Sniper suspect charged, ordered held on $2 million bond
HOWELL, Mich. — A man suspected in two dozen random shootings along a 100-mile stretch of roadway in southeastern Michigan was charged with several gun crimes Wednesday that are likely the first of many charges.
Prosecutors believe that Raulie Casteel, a geologist, is responsible for the shootings last month that mostly targeted moving vehicles on or near Interstate 96. One person was injured.
Casteel, 43, was ordered held on a $2 million bond after being charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and other gun crimes. The charges stem from a shooting Oct. 18 on in interstate in Livingston County's Howell Township, about 45 miles northwest of Detroit.
The driver of the targeted car was able to describe the gunman, his vehicle and a partial license plate number from a Michigan State University vanity plate.
He was arrested Monday at his home in Wixom, about 20 miles away.
“Hopefully we can scratch these senseless shootings off our to-do list,” said David McCain, head of the Detroit branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Casteel appeared in court via video from jail on Wednesday and was introduced to lawyers hired by his wife. Judge Carol Sue Reader set the high bond, saying there was a “high probability” that Casteel poses a threat to the public. The county prosecutor's office said mental illness may be a factor.
Casteel had a license to carry a pistol in Kentucky but not in Michigan, authorities said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.