• 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.

MI: Castle Doctrine vs. Stand Your Ground

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
imported post

I've heard on this forum that MI has a stand your ground law. I just dealt with police for a fight (I'm at work as a security guard) and they said that MI has the castle doctrine. They went on to say that you have to retreat from an attack unless you are in your home because of the castle doctrine.

One of the cops got real rude when I said that I thought we had stand your ground here and is he sure he's correct. It seemed like he didn't like a lowly security guard questioning his knowledge.

Can someone please tell me which is correct? I have a feeling that the police are going to be back out tonight for another fight (this guy threatened to kick the other guy's ass when the cops left) and I would like to have something to show them if in fact MI is stand your ground and not castle doctrine.
 

NicF

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
15
Location
Wayne, Michigan, USA
imported post

i am not 100% sure but i believe that i read that the castle doctrine does exsist in MI and it states that it gives you the right to defend yourself outside of your home...rather than have to make an attempt to retreat which was the case before the castle doctrine was passed!!! Like i said, i am not 100% sure but i believe that is what i read somewhere online
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

I don't have a statute handy, so I cannot help there.

But, I may be able to contribute in another way.

It is a mistake to try to "show" a police officer anything. It is almost always a waste of time once you get the first negative reply.

Better to forward a report to his commander. Carbon-copy to the magistrate. And, depending on the need for good relations, I wouldn't be shy about including the officer's rudeness in the report.

Of course, if it turns out MI has no such protections, then there is nothing to discuss with them, unless you want to ding the rude cop over his rudeness.
 

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
imported post

NicF wrote:
i am not 100% sure but i believe that i read that the castle doctrine does exsist in MI and it states that it gives you the right to defend yourself outside of your home...rather than have to make an attempt to retreat which was the case before the castle doctrine was passed!!! Like i said, i am not 100% sure but i believe that is what i read somewhere online

Thanks for the info and welcome to the forum!

Citizen wrote:
I don't have a statute handy, so I cannot help there.

But, I may be able to contribute in another way.

It is a mistake to try to "show" a police officer anything.  It is almost always a waste of time once you get the first negative reply.

Better to forward a report to his commander.  Carbon-copy to the magistrate.  And, depending on the need for good relations, I wouldn't be shy about including the officer's rudeness in the report.

Of course, if it turns out MI has no such protections, then there is nothing to discuss with them, unless you want to ding the rude cop over his rudeness.

I'm not worried about his attitude. Good advice about not trying to teach an officer anything. From what I've read here, they usually don't listen. Thanks!
 

Billy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Merritt, Missaukee County, Michigan, USA
imported post

EM87 ~

Howdy.

I spoke to Trooper Chris Hawkins (MSP, Executive Division) about the very same matter you've brought up regarding the Castle Doctrine, and asked him to correct me if the following was wrong or outdated: I read aloud the following to Trooper Hawkins,

"As of October 1st, 2006, there is no longer 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."

Trooper Hawkins stated that was correct and still in effect. Note: this conversation took place in late May of '09. I've not heard of any changes since then.

Take care, sir.

Respectfully,
Billy

"O God the Lord, the strength of my salvation, Thou hast covered my head in the day of battle." -Psalm 140:7 [AV]

 

Bronson

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

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.

Here's a link where you can do key word searches on all MCLs http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(umbnjj45uzvvmt45lmt14p45))/mileg.aspx?page=home I just typed in "duty to retreat" and the above was one of three hits.

Bronson
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Bronson wrote:
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.

Here's a link where you can do key word searches on all MCLs http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(umbnjj45uzvvmt45lmt14p45))/mileg.aspx?page=home I just typed in "duty to retreat" and the above was one of three hits.

Bronson
Excellent source - good cites like this are far, far better than a LEO's opinion.

Yata hey
 

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
imported post

Sorry to revive this old thread, but I remembered something the LEO said to me when we were talking. He said that in Kalamazoo there is a duty to retreat from a violent attack. Something or other about local statutes...? Do Michigan's no duty to retreat and castle doctrine laws preempt that ordinance if it's really on the books?
 
Top