Detroit homeowner shoots, kills armed suspect: 'It was me or him'

An early morning home invasion ended in the fatal shooting of the suspect on Detroit's west side.

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. Early this morning, that training was put into action.

"I had to do what I had to do, to save my life," he said.

Maiso Jackson awoke around 4:30 a.m. Tuesday to a man pounding on his door and yelling. Parts of the encounter was captured on his Ring doorbell camera at his home on Salem Street on Detroit’s west side.

"(He was) talking about how someone owed him money, I said no one here owes you money," Jackson said. "I don't know what you're talking about."

Jackson says he tried to reason with him from inside his house.

"He wouldn’t leave, so I dialed 911," he said.

While they waited for police he says things escalated.

"Then he went around the window here and busted that window out," Jackson said.

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.

"It was me or him at that point," he said. "I didn’t want to hurt nobody, but he just wouldn’t quit."

More at link

=======================================================================

Thank God for the 2A because this man is still alive after being allowed to defend himself with a firearm. What could have happened to this man had he not had his firearm? Sounds like this man did everything correct and still had to use it in the end.

 

yep, and he did not need an ar-15 to do it, this is the perfect example of the 2a working

"When police did arrive, Jackson says he followed their orders, and was led away in handcuffs for questioning. Knowing he was a lawful gun owner, he said he was aware that police had an investigation to do."

he did not throw a fit at being handcuffed, he knew the police had to do their job too - also the way it's supposed to work

 

How do you know he didn't use an AR?

 

You are correct, while within the confines of a structure, a handgun is a better option.

 

Wouldn't the Second Amendment also mean that you have the right to carry a firearm when visiting someone to collect money they owe you (even if you go to the wrong house)? And if someone steps out of that house with a gun, you have the right to defend yourself?

(Note that I'm not defending or attacking any individuals in this case, just highlighting the wider scope of the law that is often ignored in relation to individual cases)

 

The type of gun used by the homeowner has not yet been revealed.
In any event, it was a clear cut case of self-defense.

 

exactly, now if out on a farm or something, away from people, I can see owning an ar-15

 

Just an FYI, one of the most popular AR platforms is 9mm for home defense and you can get it in a 4 inch barrel.... making it much easier to aim and shoot then a 4 inch barrel pistol.

 

Sure if he was conducting himself in a lawful manner. That's the thing about laws, they don't prevent behavior they just punish it (it seems).

 

I would never use my Sig Tread m400 as my home defense weapon. Too big and it is much more fun at the outdoor range.

 

I have a 9mm AR and a 4.5 inch barrel with a red dot sight and flashlight. a bit longer than a pistol but i can shoulder it and my wife can fire it with no problems as well. Still shares the ballistics of a 4.5 9mm pistol too.

 

For practical purposes at home I like the Walther PPQ M2 (with a 5-inch barrel).
Thankfully, I have never even come close to having to use it.
But, it is good to have "just in case".

 

No one needs a reason or a justification to own any gun they want.

Did you know the second amendment does not Grant you gun rights but that the second amendment prohibits the government from infringing on your gun rights?

 

It does not give you the right to bang on a door at 4:30 a.m. and then go break a window now does it?

 

The 2nd A also states "well regulated."

 

And I bet you think that means that it's regulated by the government.

 

A 9mm, 40 cal, 45 acp have more penetration than a 223, mean those rounds are more likely to shoot through a wall and hit whoever is on the other side.

 

Context matters.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The only thing "well regulated" is referencing is the Militia. You've been told this before. So...what happens when someone continues to make a falsehood? What is that called?

 

But "well regulated" isn't in reference to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

They know that but they sit here and try to pretend like it means the government can regulate whatever they want

 

No, because the intruder was trespassing.

 

The point is that his (alleged) criminal acts are independent of his carrying a firearm and wouldn't remove his constitutional rights anyway - smashing a window is illegal regardless of whether you happen to have a gun or not. It seems the reason this incident led to anyone getting shot was that both men were armed. The fact the visitor was armed (quite possibly entirely legally) could well have emboldened him in his approach and was certainly the stated reason for the homeowner to shoot him (not necessarily unreasonably).

The point is that this kind of incident is presented as an unconditionally positive reason for more people to have free and easy access to firearms but I'd suggest the practical realities of that principle aren't anything like as simple. It may well allow more homeowners to defend themselves but it could also mean that more visitors to homes (legitimate and not) would be routinely armed too, potentially leading to more misunderstandings, escalations or unnecessary shootings. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more freedoms to own guns, only that it isn't a simple issue with any simple answers, however much people on all sides of the debate might like to imagine.

 

Are you saying a handgun round has more penetration energy than a rifle round. ?

 

"Well regulated" modified "militia".
So...?

 

Still have no clue what point you are trying to make.