Retired firefighter found guilty for shooting at lost black teen on doorstep

[Freiheit]

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge with modern firearms. Unless one is being attacked or threatened self defense is not an issue. Zeigler was irresponsible and is paying for it.

YOu obviously know nothing about firearms.

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge with modern firearms. Unless one is being attacked or threatened self defense is not an issue. Zeigler was irresponsible and is paying for it.

YOu obviously know nothing about firearms.

You are obviously a dim wit. Modern firearms have been designed to eliminate what is termed accidental discharge. Operator error is the cause of "accidental discharge" with modern firearms. How many spontainious discharges have been recorded with modernm firearms?
Never put a finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire eliminates "accidental discharge".
Modern firearms do not fire themselves. I'll bet you are a real trip at the range, that is if you have ever been.

Well, there is the Remington 700, and other Remington guns using what may be a defective trigger: Popular Remington 700 rifle linked to potentially deadly defect

Remington Trigger Recall

I would think and hope that Remington issue is an aberration, of course.

After a bit of research the I found the law suit and its result remain controversial. The source you posted is less than unbiased. CNBC carried on a campaign against Remington about the model 700 from 2010. However the most telling information about the Remington 700, it is and remains the most used sniper rifle in the US military and the military of 14 other countries and according to the American Sniper Association is the most popular long range rifle of US police and SWAT teams. If spontaineous discharge were a problem I doubt that would be true. I reiterate spontaineous discharge in modern firearms is so rare as to be anomalous.

From what I have read from multiple sources, there have been multiple lawsuits against Remington about faulty trigger mechanisms resulting in firing without touching the trigger, not to mention settlements and, supposedly, internal documents saying that Remington was aware of the issue and did nothing about it. People have said the issue tends to occur in the cold, although I'm not sure why that would be.

If you look at the Remington Trigger Recall link I provided, it says that Remington actually recalled some of their firearms because of the possibility they could accidentally discharge due to an issue with the X-Mark Pro trigger. It's more than just one incident or suit with Remington.

I'm not claiming this is a common occurrence, I'm just pointing out that sometimes even modern firearms can accidentally discharge.

My point is there is still controversy surrounding the suit against Remington. If spontaineous discharge were a common problem the very rifle named in the suit would not be so popular among both military and police. Spontaineous discharge can be and is affected by maintenance, inexpert adjustment and wear and tear on the mechanism. No I do not accept a shotgun firing itself. There are 10s of millions of shotguns in the hands of cititzens and I have not heard of problems with spontaineous discharge.

 

[iceberg]

again how do you not know your way to school?
no cell phone? what 14 year old does not have a cell phone?

could be good reasons for this but still valid questions i hope were covered in court.

Maybe he’s never had to walk to the school before.

He might not know every street to turn on to get there.

Not every family can necessarily afford to have cell phones for everyone.

None of that is relevant to the case given the fact that the racist shitbag was shooting at a person who was running away.

when i rode the bus i still knew how to walk to school.

why was he opening the screen door then?

again could be goodxreasons maybe not. dunno. but im not calling people i dont know racist shitbags cause it suits my own agenda.

The racist shitbag shot a human being who was running away. Why do you think that’s okay?

I wonder why.

did i ever say it was ok?

no.

fucking drama llamas.

You apparently think it is okay because you only seem focused on the kid not knowing how to get to school and why he doesn’t have a cell phone.

The racist shitbag shot at a human being who was running away. How is anything else relevant?

you are apparantly an asshole.

bye.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge with modern firearms. Unless one is being attacked or threatened self defense is not an issue. Zeigler was irresponsible and is paying for it.

YOu obviously know nothing about firearms.

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge with modern firearms. Unless one is being attacked or threatened self defense is not an issue. Zeigler was irresponsible and is paying for it.

YOu obviously know nothing about firearms.

You are obviously a dim wit. Modern firearms have been designed to eliminate what is termed accidental discharge. Operator error is the cause of "accidental discharge" with modern firearms. How many spontainious discharges have been recorded with modernm firearms?
Never put a finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire eliminates "accidental discharge".
Modern firearms do not fire themselves. I'll bet you are a real trip at the range, that is if you have ever been.

Well, there is the Remington 700, and other Remington guns using what may be a defective trigger: Popular Remington 700 rifle linked to potentially deadly defect

Remington Trigger Recall

I would think and hope that Remington issue is an aberration, of course.

