Stand Your Ground (State Law) vs. Duty to Retreat (City Ordinance)

imported post

Many months ago I was working armed security and had the cops called out to the work site because of a fight. One of them mentioned that in Kalamazoo you have a duty to retreat from a violent attack. I questioned his statement because I thought state law trumps city ordinances. He was being at asshat (acting like he knew everything and I was completely wrong about anything I said) so I discontinued the conversation.

For some reason I just remembered this and wanted to ask everyone here:

If a city has a duty to retreat ordinance, does that trump state law? (example: local knife laws)

Or does Michigan's Stand Your Ground law trump a city ordinance?

I have my own idea on what the answer is, but I want something to back it up with.

imported post

Michigan Public Safety Directive ACT 319 of 1990 MCL 123.1102 says:

Sec. 2 ALocal Unit of Government shall not impose Special Taxation on, Enact or Enforce any Ordinance or Regulation pertaining to, or Regulate in any other manner the Ownership, Registration, Purchase, Sale, Transfer, Transportation, or Possession of Pistols or other Firearms, Ammunition for Pistols or other Firearms, or Components of Pistols or other Firearms, except as otherwise provided by Federal Law or a Law of this State.

History: ACT of 1990, 319, Eff. mar. 28, 1991.

Michgian Self-Defense Act, of ACT 309 of 2006 MCL 780.972 says:

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: ACT of 2006, 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006.

Although I am not an Attorney..., it is within my Personnal Opinion that ACT 319 of 1990 and ACT 309 of 2006 work together, in tandem, to preclude any Local Ordinance contrary to Michigan State Law on the aforementioned matter.

The Michigan Public Safety ACTS aforementioned, when weighted against any Local Ordinance,seem to Preempt any such Local Ordinance.

imported post

aadvark wrote:

Michigan Public Safety Directive ACT 319 of 1990 MCL 123.1102 says:

Sec. 2 A Local Unit of Government shall not impose Special Taxation on, Enact or Enforce any Ordinance or Regulation pertaining to, or Regulate in any other manner the Ownership, Registration, Purchase, Sale, Transfer, Transportation, or Possession of Pistols or other Firearms, Ammunition for Pistols or other Firearms, or Components of Pistols or other Firearms, except as otherwise provided by Federal Law or a Law of this State.

History: ACT of 1990, 319, Eff. mar. 28, 1991.

Click to expand...

This references only the preemption of local ordinances regarding firearms... it has nothing to do with use of deadly force or the duty to retreat. The following do...

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (EXCERPT)
Act 175 of 1927

768.21c Use of deadly force by individual in own dwelling; "dwelling" defined.Sec. 21c.
(1) In cases in which section 2 of the self-defense act does not apply, the common law of this state applies except that the duty to retreat before using deadly force is not required if an individual is in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling.
(2) As used in this section, "dwelling" means a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that structure or shelter.


SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 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.


SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006

780.973 Duty to retreat; effect of act on common law.Sec. 3.
Except as provided in section 2, this act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006 regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force other than deadly force.


Please note that none of those reference firearms in any way therefore 123.1102 does not apply.

Perhaps there is a bit of confusion with assuming a firearm and deadly force are the same thing. They are not.

Edited to add:
I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor do I expect to become... an attorney at law.

Again edited to add:
I am unaware of any state "preemption" law concerning local ordinances in respect to "deadly force" ordinances and the duty to retreat.

Does any municipality have ordinances that are more restrictive than state law concerning deadly force/duty to retreat? Please provide a cite.

imported post

Well Mister Kalamazoo officer, I tried to retreat but he was on me like white on rice. You can ask him but wait... he can't answer you now can he?

imported post

aadvark also wrote about the Michigan Self-Defense Act

***I bolded it..., because; otherwise, others may not see it...***

***Revert back to my original Article in this thread!***

imported post

I looked at Kalamazoo's code on line and could not find anything at all concerning this; do you have a link or a copy of the ordinance before we get too far into the discussion? Not doubting that Kalamazoo has this, just hard to comment without it in front of me.

imported post

so the duty to retreat is only waived if a firearm is used and the force is deadly?

imported post

kyleplusitunes wrote:

so the duty to retreat is only waived if a firearm is used and the force is deadly?

Click to expand...

Unless you are being sarcastic... which would be pretty good one...

No. The use of deadly force is justified when the criteria mentioned in the law governing deadly force is met... and there is no duty to retreat as long as the criteria in the law governing the lack of any duty to retreat is met.

Firearms, or the lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with the deadly force or the duty to retreat laws.

Deadly force is deadly force regardless of the tool, or lack thereof, used as deadly force. The duty to retreat, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with any tools available.. or unavailable.

And the firearms preemption law only covers firearms ordinances.... nothing else.

Or I flunked reading comprehension 101 more than twice!

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

kyleplusitunes wrote:

so the duty to retreat is only waived if a firearm is used and the force is deadly?

Click to expand...

Unless you are being sarcastic... which would be pretty good one...

No. The use of deadly force is justified when the criteria mentioned in the law governing deadly force is met... and there is no duty to retreat as long as the criteria in the law governing the lack of any duty to retreat is met.

Firearms, or the lack thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with the deadly force or the duty to retreat laws.

Deadly force is deadly force regardless of the tool, or lack thereof, used as deadly force. The duty to retreat, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with any tools available.. or unavailable.

And the firearms preemption law only covers firearms ordinances.... nothing else.

Or I flunked reading comprehension 101 more than twice!

Click to expand...

Maybe! If you went to the Evelyn-Woodhead Sped-Ridin Course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Woodhead_Speed_Reading_Course

imported post

Original question concerned a Kalamazoo ordinance... has anyone seen a copy of it? Although I enjoy a discussion regarding Michigan law; I'm about ready to call the original issue "non-existent".