Castle Doctrine in Michigan?

Bailenforcer · Oct 21, 2010

They can try and sue, but Michigan law prevents such. Once the prosecutor calls it legally justified all bets are off.

autosurgeon said:
Actually they can still sue you BUT if the reason is for a justified Homicide then the Judge will throw it out and award you legal fees from them... now whether they pay or not is another thing entirely.

Bailenforcer · Oct 21, 2010

yes I am aware of what you are referring to, but I always have operated under the Constitution and I refuse to validate illegal laws. Thus if someone wants to test my resolve they will soon find out the Supreme Law is the one I follow. Too bad more men didn't think this way we wouldn't have all these baby sitter imposed laws that restrict our rights as we do now. Frankly they can't arrest 100 to 300 Millions of citizens if we the people refuse to obey illegal laws. No matter the race or background we all loose when illegal laws are made by criminals we elect.

Venator said:
Yes now, but a few years ago you had the duty to retreat if possible, outside your home.

So if you killed someone in self-defense in a parking lot and you could have run away you were in violation of the law.

G22 · Oct 21, 2010

Bailenforcer said:
They can try and sue, but Michigan law prevents such. Once the prosecutor calls it legally justified all bets are off.

Actually, from the lawyers I've talked to, the castle doctrine and the stand your ground legislation sets up a defense for when/if you are sued (civil). Whether the case is heard or thrown out because of being justifiable is another story. It's not immunity. You can still be sued and may have to take the time to get it thrown out.

<edit> removed info that was already posted above by Stainless1911.

stainless1911 · Oct 21, 2010

autosurgeon said:
Just BC the average person does not understand the term does not mean it should be changed.

Use a Dictionary!

I would, if I knew the word existed.

The laws should be written in a way that the average person can both read and understand them. :banghead:If the law can be applied to the uneducated, then the uneducated should be able to first understand the law.

This came up in a conversation with my state rep, and she indicated there is a push in Lansing to do exactly that.

Bronson · Oct 22, 2010

Yes, strive for mediocrity.

Dumbing everything down leads us down the path to "Idiocracy."

I almost always have Dictionary.com open in another tab so that whenever I encounter a new word I can just copy/paste it and learn something. I have no desire to see laws written in texting shorthand which is where this will all lead.

Bronson

stainless1911 · Oct 22, 2010

I dont think that the majority of people would disagree with the point that Michigan gun laws in particular, are unnecessarily complex. I think that this would be a step in the direction of simplifying them.

sprinklerguy28 · Oct 22, 2010

stainless1911 said:
I would, if I knew the word existed.

If the law can be applied to the uneducated, then the uneducated should be able to first understand the law.

The focus should then be on education of the uneducated. If we lower the standards to the lowest education level in our country we will end up with drawings in crayon.

stainless1911 · Oct 22, 2010

Or laws which could be understood by the people ruled by them.

detroit_fan · Oct 22, 2010

sprinklerguy28 said:
The focus should then be on education of the uneducated. If we lower the standards to the lowest education level in our country we will end up with drawings in crayon.

I see your point, but would you not agree that making them a little more understandable by the general public would be an improvement over what we have now?

DrTodd · Oct 22, 2010

PDinDetroit said:
One of the better parts of the MI Self-Defense Act, was the protection for Civil Actions against someone acting in Self-Defense (when it was proven as "Justified").

The recent car-jacking in Detroit, I had heard that the perp's family was possibly going to sue the victim. If it is a "justified act of self-defense", the perp's family will not be able to proceed with that action.

Small correction, and I only know this from an incident a few years ago in GR at a certain Shell station I frequent quite often, is that the prosecutor must prove that it was NOT self-defense once that "defense" to a charge is brought forward. From what I understand, this is the real teeth of the Castle Doctrine: the presumption that it is self defense if the defendant offers that in their statements to the police. This part of the law makes charges and any civil suits nearly impossible unless the shooters actions clearly show that self-defense would not stand as a reason for acting.

PDinDetroit · Oct 22, 2010

DrTodd said:
Small correction, and I only know this from an incident a few years ago in GR at a certain Shell station I frequent quite often, is that the prosecutor must prove that it was NOT self-defense once that "defense" to a charge is brought forward. From what I understand, this is the real teeth of the Castle Doctrine: the presumption that it is self defense if the defendant offers that in their statements to the police. This part of the law makes charges and any civil suits nearly impossible unless the shooters actions clearly show that self-defense would not stand as a reason for acting.

Very good to know!

Do you know of any case law to back that up? Might be useful in some other threads that are "floating about" here on OCDO and MGO...

Hint-Hint...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Than-Deadly-Force-in-Defense-of-Home-Property

DrTodd · Oct 22, 2010

PDinDetroit said:
Very good to know!

Do you know of any case law to back that up? Might be useful in some other threads that are "floating about" here on OCDO and MGO...

Hint-Hint...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Than-Deadly-Force-in-Defense-of-Home-Property

Nope, not that much. These were comments made by Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth in the GR Press... saying that his hands were tied because he had to prove that it [the shooting] wasn't self-defense... and seems to be what whoever summarized this thinks too [I think this comes from the legislative service Bureau]:

HB 5153/PA 310, sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer, puts the burden of proof on the
prosecutor to show that a person acted unlawfully in the application of force, rather than the person using the force having to prove they acted lawfully.
www.handgun-shotguntraining.com/The castle law Doctrine - easy read.pdf

The law mentions "rebuttable presumption", which I looked up and found this:
"Rebuttable presumptions in criminal law are somewhat controversial in that they do effectively reverse the presumption of innocence in some cases" on Wikipedia... so it is just an opinion out there. I wouldn't bet the possibility of it being deemed otherwise on it though but if Kent County's prosecutor does think so... I'm good with that.

Beerme · Oct 23, 2010

on a serious note, this is something you SHOULD know if you own a gun that is to be used to protect yourself.

Haman J.T. · Oct 23, 2010

stainless1911 said:
I would, if I knew the word existed.

The laws should be written in a way that the average person can both read and understand them. :banghead:If the law can be applied to the uneducated, then the uneducated should be able to first understand the law.

This came up in a conversation with my state rep, and she indicated there is a push in Lansing to do exactly that.

No laws should be written,except to repeal all gun laws.The 2A and Article 1 Sec. 6 cover it perfectly!The law already exists against murder,robbery,rape and assault.Guns are inanimate objects,as are rocks,sticks and any other inanimate object, which can be used as a tool to break a law.No gun laws, like Vermont! PERFECT!
I thought the Castle Doctrine law had the words "anywhere you had a right to be"!

sprinklerguy28 · Oct 23, 2010

hamaneggs said:
I thought the Castle Doctrine law had the words "anywhere you had a right to be"!

(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:

DrTodd · Oct 23, 2010

sprinklerguy28 said:
(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:

It does, but remember that what we refer to as "the 'Castle Doctrine' law" is composed of five different Public Acts, each providing for some aspect of the protection afforded those who defend themselves :

PA 311 provides a “rebuttable presumption” in a civil or criminal case that a person who defends himself believes that criminal attack is threatened if (1) he is in a dwelling or business, or (2) the criminal is attempting to remove someone from a dwelling, business, or vehicle. This does not apply if the alleged criminal has a legal right to be in the dwelling or business, or if the person defending himself is committing a crime, or if the person entering is a law enforcement officer in the course of his duties.
PA 310 states that a prosecutor may still charge a person who has defended himself if the prosecutor can present to the court evidence that the person did not believe he was threatened with criminal attack. This represents a substantial change from the prior law which puts the burden of proof on the person defending himself to show that he did believe he was subject to criminal attack.
PA 309 says that if a person is anywhere he has a legal right to be, he has no duty to retreat if he believe he is threatened by criminal attack. Note that this differs from the home/business situation where it is presumed that he believes he is subject to criminal attack.
PA 313 is subtle: “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.”
PA 314 states that a person who defends himself (or in defense of another individual) with deadly force or less than deadly force anywhere he has a right to be is immune from civil liability for damages.
PA 312 provides attorney fees to a defendant if a civil suit is filed and the court determines that the defendant is immune from civil liability under PA 314.

Haman J.T. · Oct 23, 2010

DrTodd said:
It does, but remember that what we refer to as "the 'Castle Doctrine' law" is composed of five different Public Acts, each providing for some aspect of the protection afforded those who defend themselves :

PA 311 provides a “rebuttable presumption” in a civil or criminal case that a person who defends himself believes that criminal attack is threatened if (1) he is in a dwelling or business, or (2) the criminal is attempting to remove someone from a dwelling, business, or vehicle. This does not apply if the alleged criminal has a legal right to be in the dwelling or business, or if the person defending himself is committing a crime, or if the person entering is a law enforcement officer in the course of his duties.

PA 310 states that a prosecutor may still charge a person who has defended himself if the prosecutor can present to the court evidence that the person did not believe he was threatened with criminal attack. This represents a substantial change from the prior law which puts the burden of proof on the person defending himself to show that he did believe he was subject to criminal attack.
PA 309 says that if a person is anywhere he has a legal right to be, he has no duty to retreat if he believe he is threatened by criminal attack. Note that this differs from the home/business situation where it is presumed that he believes he is subject to criminal attack.
PA 313 is subtle: “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.”
PA 314 states that a person who defends himself (or in defense of another individual) with deadly force or less than deadly force anywhere he has a right to be is immune from civil liability for damages.
PA 312 provides attorney fees to a defendant if a civil suit is filed and the court determines that the defendant is immune from civil liability under PA 314.

This is the very reason why I call for repeal of all gun law.This is total complication,confusion an destruction of THE"COMMON LAW",which our constitution is based on,according to Jefferson who said the constitution was written so the common man could read and understand it!
I remember when things were so much simpler! Ah Yes, THE GOOD OLE DAYS!

Castle Doctrine in Michigan?

Bailenforcer

Regular Member

Bailenforcer

Regular Member

G22

Regular Member

stainless1911

Banned

Bronson

Regular Member

stainless1911

Banned

sprinklerguy28

Regular Member

stainless1911

Banned

detroit_fan

Regular Member

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator

PDinDetroit

Regular Member

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator

Beerme

Banned

Haman J.T.

New member

sprinklerguy28

Regular Member

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator

Haman J.T.

New member