Pittsfield Township police say evidence points to self-defense; man who was shot was armed
Investigators say they’ve uncovered evidence that a Pittsfield Township homeowner was acting in self-defense when he fatally shot another man outside his home Wednesday morning. Both men were armed when they got into a dispute, police revealed this afternoon.
The shooting took place early Wednesday on Rockport Court in the Arbor Creek subdivision.
The accused shooter, Adham Mofiid Abu Farha, 34, was released from the Washtenaw County Jail this afternoon as police continue to investigate the shooting outside Farha’s home in the Arbor Creek subdivision. Police say Michael Robert Rajchel, 28, of Van Buren Township, came to Farha’s home at 2361 Rockport Court, on the township’s northwest side, before 8:30 a.m. He was carrying a loaded semi-automatic handgun, Pittsfield Public Safety Director Matt Harshberger said. The two men got into Farha’s SUV, and numerous shots were fired. About 20 elementary students were waiting at a school bus stop across the street. Harshberger declined to say what led to the shooting. He said police are still interviewing witnesses and may release additional details early next week. Farha, who had a concealed weapons permit, fired multiple shots, Harshberger said.
Farha could not be reached by AnnArbor.com today.
It does not appear Rajchel fired his gun, Harshberger said. He declined to reveal whether Rajchel had a concealed weapons permit.
Farha was arrested just outside his home when officers got there. He was held in the Washtenaw County Jail until this afternoon.
Washtenaw County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Joseph Burke said the prosecutor's office has asked detectives to continue investigating before a decision is made
Comments
rak
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 3:40 p.m.
Anyone know what happened with this story? Was anymore info ever released? I can't find a follow-up story about this.
greek1
Fri, Dec 11, 2009 : 8:09 p.m.
Ricebrnr I got that, however I do believe I followed the rules thank you... So the investigation is over??? Still underway... or what??? This has been a very SLOW process by the AAPD... I will not speculate what I already know.
Ricebrnr
Fri, Dec 11, 2009 : 7:17 p.m.
@caring, corrections on your correction: 1) Actually in my following sentence I said "In order to get one you have to submit your fingerprints for both Local and FBI background checks. Any SIGNIFICANT criminal history would disqualify one from having it." 2) From the MSP website: http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html There is no time limit on felonies for CPL holders. "Have never been convicted of a felony in Michigan or elsewhere". You have one you're disqualified. There is however a 2, 3 or 8 year prohibition depending on type of misdemeanor and where it occurred. "
Caring
Thu, Dec 10, 2009 : 8:52 p.m.
Ricebrnr said, "That the homeowner has a CPL means he has no criminal history". That is incorrect. One cannot have a felony conviction within the past five years. One can check the Michigan Offender Search database and enter names to check felony records. If it says "found", but does not show the record, it is a felony conviction that is more than five years old. Try searching names from the story.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Dec 9, 2009 : 12:20 p.m.
Well if it helps the common reasons for that have been: violating the comment quidelines speculation on facts not reported / in evidence not contributing to the story or previous comments Sorry if i missed any but hope that helps
greek1
Tue, Dec 8, 2009 : 11:06 p.m.
If the case was cut and dry there would have been details regarding it... there's much more than we are being told furthermore my "opinion" and comments keep disappearing... Why???
Ricebrnr
Tue, Dec 8, 2009 : 9:19 p.m.
I would imagine a everything would remain "top secret" until the investigation is complete and the Police release the official version of events, no? Not a big tin foil hat conspiracy here is there? After all it's only been a week there are other headlines from items going back MUCH further than that which have not been explained/concluded.
greek1
Tue, Dec 8, 2009 : 7:25 p.m.
Milan Dad and TFF3... I too am familiar with people close to this case... Keep in mind that a man is dead, neighborhood witness is concealing her identity (???)... and police have yet to disclose what really happened. If it was really self defense then why no story??? Why is everything so top secret??? Nothing will surprise me regarding this case.
TFF3
Mon, Dec 7, 2009 : 9:59 a.m.
I would encourage everyone to wait until all details come out on this case before making judgments. I know an individual close to this event and once the info is cleared from AAPD, I think some of you will be surprised. Instead of jumping to conclusions, let's wait it out so you can see what REALLY happened here.
unclemercy
Mon, Dec 7, 2009 : 9:40 a.m.
yes lets all get a license to participate in shootouts while our children wait for the morning school bus.
Smilin Milan Dad
Mon, Dec 7, 2009 : 1:53 a.m.
@Greek1 - Nothing has been mentioned that indicates when or even if Mr. Farha felt threatened. We really need to allow the facts to be gathered before we condemn this man murdering another or honoring him as a hero for bravely protecting not only his own life but possibly the lives of his family and/or the school children just across the street. In either case, this shooting is a tragedy for all involved.
greek1
Sun, Dec 6, 2009 : 9:40 p.m.
I cannot believe this man is free to walk the streets... where was the other man that jumped out of the car and shook hands with Farha??? If Farha felt threatened then why did he walk out by the SUV, shake hands with the guy that pulled up, walk away and come back and shoot the man who never fired not one shot from that SUV... If Farha had enough time to run around the front of his house in and out, he had enough time to call 911...
tdw
Sun, Dec 6, 2009 : 2:25 p.m.
If there was no evidence that the deceased was commiting a crime the police would not have realsed him
Ricebrnr
Sun, Dec 6, 2009 : 12:50 p.m.
That would be an interesting assumption to make not yet supported by what has been reported.
Basic Bob
Sun, Dec 6, 2009 : 12:07 p.m.
If you assume that both the homeowner and deceased were carrying weapons solely for constitutionally protected self-defense, there is no reason for either to shoot. However one is dead, and many assume that the deceased was a criminal. Unless the deceased was attempting to commit a crime, there can be no justification for self-defense.
Ricebrnr
Sun, Dec 6, 2009 : 10:45 a.m.
Sorry situation that criminals by definition tend to disregard the law? Yes it is. It is not a sorry situation that people have the right to defend their own and the lives of their loved ones. I wonder if those who challenge that when their or their loved ones lives are threatened willingly submit their throats to the slaughter? That would be a sad situation indeed. Everyone I know would not willingly go into that good night. We would indeed fight, fight against the dying of the light. That we choose the most affective method to do so is not sorry, but prudent.
walker101
Sun, Dec 6, 2009 : 10:26 a.m.
It's just a matter of time that everyone will have to be carrying a weapons just in case they get in a confrontation or they suspect someone is going to rob them. Then they can claim it was in sef defense, they last individual standing wins? Criminals don't need a license and it won't stop them from getting one, so everyone will be packing. Sorry situation.
zollar
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 11:27 p.m.
Interesting....Yesterday I had a comment removed because I suggested that someone who had an attempted break-in. ( discovered window had been opened,scared off intruder) replenish their ammo. Now. today, we have a homeowner who appears to be defending himself.Because he was wise enough to have ammo at hand.
Bear
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 12:52 p.m.
I also want to say that I agree with ricebrnr. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and we do have the right to defend ourselves still. Also, this isn't a case of a 'gun crime' (whatever that means) but a case of self-defense. Anything else that may or may not have been going on, is besides the point on that particular issue.
Bear
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 12:34 p.m.
AbuSumayyah, thank you, I stand corrected. Been awhile. Confused with Ibn. :)
Ricebrnr
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 11 a.m.
Also Walker101, I highly doubt that this has been "free and easy" nor is it over for the homeowner. As the article indicates the investigation is ongoing. That being said however, how nice is it to live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty? How nice is it that we live in a state where the majority of the people and the legislature has agreed that where lawful people have a right to be or say on their own property they have a right to defend themselves when in fear of their lives and the law gives that person the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is concluded. So far this is not a "GUN CRIME" story this is a sucessful self defense story. I think some commentors would do well to consider that and place themselves in the homeowner's position instead of the alleged "victim's."
Ricebrnr
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 10:44 a.m.
Two points of clarification. That the homeowner has a CPL means he has no criminal history. In order to get one you have to submit your fingerprints for both Local and FBI background checks. Any significant criminal history would disqualify one from having it. Second, any serious CPL holder puts on his firearm when he or she wakes up in the morning and doesn't take it off until they go to bed. If we knew when trouble was coming we'd either avoid it or only carry when we knew we had to go into it. Speculation that the homeowner loaded his gun to meet this individual is disingenuous at best. It would take psychic powers that I doubt one has to know what this person did beforehand. All the reports so far indicated these two gentlemen met outside the house. That being the case the homeowner was prepared for any eventuality, not necessarily just for this one.
Blackhorse2
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 10:38 a.m.
Well Nancymac.......that would probably be a father that does not want to see any harm come to his family by letting the intruder in the door......agree?
Blackhorse2
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 9:47 a.m.
