65 y/o man kills teen mugger, wounds another

[cjolley]

...Some states are also giving civilians a police-style Fleeing Felon provision - you can shoot a fleeing perp.

That's crazy.
What States?

[Dr Mordrid]

That's crazy. What States?

With variations, quite a few. It's basically an extension of citizens arrest for serious crimes; murder, attempte murder, robbery (theft + aggravated assault), rape etc. New York, Michigan, Arkansas and Washington off the top.

The Fleeing Felon Rule here reverts to common law because the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that it applies to ANY fleeing felon where other means of citizens arrest are likely to fail.

Make My Day

(which is exactly the name of many state laws)

[cjolley]

Make My Day

Knock yourself out.
But keep in mind that if the old guy in the story had shot one of the fleeing perpetrators he might well have gone down for murder because what they engaged in might have been charged as simple assault.

You'd better be able to PROVE the person you killed had committed an old time felony AND was still a threat to you or others as part of your defense.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html

In your specific case you might want to take a gander at People v. Couch, 436 Mich. 414, 461 N.W.2d 683 (1990)

I'll save you some time:

It is true that the Legislature has authorized private citizens to make arrests, see MCL 764.16; MSA 28.875. However, the statutory language does not support the contention that the Legislature

436 Mich. 439

authorized the use of deadly force by private citizens arresting a fleeing felon. Legislative history is silent on this issue. Such authorization was made by case law, not statute. See Gonsler, Whitty, supra.
Providing some practical reasons why the common-law rule should not be applied in the present, the Court in Garner expressed:
It has been pointed out many times that the common-law rule is best understood in light of the fact that it arose at a time when virtually all felonies were punishable by death. "Though effected without the protections and formalities of an orderly trial and conviction, the killing of a resisting or fleeing felon resulted in no greater consequences than those authorized for punishment of the felony of which the individual was charged or suspected." [Garner at 13-14. Citations omitted. See also Whitty at 415, citing LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, § 56, p 405; Pearson, The right to kill in making arrests, 28 Mich L R 957, 974-975 (1930); Commonwealth v Chermansky,430 Pa. 170; 242 A.2d 237 (1968).]
Like the Garner Court, we are not persuaded that the shooting of a nondangerous fleeing suspected felon is so vital as to outweigh the sanctity of the suspect's interest in his own life.13 The

436 Mich. 440

consequences of the continued use of an unmodified common-law deadly force rule, death or serious injury, far outweigh the rule's alleged utility especially in this case where the suspected felon did not appear to pose a serious threat of harm and did voluntarily retreat pleading, "Okay, man, don't shoot."
The argument that "police cannot be everywhere they are needed at once," Whitty at 416, no longer has the force it once did because Garner has since limited what police officers can do even when they arrive promptly at the scene of a felony. In People v Coons,158 Mich.App. 735, 739; 405 N.W.2d 153 (1987), the Court of Appeals reasoned that despite Garner, the Court could "not give [a] defendant permission to use deadly force in a situation where it would be denied to a law enforcement officer having broader powers to effect an arrest." (Emphasis added.) We agree.
Accordingly, we would hold that a private citizen effecting an arrest pursuant to MCL 764.16; MSA 28.875 is not privileged to use deadly force to prevent a fleeing felon's escape unless the arresting citizen reasonably believes that the felon poses a threat of serious physical harm to that citizen or to others. In the event excessive force is used, the citizen arrester may be subject to criminal prosecution commensurate with the injury caused.

[Dr Mordrid]

People v. Couch was 1989. Michigans law has changed several times since then in the direction of what we've been discussing, including State Supreme Court and State AG rulings.

Under current Michigan law a private person can use more force than a police officer to arrest a fleeing felon without criminal consequences, but in more limited circumstances. On the other hand a police officer is bound by the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests - something Michigan citizens arrests are not bound by. Cops need probable cause, but citizens only need to witness the event.

Michigan courts have ruled that the use of deadly force by a private person to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is justifiable where the following three circumstances are present:

(1) the evidence must show that a felony actually occurred (duh)

(2) the fleeing suspect against whom force was used must be the person who committed the felony (duh 2)

(3) the use of deadly force must have been necessary to ensure the apprehension of the felon. (That is, if the arrestee resists the citizens arrest or would escape without the use of deadly force)

As to this case vs. "simple assaut" - no. That was already ruled on as noted in the OP and with an elderly person the force required to be lethal is much reduced. Then there is that one perp was already on a court ordered tether making his acts felonious. His co-bad actors could well share that felony as accessories.

[cjolley]

People v. Couch was 1989. Michigans law has changed several times since then in the direction of what we've been discussing, including State Supreme Court and State AG rulings.

In a way to nullify Garner? Amazing! Michigan isn't part of the US anymore. I had no idea.
The whole point of Couch was that he was protected from Garner because his acts were before the Garner ruling, but that Garner controlled Michigan law going forward.
Are you claiming this has changed?

His co-bad actors could well share that felony as accessories.

At least here they would be charged with murder for the death of their accomplice.

Under Garner though, it remains the case that the old man would have been asking for serious legal trouble if he had shot them while they were fleeing.

[Dr Mordrid]

The SCOTUS Garner decision was a civil, not a criminal, case that only applied to police agencies because they are a govt. agency making a 4th Amendment "seizure" - the perps life. A citizen isn't a govt. agency and isn't held to the same standard, which is why my above comment that they often have a greater freedom to do a Fleeing Felon stop than the cops do.

As to here now

example: I'm walking a city street and witness a rape in an alley. I pull my SIG .40 and have two choices -

1) I call "HALT!!" The perp attempts to flee and BANG!! I stop a fleeing felon cold with lethal force.

2) I have an open head shot and nail him in the act. Covered because our self-defense law covers the aggressive protection of 3rd parties.

Both perfectly legal, and our Castle laws civil immunity applies.

[cjolley]

The SCOTUS decision specifically excluded Michigan's Fleeing Felon laws.

Show me.
The Michigan Supreme Court didn't seem to think so when it issued Couch.

1) I call "HALT!!" The perp attempts to flee and BANG!! I stop a fleeing felon cold with lethal force.

Possibly legal. But you are taking your chances with the exact facts.
This is not at all as cut and dried as you are trying to make out.
And certainly not analogous to the old man's case.

2) I have an open head shot and nail him in the act. Covered because our self-defense law covers the aggressive protection of 3rd parties.

Legal anywhere in the US as far as I know. I agree that it should be.

[Dr Mordrid]

Show me. The Michigan Supreme Court didn't seem to think so when it issued Couch.

As stated, Couch id old law. Besides 1) being an example in our state approved CCW/CPL classes -

Michigan Live....

Grand Rapids store owner will not be charged for shooting alleged robber

GRAND RAPIDS -- The Northwest Side convenience store owner who shot and injured an armed robber last week was acting within his rights and won't be charged with a crime, Kent County Prosecutor Bill Forsyth said Monday.

Leonard Short Stop owner Sulalman Chalabi on Friday night shot an alleged armed robber in the leg after handing over more than $500. The man fled the scene, dropping the cash, his gun and a mask in the parking lot.

"Generally someone has the right to shoot a fleeing felon," Forsyth said. "Clearly, this guy was a fleeing felon."

Chalabi, an Iraq native who came to the U.S. in 1996, wasn't surprised about not facing a criminal charge for his actions.

From the moment he pulled his .40-caliber handgun and fired a bullet into the man's leg in the 7:30 p.m. incident at his shop, 1038 Leonard St. NW, the 29-year-old figured he was acting properly.
"I did the right thing," Chalabi said. "If somebody points a gun at you, what do you think they're going to do?"

On March 31, he was shot in the leg during an armed robbery. Chalabi chased the robber, who was caught about 30 minutes later hiding in bushes. Police recovered the money.