After a bit of research the I found the law suit and its result remain controversial. The source you posted is less than unbiased. CNBC carried on a campaign against Remington about the model 700 from 2010. However the most telling information about the Remington 700, it is and remains the most used sniper rifle in the US military and the military of 14 other countries and according to the American Sniper Association is the most popular long range rifle of US police and SWAT teams. If spontaineous discharge were a problem I doubt that would be true. I reiterate spontaineous discharge in modern firearms is so rare as to be anomalous.

From what I have read from multiple sources, there have been multiple lawsuits against Remington about faulty trigger mechanisms resulting in firing without touching the trigger, not to mention settlements and, supposedly, internal documents saying that Remington was aware of the issue and did nothing about it. People have said the issue tends to occur in the cold, although I'm not sure why that would be.

If you look at the Remington Trigger Recall link I provided, it says that Remington actually recalled some of their firearms because of the possibility they could accidentally discharge due to an issue with the X-Mark Pro trigger. It's more than just one incident or suit with Remington.

I'm not claiming this is a common occurrence, I'm just pointing out that sometimes even modern firearms can accidentally discharge.

If I may interject here, in my state of Washington, pointing a weapon at a person is considered a misdemeanor assault. I realize that this took place in Michigan and I don't know if they have a comparable statute, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

RCW 9.41.230
Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:
(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;
(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place
where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are
authorized to be lawfully discharged; or
(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,
although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.
​

 

[Montrovant]

YOu obviously know nothing about firearms.

YOu obviously know nothing about firearms.

You are obviously a dim wit. Modern firearms have been designed to eliminate what is termed accidental discharge. Operator error is the cause of "accidental discharge" with modern firearms. How many spontainious discharges have been recorded with modernm firearms?
Never put a finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire eliminates "accidental discharge".
Modern firearms do not fire themselves. I'll bet you are a real trip at the range, that is if you have ever been.

Well, there is the Remington 700, and other Remington guns using what may be a defective trigger: Popular Remington 700 rifle linked to potentially deadly defect

Remington Trigger Recall

I would think and hope that Remington issue is an aberration, of course.

After a bit of research the I found the law suit and its result remain controversial. The source you posted is less than unbiased. CNBC carried on a campaign against Remington about the model 700 from 2010. However the most telling information about the Remington 700, it is and remains the most used sniper rifle in the US military and the military of 14 other countries and according to the American Sniper Association is the most popular long range rifle of US police and SWAT teams. If spontaineous discharge were a problem I doubt that would be true. I reiterate spontaineous discharge in modern firearms is so rare as to be anomalous.

From what I have read from multiple sources, there have been multiple lawsuits against Remington about faulty trigger mechanisms resulting in firing without touching the trigger, not to mention settlements and, supposedly, internal documents saying that Remington was aware of the issue and did nothing about it. People have said the issue tends to occur in the cold, although I'm not sure why that would be.

If you look at the Remington Trigger Recall link I provided, it says that Remington actually recalled some of their firearms because of the possibility they could accidentally discharge due to an issue with the X-Mark Pro trigger. It's more than just one incident or suit with Remington.

I'm not claiming this is a common occurrence, I'm just pointing out that sometimes even modern firearms can accidentally discharge.

My point is there is still controversy surrounding the suit against Remington. If spontaineous discharge were a common problem the very rifle named in the suit would not be so popular among both military and police. Spontaineous discharge can be and is affected by maintenance, inexpert adjustment and wear and tear on the mechanism. No I do not accept a shotgun firing itself. There are 10s of millions of shotguns in the hands of cititzens and I have not heard of problems with spontaineous discharge.

I'm not saying this man's shotgun fired itself, I merely pointed out that your statement that "modern firearms do not fire themselves" is not entirely accurate.

 

[Freiheit]

You are obviously a dim wit. Modern firearms have been designed to eliminate what is termed accidental discharge. Operator error is the cause of "accidental discharge" with modern firearms. How many spontainious discharges have been recorded with modernm firearms?
Never put a finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire eliminates "accidental discharge".
Modern firearms do not fire themselves. I'll bet you are a real trip at the range, that is if you have ever been.

Well, there is the Remington 700, and other Remington guns using what may be a defective trigger: Popular Remington 700 rifle linked to potentially deadly defect

Remington Trigger Recall

I would think and hope that Remington issue is an aberration, of course.