People....You do not have to carry a gun if you feel bad about it........only get your CCW permit and carry one if you care to defend yourself against the ever increasing criminal population. You have every right however to just stand still while these criminals take the life and dignity of your loved ones. I however have vowed to fight back if they try to do this to myself or my loved ones.
walker101
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 9:46 a.m.
There's obviously more to the story, funny how someone comes over for whatever reason and then he has a shoot out with homeowner in his driveway, inside the victims cars?? It'll be interesting when the rest of the facts come out, seems like all was justified by the shooter, too easy, real quick, and now it's just another day?? How many people do you know personnaly are packing a semi when at home, unless you know somethings up, most people I know wouldn't just be packing unless their lives were in jeopardy. How many people do you know that are packing coming to visit just to say hello?? Comon gives us the real details...
tdw
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 9:31 a.m.
diskgolfgeek unforunetly I agree with you.But if everyone was carrying guns if might be safer.criminals are cowardly predators and the last thing they wany to do is deal with someone who might be able to defend themselves
discgolfgeek
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 9:01 a.m.
First of all, I am not a hater of guns. But it's a shame that gun crime and crime in general is so pervasive in this society that I have to even consider getting a CCW. We are the richest country in the world yet our citizens feel so unsafe that many of them feel the need to be armed. And we call our selves the freest people in the world yet just how free am I if I need to have a gun around? Yeah, I know, call it insurance but the question is still valid. Perhaps some day, we'll all be walking around with guns.
jenifer
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 8:23 a.m.
Cash - If neither of them had a gun, there's no guarantee that neither would be dead. One might have had a knife, or used the car to run the other over, or used his bare hands to kill. All have happened before. But, that's not really the point. Each person can only control his own actions. The homeowner can choose to have a gun or not, but cannot guarantee that someone coming to his home (invited or not, for whatever reason) doesn't have one. So I'll agree with the person who said that if the homeowner hadn't been armed, he'd possibly be dead and his family would be at risk as well.
InsideTheHall
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 7:45 a.m.
Ok annarbor.com work the pavement on this one. Do either of the parties have a criminal history???? The readers may be surprised.
AbuSumayyah
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 7:37 a.m.
@Bear Abu means father not son in arabic :)
tdw
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 7:16 a.m.
Basic Bob not sure what you're trying to say, I don't know what all the facts are but in self defense cases It's best not to let the other guy get the first shot off,This is'nt a western show where Matt Dillon lets Black Bart shoot at him first
Basic Bob
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 6:19 a.m.
So let me get this straight, a guy carrying a loaded weapon goes to a home and is shot by the homeowner. The homeowner can support a claim of self-defense because the other guy had a weapon, even though he did not fire it. The question remains: what was the motive for the deceased to go to the shooter's home? It does not sound like a random occurrence to me.
Alan Benard
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 12:18 a.m.
I thought we weren't speculating wildly about homicides in the comments, O moderators. Does anyone on the night shift have an AP Stylebook lying around? Look up the part about libel. The shooter isn't dead, and he is being libeled. Oh, wait, that's right, the law protects annarbor.com from its posters' bad judgment, so let's drive those page views with some sub-tabloid-level horse manure and call it the daily paper for Washtenaw Co.
Rivas
Sat, Dec 5, 2009 : 12:12 a.m.
What does being Chaldean have to do w/anything? How is that relevant at all? In due time the story will come out. With what "facts" we do have its safe to say this man again is a hero. His kids were in the home and a man comes over w/a weapon? Wouldn't you protect your family as well?
Ricebrnr
Fri, Dec 4, 2009 : 10:30 p.m.
A CPL (Concealed Pistol License vs. a CCW which in MI is the charge for a concealed weapon) is not germaine to this event. The shooting occurred on the man's property and he had the pistol in his waistband in open view. Neither require a CPL in Michigan. That being said it is a great case for exercising your 2nd Amendment rights and having a firearm on you for your self protection. If the "victim" was indeed the agressor, then the homeowner would be dead and his family inside would have only a chalk outline to remember him by.
Blackhorse2
Fri, Dec 4, 2009 : 8:21 p.m.
Believe me when I tell you...It helps to have the license....
Bear
Fri, Dec 4, 2009 : 8:17 p.m.
great case for people to obtain a CCW license? Well that depends upon how you look at it. Even without one, many would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Blackhorse2
Fri, Dec 4, 2009 : 8:15 p.m.
This is a great case for people to obtain a CCW license.