# Michigan bills would allow residents to fatally shoot intruders



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

When I was 16 my friends married older brother drove a F-?50 4 whell drive with 38 in monster mudder tires. The truck was stolen from the appartment parking lot 2 times. The third time the owner saw the guy trying to get inside. He grabbed his 308 and told the wife to call the police. She was on the phone with the STATE POLICE and told the desk sarget what was going on and said her husband has his rifle out. The Sargent told her to tell him to shoot, He did as the truck started to move. The truck theif was from Ohio. traveled to north of teh Michigan border and was shot 4 out of 5 time. The truck idled across a corn field and was stopped by a tree.

The Owner went to trial for ??? Manslaughter.( I forget the exact term).
Whenthe desk Sargent took the stand the Judge cleared the courtroom, asked the Sargent if he indeed told the wife to shoot and he replied yes. The judge dismissed the case. It still cost the owner much for lawyer and fees. After my buddie turned 18 his brother gave him the truck and we had a ball with it. Even though the bondo was popping out from the bullet holes. OH an dnobody ever did try to steal the truck or from the appartment complex for years. Guess the word got out.

I also have a Uncle who was sleeping in his cabin in the UP. He was woke up by some noise and confronted a man who just climbed in the window. He fired with his pistol, man fled, blood found, no-one ever found with a bullet wound and no charges pressed. 

I also know two cops who while off duty used their guns to protect themselves. The were only able to do so at the tijme because they were cops. Citizens had a very had time getting CCWs then. Had the not been cops and carring both may be dead. Mugging and car theft!

Skinner 2


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Walk in my house uninvited and I will not be asking you if you are packing or not. I will be kicking you to see if you are dead though.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

crobar, i didnt live in an urban area. i did at one time, but when i worked in an urban area, i was very crime and criminals on a day to day basis. for 27 years. far more than citizens or newspaper reporters.<G>. 

laws dont protect people, the enforcement of laws protect people. we have more than enough laws. numerous drunk driving laws have been passed in the last 10 yrs or so. but except for the day of their arrest, drunk drivers seldom spend a day of jail time. but another law gives the public the impression that their legislators are "tough on crime" and are "making the streets safer". the main reason for their introduction is to garner support for a legislators reelection.

noone can cite an actual case where a person was prosecuted for shooting and armed intruder into his own home. because there are no such cases. nor will this proposed law protect a citizen who shoots an unarmed suspect in protection of his property. even law enforcement officers may use deadly force when their life or anothers life is in imminent danger. and in those situations, legnthy and extensive investigations follow along with review by the prosecuting attorney. it is not a pleasant process by any means.

if this bill passes, it will just be another law on the books, nothing more.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

dogwhistle said:


> crobar, i didnt live in an urban area. i did at one time, but when i worked in an urban area, i was very crime and criminals on a day to day basis. for 27 years. far more than citizens or newspaper reporters.<G>.
> 
> laws dont protect people, the enforcement of laws protect people. we have more than enough laws. numerous drunk driving laws have been passed in the last 10 yrs or so. but except for the day of their arrest, drunk drivers seldom spend a day of jail time. but another law gives the public the impression that their legislators are "tough on crime" and are "making the streets safer". the main reason for their introduction is to garner support for a legislators reelection.
> 
> ...


 

First off, thank you for your service Sir. 

As for this law unless I'm mistaken the spirit of this law is to clarify the use of deadly force. As you stated above, and I did not look it up but am taking your word for it, No one has been prosecuted for self defense in their home. Well, this has been at the discretion of the prosecutor. This law, as with most of the recent personel protection laws, are aimed (please excuse that) at taking that discretion out of the equation. It could give some peace of mind to a citizen as they go through the process you describe after the shot. 

Gun owners rights, must be shored up, ahead of the storm we all know is coming.


----------



## alex-v (Mar 24, 2005)

If the prosecutor decides that it was a justifiable shooting then it is still a good possibility that the homeowner *could be sued in civil court.* The civil courts will be deciding if the homeowner owes money to the family of the person who broke in. This legistlation will also help prevent the homeowner from frivolous lawsuits by people looking for quick money.


----------



## steelhead1 (Jan 2, 2005)

If you don't want to die you won't be coming through the window or door in the middle of the night. As for if the person is armed. If your bumping around in my house you SHOULD have armed youself, because I am.


----------



## shotgun12 (Jul 19, 2005)

i wish we had that law over here if someone came into your house to rob you we cant do anything or they will take us to court for hurting them.we will not beable to use our guns on them or we will lose them.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

Mickey Finn, that was a reasonable reply, and thank you by the way. but i think if you put some thought into, come up with various scenarios, you will find that the law is pretty hollow.

i'll give you just one off the top of my head. a guy lives in a new subdivision where the houses are similiar. he has had a few too many after work, comes home and finds his key doesnt seem to work. so he pushes in the screen and crawls through the window and is shot to death by the homeowner. wrong house. oops. prosecution would be quite likely in that case- possibly for manslaughter.

there are many other cases and situations and each will be weighed according to their own merits. this is some additional information. i know one of the sponsers of this bill very well. his primary intent on being elected was to change the property tax law for mobile homes in parks. a good goal as they impact school systems very heavily. he found that the mobile home lobby was the largest lobby in the state. so he accepted a campain contribution from them and is now proposing this and more drunk driving legislation.<G>

it's ironic that we live in a nation that we consider the most free in the world but that has the highest crime rate(i believe) of any civilized nation.

i have no objection to individuals possessing firearms nor do i object to them defending their life or the lives of their families in those rare instances when it is necessary. but in many ways, our society is failing and the reasons are complex. look at what recently happened in Louisiana. i think many people just evacuated peacefully but after that everything just seemed to fall apart.

the gentlelman that lived in Flint and talked about all the burglaries etc wasnt exaggerting. but it isnt all due to economic reasons. and our other major cities are almost as bad and even the small towns are much worse than 30 yrs ago. progress is not being made. are we to deteriorate into a vigilante society with everyone packing a gun as in one of the post apocolyptic movies?


----------



## Sawcat (Apr 5, 2003)

dogwhistle said:


> the legislation, contrary to popular belief, does not provide you with any protection from prosecution that you do not already enjoy. if you fatally shoot an armed intruder in your home, you will not be charged with a crime under present law. if you shoot an unarmed intruder in your home under the proposed law, it is likely that you will be unless there are extenuating circumstances.
> 
> you read about such situations, armed intruders, in the newspapers. but they are virtually always situations involving drugs.
> 
> ...


Hey Dogwhistle you are full of it bud. I have a good friend of mine who woke up at 3:30 am one morning to sounds coming from downstairs. He grabbed his pistol and went to investigate. At the top of the stairs he yelled that he was armed and in fear of his life and for whoever was in his house to leave immediately. All went dead quiet, he told his wife to call 911, he then announced that he was coming down and whoever was there had better leave.
He checked out two rooms and then as he entered his living room he saw a man crouched behind his entertaiment system, he flicked on the lights and the guy lunges out with a .25 nickle automatic. All Bob saw was a flash in his hand and shot the guy twice in the chest. Bob was in shock and in a few minutes the police grilling him with questions, Bob said he thought the man had a gun, and the police did indeed find the .25 under the "victom". To make a long story short the prosecuter did press charges, he said Bob did not retreat and in fact was aggressive in his response to the threat. Bob was found not guilty but he no longer owns his home because he had to sell it to pay for his legal defence. This man lost his home because he tried to defend it.


----------



## sporty (Jun 24, 2004)

Sawcat,

Wow that sounds like Detroit is this where it happen, let me further surmise the perp was black and the home owner white. Let's further add the home owner's weapon was registered and the perp's was stolen. Let me add then the owner is cleared of charges, the perp's family sue's a wronful death saying the bastard who molested his children, beat his wife, never worked, drugs, was the bestr guy in the world. Now the insurance pays off without going to court and everyone is happy again. I'm confused isn't this what America is all about


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Sawcat said:


> Hey Dogwhistle you are full of it bud. I have a good friend of mine who woke up at 3:30 am one morning to sounds coming from downstairs. He grabbed his pistol and went to investigate. At the top of the stairs he yelled that he was armed and in fear of his life and for whoever was in his house to leave immediately. All went dead quiet, he told his wife to call 911, he then announced that he was coming down and whoever was there had better leave.
> He checked out two rooms and then as he entered his living room he saw a man crouched behind his entertaiment system, he flicked on the lights and the guy lunges out with a .25 nickle automatic. All Bob saw was a flash in his hand and shot the guy twice in the chest. Bob was in shock and in a few minutes the police grilling him with questions, Bob said he thought the man had a gun, and the police did indeed find the .25 under the "victom". To make a long story short the prosecuter did press charges, he said Bob did not retreat and in fact was aggressive in his response to the threat. Bob was found not guilty but he no longer owns his home because he had to sell it to pay for his legal defence. This man lost his home because he tried to defend it.


That must be the "hollow law" that Dogwhistle is talking about....


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

dogwhistle said:


> there are many other cases and situations and each will be weighed according to their own merits. this is some additional information.


It seems that under the new law this discretion you are referring too would be removed.



dogwhistle said:


> i know one of the sponsers of this bill very well. his primary intent on being elected was to change the property tax law for mobile homes in parks. a good goal as they impact school systems very heavily. he found that the mobile home lobby was the largest lobby in the state. so he accepted a campain contribution from them and is now proposing this and more drunk driving legislation.


Whats your point? I don't see how this is relevant to your position.



dogwhistle said:


> it's ironic that we live in a nation that we consider the most free in the world but that has the highest crime rate(i believe) of any civilized nation.


Well first off I guess that would depend on your definition of "civilized". Also, what is your solution, to further restrict freedom in this Country?



dogwhistle said:


> i have no objection to individuals possessing firearms nor do i object to them defending their life or the lives of their families in those rare instances when it is necessary. but in many ways, our society is failing and the reasons are complex. look at what recently happened in Louisiana. i think many people just evacuated peacefully but after that everything just seemed to fall apart.


Many of us believe that society has been consistently rotting since the progressive leaders instituted the welfare state beginning in the 1930's; effectively removing personal responsibilty and encouraging reliance on the State. Lousiana a perfect example of why these types of laws are needed. The Police have no obligation to protect individuals and they cannot protect all individuals even though they act as if they can. 



dogwhistle said:


> the gentlelman that lived in Flint and talked about all the burglaries etc wasnt exaggerting. but it isnt all due to economic reasons. and our other major cities are almost as bad and even the small towns are much worse than 30 yrs ago. progress is not being made. are we to deteriorate into a vigilante society with everyone packing a gun as in one of the post apocolyptic movies?


Was America a vigilante society when she had no gun laws? An armed populace does not turn into a vigilante society. No. This is a myth propogated by lefties with the aid of the Liberal media.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i enjoy the stories "this happened to my friend". there is quite often more to the story than is told to make an example.

i have a fair amount of experience, 27 yrs in Mich in an urban/suburban area and 5 in a southern state in a densely populated urban area. i've been a patrolman, detective, field sgt and lt. and i've worked closely with the prosecutors office on a large number of cases including shooting and homicides. i'm quite confident that any such situation as described by the proposed law will be handled exactly the same whether this bill is signed into law or not. a full police investigation including forensics and review by the prosecuting attorney. and if there is sufficient probable cause to believe the homeowner caused a wrongful death, he will be charged accordingly.

that's all i have been trying to express to you gentlemen and is being put forth to garner favor and votes from a portion of the public. we could argue it for a 1000 messages to no end. if you are ever in the situation, you will find that reality and message boards are two different things entirely.


----------



## kitchue (Sep 25, 2001)

Too kill someone over a microwave oven because he broke in and cause I gotta gun. Or to kill someone cause they threatened to rape your kid - NOW I gotta gun.

Situations and urban legends are one thing and everybodys got a friend thats been in one. But dam it, if my family is in danger its one thing. But I will not kill someone over a VCR. Call the police and detain the perp.

