Girl saved, cops look for good samaritan for questioning

[Frohickey]

Cops seek shooter who saved girl, 16 (http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm16850_20031022.htm)

A man was beating a 16-year-old girl with a pipe Wednesday morning on Detroit's west side.

Suddenly, the man was dead, shot several times by a passenger in a passing car.

Police are looking for the driver of the car and the gunman, who might not be a criminal suspect, but a much rarer species -- a drive-by vigilante.

"Under certain circumstances, a citizen taking violent action to protect themselves or others is warranted," said Detroit Police Cmdr. Craig Schwartz of the major crimes division. "We need to know if these actions are justified.'

The dead man was identified as Johnny Donaldson Jr., 22, of Detroit. Police said he was swinging a metal pipe at several women and girls at Northlawn and Plymouth at 7:45 a.m.

That's when the motorist, with the passenger next to him, rolled by in a silver Pontiac. The driver stopped, and the passenger opened fire from inside the car. Then, police said, the car might have driven over the man.

Police were investigating Donaldson on Wednesday evening and had no motive for the pipe attack.

Several children and adults suffered minor injuries from the pipe, police said.

Police said they do not have a description of the two men.

"The information is that a girl was being violently assaulted at the time of the shooting," Schwartz said. "We really need to talk to these guys to get their side of it."

Anyone with information is asked to call Detroit police at 313-596-2260.

If I was the good samaritan, I would not say a single thing to anyone, and save my 13 minutes of fame for some other time.

Though, I'm skeptical. A gun never saved anyone, thats what the media always says. ;)

[Inu]

I wouldnt tell it either.

Whoever it was has probably broken several laws (killing and lynching being the ones seen) and prevented that someone might have been beaten to death.

It really doesnt look that good when viewed like that.

[Desertrat]

Isn't Detroit one of those cities that has ultra-strict ordinances against any carrying of a handgun? If I'm correct, the shooter does indeed need to remain anonymous, regardless of what a court would find in his favor as to the shooting itself. Probably Michigan law is not on his side, either.

I've not yet checked the several sites which show the various laws about carrying firearms. I think the correct URL for one of them is http://www.packing.org but I'm not sure.

'Rat

[Mr. Anderson]

Even though the violence is not really justified, good samaritan or not, it will only be worse for them if they don't come forward. Its too bad it had to be a fatal shooting. Getting him in the leg or giving him a 'flesh wound' might have done the trick.

Its a tough call - I don't know if I'd want to turn myself in, but I'd also worry about being identified.

D

[mactastic]

I wonder if it was a legally acquired and carried handgun.... And if it's not, how do all you anti-gun-regulation folks feel about it?

If it was legally bought and carried, he/she should come forward and receive his/her laurels. If not, they should be prosecuted and put in jail. We gotta enforce the gun laws on the books ya know. Vigorously. According to the NRA and it's backers, that is the only solution to preventing criminals from having guns.

[Frohickey]

Michigan is a shall-issue state...meaning, that if you apply for a CCW permit, and you are not otherwise prohibited, they have to issue you one.

Hitting him in the leg, or a flesh wound? When you are being attacked, or you are trying to stop an attack, you don't shoot to injure, you shoot to stop the attack. There are 3 ways to do this. Stop the brain impulses from going to the muscles. Stop the muscles from getting oxygen and nutrients. Destroy the skeletal support of the muscles.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
There are 3 ways to do this. Stop the brain impulses from going to the muscles. Stop the muscles from getting oxygen and nutrients. Destroy the skeletal support of the muscles.

4. fire into the air to scare him away

[Desertrat]

Zim, do you offer any guarantees with that advice?

:), 'Rat

[frescies]

brought in for "questioning"



"questioning" ay?

I wonder what they have in mind.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Zim, do you offer any guarantees with that advice?

:), 'Rat

It'll keep you out of jail.

This is the problem I have with vigilante justice. Its far too easy to take it too far.

What would a police officer have done in this situation? Likely he would have drawn his firearm, pointed it at the perpetrator and instructed him to put his hands behind his head and lay on the ground. Then, if the man wouldn't cease his attack, an attempt at a non-fatal shot would have been taken. Had the man turned to attack the policemen (with a weapon in hand), he would likely have been taken down with any means necessary.

This is just a guess at what the police in Detroit are trained to do, but I think its a likely sequence of events.

What did the vigilante do? Shot the man three times with no warning. The shots taken on the man were likely aimed at his upper torso or head. If a policeman would have acted in this way, it would likely have been a criminal act.

I'm not saying that the man who shot this guy deserves jail time. I'm just saying that vigilante justic can be a very dangerous thing.

Taft

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Zim, do you offer any guarantees with that advice?


only if it's me being shot at :-)

seriously, i have a hard time believing that the first course of action in just about any event is to shoot to kill.

especially in the case of a civilian, such as this.

[Frohickey]

Cops, at least the ones I know, and some of the police instructors I know are not trained to shoot to wound. Guns are taken out when you are prepared to use lethal force. Usually to stop an attack, or preventing an attack from happening.

Only in the movies do they shoot to wound. And when you read about cop shootings where the shot hit the bad guys leg or arm, its because the cops missed center mass

Shoot in the air to scare him... can you guarantee me that doing so will stop the attack? I know, that there is no guarantee that shooting an attacker will stop the attack in the first shot, especially if I miss, or he moves, but at least the attacker will not be feeling so good to continue for long.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Shoot in the air to scare him... can you guarantee me that doing so will stop the attack?

of course not, just like you can't guarantee that the only solution was to kill him. neither one of us was there.

it's a sad commentary, imo, when a society advocates shoot-to-kill by civilians.

[Frohickey]

Its not shoot to kill...its shoot to stop the attack.

Its a sad commentary, imo, when society advocates individuals to submit to the actions of evil people.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Its a sad commentary, imo, when society advocates individuals to submit to the actions of evil people.

we both know i never advocated that. there're a lot of options between shoot to kill (which is what happened, regardless of what you call it) and allowing the beating.

regardless of how good the intentions of the shooters were, it's a criminal act. what if they'd killed the girl, too? would you support them the same way? or do the ends justify the means?

[Taft]

Originally posted by zimv20
regardless of how good the intentions of the shooters were, it's a criminal act. what if they'd killed the girl, too? would you support them the same way? or do the ends justify the means?

Exactly. Police are trained to avoid collateral damage. They wouldn't take a shot that would endanger the girl's life.

Also, considering that the driver ran over the attacker after they had shot them, I'm not sure how you could consider this guy a good samaritan.

Shoot him first, ask questions later. Actually, skip the asking questions part. Just run over him a few times to make sure he's dead. Good samaritan, my butt. :rolleyes:

Taft

[Desertrat]

A relatively small percentage of police are really competent with a handgun. There is a lot of complaining by cops when it comes time to quailfy with their service pistols.

Speaking only to legal killings: Police shootings of bystanders compared to non-cop shootings of bystanders is about a 10:1 ratio. The last year for which I saw numbers was 30:3. Bound to vary with any given year, of course, but the general ratio remains.

Purely opinion, not having been at that scene, but a man with a pipe who gets a clear swing can very easily kill with one blow. Unless a shooter is extremely skilled, shooting to disable is at best problematic. I really doubt any experienced combat instructor would ever advocate such foolishness.

You don't shoot to kill; you don't shoot to wound. You shoot to stop a hostile action involving gratuitous deadly force. If the noise of a miss stops the action, you quit shooting. If the first five shots don't stop the action, keep shooting. Sure, talking the bad action to a stop is much better, but that's not always possible. It's the ancient game of "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best."

I'm a bit picky about the use of the word "vigilante". It's original meaning involved the actions of some local citizens in the absence of any duly-authorized law enforcement. They acted within the context of community protection. The meaning has drifted into today's idea that it's taking the law into one's hands, even with the availability of police.

Trouble is, the police function mostly as janitors. How many headlines ever laud the police for stopping a robbery or burglary or whatever, as compared to those where the police are searching for a suspect?

Nobody is actually responsible for your own safety except you, and your brain is the most important weapon you have.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Do you really want untrained people administering law and justice for the world all in one shot?

Cool! I don't like my neighbour. I'm gonna go write him a traffic ticket next time I see him driving. If he refuses to pull over, I'll just have to shoot his tyres out. Hey -- he was speeding! I stopped a criminal!

[pseudobrit]

The fact that he ran the guy over after shooting him negates the alleged good deed. That's cold-blooded murder, plain and simple.

[Desertrat]

"The fact that he ran the guy over after shooting him negates the alleged good deed."

Which ties in exactly with what I said about "stop". It changes what might have been a "good shoot" (cop parlance) to wilful murder--particularly since the Bad Guy might not have been dead when he was run over.

'Rat

[idkew]

Originally posted by Inu
I wouldnt tell it either.

Whoever it was has probably broken several laws (killing and lynching being the ones seen) and prevented that someone might have been beaten to death.

It really doesnt look that good when viewed like that.

it is perfectly legal to defend another person. if the person is in danger of death by another, it may be legal to shoot them, just not to shoot to kill.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by idkew
it is perfectly legal to defend another person. if the person is in danger of death by another, it may be legal to shoot them, just not to shoot to kill. Read your states deadly force, and assault laws.

Usually deadly force, and assault with a deadly weapon (knives, bats, guns, etc), may be allowed to protect life.

But attempting to wound, and avoiding -- center of body mass -- may put too many innocent people in danger. Especially when the shooter is a civillian.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Read your states deadly force, and assault laws.

Usually deadly force, and assault with a deadly weapon (knives, bats, guns, etc), may be allowed to protect life.

But attempting to wound, and avoiding -- center of body mass -- may put too many innocent people in danger. Especially when the shooter is a civillian.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more its better to shoot to stop the attack, which usually means not to shoot at extremities.

Rationale is this. Center mass or the other incapacitating attacks are usually on areas of the body that are massive. Chest area is the largest part of the body, cranial ocular area has lots of bone. Shots to these areas of the body would tend to dissipate the energy of the bullet and tend to not exit and further harm innocents that might be behind.

[mactastic]

Only point a gun at someone or something you want dead. Very few situations where I would recommend shooting to wound. Very, very few. So few that it's really not worth considering. If there are other options, use them, running being option one, and a warning shot if you are feeling generous and the element of surprise isn't required is another. Who wants to deal with the hassle of explaining everything to the cops and possibly a judge/jury if you can be home with a frosty beer in your hands, even if you were in the right? If it's not possible to run, or do anything else and you resort to a gun, if you are going to point a gun at someone, be ready to kill them, not just scare them.

Just my 2¢.

[idkew]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Rationale is this. Center mass or the other incapacitating attacks are usually on areas of the body that are massive. Chest area is the largest part of the body, cranial ocular area has lots of bone. Shots to these areas of the body would tend to dissipate the energy of the bullet and tend to not exit and further harm innocents that might be behind.

this is the exact reason cops shoot at the center of mass.

also why cops use larger caliber bullets, with hollow points. they are less likely to exit the target due to size and expansion.

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Only point a gun at someone or something you want dead...if you are going to point a gun at someone, be ready to kill them, not just scare them.

Just my 2¢.

i believe you are absolute correct. this also goes for a home intruder. never let them know you have a gun unless you plan on shooting them. and shooting to kill.

as weird and crazy as it sounds, even if someone is breaking into YOUR house, and shows deadly force, if you shoot and would them, there is a greater chance of you being held liable for their injuries, than if you shoot and kill them. sad but true. but, you could also be held liable for their deadth also.

[Inu]

Originally posted by idkew
it is perfectly legal to defend another person. if the person is in danger of death by another, it may be legal to shoot them, just not to shoot to kill.

Isn't that the perfect receipe for a street-shootout?

