Victims or vigilantes? Shootings highlight frustrations in Detroit

[safeinOhio]

In Detroit, three circuit court juries will get the chance in the coming months to mark the line between citizen self-defense and free-fire vigilantism.

Today, Tigh Croff becomes the first to stand trial: a homeowner charged with second-degree murder for chasing down and fatally shooting a man Croff said he believed was about to break into his home.
If convicted, Croff, 31, faces a potential life sentence. He's also charged with using a firearm in the commission of a felony, a crime that carries a mandatory two-year prison term.
There are two other cases of shootings by victimized citizens working their way through the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice, Wayne County's felony courthouse.


Read more: Victims or vigilantes? Shootings highlight frustrations in Detroit | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20100809/NEWS01/8090317/1318/Victims-or-vigilantes?-Shootings-highlight-frustrations-in-Detroit#ixzz0w6otQc5g


All 3 cases deal with dubious use of firearms by legal gun owners and permit holders. Hope this in not a trend as it will affect the rights of those that use guns in a legal fashion. Shooting out a radiator to slow the escape of crooks until the cops get there has to be one of the dumbest things ever. How about just getting a plate number at best or letting the air out of a couple of tires? Shooting an unarmed man with his hands up because you think he was going to break in. Shooting a man that was running away. Good reasons to require better training and education to obtain a permit.

[jody]

1. Is local government protecting its citizens? If not then juries should consider that in each of the

three cases.

Several district attorneys have said they will not prosecute burglaries or robberies and LEO are understaffed.

Will judges include those facts when they charge juries?

[safeinOhio]

2. I don't think that should make any difference

It is legal to use a gun in self-defense. Not to shoot someone with hands up, unarmed and had not broke in a house, but "might". It is illegal to discharge a gun within the city and there were many other options than shooting out a radiator. Firing a gun at a fleeing suspect is illegal and not self-defense. I think any cop would be charged, as well, for any of those actions.
If you are going to own and use a firearm, you best know the laws. A well regulated militia, that is one that runs smoothly like a well regulated clock, requires training and knowledge of the laws of firearms. Permits that require that training and knowledge would seem to fit the 2nd Amendment.

[jody]

3. Militias are for defense of state, a secondary use of arms. Primary purpose is defense of self and

property as PA (1776) and VT (1777) stated in their constitutions.

"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

[safeinOhio]

5. I see nothing in that

that would prevent permits to carry handguns in public. Also, nothing that would not allow for better training for those permits. The people in the story show that they lacked proper training and knowledge of the law. When I took the 10 hour CCW course in Michigan it had an open book test to pass. I think that a 40 hour, more rigorous course could have prevented all three cases and meet all requirements or the 2nd Amendment. I don't see a national law to require that, only state regulations if deemed needed.

I would think that the majority of Americans would agree.

[armueller2001]

7. How would a more stringent training course for a CCW

prevent a shooting that occurred at a home? CCW is not required for gun ownership, only for carrying in public.

[safeinOhio]

9. All 3 shootings took place outside the home

I'm not sure about the radiator shooter, but the other two have valid CCWs when they broke the law.

[oneshooter]

4. The same government agency that issues that permit

can also train, and test you for the permit to use the internet, telephone, print a paper, or voice your concerns in public. Excellent idea!!!

:sarcasm:

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Replied to wrong one, should have been #2.
Need more coffee!

[safeinOhio]

6. How about the agency that

issues drivers licenses, hunting licenses, boat licenses, pilot license? So, it would sound like you would have no problem with 8 year olds, violent felons or insane people carrying handguns as you don't think the government has a roll in the safety of its citizens to walk down a public street. You are saying that no government agency should regulate any firearm issue? Excellent Idea!

:sarcasm:

[oneshooter]

8. None of the listed are a civil right as listed in the BOR

The issue of a licenses for drivers, hunting, and boat ownership, are controlled by the states, mainly as a source of income. To give the state control of a license to own a firearm brings up the specter of Chicago. Who sets the limits, rules and regulations? Daley?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

10. I was right

you are for absolutes handgun freedom because of your reading of the BoRs. Every human, young, crazy, criminal, blind and too stupid to handle a firearm is guaranteed the right to carry a loaded, concealed handgun anytime and anywhere? None, zero regulations.

[oneshooter]

12. yea,right. When did you learn to read?

And when are you going to start?
What controls are you going to put on the right to vote. Wars have been started, that cost millions if lives, simply by a vote. Will there be training, a permit issued, and a "small service fee" attached to it?

"To give the state control of a license to own a firearm brings up the specter of Chicago. Who sets the limits, rules and regulations? Daley?"

Do you read this as
"Every human, young, crazy, criminal, blind and too stupid to handle a firearm is guaranteed the right to carry a loaded, concealed handgun anytime and anywhere? None, zero regulations."

My concerns are for the abuse passable due to your "simple regulations".

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

11. Also, nothing I have said was

referring to the right to "own a firearm". That is settled law. Just as one has the right to free speech, there are restrictions on that speech, same with religion. There are restriction on some religious practices like marriage, genital mutilation and sacrifices. All basic rights are subject to restrictions and regulations. To say only the 2nd is unrestricted makes no sense at all.

[oneshooter]

13. There are restrictions on the 2A

there are 20,000+ laws that restrict the use and possession of firearms. There are restrictions,by laws, on many rights. But NONE of them require a test and a permit.

Fly a plane? Hunt? Drive a vehicle on public roadways? NONE of these are rights. Therefore they can be regulated by a system of permits and licenses.
Vote, get a permit. Use a computer, get a permit. Speak in public, get a permit. Once you start it can, and will be expanded by those who want control of others lives.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

14. No permit is required to own a gun

there are restrictions. There is no infringement on those that can legally own and carry a gun to get a license to either purchase or carry a handgun. I have lived in states that required purchase permits and permits to carry. I am legally qualified to do both and was able to get both, so not infringed upon to do so. That covers the 2nd. Having those requirements are just as legal as the requirement to have a voters registration card to vote. That card requires that I'm a legal resident of my district and of legal age. I must have that card with me when I vote. In order to hold a demonstration in my town to voice my views, I must apply for and get a permit from the city. It is legal for my local news rag to require me to give them my real name, address and phone # before they'll print my letter to the editor. I am restricted from sacrificing my oldest daughter on my porch to honor my new demon god also. All of those are in the Bill of Rights and restricted in some way or require some form of permit.

Even to buy a gun, federal laws requires a back ground check by the FFD you buy from. That is a test to see if you are legally able to purchase and own any firearm.

[oneshooter]

21. Why would you need a license to buy a firearm?

I don't. In fact with my Texas CHL there isn't even a NICS phone call needed! As for the voter registration card I rarely need it. My TDL is sufficient ID to vote in Texas.

You just want to give a LOT of power to some unknown person and/or persons to determine what test you must have to own a firearm. Remember Daley in Chicago? His rules make it imposable to legally posses a handgun in the city. And you want to give that power to unelected people who depend on pleasing the bosses, no mater what you like or dislike, to keep their power?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[KansasVoter]

15. "dubious use of firearms by legal gun owners and permit holders" LOL.......

Get used to this as more and more paranoid people start to carry guns!

[TPaine7]

17. Yes it is. It's more than dubious, it's criminal.

So what?

What would it mean to you if I found you a story about police officers killing innocent folks--say a couple of people on a bridge, maybe--and we knew that the governor wanted to hire more police officers?

Would you worry about more paranoid officers carrying guns?

[KansasVoter]

20. Honestly, I worry more about Cops than I do members of this forum.

[TPaine7]

29. If you worry more about cops, why don't you get them disarmed first, then work on

ordinary people going about their business in public?

Disarming cops should be relatively easy; it doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

[PavePusher]

22. And yet, as has been demonstrated here repeatedly...

with numerous sets of stats, violent crime and murder rates have been trending downwards for several decades.

Do you claim that they will soon reverse this trend, merely because we now have court authority to recognize what the Constitution says?

Or do you claim some other factor will inflate crime rates? If so, please give some examples.

[KansasVoter]

24. Are you claiming more guns have caused the drop???

[PavePusher]

26. No, I do not make such a claim, because the evidence is scanty at best.

But it sure hasn't caused an increase, has it? It might be possible to argue that the rate of decline would be steeper with fewer guns, but I haven't seen any evidence to make that link either.

My personal belief is that more legal guns does help reduce crime, but again, I don't state it as a fact because I don't have evidence to support the belief.

Now, back to the question posed above....

[MicaelS]

28. Ohe yes, absolutely....

We've heard that "Rivers of Blood in our Streets" rhetoric by people like yourself, ever since CCW started to become more widespread. Guess what, it hasn't happened.

[knitter4democracy]

16. It's Detroit, mind you.

Long times for police to get there, police that are chronically understaffed and not the best at their jobs (not saying there aren't good cops there, just that they have a history of not having the best cops), high crime rate, and you wonder why people would react this way?

I live in Michigan. Most people here have a gun. I grew up in rural, white Michigan, and I heard of a guy shooting the radiator of the kids who came to TP his house. I've also heard of cases like the other two. If you're dumb enough to try to break in and steal in this state, you'd better know what you're up against.

Detroit is hurting, and our state is dying. This kind of story is pretty usual.

[russ1943]

19. "Most" have guns?