Life-threatening situations do not include someone trying to take my craftsman tools. Those are replaceable. A life whether or not its a crackhead is a life and not something not to take lightly.

Why is it there are only a hand full of people who understand the current laws. Retreating into your own home is to protect yourself, family and to protect the perp from a trigger happy owner to LOVES his vcr so much he'll kill for it. 

This needs to move to the law section. Very little to do with target shooting and reloading.

sean


----------



## One Eye (Sep 10, 2000)

Only in 21st century America do we now require a law allowing me to "protect" my life, my family, and my property. Much bigger issues here than this waste of legislative resources. When did we stop being citizens and become subjects again???

Dan


----------



## One Eye (Sep 10, 2000)

Northbound said:


> I*Bottom line here folks, no matter how you feel, our California Governor will never sign the bill into law! *
> 
> A: Granholms, campaign was heavily financed by trial lawyers.
> She would never sign a bill that gave someone protection from litigation and deny her supporters the oportunity to feed on a fresh gut pile.
> ...


While I agree with A & C, B is irrelevant. Detroit is no longer the power broker in this state. The city continues to lose residents, while the suburbs continue to swell. What is funnier is that I am sure there are a lot of folks on this very board who voted for her! You get what you paid for  

Dan


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

kitchue,
If you think that I'm going to be polite enough to ask the guy that's crawling thru my window what his intententions are before popping a cap in him, your as *mistaken* as he is for breaking into my home in the first place.


----------



## kitchue (Sep 25, 2001)

Thunderhead said:


> kitchue,
> If you think that I'm going to be polite enough to ask the guy that's crawling thru my window what his intententions are before popping a cap in him, your as *mistaken* as he is for breaking into my home in the first place.


Wow. Are you that self-righteous to kill for a couple bucks. Are you not able to tell the difference between a punk looking to score a fix or someone trying to kipnap your child. 

Time to lock this one.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

kitchue said:


> Are you not able to tell the difference between a punk looking to score a fix or someone trying to kipnap your child.


How would one go about ascertaining someones intentions as he is crawling in through a window? Invite him to sit at the kitchen table and discuss them over a cup of coffee? Isn't the fact that he has invaded your domicile enough of a threat to your loved ones enough to call for immediate action? And by immediate action I don't mean helping the poor junkie load up your stuff in his getaway vehicle........


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

kitchue said:


> Are you not able to tell the difference between a punk looking to score a fix or someone trying to kipnap your child.


I am not able.
And I reject the idea that the burden should be on me. I don't want to kill anyone, but I am unqualified to play psychologist, particularly at the moment I find a stranger in my house.
"a punk looking to score a fix" can be a very desperate character. If someone is steaing to support a drug habit, am I supposed to trust his rationality?
Do I have the luxury to determine if someone is "just a thief," or a kidnapper, or someone whacked out on drugs who is capable of anything, once they are in my home?
Why should that be on me?


----------



## kitchue (Sep 25, 2001)

So a blast of a shotgun is the only way to tell someone to get out. Are you that quick to judge what the intention are? But the shoot first ask questions later is alot stupider than inviting them for coffeea at the table. 

I quess your not the moderator to lock this thread.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

ESOX or I can lock any thread. I am not clear on why you think this one in particular should be locked. This dscussion has occurred in this forum in the past with relative civility. 
If you have an issue with a particular post, even mine, feel free to use the "Report Post" feature and send it to Steve and all moderator of this Forum.


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

kitchue said:


> Wow. Are you that self-righteous to kill for a couple bucks. Are you not able to tell the difference between a punk looking to score a fix or someone trying to kipnap your child.
> 
> Time to lock this one.


 Ok, sure.  Now I see the light. Many Thanks. 
Break into my house in the middle of the night and get caught, sure, I'll throw on some coffee, we'll talk and discuss your issuses to find out why it is exactly what made you the way you are. See if there's anything I have worked all my life for that you can steal or if your actually here to rape and kill my family.
Remember the BTK killer. Now, there was a nice guy. I'm confident that if he broke into my place that I would have had plenty of time to see what exactly what he was up to right?
Sure, a whole 2 seconds before he put a bullet in my head.

Sorry pal, ain't gonna fly. Not my place to find out what your all about. It IS MY PLAACE AND RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT MY FAMILY AT ANY AND ALL COSTS.

Tell me sir, like ESOX asked, just how DO  you tell? Is he wearing a sign saying " Please don't shoot me, I'm a nice robber and only want your microwave? 

Close this thread? Why? Because you think that this world is a nice place and we should all be PC. 
Tell that to the Edmore Grandmother that was strangled and killed in her home by a couple of punks out to score some quick cash.
They panicked, she died. 
Go ahead, call her family and tell them how she died a righteous death. They were only thieves right ?


----------



## Robert W. McCoy Jr (Jan 18, 2002)

LOL

The real question here I think is whether to use buck shot or a slug :lol:


----------



## kitchue (Sep 25, 2001)

Wow I quess its ok to be called nuts if the moderators like it. Its called common sence. Killing someone should be the last resort not the first as many on this thread make it sound. 

"Why should that be on me" It will be on you for the rest of your life knowing you killed someone because, "well I thinkmaybehe was gonna hurt me". Common sence is seeing a threat not just seeing someone in a window. I can detain a invader, or I can shoot when there is a immediate threat to my family. I will not kill someone without a threat to bodily harm not my tv. But I quess on this forum it makes me nuts


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

I missed someone calling you nuts. I will read back through, edit that reference, and send a message to the poster who did so. 
You are not being picked on because a moderator holds different opinion than you.


[Edit]
By the way, in reviewing the thread, I noticed you thought it was okay for you to call someone else self-righteous, but you were offended by someone calling you nuts. 

How about we all avoid calling names. Thanks


----------



## Thunderhead (Feb 2, 2002)

Robert W. McCoy Jr said:


> LOL
> 
> The real question here I think is whether to use buck shot or a slug :lol:


Amen Brother.

Kitchue, I sincerely hope for your familys sake that your as fast and your " jugement " as sound as you claim to be.


----------



## kitchue (Sep 25, 2001)

Thunderhead said:


> Amen Brother.
> 
> Kitchue, I sincerely hope for your familys sake that your as fast and your " jugement " as sound as you claim to be.



Me too.

Self-rightous adj sure of the moral superiority of your own beliefs and actions

Nuts n 8a a foolish eccentric or crazy persons	

if anything, im the one being self-rightous, but I think of it as a stong, well thought person. 

But that must be as bad as being nuts.


----------



## dinoday (Feb 22, 2004)

Robert W. McCoy Jr said:


> LOL
> 
> The real question here I think is whether to use buck shot or a slug :lol:


 Buckshot...the holes will be smaller,thus easier to patch and the pattern at close range will bring about an end to any question of intention


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

How about turkey loads or what ever I can get my hands on OTHER than reloads. Even a 125grain Muzzy! :yikes: 

Now perhaps if the hot cup of coffee was use to put the purp out of commission!  

Skinner 2


----------



## Robert W. McCoy Jr (Jan 18, 2002)

I've been looking around and I am unable to find that form. You know the one that you have the bad guys sign(before you shoot them) that says they are there to hurt you.

That way you won't be charged or sued. Common some one must have it. :yikes:


----------



## Zofchak (Jan 10, 2003)

Dogwhistle,

If this proposed law is based on Florida's Castle Doctrine (which the article mentions) then you are mistaken when you say that this is a superficial change. First of all the Castle Doctrine in Florida does not require that the intruder be armed in order to use deadly force. The forced entry into ones home(or occupied vehicle) is assumed to be an act of agression (with intent to cause death or bodily harm), therefore the homeowner can use deadly force even if not directly threatened. This is a dramatic change when compared to Michigan's current laws that require a person to retreat from their home and only to use deadly force when directly faced with the threat of severe injury or death. 

Here's an example for you. You come down stairs to see a group of masked intruders standing in your living room. They appear unarmed(but you are unsure of their intentions), they walk into your child's room. (legally) In Michigan you get to call the police, and hope they leave by simply threatening them. In Florida you get to spend the next weekend repairing your drywall. I prefer choice number 2 (even though I really hate doing drywall work). 

DinoDay use bird shot..  You don't want to injure anyone who may be on the other side of a wall, and at close range it'll do the job easily.


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

Dogwhistle, you might want to ask a prosecutor what effect this change will have. I don't believe it is superficial. I think Zofchak's analysis is correct. I believe this is a good change and clears up the requirement that the homeowner be in imminent fear of death or serious injury and presumes that someone forcibly entering your home means to cause you harm. I think this is fair. 

As for the Gov signing this bill, I think she will. Even the left-leaning LSJ had an editorial that supported it.


----------



## wecker20 (Mar 10, 2004)

I've read it and agree w/ the many here that it's our home, family, everything we've worked for, and there's no question on what I'd do if I saw a man or woman in my house that doesn't belong there. I've thought about it many times while in bed. "What if's" My bedroom is upstairs and the only safe way out is to go downstairs. I have a .22 rifle sitting next to my bed w/ the clips in another location that only I know about(and my fiance) I've had to grab it a few times only to find that another cat used the doggy door and was knocking everything over. Guess what happened to the cat? I would warn the intruder *ONCE* just to let them know their about to get a bullet in the chest. One chance is more than enough after breaking into *MY * home. Doesn't matter if it doesn't happen very often or not. My ******* grandmas house got broken into last year and we live out in the middle of nowhere. She also has guns and she said if she would have been home, the bad guy would no longer be robbing innocent people.


----------



## BigEasy (Jul 25, 2005)

My brother in laws home was broken into yesterday afternoon. His wife pulled in the driveway and saw the garage door open and the side door kicked in. She pulled out of the driveway to go call the police. She was told by the neigbor that after she left two men ran from the house. Who knows what would have happened if she had gone in.

Before the police left the police Sergent told my brother "if anyone trys to break in tonight protect yourself". He paused, looked him straight in the eyes and said "do you understand what I'm saying? You have a wife and kids, if someone tries to come through that door, protect yourself."


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Deadly force bill meeting opposition 

http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1127139191258400.xml&coll=2

Monday, September 19, 2005 BY AMY F. BAILEY The Associated Press 

LANSING - Gun control advocates failed earlier this year to stop a Florida law allowing people to use deadly force to defend themselves without fear of prosecution from being signed by Gov. Jeb Bush. 

They don't want to let it happen again. 

National and local groups that seek tighter restrictions on guns are taking early aim against similar legislation introduced this month in Michigan. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Million Mom March are sending out press releases criticizing the legislation and are calling lawmakers in an attempt to keep the bills from getting out of the House Judiciary Committee.

"This is a byproduct of having missed the boat in Florida,'' said Peter Hamm, director of communications for the Washington-based Brady Campaign. "We have been watching like a hawk for this to surface in other states.'' 

The battle in Michigan over the so-called deadly force legislation is an important one for both sides. It could open the doors to similar laws across the country - a top priority for the National Rifle Association - or stop the effort in its tracks. 

The Michigan legislation would eliminate the requirement that people being attacked must retreat before responding, as long as they're in a place they legally have a right to be. It would allow people who feel threatened, even in a public area, to "meet force with force'' and defend themselves without facing criminal or civil prosecution. 

Ann Arbor Police Chief Dan Oates said he had not seen the legislation yet. But, he said, the idea of not requiring citizens to retreat first when they feel threatened is "absurd.'' 

"Citizens have an obligation to retreat when threatened with force... that's the way it should be,'' he said. "Anything else leads to confrontations.'' 

"I think it's a stupid proposal. It will play out on the streets with more people being subject to gun violence.'' 

State Reps. Tom Casperson of Escanaba and Rick Jones of Grand Ledge, both Republicans, introduced the bills. They said that although it would be unlikely for a crime victim to face criminal charges for killing someone in self-defense, a law is needed to guarantee it.

"Our intent is to protect crime victims who are in imminent danger of losing their lives,'' said Jones, who was the Eaton County sheriff before his election to the House last fall. 