After a bit of research the I found the law suit and its result remain controversial. The source you posted is less than unbiased. CNBC carried on a campaign against Remington about the model 700 from 2010. However the most telling information about the Remington 700, it is and remains the most used sniper rifle in the US military and the military of 14 other countries and according to the American Sniper Association is the most popular long range rifle of US police and SWAT teams. If spontaineous discharge were a problem I doubt that would be true. I reiterate spontaineous discharge in modern firearms is so rare as to be anomalous.

From what I have read from multiple sources, there have been multiple lawsuits against Remington about faulty trigger mechanisms resulting in firing without touching the trigger, not to mention settlements and, supposedly, internal documents saying that Remington was aware of the issue and did nothing about it. People have said the issue tends to occur in the cold, although I'm not sure why that would be.

If you look at the Remington Trigger Recall link I provided, it says that Remington actually recalled some of their firearms because of the possibility they could accidentally discharge due to an issue with the X-Mark Pro trigger. It's more than just one incident or suit with Remington.

I'm not claiming this is a common occurrence, I'm just pointing out that sometimes even modern firearms can accidentally discharge.

My point is there is still controversy surrounding the suit against Remington. If spontaineous discharge were a common problem the very rifle named in the suit would not be so popular among both military and police. Spontaineous discharge can be and is affected by maintenance, inexpert adjustment and wear and tear on the mechanism. No I do not accept a shotgun firing itself. There are 10s of millions of shotguns in the hands of cititzens and I have not heard of problems with spontaineous discharge.

I'm not saying this man's shotgun fired itself, I merely pointed out that your statement that "modern firearms do not fire themselves" is not entirely accurate.

It is such a rare occurance as to be almost anomalous. 99 times out of 100 poor trigger discipline is the cause.

 

[Montrovant]

YOu obviously know nothing about firearms.

YOu obviously know nothing about firearms.

You are obviously a dim wit. Modern firearms have been designed to eliminate what is termed accidental discharge. Operator error is the cause of "accidental discharge" with modern firearms. How many spontainious discharges have been recorded with modernm firearms?
Never put a finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire eliminates "accidental discharge".
Modern firearms do not fire themselves. I'll bet you are a real trip at the range, that is if you have ever been.

Well, there is the Remington 700, and other Remington guns using what may be a defective trigger: Popular Remington 700 rifle linked to potentially deadly defect

Remington Trigger Recall

I would think and hope that Remington issue is an aberration, of course.

After a bit of research the I found the law suit and its result remain controversial. The source you posted is less than unbiased. CNBC carried on a campaign against Remington about the model 700 from 2010. However the most telling information about the Remington 700, it is and remains the most used sniper rifle in the US military and the military of 14 other countries and according to the American Sniper Association is the most popular long range rifle of US police and SWAT teams. If spontaineous discharge were a problem I doubt that would be true. I reiterate spontaineous discharge in modern firearms is so rare as to be anomalous.

From what I have read from multiple sources, there have been multiple lawsuits against Remington about faulty trigger mechanisms resulting in firing without touching the trigger, not to mention settlements and, supposedly, internal documents saying that Remington was aware of the issue and did nothing about it. People have said the issue tends to occur in the cold, although I'm not sure why that would be.

If you look at the Remington Trigger Recall link I provided, it says that Remington actually recalled some of their firearms because of the possibility they could accidentally discharge due to an issue with the X-Mark Pro trigger. It's more than just one incident or suit with Remington.

I'm not claiming this is a common occurrence, I'm just pointing out that sometimes even modern firearms can accidentally discharge.

If I may interject here, in my state of Washington, pointing a weapon at a person is considered a assault misdemeanor assault. I realize that this took place in Michigan and I don't know if they have a comparable statute, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

RCW 9.41.230
Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:
(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;
(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place
where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are
authorized to be lawfully discharged; or
(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,
although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.
​

The man was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm (and possession of a firearm in commission of a felony), which seems to be a different sort of crime. Michigan Assault With Intent to do Great Bodily Harm Less Than Murder Explained

I didn't see anything about any charges similar to the Washington law, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist in Michigan.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, there is the Remington 700, and other Remington guns using what may be a defective trigger: Popular Remington 700 rifle linked to potentially deadly defect

Remington Trigger Recall

I would think and hope that Remington issue is an aberration, of course.

After a bit of research the I found the law suit and its result remain controversial. The source you posted is less than unbiased. CNBC carried on a campaign against Remington about the model 700 from 2010. However the most telling information about the Remington 700, it is and remains the most used sniper rifle in the US military and the military of 14 other countries and according to the American Sniper Association is the most popular long range rifle of US police and SWAT teams. If spontaineous discharge were a problem I doubt that would be true. I reiterate spontaineous discharge in modern firearms is so rare as to be anomalous.

From what I have read from multiple sources, there have been multiple lawsuits against Remington about faulty trigger mechanisms resulting in firing without touching the trigger, not to mention settlements and, supposedly, internal documents saying that Remington was aware of the issue and did nothing about it. People have said the issue tends to occur in the cold, although I'm not sure why that would be.

If you look at the Remington Trigger Recall link I provided, it says that Remington actually recalled some of their firearms because of the possibility they could accidentally discharge due to an issue with the X-Mark Pro trigger. It's more than just one incident or suit with Remington.

I'm not claiming this is a common occurrence, I'm just pointing out that sometimes even modern firearms can accidentally discharge.

My point is there is still controversy surrounding the suit against Remington. If spontaineous discharge were a common problem the very rifle named in the suit would not be so popular among both military and police. Spontaineous discharge can be and is affected by maintenance, inexpert adjustment and wear and tear on the mechanism. No I do not accept a shotgun firing itself. There are 10s of millions of shotguns in the hands of cititzens and I have not heard of problems with spontaineous discharge.

I'm not saying this man's shotgun fired itself, I merely pointed out that your statement that "modern firearms do not fire themselves" is not entirely accurate.

It is such a rare occurance as to be almost anomalous. 99 times out of 100 poor trigger discipline is the cause.

Yeah, I didn't mean to turn this into a big discussion, I just remembered seeing/reading about that Remington issue when you talked about modern firearms not having accidental discharge.

 

[BigTruck]

Maybe he’s never had to walk to the school before.

He might not know every street to turn on to get there.

Not every family can necessarily afford to have cell phones for everyone.

None of that is relevant to the case given the fact that the racist shitbag was shooting at a person who was running away.

when i rode the bus i still knew how to walk to school.

why was he opening the screen door then?

again could be goodxreasons maybe not. dunno. but im not calling people i dont know racist shitbags cause it suits my own agenda.

The racist shitbag shot a human being who was running away. Why do you think that’s okay?

I wonder why.

did i ever say it was ok?

no.

fucking drama llamas.

You apparently think it is okay because you only seem focused on the kid not knowing how to get to school and why he doesn’t have a cell phone.

The racist shitbag shot at a human being who was running away. How is anything else relevant?

you are apparantly an asshole.

bye.

Well, you’re the piece of shit that thinks it’s okay to murder an innocent black kid who’s running away.

 

[william the wie]

He overreacted, but I saw the video and he clearly points the barrel UP. He's in his house and his wife is freaking out. Seems like a nice kid but he was in a strict technical sense, trespassing. I don't see how you charge the homeowner/shooter with anything.

I doubt going to the door counted as trespassing. I don't see any sort of fence around the house, and unless there are some sorts of signs indicating no one is allowed on the property, I doubt someone coming to your door constitutes trespassing.

More importantly, even if it did count as trespassing, it's almost certainly still illegal to fire a shotgun at someone who is running away from you and clearly presents no threat.

The only possible defense I see is if the shotgun shells were birdshot or rock salt. A non-lethal attitude adjuster is semi-defensible with pain killers but a lethal round, no.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

If I may interject here, in my state of Washington, pointing a weapon at a person is considered a misdemeanor assault. I realize that this took place in Michigan and I don't know if they have a comparable statute, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

RCW 9.41.230
Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:
(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;
(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place
where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are
authorized to be lawfully discharged; or
(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,
although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.

But don't you think the CIRCUMSTANCES matter here. This WAS an "intruder" on his property. I do believe he overreacted, but he responded to someone violating his space. The kid could be considered trespassing. He had no inherent "right" to be on this man's property.
the law you cite has nothing to do with these circumstances.

 

[Montrovant]

If I may interject here, in my state of Washington, pointing a weapon at a person is considered a misdemeanor assault. I realize that this took place in Michigan and I don't know if they have a comparable statute, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

RCW 9.41.230
Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:
(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;
(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place
where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are
authorized to be lawfully discharged; or
(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,
although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.

But don't you think the CIRCUMSTANCES matter here. This WAS an "intruder" on his property. I do believe he overreacted, but he responded to someone violating his space. The kid could be considered trespassing. He had no inherent "right" to be on this man's property.
the law you cite has nothing to do with these circumstances.

Again, if you can show relevant Michigan law that indicates the kid would legally be considered trespassing, please show us. I've actually looked up and posted Michigan law (post #82), and it certainly did not indicate that going up to the door of a house with no fence or barrier and no signs telling people to stay away would constitute trespassing.

Not only was the kid not trespassing, he was running away and looked to be at least 30 feet away from the man when the shotgun was fired. Does Michigan law allow someone to shoot at a fleeing trespasser who is in no way threatening the shooter? I doubt it.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

If I may interject here, in my state of Washington, pointing a weapon at a person is considered a misdemeanor assault. I realize that this took place in Michigan and I don't know if they have a comparable statute, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

RCW 9.41.230
Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:
(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;
(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place
where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are
authorized to be lawfully discharged; or
(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,
although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.

But don't you think the CIRCUMSTANCES matter here. This WAS an "intruder" on his property. I do believe he overreacted, but he responded to someone violating his space. The kid could be considered trespassing. He had no inherent "right" to be on this man's property.
the law you cite has nothing to do with these circumstances.

Again, if you can show relevant Michigan law that indicates the kid would legally be considered trespassing, please show us. I've actually looked up and posted Michigan law (post #82), and it certainly did not indicate that going up to the door of a house with no fence or barrier and no signs telling people to stay away would constitute trespassing.

Not only was the kid not trespassing, he was running away and looked to be at least 30 feet away from the man when the shotgun was fired. Does Michigan law allow someone to shoot at a fleeing trespasser who is in no way threatening the shooter? I doubt it.

First of all, i was POLITELY ASKING A QUESTION of Mariyam without trying to be contentious. You imply I was making a statement, I was not.

But since you want to be contentious, and not lift a finger to do your own homework, I will offer this one nugget. It isnt hard to discover this. You could have done this on your own without my help.

When you enter someone's property without their knowledge or permission, you not only invade their privacy, you also commit the offense of trespassing. In addition to the civil liability that you could face, you also may be charged with criminal trespass.

Michigan Criminal Trespass Laws - FindLaw

 

[Montrovant]

If I may interject here, in my state of Washington, pointing a weapon at a person is considered a misdemeanor assault. I realize that this took place in Michigan and I don't know if they have a comparable statute, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

RCW 9.41.230
Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:
(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;
(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place
where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are
authorized to be lawfully discharged; or
(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,
although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.

But don't you think the CIRCUMSTANCES matter here. This WAS an "intruder" on his property. I do believe he overreacted, but he responded to someone violating his space. The kid could be considered trespassing. He had no inherent "right" to be on this man's property.
the law you cite has nothing to do with these circumstances.

Again, if you can show relevant Michigan law that indicates the kid would legally be considered trespassing, please show us. I've actually looked up and posted Michigan law (post #82), and it certainly did not indicate that going up to the door of a house with no fence or barrier and no signs telling people to stay away would constitute trespassing.

Not only was the kid not trespassing, he was running away and looked to be at least 30 feet away from the man when the shotgun was fired. Does Michigan law allow someone to shoot at a fleeing trespasser who is in no way threatening the shooter? I doubt it.

First of all, i was POLITELY ASKING A QUESTION of Mariyam without trying to be contentious. You imply I was making a statement, I was not.

But since you want to be contentious, and not lift a finger to do your own homework, I will offer this one nugget. It isnt hard to discover this. You could have done this on your own without my help.

When you enter someone's property without their knowledge or permission, you not only invade their privacy, you also commit the offense of trespassing. In addition to the civil liability that you could face, you also may be charged with criminal trespass.

Michigan Criminal Trespass Laws - FindLaw

You actually made a number of statements in that post. Only your first sentence was a question, after that you made 4 different statements.

You also might want to actually read your own link in its entirety, rather than just the first paragraph. If you had, you would have noticed this:

"
Private property trespass: An individual who commits the following is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in county jail for a term not to exceed 30 days and/or a fine of $250.

Prohibited activities:

• Enter another person's property after being forbidden to do so by the owner.
• Remain on another person's property after having been notified to depart by the owner.
• Enter or remain on another's fenced or posted farm property without the owner's consent."

So no, just going onto someone's property does not automatically make one a trespasser. As I said, I already posted a link to the actual Michigan law, and a link to that is contained in the site you just linked to. It's Michigan law 750.552.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You are obviously a dim wit. Modern firearms have been designed to eliminate what is termed accidental discharge. Operator error is the cause of "accidental discharge" with modern firearms. How many spontainious discharges have been recorded with modernm firearms?
Never put a finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire eliminates "accidental discharge".
Modern firearms do not fire themselves. I'll bet you are a real trip at the range, that is if you have ever been.

Well, there is the Remington 700, and other Remington guns using what may be a defective trigger: Popular Remington 700 rifle linked to potentially deadly defect

Remington Trigger Recall

I would think and hope that Remington issue is an aberration, of course.

After a bit of research the I found the law suit and its result remain controversial. The source you posted is less than unbiased. CNBC carried on a campaign against Remington about the model 700 from 2010. However the most telling information about the Remington 700, it is and remains the most used sniper rifle in the US military and the military of 14 other countries and according to the American Sniper Association is the most popular long range rifle of US police and SWAT teams. If spontaineous discharge were a problem I doubt that would be true. I reiterate spontaineous discharge in modern firearms is so rare as to be anomalous.

From what I have read from multiple sources, there have been multiple lawsuits against Remington about faulty trigger mechanisms resulting in firing without touching the trigger, not to mention settlements and, supposedly, internal documents saying that Remington was aware of the issue and did nothing about it. People have said the issue tends to occur in the cold, although I'm not sure why that would be.

If you look at the Remington Trigger Recall link I provided, it says that Remington actually recalled some of their firearms because of the possibility they could accidentally discharge due to an issue with the X-Mark Pro trigger. It's more than just one incident or suit with Remington.

I'm not claiming this is a common occurrence, I'm just pointing out that sometimes even modern firearms can accidentally discharge.

If I may interject here, in my state of Washington, pointing a weapon at a person is considered a assault misdemeanor assault. I realize that this took place in Michigan and I don't know if they have a comparable statute, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

RCW 9.41.230
Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:
(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;
(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place
where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are
authorized to be lawfully discharged; or
(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,
although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.
​

The man was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm (and possession of a firearm in commission of a felony), which seems to be a different sort of crime. Michigan Assault With Intent to do Great Bodily Harm Less Than Murder Explained

I didn't see anything about any charges similar to the Washington law, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist in Michigan.

The Michigan law seems pretty much tailored to this specific incident. I just threw out out WA law for those who keep claiming that the homeowner did nothing wrong, simply to illustrate that in some jurisdictions it's considered an assault to even point a weapon at someone, loaded or not.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But don't you think the CIRCUMSTANCES matter here. This WAS an "intruder" on his property. I do believe he overreacted, but he responded to someone violating his space. The kid could be considered trespassing. He had no inherent "right" to be on this man's property.
the law you cite has nothing to do with these circumstances.

You're correct WA law is not applicable, I just was using that as an example that in some jurisdictions it's considered an assault to merely point a weapon at someone whether you shoot at them or not and whether the firearm is loaded or not. It's because it places the person in fear of grevious bodiy harm.

As far as the circumstances, if a person wants to pursue a "self-defense" claim then several elements must be present, the most important one is the presence of a threat. Almost all of our case law stipulates that a person running away from you is not a threat, even if they originally were. For example, let's say someone WAS trying to pry the front door open with a big knife (just as an example). The homeowner could claim that the presence of the weapon/knife in the attempted burglar's hand was an imminent threat because he could use that weapon to inflict death or severe bodily harm to the homeowner and use that as justification for pulling a firearm. The problem though that he is going to face is that if the guy is on the other side of a locked door and hasn't managed to pry it open, then the homeowner wasn't in danger, there was no threat until he opened the door himself presumably to face the attempted burglar. If the attempted burglar uses the opportunity of the open door to attack the homeowner then the homeowner is perfectly within his rights to use his firearm to defend himself. However if instead the guy takes off running when he sees the gun, whatever threat he presented has now ceased and the homeowner can not lawfully shoot him or at him as he's fleeing because there now is no immiment threat.

Regarding his personal property (home) and intrusion into his space, you cannot just shoot people for simply being on your property. You can't even shoot them if you've asked them to leave and they refuse. Your recourse is to have the police "trespass" them which means that an official record is made that person x is not allowed on person's y property and if they show up there then they can be arrested no questions asked. Your front walkway, your porch, etc. while legally your property, our laws allow people to approach your front door without it being unlawful. You wouldn't just up and shoot the mailman would you for opening your screen door and sticking a notice on the inner door?

The only way that I'm aware of to enforce your property rights 100% is to put a fence around the property with a gate that no one can unlock and put up no trespassing signs. While these things will not 100% ensure that no one comes on your property, they do pretty much ensure that you can prove that they did so willfully and in violation of your property rights and if you're lucky the law.