In connection with the March robbery, Amaud Jamal Rice, 20, was sentenced in Kent County Circuit Court in September to 11 to 40 years in prison for armed robbery and assault with a firearm.

Arrested in connection with the Friday robbery was Francisco Javier Flores, 20, who was apprehended by police while he was getting treated at Spectrum Health Butterworth Hospital to treat a leg wound.

Flores was arraigned Saturday in 61st District Court on felony counts of armed robbery and firearms charges and is being held on $500,000 bond, according to Grand Rapids police and Kent County records.

[cjolley]

In your example the store owner shot the robber during the robbery, not while he was fleeing.

And you missed the last part of the article which points out another problem with your idea:

While Chalabi's actions were justifiable, it's important for business owners to think before discharging a firearm, Forsyth said.
He pointed to a 2004 incident when Herkner Jeweler owner Randall Dice was charged with reckless discharge of a firearm after Dice shot a .38-caliber revolver down Ottawa Avenue NW at a person fleeing with a $19,000 Rolex. At least one bullet struck a bystander's car.
Dice was fined $395 and ordered to serve 80 hours of community service at Mary Free Bed Hospital and Rehabilitation Center. He also was required to take a computerized firing range course that police use in training to determine whether or not to shoot firearms.
"You can endanger other people when you do it, " Forsyth said.
"That's something you ought to take into consideration."

If you hit someone other than the perp what happens to you?

[Dr Mordrid]

You totally ignored the prosecutors statement (bolded) that shooting a fleeing felon is OK and that this guy WAS ONE.

Of course hou have to be careful about your background, which is why it's better to shoot center of mass that at legs. That is my sole criticism of this incident.

Earlier version of above story -

Michigan Live....

GRAND RAPIDS -- A store owner who was shot in the leg in March during a holdup fired on and wounded an armed suspect as he was robbing the store on Friday night.

A man wearing a black mask and carrying a handgun entered the Leonard Short Stop at 1038 Leonard St. NW at 7:05 p.m., just before the business was to close, and demanded money, Grand Rapids police said.

Store owner Sulalman Chalabi, who was working the cash register, put an undisclosed amount of money into a bag, then shot the suspect in a leg as he fled to an unoccupied vehicle parked outside, officer Scott Snyder said Friday.

Grand Rapids police recovered the bag of money, the handgun, and the mask in the parking lot outside the store as they arrived on the scene.

About 30 minutes later, police searching the area for the suspect were notified that a man with a gunshot wound had just been brought in to Spectrum Health's Butterworth Campus for treatment.

[cjolley]

Interesting that the later version didn't include that.
I wonder what the finding was at trial.

Be that as it may, you are taking a big legal risk shooting someone who has ceased to be a threat.

Do you have any protection at all if you miss and hit a bystander?

[Dr Mordrid]

Not necessarily, which is why we spent so much time stressing background checking. Part of the certification is shoot/no-shoot series on a combat range. Basically similar range training as a police cadet, meaning at max hundreds of rounds fired from 7 feet out to 30 yards. Less if you pass the basic safety & marksmanship test first, which I did.

[cjolley]

And how many times a year do you have to do this training that is similar to combat to keep your license?
I mean, all it takes is a google of police shootouts on youtube to know how silly Brian's picture of shooting the knee is, and yours of the clean head shot too I might add.
Maybe you are a veritable Daniel Boone, or one man Seal Team Six.
But most aren't.

[Dr Mordrid]

My license is good for 10 years and there's a yearly refresher. I actually hit the range 2-4 times a month with the family (group membership.)

Head shots at <7-10 meters aren't that hard if you get the drop, and especially if you spend 50+ rounds/session practicing them. A head zone is also part of many standard silhouette targets for the puropse, but not knees. You also practice them because if the perp has body armor it's what's left. Heads also don't tend to move as much as knees.

Silhouette and NYPD combat target

[cjolley]

...there's a yearly refresher...

clueless