40-50 Kalamazoo teens beat cyclist unconscious

This is a discussion on 40-50 Kalamazoo teens beat cyclist unconscious within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ntkb In Michigan, you have the right to use any force up to and including deadly force against any one that you ...

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 130

Thread: 40-50 Kalamazoo teens beat cyclist unconscious

  1. #106
    Member Array XD45Golfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by ntkb View Post

    In Michigan, you have the right to use any force up to and including deadly force against any one that you know or believe is or is about to do grate bodily harm to yourself or anyone else.

    If you decide to involve yourself in the defense of another, you assume their position as to liability.

    You do not have a duty to retreat.


    Uhhh you DO have the duty to retreat in michigan.....

    Not on your property but anywhere else you do have the duty.... read up on the laws before you start killing everyone cause you want to "Help"
    Last edited by JD; February 19th, 2009 at 09:58 AM. Reason: Remvoed insulting comment.
    "The great object is, that every man be armed.... Every one who is able may have a gun."
    - Patrick Henry

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by packin45 View Post
    Now tell me how you're going to wade into a group of 40-50 people with guns blazing.
    And where did I suggest that would be the appropriate course of action?
    If you are going to respond to my post please have the decency to have read them, so that you can respond to what I have actually said. What I in fact said in post #81 in response to one of your posts was
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    Nor have I at any time advocated drawing down and blasting away or even drawing my weapon much as I may want to. There is just no way I can see myself not acting in the disabled guys defense, legal or not. Than if the dirt bags wanted to be a threat to me or the other guy I would do what was needed to defend us both.
    How I feel about this is not directed at you or anyone it is about what I believe for me. I have to ask myself how is any one who would allow that to happen in their presence unchallenged any different than the dirt-bags doing the beating?
    Emphasis added since you seem to have missed it the first time. Please do not try to put words into my mouth.
    Beyond that I am going with JD's suggestion and take ten. Before I do it does seem that you have taken something I said personal, maybe I am wrong. Regardless, if you feel that anything I have said was directed at you or anyone here personally please accept my sincere apology, I am very sorry if you took anything I said that way. As I have said before my comments are about what I believe and know to be true for me.
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  4. #108
    Member Array XD45Golfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    WRONG In my state lethal force extends to the defense of property. If I am wrong, prove it, post the law, not an uninformed opinion. This is a fact based board
    You are correct "in defense of property" you are also correct in your statement saying "in my state"

    Well guess what you don't live in michigan....... Thank you for pointing out that a forum is a fact based board.... really?...... then why the opinion threads on different types of ammo or guns or scenarios. get over yourself


    Stop making your own assumptions. In michigan you have a duty to retreat if you can. Im sorry that someone is getting beat on, my only obligation is to call 911. If I start shooting, it opens up law suit after law suit. Good one all of you to say you'd go in shooting until your out of ammo.... I am calling your ********. People can sound so tough on the internet but when it comes to real life situations 9/10 you will not do everything you "say" you will do...... quit kidding yourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    As I have said before my comments are about what I believe and know to be true for me.


    Wow way to contradict yourself there........

    Thought this was a fact based board? sounds to me as your admitting that what you have been posting is your opinion....
    Last edited by JD; February 19th, 2009 at 08:52 AM. Reason: Merged Posts-Edited post
    "The great object is, that every man be armed.... Every one who is able may have a gun."
    - Patrick Henry

  5. #109
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by packin45 View Post
    JD....the law here is clear. There are certain criteria that must be met, in order for the use of lethal force to be justified.....we don't just get a free pass to go out and blow people away as we see fit.

    Among other things, we must be an unwilling participant in the situation, and we must have made every reasonable effort to retreat (this doesn't mean leaving our loved ones behind, and our Castle Doctrine removes the duty to retreat in our own home). You would never convince a grand jury in MN that your use of lethal force was justified in this situation, even with the disparity of force, for this reason.

    Frankly, I'm disappointed that a staff member here would post a response like yours, without taking a few minutes to look into whether or not my posts had merit.

    There's a great local forum here, twincitiescarry.com :: Index, and it's run by, and frequented by, some of the people who were involved with writing our carry permit laws, in addition to other extremely knowledgeable 2A activists, lobbyists, and so on. I suggest both you and LongRider check the site out before commenting on MN law any further.
    So far I don't find you posts to have merit, I didn't ask for a link to a forum, I asked you to show me the laws. YOU said the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by packin45 View Post

    Some of you people live in states where you're legally allowed to intervene in these kinds of situations. Minnesota is not one of them.
    Again the quoted law conflicts with this. I understand the duty to retreat, I get that but you're still not posting anything concrete to support your claims.

    In THIS scenario, you are not the one under attack so you do not have the duty to retreat until you are the one under attack.

    Regarding the "essentials of self defense" in MN I found the following:

    State v. James Wilburt Baker

    No. 39,093

    Supreme Court of Minnesota

    280 Minn. 518; 160 N.W.2d 240; 1968 Minn. LEXIS 1139


    July 5, 1968

    PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal by James Wilburt Baker from an order of the
    Hennepin County District Court, Tom Bergin, Judge, denying his motion for a new
    trial and from a judgment whereby he was convicted of assault in the second
    degree.

    DISPOSITION: Affirmed.

    HEADNOTES:

    Criminal law -- self-defense -- essentials.

    1. It is a general rule that the legal excuse of self-defense is available only to those who act honestly and in good faith. The rule requires
    (1) the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the person charged with committing the assault;
    (2) the actual and honest belief of the assaulting party
    that he was in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony and it was necessary to take the action he did;
    (3) the existence of reasonable grounds for such belief; and
    (4) the duty of the party charged with committing
    the assault to retreat or avoid the danger if reasonably possible.

    The principles of self-defense in felonious assault and homicide cases are not materially different.

    Criminal law -- self-defense -- entering into combat.

    2. Where a party has not retreated from or attempted to shun the combat, but has, as in this case, unnecessarily entered into it, [***2] his act is not one of self-defense.
    I see a lot of contradicting info. In THIS scenario I do see the following:

    *those who act honestly and in good faith
    *the absence of aggression or provocation on the part of the person charged with committing the assault

    Now regarding "the defense of others" if the person in this scenario is unable to retreat due to the numbers of persons, I would think that except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death and would cover you.

    Again I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do expect that if you're going to cite laws etc. that you need to do so correctly and provide more than a link to a forum (that is a good forum BTW and if I travel to MN I'll be sure to read up on it)

    I don't pretend to understand every letter of the law, but in this case it appears that the "genera rule of thumb" applies, someone is getting attacked, that person has no ability to retreat, I would feel that the person being beaten was in great risk of bodily harm or death and would try to do something more than just be a witness. But that's me.

  6. #110
    Member Array packin45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In limbo
    Posts
    388
    I was going to look up and post some information for you, after work tonight, but it looks like you beat me to it. It looks like the case you posted (State v. James Wilburt Baker) shows exactly what would happen if you intervened in this kind of situation, and for pretty much exactly the reason I had given. Thanks for posting it.

    You're right...there's some contradiction there. But we're taught that in order for MN 696.065 to apply to us, we need to be sure our situation meets the four criteria you posted before we can even think about drawing.

    The other issue is the cost of legal defense. I'm told to expect to spend a minimum of $4,000 on an attorney, if I'm ever involved in a shooting, and that's just to cover the cost of legal representation during a grand jury proceeding. A personal friend of my instructor spent $25,000 on his legal defense, over a two year period, after this scenario: http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...91-post35.html . There were no shots fired in that incident, either.
    G17, G26

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil...

  7. #111
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by packin45 View Post
    I was going to look up and post some information for you, after work tonight, but it looks like you beat me to it. It looks like the case you posted (State v. James Wilburt Baker) shows exactly what would happen if you intervened in this kind of situation, and for pretty much exactly the reason I had given. Thanks for posting it.

    You're right...there's some contradiction there. But we're taught that in order for MN 696.065 to apply to us, we need to be sure our situation meets the four criteria you posted before we can even think about drawing.

    The other issue is the cost of legal defense. I'm told to expect to spend a minimum of $4,000 on an attorney, if I'm ever involved in a shooting, and that's just to cover the cost of legal representation during a grand jury proceeding. A personal friend of my instructor spent $25,000 on his legal defense, over a two year period, after this scenario: http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...91-post35.html . There were no shots fired in that incident, either.
    So we agree that it is legal in MN to come to the aide of another if we deem that person in great risk of bodily harm or serious injury? And we also agree that's while it may be legal, stepping in to an unknown situation may not be a wise idea due to "X" number of variables?


  8. #112
    Member Array JusticeDun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    92
    I don't know what Kalamazoo is like but I would almost bet that some of those thugs where packing heat also. If you started shooting there is no way you will be able to keep an eye on all 40-50 thugs. All it takes is that one person with a gun (that you didn't see) and he takes you out. Your best bet is to call leo and let them sort it out. Now if you are the one being attacked then there is no other choice...spray and pray and hope for the best.

