Victim or Vigilante? An attempt to protect puts detroiter in prison.

[glock 27]

Check out this article. I guess you have to get shot or stabbed first huh?

Link Removed

 

[nogods]

Check out this article. I guess you have to get shot or stabbed first huh?

Link Removed

No...but you have to be right.

Joe Zamudio, the only person who drew a weapon in response to the Rep, Giffords shooting at La Toscana Village mall, almost made the mistake of his life:

“I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ “

But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds."

 

[glock 27]

Jeff Gerritt states that a gun is not the always the best defense.

I ask, what is the best defense? Calling on police who, if they do show up, will arrive well after the threat has passed, one way or the other?

Wayne county is terrible.

 

[FloridaBlue]

OK, How can this man be charged with a felony firearm possession if his gun was legal and his CCW was current?

 

[glock 27]

Mr. Goree has shown us that the hoplophobic nature of those from Wayne County (read: Detroit) are threat to the region at large, and why good people are leaving Detroit.

Self-defense and a valid CPL should NEVER land anyone in jail for their actions.

 

[v65magnafan]

If you reasonably believe that your life is threatened, stop the threat. A warning shot or a purposeful shot to the arm can get you killed.

You have a fraction of a second to think this through, so be sure you think about it and practice for the eventuality--lots.

Also, if a weapon was used against you, protect the scene if at all possible. It seemed possible in this case, but I wasn't there.

This case doesn't smell right to me. Something may be missing in the writer's account. I get "reasonable doubt" from this narration.

But I would have to know the extent of the defendant's training and Michigan's training requirements. Live fire, right? Lots of discussion on de-escalation and avoiding trouble, I hope.

 

[FN1910]

There has to be a lot more to this story than what is in that article. It was told from one side only and only a hint of the other side. Guilty of felony firearms violation with no felony or anything else doesn't make sense even for Detroit.

 

[bob16066]

Slice it any way you want. He shot an unarmed man for calling him a Mother Fletcher while reaching for his wallet. If I shot everyone who directed harsh language my way I'd have run out of ammunition years ago.

I'm not gonna pretend to understand the technical minutia of the law but the Moral of the story is: Don't shoot until you identify a legitimate threat.

Every time one of us shoots an innocent man we give the anti gun liberals on more nail in the coffin of the Second Amendment.

 

[SGB]

Pretty hard to second guess a jury on a single news article. Though I do find the conviction for felony firearm possession a little odd. When I was a Michigan LEO (left in 88) 750.227b passed in 1986 required one to be committing or attempting to commit felony to be guilty of that charge.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28ekvdvp550ex0at550kepy355%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-227b

 

[CathyInBlue]

Mr. Goree did not shoot the belligerent man on his front porch for calling him a "motherfucker". Mr. Goree shot the belligerent man on his front porch for what he said and did before calling him a "motherfucker".

I've got something for you too

That sentence placed between the act by Mr. Goree of pulling his legally possessed sidearm and holding it on the belligerent man and the act of the belligerent man reaching behind himself where Mr. Goree could not see was entirely enough to make Mr. Goree believe that the belligerent man had a weapon, that that weapon could be a firearm, and that the lives of both Mr. and Mrs. Goree could be in imminent peril. That legitimate belief was entirely enough to justify Mr. Goree's actions in defense of himself and his wife.

At 10 feet, I think Mr. Goree showed remarkable restraint in shooting his would-be assaillant in the arm. Remember, Aim small, miss small. Always aim center of mass. Mr. Goree's belligerent would-be assailant was lucky he wasn't shot center of mass and dropped dead to the ground. Indeed, I believe that had the man been shot center of mass, he'd have not been able to give the order to his daughter to "go get it", or in legal terms, to obstruct justice by tampering with evidence.

As has been mentioned, a conviction of possession of an illegally possessed but legally possessed side arm during the commission of a felony fails on its face when he is acquitted of the predicate felony. The judge should have thrown that guilty verdict out. That verdict was positively schizophrenic.

I hope, and I believe he will, prevail in his appeal.

 

[glock 27]

In a vexing verdict, a Wayne County jury in November found Goree guilty of felony firearm possession -- despite his CCW permit -- while acquitting him of aggravated assault and attempted murder.

Someone explain to me how that works?:wacko:

 

[FN1910]

At 10 feet, I think Mr. Goree showed remarkable restraint in shooting his would-be assaillant in the arm. Remember, Aim small, miss small. Always aim center of mass. Mr. Goree's belligerent would-be assailant was lucky he wasn't shot center of mass and dropped dead to the ground. Indeed, I believe that had the man been shot center of mass, he'd have not been able to give the order to his daughter to "go get it", or in legal terms, to obstruct justice by tampering with evidence.

Remember that we are getting only one version of the story and there appears that there is a different version of it. One that does not conform to the place of the shooting or the circumstances surrounding it. We have been given one version of the shooters background which may or may not be like the mother who claims her son could not have been guilty of a certain crime because he was such a good boy. The jury heard both sides and made their decision based on that. One of the rights in the BOR is to face our accusers and have witnesses. Maybe we need that here.

 

[Doc Mustang]

I believe Nathaniel and Edna Goree. But this story is about more than who's right; it's about what can go wrong when people feel they must carry a gun, legally or not. A judge and jury can overrule split-second decisions on the street. In many cases, of course, there is another problem: Whoever pulls a gun on someone should expect to get shot at, too.

Goree thought he was protecting himself. Now, with no job and a prison record, he faces an uncertain future, while his wife prepares to leave the house she has lived in for 23 years. "I'm living a nightmare," she said.

Goree wishes he had never obtained a CCW permit. "It wasn't worth the trouble," he told me. "At 59 without a blemish on my record, I never thought I'd end up in prison."

The Detroit Free Press is generally the more liberal of the two papers in Detroit, although that distinction is much less significant now that they are effectively one company. Anyway this is clearly a "there will be blood in the streets" Story by the Free Press.

Michigan does have fairly stringint training requirements. 2 day class, live fire, and the legal portion MUST be taught by an attorney or LEO. Clearly something in this case caused the jury to believe that Mr. Garritt did not act entirely properly in this circumstance. Although, I suspect that this is a result not of Mr. Garritts actions but of an inadaquate defense in court. Proper expert testemony regarding the threat of edged weapons inside 21 feet, introduction of past behavior on the part of the "victim" in this case, perhaps even a vigorous and vicious cross examination of the victim's testimony and very careful preperation of the defendant's testamony to ensure his fifth amendment rights were respected could have gone a long way toward obtaining a not guilty verdict.

 

[BC1]

Always retreat into the house before it escalates out of control. Call the police from the safety of your home. As Mas Ayoob says, "Using your gun in self defense, even if you are 100% right, will probably ruin your life."

You may be arrested or indicted, you will lose your guns pending the outcome of the investigation. If you consumed alcohol prior to the shooting your judgement will be questioned. The perp or his family may sue you. You must live with the moral burden of having taken a life. In any event you will incur LARGE legal bills. Say goodbye to your home or retirement money as that bill may top $80,000.

A gun is a tool of last resort. Deterrence, avoidance and de-escalation are tools of first resort. Get in the house before it escalates.

 

[bob16066]

He shot an unarmed man for using harsh language. Period.

This is not acceptable behavior in any civilized society I'm aware of. Maybe I don't get out enough.

The fact that he was unarmed Proves that there was no real and credible threat.

You can't shoot until there's a real and credible threat.

You shouldn't want to shoot until the threat is real and credible.

If you don't see a weapon, (even if he claims to have one) it might not be there. Some people are irresponsible bragarts. They should be shunned, not shot.

It's all about the weapon.

Even the words: "I'll kill you..." Do Not represent a credible threat without a weapon, with which to carry it out. (Although he could be charged with "communicating a threat" or some such legalese).

As for shooting an unarmed man in the arm: that's definitely not restraint. Some would call it torture. Some would call it stupidity. Some would call it poor marksmanship. I may not be certain what it is, but it is only restraint in the sense that he could have shot 30 times and then dismembered the corpse.

I mean, really, if I shot everyone who said they were gonna kill me I'd have to go buy more ammunition.

As for the guilty of carrying charge: the permit is only valid for carrying for lawful purposes. Shooting an unarmed man who is not a credible threat does not qualify as a lawful purpose.

I know it sounds goofy but perhaps the jury felt he should be punished for his irresponsible behavior but found the other charges too severe.

 

[v65magnafan]

I need to see evidence that the defendant saw what a reasonable person would assume to be a weapon within a distance dangerous to life--as Doc M said, no more than twenty feet.

Perhaps the defendant wasn't paying attention to the avoidance and de-escalation part of the class instruction. Or, perhaps the instructor did not stress it enough. Or perhaps, the defendant just lost his control and thereby assisted the Brady bunch propagandists.

Is there a written test at the end of the Michigan CCW instruction? If so, it could be used as evidence as to what the defendant should have known about de-escalation. On the other hand, we weren't there, nor were the judge, jury and prosecutor.

So, mentally and physically practice scenarios: and you scenarios should include avoidance and de-escalation.

For example, in one case, on a residential street, a guy was solo and getting verbally aggressive. I was watching both of his hands. Long before any weapon was brandished by the bad guy, it made sense in that circumstanceto "draw and brandish" a police scanner--with my weak hand--, and make believe I was calling for backup. It worked for me. The guy retreated and actually said he was sorry. :biggrin:

 

[Doc Mustang]

I need to see evidence that the defendant saw what a reasonable person would assume to be a weapon within a distance dangerous to life--as Doc M said, no more than twenty feet.

Perhaps the defendant wasn't paying attention to the avoidance and de-escalation part of the class instruction. Or, perhaps the instructor did not stress it enough. Or perhaps, the defendant just lost his control and thereby assisted the Brady bunch propagandists.

Is there a written test at the end of the Michigan CCW instruction? If so, it could be used as evidence as to what the defendant should have known about de-escalation. On the other hand, we weren't there, nor were the judge, jury and prosecutor.

So, mentally and physically practice scenarios: and you scenarios should include avoidance and de-escalation.

:biggrin:

There is no state mandated written test in Michigan for obtaining a CPL. A class is required and the law has a few specific requirements to be covered. I have found the "legal portion" to vary considerably in its content and quality. Also during my first course many students "zoned out" during that portion. Since that legal portion was not a part of the overall course it was not tested. I suppose any written test taken as a part of a course could be admissable. But I know I did not keep my copy.

I am not sure I like the idea of a state mandated written test. States that are "Shall Issue" could modify the test to make it as difficult or as easy as they like. I certainly would not like to take the equivalent of my medical boards just to get my CPL.

 

[v65magnafan]

I agree with you, Doc. A state-administered and developed written test sounds too much like voting tests years ago.

I'm just trying to get a handle on this guy's conviction. All sorts of problems could have occurred. Failure to de-escalate, failure to preserve physical evidence for the police, perjury, failure to instruct jury on reasonable doubt.

Not a far drive from Detroit, I'm a little involved in an Ontario case that has law-abiding people outraged.

These links take you to a bit of background info and the last link shows the actual firebomb attack on Ian Thomson's home very early on a summer morning.

Link Removed

 

[fudo]

The conviction is totally bogus. Where I live, a man who fires a gun at someone who is threatening his wife, gets a pat on the back, not a conviction. That conviction is a massive miscarriage of justice.