MICHIGAN hAS NO STAND YOUR GROUND LAW reported by Fox2 Charlie Leduff

This was on fox2 last night Leduff reported Michigan has no stand your ground law.












.

I like Charlie a lot. Good stories..funny approach. But his research failed him miserably. Shame.

scot623 said:

I like Charlie a lot. Good stories..funny approach. But his research failed him miserably. Shame.

Click to expand...

Someone needs to e mail him so he can get it right some reason my e mail wont go through

I commented on the article... Should provide enough details to show that the Article Author did not perform requisite research...

Can we get a link to the article please? You should also read the fair use rules:

(11) RESPECT COPYRIGHT HOLDERS: We often share news stories with one another. Please remember that these stories are copyrighted material and only post a fair-use excerpt along with a link where the rest of the story may be read.

Click to expand...

fozzy71 said:

Can we get a link to the article please? You should also read the fair use rules:

Click to expand...

Link to Leduff story
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/new...-truth-about-violence-in-detroit?-20120424-ms

fozzy71 said:

Can we get a link to the article please? You should also read the fair use rules:

Click to expand...

There has been a Court Ruling that that changed the "Fair Use" Rules, I will have to look it up and post later.

I`m confused. It was my understanding that when the castle doctrine was put in place that we were`nt required to retreat. Am I wrong?

His research didn't fail him, his Liberal anti gun mentality failed him.

scot623 said:

I like Charlie a lot. Good stories..funny approach. But his research failed him miserably. Shame.

Click to expand...

Act 309 of 2006 provides that Michigan is a Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground state.

Some of the lawyers over on MGO have also commented that MI does not have an actual "stand your ground" law. What we have is a "right to defense law."

I believe the thinking goes something like this....

The law allows us to use deadly force to defend ourselves or others if we honestly and truly believe the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent GBH, death, or sexual assault upon ourselves or somebody else.


780.972

(1) An individual whohas 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.

Click to expand...

If you have an avenue of escape available to you, and you have the means and ability to take advantage of that avenue of escape, was the use of deadly force necessary? That will be the question the prosecutor will attempt to address and if it's found that you didn't escape when you reasonably could have escaped then there is a good chance it will be found that your use of deadly force was not necessary and therefore you are unprotected by this law.

I think the lawyer esq_stu over on MGO put it best when he said (paraphrasing) "People need to stop asking 'can I shoot in X circumstance' and start asking 'MUST I shoot...'"

Bronson

bruiser 160 said:

I`m confused. It was my understanding that when the castle doctrine was put in place that we were`nt required to retreat. Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

This is where words have meaning.MI has a "Castle Doctrine Law" that covers ones Right to Self Defense,where they have a Right to be,and eliminates having to "retreat".I'm not aware of any laws called "No Retreat Laws". I'ts the Lefts naming of something they can demonize(Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky circa- 60's). Guns-Bad,Standing Your Ground and Defending Your Life(vigilantism)-Bad!

Bronson said:

Some of the lawyers over on MGO have also commented that MI does not have an actual "stand your ground" law. What we have is a "right to defense law."

I believe the thinking goes something like this....

The law allows us to use deadly force to defend ourselves or others if we honestly and truly believe the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent GBH, death, or sexual assault upon ourselves or somebody else.


780.972



If you have an avenue of escape available to you, and you have the means and ability to take advantage of that avenue of escape, was the use of deadly force necessary? That will be the question the prosecutor will attempt to address and if it's found that you didn't escape when you reasonably could have escaped then there is a good chance it will be found that your use of deadly force was not necessary and therefore you are unprotected by this law.

I think the lawyer esq_stu over on MGO put it best when he said (paraphrasing) "People need to stop asking 'can I shoot in X circumstance' and start asking 'MUST I shoot...'"

Bronson

Click to expand...

We have a "castle doctrine", but it's a sucky watered down one with no teeth.

Basically it applies the "reasonable man" standard, which really means it leaves it wide open for Monday Morning Quarterbacking by prosecutors (Like those with a political point to make) by questioning what was "reasonable", basicly no protection at all.

Also like you said it could still be interpreted to require retreat (The old get shot in the back law.).

It also only provides an assumption of intent to harm if you are inside your house, not your car, not if attacked in public, not even on your own property, or out buildings, only your house, and that provision is weak.

Civil immunity is also weak, and completely eliminated if the prosecutor tries to file charges anyway (as mentioned above).

We have a castle doctrine, but only in theory as it had to be watered down to the point of being basically meaningless in order to get it to pass a then liberal legislature. We need to amend it to remove the "reasonable man" standard, and replace it with a clear assumption of hostile intent like the Texas Castle Doctrine so there is no more Monday Morning Quarterbacking, someone breaks in to your house, or is trespassing after dark, or attempts to car jack you, or mug you they mean you harm PERIOD. We also need to amend the civil liability protection to apply irregardless of whether your charged, and allow civil action only if you are convicted. It also needs to be amended to require full , and immediate injunctive relief to anyone who is charged (wrongly, I.E. a politically motivated prosecution), but not convicted totally reimbursing their legal costs, mental anguish, pain, and suffering, lost income, and hefty punitive damages (to the order of 7 figures+), as well as make it a felony to knowingly make a bad arrest, or pursue a prosecution of someone who clearly did not violate the law. This should discourage political arrests, and prosecutions.

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:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5m...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

So provided you are somewhere you could legally be and werent in the commission of a crime, you would not have to make an attempt to retreat, by what this statute says, even if you had the means to.

Granted if someone is 60' away and you can get away this probably wont hold much water in your defense, but if youre being assaulted you dont have to try to run or get to your car to get away if you are affraid you might die or be seriously injured.

By this it would seem to make monday morning quarterbacking by prosecutors almost impossible because they cant say "well why didnt you try...XYZ" because nothing in this law says you are required to. If you feel you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm you can stop that threat on the spot with deadly force, as stated in the above MCL.

Yance said:

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:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5m...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

So provided you are somewhere you could legally be and werent in the commission of a crime, you would not have to make an attempt to retreat, by what this statute says, even if you had the means to.

Granted if someone is 60' away and you can get away this probably wont hold much water in your defense, but if youre being assaulted you dont have to try to run or get to your car to get away if you are affraid you might die or be seriously injured.

By this it would seem to make monday morning quarterbacking by prosecutors almost impossible because they cant say "well why didnt you try...XYZ" because nothing in this law says you are required to. If you feel you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm you can stop that threat on the spot with deadly force, as stated in the above MCL.

Click to expand...

The issue is not the prosecutor's ability to make it stick, or not, it's the ability of the prosecutor to ruin your life regardless of their ability to actually get a conviction. Currently the law still uses the "reasonable man" standard which leaves you wide open to a politically motivated prosecutor Monday Morning Qaurterbacking your shoot as he questioned if it was "reasonable" for you to fear for your life/great bodily harm/sexual assault when you fired.

The prosecutor may loose, but meanwhile you are out probably $15,000-$25,000 minimum to defend yourself, you've been wrongfully arrested, and imprisoned (pending/during trial depending on whether or not you were able to come up with bail, and if you didn't that could mean 2+ years in prison even though you committed no crime), you've lost your job, possibly alienated, and bankrupted your family, If you were married your spouse may have got tired of the waiting/drama/expense, and left you, and took your kids, you may have been assaulted, or raped in prison, and for the rest of your life that arrest is going to be on your record, and after all that because you were prosecuted (even though the prosecution was bogus, and you were not convicted) you get to face a nice civil suit from the criminal you shot, or the criminals family, all this WITHOUT A CONVICTION. The prosecutor knows this, and will try to use it to pressure you in to taking a plea, even though you did nothing wrong, and regardless of whether you plea, or not the prosecutor suffers no consequences whatsoever, and may even have some smug satisfaction at having ruined your life.

Do you see the problem?

Small_Arms_Collector- why do you say "It also only provides an assumption of intent to harm if you are inside your house, not your car, not if attacked in public, not even on your own property, or out buildings, only your house, and that provision is weak."

the law as written says "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..."

You have a legal right to be in your car, in public and in other buildings, so does that not cover those areas?

detroit_fan said:

Small_Arms_Collector- why do you say "It also only provides an assumption of intent to harm if you are inside your house, not your car, not if attacked in public, not even on your own property, or out buildings, only your house, and that provision is weak."

the law as written says "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..."

You have a legal right to be in your car, in public and in other buildings, so does that not cover those areas?

Click to expand...

The whole issue is really in the definition of the terms we use.
Imho, the reporter is correct, nowhere in Michigan's laws does it mention the words "Stand Your Ground". Now, whatever you choose to call it is your business, but like I said, the words "Stand your ground" is nowhere in the law.

Previous responses are correct in that there is no duty to retreat in certain circumstances... and this is clearly stated in the law. However, although the legislation does not say that you must retreat if you are able, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that if there was a possibility that you could have retreated, then a jury CAN take that fact into consideration when deciding if the individual honestly and reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

This case explains their reasoning pretty well:

People v Richardson (2011)
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/10-11-Term-Opinions/141752.pdf

Here is a lawyer's blog post about the case and Michigan's self-defense law in general:
http://michiganlawyerblog.wordpress...-retreat-instruction-in-castle-doctrine-case/

Agree or disagree, this is the law as it currently stands in Michigan.

Thanks for the explanation DrTodd

Yance said:

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:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5m...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-972

So provided you are somewhere you could legally be and werent in the commission of a crime, you would not have to make an attempt to retreat, by what this statute says, even if you had the means to.

Granted if someone is 60' away and you can get away this probably wont hold much water in your defense, but if youre being assaulted you dont have to try to run or get to your car to get away if you are affraid you might die or be seriously injured.

By this it would seem to make monday morning quarterbacking by prosecutors almost impossible because they cant say "well why didnt you try...XYZ" because nothing in this law says you are required to. If you feel you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm you can stop that threat on the spot with deadly force, as stated in the above MCL.

Click to expand...

You didn't include the qualifying circumstances. The law reads, in a nutshell, that you have no duty to retreat before applying deadly force if you believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent blah blah blah. Necessity is one of the qualifiers for having no duty to retreat. So if escape was available and you chose to not avail yourself of it, then there was no necessity.

I'm not saying I agree with it but that's how the prosecutor is going to play it.

Bronson

I cant stand this lib B.S.
why does this reporter stand like he has to take a dump? because he is full of Shh