You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Fri, Feb 24, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.

Police make arrest after fatal shooting in Milan

By Staff

Thumbnail image for Milan_shooting.jpg

The scene on O'Brian Drive Friday morning following a fatal shooting Thursday night.

A victim of a home invasion in Milan is in custody, suspected of following one of the intruders and fatally shooting him late Thursday, police said.

Interim Milan Police Chief Jeremy Nieman said the person in custody is under investigation for murder, but no charges have been filed. Nieman would not release the person's gender.

Two men broke into a home on Anderson Street shortly before midnight while two women and a man were inside, Nieman said.

After the intruders stole property, one person inside the home followed the men along a path that connects the neighborhoods and opened fire, he said.

The victim was found dead on O'Brian Drive in the nearby Scottsdale Estates subdivision lying behind a car. The other man involved in the home invasion left the area.

Scottsdale Estates is across Platt Road from Symons Elementary School.

Witnesses told that they heard two gunshots. One witness said he saw what appeared to be a man running toward the back of a home near the path after the shooting.

The man being sought in connection with the home invasion is described as black, 6 feet, 3 inches tall, 185 pounds and in his early 20s, police said.

Investigators executed a search warrant at the Anderson Street home Friday morning, but Nieman would not say what was seized.

Police have not released the shooting victim's name.

View Larger Map


Rugeirn Drienborough

Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 2:45 p.m.

Let's review the law, folks. The right of self-defense applies when you are in imminent (immediate, right-now-at-this-moment) danger of death, grievous bodily harm, or sexual penetration. Review that once again. Imminent. Immediate. Right now. At this very moment. When your assailant has left your house, you are no longer in imminent, immediate, right-now, at-this-moment danger. If you are following them, tracking them, and shooting them somewhere else, you aren't doing self-defense. You're doing murder. Expect the system to respond accordingly.


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.

There is one thing for sure, regardless of what the letter of the law says: If this happened in Texas, there would be no charges filed, rather we would be reading more about the community admiration for this guy.


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 1:47 p.m.

My advice is to read this story in the Monroe News--- puts a whole new light on the story.


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 10:48 a.m.

They deleted my comment earlier, and to cut it short and hope I don't offened the 2A news, but don't go by the few lines in a news paper or what you read online. I'm sure the familys on both sides of this are going through hell right now. So let's wait and see what they find out.


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 4:06 a.m.

just so u guys no that was mii uncle n yes he was doin sumthin bad but hes a really gudd person he would giv u the shirt off his bak if u needed it. but he was just bein stupid that night but it ended up bad.... n atleast u guys could slepp i couldnt i was up crying all night. but if ur gnna shoot sum1 shoot em wen there in ur houz not wen there lyke a block or 2 away from ur houz u just tukk sum1s life n hurt there wife or family..... ily buk r.i.p....


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.

Destiny--from your comment, I don't know whether to agree with you or disagree with you


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 2:31 a.m.

Seems like a simple defense would be to say that you followed the intruders, caught up with them and they pulled a gun. You had to defend yourself. The second intruder picked up the gun that the other one had and took off so it looks like the home occupant did something malicious. The possession of a weapon by the home occupant may not be illegal so long as it was not concealed. That would be my story, just sayin'.


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 1:47 a.m.

i fully blame the intruder the home owner was sending a message that you don't mess with people and their families. he entered that house with bad intentions and the paid the ultimate price for that. if he was not in a place the should have NEVER been in the first place he would still be here today. that sir is your own fault you may think you are bad but you never know how bad the next guy is.


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.

Generally, under the law, where you are and what's happening when the shots are fired makes a lot of difference.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 5:12 p.m.

Just sayin' -- I'm dismayed that some people think that the law covering this kind of situation "protects criminals." The law is well conceived to PREVENT murderers from abusing and exploiting the right to self defense. The law in this case is also intended to engender a sense of responsibility in those who may have to use a gun to defend themselves and others. Opining about what "criminals deserve" is a negative contribution to discussions on this topic. If the police acted on "what criminals deserve" all of us would be in danger every time they responded to a call. In this case, the police acted with probable cause, they arrested the shooter because their suspect apparently broke the law while "giving the criminal what he deserved." Over a period going back to the late 1960s, organizations including Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the NRA and Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) have worked to improve and advance gun laws for the benefit of law abiding citizens. One of their principle achievements has been: reduction of the number of under-informed, under-trained and over-opinionated people who own guns.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.

Ah, but did they train drug dealers?? If not, they missed an important group of gun owners, clearly.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 5:46 p.m.

Tesla: Sorry that you hold that opinion. I could not "post first" because the comments I object to were posted before I could read them, see? Over thinking? I believe the comments I refer to are "under thinking" a subject which REQUIRES consideration of what the actual law says. And finally: as one of many who've worked to clarify and enhance self defense law for 40 years, I tend to get touchy when so little regard is given to what has been achieved.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 5:25 p.m.

Maybe you should post at the beginning of each article so we all know what the topic really is. Comon dude. You over think ALL this stuff. I've tried to follow along with you but relax.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.

I think you can shoot someone ( in self defense) who breaks into your house, but if you shoot them when they are outside it would no longer be considered " self protection".


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 1:49 p.m.

"good men" do not break into someones home, tie them up, beat and rob them!


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 4:13 a.m.

thnx tim finally sum1 who agrees..... he was a gudd man ill tell u tht n he luved his family i just dont no wat he was thinkin tht nite if only he wouldve answered the fone wen mii dad was callin him that day he would still b here to this day. cuz mii dad was trynna get him to cum over n hang outn n hav dinner.... but ig its too late now then.... huhh... :'(


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.

If it turns out to be drug related, the drug could not have been pot becuse pot is harmless. Just ask the commenters of previous articles.


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.

@johnnya2--I have no problem with the legalization of pot. I think it should be. BUT--last time I checked, pot was illegal, and cars were legal. Bad comparison.


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 1:55 a.m.

i bet it was pot so many people have massive grow operations now days it is mind blowing and people are dumb and will do anything for what they think will be an easy dollar


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 1:16 a.m.

So the pot killed him? Wow that is a stretch. I guess we should make cars illegal since they are stolen every day. Of course, if the pot was LEGAL,. the person who wanted it could have obtained it legally OR the "street value" of stealing it would be minor. Alcohol is legal, how many people break into a home to steal alcohol? Get a clue


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.

You're right of course. People get robbed for jewelry all the time too. Better ban it. And I'm sure he didn't really shoot the guy - he whacked him over the head with a marijuana plant and the guy fell on a bullet that was lying in the street.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.

Steves here all week folks. He does two shows a night and three on Saturdays.

Animal Lover

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 3:08 p.m.

Probably temporary insanity made the victim follow the home invaders. Maybe the victim realized they had a weapon in the home invasion, so he then defended himself. Case closed.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.

so this may be viewed a purely speculation but the commenting and reporting from people who claim to know a bit more about the situation say that a) there was some sort (possibly small scale, possibly larger) of a pot growing operation in the home on Anderson St. b) the intruders targeted that home because of the pot. while they were there the bound and beat the people in the home at the time (two women and a man, one of the women was apparently the man's mother) c) the intruders left, the man/son who was bound and beaten and got to watch the same happen to his mother, escaped, got his gun, followed the intruders to the O'Brien St. location d) shot the one guy he could catch 5 times (my guess is that might be an exaggeration). but this is purely speculation from those in the area who may or may not actually know what is going on guess is that we'll find out how speculative this is.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.

I have read this story through several times and can't tell who broke into who, and who followed who where, and who shot who, and who ran away where, and how who ran away where, and who is arrested for murder, and if who is a she or a he, and why who is arrested, and how who got to be lying in the street, and why who got to be lying behind a car, and how who appeared to be a man, and which black man is being sought, and who was the victim? Sounds tougher than a Dr. Haldjean 2 minute mystery to me......... I think the Advanced Sudoku would be easier to figure out than this piece of Non-Pulitzer prize award winning journalism.....


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:45 p.m.

Well....... My guess is they're NOT looking for the dead guy or the man they arrested. Read the article again SLOWLY. Sound out every word. Make a chart if you have to. The information is there (except for the drug references made by other newspapers).


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.

do we have a free press or just an outlet for the police press releases? I ask because clearly the comments on facebook and other papers are WAYYYY more informative that what has been posted here. I will add another comment after this one that will be taken down but maybe someone will see it and be able to get a little more information

Craig Lounsbury

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.

I agree with others that you can shoot a guy in your house but you can't chase him down the street to shoot him. Having said that, if the "trigger man" is an otherwise "law abiding citizen" getting 12 people to convict him may be a bit problematic.

Craig Lounsbury

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 5:35 p.m.

No I tried but the link doesn't work for me. In any case I'm speaking generically rather than specifically to this case. Just generically that a jury of 12 people might be reluctant to lock somebody up for shooting a burglar even if said burglar was in escape mode.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.

Craig, did you read the Monroe news article??

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.

I guess the robber won't make that mistake again, will he?


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.

Maybe his buddy got the message. You know - his partner that left him there to die in the snow.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 4:43 p.m.

He was taught a lesson he'll never learn.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:23 p.m.

I wonder if the homeowner shot to wound and just unluckily killed the perp. While I might not have done this (because I would be scared to), I can see why a homeowner would follow a perp making a getaway with the homeowner's property. I would definitely not assume the cops are going to get it back. I'd be thinking there's about a 95% chance these perps are going to just get away with this, and have my stuff scott free. So if they came in and took thousands of dollars of jewelry or whatever, I can see someone running after them and trying to shoot them in the leg or whatever. I actually think it's kind of a shame that that's illegal. I mean, if they make it to the door with all my stuff, then it's theirs now? It's illegal to try to get my stuff back?


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 1:02 a.m.

In real life, nobody actually "shoots to wound."


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:24 p.m.

Or just stop the perp and hold them down until police arrive?


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 5 a.m.

It's rather simple in a way: you shoot to stop the threat. If someone is running away from you then proving they were a threat is a tall order. You better have a VERY good lawyer and a large amount of money to pay them! Otherwise, upset or not, you don't shoot. If you shoot someone and they die you will be investigated for murder. Thus it behooves you to A. know the laws and B. have a lawyer's number on speed dial of you own/carry a gun. You call the cops first, but you call your lawyer before they arrive. Even if you're 100% in the right you let the law-talking guy (or lady!) handle the law-talking part of the situation. That's what you will be paying them handsomely for... make them earn it AND avoid having a fool (yourself) for a lawyer.

Stan Hyne

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 11:01 p.m.

Maybe the home invader said you are lucky I didn't kill you. Then the homeowner might have great fear of another more violent attack.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 4:32 a.m.

That's why you should NOT call 911. You are better off, the community is better off, and the gene pool is better off. All these letter writers claiming macho responses with Beretta sheets, etc. ought to pay attention. Now let the lawsuits begin.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 3:54 a.m.

PA 311 provides a "rebuttable presumption" in a civil or criminal case that a person who defends himself believes that criminal attack is threatened if (1) he is in a dwelling or business, or (2) the criminal is attempting to remove someone from a dwelling, business, or vehicle. This does not apply if the alleged criminal has a legal right to be in the dwelling or business, or if the person defending himself is committing a crime, or if the person entering is a law enforcement officer in the course of his duties. PA 310 states that a prosecutor may still charge a person who has defended himself if the prosecutor can present to the court evidence that the person did not believe he was threatened with criminal attack. This represents a substantial change from the prior law which puts the burden of proof on the person defending himself to show that he did believe he was subject to criminal attack. PA 309 says that if a person is anywhere he has a legal right to be, he has no duty to retreat if he believe he is threatened by criminal attack. Note that this differs from the home/business situation where it is presumed that he believes he is subject to criminal attack. PA 313 is subtle: "Sec. 21c. (1) In cases in which section 2 of the self-defense act does not apply, the common law of this state applies except that the duty to retreat before using deadly force is not required if an individual is in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling." PA 314 states that a person who defends himself (or in defense of another individual) with deadly force or less than deadly force anywhere he has a right to be is immune from civil liability for damages.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.

Nicely done, Major. Is it possible you're also a member of Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO)? I for one think the Michigan version of the new (since 2002) handgun and self defense laws are the best among all the states.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:58 a.m.

If you rob the dope man you know he isn't going to call the cops.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:23 a.m.

The castle doctrine probably does not apply in this situation. I'm not an expert with the law, but if an intruder is IN your house, you have the right to defend your family and yourself. You can shoot that person(s) and ask questions later. In this case the article reads that he followed them outside his residence and then shot him. After the intruders left his house, the homeowner was no longer in eminent danger. It's a shame, but I think the homeowner is going down for this one.


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 4:19 a.m.

See MCL 780.951


Sun, Feb 26, 2012 : 4:07 a.m.

That is not entirely true. Even in your home have to have fear of imminent danger of injury or death. There have been some exceptions. I recall a case where an elderly woman shot a guy trying to break into home home. Shot him through the door. I believe her advanced age had some impact in her favor.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.

This is the problem with gun owners taking the justice into their own hands - what if a neighbor had been shot? A child? Even the perpetrator should have been tried in a court, not gunned down on the street. If he was running away and not endangering the life of the victims of his crime, this was murder, not self-defense.

Get over it

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 5:28 p.m.

Maybe they shot at the home owner first, then he returned shot sound like there were two shots

The Black Stallion3

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.

Funny you make no mention of the problem with the robbers


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 3:15 a.m.

Not that it's any comfort to you Michelle but it sounds to me like this guy knew what he was doing and did it well. What it is is retribution.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:57 a.m.

It will be interesting to find out if they knew each other. It would not surprise me in the least. These kinds of things happen sometimes when one partner tries to stiff the other. Not saying that is the case here.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:49 a.m.

I prefer the way things were handled in the old west ! Don't bother "dropping" by if you are a perp, I'll see you coming from long away with motion sensors and will make sure you "drop" inside my home if you wish to do me harm ! Good Day


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.

No Pot/Kettle thing here at all, Cash. My prior comments were about turning the comments a little closer to the original story line. just the opposite of what you infer. I'm not attempting to defend anyone else's comments nor to interject any other opinions into the thread. I come to this site for local news, not to wade through the same old bunch of self-appointed political comentators' same old tired set of tangents which have nothing to do with the story line. I don't have the time, patience, or desire to keep sorting through all of the superfluous stuff to get to the heart of most of these "news" stories. Just the facts, please. That's all. I can form my own opinions, thank you.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 8:09 p.m.

LOL tlb....and what do any of your posts have to do with the article?? Pot. .....Meet Kettle.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.

Nice open invitation there snoopdog. I'm sure many will see that as "challenge accepted". Grats.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 4:25 p.m.

If you two can't figure out why pining for a romanticized vigilante old west that never existed is just a violent escapist fantasy and shouldn't be used to actually address any societal issues, then I don't know what to say. Other than read more, I guess.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.

Thanks tlb1201 for saying what I was going to say. Good Day


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.

Horse racing should be banned.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.

Cash, so let me get this straight, you get to make a leap from any comment anyone makes and stretch it as far as you can just to make a political statement about something that is completely unrelated from the context? You mean I get to tack on a comment about how horses were mistreated in the old west if I want to and it's okay? Or that they just don't build Conestoga wagons the way they used to? Come on, get off your political horses and stick closer to the subject, people!


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:08 p.m.

tlb, snoop likes "the way things were handled in the old west". When we "REPLY" to him, we are not commenting on the article but to HIS post. That's the way it works.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.

Wow, Peter & Cash, you must have seen something I didn't in this story. I didn't see anything about the guy who was shot being an immigrant or a native. I thought the thread was more about vigilante justice.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:11 p.m.

Snoop, I'm sure the next operator of a suspected drug house would hire you.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:10 p.m.

Snoop....yeah loved the way that REAL Americans...Natives...were treated.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 1:10 a.m.

Which were your favorite parts of the wild west? The rampant rape? The wholesale slaughter of immigrants?


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:48 a.m.

In this kind of shooting incident, the "probable" reason for an autopsy would be to attempt determination of entry and exit wounds. Or - if there's just a single bullet wound w/o exit - to establish whether or not the shot was to the back or front of the deceased. At this point, there's no information on whether the robbers were armed. That's a significant detail we readers would like to know about. I'm sure there are other details the investigators will be looking at. An arrest does not imply guilt- often such detainments are a necessary part of investigations. Needless to say: in this case, the police seem to have reasonable cause to make an arrest. I hope also that we'll eventually learn how the robbers gained entry into the home. The arrested home occupant will be making a statement and, after that, this information may become available to the public.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:34 a.m.

There is more to this story than is in this article. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> Note in the Monroe news...&quot;alleged break in&quot; and &quot;drug related&quot;.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 5:26 p.m.

Link has changed. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.

they apparently pulled the story: &quot;The article requested can not be found! Please refresh your browser or go back. (MP,20120223,NEWS01,702239972,AR)&quot;

Monica R-W

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:07 p.m.

Thanks Cash. Nice to know there was more to this story/


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 3:50 a.m.

Also notice the absolute lack of any censorship with this news source!! An amazing contrast next to A2.c0m


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 1:01 a.m.

Thanks for posting this link, Cash. It will be interesting to watch the rest of this one unfold.

Mr. Ed

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:39 a.m.

Cash you should be a reporter since your getting all the facts out.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:16 a.m.

this is the difference between defending your home and vigilante justice. Once the crime is complete, you rely on the legal system for remedy. During the crime, you may use lethal force to defend yourself or others from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 9:44 p.m.

Hey Honey! Get Over It! Who is we? You got a mouse in your pocket? I am sick of the John Wayne syndrome!

Get over it

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 5:18 p.m.

You should just wait till next time they come? They know where u live but u don't know where they live


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 3 a.m.

The law on this issue is very clear. You have the right to use deadly force on an intruder in your home, while he or she is in the home or coming in. You cannot shoot them leaving or once they have left, then its a police matter. A few comments to the contrary, it would be less than civilized to permit otherwise.


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:54 a.m.

Hey Honey You're WRONG! The Grown up stance is not to play cops and robbers!


Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:54 a.m.

One of the key aspects to successfullly committing a crime is the get-away. Looks like your hero needed to brush-up on that element...

Honey Badger Don't Care

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.

That is a ridiculous stance. Grow up and leave the real discussion to the adults.


Fri, Feb 24, 2012 : 11:26 p.m.

(This is a general comment, related to the article at-hand, so no need for anyone to get their [female undergarments] in a bunch.) We can all rest easy tonight knowing if we invade someone's home and terrorize the residents that the law has our backs if we're killed because of our criminal act.


Fri, Feb 24, 2012 : 11:42 p.m.

Not that I have a problem with what may or may not have happened here, but I hope the person that may or may not have fired a shot has no problem with going or not going to prison for what he may or may not have done.


Fri, Feb 24, 2012 : 11:38 p.m.

(In general, not about the article at hand), you can't hunt someone down and kill them.


Fri, Feb 24, 2012 : 11:34 p.m.

Shooter's taking one for the team. PDs in SE Michigan need to either step up or get out of the way.