• 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.

fbi reports crime stats an armed public is a safer public

erb

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
63
Location
Detroit
Good article! I like to send that stuff to people who don't know.

I'm happy the intruder was killed! But I'm not sure why the homeowner didn't shoot first... I dunno about you people, but anyone in my house is a clear threat. I'm not gonna wait to get shot at before I decide to neutralize the threat. Agreed:question:
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
i like the handy charts that compare gun sales increases to murder/violent crime decrease

1-1072.bmp
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Good article! I like to send that stuff to people who don't know.

I'm happy the intruder was killed! But I'm not sure why the homeowner didn't shoot first... I dunno about you people, but anyone in my house is a clear threat. I'm not gonna wait to get shot at before I decide to neutralize the threat. Agreed:question:

No... not agreed. There are many scenarios where just because a person is in my home they do not automatically present a threat. One would be a neighbor with Alzheimers confused as to where he/she is... even if they smashed a window thinking it was their own window they were smashing to get into what they think is their own home.

And there are other scenarios where shooting first before identifying who, what, and why....... would end up being a very bad thing to do.

I know... that "identifying who, what, and why," takes time and there isn't always time.... but it is us, the defender, who must... absolutely must... be damn sure there is something to defend from before doing the defending.

Smashing a window and coming inside is breaking and entering... but breaking and entering doesn't constitute an imminent threat of death of great bodily harm...

And some old fart who broke in and is looking through the cupboards because someone moved the coffee pot that used to be on the countertop 40 years ago... doesn't constitute an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm either. It's just a confused old fart who doesn't deserve to be shot because he got the wrong house.

And before deadly force can be used, even in the home, there must be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm... I left out the sexual penetration because in my scenario anyone old enough to have Alzheimers wouldn't be much of a threat for that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

erb

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
63
Location
Detroit
Good point. But I think in Detroit, breaking and entering does constitute and imminent threat! :lol:
 

kryptonian

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
245
Location
, ,
FBI stats

thought you guys would find it interesting. i actually went looking for crime stats that would show INCREASED crime to show why OC was necessary but found this instead. this works even better. stats don't lie.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
thought you guys would find it interesting. i actually went looking for crime stats that would show INCREASED crime to show why OC was necessary but found this instead. this works even better. stats don't lie.

Correct, but people who cite them frequently do misconstrue them.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
And before deadly force can be used, even in the home, there must be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm...

Sorry Bikenut but Michigan law disagrees with you.

780.951

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).

The law allows us to assume that some one who is breaking in or has already broken into our home or place of business is there to do us great bodily harm, death, or rape. There are exceptions to this that can be read at the link.

Bronson
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Sorry Bikenut but Michigan law disagrees with you.

780.951Individual 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).



The law allows us to assume that some one who is breaking in or has already broken into our home or place of business is there to do us great bodily harm, death, or rape. There are exceptions to this that can be read at the link.

Bronson

Thank you Bronson..... I stand corrected as to what the law allows the home owner/resident to presume.

However, because of the word "rebuttable" meaning the prosecution can present mitigating factors that prove the intruder wasn't a threat, I do not believe that "lawful presumption" permits a home owner/resident to just start shooting based upon the one factor of an intruder having intruded.

I personally will continue to assess first and then decide if any intruder is actually a threat before using deadly force. Because I'm fairly sure what a jury would decide for a verdict if the intruder really was an old fart with Alzheimers.....

Now I'm well aware that the odds are any intruder won't be an old fart with Alzheimers but would be a bad guy.... yet assessing for an actual threat would be wise before opening fire just because someone is in the house who doesn't belong there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top