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!"
Bookmarks