1 person killed in Genoa Township road rage incident

[linux203]

Police say a 43-year-old driver got out of his vehicle and approached the driver of a pickup truck, who is accused of shooting and killing the 43-year-old man.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/1-person-killed-in-howell-road-rage-incident/27841414

Not very many details, but definitely a story to follow.

[part deux]

Based on the early reports, it's going to be hard rationalizing fearing for his life.

[CitizensHaveRights]

WXYZ has some details today, but not enough. I doubt the shootee approached the shooter to say good afternoon:
http://www.wxyz.com/news/43-year-old-killed-by-69-year-old-in-road-rage-incident-in-genoa-township

We're told a 69-year-old from Howell was driving in front of the victim on Grand River going eastbound in a black 2012 Dodge pickup truck, when both were stopped at a light. It was then, authorities say, that the 43-year-old got out of his 2014 Ford Escape and approached the 69-year-old driver.

The 69-year-old then shot and killed the 43-year-old at the scene, according to the sheriff's office.

They're implying that it was the conclusion of an ongoing car duel, but they don't come right out and say it. Car duels need two willing participants, if the Escape driver thought the pickup cut him off and then got out of the car when the truck stopped it might have only been one "road rager", the guy who got shot.
According to Undersheriff Murphy, the altercation between the two drivers started in Howell.  It is believed, at one point, the pick-up truck was behind the Escape and that the pick-up truck had passed the SUV during the incident.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Gee, anybody care to guess where Gannett stands on private firearms ownership?

http://www.hometownlife.com/story/news/2014/09/03/road-rage-genoa-township-ends-fatal-shooting-police-say/15007603/

The younger man’s wife was a passenger in the Escape and while she escaped physical harm, Murphy said the woman was devastated.

No passengers were believed to be in the pickup.

The gunman was being questioned.

Murphy asked that anyone who witnessed the alleged road rage or shooting call the Sheriff’s Department at 517-546-2440.

Lisa Roose-Church is a reporter for the Livingston Daily Press & Argus. Contact her at 517-552-2846 or lrchurch@gannett.com.

[gryphon]

The pickup truck behind may have been following too close which angered the car driver in front and then he acted stupidly.

Just the other day a couple of detectives were following a car too closely and the car repeatedly brake checked the detectives.  The car pulled over and the driver opened his door and pulled a gun on the cops.

http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-allentown-police-chiefs-son-arrested-20140830-story.html
http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-lehighvalley/allentown-police-chiefs-son-arrested-after-allegedly-pointing-gun-at-detectives/27809500

Some people are idiots when they drive.

[part deux]

Some people are idiots when they drive.

http://bellevilleareaindependent.com/court-watching-judge-green-binds-over-david-brooks-to-trial-for-road-rage/

[gryphon]

part deux, I don't know if you clicked on any of my links above, but the driver in that story that pulled a gun on the two cops was a LEO as well!  He was a jail or prison guard.

[part deux]

part deux, I don't know if you clicked on any of my links above, but the driver in that story that pulled a gun on the two cops was a LEO as well!  He was a jail or prison guard.

I did, I was just pointing there are idiots on the road

[karudin]

Well it will be interesting to see how all this plays out. I live in Howell and I'm sure I'm going to get some disgusted looks now. For someone to get out of their vehicle and approach someone in front of them is just plain stupid and is obviously an aggressive act and so far no one has actually said what happened all they have said is what they heard.

[Super Trucker]

Hopefully the younger guy was being aggressive prior to being shot. 
Hopefully he wasn't just telling the other driver what a idiot he thought he was.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Attorney hired to manage the media spin in record time:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/family-in-genoa-township-road-rage-death-hires-attorney/27856450

[gryphon]

"Mr. Flemming got out to ask the other driver to slow down."

Right.

[CitizensHaveRights]

If the other driver were driving so fast, how was Flemming right behind him at a stoplight so long after the other driver passed him?

If Flemming had started a fistfight, his wife would probably have been there telling everybody that she didn't know why she married that jackass.

However, now that he's dead, her story is going to be that he weren't doing nothing wrong before he died. Imaginative twist, getting a lawyer to deliver that message instead of doing it herself.

(none of this should be taken as excusing the defendant, but let's just say I don't feel deprived by the fact that I never got to meet the decedent and his wife)

[linux203]

So it looks like charges are open murder and discharging a firearm from a vehicle, plus use of a firearm in the commission of a felony on both counts.

Interesting that the intent of discharging a firearm from a vehicle was to add penalties to drive-by shootings.  But alas, intent and letter of the law are two different things.

Both have exceptions for self-defense, I'm guessing that will be the only viable defense to the charges.

[TheQ]

He was in his car. His car was running. It was in drive. Driving away certainly could have been an option he could have evaluated.

[Super Trucker]

He was in his car. His car was running. It was in drive. Driving away certainly could have been an option he could have evaluated.

At that time of day on Grandriver at a red light?

[TheQ]

At that time of day on Grandriver at a red light?

It said it was an option to be evaluated. I didn't say it may have been the best choice, but it would be worth evaluating.

[CitizensHaveRights]

If (big if) he was first in line, he should have been able to make a right on red quickly enough to outrun a pedestrian (even forcing green light traffic to yield to him), and then park at the nearest cop shop (or donut emporium) when the Ford driver predictably started following him again. Alternately, he could have brandished before firing, but that's often a guarantee of criminal charges ("if you were in fear for your life, why didn't you shoot? If you weren't in fear for your life, why did you assault with a deadly?").

[linux203]

Pointing or aiming firearm at another person; misdemeanor; penalty; exception; "peace officer defined."

Sec. 233.

(1) A person who intentionally but without malice points or aims a firearm at or toward another person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

(2) This section does not apply to a peace officer of this state or another state, or of a local unit of government of this state or another state, or of the United States, performing his or her duties as a peace officer. As used in this section, "peace officer" means that term as defined in section 215.

Firearm; discharge; intentionally aimed without malice; misdemeanor; penalty; exception; "peace officer" defined.

Sec. 234.

(1) A person who discharges a firearm while it is intentionally but without malice aimed at or toward another person, without injuring another person, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

(2) This section does not apply to a peace officer of this state or another state, or of a local unit of government of this state or another state, or of the United States, performing his or her duties as a peace officer. As used in this section, "peace officer" means that term as defined in section 215.

No exception for self-defense.

(7) The concealed weapon licensing board shall issue a license to an applicant to carry a concealed pistol within the period required under this act after the applicant properly submits an application under subsection (1) and the concealed weapon licensing board determines that all of the following circumstances exist:
...
(h) The applicant has not been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of any of the following in the 8 years immediately preceding the date of application:
...
(xxxi) Section 233 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.233 (intentionally aiming a firearm without malice).

(xxxii) Section 234 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.234 (intentionally discharging a firearm aimed without malice).

(3) If the concealed weapon licensing board is notified by a law enforcement agency or prosecuting official that an individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol is charged with a felony or misdemeanor as defined in this act, the concealed weapon licensing board shall immediately suspend the individual's license until there is a final disposition of the charge for that offense and send notice of that suspension to the individual's last known address as indicated in the records of the concealed weapon licensing board. The notice shall inform the individual that he or she is entitled to a prompt hearing on the suspension, and the concealed weapon licensing board shall conduct a prompt hearing if requested in writing by the individual. The requirements of subsection (2) do not apply to this subsection.

That's a one way ticket to loosing your CPL.

[jgillmanjr]

No exception for self-defense.

Something we are trying to change with HB5091

[linux203]

That will amend brandishing, not aimed without malice.

[CitizensHaveRights]

The statute Linux quoted doesn't address brandishing without pointing/muzzling.
Are you technically in the clear if you present a firearm, pointed in a safe direction?
Somebody who wants to knock your block off because he doesn't like your driving style should get his butt back in his car seat if you merely present a handgun pointed away from him when he's a meter away from you. Of course, he'll also pick up his cell phone and report a man with a gun or an assault with a firearm.

[CV67PAT]

Something we are trying to change with HB5091

And rightfully so.

[jgillmanjr]

That will amend brandishing, not aimed without malice.

Looking at 750.233 again, I'm wondering why you would intentionally point a firearm at someone w/o malice.

[linux203]

CitizensHaveRights eluded to drawing a firearm but not discharging it. To make the statement of "pointing a gun at someone in self defense" is akin to confessing to 750.233.

[CitizensHaveRights]

"To make the statement of "pointing a gun at someone in self defense" is akin to confessing to 750.233. "

Yes, but what about displaying without pointing? If 750.233 doesn't prohibit it, does that mean it's legal?

[linux203]

"To make the statement of "pointing a gun at someone in self defense" is akin to confessing to 750.233. "

Yes, but what about displaying without pointing? If 750.233 doesn't prohibit it, does that mean it's legal?

That could be brandishing. MCL 750.234e.

That's what HB 5091 will change.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Has anybody read a news report on this incident that's long on facts and short on emotions?
I'm still finding the opposite. One would hope that the prosecuting attorney had some serious facts on his side before he filed murder charges, but I'm beginning to doubt it.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/26489145/man-charged-with-murder-in-road-rage-killing-in-livingston-county

[CitizensHaveRights]

Defense attorney says it's self defense.

Wayne Peal of the Livingston Daily thinks that's his cue to 'open a discussion about Stand Your Ground', and seems to still believe the lie that George Zimmerman's self defense case was a SYG case. He implies that Senator Rick Jones (a former Eaton County Sheriff) is laboring under the same misconception about the Zimmerman case.
http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/crime/2014/09/11/stand-ground/15419291/

[linux203]

Castle Doctrine, not Stand Your Ground...

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

So, is the victim's fingerprints on the exterior door handle of the vehicle?

[CitizensHaveRights]

So, is the victim's fingerprints on the exterior door handle of the vehicle?

I wonder if the techs who processed the 'crime scene' even cared.

[part deux]

I wonder if the techs who processed the 'crime scene' even cared.

Why would they?  He's guilty of committing murder.

[gryphon]

If the following would have happened in Michigan, the woman might have assumed room temperature by now.

[thamm]

If the following would have happened in Michigan, the woman might have assumed room temperature by now.

What a great example for the child in the front seat...

[CitizensHaveRights]

If you're going to use a smartphone's camera to document an incident, hold it sideways.

I don't see a need for deadly force there, but if you felt the need to put some distance between yourself and your attacker, the logical path would be right through her Honda if it didn't have a kid in it. 
Too bad she didn't leave the door open. That door would have looked great if folded against the front fender.

I hope he filed the battery complaint with the cops.

[gryphon]

The police are "looking into" the incident.  They were quick to point out that using a cell phone like this to video record while driving is against the law.

[protectio]

reply to CitizensHaveRights post about WXYZ holding back on propagating garbage journalism, hats off to WXYZ, they are the classiest station out there.  There are more facts to the Howell Road Rage Incident and WXYZ backed off the story and news hype quickly.  The shooter's attorney now has evidence and facts known that she believes the 69 year old Zale had the right to use self-defense.  There are a lot of folks that stand behind the defendant in this case for his good moral character.  This is also going to be a case to either keeping or modifying the Michigan Stand Your Ground Law.  The link to the law, the attorney's statement, and a soon to be released public statement from the Zale family can be found on the website MartinZaleDefenseFund.com.  As one reader pointed out, this is going to be an interesting case to follow for those interested in protected their right of self defense in Michigan. 

[TheQ]

reply to CitizensHaveRights post about WXYZ holding back on propagating garbage journalism, hats off to WXYZ, they are the classiest station out there.  There are more facts to the Howell Road Rage Incident and WXYZ backed off the story and news hype quickly.  The shooter's attorney now has evidence and facts known that she believes the 69 year old Zale had the right to use self-defense.  There are a lot of folks that stand behind the defendant in this case for his good moral character.  This is also going to be a case to either keeping or modifying the Michigan Stand Your Ground Law.  The link to the law, the attorney's statement, and a soon to be released public statement from the Zale family can be found on the website MartinZaleDefenseFund.com.  As one reader pointed out, this is going to be an interesting case to follow for those interested in protected their right of self defense in Michigan.

Welcome and happy first post.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Surprise, surprise.
Prosecution to present evidence the defendant is a violent jerk.
Defense to present evidence the alleged victim was a violent jerk.

Violent confrontations between strangers are often the result of two punks/jerks meeting each other.

Still can't find any news on an actual trial, so I assume it's been continued.

http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/crime/2015/02/27/zale-motions/24081261/

[CitizensHaveRights]

Trial finally underway, Zale's attorney claims in opening argument that situation was analogous to the Wilson/Brown homicide in Missouri where police found that Brown attacked Wilson in his car and he was forced to shoot Brown. Prosecution claims that, well, Zale's a jerk and people who know him say he's a dangerous driver, so that must make him a murderer.

At this point I'm starting to think that Zale was in a similar situation to Darren Wilson, who is indeed a jerk, but was most likely right in shooting Brown.

http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/crime/2015/05/05/zale-day/26923739/

[gryphon]

http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/05/06/zale-trial-provides-test-case-self-defense-act/70905154/

[CitizensHaveRights]

Self defense isn't normally available to an aggressor.

Could the prosecution be going at it from that angle, trying to show that Zale instigated the whole thing by committing assault with a deadly vehicle before Flemming chased him down for the final confrontation?

By the way, why is Livingston Daily even talking about Castle Doctrine when it seems that Flemming pursued Zale who was trying to break contact with him?

[gryphon]

http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/crime/2015/05/06/zale-trial-day/70899348/

Bus driver's testimony.

http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/crime/2015/05/07/zale-day/70953966/

[CitizensHaveRights]

Bus driver seems to agree that Fleming looked violent:
"I didn't know why (Flemming) was out of the vehicle. ... I'm kind of confused at the time," King said.

"He looked like he was irate," she added, demonstrating that Flemming held his arms up and his hands clinched in fists as he approached the truck. "At the time I was thinking this is not going to be good."

Quotes from Fleming's wife strike me as a witness who's trying to color the picture to look like something other than what it was. Unlike the driver, she has a personal stake in the outcome of the trial and she sounds heavily biased. If I were a juror, I'd just regard her testimony as useless. (much of what I said goes for Zale too if he testifies)