Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Legitimate SD Stand Your Ground Question.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Legitimate SD Stand Your Ground Question.

    A recent thread was closed, and wisely so due to the nature of the post and the person posting it, but I have a question based on part of the self defense acct itself.

    Lets look at the law first.

    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:

    (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.

    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force
    other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere
    he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the
    use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use
    of force by another individual.

    ************************************************** *************

    Now, what was claimed in the discussion, was that an individual in commission of a crime is not covered by the statute, which is clearly stated in section (1). Basic stuff.

    In the example given however, the person would clearly be in violation of a simple traffic violation, a civil infraction.

    The question is therefore, does a civil infraction rise to the standard implied by the statute cited above? What are your arguments for or against?

    Let's stay on topic here, it's a serious question that could affect any one of us in the real world. It is conceivable that the kind folks on the other side of the courtroom from you might try to throw something like this in the ring at your trial.

  2. #2
    Regular Member pfries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    182
    I would say they may attempt to charge you pending the circumstances but a civil infraction by definition is not a crime.
    I believe they would use it to clarify your legal right to be there. As to get an improper lane usage ticket, and to also be charged
    with possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime as some states laws are written, is IMO not going to work
    out to well for them...

    For the record it played into the other thread in a scenario where the civil infraction showed you had no legal right to be there.
    In many states (TN included) the legal right to be somewhere is paramount in self-defense laws.

    From http://www.expertlaw.com/library/cri...l_charges.html

    A "civil infraction" is not a crime, although it is a charge filed by the state.
    The state has to prove that you committed a civil infraction by a "preponderance of the evidence,"
    which is to say; that it is more likely than not that you committed the violation.
    This is a much lower standard than the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that applies in civil cases.
    The typical civil infraction is decided by a judge or magistrate, without a jury, in what is typically a short proceeding.

  3. #3
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    A recent thread was closed, and wisely so due to the nature of the post and the person posting it, but I have a question based on part of the self defense acct itself.

    Lets look at the law first.

    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:

    (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.

    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force
    other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere
    he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the
    use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use
    of force by another individual.

    ************************************************** *************

    Now, what was claimed in the discussion, was that an individual in commission of a crime is not covered by the statute, which is clearly stated in section (1). Basic stuff.

    In the example given however, the person would clearly be in violation of a simple traffic violation, a civil infraction.

    The question is therefore, does a civil infraction rise to the standard implied by the statute cited above? What are your arguments for or against?

    Let's stay on topic here, it's a serious question that could affect any one of us in the real world. It is conceivable that the kind folks on the other side of the courtroom from you might try to throw something like this in the ring at your trial.
    I would argue that, since MCL 257.907 states that a Civil Infraction is NOT a crime, the defense detailed in MCL 780.972 could be used.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 09-05-2012 at 12:39 AM.
    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.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    This is why I brought it up. It should make an interesting discussion.

  5. #5
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    I would say if you're crossing the road illegally (jaywalking) and someone attempts to rob you at gun point and you shoot them you should still be covered by the stand your ground law. Now if you go back to the situation mentioned in the locked thread I would say you are not covered.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    I would say if you're crossing the road illegally (jaywalking) and someone attempts to rob you at gun point and you shoot them you should still be covered by the stand your ground law. Now if you go back to the situation mentioned in the locked thread I would say you are not covered.
    Why?

  7. #7
    Regular Member pfries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    I would argue that, since MCL 257.907 states that a Civil Infraction is NOT a crime, the defense detailed in MCL 780.972 could be used.
    MCL 780.972 also clearly uses the term "anywhere he or she has the legal right to be" so one could be trespassing,

    not be charged with criminal trespass but it would lend to one not legally being there.

    I do believe that could allow someone to be charged, whether or not it would stick is another story,

    but a story I do not think I would want to be the main character in.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    None of us would want to be in that position.

    Any one of us could wind up there though, nobody knows all the laws, yet we are all required to abide by all of them. Anyone could be breaking a law and not realize it. As Murpheys law would have it, the day you are in an SD situation, you may be on the wrong side of some line, committing some so called "crime" or infraction and there you go.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    Legitimate SD Stand Your Ground Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Why?
    Because the vehicle is still moving toward you after you shoot the driver?
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    You would not be threatened by the actions of a car on the road if you were not wrongly in the middle of the road. How could you justify self-defense against a person in a car only a few inches from its legitimate path of travel when you are wrongly there, unless you had some special insight into criminal intent on the part of the driver. I would wager you had better be very good at articulating it, too.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I should have been more clear.

    I wasnt referring only to the example provided. I was thinking mor along the lines of, Why would one persons civil infraction count against them, and another persons civil infraction not count against them. What legal ground would a prosecutor use to justify his/her position in one situation or another.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    You would not be threatened by the actions of a car on the road if you were not wrongly in the middle of the road. How could you justify self-defense against a person in a car only a few inches from its legitimate path of travel when you are wrongly there, unless you had some special insight into criminal intent on the part of the driver. I would wager you had better be very good at articulating it, too.
    In this example, it could be a number of things. Driver makes eye contact, sounds horn and turns towards you instead of away, crosses lanes, gives the the bird, etc...

    Proving it would be nearly impossible.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 09-05-2012 at 01:00 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member HKcarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    831
    .....and we have another example of "just because it rattles around in your head doesn't mean you have to say it".....
    When you put the gun in the holster, put the ego in the gun safe.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by HKcarrier View Post
    .....and we have another example of "just because it rattles around in your head doesn't mean you have to say it".....
    Thank you for providing the example.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Now, what was claimed in the discussion, was that an individual in commission of a crime is not covered by the statute, which is clearly stated in section (1). Basic stuff.

    In the example given however, the person would clearly be in violation of a simple traffic violation, a civil infraction.

    The question is therefore, does a civil infraction rise to the standard implied by the statute cited above? What are your arguments for or against?

    Let's stay on topic here, it's a serious question that could affect any one of us in the real world. It is conceivable that the kind folks on the other side of the courtroom from you might try to throw something like this in the ring at your trial.
    All of this is irrelevant.

    In fact, even this law is irrelevant. If you are justified in using deadly force because you were in fear of great bodily harm or death, and the use of force is necessary, you can use deadly force. Period.

    This law doesn't actually change anything. It's puffery. It's "feel good".

  16. #16
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    Legitimate SD Stand Your Ground Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    All of this is irrelevant.

    In fact, even this law is irrelevant. If you are justified in using deadly force because you were in fear of great bodily harm or death, and the use of force is necessary, you can use deadly force. Period.

    This law doesn't actually change anything. It's puffery. It's "feel good".
    You refer to People v Riddle (Michigan Supreme Court case around the turn of the century), yes?
    Last edited by TheQ; 09-05-2012 at 01:11 PM.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    All of this is irrelevant.

    In fact, even this law is irrelevant. If you are justified in using deadly force because you were in fear of great bodily harm or death, and the use of force is necessary, you can use deadly force. Period.

    This law doesn't actually change anything. It's puffery. It's "feel good".

    True. The only caveat would be "the use of force is necessary". This is where one could conceivably stumble.
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    All of this is irrelevant.

    In fact, even this law is irrelevant. If you are justified in using deadly force because you were in fear of great bodily harm or death, and the use of force is necessary, you can use deadly force. Period.

    This law doesn't actually change anything. It's puffery. It's "feel good".
    How is

    (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

    irrelevant?

  19. #19
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    Legitimate SD Stand Your Ground Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    How is

    (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

    irrelevant?
    The use of deadly force has to be "nessicary". Big discussion in MGO Legal beagle last week ( with lawyers). Go read it, no need to rehash it here.

    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/sho...d.php?t=191691
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I read it.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544
    This was discussed probably in 2009 here on these very forums.

    Michigan's Stand Your Ground law is worthless, except for the part that makes you immune from civil prosecution.

    You effectively have no "Stand your ground" defense. If you had opportunity to escape the situation, it could be argued that deadly force was not necessary. Thus, standing your ground when you can flee is unnecessary use of deadly force, and boom, prosecuted.

    Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you the same thing. If you shoot when a jury might say it's not necessary to shoot, you might go to jail.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    This was discussed probably in 2009 here on these very forums.

    Michigan's Stand Your Ground law is worthless, except for the part that makes you immune from civil prosecution.

    You effectively have no "Stand your ground" defense. If you had opportunity to escape the situation, it could be argued that deadly force was not necessary. Thus, standing your ground when you can flee is unnecessary use of deadly force, and boom, prosecuted.

    Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you the same thing. If you shoot when a jury might say it's not necessary to shoot, you might go to jail.
    Thats the best explanation about this law I have seen yet. Thanks.

  23. #23
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    Legitimate SD Stand Your Ground Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Thats the best explanation about this law I have seen yet. Thanks.
    Apparently you didn't read the thread I referred you to then over on MGO!

    That was the theme of the thread!
    Last edited by TheQ; 09-06-2012 at 11:59 AM.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  24. #24
    Regular Member G22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    All of this is irrelevant.

    In fact, even this law is irrelevant. If you are justified in using deadly force because you were in fear of great bodily harm or death, and the use of force is necessary, you can use deadly force. Period.

    This law doesn't actually change anything. It's puffery. It's "feel good".
    It's my understanding that it is useful. The SDA can be used in court as an affirmative defense If you are not in commission of a crime. Being in commission of a crime you lose that extra argument, but a justifiable shoot is no less justifiable.

  25. #25
    Regular Member G22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by zigziggityzoo View Post
    This was discussed probably in 2009 here on these very forums.

    Michigan's Stand Your Ground law is worthless, except for the part that makes you immune from civil prosecution.

    You effectively have no "Stand your ground" defense. If you had opportunity to escape the situation, it could be argued that deadly force was not necessary. Thus, standing your ground when you can flee is unnecessary use of deadly force, and boom, prosecuted.

    Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you the same thing. If you shoot when a jury might say it's not necessary to shoot, you might go to jail.
    The immunity is also worthless because you can still be sued civilly.

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
  •