Skip to comments.
Robbed ex-cop kills suspect
Detroit Free Press ^
| 6/6/03
| Ben Schmitt and Cecil Angel
Posted on 06/07/2003 2:57:16 PM PDT by Djarum
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:13:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
A retired Detroit police officer shot and killed a man and wounded two others early Thursday morning after being robbed outside an east side bar, police said.
Robert Strickland was walking toward the Elbow Lounge on the 7300 block of Macknear Field in Detroit at 12:50 a.m. when he was approached by three teens. One brandished a gun and demanded money, said Homicide Inspector Craig Schwartz.
(Excerpt) Read more at freep.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
To: Henrietta
If this guy were not an ex-cop, you can bet that the D.A. would be looking very hard at criminal charges for the victim for shooting his attackers in the back while they were fleeing (which is basically revenge, not self-defense). Yep. Especially in a metropolitian cesspool such as Detroit. They'd probably charge the serf with murder-2.
But despite the double standard, nothing should happen to this guy for defending himself.
21
posted on
06/07/2003 4:22:34 PM PDT
by
Mulder
(Live Free or die)
To: Hacksaw
Didn't think it would take long for the cop haters to find a problem with this. The problem is that there is an obvious double standard.
Several people have pointed that out, but I haven't seen any posts by "cop haters" suggesting the guy should be arrested or charged.
On the other hand, there would be lots of cops (a minority, but still a lot) lining up to arrest a serf who did exactly the same thing as the ex-cop did.
22
posted on
06/07/2003 4:26:01 PM PDT
by
Mulder
(Live Free or die)
To: Djarum
Well... assuming the Glock was a G26 with a 10-round magazine and one in the hole (for 11) then his .25 would have had 5 in the magazine and one in the hole. There are .25 handguns with 5-shot magazines, so this is a possible configuration.
23
posted on
06/07/2003 4:27:13 PM PDT
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: Mulder
But despite the double standard, nothing should happen to this guy for defending himself. I agree. They pretty much shot this guy for sport. To hell with the law, gunning these three punks down was the right thing to do.
24
posted on
06/07/2003 4:33:29 PM PDT
by
AdamSelene235
(Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear....)
To: Henrietta
Yes, I realize that he was shot first. But once your life is no longer in danger, you don't get to shoot the perp. Look, I agree that society is better off because these scumbags are off of the street. The point of my post is that if an ex-cop can do this, why can't the ordinary Joe? If this guy were not an ex-cop, you can bet that the D.A. would be looking very hard at criminal charges for the victim for shooting his attackers in the back while they were fleeing (which is basically revenge, not self-defense).
They mistake being made here is to assume that they were "fleeing". They had already shot him. No citizen can or should assume that a criminal with a gun is "fleeing". It is just as likely that they are merely attempting to get in a better tactical position from which to fire at you some more.
If a person with a club is running away from you, you might be prudent to assume that he is "fleeing". It is not prudent to assume so if they have a gun. In general, the courts have held that you should not shoot a person who is fleeing from you. However, juries generally do not expect you, as a reasonable person, to be able to shoot someone in the direct front in a dynamic gun fight. If you legitimately fear for your life, as this CCW holder did, the police and jury will almost always find your actions to be reasonable.
To: Djarum
The story smells just a little fishy to me but to be honest, I like it when the CCW guy cleans up some scum that tried to victimize him. My advice, look into .40 cal
26
posted on
06/07/2003 4:39:11 PM PDT
by
paul51
To: joesnuffy
He's a retired Detroit Cop, SOP
he can carry. BTW MI became a shall issue state couple of years ago, you should have heard the libs when it passed. They cried
like babies. People shooting after traffic accident, ect. Well guess what nothing happened.
I guess real people can handle firearms!!
To: umgud
"I have no problem that he shot them as they were running away. They did rob and shoot him. But....... technically, he was no longer protecting himself."
Fleeing felon!
28
posted on
06/07/2003 4:57:14 PM PDT
by
lawdude
(Liberalism: A failure every time it is tried.)
To: marktwain
"They mistake being made here is to assume that they were "fleeing"."
What? You think the scumbag "teens" (thanks, Mr. Reporter!) were running toward him backwards?
More likely, they were facing away from him because they were fleeing him after he pulled out the guns. Common sense.
That said, I think that the proper take on this is that such a shooting (direct immediate deadly revenge for deadly force on onesself) should be legal, is moral, but would leave an ordinary citizen in deep legal trouble.
To: Djarum
I thought citizens with ccw permits could not enter a bar while carrying a gun. There was no exceptions to this rule when ccw was passed 2 years ago, why any private citizen should be given more rights than other private citizens. What is up? Why was someone(doesnt matter if he used to be employed as a cop) not arrested for carrying a gun in a bar?
To: Djarum
In England he would get life,,,in the electric chair if they have one.
31
posted on
06/07/2003 5:26:19 PM PDT
by
Waco
To: waterstraat
Some rights are more equal than other rights.
32
posted on
06/07/2003 5:26:41 PM PDT
by
Leisler
To: Beelzebubba
"They mistake being made here is to assume that they were "fleeing"." What? You think the scumbag "teens" (thanks, Mr. Reporter!) were running toward him backwards?
The assumption is that just because they were moving away from him, they are no longer a threat. This is a bad assumption for any threat that is armed with a gun. I don't know how many cases that I have read of where people were shot by someone who was "fleeing them" but there have been several.
These people showed they had the ability to use deadly force, they continued to have the opportunity to use it as long as they were within gunshot, and the wounding of the CCW holder shows that he was reasonable to conclude that his life was in jeopardy because of it.
Those three things make the shooting justified.
To: Beelzebubba
It is possible that they were running away from him to get behind a wall or some other object so that they could fire at him while they were protected.
34
posted on
06/07/2003 5:31:41 PM PDT
by
trussell
(I've come to appreciate the value of a good divorce!!)
To: Djarum
What? The third suspect was shot in the head and killed and ALL three were expected to live ???
35
posted on
06/07/2003 5:32:26 PM PDT
by
orchid
(Defeat is worse than death, you have to LIVE with defeat.)
To: Henrietta
No "ordinary" citizen would get away with shooting an assailant in the back. Nice to know that ex-cops get a "pass," though. Keep in mind that he complied with the robbery and was still shot. Who's to say the suspect wouldn't have returned to finish him off?
I'd think anyone could shoot someone in the back under these circumstances. No DA in his right mind would try to bring charges up on this man (or anyone in a similar situation).
36
posted on
06/07/2003 5:36:51 PM PDT
by
Drew68
To: orchid
The two suspects and the victim was expected to survive. The third suspect is dead.
37
posted on
06/07/2003 5:38:38 PM PDT
by
trussell
(I've come to appreciate the value of a good divorce!!)
To: Mark
"
Maybe he thought he would die and was just "marking" them for evidence."
Excellent!
38
posted on
06/07/2003 5:39:09 PM PDT
by
G.Mason
(Lessons of life need not be fatal)
To: trussell
"was" should be "are"
39
posted on
06/07/2003 5:39:34 PM PDT
by
trussell
(I've come to appreciate the value of a good divorce!!)
To: waterstraat
It depends on the state, in PA there is no restrictions on carring in bar, drinking or getting drunk. Not real smart though.
Jack
40
posted on
06/07/2003 5:41:29 PM PDT
by
btcusn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson