• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Y

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
Bronson said:
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
Click to expand...

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

yance said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
S

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
detroit_fan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Y

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
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?
 
S

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
Yance said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not what I said.

Basically if you are in your house the law assumes any one who breaks in intends to harm you.

If you are not in your house the law does not make that assumption, and you have to justify why you felt threatened enough to fire, and the prosecutor can second guess you as they Monday morning quarterback your shoot because of the whole reasonable man standard. Whereas inside your house it would be much trickier to do because they have to prove that you didn't act in self defense, not the other way around.

Basically it means that if for example your walking down the street, and a thug sticks a gun in your face, and demands your wallet, and you shoot them the prosecutor can try to claim "He was only asking for cab fair, and the defendant shot him in cold blood.", or "If the defendant had just give him his wallet, he wouldn't have had to shoot him, but he chose to murder this poor innocent boy who was just turning his life around instead.", both arguments of course are ridiculous, but it's an affirmative defense so it's up to you to prove him wrong, that's the way the law is now thanks to the "reasonable man" standard which seems to be applied everywhere but inside your house. You may get off, but you may still spend about 2 years in prison awaiting, and standing trial, spend at least $15,000-$25,000 defending yourself, loose your job, your relationships, your kids, possibly get assaulted, or raped in prison, and always have an arrest on your record, and then face a civil trial all so the prosecutor can prove a point. Whereas if you were in your house the prosecutor can not claim "he was just there to borrow sugar" because the law makes an assumption that any shot inside your house is justified, but doesn't anywhere else, get it?

The same assumption needs to be applied everywhere not just in your house, the prosecutor should have to prove it wasn't self defense, not the other way around. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
 
H

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
Yance said:
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?
Click to expand...
You can use deadly force,anywhere you have a right to be,if you feel there's imminent threat of death or great bodily harm or rape.House or no house.
 
Y

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
Small_Arms_Collector said:
Not what I said.

Basically if you are in your house the law assumes any one who breaks in intends to harm you.

If you are not in your house the law does not make that assumption, and you have to justify why you felt threatened enough to fire, and the prosecutor can second guess you as they Monday morning quarterback your shoot because of the whole reasonable man standard. Whereas inside your house it would be much trickier to do because they have to prove that you didn't act in self defense, not the other way around.

Basically it means that if for example your walking down the street, and a thug sticks a gun in your face, and demands your wallet, and you shoot them the prosecutor can try to claim "He was only asking for cab fair, and the defendant shot him in cold blood.", or "If the defendant had just give him his wallet, he wouldn't have had to shoot him, but he chose to murder this poor innocent boy who was just turning his life around instead.", both arguments of course are ridiculous, but it's an affirmative defense so it's up to you to prove him wrong, that's the way the law is now thanks to the "reasonable man" standard which seems to be applied everywhere but inside your house. You may get off, but you may still spend about 2 years in prison awaiting, and standing trial, spend at least $15,000-$25,000 defending yourself, loose your job, your relationships, your kids, possibly get assaulted, or raped in prison, and always have an arrest on your record, and then face a civil trial all so the prosecutor can prove a point. Whereas if you were in your house the prosecutor can not claim "he was just there to borrow sugar" because the law makes an assumption that any shot inside your house is justified, but doesn't anywhere else, get it?

The same assumption needs to be applied everywhere not just in your house, the prosecutor should have to prove it wasn't self defense, not the other way around. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Click to expand...

OK, I see what you meant.
 
Bronson

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
hamaneggs said:
You can use deadly force,anywhere you have a right to be,if you feel there's imminent threat of death or great bodily harm or rape.House or no house.
Click to expand...

Close, but not quite. You can use deadly force if you honestly believe that it was necessary to stop the imminent GBH, death, or sexual assault. "Necessary" means that you had no other option available to you.

Bronson
 
Bronson

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
Small_Arms_Collector said:
because the law makes an assumption that any shot inside your house is justified
Click to expand...

The lawyers on MGO disagree with your statement.

780.951

1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct
described in subdivision (a).
Click to expand...

Because the presumption is rebuttable the prosecutor can still try to prove that you didn't have justification to shoot even though the person may be illegally in your house. If the physical evidence points to a situation where you weren't threatened you may still be found at fault. Say, for example, you come downstairs in the middle of the night and your 70 yr. old Alzheimers neighbor wandered in your unlocked back door and is at your kitchen counter making a sandwich and you put two in his back. In that instance, even though the person was in your house illegally, there's a good chance the prosecutor is going to attempt to show you had no justification to shoot.

The lawyers have advised that if you shoot you'd better be able to articulate specifically why you believed you were in imminent danger and had no other option...even within your own home.

Bronson
 
Last edited:
X

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
Bronson said:
The lawyers on MGO disagree with your statement.

780.951



Because the presumption is rebuttable the prosecutor can still try to prove that you didn't have justification to shoot even though the person may be illegally in your house. If the physical evidence points to a situation where you weren't threatened you may still be found at fault. Say, for example, you come downstairs in the middle of the night and your 70 yr. old Alzheimers neighbor wandered in your unlocked back door and is at your kitchen counter making a sandwich and you put two in his back. In that instance, even though the person was in your house illegally, there's a good chance the prosecutor is going to attempt to show you had no justification to shoot.

The lawyers have advised that if you shoot you'd better be able to articulate specifically why you believed you were in imminent danger and had no other option...even within your own home.

Bronson
Click to expand...

Some may disagree with me but I like that just because the person is in your home you can't just shoot them like if there was to be that type of situation. Now if someone is banging on your door trying to get in and you're yelling at them telling them not to come in and they do then by all means you should be protected from prosecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top