Michigan woman with concealed carry permit opens fire at alleged Home Depot shoplifters

a reply to: deadeyedick

The intent you speak of is based on the totality of circumstances and the laws in question. If the argument is -

* - "I shot at the car and my intent was to stop the car" then you run into the issue of violating state law because under state law its not allowed - for civilians or law enforcement.

* - "I shot at the car and my intent was to protect the public" then you run into Michigan being a duty to retreat state and since they were fleeing the duty to retreat was required.

* - "I shot at the car and my intent was to protect myself and the public" then you again run into the issue of they were fleeing so their was no immediate threat to the public or the shooter.

How does the saying go -
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Like I said its up to the PA regardless of what you and I think. I am just going based on the law in question. If the person violated the law by discharging her firearm at a moving vehicle did her actions / intent have mitigating circumstances that would be acceptable to counter what the law says.

a reply to: Xcathdra
X, you have, indeed, answered my questions. I can clearly see where the law officers have to adhere to a higher standard due to their training. Their training does not appear to instruct an escalation but they are able to take it to the next level to overcome. I did not realize there was a scale in use to measure force/counterforce but I know there is now as well as why a citizen has a little longer leash due to their, assumed, lower level or non-existent training for such incidents. Of course, a citizen with a longer leash must also evaluate their predicament and take the out-route when possible and they should know that their actions will still need to measure up to some legal standards regardless of the outcome, whether the crime was abated or not.

Thank you for your response.

a reply to: Xcathdra
There is no duty to retreat from a tire.

a reply to: evc1shop

When it comes to comparing law enforcement actions verse civilian actions this might be helpful (since it can become convoluted).

Law Enforcement training requires we know the law (city/state) / case law / totality of circumstance / constitutional requirements as we are acting under the color of law (agent of the state).

Civilians are not and in general the guideline for them fall under what would a reasonable person in the same situation do.


A Use of force continuum / subject resistance control continuum (same thing - just legal jargon) establishes a guideline. If suspect does option A then law enforcement can counter with option A and B. We are not required to start at the bottom and work our way up the "scale". Law Enforcement is also not required to try various options before moving to the next either.

I don't want to give the impression that once A occurs we have to respond with A. how a situation is handled is based on the above and departmental policy as well as supervisors on scene. The court requires law enforcement to use the least amount of force as possible based on totality of circumstances and to deescalate use of force as soon as safely possible to do so. When it comes to shooting out a tire an officer must ask - If they think the person is that much of a danger to the public that it would authorize shooting out the tire then the argument becomes why didn't you shoot to stop the threat behind the wheel. There are some states now who view the use of a pit maneuver as a deadly force option because of the possibility of death / serious physical injury occurring to the driver in the car.

As an example on the civilian side - If civilian A attacks civilian B for no reason at all civilian a is guilty of a crime. If civilian B defends himself he is exercising self defense. If civilian B however gains the advantage over civilian A and knocks him out / injures him to the point civilian A tries to flee and continues his assault, civilian B is no longer exercising self defense and could be guilty of an assault as well.

Again would a reasonable person think that if the suspect is knocked out or tries to flee the scene that they are still an immediate threat?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Xcathdra
There is no duty to retreat from a tire.

Fair point..

However that tire didn't commit a crime so why assault it with deadly force?

a reply to: Xcathdra
I think I've got a handle on it now.
Thank you again.

originally posted by: evc1shop
a reply to: Xcathdra
I think I've got a handle on it now.
Thank you again.

Sorry.. I have a bad habit of over explaining.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Nothing wrong with that, the devil is in the details and it's good to get info from a source actually familiar with the legalities.

As I see it, an LEO has training, empowerment to escalate, restrictions, legal knowledge.
A civilian with a weapon just needs a weapon, and an overriding subjectivity.

