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

[jsbhike]

The mention that has my interest is the death threat part. Is that only during an active altercation and one party does it in hopes of defusing the situation? Or is it a general blanket?

If the latter, how general is it? And if so is this a possible angle towards the red flag crap? Contrary to red flag support claims surrounding mass shooters, threats, and particularly death threats, are already a legal issue that land a lot of people issuing them in hot water albeit with an apparent eye brow raising exemption for many people that end up making good on it.

[dwhitehorne]

Part of the issue with this case is the road rage label. Every time I see that I think oh great here we go again. Deadly Force and use of force are clearly defined by the Supreme Court for Law Enforcement. Not necessarily for private citizens. One thing the courts look at on a case by case is the “ability-opportunity-intent” portion of the case. If you are in your car with the windows up, the doors locked and with the ability to drive away when a driver jumps out and displays a knife and starts yelling doesn’t necessarily equal deadly force. So stopping your car, getting out and gun facing the other driver will probably not go well. Some will mention no duty to retreat. Being in your locked residence at night defending yourself and reacting to a road rage incident in a public place are two entirely different situations. If you can’t articulate your immediate danger pulling a gun is not going look well in the court room. David

[flenna]

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?

Well that is another way of looking at it (and on the surface sounds right). The danger in it is that taking away “would a reasonable person have used deadly force” and replacing it with “was it necessary to use deadly force” is that now there will be a government bureaucrat determining if it is “necessary” in the aftermath of a shooting. Well, since the law of the land says LE has no duty to protect then will it ever be “necessary” to use deadly force to protect someone else? And once this is fully established it will be applied to non-LE, too.

[jsbhike]

Well that is another way of looking at it (and on the surface sounds right). The danger in it is that taking away “would a reasonable person have used deadly force” and replacing it with “was it necessary to use deadly force” is that now there will be a government bureaucrat determining if it is “necessary” in the aftermath of a shooting. Well, since the law of the land says LE has no duty to protect then will it ever be “necessary” to use deadly force to protect someone else? And once this is fully established it will be applied to non-LE, too.

It isn't “would a reasonable person have *****”, but instead “would a reasonable officer have ****”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor

One of a plethora of issues where double standards and codified/in practice exemptions need to be deleted. We have plenty of societal issues that need to be addressed, but in my opinion having certain segments of society free to engage in a given action with no consequence while other segments face a myriad of punishments for the same action is part of our current problems. The double standard will manifest itself in increasing numbers of the population having utter contempt for that law and often others. Prohibition was an excellent example of this.

[eightmillimeter]

In the everyday CCW world don’t ever draw a weapon unless you intend to use it. Don’t ever try to defuse anything with a weapon, the situation may indeed “defuse” but that would be only a welcome change of pace.

[jsbhike]

In the everyday CCW world don’t ever draw a weapon unless you intend to use it. Don’t ever try to defuse anything with a weapon, the situation may indeed “defuse” but that would be only a welcome change of pace.

That's almost always a good idea. What I am thinking of this maybe being a plus is some slight change in the situation after drawing, but before firing and the person doesn't. Perhaps this could prevent a legality screwing where the person would maybe be justified in shooting, but didn't, but still has their weapon out.

[glocktogo]

Key statements:

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.

I think the problem here is nuance or the lack thereof. If you're open carrying are you threatening someone with a deadly weapon or deadly force? To a triggered snowflake yes, but they don't fall within a reasonable person standard. I believe if you draw or produce a concealed firearm during an escalating confrontation but DON'T point it at that person, you're signaling that you are prepared to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary. If you point a firearm at someone with the intent to shoot during a confrontation then you are threatening them with deadly force and justification comes into play. I can say without reservation that if I have a small child with me and you menace me with a moving vehicle (case in question), I'm drawing down on you as I move to protect the child. If you leave and I don't have to shoot you, great. If you further your threat then I'm going to assume deadly threat and dispatch you with a quickness.

In the everyday CCW world don’t ever draw a weapon unless you intend to use it. Don’t ever try to defuse anything with a weapon, the situation may indeed “defuse” but that would be only a welcome change of pace.

Again, I think nuance is important. You should never draw a weapon unless you're willing to use it. If the threat isn't escalating and doesn't meet the threshold, leave it where it is. If the threat is bodily harm and escalating, drawing may give you a much needed advantage and give the aggressor the option to deescalate their threat. If they continue after knowing you're heeled, then you know you're dealing with an irrational person and your safety is definitely at risk.

While I generally prefer to apply the speed, surprise and violence of action principles and retain surprise as an advantage, I don't think there are any absolutes in the real world. Therefore I don't believe that just because you draw you should shoot, nor do I believe you should always wait till the last second to draw when shooting is unavoidable. We don't need case law reinforcing that restriction on us either, so I think this is a good outcome even if it took a couple of years too long.

[markm]

Yes. This was a critical consideration for us when training for CCW and advanced training because you could have an aggressor flip the story if you tipped your hand and even showed that you had a gun. Even if you didn't point it at them, they could lie and get the good guy for Agg Assault.

[Esq.]

Yes. This was a critical consideration for us when training for CCW and advanced training because you could have an aggressor flip the story if you tipped your hand and even showed that you had a gun. Even if you didn't point it at them, they could lie and get the good guy for Agg Assault.

This is the problem I have with civilians and weapons mounted lights. If you pull your gun to use the light to "identify a threat"- the usual justification for having a weapons light (shooting accurately secondary) you have just committed aggravated assault in most places unless you actually HAVE a threat that 1. You damn well better be able to articulate 2. You better immediately call the police because smart bad guys WILL and say that you 1. have a gun (How do they know unless you pointed it at them?) and 2. That you menaced them with it.....

Not a big fan of weapons mounted lights for LTC carry.

[jsbhike]

This is the problem I have with civilians and weapons mounted lights. If you pull your gun to use the light to "identify a threat"- the usual justification for having a weapons light (shooting accurately secondary) you have just committed aggravated assault in most places unless you actually HAVE a threat that 1. You damn well better be able to articulate 2. You better immediately call the police because smart bad guys WILL and say that you 1. have a gun (How do they know unless you pointed it at them?) and 2. That you menaced them with it.....

Not a big fan of weapons mounted lights for LTC carry.

Yeah someone(s) should have chosen better wording than that on using the rail mounted lights.