Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 78

Thread: Why you need a gun/CPL

  1. #1
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    Why you need a gun/CPL

    .
    Last edited by TheQ; 07-31-2011 at 12:25 PM.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  2. #2
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    [QUOTE=TheQ;1584319].

    I've seen this video before. My CPL instructor started out the class by showing us a different video of a gang member who spent about 3 minutes talking about if he runs into a cop he'll just shoot them and nobody can tell him what to do and blah blah blah but it's def one of those things you watch and makes you want to carry.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    You need a gun to protect yourself from the criminals outside the law.
    You need a CPL to protect yourself from the criminals inside the law.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Why didnt they just run his dumbass over?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    You need a gun to protect yourself from the criminals outside the law.
    You need a CPL to protect yourself from the criminals inside the law.
    Personally, I'd rather go up against the private-sector criminals...at least you can shoot back.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Me too.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    This is a good example of why we should be able to protect property with deadly force.

    I would have been in fear of great bodily harm or possibly death. Its obvious that the car was blocked in, and the attacker was trying to go through the windows.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    This is a good example of why we should be able to protect property with deadly force.

    I would have been in fear of great bodily harm or possibly death. Its obvious that the car was blocked in, and the attacker was trying to go through the windows.
    Property represents the amount of time of my life that I had to work to earn enough to acquire the item. Someone who attempts to steal a portion of my life should not be surprised when I seek to end his.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Yep.

    Who here would guarantee me, or a jury, that the man in the video would stop at damaging the vehicle, and not, in the next step, injure or kill one of the occupants?

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Yep.

    Who here would guarantee me, or a jury, that the man in the video would stop at damaging the vehicle, and not, in the next step, injure or kill one of the occupants?
    I agree. If this had happened to me I would have felt justified using deadly force. It wouldn't be protecting my property. I could care less about the car. It would have been me defending my life against the guy with the crowbar.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  11. #11
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    I agree with you guys. Put 15+1 in him, he probably won't be gang bangin, stealin, dealin or whatever the hell he was talking about in the beginning of the video.

    "I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders." Ted Nugent
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  12. #12
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Exclamation

    Studies have shown that felons fear armed citizens more than LEO's. Obviously because LEO's have to try to arrest them(rules of engagement),where citizens who are under threat of death or great bodily harm must end the threat,which they do 2 - 2.5 million times a year! OCers do deter!As it should be!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  13. #13
    Regular Member HKcarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    831
    I'm really surprized if that video is real... but yeah, I would have plugged the guy. I've been hit with a tire iron like that before. It doesn't feel nice and if it got you in the head, could def. do some real and permanent damage. I would have tried to leave, but when I was blocked in, I would have had to defend myself.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    ^ what he said.

    Try to leave, even though you arent obligated to, but if you can't, make him leave instead. How he departs, is up to him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911
    This is a good example of why we should be able to protect property with deadly force.
    Only in Texas...
    However, the driver (or anyone walking by) could have shot the thug in pretty much any jurisdiction that doesn't prohibit self-defense against the threat of death or great bodily harm.
    Swinging a crowbar at someone is using deadly force.

    In UT, the threat of serious bodily harm is also justification ofr use of lethal force, & when that crowbar hit the driver's window, the glass could have blinded her (or at least injured her eyes).
    Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
    No more thug, no more threat.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Same here in Michigan. Fear of death, great bodily harm, or sexual penetration will authorize deadly force.

  17. #17
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Same here in Michigan. Fear of death, great bodily harm, or sexual penetration will authorize deadly force.
    You are correct; but as a group we need to start citing all of the requirements for deadly force.
    There are the three sub requirements that must be met for the use of deadly force.

    1) Fear of Death.
    2) Fear of Serious Bodily Injury.
    3) Fear of Forcible Sexual Penetration.
    In addition to these three reasons for the use of deadly force, the following three conditions must exist in order for the use of deadly force to be justifiable:
    1. Imminent - One of the three above listed reasons for the use of deadly force must be about to happen; it cannot be something that will happen tomorrow or in a few weeks.
    2. Intent - The attacker has to have demonstrated some sort of intent. This can be verbal or non-verbal. The display of a weapon, verbal threats, or aggressive advances after being told to stay away are all indications of intent.
    3. Ability The attacker has to have the ability to carry through with their intended attack.
    If someone says they are going to shoot you, but have no firearm, then they do not have the ability
    to shoot you at that moment.

    This is not in reference to the video; just something I noticed about the cites in the thread.

    JMO

  18. #18
    Regular Member sprinklerguy28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    666
    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.

  19. #19
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by WARCHILD View Post
    You are correct; but as a group we need to start citing all of the requirements for deadly force.
    There are the three sub requirements that must be met for the use of deadly force.

    1) Fear of Death.
    2) Fear of Serious Bodily Injury.
    3) Fear of Forcible Sexual Penetration.
    In addition to these three reasons for the use of deadly force, the following three conditions must exist in order for the use of deadly force to be justifiable:
    1. Imminent - One of the three above listed reasons for the use of deadly force must be about to happen; it cannot be something that will happen tomorrow or in a few weeks.
    2. Intent - The attacker has to have demonstrated some sort of intent. This can be verbal or non-verbal. The display of a weapon, verbal threats, or aggressive advances after being told to stay away are all indications of intent.
    3. Ability – The attacker has to have the ability to carry through with their intended attack.
    If someone says they are going to shoot you, but have no firearm, then they do not have the ability
    to shoot you at that moment.

    This is not in reference to the video; just something I noticed about the cites in the thread.

    JMO
    Excellent posts, gentlemen. My observation is that in Kent County, if you assert your right to self-defense and there is any possibility that it may be true, the county prosecutor won't press charges and you will he on your way. What is also noteworthy is that Michigan, unlike many other states, also prohibits civil suits stemming from the incident. Although the protection of property is notably absent, my humble opinion is that Michigan's self-defense law is pretty well written.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    228
    texas seems to have the best laws pertaining to property.

    Deadly Force to Protect Property

    "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

    "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

    Protection of the Property of Others

    "A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

    "Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I wish we had that here. Minus the night time part. My house was once broken into in broad daylight, one of the items taken was a Remmington 700.

  22. #22
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Self defense is an affirmative defense. This means in order to use it you have to admit to the underlying killing/battery. If your defense falls apart, you're hosed. Just something to keep in mind.

    You can still be sued civilly, just you should be able to have the case bounced fairly easily by the judge.

    IANAL!
    Last edited by TheQ; 08-01-2011 at 12:29 PM.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  23. #23
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricianLU58 View Post
    texas seems to have the best laws pertaining to property.

    Deadly Force to Protect Property

    "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

    "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

    Protection of the Property of Others

    "A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

    "Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."
    Why just nighttime?
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Why just nighttime?
    politics. Probably so that they could get it passed.

  25. #25
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I wish we had that here. Minus the night time part. My house was once broken into in broad daylight, one of the items taken was a Remmington 700.
    And I think under Michigan law, or in/on a vehicle, or if you were home or came home during the robbery, it is assumed that he was there to do bodily harm and you could have shot him. If you weren't there, it would be tough to shoot him even if Michigan did make a provision for property. I also believe it is still possible for the family of the person killed in Texas to bring a civil suit against the shooter, but I could be wrong. I think I'll pass and keep the law here just as it is written.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...06-PA-0311.htm
    Last edited by DrTodd; 08-01-2011 at 10:12 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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