Jones said when he introduced his bill a few weeks ago that the measure would allow deadly force to be used only in response to a threat in a person's home or car. He later corrected himself after learning that it is identical to the Florida law, which allows people who feel threatened anywhere - on the street or even in public places such as a bar - to defend themselves with deadly force. 

He said he is open to changes, but personally favors provisions in the Florida law.

Without the threat of prosecution, some of the thousands of Michigan residents carrying concealed weapons may be more likely to use them, said Sarah Brady, chairwoman of the Brady Campaign. The group is named for her and her husband, Jim, who as President Reagan's press secretary was shot and severely injured during a 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan. 

More than 111,600 concealed weapon permits were issued in Michigan in the first three years of a 2001 law that made it easier to get a permit, state police said. 

Gun control activists are calling their lawmakers and sending them postcards and e-mails to explain their opposition, said Shikha Hamilton, head of the state's Million Mom March chapter. 

"The scariest part is that you're removing the duty to retreat. That's really there to preserve life,'' said Hamilton, of Grosse Pointe. "And if you take someone's life you should have to answer to the police. ... No one is in jail right now for protecting their family.'' 

Michigan could be the second state after Florida to take away the threat of prosecution in fatalities caused by people trying to protect themselves. A similar bill has been introduced in Alabama, but lawmakers in that state are not scheduled to meet again until January. 

The legislation may win approval in the House and Senate, where half of each chamber was endorsed by a statewide gun rights advocacy group, the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, in the 2002 and 2004 elections. The group has been pushing hard for the Michigan bills since the Florida law was signed in April. The Florida law takes effect Oct. 1.


----------



## Northbound (Sep 17, 2000)

That's all well and good but the fact is our California Governor will veto the bill ten seconds after it reaches her desk.

Don't forget she and Mike Duggan stumped accross the state in an attempt to defeat our CCW rights!


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

ESOX said:


> Because it is a relatively rare offense when compared to others we shouldn't have this legislation passed to allow us to protect life and family without waiting for an obscure definition of a life threatening situation to be fulfilled? Isn't the fact that they have decided to break into an occupied dwelling or vehicle enough proof that they don't really care about the occupants, and are prepared to overpower them? The "rarity" of the offense has nothing to do with the imminent danger it puts the victims in.


Excellently stated.


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

Northbound said:


> That's all well and good but the fact is our California Governor will veto the bill ten seconds after it reaches her desk.
> 
> Don't forget she and Mike Duggan stumped accross the state in an attempt to defeat our CCW rights!


I haven't heard anything from her office on her opinion of this bill. I can't believe I am about to do this, but I wanted to point out that she has since changed her opinion on the CCW bill and admitted that she was wrong. I was also surprised when she signed a limited form of the dove bill. She certainly didn't have to, as most voters opposed dove hunting. Certainly, her urban base didn't support it. 

Has anyone called her office and asked what she thought?


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

You may be absolutely correct. I don't doubt for a second that she (along with most other politicians) make plenty of decisions based upon which way the wind blows. I was just suggesting that we don't know her position. I was surprised that the Lansing State Journal had an editorial that supported this law and they had been very opposed to CCW.


----------



## Rupestris (Aug 25, 2000)

Hamilton Reef said:


> Det. Freep's usual bias:
> 
> BIG-CITY DEATHS: The time to kill
> Detroit had more justifiable homicides than any of the 10 biggest cities in 1999-2003. Now a state House bill seeks to expand citizens' rights to use deadly force in self defense.


I saw the headline today. I love the fact that they put a spin on it so that the law abiding gun owners are made to look bad. 

The term JUSTIFIABLE should tell you something. If people are getting shot while in the comission of a crime then maybe the city should look into *reducing the crime rate*! :irked: :nono: 

kee-ripes people. What is so hard to understand about "justified"?

Uggggghhhh... I think my nose is bleeding...




> In the still of the night, after her southwest Detroit bar has closed, Adela Rivera sometimes still wonders whether she's going to hell.
> 
> You know it says, 'Thou shall not kill,' " Rivera said, taking a drag on a menthol cigarette, a habit that reclaimed her after that November night in 2003 when she shot two robbers in her parking lot. "It doesn't say, 'Thou shall not kill, except ...' "


On a side note. While its been years since I've seen her, I have known Adela Rivera since I was a kid. She has been shot at while on duty once that I know of. She gave an account of one near-miss shooting exprience that forced her to question her ability to go on as a cop.

Obviously she has some firearm training and, as an ex-cop, that she knows full-well the repercussions and possible consequences of using a firearm in self defence. As she let on in the article, its a huge responsibility, but I'll bet she hasn't given up her gun yet.


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

dogwhistle said:


> how does the homeowner decide if the intruder is there to harm him? that goes to the very heart of this bill. how does a police officer decide when he should use deadly force? first of course, he can only use it in defense of his life or the publics. but when does he decide when someones life is in danger? that is the $64,000 question isnt it. and the threat cant lie soley in the mind of the police officer it has to be a real threat and the danger has to be imminent. for instance, an officer goes to a report of a b&e in progress, and finds a suspect breaking out the window of a business. he orders the suspect to halt and the subject puts his hand into his coat. the officer fears a gun and fatally wounds the suspect. the suspect is found to have no weapon.


I think this is a difficult comparison, because they deal with different entities and different situations. Police, as State actors, are bound by the 4th amendment, as well as department policy. Additionally, they are probably more likely to be putting themselves into situations where they are threatened or at risk. If someone comes into my home, absent some extrodinary circumstances, I will likely be treating them as if they mean to do me harm. The safety of my family is paramount and I will act to protect them.

As for the situation with the officer, I can understand the difficulty of having to make a decision very quickly. My gut says that a person reaching into their pocket after being told to stop is about to draw a weapon. Is that belief reasonable? I think that the officer was justified in the situation you described, based upon the information you provided.



dogwhistle said:


> but to give you a direct answer- how to you determine the intent of the person breaking into your house. you see the muzzle flash. not a faceotous answer. that's how it works. it's why we wear ballistic vests- to hope to survive the first shot.


You can't determine intent easily. In some cases, you can ifer it from what is happening. In some cases, the law does. Look at felony murder (a murder done in the commission of a felony). It doesn't matter if you intended the murder, if you kill someone while in the process of comitting a felony, you are likely to be guilty of felony murder. "Society" is basically saying we don't condone the comission of a felony, so we are going to punish you for anyone that gets killed in the process.

I think this is similar to the new law. People shouldn't be breaking into aother people's homes. One possible risk is that they may be shot by the resident. I see this law as favoring the homeowner and I don't think this is a bad thing.



dogwhistle said:


> what type of law are you intending to practice? you guys take a lot of grief, but if all the rest of us were honest we probably wouldnt need you. in the city where i worked there was a club. the attorneys all kicked in a grand a year i think . it was for the benefit of cops families killed in the line. i liked good defense attorneys, they made you do your homework, but it was never personal. used to party with them some, back in the day.


I'd like to work for the prosecutor's office, but I need to pay back my loans, so I guess I am willing to do most anything (within reason).


----------



## hondorob (Aug 23, 2005)

But please, humor us, as we welcome a law that sides with the homeowner, as the apprentice attorney above mentioned. The law and the application of our law has shifted over the decades, in many, many ways, and it is an unwelcome shift IMO. This law represents a _restoration_. Perhaps symbolic, but symbology is important. And if it keeps even one homeowner from the abuses of a zealous prosecutor, or the greedy trial lawyers representing the family of a felon who likely got what he deserved, and keeps them from draining away his wealth fending off that lot, I'm all for it. And despite your windy protestations, I highly doubt it will change even one action that a given homeowner will take in a threatening situation. Homeowners will not suddenly get trigger happy, any more than the state of MI went wild west after the CCW law came on the books. People will do what they do, and have always done. What will change is in the aftermath of those already-occurring incidents. The law will tilt back into balance, symbolically as well as literally. This is as it should be.

I take it you're not concerned if somebody breaks into a drug dealers house, and that if there is any hint of drug involvement that we should throw that incident out of our statistical pool? To heck with that category of violent crime, you say? I disagree with you. If you are an intruder, you better expect a rude reception, even if it's from a drug dealer protecting his stash (and perhaps his infant daughter). After the smoke clears, let the drug dealer go to jail for his other crimes, and the illegal weapon, but if he defends his castle, he's well within his rights on that part of it. Unless, in all your wisdom, you've decided that we also don't need to worry about the legitimate rights of the lawbreakers? I hope that's not what you were saying, but you might want to rethink that portion of your argument, especially since you've made it several times, and it's fairly odious, I'd say.

I believe that it was you who mentioned the situation in Louisiana, in some throwaway statement about what we could be deteriorating into. You may have heard the reports that 15% or more of law enforcement fled their posts in that instance. Remember, you are your own first line of defense, in all instances. You and your family depend on you, and it may very well be you alone in a hazardous situation, as we see. We give the benefit of the doubt to those doing the defending, as it should be. This law restates that prime understanding. I welcome this statement.

That Freep article said that 5% of most homicides are found justifiable. That's a fairly large portion of cases, most would say. No problem then with tailoring the law to accomodate those sorta numbers... none at all. Obviously, these incidents occur, and it is a legitimate exercise to analyze and tailor the law as required to address some of this significant number of cases. Not all will fit this new law, no doubt. Some will. Nobody is hurt, and somebody may be helped. The good people get the benefit of the doubt, wherever possible, not criminals, and the burden of proof shouldn't fall on good people. If the law should tilt, it should tilt toward good people. This law does that, from what I've read.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

Steve, i just spent a very rewarding week grouse/woodcock hunting. all in all the best week i have had in 20 yrs of hunting the cover birds.

time spent in the prosecutors office is time well spent in my opinion, regardless of where you go from there. if you do make that choice and have the opportunity i would highly recommend that you ride along with the officers if it's possible. you will gain insight and find that things are considerably different than the average person imagines them to be. i've had a couple ride with me, one was the best Prosecutor i have ever worked with. i recall searching for an armed robber in apts under construction with him. it was below zero. so cold we could hardly hang on to our weapons.

ordinary college debt is bad enough these days, i was fortunate to have a full ride scholarship "way back when". but the debt from law school has to be incredible today. you could go into a corporate firm and make far more money than the public sector. but i doubt that you will have much time for anything but work and far less fun. beware, though, most of the prosecutors i know have stayed with it, i think it gets into their blood.

as John Wayne said in the "Cowboys", "school is out, now school really begins".<G>


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

honorob, what i object to is to giving anyone immunity for using deadly force before the facts are known. the ruling of "justifiable homicide" is given by the prosecutors office or court after a full investigation and all the facts are known. if civil immunity attaches to a ruling of justifiable homicide, i certainly have no objection.

we object when judges legislate from the bench, this is a case of legislators trying to do the reverse. 

take care when quoting statistics from reports. things are lumped together. some of those justifiable homicides are women defending themselves from spouses. others are drug ripoffs. the cases of oridinary average citizens having their homes invaded by armed criminals while they are home are extremely rare. to the best of my knowledge no such statistics are available from the Uniform Crime Report. a homicide is a homicide regardless of the circumstances. as i have said, i only know of two such cases in thousands that i encountered and had knowledge of. your family is in far far more danger from a fatal traffic accident on the way home from the movies. just as i was in far more danger of getting in a fatal accident on the way home from the movies.


----------



## hondorob (Aug 23, 2005)

_"...what i object to is to giving anyone immunity for using deadly force before the facts are known."_

I believe you are mischaracterizing the discussion. I do not believe that is the intent nor the effect of the law, "immunity" of any sort. Lawbreakers will be prosecuted, nothing has changed in that regard. The parameters surrounding those prosecutions will be reestablished somewhat, to head off the greedy trial lawyers and zealous prosecutors. 

_"...the ruling of "justifiable homicide" is given by the prosecutors office or court after a full investigation and all the facts are known."_

They can still give such a ruling. This law does not appear to affect that process, as mentioned above, although it will shorten their leash as to the grounds they can use for any prosecution, and will hopefully head off the trial lawyers in civil court.

