Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Arrested for self defense????

LINK TO STORY

TAYLOR, Mich. (AP) � Suburban-Detroit police say a motorist fatally shot a bicyclist who caused a traffic accident, then attacked the driver through his car's open window.

Taylor police said Thursday that the shooter had a license to carry a concealed weapon and say they've asked the Wayne County prosecutor to decide whether he should be charged.

According to a police statement, 42-year-old bicyclist Henry R. Enoch of Taylor ignored a "do not cross" signal and struck the passenger side of the car Wednesday evening.

Police say Enoch confronted the driver and repeatedly punched him through the open window.

Police say the 46-year-old Taylor man shot Enoch once in the chest, then remained in the car until police came and arrested him. Police later released the driver while awaiting a decision on charges.


Isn't that scenario covered under the castle doctrine????
CCW and self defense from his car?, just wonder why an arrest had to be made?
Brought in for questioning would have been a better route...

I really hope this is just a media blurp....

Like the Zimmerman affair, Castle Doctrine should never come into play, at least the way the story is told. There was an accident and the motorist had every reason to expect the bicyclist would come over to see if he was all right, talk about getting the cops there, etc. IOW, unless he had warning, such as the guy cursing him from quite a distance away for example, the motorist really had no reason to retreat. He probably couldn't retreat after he was engaged. So even if he had a duty to do so, which it doesn't sound like since you mention Castle Doctrine, he had no reason to do so before the fact and probably no opportunity to after it. It should be simple self defense unless there are some details left out. The only way it won't be is if the driver was 6'5" and 350 lbs. of solid muscle and a black belt in Karate and the cyclist was a five foot, one hundred and twenty pound ferry. Then the cops/prosecutor could reasonably suspect that the motorist might not have had to kill him. On the surface it sounds like a good shoot, but it's just the surface and that's assuming accuracy on the part of the media, which is a large assumption.

The man was in his car, so castle doc is already in play, so is self defense....
This should bring up concern to ccw holders. Being punched through the window of your car puts you in a very vulnerable position. No different than being attacked in your home...... The man felt threatened enough to have to shoot an attacker, if attacker didnt want to be responsible for his actions and die, he shouldnt have attacked....

Shooter was going about his daily biz, was not the cause of the accident, was carrying legally, and was forced into self defense...... No reason for arrest.... Even if no charges are brought the arrest will stay on record. Why does a law abiding citizen have to have that on his record???

Wonder if the driver was in fear he was going to die from a few punches. Or maybe in fear that a few punches may hurt a little.

Maybe driver should of leaned to the right a little and been out of reach to attacker.

The guy is toast. Other guy was unarmed, shooter could have fled. Not what I want but thats what the DA will say.

It would be exceedingly difficult to convince a Grand Jury that a man in a car being attacked by a man on foot through the car window couldn't just put it in drive and hit the gas to escape. It ain't even as if he would be out of breath from running.

Castle doctrine isn't in play because likely retreat wasn't even a safe possibility once the attack started.

Here's what I would have done - ROLLED UP THE WINDOW... He then could have driven off a short distance to remove himself from the fisticuffs..

I think the guy may be charged - but it will be interesting to see where this goes..

Quick Reply

Guy could have had car off, keys In hand, then ticked off bicycle riderstarts hammering away......Even crawling through window...... Im sure this whole series of events lasted less than 2mins.

So if someone reaches in your front door and starts man handling you to the point you know they are getting the best of you and you were carrying......nobody would shoot?????

Just a hypothesis......

Its just sad a crappy set of circumstances that create a crappy set of results.......

Why shoot when I could drag the azzhole for blocks and rightfully say I was attempting to leave the scene of the attack. He'd be in pretty sad shape from that.

For some strange reason I could see you doing something like that...... And maybe even with a slight grin.....lol

Are you really serious? He could have rolled up the window, moved the car, or slid over. Has the world gone stark raving mad that killing someone tops those options? I'm about done with so-called humanity.

in Texas castle doctrine applies to your car and work place.

Back in my twenties I pulled a punk out of his car window by his hair after knocking the piss out of him with punches through his window......then asembly line beating him as I pulled him out and eventuall ty leaving after he started convulsing like a dead animal.... Thought I killed him, glad I was wrong...and glad he wasnt packing.....

So yes im serious....

For one thing, the car may not have been in any shape to run. Also, the guy might have been struggling to unass from the airbag's inflation. Further, it's hard to backup and see that there is no little kid back there, when you're being hammered by some dickweasel that just ran into you. The window may not have worked and the guy could have been beating the [bleep] out of him enough he couldn't do it. Also, that is the side he was being beaten from as opposed to his likely gun hand. He may have been fending off the beating from that side.

Other stuff too, but all good points you bring up ET. Hopefully it was a good shoot and the DA will not prostitute...I mean prosecute for political purposes. As is the normal mantra here on the 'fire, we'll have to wait and see.

Ricky, while I respect your opinion, if you are being attacked viciously and with no apparent reason, you may not be able to disengage long enough to think about your options, let alone pick what is in hindsight, the right one. I think the argument may be made that getting beaten in the head isn't conducive to thinking straight.

PAMac,

That is offensive to EvilTwin, and on his behalf I object to your suggestion!

He would have a HUGE grin.

John

When I was a kid in Texas and working on the railroad, I worked with a guy who was older than me. He was in his late thirties I think. He wasn't really big, probably 5'6" or so and small framed with it. He had a nice late seventies Trans Am. He was gassing up before work one morning while this big, young guy started getting pissed because he was waiting in line to gas his own vehicle. He started cussing the railroader and making threats. When my friend got done, he hooked up the nozzle and went in to pay. He got in his vehicle as he came out and this guy came over and gave him more lip and maybe punched him through the window. My friend grabbed him by the hair and burned rubber around the pumps two or three times, dragging him. He then let him go and my friend ran over his leg because he couldn't crawl away fast enough. It was a different and exciting time that many of us feel was better. Good riddance to trash that decide you're too slow at the pump.

Note a few things to you jail house lawyers. The police did release him pending investigation. The DA will get to review the case for his input. Then the grand jury will look it over (if it gets that far). And finally a jury of peers may have to make a decision as to what is right.

IMO, from what we were told, the cops were not automatically ready to condemn. Lets wait for others to have their input. Prosecutors and grand juries have an obligation to look at homicides. jack

This.