In a bizarre story, Michigan prosecutors have ruled that the man who shot and killed two men—one accidentally—at a Detroit Lions tailgate party Sept. 15 was acting in self-defense, so no charges will be filed.

According to police, the unidentified 40-year-old man was tailgating after the game when a “physical altercation” broke out between several men. During the arguments, one of the deceased—25-year-old Jalen Welch—displayed a pistol in a “threatening manner” while approaching the first man.

According to the prosecutor’s office, the first man pulled out his concealed handgun, which he was licensed to carry, and fired one shot striking Welch, incidentally also a concealed carry permit holder, in the head. He died at a hospital the next day.

The bullet also struck 40-year-old Rashawn Palmer in the head. Palmer died at the scene. Unfortunately, it seems that Palmer was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

“This single gunshot resulted in the death of two individuals,” stated a press release from the prosecutor’s office. “Mr. Palmer was an innocent bystander who was not involved in the fight. Evidence indicates that Mr. Palmer was acting as a peacemaker and trying to discourage Mr. Welch and the other men from arguing.” 

In a released statement, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said that her office looked at the case very carefully before making the self-defense ruling.

“We have reviewed this case thoroughly and this is a case of lawful self-defense,” she said. “It is absolutely tragic that during all the fun and merrymaking at a Lions tailgate that two lives were lost. The first was Mr. Welch who was the one who first pulled out a gun and was shot by the 40-year-old, a lawful CPL holder, who was defending himself. A single shot was fired.”

Even more tragic, according to Worthy, is the fact that another person also lost his life in the altercation. Despite that, no crime was committed, she said.

“In this case the shooter was not involved with the physical altercation, or any crime, when Mr. Welch pulled out his weapon and threatened him with deadly force,” Worthy said. “It is only then that the shooter drew his weapon and fired one-time striking Mr. Welch, and unfortunately striking Mr. Palmer. A thorough review of the facts and evidence shows that the shooter acted in lawful self-defense. The shooting was justified. There is insufficient evidence to charge the shooter with any crime.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

18 COMMENTS

  1. Can’t be. I’m being told everyday by the left-wing media and internet trolls that self defense shootings never happen.

  2. Rashawn? Sound’s like a usual suspect. And Detroit. I guess having a permission slip from .gov makes it all better. Call Ben Crump who’s actually standing up for a white boy. For once🙄 Were adult beverages at play?

    • I was just gonna say. It’s the whole “dis” thing among that particular demographic.

      Want to vastly decrease your chance of getting shot? Stay away from them.

      • This is just another example of why you should think twice about head-shots. Much the same as what would certainly happen if Miner Irritant were to take a hit in the cranium, there is nothing but air between the skull plates to cause hydrostatic expansion of the bullet, allowing it to pass unfettered into the next, unintended person behind him. (Or her/she/they/it/etc.)

        • That would be nearly impossible – the headline would read something along the lines of ” Man shot in ass, dies of head wound; bullet passes through first man and into the head of three foot tall second victim standing behind, and fatally wounding him also.”

  3. It seems to me that the odds of a bullet fatally passing through an attacker’s head with enough velocity to strike a bystander’s head (with enough velocity to be fatal in the bystander as well) is next to zero, unless the defender was using “ball” ammunition with full metal jackets. (I have to imagine that a hollowpoint bullet would not typically make it through an attacker’s head with enough oomph to be fatal to a bystander.)

  4. “Michigan prosecutors have ruled that the man who shot and killed two men—one accidentally—at a Detroit Lions tailgate party Sept. 15 was acting in self-defense, so no charges will be filed“

    So spray-and-pray is A-OK!

    I’d be willing to wager if that errant projectile had killed a pale baby, they wouldn’t let this fellow off with no charges…

      • He can’t help himself.

        He sees everything through the filter of colonialism, oppressor and oppressed, and the teachings of his kind’s holy books: Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and The Turner Diaries.

    • Spray and pray is only OK when the protected species, the 13%, do it. There is almost no news coverage of such actions by the leftist press in places like Chicago, St. Louis, or Detroit.

      Whites who do such a thing are immediately subject to nationwide coverage by the leftist press.

    • “I’d be willing to wager if that errant projectile had killed a pale baby, they wouldn’t let this fellow off with no charges…”

      I have news for you, miner. Those
      projectiles that kill innocent (black) people. Their shooters are never charged. Especially if a glock switch is involved.

      The local DA’s don’t care.

      btw
      The local DA’s are mostly black.

  5. Honest question: What about the mantra that every bullet fired has a lawyer attached to it?

    I’ve always understood that innocent bystanders were not fair game and the defender remains culpable.

    • I’m just speculating here, but while the DA has decided not to press criminal charges against the man, I’d almost guarantee the family of the deceased bystander will file a civil suit against him and have a pretty good case when they do. Whether they’re ever able to collect anything will be another matter depending on the guy’s financial situation.

    • Legal Dictionary
      TRANSFERRED INTENT
      May 10, 2017 by: Content Team

      Contents
      Definition of Transferred Intent
      Doctrine of Transferred Intent
      Mens Rea in Transferred Intent
      Transferred Intent Example Involving an Angry Landowner
      Related Legal Terms and Issues
      The legal term transferred intent is often summed up with the phrase “the intent follows the bullet.” What this means is that, if someone intends to shoot Person A, he will be held liable when the bullet that leaves his gun also injures Person B in the process. The offender’s intent is effectively “transferred” between the two victims. However, intent can only be “transferred” between crimes of a similar nature. For example, transferred intent can only be applicable to two people or two pieces of property. To explore this concept, consider the following transferred intent definition.

Comments are closed.