defending other people beside your love ones.

PALO · Aug 4, 2013

Ezerharden said:
DrTodd has already cited the most relevant statutes, and I am unaware of any case law specific to Michigan on this topic, hence my request for a cite. I was unaware you were citing WA law at the time.

Yes. And I'm not even remembering which post you are referring to , but if it was me opining on deadly force law, I was mostl likely referencing WA unless I stated otherwise

cheers

DanM · Aug 4, 2013

casper said:
I've changed my thinking about that very thing. I used to think, if I can help someone I should. But after all the negativity I've gotten around here from the people of Holland, I'd probably not step in it. I figure if they hate my gun that much, then I don't have to protect them with it either.

I can understand that feeling, when living in an area full of anti-gun libtards. But I know my conscience would eat me up were I to not draw my gun to defend others from a clearly active shooter or a perpetrator beating them to a pulp. I can't speak for others, but if I were in such situation I can't honestly say I would be thinking of anything other than stopping the murderous madness.

PALO · Aug 4, 2013

DanM said:
I can understand that feeling, when living in an area full of anti-gun libtards. But I know my conscience would eat me up were I to not draw my gun to defend others from a clearly active shooter or a perpetrator beating them to a pulp. I can't speak for others, but if I were in such situation I can't honestly say I would be thinking of anything other than stopping the murderous madness.

Good for you. Nothing more noble than saving somebody else from peril, especially death.

DrTodd · Aug 5, 2013

PALO said:
You are correct. If i didn't qualify that I was referring to WA case law, that's my bad. I am a firearms instructor in WA which also entails teaching deadly force principles and I thus know WA case law very thoroughly. It's actually detrimental to study OTHER states' deadly force statutes because it just muddies the issue in my mind, and the last thing you want is a muddy mind when you are faced with a deadly force situation.

Maybe you could cite MI law, though. As a comparison.

Btw, not only does WA protect the citizen right to use deadly force to protect himself OR ANOTHER PERSON (RCW 9a.16.050), but if he is brought to trial and found not guilty, the jury is polled as to whether they thought the shooting was self defense. If the jury rules thusly, the citizen gets BACK PAY for the entire timke of the trial PLUS lawyer fees etc. reimbursed. This is a powerful disincentive to prosecutors not to charge bogus cases for political reasons (a la zimmerman)

cheers

I posted the cites for the applicable law in my post above.

As I said, Michigan's Self Defense Act provides that a person is allowed to use deadly force, without the duty to retreat from any place he or she has the right to be if he or she honestly and reasonably believes there exists imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault to self or others.

Additionally, people acting in self-defense also have a Rebuttable Presumption of Self- Defense which provides substantial immunity from both criminal and civil liability under the laws.

This legal presumption must be overcome by the prosecutor, who is required to present evidence at each stage of the criminal proceedings, to rebut the presumption that the person did not act within provisions of the Self-Defense Act. Only if the prosecutor has presented enough evidence to rebut the presumption of self defense will the individual using deadly, or less than deadly force, be subject to criminal prosecution. There are limited exceptions given where the law does not apply. Please see the cites in my post above. If none of these specific exceptions apply, then the person is immune from criminal prosecution.

In addition to immunity from criminal penalties, an individual using force in self-defense or defense of another in accordance with the Act would not be civilly liable for damages caused to the person against whom the force was used nor to anyone else claiming civil damages stemming from the incident. Additionally, the court is required to award actual attorney fees and costs to an individual sued for civil damages if that person is deemed immune from civil liability under the Act.

How far a particular prosecutor tends to pursue charges against a person using force in self-defense or defense of another varies quite a bit. My county prosecutor tends to not pursue charges against a person using force, even if there is some aspect that seems to be questionable in terms of complying with the act. I, however, live in Kent County. I've been made aware of a prosecutor on the east side of the state who will pursue charges and then apparently drop them after a very lengthy investigation. Those in Michigan know to whom I referring.

PALO · Aug 5, 2013

DrTodd said:
I posted the cites for the applicable law in my post above.

As I said, Michigan's Self Defense Act provides that a person is allowed to use deadly force, without the duty to retreat from any place he or she has the right to be if he or she honestly and reasonably believes there exists imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault to self or others.

People acting in self-defense have a Rebuttable Presumption of Self- Defense which provides substantial immunity from both criminal and civil liability under the laws. When using defensive force against someone, a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, as long as both 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 I described above

This legal presumption must be overcome by the prosecutor, who is required to present evidence at each stage of the criminal proceedings, to rebut the presumption that the person did not act within provisions of the Self-Defense Act. Only if the prosecutor has presented enough evidence to rebut the presumption of self defense will the individual using deadly, or less than deadly force, be subject to criminal prosecution.

There are exceptions to the presumption created by the Self Defense Act cited above.

Specifically:
The person against whom force is used has a legal right to be present in the dwelling or vehicle (such as an owner, lessee or titleholder);
the person being removed is a child or grandchild or in lawful custody of the person against whom the defensive force was used;
the person against whom defensive force is used is a police officer engaged in performing official duties; or
the person using defensive force was engaged in an unlawful activity or using the dwelling or vehicle to further an unlawful activity.

If none of these specific exceptions apply, then the person is immune from criminal prosecution.