  9. #113
    Senior Member Array Super Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by XD45Golfer View Post
    You are correct "in defense of property" you are also correct in your statement saying "in my state"

    Well guess what you don't live in Michigan....... Thank you for pointing out that a forum is a fact based board.... really?...... then why the opinion threads on different types of ammo or guns or scenarios. get over yourself


    Stop making your own assumptions. In michigan you have a duty to retreat if you can. I'm sorry that someone is getting beat on, my only obligation is to call 911. If I start shooting, it opens up law suit after law suit. Good one all of you to say you'd go in shooting until your out of ammo.... I am calling your ********. People can sound so tough on the internet but when it comes to real life situations 9/10 you will not do everything you "say" you will do...... quit kidding yourselves.





    Wow way to contradict yourself there........

    Thought this was a fact based board? sounds to me as your admitting that what you have been posting is your opinion....

    Friend.
    Please sit through a more recent CPL class. The laws have changed back in 2006 here in MI. You no longer have a duty to retreat.
    The person that was attacked in the OP was "mentally challenged" and was being threatened with great bodily harm or death. You and I as MI residents with a CPL can intervene to stop the threat, without fear of lawsuits etc.I mean no disrespect but the laws have changed, please check into it.


    Sorry I am lazy tonight, but this link will give you so insight as to what I just described.
    Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the "new" laws.
    Spreading bad info hurts us all.

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News...s.aspx?id=7916
    Last edited by Super Trucker; February 19th, 2009 at 11:42 PM. Reason: link added

  10. #114
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    If I was driving by I'd put a Nissan Exterra right through the lot of those animals.

  11. #115
    Member Array XD45Golfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Trucker View Post
    Friend.
    Please sit through a more recent CPL class. The laws have changed back in 2006 here in MI. You no longer have a duty to retreat.
    The person that was attacked in the OP was "mentally challenged" and was being threatened with great bodily harm or death. You and I as MI residents with a CPL can intervene to stop the threat, without fear of lawsuits etc.I mean no disrespect but the laws have changed, please check into it.


    Sorry I am lazy tonight, but this link will give you so insight as to what I just described.
    Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the "new" laws.
    Spreading bad info hurts us all.

    NRA-ILA :: NRA-Backed Castle Doctrine Bills Become Law in Michigan
    Ok I admit I was incorrect about the no retreat, I found that in October 2006 the law changed. HOWEVER...... if you actually READ the law it says the new law says you have no duty to retreat, before using deadly or non-deadly force, anywhere you have a legal right to be. Of course, you still may only use deadly force if you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured or sexually assaulted. The new laws are 2006 PA 309 and 2006 PA 313.
    "The great object is, that every man be armed.... Every one who is able may have a gun."
    - Patrick Henry

  12. #116
    New Member Array soulja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2
    I just want to know who counted them?

  13. #117
    Senior Member Array psychophipps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Texas, in the RGV
    Posts
    747
    And my wife calls me paranoid for packing two full spares for my G17 when I carry it. 52 well-placed shots might have just been enough if it came to that.

    HA!

  14. #118
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,285
    Last nights news said it was only about 10 of the 50 that did the kicking and beating, the rest of the morons just stood around and watched.... BTY that also qualifies them for jail time...
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  15. #119
    VIP Member Array cdwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    MS
    Posts
    2,261
    I still stand by my posts... If I was driving by and witnessed this ..... I couldn't not get involved.....
    Let's say it's a SHTF day you notice a gang of twenty walking down the street beating everyone they come across... now all the LEO's are tied up with the other..however many rioting in the streets....what would you do, hope you don't get caught up in it.
    Guilty by association .. if they as a group fired on me then I would return the favor..
    Hide until the National Guard shows up.......not me.
    GUN CONTROL= I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THE GUN

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  16. #120
    VIP Member Array hogdaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    N/E Florida
    Posts
    3,271
    And nobody called CHUCK NORIS ?????

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. 10 people indicted for beating man unconscious.
    By socal2310 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2010, 08:35 PM
  2. Lunatic Hit and Run on a cyclist
    By packinnova in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2009, 11:05 PM
  3. Bad - Two Teens Beat and Rob 81 yr old Man [merged]
    By lance22 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2009, 09:15 AM
  4. Bad : 2 cases of teens, killing other teens
    By Eagleks in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 16th, 2008, 09:59 PM
  5. Newbie from Kalamazoo, MI
    By HermanNelson in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: October 1st, 2006, 01:47 AM

Search tags for this page

kalamazoo area nra instructors
,

kalamazoo bestiality

,

kalamazoo biker attacked

,
northside kalamazoo white shirts gangs
,
teen killed in kalamazoo hayes park
Click on a term to search for related topics.