_"...if civil immunity attaches to a ruling of justifiable homicide, i certainly have no objection."_

Well, I'm sure law abiding citizens will thank you for your forbearance. But pardon us, if we choose not to leave the matter entirely in the hands of lawyers, of any occupation, as this is often a mistake. Ultimately, the law is made by citizens, not lawyers.

_"...we object when judges legislate from the bench, this is a case of legislators trying to do the reverse."_ 

No, actually it is a case of legislators legislating, which is as it should be. There is nothing untoward or unusual about this process, it is quite the norm. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the legislative process, and citizens acting through their legislators to establish the law? That would be disturbing. 

_"...take care when quoting statistics from reports."_

...which statistics are you having trouble with? As an engineer, I don't generally have much trouble sorting through statistics, perhaps I can help you get comfortable with those you're having trouble with. Which?

_"...some of those justifiable homicides are women defending themselves from spouses."_

And what's your point? Surely, it's not that those women shouldn't receive the benefits of a castle doctrine? Surely, it's not that they should submit to spousal abuse? You say "some", but you provide no statistical data to quantify this distinction. Again, we know that the number of justifiable homicides is large enough to be statistically significant, and worthy of address in the legislative arena, unless you can provide firm statistical evidence that it shouldn't be. Please do so, if you can.

_"...others are drug ripoffs."_

So again, you return to the reprehensible assertion that certain types of citizens should not be allowed representation under the law? This is outrageous. 

If you enter a house uninvited and unwelcome, it doesn't matter what skin color the homeowner has, or what nationality, or which laws they may be guilty of violating, or what phase the moon is in. The intruder is considered a threat, and the homeowner has no obligation to prove that they made all efforts to run away from that threat before defending him/her self. That is all.

_"...the cases of oridinary average citizens having their homes invaded by armed criminals while they are home are extremely rare."_

So you acknowlege that they do happen. Good, that's a start, anyway. And fyi, studies on defensive use of guns find that it happens at least 700,000 times a year in this country (and I'm surprised it's reported that low, I would have figured defensive gun use MUCH higher, and I suspect the statistics are skewed a bit here). This law arises for good reason. 

_"...to the best of my knowledge no such statistics are available from the Uniform Crime Report."_

And I doubt they will ever be, as there has always been a concerted effort to keep that data set out of the reporting mix. Fortunately, common sense can still prevail, despite bureaucratic indifference. It will, with the passage of such laws as this, much like the CCW legislation.

_"...a homicide is a homicide regardless of the circumstances."_

No argument, but what we're talking about is the aftermath of a homicide, or any other such results from defensive action that a citizen might take.

_"...as i have said, i only know of two such cases in thousands that i encountered and had knowledge of."_

Correct again, they do happen, and thus the desire to protect those citizens involved from the predations of greedy trial lawyers and zealotous prosecutors.

_"...your family is in far far more danger from a fatal traffic accident on the way home from the movies."_

Again, thank you for considering the dangers that citizens should worry about, but perhaps you might agree that we'll decide what we should worry about, and what we'll do to counter that worry.

This is good legislation, no doubt about it. I had concerns about the CCW law when it came on the books, but those concerns have been dispelled. This law will be no different, me thinks. No wild west shootouts, just efforts to protect law abiding citizens from those greedy lawyers and prosecutors, as those citizens exercise their legitimate rights. I welcome this.


----------



## Outdoorzman (Jun 5, 2001)

The elderly convalescent widow that lives directly behind me had an intruder in her home. He first cut the phone lines then removed the electrical meter to disconnect the power, and proceeded to kick in the basement window and enter. He confronted her in her bedroom and told her to go into the basement while he did his thing upstairs and left. He gave her every indication that she would not be harmed until she followed his orders and went to the basement where he proceeded to beat her into a day long unconsciousness.
While I have sympathy for both points of view on this issue, because there may be a situation where you can detain instead of shoot, my main concern is for my family. I will not hesitate to use deadly force swiftly and effectively.

Kitchue,
May your conscience be clear as you bury your loved ones. Hopefully it never happens.


----------



## kitchue (Sep 25, 2001)

What?!? That is an assinine comment. And if you read my post again, in no way will my family be harmed. Yet I hope I can make the propare choice to shoot a dangerous, violent intruder or the kids down the street because they saw my wifes purse in the window.

You look like your itchin to shoot someone. You are just as dangerous to someone asking for directions comming up to your car. Dont profile, now. Hope your kids dont come home late one night. And yes these comments sound just as assinine as yours. 

sean


----------



## Outdoorzman (Jun 5, 2001)

> What?!? That is an assinine comment. And if you read my post again, in no way will my family be harmed.


Consistent repetition with practice and thought patterns have shown to be very effective in events such as home invasions, etc. Hesitation and doubt results in inaction and your previous posts reflect that hesitation.
Assinine or not I feel it is accurate.
Just because I choose to train and prepare mentally for just such an occasion does not mean that will be my automatic response, but if necessary I will be prepared.



> You look like your itchin to shoot someone


Because I won't hesitate to protect my family? How did you come up with that one?


----------



## kitchue (Sep 25, 2001)

Training and thinking have everything to do with what I am trying to say. Then again being persucuted for my opionions on this tread is what I'm all about. Hesitating to shoot violent intruder is not an option, hesitating to shoot a kid cause he's stupidis not. You just cant seem to separate the two. Cocking your weapon will stop almost anyone. Thus detain. Those who dont stopso be it. 

I believe, my opionion, insert disclaimer here, whatever, is: The protection of my family is the NUMBER ONE priority of an intruder and I will defend them at all cost. My VCR is not a part of my family. But dont ever think were will not be a problem if you try to take it. 

I am done beating this "dead" horse. If you dont like my opinions. Oh, well.


----------



## Bearbeater (Oct 19, 2005)

hey

we need this but the constitution of mich bill of rights artical 6 says we have the right to bear arms for our defence and the defence of the state. Check it out. so, What does that mean to you???
Bearbeater


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Bill allows use of force in cases of self-defense
Opponents say it could apply even to bar fights

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060221/NEWS04/602210327/1005/news

February 21, 2006 By Derek Wallbank Capital News Service

If your home is your castle, can you use force - even deadly force - to protect it without getting sued or arrested?

The answer would be yes, under legislation to be discussed today at a hearing before a state Senate committee.

The bill has sparked debate: The head of the Michigan Sheriffs' Association says the concept raises questions about taking another person's life, and gun-control advocates contend it's too broad and could apply even to bar fights and playground squabbles.

Nearly identical bills introduced in the House and Senate provide legal immunity for the use of force in self-defense. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing today.

"You should be able to use every defense possible," said Rep. Tim Moore, R-Farwell, a sponsor of a House bill.

Opponents argue the legislation will encourage people to take the law into their own hands and put innocent bystanders at risk.

"To even consider this bill is ridiculous," said Shikha Hamilton, president of the Michigan Million Mom March chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control advocacy group.

Terry Jungel, executive director of the Michigan Sheriffs' Association, said that while the legislation is a "wonderful idea in concept," it raises serious concerns about a person's right to take someone else's life. The association has not taken a position on the bills.

Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, said people have the right to self-defense because of well-established precedent, but there always is the potential for courts to overturn it.

"There is no Michigan statute that guarantees that right," he said.

Jones pointed to a case when he was Eaton County sheriff and a man broke into a Dimondale couple's house and threatened the husband with a screwdriver.

"While he was fighting for his life, crashing into walls, his wife ran over with a jar of pennies and knocked the intruder out cold," Jones said. "A few months later, the guy sued."


----------



## BR549 (Feb 5, 2006)

dogwhistle said:


> the legislation, contrary to popular belief, does not provide you with any protection from prosecution that you do not already enjoy. if you fatally shoot an armed intruder in your home, you will not be charged with a crime under present law. if you shoot an unarmed intruder in your home under the proposed law, it is likely that you will be unless there are extenuating circumstances.
> 
> you read about such situations, armed intruders, in the newspapers. but they are virtually always situations involving drugs.
> 
> ...


OK. Then what's wrong with a law that clarifies and establishes when a person has a right to protect themselves? What's wrong with a law that stops a criminal or his family from suing a crime victim into bankruptcy, even if it was a lawful defense? What's wrong with a law that is cut and dried as to legal conduct, instead of a prosecutor "determining" every issue? If there are no changes to current law and this is just some "feel good law", then why oppose it or make an issue? 

I have a dog, lock my doors and windows, and have security lights. What happens when a window or door gets easily smashed in because the intruder didn't trip and skin his knees as he could see where he was going at 3 in the morning when my neighbors and I are sleeping, the little dog gets kicked aside, and he ends up in the daughter's room? Or smashes out the window on the car, drags you out and drives away with your kid(s) in the back seat? Statistics say this is small, but like the lottery, someone's number always comes up. Statistics also say that criminals fear armed homeowners and getting their butts shot off (that's why violent crime went down 23% in Florida the first year after right to carry passed there).
How many have a first aid kit in their car or home that has never been used? Statistics say the need for one is small, but when you need first aid, you need it now. The same goes for personal protection. First aid and first protection are both an unfortunate necessity in (for) life.


----------



## dodge7 (Jan 18, 2005)

Gun laws are confusing and contradictory at best. Go back to day one and read the Gun reform act of 1972?. The United States Supreme Court, ruled that a Hand gun, in that it is 100%, concealable, cannot be deeemed a defensive weapon. Jump ahead to around 1982, The Michigan State Supreme court ruled, That a homeowner (Defined), is under no obligation, at any time to retreat from an intruder, on or in his premises, and may use what ever force he deems nessacary to remove, or neutralize said intruder.( this one may have been amended). As for the castle docterine, or theory, this one dates back to the 1700s, in jolly old England, a more reasonable theory is one of reasonable retreat, in that a sane thinking individule, when faced with the threat of a violent act upon his self, and finding no means of reasonably retreating to a safe and secure enviroment, is justified in using force. It is also unrealistic to demand that an individule, under threat of violence, fully consider all options presented to them.The Florida "stand your ground" law is basically a clarification of the reasonable retreat theory. 

However attorneys, (no slap at any here), in the mid 80s threw another term into the mix, and that was one of unreasonable force, in that the use of large caliber, and semi automatic weapons, was unnessacary, and therefore unreasonable force, courts however ruled that caliber, and style, was an undertermining factor, and therefor irrevelent. Later this was expanded, to include the general population as well. Basically the laws are now in favor of the victem, as in reguards to the use of force, when the threat of violence is present.

As for civil liabilities, I haven't been able to find a single case in which the plantiff has prevailed, but several cases are documented that a defendant has the right of recovery, in that both plantiffs, and attorneys may be held liable for any and all costs, arising from an individules expense in the defense of one self, with reguards to an unjustified civil action. Recently in South Carolina, a civil suite was filed on behalf of a home owner, allowing him to recover from the affects of an unlawful act.

Several other factors act solely in favor of a home owner, the use of alarm systems, (expanded to include posted warnings only), motion lights, and a secured enviroment, are all favorable examples.

One last thought, recently was reading a copy of combat handgunner, (opinion withheld), and a section was devoted to the use of weapons in the defense of ones person, The one thing that really struck me was how, many times these idiots missed, one guy fired nine times, and hit his assaliant once.Personally I believe that there is no such thing as a miss, in that all discharged rounds hit a target. Maybe not the intended target, but they hit something, or worst case senerio, someone. This got me to thinking, what would happen if some one missed, (hit the wrong target), what could, or should he be held liable for?


----------



## mccamm (Feb 2, 2006)

I have had someone crash through my door at 11pm. The lights were on and we were obviously home. Theives generally try to hit houses when no one is home. If someone breaks in to your home when you are there, you have to assume that they intend to harm you. I was caught unarmed at the time. That will never happen again. Luckily for my wife and I, my dog handled the situation for us. They were never caught, but they didn't make it out without leaving blood behind. I am the only line of defense between an intruder and my family. I will NOT give them the oportunity to get past me. Risking my own life to ascertain their intentions is fine. Risking my wife and daughters life is not. If you hesitate to try to determine their intentions, you may not live to regret it. If you break into my home I can only assume that you intend to harm me or my family. I will do whatever is necessary to insure the safety of my family. I am very much in favor of any changes in law that allow me to protect my family in my own home without the fear of some crackhead's family taking away everything my family owns.

