No Charges In Battle Creek Road Rage Incident

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

road rage 1BATTLE CREEK, Mich., (April 17, 2014) — No charges are being filed against a man who investigators say opened fire after an apparent road rage incident last month.

The shooting left Michelle Foster hurt, and she was hoping to see charges filed, she told us Thursday. She was not happy to hear the news that the prosecutor decided not to press charges.

In an opinion from the Calhoun County prosecutor, he concludes that it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver of the other car wasn’t acting in self defense.

Read the opinion released by the prosecutor: Hansen, Robert Opinion


Related Stories:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • tracyd112

    What is the shooter a family member of his or a friend? I believe this prosecutor is over stepping his boundaries as he should file charges and let a Judge decide if there is enough evidence or not. A crime may have been committed it is his duty to make it equal for everyone.File the charges and let the judge make the decision.If it is the way he sees it then the shooter would be set free if not then he would proceed to trial and this is why I say there is either a family member or friend involved.

  • hello

    OMG I thought that only happened where I live! tracyd is absolutely right. This person has to be a relative or friend. The judge needs to decide whether their is enough evidence to file charges. They should NOT get away with this!!!!!

  • Irving Cryderman

    If she went after him with her car and had intent to hurt him, he had the right to protect himself. I am sure he weighed the evidence in the case and made his ruling accordingly. Apparently she was no saint, and meant him great bodily harm.

  • Know The Facts

    Please read the last sentence "read the opinion released by the prosecutor" and CLICK the link. You will find the six page letter accurately describing the events. Here you will also find the driver who was attacking the other vehicle that had Hansen in it, – McJunkin – was high on meth that day, tried to conceal his identity by lying about his name, had drug scales in the car, and he was also a 3rd time offender (2nd time drug offender) ((this is public information). It also states that "information received shows McJunkin was irate, following the other car, mad and screaming according to Foster." (Foster is McJunkins girlfriend) "He traveled out of his way then waited for the other car." Also continuing on – during the interview with the detective and McJunkin he was "displaying jerky-type and inflated movements common with drug users and consistent with the conduct described by Franklin and Hansen. ALSO McJunkin admitted using meth that day to his PAROLE officer." There is also no relationship whatsoever between Hansen, McJunkin, nor the prosecutor, Gilbert.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.