Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: MICHIGAN hAS NO STAND YOUR GROUND LAW reported by Fox2 Charlie Leduff

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    detroit, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    149

    MICHIGAN hAS NO STAND YOUR GROUND LAW reported by Fox2 Charlie Leduff

    This was on fox2 last night Leduff reported Michigan has no stand your ground law.












    .
    Last edited by bossbart; 04-25-2012 at 12:51 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    I like Charlie a lot. Good stories..funny approach. But his research failed him miserably. Shame.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    detroit, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    I like Charlie a lot. Good stories..funny approach. But his research failed him miserably. Shame.
    Someone needs to e mail him so he can get it right some reason my e mail wont go through

  4. #4
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    I commented on the article... Should provide enough details to show that the Article Author did not perform requisite research...
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  5. #5
    Regular Member fozzy71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    Can we get a link to the article please? You should also read the fair use rules:

    (11) RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.
    "I like users who quote smellslikemichigan in their signature lines." - fozzy71

  6. #6
    Regular Member DetroitBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by fozzy71 View Post
    Can we get a link to the article please? You should also read the fair use rules:
    Link to Leduff story
    http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...3F-20120424-ms

  7. #7
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by fozzy71 View Post
    Can we get a link to the article please? You should also read the fair use rules:
    There has been a Court Ruling that that changed the "Fair Use" Rules, I will have to look it up and post later.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lapeer, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    48
    I`m confused. It was my understanding that when the castle doctrine was put in place that we were`nt required to retreat. Am I wrong?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    221
    His research didn't fail him, his Liberal anti gun mentality failed him.


    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    I like Charlie a lot. Good stories..funny approach. But his research failed him miserably. Shame.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    Act 309 of 2006 provides that Michigan is a Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground state.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Some of the lawyers over on MGO have also commented that MI does not have an actual "stand your ground" law. What we have is a "right to defense law."

    I believe the thinking goes something like this....

    The law allows us to use deadly force to defend ourselves or others if we honestly and truly believe the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent GBH, death, or sexual assault upon ourselves or somebody else.


    780.972

    (1) An individual whohas not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

    (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
    If you have an avenue of escape available to you, and you have the means and ability to take advantage of that avenue of escape, was the use of deadly force necessary? That will be the question the prosecutor will attempt to address and if it's found that you didn't escape when you reasonably could have escaped then there is a good chance it will be found that your use of deadly force was not necessary and therefore you are unprotected by this law.

    I think the lawyer esq_stu over on MGO put it best when he said (paraphrasing) "People need to stop asking 'can I shoot in X circumstance' and start asking 'MUST I shoot...'"

    Bronson
    Last edited by Bronson; 04-25-2012 at 03:33 PM.
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  12. #12
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by bruiser 160 View Post
    I`m confused. It was my understanding that when the castle doctrine was put in place that we were`nt required to retreat. Am I wrong?
    This is where words have meaning.MI has a "Castle Doctrine Law" that covers ones Right to Self Defense,where they have a Right to be,and eliminates having to "retreat".I'm not aware of any laws called "No Retreat Laws". I'ts the Lefts naming of something they can demonize(Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky circa- 60's). Guns-Bad,Standing Your Ground and Defending Your Life(vigilantism)-Bad!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastpointe Michigan
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Some of the lawyers over on MGO have also commented that MI does not have an actual "stand your ground" law. What we have is a "right to defense law."

    I believe the thinking goes something like this....

    The law allows us to use deadly force to defend ourselves or others if we honestly and truly believe the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent GBH, death, or sexual assault upon ourselves or somebody else.


    780.972



    If you have an avenue of escape available to you, and you have the means and ability to take advantage of that avenue of escape, was the use of deadly force necessary? That will be the question the prosecutor will attempt to address and if it's found that you didn't escape when you reasonably could have escaped then there is a good chance it will be found that your use of deadly force was not necessary and therefore you are unprotected by this law.

    I think the lawyer esq_stu over on MGO put it best when he said (paraphrasing) "People need to stop asking 'can I shoot in X circumstance' and start asking 'MUST I shoot...'"

    Bronson
    We have a "castle doctrine", but it's a sucky watered down one with no teeth.

    Basically it applies the "reasonable man" standard, which really means it leaves it wide open for Monday Morning Quarterbacking by prosecutors (Like those with a political point to make) by questioning what was "reasonable", basicly no protection at all.

    Also like you said it could still be interpreted to require retreat (The old get shot in the back law.).

    It also only provides an assumption of intent to harm if you are inside your house, not your car, not if attacked in public, not even on your own property, or out buildings, only your house, and that provision is weak.

    Civil immunity is also weak, and completely eliminated if the prosecutor tries to file charges anyway (as mentioned above).

    We have a castle doctrine, but only in theory as it had to be watered down to the point of being basically meaningless in order to get it to pass a then liberal legislature. We need to amend it to remove the "reasonable man" standard, and replace it with a clear assumption of hostile intent like the Texas Castle Doctrine so there is no more Monday Morning Quarterbacking, someone breaks in to your house, or is trespassing after dark, or attempts to car jack you, or mug you they mean you harm PERIOD. We also need to amend the civil liability protection to apply irregardless of whether your charged, and allow civil action only if you are convicted. It also needs to be amended to require full , and immediate injunctive relief to anyone who is charged (wrongly, I.E. a politically motivated prosecution), but not convicted totally reimbursing their legal costs, mental anguish, pain, and suffering, lost income, and hefty punitive damages (to the order of 7 figures+), as well as make it a felony to knowingly make a bad arrest, or pursue a prosecution of someone who clearly did not violate the law. This should discourage political arrests, and prosecutions.
    Last edited by Small_Arms_Collector; 04-25-2012 at 05:44 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5mx...me=mcl-780-972

    So provided you are somewhere you could legally be and werent in the commission of a crime, you would not have to make an attempt to retreat, by what this statute says, even if you had the means to.

    Granted if someone is 60' away and you can get away this probably wont hold much water in your defense, but if youre being assaulted you dont have to try to run or get to your car to get away if you are affraid you might die or be seriously injured.

    By this it would seem to make monday morning quarterbacking by prosecutors almost impossible because they cant say "well why didnt you try...XYZ" because nothing in this law says you are required to. If you feel you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm you can stop that threat on the spot with deadly force, as stated in the above MCL.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastpointe Michigan
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Yance View Post
    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5mx...me=mcl-780-972

    So provided you are somewhere you could legally be and werent in the commission of a crime, you would not have to make an attempt to retreat, by what this statute says, even if you had the means to.

    Granted if someone is 60' away and you can get away this probably wont hold much water in your defense, but if youre being assaulted you dont have to try to run or get to your car to get away if you are affraid you might die or be seriously injured.

    By this it would seem to make monday morning quarterbacking by prosecutors almost impossible because they cant say "well why didnt you try...XYZ" because nothing in this law says you are required to. If you feel you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm you can stop that threat on the spot with deadly force, as stated in the above MCL.
    The issue is not the prosecutor's ability to make it stick, or not, it's the ability of the prosecutor to ruin your life regardless of their ability to actually get a conviction. Currently the law still uses the "reasonable man" standard which leaves you wide open to a politically motivated prosecutor Monday Morning Qaurterbacking your shoot as he questioned if it was "reasonable" for you to fear for your life/great bodily harm/sexual assault when you fired.

    The prosecutor may loose, but meanwhile you are out probably $15,000-$25,000 minimum to defend yourself, you've been wrongfully arrested, and imprisoned (pending/during trial depending on whether or not you were able to come up with bail, and if you didn't that could mean 2+ years in prison even though you committed no crime), you've lost your job, possibly alienated, and bankrupted your family, If you were married your spouse may have got tired of the waiting/drama/expense, and left you, and took your kids, you may have been assaulted, or raped in prison, and for the rest of your life that arrest is going to be on your record, and after all that because you were prosecuted (even though the prosecution was bogus, and you were not convicted) you get to face a nice civil suit from the criminal you shot, or the criminals family, all this WITHOUT A CONVICTION. The prosecutor knows this, and will try to use it to pressure you in to taking a plea, even though you did nothing wrong, and regardless of whether you plea, or not the prosecutor suffers no consequences whatsoever, and may even have some smug satisfaction at having ruined your life.

    Do you see the problem?

  16. #16
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Small_Arms_Collector- why do you say "It also only provides an assumption of intent to harm if you are inside your house, not your car, not if attacked in public, not even on your own property, or out buildings, only your house, and that provision is weak."

    the law as written says "may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies..."

    You have a legal right to be in your car, in public and in other buildings, so does that not cover those areas?
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Small_Arms_Collector- why do you say "It also only provides an assumption of intent to harm if you are inside your house, not your car, not if attacked in public, not even on your own property, or out buildings, only your house, and that provision is weak."

    the law as written says "may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies..."