In the greek text, the bible states "do not murder". This is very different from "do not kill" as it is popularly translated. Defending yourself and your family is killing but not murder. Ask any pastor with a knowledge of Greek and he can explain the difference.


----------



## dodge7 (Jan 18, 2005)

mccamm said:


> I have had someone crash through my door at 11pm. The lights were on and we were obviously home. Theives generally try to hit houses when no one is home. If someone breaks in to your home when you are there, you have to assume that they intend to harm you. I was caught unarmed at the time. That will never happen again. Luckily for my wife and I, my dog handled the situation for us. They were never caught, but they didn't make it out without leaving blood behind. I am the only line of defense between an intruder and my family. I will NOT give them the oportunity to get past me. Risking my own life to ascertain their intentions is fine. Risking my wife and daughters life is not. If you hesitate to try to determine their intentions, you may not live to regret it. If you break into my home I can only assume that you intend to harm me or my family. I will do whatever is necessary to insure the safety of my family. I am very much in favor of any changes in law that allow me to protect my family in my own home without the fear of some crackhead's family taking away everything my family owns.
> 
> In the greek text, the bible states "do not murder". This is very different from "do not kill" as it is popularly translated. Defending yourself and your family is killing but not murder. Ask any pastor with a knowledge of Greek and he can explain the difference.


 
Back to the basics, why would you risk anything in order to ascertain there intentions. The law clearly gives you the right of defense. No matter where you are. The law reconizes the right of unrestricted legal travel, so you have the right to defense no matter where you are. As for thiefs being crackheads, and hitting unoccupied dwellings, better rethink that one. Although I'm not much for television, I will suggest that people watch the discovery channels?, series called it takes a thief? usually airs in the afternoons....kinda scarey


----------



## dodge7 (Jan 18, 2005)

BR549 said:


> OK. Then what's wrong with a law that clarifies and establishes when a person has a right to protect themselves? What's wrong with a law that stops a criminal or his family from suing a crime victim into bankruptcy, even if it was a lawful defense? What's wrong with a law that is cut and dried as to legal conduct, instead of a prosecutor "determining" every issue? If there are no changes to current law and this is just some "feel good law", then why oppose it or make an issue?
> 
> I have a dog, lock my doors and windows, and have security lights. What happens when a window or door gets easily smashed in because the intruder didn't trip and skin his knees as he could see where he was going at 3 in the morning when my neighbors and I are sleeping, the little dog gets kicked aside, and he ends up in the daughter's room? Or smashes out the window on the car, drags you out and drives away with your kid(s) in the back seat? Statistics say this is small, but like the lottery, someone's number always comes up. Statistics also say that criminals fear armed homeowners and getting their butts shot off (that's why violent crime went down 23% in Florida the first year after right to carry passed there).
> How many have a first aid kit in their car or home that has never been used? Statistics say the need for one is small, but when you need first aid, you need it now. The same goes for personal protection. First aid and first protection are both an unfortunate necessity in (for) life.


The laws are already there, it is usually the homeowners first response, to L.E.O.s, that dictates any further occurances, along with your right to defense, comes the responsability of defense. It is up to you to know what your expressed and defined rights are and to always act with in the guidlines of them. Most imporntantly, what you say to first public responders, (L.E.O.s). Although you may have been within your rights in your actions, the way that you verbally convay the events, the way that you defend your actions, to first responders maens a lot


----------



## dodge7 (Jan 18, 2005)

mccamm said:


> In the greek text, the bible states "do not murder". This is very different from "do not kill" as it is popularly translated. Defending yourself and your family is killing but not murder. Ask any pastor with a knowledge of Greek and he can explain the difference.


 Ask your pastor about:

1) Gen.9:6

Think about:

Mat; 5:5


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Did anybody read the link above to the LSJ article? What a hoot (not really---typical misinformation).

The LSJ reported that gun control advocates predicted more problems in bars and on school playgrounds if this law was adopted.

Hmmmmm........when did they exempt bars and schools from the restrictions of pistol free zones? 

Are gun control advocates concerned about the criminals in the bars and on playgrounds (illegally carrying) or cops or ex-cops (exempt) that could lawfully carry?

Silly objection but another typical misrepresentation by the media....


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

dogwhistle said:


> .... and i doubt if it would have any effect on civil liability.
> 
> this is mostly a feel good kind of bill designed to garner votes from the "pro gun" lobby.
> 
> you do have a right to protect yourself, but the threat has to be real. you cant gun down an unarmed 12 yr old trying to steal your car or a drunk that finds his way into the wrong house regardless of what is passed by the legislature. they might be better off spending their time trying to balance the budget.


Dogwhistle, its obvious that you do not posess a CCW. If you had you would have received very direct education on "civil liability". At both of my training expierences, there was a proscuter, deputy sherriff, defense attorney and the instructor, *who ALL stated* that "civil liabliity" would be a given in most shootings. Even if in self defence in one's own home. If you had the training and have the permit, you obviously must have been sleeping during that part of the mandatory training. Do yourself a favor and everyone else, review the justifiable reasons, as defined by Michigan Law, that one can legally use "deadly force".
Having to discharge a weapon on another human being (other than war) would be THE WORST NIGHTMARE that one could expierence. No one with the ability to reason would end up with anything but. Although there are justifiable reasons where it is used and should be.
Sorry, but this post which you made, gives me the impression that you're "anti-gun" and most likely "anti-hunting".


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

dodge7 said:


> You have the right to defend yourself. The reasonable right of retreat docterine spells this out.


Reasonable Right of Retreat Doctrine??? What in the hell are you talking about?

What would I need a right to retreat in my own friggin home for?

I much prefer that the criminal has a reasonable right to retreat before he gets his azz shot off threatening me and mine in my own home. His right includes dropping anything he might have when he sees the muzzle flash and perhaps even hears the report.

I am a civilian...I don't want to have to say anything....announce anything....try and take somebody into custody....that is for the guys that are getting paid to risk life and limb serving and protecting...

What I also don't want is the fear and what it might do to my decision making processes in the split second that I might have to make a call in order to save my life. I also don't want to have to retreat in my own home and should be able to protect my family inside my home from whereever I see fit---Not what some friggin attorney thinks I should have done at the time.

All of the residents in Michigan would benefit if the bad guys knew that if they broke into the wrong home when somebody was there to defend it...that they might not live to tell about it....well, maybe they would think twice now wouldn't they? Meanwhile, many of us could do what we might have to do to protect our loved ones and not have to worry about risking everything we own to defend against whatever in court.

And...somebody mentioned the low incidence....well, I live in a rural community and still have had a SWAT sniper team in my sons bedroom after police thought that an armed intruder was still in the home across the street.
It can happen anywhere at any time and there should be laws in place to protect law abiding citizens from winding up in court from defending themselves against a criminal attack anywhere... The way I see it, if you break into somebodies home...don't be surprised if you die...that simple.


----------



## dodge7 (Jan 18, 2005)

You have the right to defend and protect yourself, if in defending your self you use deadly force, then you would be justifiied in your actions. That split second descision that your talking about is addressed in the reasonable retreat docterine, as a matter of fact all of your concerns are. Again show one case documented where some one lost every thing that they had defending themselves, because they defended themselves. It is on the verge of being an old wives tale.


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

Guys, I think that there's more to just having a civil suit thrown out. An attempt to sue someone who was legaly in their right to use "deadly force" might happen and, it might eventually get thrown out. BUT.... one must realize the attorney costs, etc. that will be involved just to get the case thrown out.
Irregardless, having to use "deadly force" will end up being your worst nightmare.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

ENCORE said:


> Guys, I think that there's more to just having a civil suit thrown out. An attempt to sue someone who was legaly in their right to use "deadly force" might happen and, it might eventually get thrown out. BUT.... one must realize the attorney costs, etc. that will be involved just to get the case thrown out.


Exactly.....I know few attorneys that do not require a substantial retainer fee just to think about defending you.... Why should law abiding citizens be subjected to monetary loss because a friggin criminal broke in and got capped?

The State of Michigan needs to send a message to criminals in this state...and adoption of these laws would be a helluva way to do it. Heck, maybe we need to appeal to the states coffers on this one...look at all the money it could save....:evilsmile


----------



## FASTRNU (Jul 2, 2002)

http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=1120&zoneid=6



Lee Zeidler of MCRGO gave an excellent description of the reasons why this bill is needed. In particular he described a home self-defense shooting in the Grand Rapids area where the homeowner was exonerated by the prosecuting attorney but was then sued by the relatives of the criminal; the intended victim lost his house and two million dollars as the result of the civil lawsuit.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

FASTRNU said:


> In particular he described a home self-defense shooting in the Grand Rapids area where the homeowner was exonerated by the prosecuting attorney but was then sued by the relatives of the criminal; the intended victim lost his house and two million dollars as the result of the civil lawsuit.


No....that cannot be....dodge7 said so....


----------



## michaelt (Jan 7, 2006)

lwingwatcher said:


> No....that cannot be....dodge7 said so....


 No what I said is that I cant find one documented case, and although Lee Eidler statements are interesting, still cant find the documented case that he was refering to, was it a recent case, an old case, were special circumstances involved, As I have said in earlier posts, gun laws are like a plate of spaghetti, trying to unravel and understand them takes a lot of time and research,(i.e. pistols cannot be deemed a defensive weapon,) Whenyou study the Reasonable Retreat docterine, it makes a lot of sense, covers incidents both in and uot of the home, The stand your dround docterine, recently adapted by Fla. is just an expansion, or clarification of the reasonable retreat docterine.

Any personal protection laws will have to be held to specific paramaters, Like it or not, it cant be functual any other way, since there is no specific way to define personal threat, as everyony will define a personal threat in a different way, so laws should leave enough lee-way as to cover the grearer multitude of definitions, while still holding a resemblance of controll.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

michaelt said:


> Any personal protection laws will have to be held to specific paramaters, Like it or not, it cant be functual any other way, since there is no specific way to define personal threat, as everyony will define a personal threat in a different way, so laws should leave enough lee-way as to cover the grearer multitude of definitions, while still holding a resemblance of controll.


I agree entirely. Right now I am very limited in what I can do, whether it be personal defense or even retreat in my own home or anywhere else due to a fairly recent surgery. So, the wimpy shape I am in, would dictate that I would have have no recourse other than a rapid escalation on the continuim of force.

And, whether the Supreme Court considers a hand gun a personal defense weapon or not....that would be about the only thing I could use right now...just the thought of using a shotgun right now pains my chest....and would probably be a health risk for me.

While I have said all along that I would prefer a tactical retreat if possible, I don't especially want anybody determining after the fact what I might have been able to do. Even out on the street...sometimes trying to retreat (or escape) will get ya shot quicker than using offense for the best defensive tactic. 

You keep talking about control. Control for who---only law abiding citizens?
Yup, the criminal justice system, where criminals find justice....hmmmmm....

What about justice for all??????

Ya know, forget looking for all those documented cases---check out all the defense attorneys that worked pro bono, either criminal or civil to defend somebody that reasonably tried to protect life and limb. That should be a short list.....a real short list.


----------



## michaelt (Jan 7, 2006)

lwingwatcher said:


> I agree entirely. Right now I am very limited in what I can do, whether it be personal defense or even retreat in my own home or anywhere else due to a fairly recent surgery. So, the wimpy shape I am in, would dictate that I would have have no recourse other than a rapid escalation on the continuim of force.
> 
> And, whether the Supreme Court considers a hand gun a personal defense weapon or not....that would be about the only thing I could use right now...just the thought of using a shotgun right now pains my chest....and would probably be a health risk for me.
> 
> ...


