• 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.

Haves and have Not

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
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
 

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
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...
 

johnnyd74

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
113
Location
roseville,mi, Michigan, USA
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!
 

johnnyd74

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
113
Location
roseville,mi, Michigan, USA
imported post

i dont think alot of people know about this newer law!

i would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

















Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

HankT wrote:
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.
Hank... stating that, and I quote you again:

"It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person." unquote.

as an absolute doesn't reflect all the variables that occur in real life. As an example:

I personally am up in years... have bad knees and can't run... not to mention a bad heart with a pacemaker leaving me vulnerable to
, at the very least (as the law reads), "great bodily harm" from a criminal punching me once... just once!

So that leaves me... and many other folks with issues similar to mine... with very few options when dealing with a violent criminal.

Had you said something along the lines of:

"Depending on circumstances, it is generally a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person."

I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

Not to mention that fists and feet actually are...........

WEAPONS!

when being used to inflict injury or death.

However, to return to the topic, according to my understanding of the law (I'm not an attorney!) the victim of a criminal attack is justified in responding to a threat as long as the threat is happening. Once the threat stops and there is no longer a threat the response must also stop. If the threat stops and the response continues ... at that exact point the victim becomes the criminal imposing a threat.

Hence.. once the threat stops so must the response.. simply because the law recognizes that if there is no threat there is no justification for a response.

So... if a criminal's attack has put you in fear of great bodily harm or death
you, the victim, are legally justified in responding using deadly force if necessary. If that criminal stops attacking but you continue to respond with deadly force.... you are now the criminal and the original criminal is now the victim.

But... It is generally a bad strategy to shoot a person who is running away from you.

 

taxwhat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
800
Location
S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
imported post

Up Date
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Detroit woman turns gun on purse snatcher
Suspect, who fled, may be man who died later at hospital; shooter had permit to carry
Delores Flynn / The Detroit News
Detroit[/i] -- A Detroit woman whose purse was snatched early Friday morning while she was pumping gas allegedly took matters into her own hands and shot the suspect with a concealed weapon.

Police have yet to definitively identify whether a man who died at an area hospital Friday was involved in the robbery but say it's a "very strong possibility."

The shooting happened around 5 a.m. at the Mobil gas station at Schoolcraft and Southfield, Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens Bell said.


http://www.detnews.com/article/20090926/METRO01/909260322/Detroit-woman-turns-gun-on-purse-snatcher







A woman in her 40s was pumping gas when she was approached by a man who demanded her purse and said if she didn't comply, he'd shoot her.

After the suspect snatched the purse, the woman, who has a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, shot several rounds at the suspect who fled on foot, Bell said.

Officials believe a second suspect may have been involved and are questioning witnesses for information, Bell said.

It isn't clear where the woman's concealed weapon was before the shooting.

"A guy did die at a local hospital from gunshot wounds, but we have yet to confirm if it's the individual involved in this case," said Bell, who did not know the number of gunshot wounds the suspect sustained.

The victim's purse was recovered but police aren't saying how.

Investigators are running gun ballistic tests and will forward findings to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office to determine whether the victim will be charged. Detroit Police spokesman John Roach declined to comment on whether the shooting appears justifiable.

"In terms of a value judgment, that has to come from the prosecutor," Roach said.

A call to the Prosecutor's Office was not immediately returned Friday.

The case remains under investigation.

dflynn@detnews.com (734) 462-2206[/i]
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
imported post

mikestilly wrote:
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 ;)

Mike,

Um...how can I say this.....

You have no fricken clue who you're talking to (taxwhat). It would do you a lot of good to listen to taxwhat as I'm 100% positive he have more knowledge of CPL and self defense legalities then you.

Now don't go off halfco(ked, I didn't say everything you typed is wrong or that you know "nothing" but rather, there are some fine points in what you did type that is not entirely true or correct. I will also say that you were mostly correct.

Maybe you could call taxwhat on the phone and have a chat.

As the old saying goes "A picture's worth a 1000 words"
Nowadays it's "One phone call's worth 1000 posts on a message board"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is not dirrected to you Mike,

It has alreay been said in this thread but it needs to be stated again.

Oncea threat ends you MUST stop shooting.
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
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.
If the person is trying to leave and you kill them, you will go to jail for murder.
If it's just a drunk that got the wrong house and there was not TRUE threat to your life and you kill them, you will go to jail for murder.
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.
Sure it can. Anything can happen in court. Nothing is 100%

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.
Simply being attacked is NOT grounds to use deadly force.
The malice element of second-degree murder is satisfied by showing that the defendant posed the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a high risk of death or great bodily harm with the knowledge that death or great bodily harm will be the probable result. People v Kemp, 202 Mich App 318, 322; 508 NW2d 184 (1993). Malice can be inferred from evidence that a defendant intentionally set in motion a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. People v Aaron, 409 Mich 672, 729; 299 NW2d 304 (1980).
My opinion based on what I've read and told by so called professionals, not sure if all is legally correct.
Then why repeat it?
Correct me if wrong.
Just did.
mine in red
 

Wglide90

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
126
Location
Belleville, Michigan, USA
imported post

I'll agree that anything can happen in court.

If the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground rules are true (which I believe they are), I could disagree with you on inmost cases on the other points. Of course responsibility and sensibility must be applied.


Doug, Read what Johnnyd74 posted. It supports my opinion, which is based on law.

Look, if someone breaks into your home you can protect yourself, even if he decides to stop hurting you, you can still protect yourself, even if he is just a drunk you can protect yourself. You protect yourself you are not a murderer.

You extend your protection to others that would protect themselves but cannot, you are not a murderer.
 

johnnyd74

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
113
Location
roseville,mi, Michigan, USA
imported post

well im gonna throw in my 0.02$

i would not have shot him in the back!!!!

i think it's wrong to shot people in the back, unless they are going to get something to hurt or kill me with!

as far as in my house, i will shoot! and shoot again...then again in the back knee,head double tap center mass....you get the point! but in public with ample time and space to leave..no i would not shoot him in the back, unless i am saving someone else from great bodily harm, or poss. death!

carjacking i wont even kill someone, you can have the car!

but then you hear stories where they jack someone and they get the car, and still shoot them...so i don't know!





you know what they say?

better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!
 

Springfield Smitty

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
296
Location
OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank good
imported post

Wglide90 wrote:
I'll agree that anything can happen in court.

If the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground rules are true (which I believe they are), I could disagree with you on inmost cases on the other points. Of course responsibility and sensibility must be applied.


Doug, Read what Johnnyd74 posted. It supports my opinion, which is based on law.

Look, if someone breaks into your home you can protect yourself, even if he decides to stop hurting you, you can still protect yourself, even if he is just a drunk you can protect yourself. You protect yourself you are not a murderer.

You extend your protection to others that would protect themselves but cannot, you are not a murderer.
Good thing I would not be on your jury, I would convict you for murder in the case that you shoot a drunk that accidentally wondered into your home.

I would also convict on your last statement if the person you were "extending your protection" to started the conflict they were involved in.
 

Springfield Smitty

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
296
Location
OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank good
imported post

johnnyd74 wrote:
well im gonna throw in my 0.02$

i would not have shot him in the back!!!!

i think it's wrong to shot people in the back, unless they are going to get something to hurt or kill me with!

as far as in my house, i will shoot! and shoot again...then again in the back knee,head double tap center mass....you get the point! but in public with ample time and space to leave..no i would not shoot him in the back, unless i am saving someone else from great bodily harm, or poss. death!

carjacking i wont even kill someone, you can have the car!

but then you hear stories where they jack someone and they get the car, and still shoot them...so i don't know!





you know what they say?

better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!
Until those twelve convict and you end up spending the rest of your days in prison before you arestill carried by 6. Just follow the laws to the letter and you won't have to even worry about being judged, except by a higher authority.
 

Wglide90

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
126
Location
Belleville, Michigan, USA
imported post

Springfield Smitty,

You are right about being present to the entire event to justify protecting others.

Please put all of my comments in the proper context. I used the word "protect", that means a threat was determined. As Always you must exercise responsibility and sensibility.

I'm not going to go into all the scenarios, but one can protect one's self from a threat in one's oun home.

When Doug said that it would be murder if a drunk that broke into a home was shot in the home. I think that is nuts for criteria, how do you know if someone that breaks in is just a wayward drunk? Does he have a sign on him? If the guy broke in and sat down and said "Hello, I'm drunk and broke into your home by accident", then maybe you would give him a break and get help for him. Otherwise, enter at your own risk. With the way laws are written on this now you should not even be charged (for occerrence in your home). 100% all the time no, but that is the way it is.

So again my statements are in the context of protecting from a determined threat.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

Wglide90 wrote:
Springfield Smitty,

You are right about being present to the entire event to justify protecting others.

Please put all of my comments in the proper context. I used the word "protect", that means a threat was determined. As Always you must exercise responsibility and sensibility.

I'm not going to go into all the scenarios, but one can protect one's self from a threat in one's oun home.

When Doug said that it would be murder if a drunk that broke into a home was shot in the home. I think that is nuts for criteria, how do you know if someone that breaks in is just a wayward drunk? Does he have a sign on him? If the guy broke in and sat down and said "Hello, I'm drunk and broke into your home by accident", then maybe you would give him a break and get help for him. Otherwise, enter at your own risk. With the way laws are written on this now you should not even be charged (for occerrence in your home). 100% all the time no, but that is the way it is.

So again my statements are in the context of protecting from a determined threat.
Keep in mind these are all what ifs. Every situation is different with different prosecutors and can vary from county to county. A self defense shooting will be handle differently in Wayne county than in Clinton County. And if you are charged you are at the whim of a jury, a jury that many times is picked/approved to some degreeby the prosecution.

Shooting and/or killing someone in self-defense is the gravest EXTREME. If you can avoid doing so and live many experts say do that rather than shoot. The psychological and financial repercussions are tremendous and are often underestimated.
 
Top