It’s every homeowner’s worst nightmare. A stranger pounding on your door at 4:30am claiming you owe him money. You dial 911, but before the cops arrive, the intruder breaks through a window, trying to enter your home.
That’s the situation Maiso Jackson was facing last week. He was, however, prepared.
According to fox2detroit.com…
Fearing the destruction wouldn’t stop, Jackson armed himself.
“I came outside and said you have to leave, you can’t be doing this,” he said. “So then he reached for his gun and pulled it out. I had to defend myself, I had to shoot him because of that.”
Jackson fired four shots, hitting the man in the chest killing him.
Mr. Jackson had put in the time to learn how to use his gun.
Homeowner Maiso Jackson has lived in his home for 20 years, and he’s owned his gun for the last eight. He’s taken lessons on how to handle that firearm.
And when it came down to it, he was left with few options with police still on the way . . .
“It was me or him at that point,” he said. “I didn’t want to hurt nobody, but he just wouldn’t quit.”
Another life saved by the lawful use of a firearm. One of hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses that take place every year.
“You have to be on guard, you have to be prepared,” Jackson said. “You can’t just let people run you over, hurt you, and don’t do nothing about it. You have to defend yourself.”
When you’re faced with an immediate, credible threat, you have no choice but to defend yourself and your family. Mr. Jackson hasn’t been charged by police, but the case is under review by the local prosecutor.
Interesting. Last week Canada’s PM Trudeau specifically said self defense isn’t a valid reason to own a handgun…
Of course not. Little Castro has body guards that handle all that stuff for him.
Topical communist- he have bodyguards and don’t care about regular people
There’s a right way to collect a debt and then there’s the wrong way. The deceased chose poorly.
Bad Guy ‘debt collector’: “Hey, you owe me money, I got a gun, …”
Resident: “Ok, ok ok…enough, i’ll pay it. You got change for 9mm or 00 buck or 5.56?”
Yeah, but DID he owe him money?
If so, how much was it?
How long had he owed him money?
What was the vig?
How do you like the witch with 10# of makeup saying “we’ll see what the prosecutor has to say about that “
Before that, she said that it looked like the homeowner had castle doctrine on his side. Whether that’s accurate depends on whether Michigan considers his yard to be part of his castle. Some states don’t. Still, the broken window and the trespasser’s gun are evidence to support his claim of self defense. It’s encouraging that the cops turned him loose without charges. If they disbelieved his story, he’d be in jail awaiting arraignment. If I remember correctly, the Detroit chief of police encourages honest citizens to defend themselves.
Kendahl,
The former Detroit Police Chief (James Craig) publicly supported self-defense and being righteously armed for self-defense. His replacement is an unknown.
Regardless, if this case goes to trial, I am 99.99% confident that the jury will find the homeowner not-guilty. While the people of Detroit are ardent Democrat voters, they are pro-human and self-defense. The homeowner will walk.
“Before that, she said that it looked like the homeowner had castle doctrine on his side. Whether that’s accurate depends on whether Michigan considers his yard to be part of his castle.”
*Exactly*.
Under Florida law, your yard is *not* your castle, the legal area is whatever is under your roof, so if you have a covered front porch, that and the inside of your home is your ‘Castle’.
It would be interesting to see what the Michigan or County D.A. has to say about a fatal shooting that took place in the home owner’s yard…
Geoff,
Castle Doctrine definitely does not cover your yard in most states, including Michigan. Stand-your-ground doctrine and long-standing self-defense doctrine will apply and the homeowner is on rock-solid legal ground in that regard (according to his statements in the television interview).
Needless to say, the homeowner had a right to be in his yard so “stand your ground” will apply. And even if “stand your ground” did not apply and “duty to retreat” did apply, it is impossible to retreat when someone suddenly starts raising a firearm at you and that would justify immediately employing deadly force in self-defense.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is not legal advice.
Not as many facts as I would like in a homicide investigation, but good luck to Mr.Jackson.
Gadsden Flag,
I think the homeowner will be fine–legally speaking. Detroit City Police actively support good people being armed for self-defense. And while the local prosecutor is a scumbag, any jury pool composed of local people will find the homeowner not-guilty–assuming that everything he said was truthful.
“I think the homeowner will be fine–legally speaking.”
I hope so. In Florida, your yard is not considered your ‘Castle’, only what’s under your dwelling’s roof.
I hope he doesn’t get jammed up on what should be a good shoot…
“it was me or him” – a phrase in concept if not words used thousands of times a day across the U.S. by legal gun owners to police to describe the ‘I feared for my life’ concept that forced them to employ Defensive Gun Use (DGU) against the bad guy threat to their lives.
The one thing for sure that the homeowner did WRONG is open up his piehole.
No question. Positively identify yourself, declare that you will not be speaking to anyone but your lawyer, then clam up.
doesky2 and Rad Man,
I agree in general. And yet there are instances of righteous self-defense where sharing simple details with the local police will guarantee your exoneration. I believe this will be one of those cases.
It all boils down to:
— How clear-cut was your self-defense?
— Do the local police support righteous armed self-defense?
— Does the local prosecutor support righteous armed self-defense?
— Does your local jury pool support righteous armed self-defense?
In this case I believe the homeowner has at least three out of those four heavily in his favor. Thus I believe that sharing simple details with police as he shared on camera will be to his significant advantage.
Violent criminals do not listen to reason, screams, pleas, etc. That said…victims have no other option than STK.
An image of the dead guy would provide me with a clearer understanding.
I’ve noticed black fellows(&mob types)try & collect on tiny amounts of $. Ask me how I know?!!
How do you know?
Hey, you said to ask. Always glad to help out.
Yes.
Inquiring minds want to know…
“It’s every homeowner’s worst nightmare. A stranger pounding on your door at 4:30am claiming you owe him money. You dial 911, but before the cops arrive, the intruder breaks through a window, trying to enter your home…”
Except that’s not the whole story.
“I came outside and said you have to leave…”
Stupid. Shooting someone is a legally perilous thing to do. And if you have to do it, you do not want to have to explain why you left your abode and placed yourself into MORE danger beforehand.
I’ve been through the self-defense legal wringer several times. Ya kind of learn a lot going through it.
In context with ‘stand your ground’; Going outside may not have been in hindsight the smartest move but one actually has no obligation to stay inside. As long as you are on your own property or ‘where you have a legal right to be’ (right to be) and the threat of serious/grievous harm or death (imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault) from the bad guy happens (e.g. he pulls out a gun) you do not have to justify being anywhere on your own property or ‘where you have a legal right to be’ when you used self-defense DGU against that threat.
Michigan’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ statute is basically that as it is in other states and says… that a person is legally justified in using deadly force to protect himself or another person with no duty to retreat, provided:
They’re not engaged in a crime;
They’re in a place they have a right to be;
They honestly and reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary; and
They are preventing imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault to themselves or others.
1. The victim was, apparently, not engaged in a crime.
2. This victim had a right to be any place on his own property even outside the house.
3. The victim apparently honestly and reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, to himself.
He does not need to justify why he stepped outside the door, he had a legal right to be anywhere on his property.
he better hire a lawyer. Coming through the window? yes. Opening the door? nay
I’ve been through the self-defense legal wringer several times. Ya kind of learn a lot going through it. Yeah he needs a lawyer as does any victim that uses self-defense DGU. DO NOT EVER ACCEPT THE POLICE STATEMENTS OR YOUR OWN/ANOTHERS PERCEPTION/OPINION THAT IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE AND THEN THINK YOU DO NOT NEED A LAWYER – get a lawyer.
But, in ‘stand your ground’ … Michigan’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ statute is basically that as it is in other states and says… that a person is legally justified in using deadly force to protect himself or another person with no duty to retreat, provided:
They’re not engaged in a crime;
They’re in a place they have a right to be;
They honestly and reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary; and
They are preventing imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault to themselves or others.
1. The victim was, apparently, not engaged in a crime.
2. This victim had a right to be any place on his own property even outside the house.
3. The victim apparently honestly and reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, to himself.
He does not need to justify why he stepped outside the door, he had a legal right to be anywhere on his property.
The story is that he stepped outside to basically warn the bad guy away, and it was not until after he stepped outside the threat of the bad guys gun presented its self. It may have been better to stay inside, but in this instance with this timing he still had a legal right to be outside the door to warn away the bad guy. Its not until after he stepped outside the door the threat bad guys gun presented its self and at that point the victim was still on his own property, a place he had a legal right to be, and the threat was ‘imminent’ – so no, he did not need to run back inside the home (no duty to retreat) and then wait for the guy to break in.
Home owners insurance ain’t going to pay for the window.
The cops made off with the bad guys carcass.
He’s down four bullets.
Yah just cant win.
Bwahahahahaha
“That there’s funny! I don’t care who ya are.”
Comments are closed.