MonroeTalks.com > Categories > News > Man dead in Milan shooting


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Man dead in Milan shooting  (Read 4077 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: Man dead in Milan shooting
« Reply #45 on: February 29, 2012, 10:24:01 PM »

A few pertinent points from the story in bold:

A man who was robbed of marijuana during a home invasion Thursday in Milan has been charged with manslaughter after police said he chased down one of the intruders and fatally shot him.

Robert Goupill, 50, who is licensed to grow medical marijuana, was arraigned Monday afternoon in 1st District Court in Monroe County on charges of manslaughter and manufacturing a controlled substance, Interim Milan Police Chief Jeremy Nieman said.

Goupill is accused in the death of 28-year-old Jerald Antonio Ogden of Ypsilanti, who died of a shotgun wound to the back, the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office said. Nieman said Goupill faces the drug charge because he was growing more marijuana than legally permitted.

Police said Goupill and two women were in Goupill's home on Anderson Street just before midnight Thursday when Ogden and another man forced their way inside and stole marijuana. Goupill is accused of chasing the intruders along a path that connects to the Scottsdale Estates subdivision and shooting Ogden. The shooting happened roughly 200 yards from Goupill's home, Nieman said.

Ogden was found dead behind a car in the subdivision on O'Brian Drive, while the other man involved in the home invasion ran away, Nieman said. Police continue to look for that man. He is described as black, 6 feet, 3 inches tall, 185 pounds and in his early 20s, police said.

If convicted of manslaughter, Goupill faces up to 15 years in prison. He remains jailed on a $100,000 cash or surety bond.

Anyone with information can call police at (734) 439-1551.
http://annarbor.com/news/crime/man-charged-in-fatal-shooting-in-milan/?cmpid=NL_DH_topheadlines
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 10:50:19 AM by Frenchfry »
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

Skittelroo

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Man dead in Milan shooting
« Reply #46 on: March 04, 2012, 09:55:18 PM »

From The Milan-News Leader  Sunday March 4, 2012

http://www.heritage.com/articles/2012/03/04/milan_news_leader/news/doc4f4d388dbc9bf203743178.txt

By David Veselenak
dveselenak@heritage.com

The man suspected of killing a burglar from his Milan residence is facing manslaughter charges.

Robert Goupill, 50 of Milan, was arraigned this afternoon on manslaughter charges in Monroe, jail officials said. He also faced charges of delivery of a controlled substance. A pretrial hearing is scheduled for March 19.

He was charged after allegedly shooting Jerald Antonio Ogden of Ypsilanti early Friday morning after a home invasion.

He was free Tuesday afternoon on $100,000 cash bond or surety, jail administrators said.
Logged

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
The "Castle doctrine"
« Reply #47 on: March 13, 2012, 02:06:49 PM »

Saw a story recently on the facebook page of the MEN, not sure which story but one comment often repeated is about the "Castle doctrine"

Apparently some people are misrepresenting it as some sort of free pass to kill people.


Castle doctrine

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances attack an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution. Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another". The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.

The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle". This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628. This was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "Englishman" from the phrase, thereby becoming simply the Castle Doctrine. The term has been used to imply a person's absolute right in England to exclude anyone from their home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.

The term "Make My Day Law" arose at the time of the 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home. The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" uttered by actor Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, inviting a suspect to make himself liable to deadly retaliation by attacking Eastwood's character.

Conditions of use

Each state differs in the way it incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws, what premises are covered (abode only, or other places too), what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance is required before deadly force can be used, etc.

Typical conditions that apply to some Castle Doctrine laws include:

    An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
    The intruder must be acting illegally—the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack, for example, officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
    In some states, the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some lesser felony, such as arson or burglary
    The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
    The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law or aiding or abetting another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty.

Immunity from civil lawsuit

In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages or injury resulting from the lawful use of not excessive force. Without this clause an assailant can sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender, or their next-of-kin may sue for wrongful death in the case of a fatality. Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner defender) may have to pay high legal costs as a result of such lawsuits; without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a defender acting lawfully.

Use of force in self-defense which causes damage or injuries to other parties who were not acting criminally may give rise to prosecution and damages.

Duty-to-retreat

"Castle laws" remove the duty of a person legally at home not to use deadly force on an illegal intruder if he can safely retreat instead.

Stand-your-ground

Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the defender has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be. Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."

In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905), where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:

    The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)) when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".

Most gun control groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign denounce "Stand-Your-Ground" clauses as "Shoot First" laws (as in "shoot first, ask questions later"), asserting that the presumptions and other protections afforded to gun owners allow them virtual carte blanche to shoot anyone who is perceived to be trespassing. They also claim it will lead to cases of mistaken identity, so-called "shooting the milkman" scenarios. Gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association claim that such scenarios are unlikely and are not protected under most Castle laws; the shooter is only justified if the assailant broke into the home or attempted to commit some other property crime such as arson, and simple trespass is neither.

Michigan (more recent law—Act 309 of 2006—does not relieve duty to retreat unless the individual honestly and reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or imminent great bodily harm or imminent sexual assault to himself or herself or to another individual.)

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up