 The reasonable retreat docterine covers this, in that it states that it is unreasonable to believe that a victem should consider all his options, to actually weigh the out come of retreating, or standing there ground in the time frame allotted, while being under extreme stress. I'm not saying that an after incident suit wont happen, just saying that I cant find an instance where it did. And as for controll, law abiding citizens operate more under the premise of reasonable restraint


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

michaelt said:


> And as for controll, law abiding citizens operate more under the premise of reasonable restraint


And where might a law abiding citizen find the definition of "reasonable restraint" that is cast in stone and not something that is subjective?

Just exactly is reasonable restraint when you hear your door getting kicked in at 3AM or a group of folks approach you and yours in a parking lot and tell you to give up your wallet and your keys or.....

Law abiding citizens should NOT have to worry about Monday morning quarterbacking. Criminals should have to worry about making it home from a day (or night) at work....

Really, what is the problem with the Florida law? Aside from that one missing definition in the HB or SB, what is so bad with our proposed legislation?


----------



## michaelt (Jan 7, 2006)

lwingwatcher said:


> And where might a law abiding citizen find the definition of "reasonable restraint" that is cast in stone and not something that is subjective?
> 
> Just exactly is reasonable restraint when you hear your door getting kicked in at 3AM or a group of folks approach you and yours in a parking lot and tell you to give up your wallet and your keys or.....
> 
> ...


 Not exactly sure what your saying, but take the scenerios, that an intruder into your dwelling has been shot, by a homeowner, he is laying on the floor, mortally, if not fatally shot, the homeowner walks over and pumps another round into there head, or some one kicks in a door, upon hearing noises, or seeing the homeowner, turns and flees, the home owner gives chase, and shoots, these might be interpeted as unreasonable restraint, that is acting out of anger, rather than fear.
And I see nothing wrong with the Florida law, as I said before it is just basically a explination of the reasonable retreat docterine (hb, sb,?)


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

michaelt said:


> (hb, sb,?)


HB House Bill SB Senate Bill

And, in the scenario you described...the first one (head cap on unarmed intruder that is down) well---sounds like murder to me but, if he is still holding a gun....maybe another matter (whatever happened to continue shooting until the threat ceases) altogether?????

The second....well, that gets a little gray prolly cuz, who knows what all went on outside. Far too easy to get in over your head once you leave the relative safety of your home. And, once the chase is on...it might be a stretch to say that you were in a defensive chase... But, add a twist--what if the intruder shoots at you and then runs outside? If you don't follow him, what is to prevent him or an accomplice from returning or smoking you through a window? Tough questions....hypotheticals are always a beech....


----------



## michaelt (Jan 7, 2006)

lwingwatcher said:


> HB House Bill SB Senate Bill
> 
> And, in the scenario you described...the first one (head cap on unarmed intruder that is down) well---sounds like murder to me but, if he is still holding a gun....maybe another matter (whatever happened to continue shooting until the threat ceases) altogether?????
> 
> The second....well, that gets a little gray prolly cuz, who knows what all went on outside. Far too easy to get in over your head once you leave the relative safety of your home. And, once the chase is on...it might be a stretch to say that you were in a defensive chase... But, add a twist--what if the intruder shoots at you and then runs outside? If you don't follow him, what is to prevent him or an accomplice from returning or smoking you through a window? Tough questions....hypotheticals are always a beech....


 If the intruder is imobile on the floor is he still a threat, or is he imobilized to the point that a reasonable retreat to a secure place is now a viable option. The second shot is what could put a person in a grey area

Tough qusetions answered by the reasonable retreat docterine, Example. 
You are walking to your autumobile, a person walks up and in a threatening manner demands your wallet, You immediently have the right to defend yourself, you dont have to worry that if you surrender you wallet, will you be allowed to proceed unharmed, or will something more drastic occur, you dont have to consider other options, running, stalling, reasoning. As long as your in a place that you have a legal right to be, it is unreasonable to consider that a sane thinking person would be required to consider all options. Remember that in 1982, the Michigan State Supreme court ruled, that a home owner is under no obligation at any time to retreat from an intruder on his premises, and may use what ever force he deems nessecary to remove, or neutralize said intruder. This was ammended, (not overturned in 1987, I believe), from on his premises, to unlawfully in his premises. The reasonable retreat docterine(adapted in the mid 1920s), extends to include a persons lawful positition at any time. Meaning that any where you legally travel, you have the right to forcible, defend your self. How much simpler can it get


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

michaelt said:


> If the intruder is imobile on the floor is he still a threat, or is he imobilized to the point that a reasonable retreat to a secure place is now a viable option. The second shot is what could put a person in a grey area


If the intruder still has a gun, he/she is still a threat. Imobilized or incapacitated....tough to tell without further checking unless you know for a fact that ya busted a pelvis or something. As far as the second shot....I wasn't trained to shoot just once with a handgun so, I kinda doubt that I will shoot just once and stand around to check and see what happened. I wouldn't think that it would be unreasonable to bust two or three rounds into an agressor before they would hit the floor. Would a prosecutor or an attorney see things the same way? I dunno and the "reasonable retreat" law that you speak so highly of doesn't either does it?


As far as the parking lot scenario....hell, I dunno what I would do in any given situation....too many variables to consider. One can only hope that if confronted with that type of a situation that they take not only the course of action that saves their life but, doesn't subject them to the whim of the criminal or civil court system.

Having to use deadly force is certainly nothing to be taken lightly and hopefully something that none of us will ever have to use. But, in the event that we are faced with whatever type of grave danger, it sure as hell would be nice to know that we are perceived as "the armed citizen" not "the perpetrator" and these laws can go along way towards that end.


----------



## michaelt (Jan 7, 2006)

The reasonable retreat docterine puts you in charge of the situation, by leaving descisions up to you. You are under no obligation to retreat as long as you feel that there is threat to you. As strange as it may sound the majoriety of suites evolving from a self defense shooting situation are instituted by third parties that have suffered o loss because of a homeowners response to a hostile threat (ie, missed shots, secondary targets). Lots to consider in a situation like that


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

michaelt said:


> The reasonable retreat docterine puts you in charge of the situation, by leaving descisions up to you. You are under no obligation to retreat as long as you feel that there is threat to you. As strange as it may sound the majoriety of suites evolving from a self defense shooting situation are instituted by third parties that have suffered o loss because of a homeowners response to a hostile threat (ie, missed shots, secondary targets). Lots to consider in a situation like that



The duty to retreat is from case law and it states (I am paraphrasing here) that you have a duty to retreat, if you can safely do so. Reasonable retreat just means that you you only have to do this if it is reasonable. I would much rather be in the situation where it is up to the prosecutor to show that my actions were unreasonable than to have to show why I didn't retreat. If you are prosecuted or sued, you will likely be questioned as to why you did not retreat, or at least consider it. Hopefully, your answers (and any prior statements made to police) will persuade the jury in your favor.

The duty to retreat only applies outside of the home and most states have gotten rid of this through legislation and caselaw. The Florida "stand your ground law" is one of those laws. It says that you have no duty to retreat no matter where you are. The force still has to be reasonable, but you do not have to retreat, or even consider it. You just have to show that you were in imminent fear of death or serious injury.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

SteveS said:


> The duty to retreat is from case law and it states (I am paraphrasing here) that you have a duty to retreat, if you can safely do so. Reasonable retreat just means that you you only have to do this if it is reasonable. I would much rather be in the situation where it is up to the prosecutor to show that my actions were unreasonable than to have to show why I didn't retreat. If you are prosecuted or sued, you will likely be questioned as to why you did not retreat, or at least consider it. Hopefully, your answers (and any prior statements made to police) will persuade the jury in your favor.
> 
> The duty to retreat only applies outside of the home and most states have gotten rid of this through legislation and caselaw. The Florida "stand your ground law" is one of those laws. It says that you have no duty to retreat no matter where you are. The force still has to be reasonable, but you do not have to retreat, or even consider it. You just have to show that you were in imminent fear of death or serious injury.



Thank you.....

Hey, do you also happen to know how you persuade a jury without shelling out cash for an attorney? Do ya, do ya??????


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

To jump onto a TV-13 Grand Rapids poll qestion go to this site
http://www.wzzm13.com/poll2/pollmentor.asp

As of 3/1 11:15am
Yes 84.1% No 15.9%


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

84% to 16% right now.....lookin good if the poll actually got to the legislators that act on things...


----------



## dodge7 (Jan 18, 2005)

SteveS said:


> The duty to retreat is from case law and it states (I am paraphrasing here) that you have a duty to retreat, if you can safely do so. Reasonable retreat just means that you you only have to do this if it is reasonable. I would much rather be in the situation where it is up to the prosecutor to show that my actions were unreasonable than to have to show why I didn't retreat. If you are prosecuted or sued, you will likely be questioned as to why you did not retreat, or at least consider it. Hopefully, your answers (and any prior statements made to police) will persuade the jury in your favor.
> 
> The duty to retreat only applies outside of the home and most states have gotten rid of this through legislation and caselaw. The Florida "stand your ground law" is one of those laws. It says that you have no duty to retreat no matter where you are. The force still has to be reasonable, but you do not have to retreat, or even consider it. You just have to show that you were in imminent fear of death or serious injury.


 I'm not sure where this is going now, but in the reasonable retreat docterine, courts have upheld that a reasonable man while traveling in a place that he has a legal right to be, is under no obligation to consider all of his options while in this situation, it is unreasonable, and unrealistic to believe that a sane and reasonable person could, or would have the mental capacity to thoroughly assertain all options present.

Courts have also clarified that fear is an emotion, and emotions vary from person to person, on a revolving and undefineable basis, so it is unrealistic to believe that an individule could prove fear, so as expect some one to disprove it, is unreasonable. 

And yes you will be questioned, that is why any statements given should be withheld until a time that either your mental state is that of a calm and coherent person, or you are represented by some one


----------



## MIDUCKER (Jan 26, 2006)

My only concern is that the bill as written seems poorly thought out and poorly written. 

The vast majority of the posts in this thread have focused on home invasions. I have absolutely no problem with legislation that removes criminal and civil liability for the use of deadly force against a criminal commiting a felony in your house, with a rebutable presumption that a person in your house without legal standing is assumed to be commiting a felony.

What this means is if you shoot a masked man in your livingroom at 2:00 am after he smashed out a window, you're fine. If you shoot your daughter's boyfriend crawling in a window after she yells "don't shoot Johnny", you're probably in trouble. This seems fair. In one case you're reasonably defending yourself and your family. In the other, you're shooting a little kid because you're pi**ed that he's sneaking into your daughter's bedroom. 

Where I think this legislation gets off track is by extending the "stand your ground" doctrine to any place that you can legally be. I think that there should be differing standards of conduct for your home and for "public" places. I think that if retreat is a reasonable option (meaning that you can retreat without threat) then you should have to do so before using deadly force. 

An example (again), bad guy walks up to you in a parking lot with his hand in his pocket in such a fashion that you believe he has a weapon. He says "Give me your wallet or you're dead". There is no reasonable way you can retreat from that situation without threat, and I don't think anyone would object to legislation that permits you to use deadly force without fear of criminal or civil liabilty in this instance, but...

stupid loud mouth drunk follows you out of a bar because he doesn't like the color of your shirt. He breaks a beer bottle and brandishes it while yelling that he's going to kill you. He's 100 feet away from you at this time and you are standing at your open car door. You could get in your car and drive away, but you don't. You stand and wait until he lurches to within 15 feet of you. Now he is a threat and you shoot and kill him. You didn't have to, you could have easily retreated without threat to yourself, but you "stood your ground" and killed someone. I don't think that you should be granted criminal or civil immunity for this act. I doubt many people here (even those who agree with the Castle Doctrine) would agree that this person should have been shot. 

The problem seems to be that the legislators have failed to draft a law that would protect reasonable actions and allow review of and prosecution for unreasonable actions. The legislature needs to do a better job on this issue. There are ways to better define the law and protect citizens without allowing unreasonable abuse of self defense (such as rebutable presumptions and shifting of the burden of proof).


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Poorly thought out and poorly written eh?

So, do you feel that way because you feel criminals need additional protection and a right to litigate or what?

It is about darned time that law abiding citizens did not have to worry about repurcussions after a good shoot. Creating a standard definition of a good shoot is essential but, once we do that....what is the problem?

If your daughter invites Johnny over for a little late night action and you smoke him...I don't know that the Castle Doctrine would protect you.

If you stand your ground in the bar lot (assuming you were not drinking in the bar where you would have no business having the pistol with you to begin with) sure, you prolly could have let the felon live by avoiding the confrontation but....man, you are asking an aweful lot of people to always use good common sense. 

This isn't about returning to the ways of the Old West...it is about being able to legitimately protect yourself (under prescribed guidelines) without having to worry about whether the Prosecutor had a rough night or the criminal (s) you capped know an attorney....it is that simple.


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

lwingwatcher said:


> It is about darned time that law abiding citizens did not have to worry about repurcussions after a good shoot. Creating a standard definition of a good shoot is essential but, once we do that....what is the problem?


Eh Lwing- We don't tend to agree very often- But this is one time when I'll back you up! "Repurcussions after a good shot" Nice!

Seems like common sense to me...

-Andrew


----------



## MIDUCKER (Jan 26, 2006)

lwingwatcher said:


> _*Poorly thought out and poorly written eh?*_
> 
> yes
> 
> ...


_*

Nothing under the "reasonable retreat" doctrine prevents you from protecting yourself. And as I stated in my first post, if you clearly exclude the obligation to retreat in your own home, I have no problem with that. I think that you should be able to assume that someone who breaks into your home has evil intentions unless there is clear and convincing evidence that you knew otherwise. However, in public places I think that you should be obligated to retreat if you can reasonably do so without risk of harm to yourself or others with you (you don't have to run off and leave the wife and kids).*_


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

MIDUCKER said:


> [/i]
> 
> Nothing under the "reasonable retreat" doctrine prevents you from protecting yourself. And as I stated in my first post, if you clearly exclude the obligation to retreat in your own home, I have no problem with that. I think that you should be able to assume that someone who breaks into your home has evil intentions unless there is clear and convincing evidence that you knew otherwise. However, in public places I think that you should be obligated to retreat if you can reasonably do so without risk of harm to yourself or others with you (you don't have to run off and leave the wife and kids).


Why should you ever have to retreat? If I am legally at some place and I am threatened why in hell should I have to "retreat" and if I don't I go to jail and I am going to get sued. 
Liberal thinking on guns has never gotten us very far.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

MIDUCKER said:


> Where I think this legislation gets off track is by extending the "stand your ground" doctrine to any place that you can legally be. I think that there should be differing standards of conduct for your home and for "public" places. I think that if retreat is a reasonable option (meaning that you can retreat without threat) then you should have to do so before using deadly force.


Why on earth shold a person be required to retreat fomr an indicidual that means them harm? 



MIDUCKER said:


> stupid loud mouth drunk follows you out of a bar because he doesn't like the color of your shirt. He breaks a beer bottle and brandishes it while yelling that he's going to kill you. He's 100 feet away from you at this time and you are standing at your open car door. You could get in your car and drive away, but you don't. You stand and wait until he lurches to within 15 feet of you. Now he is a threat and you shoot and kill him. You didn't have to, you could have easily retreated without threat to yourself, but you "stood your ground" and killed someone. I don't think that you should be granted criminal or civil immunity for this act. I doubt many people here (even those who agree with the Castle Doctrine) would agree that this person should have been shot.


Oh, these scare tactics have been used before. Remember when the CCW Law was reformed...blood was going to run in the streets. Rememebr when the "Assault Weapons" Ban expired...more blood was going to run. The anti-self defense crowd has been coming up with these pie-in-the-sky scenarios ever since Florida first reformed their Carry Laws and none of them have materialized. And they haven't because generally people that carry guns understand the awesome responsibility involved and I would say the vast majority of people will always use their best judgement before taking a human life. 

Blood hasn't flowed in the streets due to prior loosening of the gun laws, and it will not flow here, now, because of the changes proposed in this bill.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

MIDUCKER said:


> [/I]
> 
> Nothing under the "reasonable retreat" doctrine prevents you from protecting yourself.
> 
> However, in public places I think that you should be obligated to retreat if you can reasonably do so without risk of harm to yourself or others with you (you don't have to run off and leave the wife and kids).


Well, if you are required to retreat before you can protect yourself, how is that a reasonable means of self defense? If the bad guys know that you have to retreat before you can protect yourself, you are still at a severe disadvantage. 

Then....it also leaves one at the mercy of the attorneys and even if you survive the first attack...ya still got them to deal with. That is precisely what these laws are trying to do...protect law abiding citizens.


----------



## MIDUCKER (Jan 26, 2006)

Why should you have to retreat?

I'm obviously not going to change anyone's mind that has posted thusfar, but for the benefit of those who are still undecided, I will try to give my personal philosophy on this question. Bear in mind, this is my personal philosophy.

Maybe a better question would be, Why shouldn't you have to retreat? 

If you can remove yourself from a potentially life-threatening situation without additional danger to yourself, why should the law allow you to wait until the situation escalates to the point where it truly is life-threatening just so that you may then shoot the aggressor?

As I stated in my earlier post, you shouldn't be legally allowed to kill someone unless you absolutely HAVE to. Not because they are a bad person, not because they have committed a felony, not because you think they have it coming to them.

This isn't a school playground and we're not talking about standing up to a bully. We are talking about legally killing another human being. People are fed up with crime, I understand that. I'm fed up with crime. I'm fed up with people who have no empathy, who prey on their fellow man, who can't envision a consequence that doesn't occur in the next 15 minutes or that doesn't directly involve them.

If someone is truly a threat to you or your loved one's life, and you have no other means to escape that threat, kill them. And let's write a law that allows you to do that legally and without the threat of a civil suit. 

How do you do that?

1. Clarify the "reasonable retreat doctrine" to assure that it is not applied within a person's home. 

2. Within your home if you are confronted by a person you reasonable believe has forced entry you are afforded a rebuttable presumption that the person is a threat to your life. This means that the prosecutor has to prove that you knew that the person was not a threat to you, rather than you having to prove that the person was a threat.

3. Retain the reasonable retreat doctrine for situations ocurring outside of your home.

4. Provide immunity from civil suit if the use of force was deemed justified as self-defense (or defense of another) by the prosecuting authority or by a Court of Law.

We shouldn't let an issue as important as this become part of the partisan battle between gun owners and the anti-gun crowd. Extremism on either side is wrong. I am personally very pro-gun. I supported the CCW reform law and find the most distressing part about my stance on this issue to be that I am more in agreement with the anti-gun side.

This isn't a gun issue. This isn't about "scare tactics" and "blood flowing in the streets". Look back at my posts. I've never mentioned any dire predictions about killing sprees if this law passes. Personally, I don't think that it will have much of an effect. It will make prosecution more difficult in bad guy vs. bad guy shootings, but those are tough already. This is really just about right and wrong, and that's probably a big part of the reason that it generates so much debate. It's wrong to commit crimes, it's wrong to kill other people ... except sometimes it's so wrong to commit a crime that it's right to kill other people and drawing the line between that right and wrong is really what we are debating here.


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

The reasonable retreat doctrine is bad case law and I think it is time that MI joined the majority of states that do *not* require that a victim of a violent waste time deciding if they should retreat or not, or if some over-zealous prosecutor is going to grill them on the stand and ask them why they didn't just run away.

As for the problematic scenarios presented, I ask you to look at the other states that don't require resonable retreat and go along with the castle doctrine. Are there angry fathers killing their daughter's boyfriend? Are there a flood of gunfights in the streets? Even California doesn't require resonable retreat.



> stupid loud mouth drunk follows you out of a bar because he doesn't like the color of your shirt. He breaks a beer bottle and brandishes it while yelling that he's going to kill you. He's 100 feet away from you at this time and you are standing at your open car door. You could get in your car and drive away, but you don't. You stand and wait until he lurches to within 15 feet of you. Now he is a threat and you shoot and kill him. You didn't have to, you could have easily retreated without threat to yourself, but you "stood your ground" and killed someone. I don't think that you should be granted criminal or civil immunity for this act. I doubt many people here (even those who agree with the Castle Doctrine) would agree that this person should have been shot.


I don't know that this person deserves to be shot, but I feel little sympathy for people that try to kill other people. In the example you give, the assailant intentionally placed himself in a situation where the other person was forced to defend himself. I can honestly say that I would I have retreated. OTOH, if you value your life, don't try to kill other people.

We can probably come with all sorts of scenarios where innocent people are killed by crazed gun-owners, but "stand your ground" has been part of the common law for hundreds of years and these types of incidents don't seem to happen, except in the rarest of circumstances.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

MIDUCKER said:


> Maybe a better question would be, Why shouldn't you have to retreat?
> 
> If you can remove yourself from a potentially life-threatening situation without additional danger to yourself, why should the law allow you to wait until the situation escalates to the point where it truly is life-threatening just so that you may then shoot the aggressor?
> 
> I supported the CCW reform law and find the most distressing part about my stance on this issue to be that I am more in agreement with the anti-gun side.



Ok, so when a bad guy is is doing whatever to your wife or son or daugther...you just want us to retreat cuz we can eh? Afterall, I don't want any additional danger for myself ya know.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

MIDUCKER said:


> If someone is truly a threat to you or your loved one's life, and you have no other means to escape that threat, kill them. And let's write a law that allows you to do that legally and without the threat of a civil suit.
> 
> 
> It's wrong to commit crimes, it's wrong to kill other people ... except sometimes it's so wrong to commit a crime that it's right to kill other people and drawing the line between that right and wrong is really what we are debating here.


I don't want to "kill" anybody. Most reasonable people don't either.

But, when confronted with a situation where I fear for my health and well being or that of another...you must know that decisions need to be made.

So, if it is necessary to use deadly force (eg a gun) there is a pretty good chance that there is gonna be blood flowing somewhere when things escalate to a shoot out. I don't want to get in a shoot out. If I have to shoot somebody to protect me or mine....I don't even want it to be a fair fight. All I am trying to do is reduce the threat level and I should be able to do just that without fear of being second guessed just cuz I survived. If a bad guy gets shot and dies...oh well.

I don't much care what you or anybody thinks of right and wrong with regard to taking of a life, judgement should only rest with my maker and...I feel much safer that way than at the mercy of attorneys... The only right and wrong with this debate is whether it is right or wrong to have to worry about those attorneys. So, your opinion on this "debate" seems off base if you think it has anything to do with killing at all. That is my opinion anyway...


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Here is one case debate for the castle doctrine.
Would she been justified? yes/no?

Man accused of beating woman with elk antler

http://www.kbzk.com/Global/story.asp?S=4925555

May 21, 2006

A Gallatin County man is accused of breaking into a woman's house and beating her with a seven-point elk antler.Thirty-four-year-old Rocky Kallem, of Willow Creek, is being held on 50-thousand dollars bail. He's charged with assault with a weapon and aggravated burglary. 

Court records say Kallem and the woman left a Three Forks bar late Tuesday, but got into an argument in the woman's car and Kallem broke the passenger window. 

When they arrived at the woman's house, she went inside. 

It's alleged that Kallem broke through the locked front door, broke a window, mirror, ceiling fan and turned over a refrigerator and dresser. He's then accused of dragging the woman across the floor by her hair, and beating her with a seven-point elk antler that weighed seven to ten pounds. 

The woman was treated and released from a Bozeman hospital.


----------



## MIDUCKER (Jan 26, 2006)

I think if you read my posts objectively you can see that I'm not advocating retreat while the bad guy does "whatever" with your wife and kids. I don't advocate retreat when you are directly confronted by the threat of lethal force. 

The reasonable retreat doctrine only says that you should retreat if you can *safely* do so. There is a lot of paranoia about attorneys coming after you when you legitimately defend yourself. Prosecutors are for the most part interested in prosecuting bad guys. I don't see a lot of good honest folks being prosecuted for defending themselves. If this is such a big concern, show me. Don't tell me about your friends' cousin's nephew who knew a guy who got charged for shooting someone who was robbing him. Show me a real case with dates, locations, names, etc. where someone was charged for defending themselves.

The fact of the matter is that if you kill another person you are going to be judged. You will be judged based upon the circumstances, the evidence, the statute, and the case law at the time of the killing. Nothing is going to change that. You will never see a law that removes a review by the prosecuting authority if you kill someone. 

I've carried a gun every day for the past 20+ years. I've dealt with some really bad people and I've seen people die. Die from gunshots, die from stab wounds, die from car crashes. Six times I've decided that I would have to kill someone to stop them from doing whatever bad thing they were doing. Six times I've looked at those people through gunsights and started taking up the slack in the trigger. All six times those people stopped doing whatever bad thing they were doing during the last millisecond that they had available and I didn't have to shoot them. I have always thanked God that I didn't have to kill any of those people. It's easy to talk about how you would stand your ground and shoot any dirtbag that dares to threaten you when you've never faced doing that. It's different when you have. If you can walk away from someone without killing them or getting yourself killed, then do it. If you can't, then defend yourself. It's as simple as that.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

MIDUCKER said:


> If you can walk away from someone without killing them or getting yourself killed, then do it. If you can't, then defend yourself. It's as simple as that.


Good points...we aren't LE, sworn to serve and protect and don't get paid to intervene in others disputes or take folks into custody or whatever....

All I want to do is be able to protect me and mine without the fear of dealing with an attorney because of an investigation or civil litigation. You have the same fear of doing your job...you don't want to do something that risk management will hang you out to dry for...and I know all too well just how that plays out. Your employer doesn't want to have to pay for your actions either...

Most of us are simply law abiding citizens, that deserve the right to defend ourselves without having the fear of a lawsuit cloud are judgement in those split seconds we might have to decide whether or not to use lethal force to prevent an escalation of an already bad situation.

It sends a message to criminals that a mans home is in fact his castle and if you cross the moat or scale the walls, you might not like the reception you get on the other side...to bad, so sad.

There are those among us that know for a fact that life and death decisions are made all the time based on perceptions of how it will play with the attorneys...and the public...and whoever...


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

H http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/doc.../SCT/20020731_S118181(77)_Riddle4apr02.op.pdf


Here is some good reading for those who want to know why we need these proposed changes...


----------



## vandermi (Jun 6, 2003)

kitchue said:


> So a blast of a shotgun is the only way to tell someone to get out. Are you that quick to judge what the intention are? But the shoot first ask questions later is alot stupider than inviting them for coffeea at the table.
> 
> I quess your not the moderator to lock this thread.


So if you disagree with someone else point of view you want the thread locked.

Hm


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

MIDUCKER said:


> The reasonable retreat doctrine only says that you should retreat if you can *safely* do so. There is a lot of paranoia about attorneys coming after you when you legitimately defend yourself. Prosecutors are for the most part interested in prosecuting bad guys. I don't see a lot of good honest folks being prosecuted for defending themselves. If this is such a big concern, show me. Don't tell me about your friends' cousin's nephew who knew a guy who got charged for shooting someone who was robbing him. Show me a real case with dates, locations, names, etc. where someone was charged for defending themselves.
> 
> 
> If you can walk away from someone without killing them or getting yourself killed, then do it. If you can't, then defend yourself. It's as simple as that.



It will be unlikely that anyone will be able to come up with many examples unless they work for the prosecutor or are a criminal defense attorney. Most of these cases wouldn't be in a legal database like Westlaw or Lexis. I am less worried about prosecutors than I am about a civil case.

I would like you to show me actual cases from other states with no duty to retreat where innocent people are being killed and their shooters escaped prosecution on a claim of self-defense. 

I will continue to tell my students to avoid using lethal force if they can avoid it, but I will glad when I can stop telling them they have a legal duty to flee, if reasonable (and they better be able to explain why they didn't flee and hope that it sounds reasonable to a jury or judge).


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

SteveS said:


> I am less worried about prosecutors than I am about a civil case.


There ya go...Prosecutors are salaried, private practice attorneye collect retainers and the are ready to cause trouble so they are indeed the ones to worry about...


----------



## Batman (Mar 17, 2002)

MIDUCKER said:


> There is a lot of paranoia about attorneys coming after you when you legitimately defend yourself. Prosecutors are for the most part interested in prosecuting bad guys. I don't see a lot of good honest folks being prosecuted for defending themselves. If this is such a big concern, show me.


 I'm not worried about prosecuting attorneys. I'm worried about the $30,000 or more it will take to defend myself in a civil case. 



MIDUCKER said:


> Six times I've decided that I would have to kill someone to stop them from doing whatever bad thing they were doing. Six times I've looked at those people through gunsights and started taking up the slack in the trigger. All six times those people stopped doing whatever bad thing they were doing during the last millisecond that they had available and I didn't have to shoot them.


And if they all didn't stop then they would be.....dead, and you would have first hand knowledge of the civil end of litigation. Of course you would have no money left but that's besides the point. 

I avoid trouble at all costs as I'm sure most folks who have a CPL do. But if I have a millisecond to decide if I live or die I don't want any possible issue of law suits clouding my judgment. The decision to retreat or not might have to be made in that millisecond and that millisecond decission a good civil attorney will have months to review and sue you over.

Stand your Ground laws are need. NOW.


----------



## Frantz (Dec 9, 2003)

It is sad when a man, or woman has to retreat. It is not a mtter of who is stronger or who is better, but a matter of why should the law abiding citizen have to bow down to and retreat from a criminal? Why is the burden of retreat put upon the law abiding and not the criminal?

The problem for to long has been a lack of fear by criminals and a growing fear of losing everything to lawsuits by the law abiding citizens. When a man has nothing to fear, the sky is the limit, but when there are near certain consequences for his actions, he will proceed with more caution and better weigh the risks of his actions. It is almost the same theory as the death penalty. if the punishment for the crime is certain death, there would be fewer people attempting to commit the crime. Until now, the odds were in favor of the criminal walking away with whatever he came for, now, the fear will work for the law abiding and against the criminal.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

I had a rather weird experience yesterday, fortunately everything ended up just fine.

I was showing property near Harrison and had set up one short notice showing with a listing agent who was going to call the tenant (I didn't know that there was a "residence" on the property. Anyway, the listing agent said all was good to go.

As the tenant wasn't home, I left a business card on the door of the place (we really weren't interested in the house anyway) and toured the property in search of this hidden duck pond we couldn't find. We ended up going back to the vehicle and still the tenant was not home. I called the listing agent and he had the owner call me in an attempt to direct me to the duck pond. Both the listing agent and the owner said that "billy bob" could take us right to it.

We went back, this time unloading a quad to shorten up the trip back through mosquito/fly heaven to try and find the pond we purportedly missed. That was fine with me as I had had about enough exercise for a day (this was the last of several properties we had toured) and I am still in rehab after bypass surgery. Still no luck but when we came out, a truck was at the place.

I contacted a woman and let her know that we were looking for billy bob to take us to the pond and she advised that billy bob was out looking for us. She said she had paged me twice but, I showed her my pager and it had not recorded any pages. The client and boy went out on the quad to locate billy bob and give him a ride back. They came back in short order and pulled up to me and things seemed a little weird.

Billy Bob came storming out of the woods all wild eyed, yelling, and wanting to know how we got behind him. You had to see him to fully appreciate the sight but....the leather holster and the big six gun on his hip with the hammer thong off had me a little nervous. Like I said, you had to see this guy (and the place) to fully appreciate things. He was still ranting and raving as the clients loaded up the quad and I chatted with him trying to settle him down as the strong odor of intoxicants coming from his person really didn't thrill me much either.

Now...he had no reason to fear for his personal safety...he was out hunting us like is lady friend said. But, me on the other hand...looking at things with a very discerning eye...was a little uncomfortable with the belief that if he would have cleared leather...I would have had no choice but to eliminate the threat. Man...that would not have been a way to end the day...but, ya gotta do what ya gotta do to go home in one piece. Fortunately, I was able to defuse the situation and we got out of there in one piece. Yikes...almost makes ya wanna carry spare mags on real estate showings.... The point is, we both had a right to be there so...


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Michigan Gov. Granholm Signs Legislation to Strengthen Self-Defense Rights

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204720,00.html

Thursday, July 20, 2006

LANSING, Mich.  Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed legislation Thursday that supporters say is aimed at strengthening and clarifying self-defense rights in Michigan.

People now will be allowed to use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if they reasonably think they face imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault. They can use deadly force on their property or anywhere they have a legal right to be.

The legislation also protects people from civil lawsuits if they have used force in self-defense.

"Law-abiding citizens will have the right to defend themselves against brutal violence without having to worry about being treated like a criminal," state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, said in a statement.

Some Democratic lawmakers have said the legislation is not only dangerous but also unnecessary because prosecutors already don't charge people who have justifiably used deadly force to protect themselves. They predicted it could spark a shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality that ends with innocent people getting shot.

But supporters said the law is needed to protect people from getting sued and partly because Michigan law previously required people to first retreat, putting them at a disadvantage.

The law also creates a "rebuttable presumption" -- a legal advantage that assumes, unless there's strong proof to the contrary, that people honestly and reasonably believe they face death, rape or great bodily harm when someone breaks into their home.

The presumption won't apply in domestic violence situations, disputes involving the police and if people using the force are breaking the law.


----------



## chrisu (Dec 7, 2004)

Good stuff. Amazing what can happen when an anti os trailing in the polls for re-election!

I love the fact that in every state that has enacted right to carry loegislation and protected the honest citizen, crime rates drop.


----------



## fdunford (Aug 14, 2004)

Hamilton Reef said:


> Michigan Gov. Granholm Signs Legislation to Strengthen Self-Defense Rights
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204720,00.html
> 
> ...


I'm shocked that Jenny did not veto this bill - perhaps she's throwing 'gun nuts' like myself a bone before the election. 

Any ideas why this has not made the local news (or has it)?


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Governor Grandholm after review has also supported the earlier CCW legislation. She understands right/wrong aside from political bs. That's why she signs the gun bills. Remember there are thousands of Democrat NRA members that hunt and shoot. The NRA is not 100% Republican. As last resort the Democrats also need to support the 2nd Amendment to protect themselves from Republicans.


----------



## fdunford (Aug 14, 2004)

HR,

I respect your right to have your own opinion. I disagree with it. Please show me Jennys pro-gun voting record before she realized she's in deep-dodo. When' this, you may ask. Oh, lets rewind to before Governor.

Seems to me she was anti-gun when she ran for Attorney General and defeated Frank Kelly.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Remember there are thousands of Democrat NRA members that hunt and shoot."

In the country? That many ?  Couldn't resist


----------



## Brian S.Kroll (Jan 23, 2005)

Jenny was originally against the CCW reform efforts in Michigan.
As "AG" she did nothing to increase CCW reciprocity with other states.
Also, as "AG" she did nothing when local communities like Ferndale tried to implement their own restrictive firearms laws in violation of the state pre emption law.
...This bill was passed with a super majority, and she knew it was going to fly with her, or without her, so she signed it after sitting on it for twelve days.
John Lott sums it up nicely:Granholm forced to sign Bill


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

Though I am certainly willing to give people a second chance, I am somewhat skeptical of the gov.'s change of heart. As Brian mentioned, she worked against CCW reform. 

Her signing the self-defense legislation, while nice, seemed to be an easy choice. A veto would not have stopped it, given that there were enough votes to override. With no viable 3rd party candidates, die hard anti-gunners are not likely to run out and vote for DeVos.


----------



## jdearmon (Aug 10, 2006)

It is better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6

If God wanted that burgular to live, he would have not allowed him to enter my house, but went to the neighbors instead!


----------