    You have a legal right to be in your car, in public and in other buildings, so does that not cover those areas?
    The whole issue is really in the definition of the terms we use.
    Imho, the reporter is correct, nowhere in Michigan's laws does it mention the words "Stand Your Ground". Now, whatever you choose to call it is your business, but like I said, the words "Stand your ground" is nowhere in the law.

    Previous responses are correct in that there is no duty to retreat in certain circumstances... and this is clearly stated in the law. However, although the legislation does not say that you must retreat if you are able, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that if there was a possibility that you could have retreated, then a jury CAN take that fact into consideration when deciding if the individual honestly and reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

    This case explains their reasoning pretty well:

    People v Richardson (2011)
    http://www.courts.michigan.gov/supre...ons/141752.pdf

    Here is a lawyer's blog post about the case and Michigan's self-defense law in general:
    http://michiganlawyerblog.wordpress....doctrine-case/

    Agree or disagree, this is the law as it currently stands in Michigan.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  18. #18
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Thanks for the explanation DrTodd
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  19. #19
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Yance View Post
    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5mx...me=mcl-780-972

    So provided you are somewhere you could legally be and werent in the commission of a crime, you would not have to make an attempt to retreat, by what this statute says, even if you had the means to.

    Granted if someone is 60' away and you can get away this probably wont hold much water in your defense, but if youre being assaulted you dont have to try to run or get to your car to get away if you are affraid you might die or be seriously injured.

    By this it would seem to make monday morning quarterbacking by prosecutors almost impossible because they cant say "well why didnt you try...XYZ" because nothing in this law says you are required to. If you feel you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm you can stop that threat on the spot with deadly force, as stated in the above MCL.
    You didn't include the qualifying circumstances. The law reads, in a nutshell, that you have no duty to retreat before applying deadly force if you believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent blah blah blah. Necessity is one of the qualifiers for having no duty to retreat. So if escape was available and you chose to not avail yourself of it, then there was no necessity.

    I'm not saying I agree with it but that's how the prosecutor is going to play it.

    Bronson
    Last edited by Bronson; 04-26-2012 at 01:38 AM.
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  20. #20
    Regular Member quarter horseman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Allegan co Michigan, USA
    Posts
    345
    I cant stand this lib B.S.
    why does this reporter stand like he has to take a dump? because he is full of Shh

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by quarter horseman View Post
    I cant stand this lib B.S.
    why does this reporter stand like he has to take a dump? because he is full of Shh
    lol
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You didn't include the qualifying circumstances. The law reads, in a nutshell, that you have no duty to retreat before applying deadly force if you believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent blah blah blah. Necessity is one of the qualifiers for having no duty to retreat. So if escape was available and you chose to not avail yourself of it, then there was no necessity.

    I'm not saying I agree with it but that's how the prosecutor is going to play it.

    Bronson
    I may have been vague about including that, I put:

    Quote Originally Posted by yance
    Granted if someone is 60' away and you can get away this probably wont hold much water in your defense, but if youre being assaulted you dont have to try to run or get to your car to get away if you are affraid you might die or be seriously injured.
    I was trying to imply that if you have the means and the time to escape and you choose not to that your "self defense" claim under the self defense statute wont help you. But if you are actively being assulted and they have a weapon or they are much larger and able to over power you, you dont have to try to make it to your car or run away while being beaten on.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    221
    LOL I think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by quarter horseman View Post
    I cant stand this lib B.S.
    why does this reporter stand like he has to take a dump? because he is full of Shh

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastpointe Michigan
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Small_Arms_Collector- why do you say "It also only provides an assumption of intent to harm if you are inside your house, not your car, not if attacked in public, not even on your own property, or out buildings, only your house, and that provision is weak."

    the law as written says "may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies..."

    You have a legal right to be in your car, in public and in other buildings, so does that not cover those areas?
    There is a part of the law which states something to the effect of if an intruder is in your home you can assume that they intend to do hurt you. In other words the mere fact that they have broken in to your house is reasonable to believe you are in danger, and act accordingly. That section specifically refers to your home though, in other words that same presumption would not apply to your car, outbuildings, property, or public.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    The only thing I have to question is, by your thoughts where are the places that "where you have a legal right to be" talking about if the only place you say you can use deadly force is your home?
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •