• 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.

Why you need a gun/CPL

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
.

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.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
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.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
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.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
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
 

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
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!
 

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
stainless1911 said:
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.
 

WARCHILD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,768
Location
Corunna, Michigan, USA
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
 

sprinklerguy28

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
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.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 

ElectricianLU58

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
228
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
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."
 
Top