Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Employing Deadly Force or Force Other Than Deadly Force in Defense of Home/Property?

  1. #1
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Employing Deadly Force or Force Other Than Deadly Force in Defense of Home/Property?

    I know that MI does not allow employing Deadly Force or Force Other Than Deadly Force in defense of Home/Property, but I found something interesting in the recent SCOTUS Decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (page 25-26):

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice Alito, Majority Opinion
    Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at56) (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (some internal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” of self-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (“[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon”). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 58). Heller makes it clear that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Glucksberg, supra, at 721 (internal quotation marks omitted). Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 19–20), and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 20).
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

    The decision includes the text "defense of self, family, and property" and "for protection of one’s home and family". Could this be construed to mean that you are able to act in defense of property/home and use a firearm (handgun) to do so? Could a Legal Challenge be made due to this ruling that would allow employing Deadly Force or Force Other Than Deadly Force in defense of Home/Property?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, ,
    Posts
    21
    I'm for the rights of citizens to defend personal property even with the use of deadly force. Personal property is obtained by the trading of portions of the limited time we have in this life for wages that are then used to get those items we want/need. Therefore personal property is an extension of our lives and those who would take those things from us are, if fact, taking portions of our lives from us. The difficulty in this view is what kind of limitations should be placed on the use of deadly force to protect personal property. That is the tricky part.

  3. #3
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    MI AG Office refers to this language as well:

    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag...s_302108_7.pdf

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    Wow well said!

    I have used the same argument that if it takes 35 years of my life to pay for my property and someone stealing or destroying it in effect had taken 35 years of my life from me. A death sentence of sorts.

    I should be able to protect my property I gave most of my life to obtain and keep. I must wonder why are people so eager to protect the criminal insanity that has torn this once great nation apart. Criminal destroy lives pure and simple.


    Quote Originally Posted by hud View Post
    I'm for the rights of citizens to defend personal property even with the use of deadly force. Personal property is obtained by the trading of portions of the limited time we have in this life for wages that are then used to get those items we want/need. Therefore personal property is an extension of our lives and those who would take those things from us are, if fact, taking portions of our lives from us. The difficulty in this view is what kind of limitations should be placed on the use of deadly force to protect personal property. That is the tricky part.
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 10-22-2010 at 07:55 PM. Reason: keyboard problems
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  5. #5
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by hud View Post
    I'm for the rights of citizens to defend personal property even with the use of deadly force. Personal property is obtained by the trading of portions of the limited time we have in this life for wages that are then used to get those items we want/need. Therefore personal property is an extension of our lives and those who would take those things from us are, if fact, taking portions of our lives from us. The difficulty in this view is what kind of limitations should be placed on the use of deadly force to protect personal property. That is the tricky part.
    Agreed.

    I do find it interesting as well that the SCOTUS Decision in McDonald v. City Of Chicago ruled that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is incorporated under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. I find that somewhat ironic as the Due Process Clause protects a Person's Life, Liberty, and Property.

    [QUOTE=14TH AMENDMENT, US CONSTITUTION]Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    We need to get back to all three life liberty and property.

    [QUOTE=PDinDetroit;1384772]Agreed.

    I do find it interesting as well that the SCOTUS Decision in McDonald v. City Of Chicago ruled that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is incorporated under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. I find that somewhat ironic as the Due Process Clause protects a Person's Life, Liberty, and Property.

    Quote Originally Posted by 14TH AMENDMENT, US CONSTITUTION
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •