Think we can get "Texas Style" Castle Doctrine?

Small Arms Collector · Nov 19, 2010

With the state legislative changes do you think maybe we could get "Texas Style" Castle Doctrine? That is to say anyone unlawfully on your property, or breaking in to your house, or car is automatically presumed to be intending to do you harm thus justifying deadly force, and also allowing deadly force to protect property?

The way I read it now, there is no duty to retreat, but if they are not actually trying to hurt you you have to stand there, and watch them rob you, is that correct?

Maybe make the law look something like this:

MCL 780.951 section 1 is amended in the following ways:

subsection 3 (b) is amended to ad at the end before the period a comma, then "or the land on which such building or other structure is located"
subsection 3 (c) is amended to ad at the end before the period a comma, then "or the land on which structure, or shelter is located"

The following subsections will be added at the end:

(4) Any person who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under subsections (1) or (5) shall be immune from all criminal or civil prosecution in any case resulting either directly or indirectly from that use of force, all liability is the responsibility of the person against whom force was used or their estate.

(5) A person may also use deadly force or force other than deadly force against a person described in subsection (1)(a) to:

(a) to prevent the others imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief; or

(b) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft from escaping with the property; and he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

(6) Subsection (5) shall not apply if the person against whom deadly force, or force other than deadly force is a person as described in subsection (2)(a)(b)(c)(d) or (e).

So the finished product would look like this (changes in red):

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).

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.

(3) As used in this section:

(a) "Domestic violence" means that term as defined in section 1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501.

(b) "Business premises" means a building or other structure used for the transaction of business, including an appurtenant structure attached to that building or other structure, or the land on which such building or other structure is located.

(c) "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, or the land on which structure, or shelter is located.

(d) "Law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force" means a regularly employed member of a police force of a Michigan Indian tribe who is appointed pursuant to former 25 CFR 12.100 to 12.103.

(e) "Michigan Indian tribe" means a federally recognized Indian tribe that has trust lands located within this state.

(f) "Peace officer" means any of the following:

(i) A regularly employed member of a law enforcement agency authorized and established pursuant to law, including common law, who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of this state. Peace officer does not include a person serving solely because he or she occupies any other office or position.

(ii) A law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force.

(iii) The sergeant at arms or any assistant sergeant at arms of either house of the legislature who is commissioned as a police officer by that respective house of the legislature as provided by the legislative sergeant at arms police powers act, 2001 PA 185, MCL 4.381 to 4.382.

(iv) A law enforcement officer of a multicounty metropolitan district.

(v) A county prosecuting attorney's investigator sworn and fully empowered by the sheriff of that county.

(vi) Until December 31, 2007, a law enforcement officer of a school district in this state that has a membership of at least 20,000 pupils and that includes in its territory a city with a population of at least 180,000 as of the most recent federal decennial census.

(vii) A fire arson investigator from a fire department within a city with a population of not less than 750,000 who is sworn and fully empowered by the city chief of police.

(viii) A security employee employed by the state pursuant to section 6c of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6c.

(ix) A motor carrier officer appointed pursuant to section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d.

(x) A police officer or public safety officer of a community college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing board of that community college, college, or university to enforce state law and the rules and ordinances of that community college, college, or university.

(g) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

(4) Any person who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under subsections (1) or (5) shall be immune from all criminal or civil prosecution in any case resulting either directly or indirectly from that use of force, all liability is the responsibility of the person against whom force was used or their estate.

(5) A person may also use deadly force or force other than deadly force against a person described in subsection (1)(a) to:

(a) to prevent the others imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief; or

(b) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft from escaping with the property; and he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

(6) Subsection (5) shall not apply if the person against whom deadly force, or force other than deadly force is a person as described in subsection (2)(a)(b)(c)(d) or (e).

malignity · Nov 19, 2010

[video=youtube;NelBNtNm8l0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelBNtNm8l0[/video]

I'd be down.

stainless1911 · Nov 19, 2010

got my vote.

I don't know about the MI.gov, too early to tell.

We gotta keep after them for stuff like this.