If lethal force is on their mind, they will use it. I've read a lot of threads on ATS where some of the more fervent gun advocates always seem to have a variant of "I'll double tap..." "Just let them try that with me..." or similar.
As horrible as some crimes are, a lot of them are not capital offenses. According to the subjectivity of the gun lovers, they can be. See where this can get into a gray area?
You can have super-duper trained combat ninja with his weapon, and understanding of duty, and legal implications, or you can have a George Zimmerman.

Even then, the Zamudio incident with Gabby Gifford's shooting proves that even the most well intentioned get it wrong.

She has been charged.

A Michigan woman was charged Tuesday with reckless use of a handgun after firing at a vehicle carrying shoplifters fleeing a Home Depot. Instead of a “misguided attempt” to stop the vehicle using her gun, the woman, Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez, 46, of Clarkston, should have tried to take a picture of the license plate, the Oakland County prosecutor said.

SOURCE - NY TIMES

a reply to: Tripnman

Thanks for the update. The NYTimes did a half decent job of covering it. Wonder if it's one of these. Doesn't seem like enough.

752.861 Careless, reckless or negligent use of firearms; penalty.
Sec. 1. Any person who, because of carelessness, recklessness or negligence, but not wilfully or wantonly,
shall cause or allow any firearm under his immediate control, to be discharged so as to kill or injure another
person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 2
years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year,
in the discretion of the court.
History: 1952, Act 45, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952.


752.862 Careless, reckless or negligent use of firearms; injury of property; penalty.
Sec. 2. Any person who, because of carelessness, recklessness or negligence, but not wilfully or wantonly,
shall cause or allow any firearm under his control to be discharged so as to destroy or injure the property of
another, real or personal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for
not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $100.00, if the injury to such property shall not exceed
the sum of $50.00, but in the event that such injury shall exceed the sum of $50.00, then said offense shall be
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year or by a fine not exceeding $500.00.
History: 1952, Act 45, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952.


[Source]

Misdemeanor.

The charge is a misdemeanor and carries a 90-day jail sentence upon conviction. [Source]

Pfft.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Pfft.

Here in California that is a wobbler - could be misdemeanor, could be felony depending on the totality of the circumstances. Had that happened here, I'd be very surprised if she was only charged with a misdemeanor.

I wonder if the charge means that she'll also lose her concealed carry permit? She should.

Givin the remarks in this thread I would have to say it is a fair charge.

Gotta love those laws that forego intent and just scream hey that was dumb.



Personally I do not think that if this lady can afford a defense that she will lose.

It seems cut and dry but it is not.

If she was aware of her surroundings then that charge will not stick.

It really depends on her grouping and the totality of the scene.

That charge is more fit for times when you come home and find a bullet hole in your wall and find out the neighbor let a round go stray.

If the defense can prove that she was in control of her rounds then she wins.

a reply to: deadeyedick

She has absolutely no defense considering Michigan Law and she is lucky she was only charged with a misdemeanor.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Don't aim your gun at someone unless you mean to kill and take the full responsibilities of such. Isn't that the motto?

a reply to: Tripnman

Hell yeah she should lose it.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: deadeyedick

Don't aim your gun at someone unless you mean to kill and take the full responsibilities of such. Isn't that the motto?

Yep

She did not aim at a person but did aim at a tire and hit it.

If you can find one innocent person that was in the firing line of the gun then your statement would hold weight.

As it stands no one was in danger accept whoever the criminals were to come in contact with next...

a reply to: deadeyedick

You're not paying attention.

Michigan woman pouts after losing gun permit for shooting at shoplifters: ‘I will never help anybody again’

Good. She lost her permit.

Prosecutors said they were satisfied that Duva-Rodriguez had lost access to guns and ammunition, and they hoped the case would serve as a reminder to other gun owners on the dangers of vigilantism.

“Hopefully someone has sat down with her and talked with her about what responsible gun ownership is all about,” said Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper.

Duva-Rodriguez said she had learned a lesson from the incident.

“I tried to help, and I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again,” she said after her sentencing.