"Point 'em out, knock 'em out" and critical life lessons....

  • Thread starter Thread starter ezkl2230
  • Start date Start date
E

ezkl2230

Guest
That's the name of the new "game": point 'em out, knock 'em out. The players choose a random victim and cold cocks 'em just for the fun of it. The game of battery for playas age 13 and up!

So this young thug and two of his friends play the game in Lansing, MI. Only this time, the attacker isn't just going to hit someone, he's illegally carrying a stun gun (in Michigan you must have a CPL in order to legally carry a stun gun) and is going to nail his victim with 1.6 million volts. Just for fun, mind you.

So he sizes up his target and attacks. Only his stun gun malfunctions and there is no hilarious, body-wrenching shock. All the intended victim knows is that someone has just stuck something sharp in his back multiple times AS HE WAITS AT HIS DAUGHTER'S BUS STOP FOR HER TO GET OFF THE BUS.

And out comes his compact .40 S&W M&P with a full 10 round magazine.

The attacker turned to run away, and the defender put one round into his butt, dropping him in his tracks. In spite of the attack, the defender stayed with the attacker, called 911 and asked for medical attention.

The attacker, who is facing a two year felony for illegally possessing a stun gun, wrote a letter of apology to the defender:

“I don’t blame you for what you did. You were only trying to protect yourself. I only wish I could go back to change it to were (sic) I never did it.”

“Im very sorry,” he closes at the letter’s end.

The hand-scrawled note is written on one-page of lined binder paper. The printed apology is at least five times larger than the rest of the words.

'Point 'em out, knock 'em out': Brutal game ends when assault victim fires his concealed handgun | MLive.com
Click to expand...

OK - that's the life lesson for the kid.

What the article DOESN'T address is the potential charges that could be brought against the defender.

He shot the kid in the butt. The kid was fleeing the scene, and there was no imminent danger to the defender at this point.

As much as any of us might have wanted to shoot the thug for his assault on us, was the defender justified in shooting him?

Short answer, in Michigan anyway, is Yes.

Michigan has a fleeing felon law:

The use of deadly force 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, (2) the fleeing suspect
against whom force was used must be the person who committed the felony,
and (3) the use of deadly force must have been "necessary" to ensure the
apprehension of the felon. People v Hampton, 194 Mich App 593, 596-597; 487
NW2d 843 (1992)," quoted in the appeals case People v Nekeal Jones, Link Removed
Click to expand...

While I don't think any of us really want to take such chances with a prosecuting attorney who may or may not be a supporter of our Second Amendment right to carry and defend ourselves, the answer is Yes, he was justified.

That's the lesson for the rest of us.
 
Thank you for posting this! I go to Detroit a lot and didn't know about the fleeing felon law. Somebody could do a lot of time for felony assault if he/she were to get a kneecap shot out after attempting to put a pipe and or baseball bat through the driver side window. :-) He or she would also be unable to commit future crimes of that nature when the system releases him or her early because Michigan sucks.
 
Interesting article. Thanks. I also have a nagging suspicion he will be charged with something as the attacker was fleeing, and not a present danger when he was shot.

Thank God his stun-gun malfunctioned. No telling how badly this may have ended-up for the victim if the attacker noticed his weapon while he was shocking the life out of him, and used it to kill the victim.

Ear to the train tracks, on this one.
 
Just had a thought on this. The defender had just been stabbed in the back with something. When he pulled his gun and turned, could he have seen he was still hooked up to mega volts? If so, and someone still had the stun gun in his hands, that is a big threat as that incapitates me if it goes off. I think my thoughts, would be to stop the threat. We cannot tell from the story if the perp had dropped the stun gun and turned fully so obviously no longer a threat and he was fleeing prior to shots fired. If defender fired as the perp was in the act of turning to flee, it may not have been obvious to the defender he was disengaging. It depends upon interpretation. Perhaps LE was still trying to determine if the "flight" rule could be applied or perhaps they already determined no charge to the defender since a felony was committed and only necessary force used to stop his flight since they were already charging the perp. With the info pointing out that justifiable use of force to stop a felon is allowed, it is likely charges would not be filed, unless as suggested some anti-gun DA wanted to make a point.
-----This does point out the importance of knowing pertinent laws in any state where you might be carrying. After the fact is too late to learn the finer points of the law.
 
r1derbike said:
Interesting article. Thanks. I also have a nagging suspicion he will be charged with something as the attacker was fleeing, and not a present danger when he was shot.

Thank God his stun-gun malfunctioned. No telling how badly this may have ended-up for the victim if the attacker noticed his weapon while he was shocking the life out of him, and used it to kill the victim.

Ear to the train tracks, on this one.
Click to expand...

As i noted in the previous post, Michigan's fleeing felon law comes into play here. All three considerations are accounted for. A felony being committed, the shot was directed at the felon, no one else, and the felon was shot by the defender to prevent him from fleeing and insure his apprehension. There are no legal grounds for charges to be preferred against the defender.
 
Though was stabbed in back although fleeing thought they might be going for help or another knife, still in fear.
 
dgifted said:
Just had a thought on this. The defender had just been stabbed in the back with something. When he pulled his gun and turned, could he have seen he was still hooked up to mega volts? If so, and someone still had the stun gun in his hands, that is a big threat as that incapitates me if it goes off. I think my thoughts, would be to stop the threat. We cannot tell from the story if the perp had dropped the stun gun and turned fully so obviously no longer a threat and he was fleeing prior to shots fired. If defender fired as the perp was in the act of turning to flee, it may not have been obvious to the defender he was disengaging. It depends upon interpretation. Perhaps LE was still trying to determine if the "flight" rule could be applied or perhaps they already determined no charge to the defender since a felony was committed and only necessary force used to stop his flight since they were already charging the perp. With the info pointing out that justifiable use of force to stop a felon is allowed, it is likely charges would not be filed, unless as suggested some anti-gun DA wanted to make a point.
-----This does point out the importance of knowing pertinent laws in any state where you might be carrying. After the fact is too late to learn the finer points of the law.
Click to expand...

If the stun gun had worked properly, 1.6 million volts, at the very least would have given him a very painful jolt from which it can take a few seconds to recover. Pulling his firearm would not have been likely until he had recovered from the shock he received. It isn't quite the same as being nailed with a taser, but as you will see from this video, it puts some people on the ground, while others are just painfully jolted out of the way momentarily. Remember, the people in this video know the jolt is coming; the defender in this report would not have had that advantage.

 
IMO getting jabbed in the back with anything sharp is justification enough to shoot. It could have been a knife - and a sharp one might have burned but not been an obvious mortal wound. It could have been a hypodermic with some kind of toxin. Heck yes I'd shoot that guy. He's lucky it was in his tail, not in his spine or skull. Stupid kids....
 
"I didn't know what I'd been hit with - I thought i'd been stabbed and feared that I might quickly be incapacitated, whereupon my attacker would resume his assault on me!"
 
There is that adage of your body being a temple, or you are what you eat.
~
An attack on your body is just that an attack. Only those people that I give written permission are allowed to put anything in my body, i.e. doctors. All others will receive swift retaliation without warning, if I have to serve jail time because of my protecting myself, so be it. No one else is assigned to protect me or my loved ones, it is up to me, period.
~
To those who are going to point out the legal and financial problems involved, what is your concern protecting yourself or your money. After all if you run out of money, you can always make more. But if you run out of life, oops your dead, end of story. Not going to take that chance, period.
 
According to our CWP instructor here in SC, that is one of the main differences between a cop and a civilian. We cannot shoot a fleeing suspect where they can. I think even they are under quite a bit of scrutiny though as to when they can even do it.
 
Update.....

A report today says that the prosecuting attorney in this case will not "take a position on Weaver’s petition for an exemption that allows teens 17 to 21 to have convictions expunged once a sentence is successfully served." The report also states that the judge could still deny such a plea.

So once this kid has served his two year sentence for felony possession/carry of an EMD, he could petition the court to expunge his record and there would be no more record of this incident if the court grants his petition. The report says nothing about his eligibility for time off for good behavior.

