There were seven justified homicides in Genesee County, Michigan in 2008...

[spin]

the question is were they really justified. It all depends on who you ask.

The seven incidents are listed in the article below and discussed. For example:


Paul Lee Jr.: Lee had been out of prison for only about seven months before he was fatally shot June 13 during an attempted armed robbery of a Clio Road store. Police said Lee went into LT's Clothing and Accessories with a handgun but was stopped by the store owner, who wrestled with him for the gun. The store owner was shot in the hand before he grabbed his own gun and shot Lee several times.

***********snip**********

When you ask Joyce Dye about her brother, there's a slight pause.

The Flint woman had only three short weeks to get reacquainted with Paul Lee Jr. before he was killed. He was fatally shot June 13 as he tried to rob LT's Clothing and Accessories on Clio Road.

He'd only recently been released from prison after serving 20 years. It was a stupid mistake, Dye acknowledged -- but did he deserve to die? She doesn't think so.

She believes her brother's death -- and his life -- were written off in part because of his past criminal history. Lee went to prison in 1986 for second-degree murder.

"(The store owner) didn't have to shoot him eight times to knock him down," Dye said. "It's just goofy. That's the hard part, that nobody faced charges in his death."

************snip**********

Richard Moran, a criminology professor at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass., attributes the increase to laws that make it easier to rule a death justifiable homicide.

"Under the guise of being able to protect oneself, we have kind of given a license to go out and kill people any time you feel threatened," Moran said.

Previous laws on the books protected those who had to kill someone because they were in immediate danger, Moran said, and the new laws give "cultural support for killing other people."
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/02/justified_homicides.html

While I support armed self defense when threatened with serious bodily harm or possibly death, I found the incidents tragic (as all incidents involving death are).

I would be interested in comments, both pro and anti gun, on these shootings.

[Wildewolfe]

1. The case mentioned in your excerp

looks justified to me. The store owner had been shot before he managed to get his weapon and return fire. When the decision is made to actually use deadly force you generally don't fire one round. You empty the magazine. He had by the sound of it just cause to defend himself. One round or eight is immaterial in that one case.

[iverglas]

6. that's a little muddled

The store owner had been shot before he managed to get his weapon and return fire. When the decision is made to actually use deadly force you generally don't fire one round. You empty the magazine.

You've skipped a step there.

The decision is whether to use force.

No one would suggest that the decision to use force was unjustified.

That the force happens to be "deadly" is one thing.

Intending to kill someone is another.

Shooting at someone eight times might actually be called overkill. It certainly indicates intention to kill. And the question remains of whether that was necessary in order to avert injury or death.

[michreject]

9. If you shoot someone

You shoot to kill. You keep shooting until the threat has stopped. This means you shoot them to the ground.

[spin]

12. You never shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the attack...

Killing is not the goal of self defense, the goal is to stop the bad guy from killing or injuring us, the person may well die but that is not the intent. It is widely held in court that in self defense situations use of force must stop once the threat is over. For example if a home owner shoots an invader and he runs away, or collapses and no longer poses a deadly threat then the home owner must not continue to use lethal force.

Finally words matter, when the police arrive if you make the statement that you shot to kill it will be assumed you meant to kill the person. In court a prosecutor can use those words against you and portray the event not as a self defense situation but as a cold blooded attack where unnecessary force was used.

*******snip********

The words “Shooting to stop the threat” are sometimes seen as a politically correct way of saying shoot to kill there are similarities but there are also important differences.

When a person shoots to stop the threat they are responding to an immediate and grave threat against them. The general strategy is to shoot center of mass and attempt to hit or destroy the heart and lungs. This is why some people say it is “shooting to kill” however it is not correct. We shoot for center mass because is the most reliable way to force the bad guy to stop.

Unlike the head, arms and legs the chest does not move a great amount when we move our body, making it an easier and very large target, having a large target is important because in the fight or flight mode even accomplished marksmen can have trouble being accurate. Hitting the heart and lungs is important because it will let blood out and (hopefully) force the bad guy to stop what they are doing. In the case that the bad guy continues the defender may be forced to shoot for the head.
http://www.shadonet.com/2008/08/shooting-to-wound-to-kill-or-to-stop-the-threat/

[michreject]

15. Read my 2nd sentence

Reason I prefaced it with the "You shoot to kill" is because too many gun grabbers yell that you should shoot to wound or shoot the gun out of their hand. Idjits all.

[spin]

18. Call it what you will...just don't tell the police that you shot to kill...

I totally agree that you never shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand or shoot to wound by hitting a leg or an arm.

In a real life shooting, unlike the target range, the target moves. Your ability on the range helps but you can never duplicate the stress that occurs in an actual gunfight.

You might be Wild Bill Hickok at the range but in a real fight your ability might resemble Barney Fife. And remember under the stress of a gunfight, Wild Bill shot his deputy who was coming to his aid.





Your best chance is to shoot for center body mass, not merely to hit your attacker but also to minimize the risk of a stray bullet injuring an innocent bystander.

But you also need to realize that you can hit the "kill zone" of your opponent several times and never kill him. Handguns are just not as deadly as shown on TV or the movies.

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to
incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit.
Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated
by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who
are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol,
and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be
incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage
to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on
the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to
force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss
that the subject can no longer function, and that takes
time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is
sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and
complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.
http://www.seark.net/~jlove/handgun_wounding.htm

[bigfatjosh10]

27. Are you kidding me?

In personal protection, you always shoot to kill. I have taken multiple courses, all of which insist that you shoot to kill. Why? First, suspects do not fall down or stop their attack after one shot- even if it is a perfectly placed shot. Why do you think police fire more than one round?? A while back, 2 Michigan State Troopers fired about 50 rounds into two armed bank robbers on I-675 in Saginaw. They said that they fired so many rounds because that is what they were trained to do and also that the bullet impact caused the suspects to keep moving or "appear as if they were still alive", thus the reason for each consecutive shot. Basically, it's not a movie where people fall down after one shot.

Second, if you injure someone, they could (and probably would) claim in a criminal court, that they did not do anything wrong and YOU could be the one going to jail. This would obviously be difficult if there were additional (non-relative) witnesses and/or video/audio footage. Nonetheless, it can and has happened.

Also, if you shoot and kill someone in self defense, you tell the cops TWO THINGS AND TWO THINGS ONLY: 1.) I was in complete fear of my life (or family's life) and (2.) I want to speak to my attorney. You answer NOTHING until your attorney is present. Also, if the suspect turns and flees, killing him would not be justified so make a note of that. If you do kill a fleeing suspect, the cops are going to discover the back bullet entry and then your "complete fear for my life" would be discredited.

[spin]

28. Shooting to kill...

(First welcome to DU)

My position is similar to the advice on this website.

The next option is to shoot to kill, I’ve often heard people mention that they will “shoot to kill” in a defensive situation and recommend other people do the same. How does one shoot to kill though, is it a valid approach?

Shooting to kill is exactly that, shooting someone with the intent to kill them, to achieve that one must inflict enough damage to the other person that they can no longer live. That typically means shooting them in vital organs such as the heart, lungs, in areas that will cause rapid and uncontrollable bleeding or the head.

It also means that the person does not stop shooting until the person is dead, even if the reason for originally shooting no longer exists. For example if the bad guy enters someones house and they shoot the BG, then pursue him as he flees and continue to shoot until he is dead.

**********snip**********

The words “Shooting to stop the threat” are sometimes seen as a politically correct way of saying shoot to kill there are similarities but there are also important differences.

When a person shoots to stop the threat they are responding to an immediate and grave threat against them. The general strategy is to shoot center of mass and attempt to hit or destroy the heart and lungs. This is why some people say it is “shooting to kill” however it is not correct. We shoot for center mass because is the most reliable way to force the bad guy to stop.

********snip*******

The important thing to realize here is the intent is not to kill the bad guy, only to stop him. Also realize that the bad guy is in complete control over how much force is used, if he surrenders or quits when the gun is drawn he wont be shot at all, if he gives up after he is shot the first time he will not be shot again.
http://www.shadonet.com/2008/08/shooting-to-wound-to-kill-or-to-stop-the-threat/



As for the threat of lawsuit, yes it does exist but a lot depends on the state where you live.


The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.underlining mine
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

I do agree with your suggestions on dealing with the police. However, the statement:

Also, if the suspect turns and flees, killing him would not be justified so make a note of that. If you do kill a fleeing suspect, the cops are going to discover the back bullet entry and then your "complete fear for my life" would be discredited.

again depends on the state where you live and the situation. From an interviews with Former NRA President Marion Hammer (a lady who is a leading force in pro firearm legislation in Florida:

GIACHINO: One thing that is a little bit confusing – well, actually a lot of things are confusing about this law, particularly because of the misinformation that is being given by the Brady group, but one thing that confused me, and I read the law several times myself and would consider myself qualified to read it and understand it with my legal background, but nonetheless someone who is retreating, a perpetrator who is retreating, what happens then? If they had entered the person’s home unlawfully and the person felt that their life or someone in their family’s life was in danger, even if at some point the perpetrator turns to retreat, if deadly force is used against them would this law still apply?

HAMMER: The law is designed to allow you to use deadly force against an individual who breaks into your home. If someone turns around, you have no way of knowing whether or not they are retreating or whether or not they are going for a gun or something else. So yes, if someone breaks into your home they are at your mercy. Once they get outside your home – if they turn around and run and get outside your home, then you cannot take action against them.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/marion-hammer-nra-interview.htm

[iverglas]

20. gunhead bibble babble

Of no relevance or interest here.

[Abq_Sarah]

30. You shoot to stop, not kill

If it takes 8 rounds until you're satisfied he's not moving, that's what it takes.

[spin]

11. Because of the stress of a real life shooting situation...

many shooters are not aware of how many rounds they have fired. Even police who are often exposed to stressful situations and receive better training than most shooters, suffer from this phenomenon.


Artwohl (2002) in her survey of 157 officers involved in shootings, found that 52% of the officers could not remember some of the event and 46% could not remember some of their own behavior. Solomon (1986)) reported that 32% of the 44 officers whom he studied who were in on-duty shootings could not remember some parts of their experience. In addition to memory gaps, 21% of the officers in Artwohl's study experienced memory distortions in which they saw, heard, or experienced something during the event that they later found out had not really happened.

This lack of recall of one's own behavior can include inaccuracies in the recall of how many rounds were fired and even the failure to remember having fired one's weapon at all. Klinger (2001), in addition to his above reported cases where officers were unaware of firing their weapons, found that in 33% of the 113 shootings he studied, officers could not accurately recall the exact number of rounds they had fired. He found that the accuracy of officer's recall decreased as the number or rounds went up: from 81% accuracy when officer fired five or fewer rounds, down to 29% accuracy when they fired six to nine, and down all the way to 0% accuracy when they fired 13 or more. His research confirms the clinical experience of police psychologists who routinely observe during debriefings that officers frequently cannot accurately remember the number of rounds they fired during an officer involved shootings. Artwohl (2002) found that 84% of officers involved in 157 shootings experienced the perceptual distortion of diminished sound, meaning that they could not hear loud sounds such as gunshots that ordinarily would not be missed. The failure to hear the gunshots could contribute to the officers not realizing they had a weapons discharge or not knowing the exact number of rounds that were fired.

The distorted and/or missing memories that officers experience during critical incidents is not surprising given that the basic research on memory has confirmed that human memory is rarely perfect even under the best of circumstances. This includes eyewitness testimony in legal cases (Terry, 1997). Furthermore, as multiple researchers have pointed out, memory impairment is an in inherent part of critical incidents. The memory of a highly stressful event can often be fragmented, disorganized, out of order, or contain gaps where the person has no memory at all. DSM-IV (1994), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published by the American Psychiatric Association, points out that one of the features of post-traumatic stress disorder is the 'Inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma.'
http://alexisartwohl.com/publications/norecall.html

[tburnsten]

16. Guns don't just strike people dead instantaneously

The reason you continue shooting until the person is no longer a threat, i.e. has ceased their activities that caused you to shoot them in the first place, is because in many situations people have been killed by someone who was basically walking dead. The FBI shootout with Platt and Matix was aperfect example if that, I think it was Platt who took a fatal bullet but still managed to kill two agents and severely wound the other two or three. it can take thirty seconds or longer for a person to die from a fatal shot, assuming they don't just give up when the shooting starts, and thirty seconds is a lifetime in lethal combat.

[spin]

21. A report of the FBI shootout can be found at:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

Conclusions

Dr. Anderson concludes his forensic analysis of the gunfight by pointing out the remarkable accuracy of the FBI agents in achieving solids hit on both Platt and Matix, despite the fact that the suspects were obscured by deep shade, dust and gunsmoke. He provides specific examples of accurate shooting by five of the eight Agents involved: Grogan, McNeill, Dove, Risner and possibly Orrantia.

He also points out the ability of several of the people involved in the shoot-out, both suspects and FBI Agents, to continue to perform both physically and mentally through sheer willpower after having sustained severe gunshot wound trauma, and provides specific examples of determination on both sides.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

[tburnsten]

24. Exactly... there is a reason they are called gun *fights*

They don't just end with a single shot. Also a very good reason for the rise in popularity of the autoloader over the revolver for defensive use, and for "standard" capacity of autos to have increased from the eight that was such a common capacity in the early years to the twelve, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen or more rounds that are absolutely the norm now.

[Taitertots]

26. You added a step

You make the decision to use force.
You shoot until the threat has fled, died, or is wounded enough to end the threat.
You don't shoot once or twice at an armed aggressor hoping they will be wounded and give up. You shoot and you keep shooting until they are not able to continue the fight, dead or alive. It is not the intention to kill, it is the intention to survive. Which is exactly why no charges are filed.

I can fire eight aimed shots in a matter of a few seconds. At what point between the 1st and 8th do I stop and wait to see if the armed attacker is going to shoot me.

[Deep13]

2. The store owner didn't deserve to die either.

This isn't a question of justice. It is one of self-preservation.

[Siwsan]

3. There could be a financial reason tipping the call, on these

I live in Genesee County, and know it is in a tough financial situation. Maybe there are times it's less expensive, when it's questionable, to call it self-defense, than to try the case, in court. I hope that doesn't sound overly cynical.

[spin]

4. Interesting, I live in a very poor county in Florida...

I can understand how you comment might be possible.

[tburnsten]

5. So being robbed by a man with a gun, shot in the hand by said MWAG,

and then fatally shooting him is somehow "going out and killing someone any time you feel threatened"? That guy is fucked!

[Indy Lurker]

7. Does Michigan have Felony Homicide?

In Illinois, if someone dies during a commission of a felony, the felon is held responsible under the theory that a person who chooses to commit a crime is considered responsible for all the possible consequences of that action.

I don't know if you can be charged with your own death, but there have been several cases in IL where a criminal died and a seconded criminal was charged with a homicide, even though they didn't kill their partner.

A couple years ago a Chicago cop who had been drinking shot and killed a passer by when his car was being stolen from the bar. The car thief was caught and charged with felony homicide.

[gorfle]

8. Puleeze.

Here we have a convicted murderer shot dead while committing armed robbery 3 weeks after getting out of prison and people are upset because he was killed after he shot the guy he was trying to rob.

Pardon me while I don't get upset and instead raise a toast to the owner of LT's Clothing and Accessories.

[michreject]

10. Cheers

:toast:

[spin]

13. I quoted only one example, some of the others may be more questionable...

I believe all were justified, but I want to give the anti-gun group a chance to disagree.

[tburnsten]

17. He should have known better than to roba place with the initials LTC

Fuckin' loser. I hope the decent human in that case regains full use of his hand.

[Endangered Specie]

22. Indeed, he should be given a medal...

what a family member thinks about their convicted felon meeting resistance from innocent victims is sensationalist and irrelevant.

Would be criminals need to understand that, getting shot by your intended victim is a potential job hazard.

[beevul]

14. All that needs saying...

"given a license to go out and kill people any time you feel threatened," Moran said."

[spin]

19. Totally false statement...

Read the Florida Division of Licensing page: (It might prove more enlightening than the statement of some criminology professor from criminology professor from Massachusetts.)

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense


Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

************snip*************

3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

[Endangered Specie]

23. I think the poster was pointing out that the guy who made that statement

is a moron named Moran.

[beevul]

25. Bingo. N/t

[TWiley]

29. It would be interesting to know if there was a relationship

It would be interesting to know if there was a relationship between the shooters in the story and if any or all of them had taken gun self-defense classes.

Sometimes it seems like individuals are actually rehearsing for killings, and if given the opportunity, it might be easy to read the "justifiable cause" into the scenario.

If nothing else, they are certianly learning how to cook their alibi like Richard Moran alluded to.