Given the NRA's Agenda, if everyone would carry a gun would be perfectly fine.

Now some nice looking woman gets assaulted, and you deceide its perfectly clear to defend the person. Some other guy thinks, "hey, whats going on here" deceides to defend the one that first attacked (might be his cousin, brother, buddy, whatever). This could go on almost forever, if the people participating are not quick enough, and rely on hit, duck and run some time or another.

Sure would be funny to watch, but not exactly what i want to have in my hometown (less likely... you dont get a gun carry license here unless you need it (your a cop/bodyguard (not even everyone there)))

[idkew]

Originally posted by Inu
Isn't that the perfect receipe for a street-shootout?

i think you have taken it to extremes.

but, it IS completely legal to defend someone else, just as it is completely legal to hurt someone in self defense.

in your little hypothetic, the person defending the perp would prolly be charged with battery. sucks, but true.

also- my guess is that IF this person is found, they will face some charge. fireing a gun in city limits is usually illegal. maybe for endangering bystanders. you don't get away with this without some problems, assuming there is a snitch who decides to rat on you.

[iPC]

Originally posted by zimv20
4. fire into the air to scare him away
Great, so instead of shooting the attacker, you shoot a gun up in the air? You do know the old adage 'what goes up comes back down' I presume? So now, with your course of action, we have to hope that the falling bullet does not hit some totally random person?!?

Please think before offering an alternative.

How about:

1. pull up in your car and stop
2. yell "stop" or some such thing (friend in car dials 911 at this point to alert the police)
3. get out of car
4. repeat #2
5. yell "stop or I will shoot you"
6. repeat #5
7. shoot once, center mass

Most likely, the perp will realise bringing a pipe to a gun fight is a no-win situation. At which point, you can keep him there until the police arrive.

Assuming you are wielding a legal gun, with a permit to do so.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by iPC
Great, so instead of shooting the attacker, you shoot a gun up in the air? You do know the old adage 'what goes up comes back down' I presume? So now, with your course of action, we have to hope that the falling bullet does not hit some totally random person?!?

Please think before offering an alternative.


i did think. please don't presume that i didn't.

what i thought:
- resorting to deadly force as a first option is bad
- instead, use the instrument of deadly force as a deterrent
- celebrate randomness by firing the gun anywhere but at the target
- celebrate whatever you hit

see? i thought it through thoroughly.

[Sun Baked]

In this county in AZ we have laws against guns fired into the air, too many people injured killed by random shots in the air.

Firing any warning shot is dangerous, because the bullets can travel. And, you don't know who is hiding behind the wall your shooting at.

If you're shooting to warn, the chances of killing, injuring, maiming an innocent party drastically increases.

Remember "Speed" -- shoot the hostage.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Inu
Sure would be funny to watch, but not exactly what i want to have in my hometown (less likely... you dont get a gun carry license here unless you need it (your a cop/bodyguard (not even everyone there)

What if I want to be a bodyguard? Does that give me a good cause to be armed?

What if I want to be a bodyguard to myself? Does that give me a good cause to be armed?

Remember, no one is responsible for your personal safety but yourself. Besides, aside from your mother or father, and even then, they might not be able to protect you, no one has it as their #1 priority that you live, except for you.

[Inu]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What if I want to be a bodyguard? Does that give me a good cause to be armed?

What if I want to be a bodyguard to myself? Does that give me a good cause to be armed?

Remember, no one is responsible for your personal safety but yourself. Besides, aside from your mother or father, and even then, they might not be able to protect you, no one has it as their #1 priority that you live, except for you.

I never wanted to be someones meatshield, so i dont know what has to happen _exactly_ to make a handgun your tool of work. I guess you have to undergo (probably yearly) testing of some sort, as well as prooving your skill handling the gun. If someone private wants that gun to protect himself, he has to fill a form of some sort on why he is endangered (no, working as a tech support in a bank doesnt qualify).

that about i am the only one responsible for my safety... might be the case in the US, but not here. I am not responsible to be "save".

[coolsoldier]

Regarding self-defense laws:
Here in New Mexico a couple years ago, there was a news story of a man that shot a guy who was trying to rape his daughter, and he was accused and convicted of murder (i.e. it wasn't self defense because it wasn't himself he was defending). It seems to have expired out of most news site archives, but I'll try to find a link somewhere.

On this particular incedent, though, the entire story is unclear because it is impossible to know whether the girl would have died. IMO,

-If the girl would have died, shooting the guy was the right thing to do, although a non-fatal shot would have been better.

--If the girl would not have died, shooting the guy was the wrong thing to do because one more person is dead than needs to be.

Am I the only person here who thinks that killing a person is unconditionally wrong?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by coolsoldier

Am I the only person here who thinks that killing a person is unconditionally wrong?

tough question.

if someone must be killed, then something somewhere has broken down.

if a killing is the last resort to prevent other deaths, then i think that must be taken into account. e.g. if i can shoot someone and prevent them from setting off a nuclear device (an extreme example, i know), then i'd probably do it.

but i wouldn't automatically feel exempt from any consequences.

[Sun Baked]

>coolsoldier

I guess you're allowed to protect others in AZ, though the crap you'll get into for threatning (or touching) specific jobholders is insane (ie, the felony for slapping a schoolworker -- though a principal's husband was nabbed weeks later for the same thing, LOL). 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=13)

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904, or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section. Just wondering if the bolded means shoot first... though I'm too lazy to check caselaw.

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
>coolsoldier

I guess you're allowed to protect others in AZ, though the crap you'll get into for threatning (or touching) specific jobholders is insane (ie, the felony for slapping a schoolworker -- though a principal's husband was nabbed weeks later for the same thing, LOL).

I couldn't find the story with the details, but most likely the reason he was convicted is because his daughter was never actually raped. And "attempted rape" is notoriously hard to prove, 'specially around here.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
tough question.

if someone must be killed, then something somewhere has broken down.

if a killing is the last resort to prevent other deaths, then i think that must be taken into account. e.g. if i can shoot someone and prevent them from setting off a nuclear device (an extreme example, i know), then i'd probably do it.

but i wouldn't automatically feel exempt from any consequences.

Killing is definitely a last resort, but I would not limit it just for prevention of other deaths. How about if the one you killed was attempting to rape you? Or your daughter? Trying to kidnap your 5 year old boy from his room in the wee hours of the night?

zimv20 is right, that something somewhere has broken down, but its not on the victim's side. The fault lies in the aggressor's side.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Killing is definitely a last resort, but I would not limit it just for prevention of other deaths. How about if the one you killed was attempting to rape you? Or your daughter? Trying to kidnap your 5 year old boy from his room in the wee hours of the night?

zimv20 is right, that something somewhere has broken down, but its not on the victim's side. The fault lies in the aggressor's side.

Of course. But the next step can be decided by the victim. If the victim chooses unwisely and is hasty, the result can be disastrous. Say the kidnapper pulls a gun and shoots at you. You fire and kill your son. The kidnapper fires again and kills you. Whoops. Maybe your should wait to pull the gun until all other options are exhausted.

Pulling a gun escalates a situation climactically. Someone is going to die or be seriously hurt. In almost nothing else does the chance of error or miscalculation (and even miscommunication) have such drastic results behind it.

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Killing is definitely a last resort, but I would not limit it just for prevention of other deaths. How about if the one you killed was attempting to rape you? Or your daughter? Trying to kidnap your 5 year old boy from his room in the wee hours of the night?

Here we have the "lesser of two evils" question. IMO killing somebody is never the lesser evil. Killing is wrong. Period. End of story. The only time that killing is acceptable is to prevent other deaths that could not have been prevented by any other means, hence the idea that a non-fatal shot would have been better in this case.


zimv20 is right, that something somewhere has broken down, but its not on the victim's side. The fault lies in the aggressor's side.

The fault doesn't matter here. What matters is the end result. Whose fault it is doesn't change the situation.