'Point 'em out, knock 'em out': Attacker shot by concealed weapon holder could have charge erased | MLive.com
 
Update to this story.

Marvell Weaver was released from jail 2 months early without paying any of the fines or court costs levied by the court - even though he had previous felony convictions and was supposed to be meeting with his parole officer at the time he carried out his attack. His two friends were never charged.

As for the victim?

Even though the shooting was ruled justified, his S&W compact .40 was kept as evidence and it took him months to get it back, by which time he had bought another one. The courts refused to reimburse him.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/point_em_out_knock_em_out_teen.html
 
ezkl2230 said:
Update to this story.

Marvell Weaver was released from jail 2 months early without paying any of the fines or court costs levied by the court - even though he had previous felony convictions and was supposed to be meeting with his parole officer at the time he carried out his attack. His two friends were never charged.
Click to expand...
this is one of the biggest dirty secrets that is kept from the honest people, the "indigents" rarely if ever pay court imposed fines/costs/penalties. and the orders of the courts are rarely enforced. the bad guys know it. another dirty secret is suspended/early termination of sentences this is why you see felons with dozens of convictions who aren't in prison.

as for the guy who lost the use of his gun, the moral to that story is that you always need to own a second or more guns
 
ezkl2230 said:
That's the name of the new "game": point 'em out, knock 'em out. The players choose a random victim and cold cocks 'em just for the fun of it. The game of battery for playas age 13 and up!

So this young thug and two of his friends play the game in Lansing, MI. Only this time, the attacker isn't just going to hit someone, he's illegally carrying a stun gun (in Michigan you must have a CPL in order to legally carry a stun gun) and is going to nail his victim with 1.6 million volts. Just for fun, mind you.

So he sizes up his target and attacks. Only his stun gun malfunctions and there is no hilarious, body-wrenching shock. All the intended victim knows is that someone has just stuck something sharp in his back multiple times AS HE WAITS AT HIS DAUGHTER'S BUS STOP FOR HER TO GET OFF THE BUS.

And out comes his compact .40 S&W M&P with a full 10 round magazine.

The attacker turned to run away, and the defender put one round into his butt, dropping him in his tracks. In spite of the attack, the defender stayed with the attacker, called 911 and asked for medical attention.

The attacker, who is facing a two year felony for illegally possessing a stun gun, wrote a letter of apology to the defender:



OK - that's the life lesson for the kid.

What the article DOESN'T address is the potential charges that could be brought against the defender.

He shot the kid in the butt. The kid was fleeing the scene, and there was no imminent danger to the defender at this point.

As much as any of us might have wanted to shoot the thug for his assault on us, was the defender justified in shooting him?

Short answer, in Michigan anyway, is Yes.

Michigan has a fleeing felon law:



While I don't think any of us really want to take such chances with a prosecuting attorney who may or may not be a supporter of our Second Amendment right to carry and defend ourselves, the answer is Yes, he was justified.

That's the lesson for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

One other thing I have read at this forum that I think is a good point... just because someone is running, doesn't mean that they are done with the fight. Maybe they are running to the car to get a shotgun. You just really never know what's in their heads.
 
gfrlaser said:
And another twist to the game....



Link Removed
Click to expand...
I've been asked that question a few times. My answer is always no. And as one of my shift partners always says, "I may be caught by surprise, but I will never be caught off guard." Stay skeptical my friends.
 
My heart has serious electrical issues. This new version of the knock out game would probably be fatal. If I saw the kid coming I would warn loudly then shoot to stop the threat. These kids are going to kill someone - else. Pretty sure some have already been killed by that game.

I really appreciate how you followed this story, thanks
 
See one thugga coldcock a 6 month pregnant woman - without even breaking stride.

Now, THAT took real guts. :angry:

[video=youtube;vcZbAGMpK_0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vcZbAGMpK_0[/video]

"Do you have a glock," asked the "knockout game" playa?

"Glock? No. Say hello to my little friend - my Springfield XDS .45!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 147 (members: 0, guests: 147)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top