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.
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. After all the police don't even have an obligation to protect them. I mean look at the Zimmerman case. A clear case of self defense and look what happened. I really don't want that on my plate if at all possible. It really would depend on the situation, I'd like to think if it came down to it, I would help someone that really was in imminent danger. I would want someone to help me or my loved ones. But remember also that even if your intentions are good, even the victims may cause trouble for you. I figure if they want protection, they better get their own gun.
There are few things more noble than defending somebody else's life, especially if it puts your own at risk. One of the reasons I strongly support shall issue and/or constitutional carry, is if I am fighting with somebody for my life, I was lawful gun owners there to help me out. Happened to an officer in my agency who was wrestling with a guy over control of her gun when an armed store clerk center punched that guy in the head with a well timed shot.
sadly we had another case where an officer was executed (shot in the head repeatedly while lying on the ground). A CCW'er managed to get his gun out and site on target but at that point the suspect's slide had locked back and he didn't feel comfortable shooting the man.
Under deadly force case law, and especially if he issued a warning first, it would have definitely been legal to have shot that fleeing armed violent felon. Fortunately, he got arrested before he had a chance to shoot anybody else.
I would assume most CCW'ers care enough about life such that they would defend others with their gun if placed in that situation. And I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that wouldn't consider it lawful deadly force to defend another (vs one's self) with deadly force.
There are few things more noble than defending somebody else's life, especially if it puts your own at risk. One of the reasons I strongly support shall issue and/or constitutional carry, is if I am fighting with somebody for my life, I was lawful gun owners there to help me out. Happened to an officer in my agency who was wrestling with a guy over control of her gun when an armed store clerk center punched that guy in the head with a well timed shot.
sadly we had another case where an officer was executed (shot in the head repeatedly while lying on the ground). A CCW'er managed to get his gun out and site on target but at that point the suspect's slide had locked back and he didn't feel comfortable shooting the man.
Under deadly force case law, and especially if he issued a warning first, it would have definitely been legal to have shot that fleeing armed violent felon. Fortunately, he got arrested before he had a chance to shoot anybody else.
I would assume most CCW'ers care enough about life such that they would defend others with their gun if placed in that situation. And I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that wouldn't consider it lawful deadly force to defend another (vs one's self) with deadly force.
Ezerharden,
My guess is that PALO is a LEO...
Edit to add: strike that, he is a LEO trainer: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...g-the-police&p=1969110&viewfull=1#post1969110
He may be correct as the law pertains to a LEO. Google "Fleeing felon"
But, since this is an OC website that most likely has very few LEOs as members, I think you are correct in questioning the statement. In Michigan, if a non-LEO, CPL holder did that, I would hate to see the consequences.
Could you please cite the case law on this? To the best of my knowledge it is NEVER legal to shoot a fleeing felon, unless they are running to another target that may be in danger. But just fleeing, as in running away, not so much.
I can't speak for Michigan. I can speak for WA and (also federal guidelines) and it is inarguable (just try it!!! ) that an individual (cop or non-cop) has the right to defend himself OR another person from perceived imminent death or serious bodily injury.
WA state actually respects GREATER rights for non-cops than cops vis a vis garden variety deadly force. I quote
"The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]"
"Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or"
---9a.16.050
Note : in lawful defense of the slayer... OR OF ANY OTHER PERSON
I can't speak for Michigan. I can speak for WA and (also federal guidelines) and it is inarguable (just try it!!! ) that an individual (cop or non-cop) has the right to defend himself OR another person from perceived imminent death or serious bodily injury.
WA state actually respects GREATER rights for non-cops than cops vis a vis garden variety deadly force. I quote
"The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]"
"Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or"
---9a.16.050
Note : in lawful defense of the slayer... OR OF ANY OTHER PERSON
Trust PALO to dodge questions.
I'll help you out.
A SCOTUS opinion called Tennessee vs Garner from back in the 1970's or 80's is the case usually cited.
The case arose from the lawsuit by the deceased boy's father. A cop investigated a reported burglary. The teen bolted from the house, started to jump a fence, and the cop shot him in the back, to prevent his escape according to the cop, and killing him.
SCOTUS pointed out that the punishment for burglary did not include the death penalty. And, restricted shooting fleeing felons to those that are dangerous to the community. See the case for the exacting wording.
According to my understanding, the common law up until that point authorized shooting all fleeing felons, but that originated in the distant past at a time when there were fewer felonies, and the penalty for most felonies was death. So, the common law is actually the source of the authority in states that have a common law tradition.
When it comes to fleeing felons, the SCOTUS case restricts lethal force to a certain category of fleeing felon. Some states may have statutes restricting it further. I don't know.
Trust PALO to dodge questions.
I'll help you out.
A SCOTUS opinion called Tennessee vs Garner from back in the 1970's or 80's is the case usually cited.
The case arose from the lawsuit by the deceased boy's father. A cop investigated a reported burglary. The teen bolted from the house, started to jump a fence, and the cop shot him in the back, to prevent his escape according to the cop, and killing him.
SCOTUS pointed out that the punishment for burglary did not include the death penalty. And, restricted shooting fleeing felons to those that are dangerous to the community. See the case for the exacting wording.
According to my understanding, the common law up until that point authorized shooting all fleeing felons, but that originated in the distant past at a time when there were fewer felonies, and the penalty for most felonies was death. So, the common law is actually the source of the authority in states that have a common law tradition.
When it comes to fleeing felons, the SCOTUS case restricts lethal force to a certain category of fleeing felon. Some states may have statutes restricting it further. I don't know.
All very interesting if this happened to be a WA forum where WA law was applicable. However WA law has no bearing on MI law and your advice in MI would get someone arrested and likely convicted.
Thanks for some useful info.
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