G&R Tactical
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Michigan Self Defense case with HUGE implications......

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    362
    Feedback Score
    0

    Michigan Self Defense case with HUGE implications......

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/michigan-...201846122.html


    Basically, the court holds that the mere display of a weapon- when it's intended to prevent an escalation of force being used illegally against you is NOT in and of itself Lethal Force. Legally this makes imminent sense, as the article points out- Police Officers ROUTINELY point weapons at people with no present intent of shooting them- merely hoping they will calm down and comply etc....Nobody believes in that case that they have committed Aggravated Assault- though it probably, technically fits the definition.....

    Practical application- You are involved in a road rage incident. The other driver advances on you threatening to "kick your ass and murder you".....BUT, it doesn't appear that he really has the ability to do so- no weapons etc....You would not normally be justified in producing a weapon as he has done nothing to truly endanger you at that point. Under this ruling, you would be justified in pulling your weapon to prevent essentially an escalation. Now, the moment you actually PULL THE TRIGGER, it of course becomes Lethal Force and you would have to be able to articulate and justify why you fired in self defense.

    I think this is probably a good ruling but I worry about it quite a bit. It relies really on the mindset of the person pulling the weapon- do they INTEND to shoot someone or are they just trying to prevent further escalation? If I'm the guy who sees the person pulling a weapon during a verbal altercation do I think "Oh, he's just bluffing and I need to calm down and check myself" OR do I think "Holy crap, that guy just pulled a gun and I'm behind in what is now a gunfight!"
    Last edited by Esq.; 08-22-19 at 08:14.
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe." Luke 11:21

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,464
    Feedback Score
    0
    Maybe the best way to look at it is it may benefit you if you are in the right. Plenty of morons always have and always will pull guns on people when there really was no reason to do so.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    362
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jsbhike View Post
    Maybe the best way to look at it is it may benefit you if you are in the right. Plenty of morons always have and always will pull guns on people when there really was no reason to do so.
    That's true enough.....I just worry that a "Ya Ya" match might unnecessarily become a TWO WAY gunfight....Telling average people it's ok to pull out their gun just to prevent an escalation may end up creating real problems.

    And please don't misunderstand, I like the ruling. I think it's absolutely a proper interpretation of the law and that it's a good thing for innocent defenders- not making them completely reactive only....but I can see problems too...Just an interesting exercise for legal wonks maybe.....
    Last edited by Esq.; 08-22-19 at 09:38.
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe." Luke 11:21

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,313
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    From reading the article I'm not entirely sure this is a good rule. And the cheerleading from David French of National Review makes me hesitate even more.

    EDIT: you can find the opinion in a zip file here:

    https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/C.../ZipFiles.aspx

    It's No. 343202 in the file. From a very quick read the court is stating that this simply affirms existing law. I'll have to review it in more depth to make up my own opinion.
    Last edited by SomeOtherGuy; 08-22-19 at 09:42.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    Use InfoGalactic instead of Wikipedia - avoid Wikipedia's left bias

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    Product reviews stating "Only 4 stars because I haven't used it yet" are an idiot's signature.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    362
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy View Post
    Do you have a link to the actual opinion, or can you post one when it becomes available?

    From reading the article I'm not entirely sure this is a good rule. And the cheerleading from David French of National Review makes me hesitate even more.
    https://law.justia.com/cases/michiga...19/343202.html

    You are right to always be suspect of David French. I'm a Kurt Schlichter guy myself- he hates those "establishment conservative" Buckleyites.....I'm pretty much on the same page with him on that.
    Last edited by Esq.; 08-22-19 at 09:42.
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe." Luke 11:21

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    The Sticks, TN
    Posts
    1,685
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    California is going the opposite direction for police, changing the requirements for use of deadly force from “reasonable” to “necessary”. This is very dangerous but not totally unexpected from the loony Left.

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/60748012...#sp=show-clips
    Psalm 34:19

    To argue with a person who renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. ~ Thomas Paine

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    23,519
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Charles Murdock / Patrick Lavoie.

    Murdock was never arrested and he went home with his weapon. That is how it is supposed to work, but you never heard of them because Murdock was black and Lavoie was white.

    Lavoie never physically touched Murdock and Murdock fired from inside his vehicle because he reasonably feared Lavoie and for his own personal safety.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    888
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by flenna View Post
    California is going the opposite direction for police, changing the requirements for use of deadly force from “reasonable” to “necessary”. This is very dangerous but not totally unexpected from the loony Left.

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/60748012...#sp=show-clips
    Well, I don't know. . . . Maybe the Government shouldn't be allowed to kill people unless it's necessary.

    Less loony when you look at it that way, no?
    Last edited by Uni-Vibe; 08-22-19 at 22:47.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,313
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Key statements:

    The SDA does not define “force” or “deadly force.” Our Supreme Court, however, has
    applied the term “deadly force” as defined as force used in a circumstance in which the natural,
    probable, and foreseeable consequence of the act is death. People v Couch, 436 Mich 414, 428 n
    3; 461 NW2d 683 (1990). In People v Pace, 102 Mich App 522, 534; 302 NW2d 216 (1980),
    this Court determined that a defendant’s mere display of a knife during a fight, while implying a
    threat of violence, does not constitute deadly force. Id. at 533-534.
    ***
    This holding, that a threat of deadly force is itself nondeadly force, is consistent with
    Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed), which defines nondeadly force as “1. Force that is neither
    intended nor likely to cause death or serious bodily harm; force intended to cause only minor
    bodily harm. 2. A threat of deadly force, such as displaying a knife.” Similarly, the treatise
    LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law (2d ed), § 5.7, pp 455, states in relevant part, that “merely to
    threaten death or serious bodily harm, without any intention to carry out the threat, is not to use
    deadly force, so that one may be justified in pointing a gun at his attacker when he would not be
    justified pulling the trigger.”
    The court opinion sounds like they are following existing Michigan precedent and also following general U.S. common-law principles on this issue. I am a bit puzzled as I have always heard that threatening someone with a deadly weapon was deadly force, not non-deadly force as held here. As far as I can tell the ruling is legally correct, but this seems like a problematic rule. So, from this, if someone threatens you with a gun, that threat is only non-deadly force? Or it may be either deadly force or non-deadly force depending on either the threat's subjective intent or your assessment of their intentions? You would generally fear for your life if someone is pointing a gun at you, so that would seem to justify deadly force in response, unless you actually know that the person cannot or will not carry out the threat. I'm having trouble seeing how this works in the real world.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    Use InfoGalactic instead of Wikipedia - avoid Wikipedia's left bias

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    Product reviews stating "Only 4 stars because I haven't used it yet" are an idiot's signature.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,464
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe View Post
    Well, I don't know. . . . Maybe the Government shouldn't be allowed to kill people unless it's necessary.

    Less loony when you look at it that way, no?
    I think that is also a good way to view it.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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