In addition to immunity from criminal penalties, an individual using force in self-defense or defense of another in accordance with the Act would not be civilly liable for damages caused to the person against whom the force was used nor to anyone else claiming civil damages stemming from the incident. Additionally, the court is required to award actual attorney fees and costs to an individual sued for civil damages if that person is deemed immune from civil liability under the Act.

How far a particular prosecutor tends to pursue charges against a person using force in self-defense or defense of another varies quite a bit. My county prosecutor tends to not pursue charges against a person using force, even if there is some aspect that seems to be questionable in terms of complying with the act. I, however, live in Kent County. I've been made aware of a persecutor who will pursue charges and then apparently drop them after a very lengthy investigation. Those in Michigan know to whom I referring.

Thank you. Very informative post. Cheers.

I still think WA has the best law regarding self defense... money talks. It's such a great disincentive to prosecute a case for political reasons, because nothing puts egg on the state's face faster than having to pay the defendant's backpay and lawyer costs.

We, as cops have the extra inquiry of a dept. investigation as well as a death inquest hearing (kind of a mini fact finding hearing with citizen jurors who are presented evidence and testimony and then polled with basic questions). It's rare for a citizen to get an inquest done on their shootings but it's mandatory in my jurisdiction for us to get one.

Of course the most irksome aspect of law enforcement shooting jurisprudence is when the state gets to take two bites at the apple. It's clearly double jeopardy but since they are independent sovereign, the state doesn't see it that way. Imagine going through a state level trial , being found not guilty, and THEN having a whole other federal civil rights criminal trial.

All I have to say is that no matter how JUSTIFIED you are to shoot somebody, taking a life is an awful thing that will stay with you forever. Always choose to avoid if possible the kinds of situations that could escalate to deadly force.

DrTodd · Aug 5, 2013

PALO said:
Thank you. Very informative post. Cheers.

I still think WA has the best law regarding self defense... money talks. It's such a great disincentive to prosecute a case for political reasons, because nothing puts egg on the state's face faster than having to pay the defendant's backpay and lawyer costs.

We, as cops have the extra inquiry of a dept. investigation as well as a death inquest hearing (kind of a mini fact finding hearing with citizen jurors who are presented evidence and testimony and then polled with basic questions). It's rare for a citizen to get an inquest done on their shootings but it's mandatory in my jurisdiction for us to get one.

Of course the most irksome aspect of law enforcement shooting jurisprudence is when the state gets to take two bites at the apple. It's clearly double jeopardy but since they are independent sovereign, the state doesn't see it that way. Imagine going through a state level trial , being found not guilty, and THEN having a whole other federal civil rights criminal trial.

All I have to say is that no matter how JUSTIFIED you are to shoot somebody, taking a life is an awful thing that will stay with you forever. Always choose to avoid if possible the kinds of situations that could escalate to deadly force.

Perhaps WA does have the best...but I tend to think it really depends on the situation. Law is a blunt tool when most times a much finer one would do. I don't have the cite handy for the court case that really pushed the Michigan Legislature for the change but, as I recall, there was a case here in Michigan where a person actually was successfully prosecuted for defending his home against an unarmed burglar. I think that type of court opinion was, for good or bad, what led the charge for change in the law here in Michigan.

Regarding the Double Jeopardy issue. I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't the charges be a civil rights violation... wheres the state case was manslaughter? If so, how is that unlike a state losing a case on one charge but then pursuing a different charge at a later date. I think that there are times that such an investigation is warranted...this is NOT one of those times, however. As I understand it, there is no indication that GZ had a long-standing mistreatment of people based on the color of their skin,(quite the opposite, in fact)...and there is the issue that GZ was NOT acting under "color of law".

PALO · Aug 5, 2013

DrTodd said:
Perhaps WA does have the best...but I tend to think it really depends on the situation. Law is a blunt tool when most times a much finer one would do. I don't have the cite handy for the court case that really pushed the Michigan Legislature for the change but, as I recall, there was a case here in Michigan where a person actually was successfully prosecuted for defending his home against an unarmed burglar. I think that type of court opinion was, for good or bad, what led the charge for change in the law here in Michigan.

Many states make it a presumption that a burglar into an occupied home intends to the do the occupants harm. Thus, they don't have to wait to see what he does. Deadly force- authorized.

I've interrogated a metric buttload of burglars and let me tell you they make a BIG effort to try to ensure the house is unoccupied before they break in. They are well aware of and quite afraid of the armed citizenry, far more than they are afraid of us. Burglary is a worse crime than people who haven't had it happen to them, think. I've had many a victim say it feels like an invasion of their most private space, and even that it feels like they were raped.

Guys will case in neighborhoods and have some form of cockamamie story about a lost dog or whatever if somebody answers the door. If there is no answer, they make entry. I've had a couple of cases of people confronting burglars after exiting the shower since they either wouldn't hear the knocking or would ignore it.

A man's home is his castle. And criminals need to be on notice of that. Break into a man's castle and you are presumed to have nefarious intent and if somebody is home and armed- that's too bad for you.

davidmcbeth · Aug 5, 2013

I don't need permission from any state telling me I have the right to shoot some buckshot into someone when they try to violate my land and dwelling.

defending other people beside your love ones.

PALO

Regular Member

DanM

Regular Member

PALO

Regular Member

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator

PALO

Regular Member

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator

PALO

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned