Michigan Teens Try to Flash Mob a Guy; Guy shoots teens in the ass for being fucking retarded

[Irkalla]

[QUOTE=Radio Yes;41981441]So I can go outside right now, stab some random dude in the back, run away, and he can't shoot me cause I'm fleeing? Man, I wish I knew this earlier! Time to go stab whoever I want![/QUOTE]

When he's retreating, shooting him at that point is no more than revenge.

Of course, it's not as black and white as that -- but it's a lot harder to prove that you feared for your life at that very moment when they were running away from you.

[Missing User]

I immediately thought of

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIWd3T1xjec[/media]

[Radio]

[QUOTE=Irkalla;41981671]When he's retreating, shooting him at that point is no more than revenge.

Of course, it's not as black and white as that -- but it's a lot harder to prove that you feared for your life at that very moment when they were running away from you.[/QUOTE]

But it's not really revenge, someone committed a crime, so you're either stopping them or slowing them down so the police can get to them so they can't continue committing crimes.

You're helping your community by taking a criminal off the streets. Even if someone sees it as revenge, at least you're still helping others.

[Flazer210]

Gotta love Michigan. Some of the dumbest people I've ever met in my life are here.

I guess he got what was coming to him. Stands as a message to the people in the area because if there's anything I know it's that the area I live in is riddled with annoying, mischievous little teenage cunts. (I suppose I generalized myself there considering I'm 19. :v:)

[Mbbird]

why does this have 158 winners and 7 hearts.

[Ganerumo]

[QUOTE=Mbbird;41981879]why does this have 158 winners and 7 hearts.[/QUOTE]

Because getting decked in the face by some random idiot and reacting to it is kind of noteworthy when most people would have cried over it instead

[Mbbird]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;41981903]Because getting decked in the face by some random idiot and reacting to it is kind of noteworthy when most people would have cried over it instead[/QUOTE]

I don't think you read the article. The kid used a stun gun on some random guy, but it didn't work. As the retard turned to run ([B]aka threat leaving the area[/B]) the dude just shoots him. It may sound like a "harsh" word, but that isn't self defense in any sense, legal or logical, that's just payback. With a relatively high caliber handgun at point blank. And NOBODY shoots ANYONE with the intent to injure; the assumption is that every shot can kill.

[TrulliLulli]

[QUOTE=Mbbird;41981879]why does this have 158 winners and 7 hearts.[/QUOTE]

because it teaches an important lesson regarding not being an idiot to strangers, the teen is lucky he didn't die

[Mbbird]

[QUOTE=TrulliLulli;41981951]because it teaches an important lesson regarding not being an idiot to strangers, the teen is lucky he didn't die[/QUOTE]

You know what nevermind. Yeah, the teen is lucky he didn't die, but he shouldn't have been shot in the first fucking place. The "defender" here is just as big of an idiot as the teen.

[breakyourface]

[QUOTE=Mbbird;41981976]You know what nevermind. Yeah, the teen is lucky he didn't die, but he shouldn't have been shot in the first fucking place. The "defender" here is just as big of an idiot as the teen.[/QUOTE]

Really? Standing over the guy you just shot and helping him out until, the ambulance comes is idiotic? Please Mr. Armchair justice warrior, tell me what you would've done if you had a pistol on you and you thought you just got stabbed.

[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=Irkalla;41981671]When he's retreating, shooting him at that point is no more than revenge.

Of course, it's not as black and white as that -- but it's a lot harder to prove that you feared for your life at that very moment when they were running away from you.[/QUOTE]

Did you even read the damn article? Thinking you were just stabbed (when in reality the guy could've died from the stun gun) would sure as hell make me fear my life.

[Rangergxi]

[QUOTE=Mbbird;41981976]The [I]"defender"[/I] here is just as big of an idiot as the teen.[/QUOTE]

He was attacked and defended himself..?

[breakyourface]

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41982061]He was attacked and defended himself..?[/QUOTE]

You know I've made so many threads here and usually in the ones that involves a dire situation like this, some neckbeard who obviously hasn't ever and won't ever experience it has to post some armchair warrior/captain hindsight shit. They think they're being valiant or whatever but really they're just annoying cunts that nobody really listens too anyways.

[Chronitonity]

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;41982093]You know I've made so many threads here and usually in the ones that involves a dire situation like this, some neckbeard who obviously hasn't ever and won't ever experience it has to post some armchair warrior/captain hindsight shit. They think they're being valiant or whatever but really they're just annoying cunts that nobody really listens too anyways.[/QUOTE]

okay i agree hes being stupid but youre sinking past his level just straight insulting him

[breakyourface]

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;41982153]okay i agree hes being stupid but youre sinking past his level just straight insulting him[/QUOTE]

I'm not insulting him specifically. I'm insulting the army of armchair hero's that facepunch has.

[Sword and Paint]

[img]http://media.mlive.com/news_impact/photo/13301337-small.jpg[/img]

Meet the idiot with the stun gun.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=Radio Yes;41981441]So I can go outside right now, stab some random dude in the back, run away, and he can't shoot me cause I'm fleeing?[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is exactly how the law works. This is news to you? If someone stabs you and runs away, call the police and an ambulance. You don't have any right to chase down and kill a fleeing criminal because he hurt you.

Lethal force is only justified to protect yourself or another from immediate danger. Every single state has the same attitude on this point. If someone puts a knife to your throat and asks for your wallet, you can legally shoot them because you are in immediate danger. If someone puts a knife to your throat, takes your wallet, and then turns to run away, you can't chase them down and shoot them in the back because they took your wallet. Whether or not you then call the police and comfort the guy you just shot in the back is completely, one hundred percent irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Radio Yes;41981754]But it's not really revenge, someone committed a crime, so you're either stopping them or slowing them down so the police can get to them so they can't continue committing crimes.

You're helping your community by taking a criminal off the streets. Even if someone sees it as revenge, at least you're still helping others.[/QUOTE]

Vigilante executions of criminals have never been legal. If you're using lethal force to stop a criminal from getting away, not to defend yourself from life-threatening danger, you are legally in the wrong. Police don't fire on fleeing suspects either and they have a lot more legal leeway.

Again: The kid had it coming, and I can understand why the guy did what he did, but shooting someone who is fleeing from you is absolutely, indisputably illegal. Even if his motivations are accepted and he isn't criminally charged, it [I]could[/I] still be considered an unjustified shooting with civil liability for resulting injuries. This is entirely dependent upon details that aren't reported in the article.

[MR-X]

[QUOTE=evilweazel;41974864]If your reasoning for anything is "Sorry I was high" maybe you shouldn't have even considered doing it in the first place? Fucking idiots.

Kid had it coming, he's lucky it didn't hit him in the thigh and blow out his femoral artery. Takes a special kind of dipshit to do stuff like this :v:[/QUOTE]

He knew what he was doing, he just was sorry after someone managed to fuck him up.

He would have continued the attack if the person didn't have the means to defend himself.

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=catbarf;41983518]Yes, this is exactly how the law works. This is news to you? If someone stabs you and runs away, call the police and an ambulance. You don't have any right to chase down and kill a fleeing criminal because he hurt you.

Lethal force is only justified to protect yourself or another from immediate danger. Every single state has the same attitude on this point. If someone puts a knife to your throat and asks for your wallet, you can legally shoot them because you are in immediate danger. If someone puts a knife to your throat, takes your wallet, and then turns to run away, you can't chase them down and shoot them in the back because they took your wallet. Whether or not you then call the police and comfort the guy you just shot in the back is completely, one hundred percent irrelevant.

Vigilante executions of criminals have never been legal. If you're using lethal force to stop a criminal from getting away, not to defend yourself from life-threatening danger, you are legally in the wrong. Police don't fire on fleeing suspects either and they have a lot more legal leeway.

Again: The kid had it coming, and I can understand why the guy did what he did, but shooting someone who is fleeing from you is absolutely, indisputably illegal. Even if his motivations are accepted and he isn't criminally charged, it [I]could[/I] still be considered an unjustified shooting with civil liability for resulting injuries. This is entirely dependent upon details that aren't reported in the article.[/QUOTE]

What the fuck are you talking about.

Look up the fleeing felon laws: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule[/url]

Or in my state: [quote] (2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.[/quote]

And yes, a stungun/taser will be considered a deadly weapon in this case because a deadly weapon is defined as
[quote]any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm, any combustible or flammable liquid or other device or instrumentality that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm[/quote]

[breakyourface]

[QUOTE=areolop;41984171]What the fuck are you talking about.

Look up the fleeing felon laws: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule[/url]

Or in my state:

And yes, a stungun/taser will be considered a deadly weapon in this case because a deadly weapon is defined as[/QUOTE]

Thank you for showing these [I]obviously[/I] morally superior people what the real laws are.

[Protocol7]

[QUOTE=Mbbird;41981976]You know what nevermind. Yeah, the teen is lucky he didn't die, but he shouldn't have been shot in the first fucking place. The "defender" here is just as big of an idiot as the teen.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad we finally have someone in this thread who has a firsthand account of what happened and therefore knows more about the shooter and kid than we do

[HkSniper]

I do not know why some people are calling this shooting not justified, let's look at the facts.

They were intending to do bodily harm to the victim by "sucker" punching them. We have already seen numerous cases where being punched with a large amount of force unexpectedly can result in serious bodily harm or death.

Intent to cause serious bodily harm - Check.

Armed with a stun gun. A stun gun may be a less lethal device, but we have a couple factors here. One. Do you want to be immobilized by people who are intending to cause you serious harm? Two, do you want to be immobilized and have them discover your gun? No. Someone, as an aggressor, using a stun gun does not have any intention to not cause you serious harm. The fear would be there.

The fear of serious bodily harm as a result of being immobilized - Check.

Now, some of you say he was shot while he was fleeing. This may be the case, but you MUST understand these situations occur in fractions of a second. By the time he began to break leather, draw, and acquire his target...his target may have had JUST the amount of time to begin his retreat, twisting his body which resulted in the ass shot. This all likely happened extremely quickly. Just because someone twists their body or turns does not signal retreat. It could be a dodge attempt, natural reaction to having something pointed at them, etc. Twisting or turning does not signal your intent to stop. A suspect in retreat would be shooting him in the back while he is twenty feet away, obviously running away. We have not reached the point of obvious retreat. The kid would have zero case as his intent to flee was not fully there.

Shooting - Justified.

Lesson learned -

Playing a game where you randomly immobilized and cause bodily harm to people can quickly turn into a game of you ending up with a new asshole.

Saying for the lesson;

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=areolop;41984171]What the fuck are you talking about.

Look up the fleeing felon laws: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule[/URL][/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link, now try reading the little bit about US law:

[quote]Under U.S. law [B]the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force[/B] in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."[/quote]

Ordinary citizens can not legally employ lethal force to stop a fleeing criminal. That's the law, and it's been upheld in several states repeatedly (check out State v. Weddell sometime). Whether police can or not varies on a state-by-state basis. You of all people should know this.

[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=HkSniper;41984334]Now, some of you say he was shot while he was fleeing. This may be the case, but you MUST understand these situations occur in fractions of a second. By the time he began to break leather, draw, and acquire his target...his target may have had JUST the amount of time to begin his retreat, twisting his body which resulted in the ass shot. [/QUOTE]

The point is that we don't know for certain if it was a shot fired literally as the kid turned or if it was as he was actively retreating. If it's the former then it was certainly justified. If the latter, it was probably justified from a criminal standpoint, but could still entail civil liability.

Either way he had it coming, the only question is whether he'll have a case in court.

[breakyourface]

Did you know in Michigan we have a Castle Law and stand your ground law, which means if you see someone that's going to cause bodily harm to another individual, you have the right to stop that person with necessary force. It says in the article they were looking for random people to knock out with a stun gun, obviously they were going to continue their game. He could argue that he was stopping him from going and trying that shit again.

How long are you going to keep your bullshit argument up? You're grasping at straws here. Hell, and [I]officer[/I] just came in here and told you why you're wrong. You really think you know more about laws than him? hah.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;41984585]Did you know in Michigan we have a Castle Law and stand your ground law, which means if you see someone that's going to cause bodily harm to another individual, you have the right to stop that person with necessary force. It says in the article they were looking for random people to knock out with a stun gun, obviously they were going to continue their game. He could argue that he was stopping him from going and trying that shit again.[/QUOTE]

I want you to go and find a criminal case that establishes legal precedent that a citizen is legally empowered to stop a [i]potential[/i] later threat, as opposed to the clear and immediate threat specified by your state's Stand Your Ground law. Here's the actual text of Michigan's Stand Your Ground law, MCL 780.972:

[quote](a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the [b]imminent[/b] death of or [b]imminent[/b] great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the [b]imminent[/b] sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the [b]imminent[/b] unlawful use of force by another individual.”
[/quote]

Emphasis mine. You don't have any right to kill somebody because you suspect they may go and commit more crimes later, deadly force is only justified to prevent immediate harm. Not to prevent possible future harm, and not to get even for harm you've already suffered.

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;41984585]How long are you going to keep your bullshit argument up? You're grasping at straws here. Hell, and [I]officer[/I] just came in here and told you why you're wrong. You really think you know more about laws than him? hah.[/QUOTE]

Police officers can be wrong about laws, especially when dealing with different jurisdictions and local laws. A policeman's job isn't to know the law inside and out, it's to be able to identify and respond to threats to the public and leave it to the lawyers to work out the details. Also, just an FYI, you're using an argument from authority fallacy. Come up with your own argument and find some relevant court cases and I'll respect your opinion much more than when you parrot another poster.

[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]

Like I said before, the kid got what he deserved. Like I said before, in the heat of the moment, and believing he'd just been stabbed, the man's actions are perfectly reasonable. But while that absolves him of criminal liability, it may not absolve him of civil liability. All I am saying is that depending on how it actually went down, it may be possible for the kid to argue that the man's actions were, although [i]understandable[/i], still [i]technically[/i] illegal and subject to liability for unnecessary harm. I don't think it will happen, and if it does I sure hope the little shit loses, but it's not inconceivable.

[Ganerumo]

People arguing about how the guy who shot the teen was not in the right to do so are probably the same guy arguing cops who use deadly force on dangerous suspects should just shoot the suspect's weapon off/shoot the knees anyway.

[breakyourface]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;41984917]People arguing about how the guy who shot the teen was not in the right to do so are probably the same guy arguing cops who use deadly force on dangerous suspects should just shoot the suspect's weapon off/shoot the knees anyway.[/QUOTE]

aka: people who have never acted on a whim, or who don't know how the real world works.

[Mbbird]

[QUOTE=Protocol7;41984240]I'm glad we finally have someone in this thread who has a firsthand account of what happened and therefore knows more about the shooter and kid than we do[/QUOTE]

Yeah it's called [I]reading the article[/I].

[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]

and for the record i can't grow facial hair for my fucking life

i don't have a neckbeard or any kind of beard thank you

[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=breakyourfac;41982036]Really? Standing over the guy you just shot and helping him out until, the ambulance comes is idiotic? Please Mr. Armchair justice warrior, tell me what you would've done if you had a pistol on you and you thought you just got stabbed.
[/QUOTE]

I would understand that if I shoot my fleeing target that no longer presents a threat to me, I open a HUGE host of legal problems to myself. I feel most people in here have not considered owning a firearm for protection or home defense, because it's not as simple as "he started it".

[Sableye]

damn i wonder if that guy needs ass-reconstructive surgery now, i mean a .40 caliber in the ass

deserves it though, don't just go around with a fucking stungun tazing people

[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]

still i'd probably have not shot the kid in the first place, kinda a dick move there

[Drsalvador]

[QUOTE=Cureless;41978276]Piece of shit, too bad he didn't bleed out.

We got no room for assholes like that in our societies.[/QUOTE]

Fascist.

[editline]28th August 2013[/editline]

[QUOTE=DarkCisco;41979037]I would of chased the kid down and executed him.

I don't see why this guy didn't do it. The kid wasn't gonna contribute anything to society anyways.[/QUOTE]

Sociopathic fascist.

[Harnbrand]

[QUOTE=DarkCisco;41979474]The great thing about this site is that when someone disagrees with you you can say it's trolling.

This kid was a idiot to even consider this. It was either punch this guy and get shot and killed, or rob a 7/11 and kill everyone.[/QUOTE]

And you're a psychopath with fantasies of murdering people in self-defense. I think the kid's a nicer guy.