• 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.

Legitimate SD Stand Your Ground Question.

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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.
 

pfries

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
182
Location
East Tennessee
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/criminal/criminal_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.”
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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:

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
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.
 

pfries

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
182
Location
East Tennessee
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.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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:

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
.....and we have another example of "just because it rattles around in your head doesn't mean you have to say it".....
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
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".
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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?
 
Top