-
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.
-
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.
defending other people beside your love ones.
- Thread starter onestar
- Start date
Ezerharden
Regular Member
Here's the law I could find:
As you can see, it says nothing about loved ones, only the individual themselves or "others".
As you can see, it says nothing about loved ones, only the individual themselves or "others".
Last edited:
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
^^^ THIS! +1 Ezerharden.
Last edited:
casper
Guest
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.
Raggs
Regular Member
To the first underlined part, It is hard to tell by looking at someone if they are an anti gun person or to what level they are anti gun. To the second there might be a good reason for them not having a gun, I would have no way to know. As to the legal issues that could come up helping someone that way, if we worry to much about that then we need to second guess open carry. see here. I think that this issue is really hard to say what we would do in a situation, but at least we know what the law says about it thanks to Ezerharden
casper
Guest
Yup, you are right. I was generalizing based on past altercations. It's just my discouraged rant. But you have to admit, the way the media goes after people with guns, you have to be very careful. It's sad to think a person even has to consider " what's going to happen to me if I do the right thing and help someone ?" Everyone wants to charge someone with something. I know not all people hate gun, and most welcome them, but like you said how can you tell. It's a big gamble. (People should get their own guns), that was also part of my discouraged rant, sorry. We do know what the law says, but that didn't stop the h$!! GZ went through did it ?
Last edited:
xmanhockey7
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,195
When did the law, or case law before the SYG and Castle passed in MI, made it illegal to protect a third party that is not a loved one?
davidmcbeth
Banned
Jesus said we should love all folks...
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.
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
Regular Member
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.
Last edited:
Ezerharden
Regular Member
I need a campfire to go with all these crickets :lol:
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
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.
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.
Last edited:
I am referring to the law in WA state which inarguably protects "citizens" as cited
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
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
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.
Last edited:
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
I can't speak for Michigan. I can speak for WA and (also federal guidelines) and it is inarguable (just try it!!!
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
Well...since this is the Michigan subforum, WA law doesn't help me much, even though I think they are the only 2 states that term their "license to conceal" a CPL. The similarity stops there.
Michigan's law can be found here:
Act 328 of 1931 Chapter XXXIII
750.200i Unlawful acts; penalties.
750.200j Additional unlawful acts; penalties.
750.200k Applicability of § 750.200h to 750.200j; exceptions.
600.2922b Use of deadly force or other than deadly force by individual in self-defense;
immunity from civil liability.
600.2922c Individual sued for using deadly force or force other than deadly force; award of
attorney fees and costs; conditions
768.21c Use of deadly force by individual in own dwelling; "dwelling" defined.
780.971 Short title.
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
780.973 Duty to retreat; effect of act on common law.
780.974 Right to use deadly force; effect of act on common law.
780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definition
The most pertinent part for this discussion is whether Michigan law(s) provide for the use of deadly force in the defense of others. The answer to that is YES. However, that defense of others utilizing deadly force is limited to certain beliefs based upon SPECIFIC acts committed by a person against another. Those acts are:
1)Imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm;
2)Imminent sexual assault
As you may notice, no "fleeing felon" provision. In fact, by "fleeing", I would say the threat no longer seems "imminent"
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-972
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.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006
Last edited:
Ezerharden
Regular Member
I can't speak for Michigan. I can speak for WA and (also federal guidelines) and it is inarguable (just try it!!!
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
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.
Last edited:
I aint dodging jacksquat. I just got back. I'm on lunch period now, so I'm posting. Your analysis is correct. I have referred to T v. garner before here, several times. It eliminated the garden variety ANY fleeing felon rule.
Most states, including my own allow officers to shoot a fleeing VIOLENT felon (crime must have involved deadly force or threatened deadly force) as long as they can articulate the person poses further danger. It's especially justifiable if the officer issues a command to stop first and it is ignored. Mercer Island shot a fleeing bank robber in the back as he fleed not too long ago and it was entirely justified by the above doctrine.
As for civilians shooting fleeing violent felons, most of the law I can find references only allowing officers that right, but there could be some locales where civilians have it too
Also, generally speaking, civilians must WITNESS the crime of deadly force whereas ofc's can shoot based on probable cause of same.
cheers
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
Ezerharden
Regular Member
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.
Fwiw, a good example of a case here in WA where we would have been justified in shooting a fleeing felon.
The guy had been "informationed" (kind of like an indictment, but WA generally doesn't use grand juries and thus the charge sheet is an information, not a indictment) for murder. Iow there was strong PC reviewed by a judge that this guy had committed murder.
We also had reliable (aguilar spinelli (sp?) rule on the informant. Very credible) information that he was threatenin to kill the witness who lived in my jurisdiction.
We saw the guy and got into a pursuit. He crashed his car and we gave chase on foot. We CLEARLY would have been able to shoot that fleeing felon in the back for the above mentioned reasons - crime of deadly force, specifically murder AND articulable reasons to believe he represented a further danger of deadliness.
He tripped and we caught up to him and took him into custody. No media report of course, since we didn't shoot him, and for the media, if it bleeds it leads, and if it doesn.t... well. meh. who cares ?
And btw, when we caught him, he was armed. And with TWO firearms. Fwiw, I always teach trainees and recruits that just because you get a GUN froom a person, that is not evidence he;'s disarmed. He may very well have another and you assume that is the case until you have been able to search him. We get to go home at night, so we don't make such assumptions. Nor should anybody else!@
The guy had been "informationed" (kind of like an indictment, but WA generally doesn't use grand juries and thus the charge sheet is an information, not a indictment) for murder. Iow there was strong PC reviewed by a judge that this guy had committed murder.
We also had reliable (aguilar spinelli (sp?) rule on the informant. Very credible) information that he was threatenin to kill the witness who lived in my jurisdiction.
We saw the guy and got into a pursuit. He crashed his car and we gave chase on foot. We CLEARLY would have been able to shoot that fleeing felon in the back for the above mentioned reasons - crime of deadly force, specifically murder AND articulable reasons to believe he represented a further danger of deadliness.
He tripped and we caught up to him and took him into custody. No media report of course, since we didn't shoot him, and for the media, if it bleeds it leads, and if it doesn.t... well. meh. who cares ?
And btw, when we caught him, he was armed. And with TWO firearms. Fwiw, I always teach trainees and recruits that just because you get a GUN froom a person, that is not evidence he;'s disarmed. He may very well have another and you assume that is the case until you have been able to search him. We get to go home at night, so we don't make such assumptions. Nor should anybody else!@