Ricebrnr

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 9:38 a.m.

"What happens if the bullet from your gun misses the criminal and kills an innocent person in the background? Is it then worth having a gun?" Rule #4: Know your target and what is beyond. Further, what happens if you or worse a loved one is killed by a criminal and you could do or did nothing to prevent it? Are hoplophobic concerns worth having and living with then? Google "Suzanna Gratia Hupp testimony" and "Nikki Goeser testimony" Guns and CPL's are only ONE option for self defense. With the right mind set and some training it is also the most efficient equalizer against disparity of force. If you can't live with your choices and responsibilities then no it may not be for you. But that is your choice. The rest of us are also free to choose how and if we wish to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Mainly we choose NOT to rely on the mercy of criminals.

Jamie

Thu, May 27, 2010 : 7:02 a.m.

@Clark, definitely check out Krav Magna. There is a class at Hyperfit USA on Airport Blvd. every Weds. night at 6:30. I have taken the class a few times for fun, but the guys and gals who participate regularly are not only well prepared to defend themselves, they are in the best shape of their lives. Every class works on conditioning, followed by hand to hand combat in one form or another (they even have plastic guns and rifles which is super entertaining to watch :)). Glad you made it ok and thanks for sharing this story.

JimB

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 7:40 p.m.

What happens if the bullet from your gun misses the criminal and kills an innocent person in the background? Is it then worth having a gun?

Ricebrnr

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.

@Clark, glad to hear you are exploring your options. I also have a martial arts background and would love to get together with like minded fellows to discuss things. As for a couple of your comments. All law abiding citizens are eligible for a CPL. That being said the cretins who attacked you may not be introuble for your incident but what is the likelyhood of them being law abiding citizens? Even if they have not been in trouble before, how likely is it they will spend the $105 application fee, the $100-200 CPL class fee and take the time to do those things? Criminals are lazy they won't bother to do things you or I would. Also kudos for volunteering at schools but you weren't attacked at a school were you? You were attacked during your commute very close to your home. What if the guys gave chase and tried to kick down your door to get to you? How silly is carrying a firearm during the day or at home in light of those 2 facts? If you need it, you need it NOW. Your attack is a perfect example. Did you or would you have had the time to retrieve a gun from somewhere? Even more troubling, did you or would you have time to call the police and wait for their assistance? Thank you for sharing your story, and truly I would be happy to get together and discuss it more. Cheers and be safe.

clark

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 3:17 p.m.

@Ricebrnr: thanks for the info on the Self Defense Act. I would say my views on self defense have not significantly changed in the past 24 hours, but I'm still thinking about it. I think anyone who's attacked on the street or especially in their home has a right to defend themselves. But if everyone eligible to buy and carry a gun did, wouldn't that just mean everything turns into a stalemate? Or as the line from The Incredibles goes: "Everyone's special. Which is just another way of saying nobody is." :) I think it's a probably a net positive overall, but it still worries me a bit. I mean, what's to say the guys who attacked me aren't eligible to get a CPL? It's not like they're likely to get caught from what happened last night, so for all I know they might have a clean criminal background. Now, having said that, my views on what preparations I'll make to be ready have. :) A close ex-military friend recommended the CPL option that's been mentioned here by uawisok and others. Practically speaking, CPL is not an option for me, because I work and volunteer in several different schools. I suppose I could keep it in the vehicle and just carry when I'm at home, but that seems silly. What I might do is take a martial arts class or two. Not sure what discipline, exactly, being rather a novice at hand-to-hand combat, but the same friend recommended something called "Krav Maga", which to me sounded like a Japanese food dish, but is apparently an Israeli special forces fighting technique that focuses on "neutralizing the threat", rather than the typical karate school self confidence and competition side of things.

Ricebrnr

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 2:17 p.m.

@Bill schwartzlawfirmpc.com/Articles/The-New-Self-Defense-Act-Defensible-or-Dangerous.shtml The litmus test for determining when the use of deadly force is justified is whether a person "honestly and reasonably" believed he was in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Nevertheless, deadly force is not permissible without a showing that the defendant had done "all which is reasonably in his power to avoid the necessity of extreme resistance, by retreating where retreat is safe." There are three major exceptions to this rule: 1) when one is suddenly, fiercely, and violently attacked 2) when one believes the attacker is about to use a deadly weapon and 3) when a person is assaulted in her own dwelling The Self Defense Act The Self-Defense Act codified the common law right of a person to defend himself with deadly force as outlined in Riddle. But the new Act went even further than Riddle by providing that a person is allowed to use deadly force, without the duty to retreat from any place she has the legal right to be if she honestly and reasonably believes that death, great bodily harm or sexual assault to herself or others, may be imminent.11 In addition, MCL 768.21c was enacted to expand the castle doctrine described in Riddle to include "a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that structure or shelter." This would include not only a porch or garage, but fenced-in grounds and buildings immediately surrounding a house or dwelling. In short Clark in theory would've been able to use deadly force in defense of his life because: there were multiple attackers = disparity of force enclosed space = hard to escape though there was no duty to retreat and I imagine due to the 2 above there was a legitimate fear of great bodily harm. Hope that helps. IANAL

Ricebrnr

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 2:06 p.m.

@Clark +1 glad that you were not too injured and survived your encounter. If you don't mind a little more follow up? Could you let us know what your views on self defense are and if they've changed any since your encounter?

Bill

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.

With a CPL, would its use be legal in this situation? I've always been under the impression that you cannot exceed the force presented to you. (As in, you can't shoot a man for punching you.)

djm12652

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 1:52 p.m.

@clark, glad you made out okay and was not seriously injured. Don't let scumbags deter you from doing what you enjoy!

Outlaw

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 1:26 p.m.

It's a CPL not a CCW. A CCW is a crime.In Michigan it is a CPL Concealed Pistol Licence.

uawisok

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 12:40 p.m.

HMM..a CCW would had made for an different outcome...possibly 3 less punks if he felt as if his life was in danger

clark

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 12:36 p.m.

Hi, I'm the victim in the above article, and just wanted to add a few thoughts. The police report gets pretty much everything right, and I want to say thanks to the AAPD for responding as quickly as they did. One thing that's not clear is that there were three guys, but I didn't get a good look at the other two. My bike was mounted on one of those Yakima cartop carriers (the kind where the bike is vertical on top of the car, so it's both easy to see and a pain in the rear to put up and take down.) I think it's fair to say that it was a crime of opportunity more than anything else -- they saw me drive in with the bike, and that was their objective. When the first guy came up to talk to me, I wasn't particularly concerned. It's Ann Arbor, odd people talk to you about odd things. But when I lifted the bike down, I started to realize things could go wrong. He grabbed onto it while I was still on the car. I managed to jump off the car while holding the bike, but the car doors were still open. I went forward to close the door, and that's when one of the other guys came up from behind and hit me in the back of the head. At this point things got a bit hazy. They hit me at least once or twice more. I managed to wrestle the bike back (having held on to it the entire time while trying to dodge punches) and ran for my house. They followed me to at least my porch, but once I got inside they took off towards the park. Two big mistakes on my part: not making enough noise (people would have come out had I yelled, but I'm a pretty quiet guy and didn't think to) and not leaving the bike on top of the car and driving away once I realized things were going bad. But, I'm glad I wasn't hurt and didn't lose anything either.

Smiley

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 11:38 a.m.

I like to try to get into the criminal mind. It's often difficult, but I totally get this guy. The cost-benefit analysis of mountain bike versus becoming a felon (and basically taking your entire life potential down several notches). It totally makes sense. Darwin's theories are at work all around us, everyday.

Ricebrnr

Wed, May 26, 2010 : 11:30 a.m.

Holy cow, my family and I go to the park there often! I'm glad my wife and I always maintain situational awareness to prevent but the will to defend ourselves if necessary.