Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Haves and have Not

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Victim fires gun at 2 thieves; 1 dies






    DETROIT (AP) — Police say a Detroit woman fired shots at two men trying to steal her purse at a gas station, killing one of them.

    Detroit police spokesman John Roach said the 43-year­old woman had a license to carry the gun.

    Police say two men ap­proached the woman about 5:30 a.m. Friday at a gas sta­tion on the city’s northwest side and stole her purse. She fired several shots; they fled.

    About a half hour later, a man with several gunshot wounds was brought to De­troit’s Sinai-Grace Hospital, where he died. Roach says investigators believe he was one of the purse snatchers.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Jackson , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    985

    Post imported post

    good for her

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    Read about this on another forum.

    Apparently, one local news station reported the men were fleeing and he was shot in the back, but nobody has confirmed this yet.

    If this is true, I see a long battle for this woman. Claiming self-defense when the threat has passed probably won't fly.

    I hope for her sake this isn't true. One more dirtbag is off the streets thanks to her.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Guys this is a very bad thing. It would be good if she lived in Texas. I'm fairly sure she will be charged with manslaughter or murder unless she was at risk of great bodily harm or death. I didnt see as follow up article and felt it was important to resurrect this post from the past since nobody said anything about it. I'm Michigan you cannot shoot someone just because they are committing a crime. And that means yes stealing your stuff. Dont get this confused with someone who broke in your house and is threating your life. Everyone should be comfortable with understanding the self defense laws and how you cannot shoot someone unless you are at risk of GREAT BODILY HARM ONLY. This does include rape. Another thing about breaking and entering in your house. You cannot just shoot someone because they broke in. If they are in the process of attacking you that's another story but shooting someone coming in the window can get you a manslaughter or murder charge. If you are in Texas besides for their lame lame lame law banning open carry you can shoot someone in the process of stealing property or breaking in (Check the exact conditions of the law before exercising this right) Too many people don't understand this and it can cost you time in jail if you don't get it right!

    Mike

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belleville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    I'm pretty sure that in Michigan if someone breaks into your home and is in your home and you shoot and kill him it would be legal. Even if he was trying to leave.

    The conditions are met:

    Opportunity: If the perp is in your home he can hurt you.

    Intent: He is in your home uninvited he could have intent to do anything including hurting you.

    Ability: If he is in your home he can attack you.

    It can not be proven that you were not in danger.

    Now as far as out of the home, if you are attacked you can protect yourself and even if the attack is "over" in any point in time it does not mean you are not still in danger and have right to continue to protect yourself. But there's always the gray lines in these cases.

    My opinion based on what I've read and told by so called professionals, not sure if all is legally correct.

    Correct me if wrong.





  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    mikestilly wrote:
    Guys this is a very bad thing. It would be good if she lived in Texas. I'm fairly sure she will be charged with manslaughter or murder unless she was at risk of great bodily harm or death. I'm Michigan you cannot shoot someone just because they are committing a crime. And that means yes stealing your stuff. Dont get this confused with someone who broke in your house and is threating your life. Everyone should be comfortable with understanding the self defense laws and how you cannot shoot someone unless you are at risk of GREAT BODILY HARM ONLY. This does include rape. Another thing about breaking and entering in your house. You cannot just shoot someone because they broke in. If they are in the process of attacking you that's another story but shooting someone coming in the window can get you a manslaughter or murder charge. If you are in Texas besides for their lame lame lame law banning open carry you can shoot someone in the process of stealing property or breaking in (Check the exact conditions of the law before exercising this right) Too many people don't understand this and it can cost you time in jail if you don't get it right!

    Mike
    Two against one IF on jury would give her benefit of doubt .IF once attacker stated give me your money and you will not get hurt .And IF there may have be treed ore if he said I get you later !

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    You are incorrect. And I find it very dangerous that anyone on here who owns a weapon doesnt understand Michigan's self defense laws. I suggest that if you ever plan on using a gun for self defense that you read up on all the laws pertaining to self defense.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    taxwhat: From someone who was on the jury of a murder trial most people on the jury does what the judge stipulates. Follow the exact law an apply what you understood to have happened. If a possible juror cant apply what the judge tells the juror they will never make the jury. We went through 10 people before they were satisfied when they got with me in the jury. Read the laws. If someone stole a purse and they were getting away with it according to the article until she fired back i.e. no bodily harm. If you want to put your life on a jury decision you do what you will. I dont know about you but I prefer to never be charged with murder or manslaughter. Even only a charge like that can ruin your life. Look at the Duke Lacrosse team and what a single skank did to their lives.

    Mike

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    mikestilly wrote:
    taxwhat: From someone who was on the jury of a murder trial most people on the jury does what the judges rules stipulate. Follow the exact law an apply what you understood to have happened. Read the laws. If someone stole a purse and they were getting away with it according to the article until she fired back i.e. no bodily harm. If you want to put your life on a jury decision you do what you will. I dont know about you but I prefer to never be charged with murder or manslaughter. Even only a charge like that can ruin your life. Look at the Duke Lacrosse team and what a single skank did to their lives.

    Mike
    IF Read what I typed we have NOinfo SO , If IF

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Wglide90 wrote:
    I'm pretty sure that in Michigan if someone breaks into your home and is in your home and you shoot and kill him it would be legal. Even if he was trying to leave. NOT in this State !

    The conditions are met:

    Opportunity: If the perp is in your home he can hurt you.

    Intent: He is in your home uninvited he could have intent to do anything including hurting you.

    Ability: If he is in your home he can attack you.

    It can not be proven that you were not in danger.

    Now as far as out of the home, if you are attacked you can protect yourself and even if the attack is "over" in any point in time it does not mean you are not still in danger and have right to continue to protect yourself. But there's always the gray lines in these cases.

    My opinion based on what I've read and told by so called professionals, not sure if all is legally correct.

    Correct me if wrong.



    Bold My reply >

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belleville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    First, if you go into a home uninvited you may get shot legally! Period.

    Second, the gray areas in the self defense when not in home could go to jury and be on side of the person victimized. The woman was attacked and her purse was stolen, with here address in it most likely, he made contact to her person, had opportunity to hurt her. So these guys could get her later w/ her addy. These are some of the factors jurys will hear. How far was the mugger from here when she shot, blah blah blah. Many factors to be evaluated. And if this goes to trial against her I would hope a jury decides in her favor.

    If I'm wrong show me the law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    taxwhat: What you are saying is scary. Did you take a CPL class? This was the first thing i was told in the self defense section of the class. Is it on me to find all the info for you? You are obviously the one who needs to look it up

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_ccwfaq.asp


    My CPL has the box labeled "Exempt from Pistol Free zones MCL28.425o(4)" checked. How does this affect my carrying my firearm in an establishment which has a "No Firearms Allowed" posting?

    A: Even those who are exempt from the Pistol Free Zones established in the statute must still honor the wishes of any party in control of real estate regarding the possession of weapons on the premises. If you disregard a sign or a verbal or written notice that guns are not allowed in a particular location, your legal status is that of trespasser. One of the results is that you are no longer covered by the "Stand Your Ground" law that went into effect late last year. The Stand Your Ground rule allows individuals to use proportional force in self defense without having to retreat, so long as they are in a place where they have a legal right to be. Even a CPL holder who is exempt from the Pistol Free Zones loses this legal protection while carrying in violation of a posted notice that guns are not allowed on the premises.

    A quick review of proportionality: Any use of a firearm will probably be considered an application of deadly force. Deadly force is only appropriate in self defense when it is proportional to the threat. So, a firearm may only be used to prevent death, great bodily harm that could lead to death, or rape. Deadly force in defense of others is allowed so long as the person being defended would have been justified in using deadly force to protect him or herself. Think of yourself as "stepping into the shoes" of the person you are defending. Ask yourself the question, "If I were that person, would I be justified in shooting?" If the answer is yes, your discharge of your firearm will be considered an action taken in the legally protected defense of another.


    I was nearly attacked by a loose German Shepard dog while going for my morning walk down the public street recently. I ran and jumped a nearby fence to get away. Had the fence not been there the dog would of got me. I had my concealed pistol on me but did not want to use it unless I had to. What are my rights under the law pertaining to animals threatning to attach a person walking down the street. Can I use a pistol against a threatning animal or only against a person.I have a valid Mi. CPL.

    A: Under Michigan law, any use of a firearm is an application of deadly force. Deadly force is legally permissible when it is proportional to the threat. Meaning, that deadly force may be used to prevent death, great bodily harm that could lead to death, or rape. It is entirely possible that an animal could do great bodily harm that could lead to death. So, it is possible that the use of a pistol against an attacking dog would be a justifiable use of force. Keep in mind that the circumstances would have to be such that you are in a place where you have a legal right to be, and that there is sufficient indication that your life is in danger when you fire. If you were to fire when the dog is too far away, or running away, or if you hit something other than the dog, or the dog is a toy poodle, you might face serious legal consequences. The key is that any use of force must be reasonable under the circumstances. I admire your restraint and think that the policy of not using our pistols unless we absolutely have to is the wise course of action.

    While the answer contains statements of law and practical advice that are essentially correct, it is worth noting that dogs are covered by different laws than human beings. Under Michigan law, a dog is an item of personal property.

    There is a statute in Michigan which states that "Any person...may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, worrying, or wounding any livestock or poultry or attacking persons, and there shall be no liability on such person in damages or otherwise, for such killing."

    However, there is another statute which states that "willfully and maliciously killing or injuring animals" is a felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison.

    The practical advice given last week remains unchanged. Only use your pistol if you have to. If you or someone else is in danger of attack by an animal, use your pistol or
    other firearm to defend yourself and your loved ones.


    There are many more examples of this
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Lethal+force

    I hope you dont have a CPL. Otherwise your CPL instructor did a crappy job teaching you about the use of deadly force.

    This is one thing I don't like about open carry. There are people out there who are out open carrying that have no idea about the laws pertaining to how to handle a self defense situation. Once you shoot and kill someone you can't take it back.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    double tap

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  16. #16
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    mikestilly wrote:
    Another thing about breaking and entering in your house. You cannot just shoot someone because they broke in. If they are in the process of attacking you that's another story but shooting someone coming in the window can get you a manslaughter or murder charge.
    Not quite ....

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(g2h...0AND%20defense

    780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

    Sec. 1.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of 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 described in subdivision (a).

    While in yourhome or business you have no duty to determine whether the person who is breaking and entering your property illegaly is there to conduct simple property theft or to cause you physical harm.

    The very fact that they are illegally entering your home is all the evidence needed of their criminal intent.

    Don't believe everything the CPL instructors tell you. Just ask some of them about OC and see what kinds of misinformation you get.

    Bronson



    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  17. #17
    Regular Member Springfield Smitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank goodness)
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Wglide90 wrote:
    First, if you go into a home uninvited you may get shot legally! Period.

    Second, the gray areas in the self defense when not in home could go to jury and be on side of the person victimized. The woman was attacked and her purse was stolen, with here address in it most likely, he made contact to her person, had opportunity to hurt her. So these guys could get her later w/ her addy. These are some of the factors jurys will hear. How far was the mugger from here when she shot, blah blah blah. Many factors to be evaluated. And if this goes to trial against her I would hope a jury decides in her favor.

    If I'm wrong show me the law.

    SELF-DEFENSE ACT

    Act 309 of 2006

    AN ACT to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others.

    History:
    2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006.

    The People of the State of Michigan enact:

    780.971 Short title.

    Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “self-defense act”.

    History:
    2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006.

    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.
    -U.S. Army Veteran (2002-2005) 11BVB4 (Infantry, Airborne, Ranger, some other stuff) SGT (E-5)
    -Public Service Professional - I've done it all: LEO, FF, and EMT
    -Certified NRA Instructor
    -CPL / CCW (whatever other acronym you can think of for carrying a concealed pistol) Instructor
    -Co-founder of OKOCA

    I am not an attorney. None of my statements should be accepted, nor are they intended to be offered, as legal advice or fact of law.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    Wglide90 wrote:
    The woman was attacked and her purse was stolen, with here address in it most likely, he made contact to her person, had opportunity to hurt her. So these guys could get her later w/ her addy.
    The threat must be imminent. You can't use deadly force on somebodybecause they may come back and hurt you later, they must be either hurting you rightnow or about to hurt you right now.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Bronson: you are definitely right about the open carry. I had to sit though a anti-OC rant pretty much. I saw the statute part (a) you just posted. You might want to google on how that was interpreted in a variety of cases and how it's applied. You will find some interesting results.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belleville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Bronson,

    You're right. I was implying that these would be things that could be brought to jury.

    We don't know the facts here so it's all speculation about the lady in question. Don't know how close or if all shots were in back as news reported, or if she was hurt. I just hope that she is delt with fairly.

  21. #21
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    If the assailants were unarmed, it seems likely that this is yet another case where the nationally-renowned HankT's Postulateof Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD) is applicable. Here it is for those of youwho might have been stuck on a peninsula somewhere:


    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    This stunningly powerful conceptual advancement in post-incident analysis is much much needed to make propersense of things.



  22. #22
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    mikestilly wrote:
    You might want to google on how that was interpreted in a variety of cases and how it's applied. You will find some interesting results.
    I did a quick Google search and didn't really find anything. To be honest I'm not feeling well and didn't dig all that deep :?

    While, I don't believe, Michigan has ever had a duty to retreat while in your own home the law was changed in 2006 to its current language which gets rid of the requirement to determine if the person who is forcibly entering your home wants to cause you physical harm. So, any cases before 2006 will be using the old law that did have that requirement.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    If the assailants were unarmed, it seems likely that this is yet another case where the nationally-renowned HankT's Postulate*of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD) is applicable. Here it is for those of you*who might have been stuck on a peninsula somewhere:

    *
    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    This stunningly powerful conceptual advancement in post-incident analysis is much much needed to make proper*sense of things.


    Thanks Hank!! That's exactly what I was trying to say. I was surprised this post wasn't challenged when it was first posted and that's why I responded to it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    Hank, many folks have died at the bare hands of another human being. That being said, a person needs to be damn sure shooting is justified...
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    roseville,mi, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    all you guys know about this right??


    “Castle Doctrine” is Law in Michigan
    The “Castle Doctrine” package of bills was signed into law on July 20, 2006. The law will become effective on October 1, 2006. Until then, current case law will be applied to all situations.

    This law would have been more accurately described as the “Stand Your Ground” law. This law, when it becomes effective, removes the duty to retreat from a violent attack. Individuals in Michigan, as in most states, have always had the right to stand their ground and defend themselves with no duty to retreat when attacked inside the four walls of their home. However, if attacked outside the four walls of their home, even if on their own property (such as the backyard, detached garage, or a pole building), individuals in Michigan were required to retreat from a violent attack if able to do so safely. As of October 1, 2006, there will no longer be a “duty to retreat” from a violent attack as long as the individual is in a place where they have a legal right to be and as long as they are not engaged in illegal activity.

    Opponents of this law have described it as a “Shoot First” law. This is not the case. This law does nothing to remove the “Use of Deadly Force” continuum. The escalating degrees of force still apply to all situations and the “Reasonable Man” standard will still be used to evaluate an individual’s actions in a given circumstance. This means that the following three valid reasons to use deadly force still apply to all situations:

    1. Fear of Death.
    2. Fear of Serious Bodily Injury.
    3. Fear of Forcible Sexual Penetration


    In addition to these three reasons for the use of deadly force, the following three conditions must exist in order for the use of deadly force to be justifiable:

    1. Imminent - One of the three above listed reasons for the use of deadly force must be about to happen; it cannot be something that will happen tomorrow or in a few weeks.
    2. Intent - The attacker has to have demonstrated some sort of intent. This can be verbal or non-verbal. The display of a weapon, verbal threats, or aggressive advances after being told to stay away are all indications of intent.
    3. Ability – The attacker has to have the ability to carry through with their intended attack. If someone says they are going to shoot you, but have no firearm, then they do not have the ability to shoot you at that moment.


