Posted on 08/31/2013 7:38:28 PM PDT by marktwain
There appear to have been two armed suspects, one was killed by the off duty officer. From detroitnews.com:
The officer drew his own handgun and fired, striking a suspect, later identified as a 17-year-old man, who died from his wound. The other suspect fled on foot but was later arrested with another suspect, both 16 years old.
As the City has an unsolved homicide rate of 50% to 80%, depending on who is doing the counting, there is plenty of room for many unsolved justifiable homicides.
Dean Weingarten
“In one of my classes, one gentleman in his late 70’s claimed to have fatally shot an attempted carjacker many years earlier, he said he had never reported it to police, and had simply driven away.”
Why should you report it? In many liberal states you’d face potential criminal charges and the harassment by the perpetrator’s enablers.
No, especially after seeing what happened to George Zimmerman, don’t call the police. Just drive away if you can.
No mention of race so they must have been Sons of Obama.
SHOOT THE CAR-JACKER...!
cracker-jacker, nice work!
In Southfield? Most likely both parties are black. The crook (who is probably from Detroit) and the guy who refused to be a victim who probably lives in Southfield.
There’s no question about that unless you think there’s gangs of white thugs roaming the streets of Detroit looking to carjack people. No, it’s just sad he couldn’t get all of them. These thugs are violent animals and they can’t be reasoned with. They just have to be outgunned at this point.
“unsolved justifiable homicides.”
This is one heck of an intellectual, ethical, and situational problem.
You’ve just killed a criminal. Do you walk away? Do you have to police up evidence, like shell casings, first? What about gunpowder trace on your hand? DNA? Did the bullets go through or stay inside? Must you now dispose of your gun?
Will the police invest any time in figuring who offed a repeat offender? Will the ME even do an autopsy? So many questions.
One one hand, citizens with clean records have a lot to lose if they are involved in a justifiable homicide. On the other hand, in many, if not most, states, there is no duty to report a justifiable homicide, simply the risk that police, judge, and jury will reason that such non-reporting is evidence of guilt.
On the other hand, criminals with a record do not have as much to lose as citizens with a clean record. Most homicides are criminals killing criminals. Some percentage of them are certainly justifiable.
I do not see any easy way to quantify them.
On the other hand, in many, if not most, states, there is no duty to report a justifiable homicide, simply the risk that police, judge, and jury will reason that such non-reporting is evidence of guilt.
#SoB thug alert!!
Not so easy to do anymore.
If it had happened in 2013, his license plate might have been photographed a half dozen times while driving that night.
You’ve just killed a criminal. Do you walk away? Do you have to police up evidence, like shell casings, first? What about gunpowder trace on your hand? DNA? Did the bullets go through or stay inside? Must you now dispose of your gun?
Go home and fertilize your lawn. Make sure to use a quality fertilizer with the right amount of phosphorus in it...
Even though an automatic has a lot more fire power than a revolver, I till use a S&W shrouded hammer model 641 snubbie as my carry gun. It’s easy to draw because it can’t hang up on clothing; is point, pull and BANG reliable; and doesn’t spew spent shells all over.
“On the other hand, in many, if not most, states, there is no duty to report a justifiable homicide...”
That gets legally fuzzy, for several reasons. (Note asterisks below)
“A homicide can only be justified if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or wellbeing of another, or in some cases, to prevent a major felony in progress.
“To safely use a justifiable homicide law, one generally *must objectively be able to prove to a trier of fact*, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent of the suspect to commit violence.
“*This blameless killing is distinct from the less stringent criteria authorizing deadly force in stand your ground jurisdictions*.”
However, from there is gets quite peculiar. For example, it has long been established in court that only a physician can *legally* determine that someone is dead, even in extraordinary cases like decapitation. Therefore, if you justifiably kill someone, you cannot assert in court that you actually killed them, unless you are a doctor.
From there, it depends on both the police and the local prosecutor. No matter the politics of the place, both may prove very fickle in their examination of events, assertions of criminality or not, arrest and prosecution.
And in rare cases, like the Zimmerman affair, federal authorities may intervene, ignoring the judgment of local and state authorities, inserting politics and public opinion into what should be and objective and fair process, but often is not.
Last but not least, there is the offense of “Misprision of felony”. USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 1 › § 4. The charge is almost never made.
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
“Under the federal statute, the prosecution must prove the following elements to obtain a misprision of felony conviction: (1) another person actually committed a felony; (2) the defendant knew that the felony was committed; (3) the defendant did not notify any law enforcement or judicial officer; and (4) the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the felony.”
5th Amendment protections still apply.
However, this is uniquely a federal offense, and no states have a similar statute as such. But because it is a Common Law concept, some states *may* embrace it because they accept Common Law as unwritten, but enforceable. South Carolina is the only state that has prosecuted the misprision of a felony, in 1980, of a witness to a homicide who refused to testify fearing for his life. It was upheld by their supreme court, and based on the Common Law of *England*.
State v. Carson, 262 S.E.2d 918, 274 S.C. 316 (1980).
So, the bottom line is that in most cases, it is probably better to report a justifiable homicide, and accept whatever legal grief comes of it; than to shrug it off and hope there are no witnesses or forensic evidence that could get you in trouble later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.