• 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.

zigziggityzoo

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

stainless1911

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

G22

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
74
Location
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".

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.
 

G22

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
74
Location
Michigan, USA
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
The immunity is also worthless because you can still be sued civilly.

Yes, but if the shooting was ruled or decided to be SD, the case will likely be dismissed on the first hearing.

I can sue you for being a d|ck (I don't think you are one, but I don't know you, are you?) but that doesn't mean the case will go anywhere.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
pfries said:
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...
I haven't perused the MI laws or court cases about this,
but in WI we have a law that says if a gun was used in a crime it is to be seized by the gov't & destroyed.

Some particularly anti-gun judges have stretched this beyond reason to say that a pistol locked in the trunk of a car when the driver was stopped (eventually convicted) of DUI is to be destroyed.

In another case, a pistol that was in the home where a suicide happened (not used in the tragedy) was stolen by police & eventually destroyed. Apparently the guy had a bit of a fight to get his long guns back. (But if it was OK to return those, why wasn't it OK to return the other pistol? And why were any guns taken in the first place, except the one used in the tragedy?)

Yes, we have a similar distinction between 'crime' & 'forfeiture' (something for which the punishment is only a fine). I'm sure that some officer has mistakenly & illegally seized someone's gun for a forfeiture. Probably happens in Milwaukee & Madison, those being the 2 most liberal-infested cities in the state.
 

G22

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
74
Location
Michigan, USA
Yes, but if the shooting was ruled or decided to be SD, the case will likely be dismissed on the first hearing.

I can sue you for being a d|ck (I don't think you are one, but I don't know you, are you?) but that doesn't mean the case will go anywhere.

I can be the nicest guy you'd ever meet or the biggest d:ck you could imagine. I guess it depends who you ask! :lol:

Either way. First hearing, lawyer fees, court fees, time missed from work...That's NOT immunity in my book. Thus my worthless comment.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
I can be the nicest guy you'd ever meet or the biggest d:ck you could imagine. I guess it depends who you ask! :lol:

Either way. First hearing, lawyer fees, court fees, time missed from work...That's NOT immunity in my book. Thus my worthless comment.

Ahhh, but you can most likely successfully recover those costs from the plaintiff.
 

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
871
Location
Okemos, MI
Ahhh, but you can most likely successfully recover those costs from the plaintiff.
Yes, at least according to the law they are on the hook for all your costs if they bring a BS civil suit on a good shoot.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Yes, but if the shooting was ruled or decided to be SD, the case will likely be dismissed on the first hearing.

I can sue you for being a d|ck (I don't think you are one, but I don't know you, are you?) but that doesn't mean the case will go anywhere.

In Kent County, one usually doesn't even have a hearing. Our prosecutor tends to rule shootings as covered under this law, even when it may not be so clear. Within the last few years, in one case, the prosecutor decided in the shooter's favor in an incident involving a Shell station employee being shot at the gas pump because the trash can he was holding when he ran over to berate the customer was declared to be a weapon; so the customer rightfully feared for his life.
The employee's family had also talked publicly about initiating a civil action, but that also soon fell apart.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
In Kent County, one usually doesn't even have a hearing. Our prosecutor tends to rule shootings as covered under this law, even when it may not be so clear. Within the last few years, in one case, the prosecutor decided in the shooter's favor in an incident involving a Shell station employee being shot at the gas pump because the trash can he was holding when he ran over to berate the customer was declared to be a weapon; so the customer rightfully feared for his life.
The employee's family had also talked publicly about initiating a civil action, but that also soon fell apart.

In RE hearing, I'm talking about a civil action, not one bought by the prosecutor.
 

G22

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
74
Location
Michigan, USA
Ahhh, but you can most likely successfully recover those costs from the plaintiff.

Not to pick nits, but I believe "immune" is used in the actual law. And that is simply not factual. Many, many people are under the false impression because of the wording, that they can't be sued no matter what if a justified shooting occurred.

Recovering damages is most defiantly not immunity.

I am glad that in some jurisdictions like DrTodd's they are using the literal interpretation but we all know there are judges out there with less than stellar opinions of how a law reads.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Not to pick nits, but I believe "immune" is used in the actual law. And that is simply not factual. Many, many people are under the false impression because of the wording, that they can't be sued no matter what if a justified shooting occurred.

Recovering damages is most defiantly not immunity.

I am glad that in some jurisdictions like DrTodd's they are using the literal interpretation but we all know there are judges out there with less than stellar opinions of how a law reads.

Again, I think you're missing the point. Anyone can file a civil suit against you for literally anything (even in Kent Co). How far they will get with it and how much the frivolous suit will cost them is another matter.

Anyone who thinks a law can stop someone from filing suit needs to take at least one semester if law (I did).
 
Last edited:

G22

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
74
Location
Michigan, USA
Again, I think you're missing the point. Anyone can file a civil suit against you for literally anything (even in Kent Co). How far they will get with it and how much the frivolous suit will cost them is another matter.

Anyone who thinks a law can stop someone from filing suit needs to take at least one semester if law (I did).

Yes, I understand that.

As crazy as it sounds, the whole "immune" thing in the law makes lots of people think they are in immune! Like completely and automatically, end of story, no civil suit possible. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people post exactly that on forums and blogs.

While you and I have a clear understanding that this is not the case, many don't.

The Public Acts state If you are compliant with section 2 of the SDA, you are immune from civil liability for "damages", not from a civil suit. I think we're on the same page with that.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
In RE hearing, I'm talking about a civil action, not one bought by the prosecutor.

Action ≠ hearing

First, the defendants (shooter) is served with the summons and complaint and must then file an answer. At that point, the defendant could make a motion for dismissal. Still, no "hearing" at this step.
 
Last edited:
Top