actor for the shooting of an intruder inside a residence seems usually to be made more quickly. I do not know how such things customarily play out in Lansing.
 
Usually around here the media loves a defensive shooting---they can mouth about the poor criminal for weeks.
This case has been quiet since it happened.
Very strange.
 
Well it is a murder, its just whether or not its justified by self defense.

No, it is not. It is a homicide. Murder is a specific subset of homicide. Justified homicide in the process of defending one's person is not murder.

As another way of putting it, all murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. This is similar to saying all apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples.
 
Last edited:
kleanbore:

A perp in one's house, uninvited in the middle of the night or day is face-value grounds to use force to end the attack.

The assumption is the perp is not there to draw water to prepare tea for two. The perp is there for criminal intent. This type of case was explicitly discussed by William J. Kucyk Jr., Attorney at Law. Kucyk was also the SWAT director for 27 years in Oakland County. I have a hard time thinking he misstated the law.

Also, as we have legislated castle doctrine in Michigan, the homeowner is protected from litigation by the perp's family.

Geno
 
I believe Homicide is the term you are looking for, not murder. Homicide by definition, means one person killing another. Premeditated, or justified is irrelevant to the term.
 
Posted by Geno: A perp in one's house, uninvited in the middle of the night or day is face-value grounds to use force to end the attack.
If he's a perp, and if he's attacking, yes indeed.

In the incident at hand, the resident employed deadly force. We do not know whether the intruder was attacking anyone, and that brings into play something else. Attorney Steve Dulan's explanation, and the wording of the code for that matter, place another requirement on relying on the fact of an unlawful entry to justify the use of deadly force in Michigan: breaking and entering.

There is then the matter of whether the evidence should indicate a reason for rebutting the statutory presumption that the resident had a reasonable belief that death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault were about to occur.

The assumption is the perp is not there to draw water to prepare tea for two. The perp is there for criminal intent.
Yes.

This type of case was explicitly discussed by William J. Kucyk Jr., Attorney at Law. Kucyk was also the SWAT director for 27 years in Oakland County. I have a hard time thinking he misstated the law.
Did Mr. Kucyk's explanation differ from that of Mr. Dulan's?

Also, as we have legislated castle doctrine in Michigan, the homeowner is protected from litigation by the perp's family.
Good.

Some time ago, Jeff White, who was my predecessor as moderator on the Strategies and Tactics forum and who lived in Alma, IL, related the story of the noisy entry of someone in the middle of the night into the home; he did respond to a challenge--may not have heard it. Fortunately, no shots were fired. The "intruder" turned out to be a friend of the resident's son, with whom he was returning early from a camping trip. And yes, they have a castle doctrine in Illinois.

Two years ago, a resident returned to his home in Washington State, found a man in his house, and killed him. He was convicted and served time. The evidence contraindicated the legal presumption of a reasonable belief, etc. They do have a castle doctrine there.

Several decades ago, someone broke into the house next door through a basement window in the very early hours of the morning. He was a resident; the door lock would not work.

There are all kinds of reasons why shooting first may not be the right thing to do. Regarding the case at hand in Lansing, we'll have to wait for the results of the investigation, and if it comes to that, for the outcome of the trial process.
 
Kleanbore:

The perp does not have to be attacking. The perp merely has to have entered unlawfully. The presumption is that the perp's unlawful presence implies, at face value, that he/she/they are there to do harm.

Me having a 16-year-old daughter, I too agree verify first...fire as last resort.

I question if perhaps (and I do not know) did the homeowner say something to the investigating officers to the effect that,

"...(I) kilt that sumbit@h cuz he come onta my propurdy."

That would be a problem. Castle doctrine allows us to use force to stop a (potentially) violent crime. It does not permit us to kill the person. That would be justifiable homicide.

That is also the reason that the instructor told us to assure that we would cooperate with the investigation, but only after consulting with an lawyer. Wording can be the difference between being a victim, or becoming a perp one's self.

Geno
 
Posted by Geno: The perp does not have to be attacking. The perp merely has to have entered unlawfully.
That's true whare I llive and in a lot of other places, but not in all.

Do you have something authoritative that is more recent than this?

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 ...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.


http://www.ammoland.com/2009/08/03/michigans-castle-doctrine-law-and-you/
 
The perp does not have to be attacking. The perp merely has to have entered unlawfully. The presumption is that the perp's unlawful presence implies, at face value, that he/she/they are there to do harm.
Kelanbore, from my interpretation, and from my discussions with cops, this is true. Simply that if someone breaks into your house uninvited they're there to do you harm. It's on the BG's shoulders to prove that he wasn't. If you were correct, a guy could break into your house, loudly state "I'm not going to hurt you, I'm just going to steal your stuff", and continue from room to room taking your possessions while you stand there and do nothing. ANYONE willing to break into someone's home to steal their stuff is assumed to be predisposed to violence. It would be reckless to assume anything else.
 
Posted by 2WheelsGood: ..from my interpretation, and from my discussions with cops, this [(The perp does not have to be attacking. The perp merely has to have entered unlawfully. The presumption is that the perp's unlawful presence implies, at face value, that he/she/they are there to do harm is true.)] Simply that if someone breaks into your house uninvited they're there to do you harm.
Two different things. The latter seems to be clear. However, one can enter unlawfully without breaking and entering. Perhaps this is a semantics issue.

It's on the BG's shoulders to prove that he wasn't.
Not exactly. The evidence could show that, or that he had decided to flee.
 
Perhaps this is a semantics issue.
Maybe the best thing to come out of this discussion is to emphasize how important it is to:

1. Know the laws.
2. Do everything you can to make sure it was a necessary shoot.
3. Have a good lawyer picked out BEFORE needing one.
4. Pray that luck is on your side if it ever goes to trial.
 
There are only two possibilities. Either the author of the piece is:

(1) incompetent, or
(2) dishonest.
 
The prosecutor still has made NO decision on whether he will file any charges against the home owner. This guy must have been trained in Detriot.
 
there have been a few times we have had to fire warning shots when some tresspassers just would not get the clue to leave our ranch back home. most of the time they are hunters who have tresspassed (and many times cut the fence) if that is the case we hold them until game warden and or sherrif arrive .

Firing warning shots at trespassers???? Don't try this at home.
 
Is he waiting on lab tests so he can prove that the bullet or bullets came from the shooter so he can file charges against him??
 
Is he waiting on lab tests so he can prove that the bullet or bullets came from the shooter so he can file charges against him??
Obviously no one can answer that.

One can only speculate, but if it is true that no decision regarding possible charges has been announced, it would seem likely that either (1) the evidence gathered so far is sufficiently ambiguous to prevent the prosecutor from concluding, without further analysis and deliberation, that the shooting was justified, or (2) the evidence indicates that the shooting was probably not justified, but they have not yet concluded that they could get a conviction, or (3) they are in the process of preparing what is required to undertake criminal prosecution.
 
Without further facts regarding this story, all we can do is speculate. Since speculation adds almost nothing to our understanding of the incident, we're done with this one until further information becomes available... if anyone sees anything applicable, either PM a staff member of start a new thread with a reference link to this one.

lpl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top