If you live in Michigan, when you post “I live in Michigan” most readers will accept that as a fact. When you post “Most people here have a gun”, a lot of people will also accept that as fact, but I have to wonder, just where do you get your facts from?

To the extent ownership can be determined, no reputable organization I know of has shown Michigan’s household or individual gun ownership to reach the “Most” level.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/3/e370

Please tell us you didn’t just make that statement up.

[knitter4democracy]

30. I based it on growing up in white, rural Michigan and my own experience.

Everyone I knew growing up and most people I know now own guns. I'm the outlier who doesn't. We're a hunting state. While a lot of our population is suburban these days, there still is a huge chunk of population living in the country and hunting and fishing like they always have.

Heck, judging from self-reporting, at least half of my students own guns or live in households with guns. Not all are hunters, either.

[knitter4democracy]

31. In that first survey, they only got just over 3K respondants?

One of the mistakes many outsiders make is to not fully take our population issues into account. I cannot see how only three thousand people responding to the survey could possibly do that.

[russ1943]

32. Because you can't see it, doesn't mean a lot.

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is the world’s largest, on-going telephone health survey system, tracking health conditions and risk behaviors in the United States yearly since 1984.
The current(BRFSS) Operational and User’s Guide is available online if you want to determine for yourself whether or not they fully take into account your concerns. ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Data/Brfss/userguide.pdf

I linked the Washington Post article but the (same) original, came from the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics and is available at; http://www.schs.state.nc.us/SCHS/brfss/2001/us/firearm3.html

These people and their organizations are professionals, they understand methodology, sample size, survey protocol, state-specific population estimates, and they verify selected responses for quality assurance, sampling design and the data collection process.
With 3,653 respondents they note a Confidence Interval (at 95 percent probability level).
You made your “Most people here have a gun” statement, ….”based on growing up in white rural Michigan and own experience.” Your anecdotal experiences represent how many?
They aren't the only source that indicates most people here (I live in Michigan) in Michigan, do not personally own a firearm, nor is there one in their household.

[knitter4democracy]

33. I've just seen how too many out-of-state "professionals" don't get it.

Okay, you might be right, and we might not be the gun-loving, hunting and fishing state I grew up in anymore. I could see that.

I have seen, though, too many out-of-staters come in and think Detroit and its environs exemplify the state, that we're a solidly Dem state when Kerry only won two or three counties and Obama only won four, that the UP doesn't exist or is part of Wisconsin, and that the people living in rural areas in our state are rich or at least middle class. Since you live here too, can you see where I might be coming from when I don't trust some professional survey of only three thousand Michiganders?

[SteveM]

34. I doubt if even half of Michigan's adult population owns a gun...

I'm guessing at this, but most surveys indicate about a third or so of American households have a firearm. As for hunting, the population here is stagnant at best and is thereby shrinking as a portion of the general population.

I live in Texas, but I'm not even sure if half the population here has a gun, given the national data.

[jazzhound]

35. If memory serves, *prior* to the dramatic escalation of

firearm sales it was estimated that 45% of U.S. households possessed firearms.

Given the significant jump in first-time purchases we could be close to the point where 1/2 of American households own firearms.

[TPaine7]

18. Vigilantes, no doubt.

Shooting out the radiator is vigilantism, as is shooting an unarmed suspected robber who poses no threat. Congratulations for using the word "vigilante" correctly; correct usage is quite rare in posts about "regular people's" usage of guns.

The guy who used a gun to defend himself against a carjacker is not a vigilante, of course. He is simply a guy who missed his target. Civilians are much less likely to miss the criminal and shoot innocent people than are police officers in defensive shootings, and we certainly don't call police officers who accidentally hit innocent folks "vigilantes."

[safeinOhio]

23. I don't think the third guy was

"simply a guy who missed his target". He shot an unarmed man that walked up to his car. At his arraignment the judge did not drop charges because he said all you had to do is drive away. You are right in that it would not be a case of vigilante justice like the other two. More like a case of a want to be cop, he was taking classes to be one, shooting first instead of just leaving. A sure case of little knowledge of how to handle a situation. One other sure thing, this will cost all three big bucks for lawyers, most likely jail time and they will never legally own or carry a gun again.

[TPaine7]

25. I based my comments on what I read in the OP's link.

I didn't see anything about the alleged carjacker being unarmed or the driver being able to easily drive away.

[safeinOhio]

27. I've been following 2 of the 3 stories

not sure about the details of radiator shooter.
Not the carjacker. He chased the thief and shot at him as he jumped from the car and shot him as he was running away.

The other one that could have driven away was being tailgated in a construction zone and kept break checking the guy behind him. At a stop light the guy behind him got out to confront. The driver shot him in the arm, claiming he thought the guy may have been going for a gun. No gun found on victim. No one else saw him "going for a gun".