Bailenforcer · Nov 20, 2010

I prefer the old ways where my Land is my Kingdom and trespass at your own peril. I say we go back to the Allodial title state of being. I am sovereign and I don't give a rats rear what the state thinks. They don't control my home and lands and if they did they would need to have total responsibility for its safety and mine. Unlike most I will defend my home as if I am the King of this land and I will choose how and what I use to defend it. I don't need some law to tell me. See my signature it should explain whos laws I follow. if we had a few million more men in this country we wouldn't need to debate this like old ladies at tea time. I find it instructive that when I lived at Mack and Connors in Detroit during the worst criminal era of Detroit's history not one dared to break into my home, and everyone knew my attitude, and I made sure of it. problem today is most men are jelly fish and lack a critical component, its called a spine. I also carry in my home because even u here in the middle of no where I am responsible for my own protection and as anyone knows when stuff happens in the rural areas its usually really violent because a total lack of witnesses. There is 327 Million people in this country and imagine only 35 million growing a spine and saying enough is enough..... There isn't enough Law enforcement or jail space to do anything about it, and it will catch on like a Dirty Harry Movie. I find it interesting that most people cheer those movies where the little guy had enough and grew a spine and took action, yet wont defend themselves. Its really sad what spineless jelly fish most men have become. Our forefathers are turning in their graves, and many of them died defending our rights to defend ourselves and all I hear is excuses for not being a man, even on this site. I answer to a much higher authority that any political hack.

Small Arms Collector said:
With the state legislative changes do you think maybe we could get "Texas Style" Castle Doctrine? That is to say anyone unlawfully on your property, or breaking in to your house, or car is automatically presumed to be intending to do you harm thus justifying deadly force, and also allowing deadly force to protect property?

The way I read it now, there is no duty to retreat, but if they are not actually trying to hurt you you have to stand there, and watch them rob you, is that correct?

Maybe make the law look something like this:

MCL 780.951 section 1 is amended in the following ways:

subsection 3 (b) is amended to ad at the end before the period a comma, then "or the land on which such building or other structure is located"
subsection 3 (c) is amended to ad at the end before the period a comma, then "or the land on which structure, or shelter is located"

The following subsections will be added at the end:

(4) Any person who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under subsections (1) or (5) shall be immune from all criminal or civil prosecution in any case resulting either directly or indirectly from that use of force, all liability is the responsibility of the person against whom force was used or their estate.

(5) A person may also use deadly force or force other than deadly force against a person described in subsection (1)(a) to:

(a) to prevent the others imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft, or criminal mischief; or

(b) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft from escaping with the property; and he reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

(6) Subsection (5) shall not apply if the person against whom deadly force, or force other than deadly force is a person as described in subsection (2)(a)(b)(c)(d) or (e).

So the finished product would look like this (changes in red):

lapeer20m · Nov 20, 2010

I think the texas law is good as it protects property owners rather than criminals. The bigger question to me is whether or not it is moral or ethical to use deadly force in an effort to protect property.

CharleyMarbles · Nov 20, 2010

lapeer20m said:
I think the texas law is good as it protects property owners rather than criminals. The bigger question to me is whether or not it is moral or ethical to use deadly force in an effort to protect property.

I robed this from the post above yours Thanx Bailenforcer
Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
I think that prety much clears up the whole moral issue thanx for playing have a great Day

Bailenforcer · Nov 20, 2010

Thanks Charley yes its the only Law I respect and its a much higher Authority than any of the idiots we elect.
That is why its in my signature line.

Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.

CharleyMarbles said:
I robed this from the post above yours Thanx Bailenforcer
Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
I think that prety much clears up the whole moral issue thanx for playing have a great Day

RabbiVJ · Nov 20, 2010

Georgia has Texas style castle doctrine which is nice.

stainless1911 · Nov 20, 2010

King James Bible
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

kubel · Nov 21, 2010

Bailenforcer said:
I prefer the old ways where my Land is my Kingdom and trespass at your own peril.

If we have unrestricted castle doctrine, the king should know for sure that he didn't give permission for that person to enter his kingdom before shooting him. It's not as black and white as we would hope.

I work as a home inspector for a certain large insurance company, and there have been many incidents where the 'king' was not expecting my visit (even though he signed a paper saying we could inspect his kingdom without appointment when he got insurance for his castle, and even though he was sent notice from his agent informing him of an external inspection of his castle in the next few weeks). I normally knock on the castle door to prevent any misunderstandings, but in my line of work, many castles are vacant as the new king hasn't moved into his new castle yet. Still, the property has to be inspected.

I haven't had a gun pointed at me yet, but I have had people threaten to shoot me, and have had a number of dogs released.

If we shoot, we better know.

DrTodd · Nov 22, 2010

kubel said:
If we have unrestricted castle doctrine, the king should know for sure that he didn't give permission for that person to enter his kingdom before shooting him. It's not as black and white as we would hope.

I work as a home inspector for a certain large insurance company, and there have been many incidents where the 'king' was not expecting my visit (even though he signed a paper saying we could inspect his kingdom without appointment when he got insurance for his castle, and even though he was sent notice from his agent informing him of an external inspection of his castle in the next few weeks). I normally knock on the castle door to prevent any misunderstandings, but in my line of work, many castles are vacant as the new king hasn't moved into his new castle yet. Still, the property has to be inspected.

I haven't had a gun pointed at me yet, but I have had people threaten to shoot me, and have had a number of dogs released.

If we shoot, we better know.

+1 I Agree.
There things that one can do and say that make the use of deadly force justified; know the law and there shouldn't be any problems.

malignity · Nov 22, 2010

I'll tell you what, if it does get passed, I'd sure as hell would hate to be a repo man in this state.

Talk about the most dangerous job on the planet.

stainless1911 · Nov 22, 2010

A repo man is a legalized thief.

I would love to see this passed, then maybe I could actually keep my car at my own house. As it is now, I have to keep it in storage.

Bronson · Nov 22, 2010

stainless1911 said:
A repo man is a legalized thief.

No. The person who has defaulted on the agreement to make payments for the car is the thief. They have taken property without honoring their agreement to pay for it. The repo man is just the agent hired to return the property to its legal owner.

stainless1911 said:
I would love to see this passed, then maybe I could actually keep my car at my own house. As it is now, I have to keep it in storage.

So you pay for a storage unit to hide your car instead of just paying for your car?

Bronson

sprinklerguy28 · Nov 22, 2010

Bronson said:
So you pay for a storage unit to hide your car instead of just paying for your car?

Bronson

I don't care who you are, that's funny...!!

PDinDetroit · Nov 22, 2010

Monty Python's Holy Grail Comes to Mind...

Speaking of Kings and Oppression...

Arthur questions 2 communist peasants ( Dennis & Woman )

ARTHUR: Well, I am king!
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. And how d'you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By 'anging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress with the--
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting-- By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,-- But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
WOMAN: Well, how did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up, will you. Shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

NHCGRPR45 · Nov 22, 2010

kubel said:
If we have unrestricted castle doctrine, the king should know for sure that he didn't give permission for that person to enter his kingdom before shooting him. It's not as black and white as we would hope.

I work as a home inspector for a certain large insurance company, and there have been many incidents where the 'king' was not expecting my visit (even though he signed a paper saying we could inspect his kingdom without appointment when he got insurance for his castle, and even though he was sent notice from his agent informing him of an external inspection of his castle in the next few weeks). I normally knock on the castle door to prevent any misunderstandings, but in my line of work, many castles are vacant as the new king hasn't moved into his new castle yet. Still, the property has to be inspected.

I haven't had a gun pointed at me yet, but I have had people threaten to shoot me, and have had a number of dogs released.

If we shoot, we better know.

heres another what if? what if your wife, boy friend, kid. gave permission to have someone over didn't tell you and they were on your property?? you shoot them just for being there?? i think we have it pretty good in MI, yes some changes could/should be made but just having someone on your property is NOT enough to kill them over, stay in your house call the cops. if they set fire to your house then shoot them.

DrTodd said:
+1 I Agree.
There things that one can do and say that make the use of deadly force justified; know the law and there shouldn't be any problems.

agreed

Bronson said:
So you pay for a storage unit to hide your car instead of just paying for your car?

Bronson

agreed,, see cat at left!

PDinDetroit said:
Speaking of Kings and Oppression...

well i say use the holy handgrenade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:banana:

Bikenut · Nov 22, 2010

stainless1911 said:
A repo man is a legalized thief.

I would love to see this passed, then maybe I could actually keep my car at my own house. As it is now, I have to keep it in storage.

:shocker:

stainless1911 · Nov 22, 2010

Bronson said:
No. The person who has defaulted on the agreement to make payments for the car is the thief. They have taken property without honoring their agreement to pay for it. The repo man is just the agent hired to return the property to its legal owner.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

So you pay for a storage unit to hide your car instead of just paying for your car?

Bronson

The car was paid for on the spot.

The storage unit is to protect it from people who would steal it or vandalise it.

NHCGRPR45 · Nov 25, 2010

stainless1911 said:
The car was paid for on the spot.

The storage unit is to protect it from people who would steal it or vandalise it.

thank you for the clarification, you should have posted the long explanation stainless.

Think we can get "Texas Style" Castle Doctrine?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Banned

Regular Member