    You still must act reasonably and apply the above principles of the use of deadly force.

    Here is what this law does change. This law removes the duty to retreat anywhere that an individual has a legal right to be provided that they are not engaged in illegal activity. If a person acts with reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, then the prosecuting attorney must prove that the person acted unlawfully in order to take the case to trial. This is a change from current procedure where a person who acts in self-defense must prove that they acted lawfully after being charged and possibly taken to court. In addition, if a person cannot be charged and convicted criminally, the new law provides that they cannot be prosecuted civilly. If for some reason a civil case is allowed to proceed, the person who used justifiable self-defense shall be awarded court and attorney’s fees.

    This all means that you must still act in a reasonable manner. Your firearm should still be your “tool of last resort” for self-defense. The emotional trauma and aftermath of shooting another human being will be absolutely devastating. It should be avoided if at all possible. This law mitigates the aftermath so that a decision made under the duress of defending oneself against a criminal does not destroy your life criminally or financially.

    You are encouraged to read these laws for yourself and evaluate them. For professional legal advice, you should consult a lawyer familiar with firearms law and the use of deadly force in Michigan. Links to these laws are provided below:

    HB 5143 now PA 309 of 2006
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2005-HB-5143
    Sponsored by Rep. Rick Jones.
    HB 5142 now PA 313 of 2006
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2005-HB-5142
    Sponsored by Rep. Tom Casperson
    HB 5153 now PA 310 of 2006
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2005-HB-5153
    Sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer.
    HB 5548 now PA 314 of 2006
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2006-HB-5548
    Sponsored by Rep. Tim Moore.
    SB 1046 now PA 311 of 2006
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2006-SB-1046
    Sponsored by Sen. Alan Cropsey
    SB 1185 now PA 312 of 2006
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2006-SB-1185
    Sponsored by Sen. Ron Jelinek

    This legislation has now been passed into law in several other states and many states are considering very similar legislation. The map below demonstrates which states now have these laws and which states are considering this type of legislation. By scrolling your mouse over a particular state and clicking, you will follow a link that will enable you to see either the law or the legislation of that particular state.

    If your state is considering this type of legislation, please contact your elected representatives and encourage them to protect you and your family from violent attack and financial ruin by enacting this legislation in your state. It is time for the criminals to live and operate in fear instead of the law-abiding!


    What is it, and what does it mean to me?
    The new “Stand Your Ground” legislation was first introduced in and passed into law in Florida in 2005. This was the first law to not only remove a law-abiding citizen’s “duty to retreat” from a violent attack, but also authorized the use of reasonable force up to and including deadly force. This law also went a step further in protecting crime victim’s rights by making it clear that if the use of force was justified and no crime was committed, then the law-abiding citizen could not be sued in civil court by the wounded, criminal perpetrator or the perpetrator’s family.

    The essence of this law is to extend the “Castle Doctrine” found in English common law. Basically, if you, a law-abiding citizen, are in a place that you have a legal right to be (such as your home, your car, or the grocery store) and you are attacked, then you do not have to retreat from that attack. You may stand your ground and use whatever force is reasonably necessary to stop the threat. If you act reasonably, then you will not be prosecuted criminally and no one can sue you civilly (you would still be responsible for injury to innocent bystanders).

    This legislation has now been passed into law in several other states and many states are considering very similar legislation. The map above demonstrates which states now have these laws and which states are considering this type of legislation. By scrolling your mouse over a particular state and clicking, you will follow a link that will enable you to see either the law or the legislation of that particular state.

    If your state is considering this type of legislation, please contact your elected representatives and encourage them to protect you and your family from violent attack and financial ruin by enacting this legislation in your state. It is time for the criminals to live and operate in fear instead of the law-abiding!


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •