STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Man Uses Gun to Save Fiance From Abduction; Police Arrest Him
By The Daily Bell Staff - April 03, 2017

Imagine you just had to defend your fiance from two masked men attempting to kidnap her. That experience would be harrowing alone, but imagine if you were then immediately kidnapped by the people who are sworn to protect you.

Police arrested Jeremiah Morin, the fiance of the woman who was almost kidnapped. Morin had run outside his Texas neighborhood home, pursuing the would-be kidnappers and firing multiple shots as they ran away, and escaped.

Police claim that he and his fiance were uncooperative in their investigation and that Morin is affiliated with a gang.

Much to the confusion of neighbors and the victim, deputies arrested Morin, saying he was affiliated with a gang and charging him with deadly conduct with a firearm. They alleged that he shot recklessly into the neighborhood while aiming for the attackers.

“During the entire investigation, detectives with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office Major Crimes Unit were met with resistance and a lack of cooperation from the victim and Morin as to the motive and details surrounding the attack,” the agency said in a statement.

The news release also said Morin was known to be affiliated with a gang.

Police have not presented any evidence to support their claims. But should that matter anyway? Do you lose the right to defend yourself and loved ones because of other unrelated activity that may not be legal?

It basically sounds like police have something against Morin–whether he deserves it or not–and punished him for being uncooperative in their investigation.

Police then got a search warrant for Morin’s home, and seized two guns, ensuring that if the attackers come back, he and his fiance will be unable to defend themselves.

So which gang is more dangerous? The one that Morin may or may not be involved in? Or the one who successfully kidnapped Morin, and successfully stole his means of defense–the police?

Police don’t like when someone threatens their turf. The issue is that Morin ran outside and wildly sprayed bullets all over the neighborhood while successfully averting the abduction.

That is only okay when police do it. Like in the case of a New York City man who shot a coworker dead on the street. Police pursued him and opened fire when the suspect pointed a gun their way. They killed the suspect and injured 9 other people with their spray of bullets.

So why is it okay for police to respond to a crime by indiscriminately firing bullets in a crowded area, but not for a man defending his fiance from abduction? Morin didn’t actually hit anyone with his stray bullets. And the police didn’t actually save anyone with theirs.

Police are free to behave in a way that gets normal people arrested. And worse than failing to protect a family from attackers, police become the attackers, pose a larger threat to the family, and place them in more danger.

Police are solving fewer crimes these days. Only 64% of murders are generally cleared, which does not even necessarily mean a suspect is convicted. The rate of solving property crimes is as low as 18%, and an assault or rape has about a 50/50 chance of being cleared.

Which departments have the best rate of solving crimes? The ones who have the best relationship with the public they are sworn to protect. I don’t think arresting someone for defending his wife is the best way to foster that community relationship.

Do you think the right to protect yourself should be null and void if you are involved in criminal activity? And should the police be allowed to behave in a way that gets the public arrested?

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • LawrenceNeal

    So which gang is more dangerous? Obviously, the SA. They kill over a thousand people every year. Call the cops, someone dies.
    Police pursued him and opened fire when the suspect pointed a gun their way; Morin, pursuing the would-be kidnappers and firing multiple shots as they ran away. You can shoot at someone pointing a gun your way. You cannot shoot someone running away (Although the SA do this all the time).
    They killed the suspect and injured 9 other people with their spray of bullets. The SA are notoriously bad shots. And yet, they’re on our streets, armed.

  • C. M. Novess III

    Sorry, but your analysis is off the mark. Once your attacker is retreating you have no right to attack (the police might, but, you do not) and you have no right to pursue. This is basic law – and common sense. That police have done things wrong does not make it right.

    • Citizen Quasar

      Fundamentally, all police departments are is gangs. Just imagine an off duty cop doing the exact same thing to protect his woman from being kidnapped and you will realize this.

      • james ha

        C. M. Novess III is correct. you can’t chase after someone firing your weapon at their retreating backsides. that is no longer brandishing or even self-defense, it is considered to be attacking.

        • Praetor

          Its Texas. The man who shot and killed the guy running from his neighbors house after breaking in and fleeing, set the standard. The man was acquitted of murder in that case. It is Texas not NYC.!!!

        • Citizen Quasar

          So, after murdering my wife right before my very eyes, all the murderer has to do is turn their back and walk (Run?) away and I am NOT lawfully allowed to shoot him in the back, stab him, or bash his skull in with a Louisville Slugger?

          The police shoot people who are fleeing in the back all the time, kill them, and get away scot free.

          • james ha

            i’m sure if he murdered your wife and you shot his punk ass you would get away with it. or you should anyway.

          • Citizen Quasar

            So, where do we draw the line?

          • james ha

            damn i don’t know. say the guy murdered your wife – i think you would be justified in shooting him, even in the back running away. but this other guy who attempted to kidnap the wife but was foiled and then ran away? under existing laws you would not be justified shooting him in the back even if he deserves it. i’m glad i don’t have to decide what is justified or not.
            honestly, if that happened to my wife i would be so jacked up that i would probably run after him throwing shots. but what if i hit a bystander, then what? i should be punished accordingly.
            but then shouldn’t i also be punished because i recklessly MIGHT have hit a bystander?
            if i get away with that then others might feel it is OK to recklessly throw shots at bad guys too.
            again i’m glad that’s not up to me.

          • Citizen Quasar

            It would help if you knew right from wrong but you don’t. Instead you say that you would rather have someone else do this thinking for you and when they figure it out they tell you what to do.

            You may get a pass on this lack of moral discernment down at your local church picnic, but I condemn it.

            It is people like you who, when sitting on a jury, heed the judge’s pre-trial jury “instructions” that you are bound by the law to ONLY judge whether or not the defendant violated the law rather than to judge the morality of the law itself. The judge tells you what to think about and you willfully think about only what he tells you to think about as you see this as your civic duty.

            It is too bad you can not figure it out for yourself.

            Here’s one for you: Please post a definition of a right.

          • james ha

            really, people like me? too bad i can’t figure it out for myself? OK mr. morality, why don’t you tell me where the line should be drawn instead of bagging on me for not deciding whether this man was justified or should be punished.

          • Citizen Quasar

            “That to secure…rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

            The moral line is drawn between exercising rights and violating rights. What is a right?

          • james ha

            you tell the rest of us what a right is.

          • Citizen Quasar

            A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s range of activity in a social environment.

          • james ha

            your definition fits this article’s scenario better than the webster dictionary definition.
            so. do you think this man who thwarted his wife’s kidnapper and then chased after him shooting at his retreating ass had the right to do shoot? no one’s life was in danger at that point.

          • Citizen Quasar

            Yes. The man was morally obligated to slay this man before this man endangered anyone else’s life.

            Just as a getaway car driver for a bank robbery is part of the commission of the robbery when he drives off, so this man’s fleeing was part of his crime, to inflict damage and avoid the consequences.

            Different dangers require different responses. I am done here. Have a nice day.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            “Yes. The man was morally obligated to slay this man before this man endangered anyone else’s life.”

            False.

            First: One is not objectively obligated to protect anyone else’s life because one does not own that life. Other people own their own lives, and unless they have hired one to protect them from harm, they are responsible for protecting themselves; indeed, even if they have hired a protector, they are still primarily responsible.

            Second: A potential threat is not an actual threat; therefore, one is not objectively (factually) justified in killing someone because that person is a potential threat. One may rightly take precautionary measures (security system for one’s home, arming oneself, etc.) so as to protect one’s person and property from someone who chooses to make himself a threat by his actions, but that is all one may rightly do.

            In this scenario, the danger to the woman and her fiance ended when her would-be kidnappers fled. His shooting after them put residents and passersby in the area in danger of being struck by stray or ricocheting bullets, an act that threatened THEIR legitimate individual rights to their lives and property.

            CAREFULLY re-read Ayn Rand’s very correct, very objective (factually- based) definition of rights. Clearly, you haven’t quite grasped it and learned how to apply it correctly.

          • Citizen Quasar

            I was just fishing for a response. Thank you for your response.

          • Citizen Quasar

            What about that time Dagny Taggart shot that guy dead, presumably at point blank range and in the belly?

          • Citizen Quasar

            I just posted Ayn Rand’s “factually-based” definition of rights. If I have that fact wrong then please post Ayn Rand’s definition so that I am corrected.

      • nathenism

        the cop would be called a hero and given a an award

    • Praetor

      In Texas, castle doctrine and stand your ground are law. Interpretation is up to a judge. Every time you are uncooperative the police suspect wrong doing. In today’s world everyone is guilty till proven innocent. As with everything in the U.S. a$$backward. You can thank the communist regressive for destroying the Constitutional right of domestic tranquility and the general welfare of its citizens.!!!

      • Goldcoaster

        Not out on the street. Aint no castle out there.

        • Praetor

          Tell that to the grand jury that issued a no bill. Its called self defense, in fear for you’re life. And that, ‘in fear for you’re life’ can extend in to a future time frame, like they will come back and get me, so I’m putting a stop to it right now. No more coming back and trying that, BS.!!!

          • YakTrax

            uh, shoot someone because of a perceived future threat? Don’t think so! LOL!

          • Praetor

            LOL all you want. At the time of the shooting the threat was now, right now. Taking a couple of shots sends a message, you comeback here, you should be ‘in fear for you’re life’, and that extends the fear factor into the future, don’t you think. Afraid of guns or do think the cops will protect you the next time.!!!

      • YakTrax

        They say the best thing you can do when the police arrive is to cry and carry on about how you didn’t WANT to do it but were FORCED to shoot, blah, blah. Never look like you know more about the law than they do. Don’t be smug or over-confident. Act like they are your saviors and thank God they’re here! But DON’T give a statement without a lawyer! The police deem your demeanor almost as important as your actions. Tell the cops you want to sign a complaint against the bad guys. That tells the cops you don’t wish this event to just ‘go away’, that you realize the seriousness of the event and that you want to see it through to the end. Get them on YOUR side, fast!

        • YakTrax

          If you CAN’T do all that, you’re probably hiding something. And good luck with that! LOL

    • YakTrax

      CM, you’re wrong on this. You have the right to discharge your weapon to protect others. The victims were allegedly kidnapping his fiance. Just like you have the right to shoot a mass-shooter – to protect others. Even in the back. You may use deadly force to protect others from imminent bodily harm.

      • JMiller

        Protect others? The suspects were running away. Were the suspects armed and shooting at people? Of course not.

  • rock solid

    affiliated with a gang – that ‘s rich. There is no bigger “gang” than the Freemason police force.

  • There are ads on the radio regarding insurance for those who carry a personal weapon. In the ad it says that getting arrested when your brandish your gun even in self defense is standard operating procedure. The police arrest and ask questions later. Oftentimes the charge is dropped once things are sorted out at the police station.

    There could be exceptions – it was an advertisement so take it for what it’s worth. Seems like when a teen killed three intruders inside his parent’s home, he wasn’t charged.

    • Citizen Quasar

      “…shall NOT be infringed.”

      • What was infringed? He was arrested for shooting at fleeing would-be kidnappers. If you’re under arrest, the police will take your gun every single time. The gun is actually evidence in a case like this.

        Personally I give a little leeway for shooting at fleeing criminals. First, the crooks could be armed. Isn’t it more likely that kidnappers would have guns than the average person? The shooter might have known who the kidnappers were in this case. If the perps were in a rival gang, they are almost certain to be armed.

        Secondly, we should give some slack for the pumping adrenaline. It would take an amazing amount of self control not to shoot at someone who was trying to kidnap your fiance. Cool calm judgment in the midst of chasing kidnappers would be in short supply.

      • YakTrax

        Citizen, your reply seems to imply that the gun-brandishing gentleman has some form of ‘inalienable rights.’ He doesn’t. Not until all is sorted out. He fired a gun. The police are here to protect everyone else’s rights too. The right not to be shot by someone practicing their right to shoot.

        • Citizen Quasar

          As conceptual lifeforms, we have a right to self defense which derives directly from our right to life. Rights are NOT subject to anyone’s interpretation but exist as part of nature.

          Here you are talking about police protecting “everyone else’s rights too” and yet you can’t define a right; you don’t even have a clue…except that vague & nebulous blob of emotion in your mind…that you can’t sort out.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            He apparently “thinks” that one’s rights have their source in government; therefore, one must have the exercise of one’s rights “sorted out” and approved or denied by government employees, as if rights were merely a fancy word for “privilege”, i.e. a favor bestowed or denied by government or some other “authority”.

          • Citizen Quasar

            You can’t define a right either.

    • YakTrax

      Yes, CCs are routinely arrested if there is any question as to what happened. But not always. A slam-dunk like killing an intruder may not end with an arrest. But you can count on getting sued! Always good to have that insurance.

  • james ha

    the kidnappers were running away when Morin shot at them? that means he was not firing his weapon in self defense as he claimed.

    • YakTrax

      James, you may discharge your firearm to protect others as well, if you feel there is an imminent physical threat to their safety. That’s why you could open fire on a mass-killer to save others. However he did it on a street where he could have hit passersby, etc. Also, no one knows what happened when the police arrived. There is confusion as to what was said. Did he tell them to f-ck off? Was he uncooperative? Did they assume the shooting was gang-related? A lot missing here.

      • james ha

        ya everything you said is right. the story does say he fired his weapon at their retreating backs, which i would hope would be illegal. but his noncooperation kind of puts everything he says into doubt.

  • Goldcoaster

    Police have not presented any evidence to support their claims. But should that matter anyway? Do you lose the right to defend yourself and loved ones because of other unrelated activity that may not be legal?
    Get real. They guy was apparently running down the street and shooting at them. Cannot do that – PERIOD.

    • Don Duncan

      Resistance is futile – period? Disobeying the law is wrong – period?

      We can resist and we must. It’s only logical!

    • henrybowmanaz

      Well… yes and no.

      Shooting at a fleeing felon is permissible if the felon “poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the [shooter] or to others” in an immediate fashion (i.e., not that they “undoubtedly would assault another victim next week,” but that they are fleeing at speed into a crowded park, or the like). Also, if the felony is ongoing — that is, if they had been successful in kidnapping the victim and were fleeing with her. Shooting at them would have been tactically stupid given that a victim was present, but legally permissible.

  • autonomous

    Too little info to make an informed reflection. Sounds like a case for caution on the part of police. If the guy was chasing someone outside the house, it’s hard to describe the shooting as self production. Were the would-be abductors known to the shooter? Did he or his wife have a history of harassment? Did he have some expertise in firearms? That the attackers got away indicates that the shooting was not effective. What kind of gang did they suspect him of associating with?

    With regard to your questions, some kinds of criminality should limit one’s access to certain kinds of self defense: murder, assault, etc. The public, without reasonable suspicion, should never be subject to arrest.

    • Neil S

      Your first paragraph expresses everything I was thinking.

  • georgesilver

    Never inform the police. Take care of matters yourself. Never, ever involve officialdom.

    • Halford Mackinder

      Is that legal advice?

      • Praetor

        Common since! The system protects no one, you protect yourself. Just like the guy who shot and killed to burglars of his neighbors house, he called 911. And while the guy has outside with the two thief’s, a cop was sitting in his cop car watching the whole thing go down. Common since says self defend.!!!

      • Nalejbank

        No, that’s “illegal” advice. Note I didn’t say it was immoral advice. That depends on the need for justice following an incident.

      • georgesilver

        If you believe the legal system is there to help you then go ahead.

  • Halford Mackinder

    Sorry, but shooting at fleeing suspects is not always the right thing to do. Was this guy involved in a gang? If he was, why should I feel bad for him? I would personally like to see *ALL* members of street gangs rounded up and summarily executed.

    • Don Duncan

      That happened in Nazi Germany. No violent crime existed. It may happen here. If it does, I hope you are first on the chopping block.

    • nathenism

      some gangs actually make neighborhoods safer and reduce actual crimes like assault and theft…any time people get together and organize and form some form of interactive leadership in a neighborhood it will be officially labelled a gang…you are supporting the authoritarian divide and rule agenda with this idea…if people who get together and organize are executed we are well on our way to a completely divided and isolated population under total tyranny

  • Masdar

    It matters not whether the person belonged to a gang as he acting to protect one of his own. The only problem I can see is the discharge of a fire arm in a build up area. If it was case that the abductors were armed this could have been a different outcome.

  • Patrick Perry

    It’s not justice, it’s just us. Does this argument resemble the “right to protect” that the government claims? Do they not claim the right to murder anyone, anywhere, anytime in order to prevent a potential future attack? What about the use of pre-crime algorithms, “we’ll just put you in a cage for what you might be thinking about in the future”.
    ‘We’re from the gov and we’re here to help’….sure.

  • mctrnr1951

    How many ‘laws’ are on Their Highness’ books?
    One is a ‘criminal’ at their pleasure.
    We may even one day see the criminalizing of money lending for fun, tough love and profit.

  • georgesilver

    With regard to my previous comment. The reason most people will involve the police and legal system is that if the ‘authorities’ do happen not to prosecute they are somehow absolved from all responsibility.
    My theory of individualism is that you are ALWAYS responsible for yourself and your actions. If you honestly believe you are in the right why involve authority?

  • georgesilver

    So here’s the scenario. A person finds a gun hidden on their property. He picks it up and realises it’s not a toy but a real gun. So this law-abiding innocent person takes the gun to the police. They discover it has been used in a crime and the person who found it has his finger prints on the gun. What happens next?
    (the property is in a country where guns are illegal)

    • nathenism

      the prosecutor will try to railroad the person and probably win

  • EDDIE GILCHRIST

    No. You do not have a right to “defend” yourself in this manner. You
    can search all over the USA and won’t find a bigger gun rights advocate
    than me. I believe in the use of lethal force to protect yourself or
    your family. I have in fact been detained by the police for brandishing
    a firearm in a situation very similar to the above.
    If the suspects
    are fleeing YOU MAY NOT SHOOT AT THEM IN A RECKLESS MANNER. In fact, you
    may not shoot at them at all. The reason is that you are not the only
    person who lives, walks, stands, watches, or even lives behind flimsy
    walls nearby. You stand a chance of injuring or killing an innocent
    party.
    Like I said, I am the biggest gun advocate you will find.
    With rights come responsibilities, though. I would order this guy’s
    arrest myself.

    • Maximiliano Plus Adrienne

      there seems a lot of grey was the guy in question white???

      • IM Sayldog

        Google it lazy. Morin Hispanic, suspects black. Lots of facts about this situation are omitted in the above story, because they don’t support the author’s/Bell’s agenda.

    • Ed

      There was no harm done to anyone. Evidently, the defender did not “SHOOT AT THEM IN A RECKLESS MANNER.”

      • EDDIE GILCHRIST

        When you discharge a firearm towards a fleeing person who is not shooting at you, in a populated environment, this is almost a textbook example of shooting in a reckless manner. I am glad that no one was injured, which would have added the charge of assault with a firearm against a third party to the list of offences I would charge against the guy. There is just no defending this. If you have a gun…. and I would advise EVERYONE to have one and know how to use it… then you had better know the rules for using it in a responsible manner.

        • Ed

          Who’s rules?
          You have a lot of opinions. Bottom line – no innocent people were harmed.

          • IM Sayldog

            Cool. That means I can empty a magazine into your house so long as I don’t hit anybody (by chance) and “no harm no foul.”

          • Ed

            If you do that you harm me by destroying my property. Not good for your reputation.

    • JMiller

      I have to agree with you.

  • Maximiliano Plus Adrienne

    the NME within!

  • Ed
  • Ed

    Suppose There Were a Gang…
    by Kent McManigal
    http://blog.kentforliberty.com/2016/07/suppose-there-were-gang.html

  • Ed

    “The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone’s anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.

    We need only consider the following:
    (1) A cop’s job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
    (2) Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;
    (3) Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.
    There are no good cops.”
    — Robert Higgs

  • Too many cops secretly hope to limit gun ownership and usage to the “Thin Blue Line”. They look down their noses at us “civilians”, and would like nothing better than to enhance their “elite” status by disarming “mere mundanes”.

  • IM Sayldog

    “Police have not presented any evidence to support their claims.”

    He is a known Tango Blast gang member, both husband and wife refuse
    to cooperate and have stated they will not file charges against the
    attackers if caught, and what exact “claims” regarding this open
    investigation are the police required to present evidence of and to who?
    Certainly not the Bell.

    “…pursuing the would-be kidnappers and firing multiple shots as they ran away…”

    There is the mistake. It was noon on a busy residential street, the
    suspects are running away, and Morin is blasting away at their backs
    after they posed no more threat. At that point, he is the threat to the
    community with his indiscriminate gunfire.

    “Do you lose the right to defend yourself and loved ones…”

    Do you gain the right to unload at the backs of suspects running
    away, who are posing no further immediate threat, on a busy residential
    street at noon, and after the fact refuse to cooperate with the
    investigation, just because you came out on the winning side of what is
    sure to be an inter-gang related incident?

    Agenda News.

  • absolute rights

    “…the people who are sworn to protect you.”
    Who does this author think is sworn to protect you?

    Police have ZERO obligation to protect you.

  • aPEON

    ONce the attackers start to run away, your ‘imminent danger’ excuse dies. Further shooting indeed endangers others, and is reckless.

    The gang connection is highly relevant—-probably rival gangs, and he was trying to kill his rivals.

  • Tired of anarchists’ myopia.

    Idiotic article. The guy pursuing and spraying bullets should have been shot down by the rest of the neighborhood denizens.

  • DonRL

    Each of us has the right to defend ourselves, our family and our neighbors against those who would do us bodily harm. If someone attacks a family member and you intervene and they turn their back and say I’ll leave but I will be back. What would you do? Wait till they return when you are not there or at a more opportune time?
    Would you take what they said and what they are doing as an on going threat the treat it as a imminent danger?
    The man who defended his fiance certainly was in the right. He did not hurt anyone. His shots may have been warning to the attackers to continue to run away and not return. He may have been careful to shoot in a manner not to hurt anyone. If so I probably would have done the same.
    Would you allow someone to escape if you knew they would be back to finish what they came to do?
    Much to consider.
    “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Any gun control measures are an infringement.

loading