Property defense laws...

[Vic]

In the state of Michigan, a law was passed just prior to the election for Governer (imagine that eh?). Michigan relaxed it's personal and property protection law allowing citizens to protect property and themselves with firearms. Three days ago at 5:00am my dogs were going ballistic so the wife gets up to see what the problem is. She informs me "someone is stealing our car". I told her (half asleep still) "so...it's insured". She gets me out there and yes, there is aperson in our car (couldn't believe that he had not run). I walked back to my bedroom and recovered my 1916 .308 mauser and checked the chamber...it was empty. Knowing public sediment of handguns, I elected NOT to grab the 1911A1. ALSO knowing that the simple presents of a firearm deterrs crime, I decided NOT to grab ammo and load the weapon, I proceeded to the front door. I looked at the person and told him he needed to step out of the car, he didn't comply. I raised the weapon and aimed into the windsheild and told him to exit the vehicle NOW...this time, he complied. I lowered the weapon as he exited the vehicle and he began walking twords me so I raised the weapon again and told him to take two steps back...he complied. The first few words out of his mouth indicated this guy was DRUNK beyond belief, and he didn't even know where he was (wife was on the phone with 911 during all this). I told the guy to STAY PUT, Police were on the way...and I immediately put the weapon back in the room. The guy was at a party across the street and he thought he was in his own car and he was WAY to drunk to be driving even a bigwheel tricycle. The police arrived, and arrested this person, and took the report. My point...the presents of the firearm did it's job and me with a broken hand, I can't do much to defend myself. Had this guy been on a mission or had a gun himself...I'd have been in deep stuff. Beings how I live in the country and all the other conditions, I made the decisions I made based on observations. I also didn't have a feeling of immediate danger poking at me (you know when things aren't right). Prior to the law being passed...I could have been arrested myself defending my property with a firearm. Also, deputy asked me what kind of gun I used,and I told him a .308 hunting rifle. It was an exciting morning to be sure.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

I am actually unsure of the law here in Ohio, but I recall some years ago up in MI people getting arrested for gunning down intruders breaking in. Good to hear things have changed. I have thought about keeping a 'protection' gun, but right now I dont have an 'expendable' gun Id feel OK with turning into the police if I had to shoot an intruder.

Funny thing is, my father bought a Glock a couple of years ago for that very purpose (lives out in the boonies where 911 wouldnt be able to get to him quick if there was a home invasion) , but he keeps it locked with one of those funny locks that goes through the barrel. Kinda pointless Id say.

 

[Vic]

Know your laws...

Knowing your laws will keep you from being arrested. It's good that this state finally woke up and decided we could protect our families and property. This law by no means relieves me from employing a firearm responsibly in such an emergency that would require me to use it.

 

[K3]

Ya shoulda loaded it. What if he was off his rocker and said 'screw it' and charged you? Sometimes the presence of the firearm alone is not enough. You never know.

 

[Vic]

"should have loaded it"

I agree...had he went off his rocker...I'd been in deep poo. But like I said...I didn't get a "immediate danger" vibe off this one. I did observe him for a minuet before confronting him. I spent a bit in the Military Police and my experience plus observations did not indicate escalation. Had he been AGRESSIVE verbally or otherwise during observation...I'd stuffed 5 rounds in it before stepping out the door. Had he been in the house...it would have been loaded in an instant (like before my feet hit the floor).

 

[creitzel]

Vic, be careful with this.

It is my understanding that the "castle doctrine" law that was passed last year, does NOT allow you to protect property. It only removed the duty to retreat when you are in a place you are legally allowed to be, and provided for protection against criminal and civil litigation if you are following the act.

It is my understanding that you still have to be in fear of imminent great bodily harm or death to be justified in employing deadly force in Michigan.

 

[Vic]

I guess I gotta read the whole thing...

Thanks for the heads up... Since I did not legally employ deadly force...no laws were broken.

 

[SteveS]

It is my understanding that you still have to be in fear of imminent great bodily harm or death to be justified in employing deadly force in Michigan.

This is correct. Vic, I am glad you are ok and things turned out well.

The laws you are talking about are here:

309 PA 2006

AN ACT to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "self-defense act".

Sec. 2. (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Sec. 3. Except as provided in section 2, this act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October1, 2006 regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force other than deadly force.

Sec. 4. This act does not diminish an individual's right to use deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or defense of another individual as provided by the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006.

Enacting section 1. This act takes effect October 1, 2006.

and....

313 PA 2006

Sec. 21c. (1) In cases in which section 2 of the self-defense act does not apply, the common law of this state applies except that the duty to retreat before using deadly force is not required if an individual is in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling.

(2) As used in this section, "dwelling" means a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that structure or shelter.

 

[Vic]

I agree...

According to what you wrote...it had to be LIFE threatning or possible sexual assualt. You have no obligation to retreat if you are in your house, close to the house etc. The car happened to be within 5ft of the front door at the time (I park close because the wife had leg surgery and is using a walker). Yeah...gotta be careful...there is a fine line where you'd be in the wrong. Had I been in the wrong, I'm sure the Deputy would have so informed me, and he NEVER saw the firearm anyway...but he did know about it (three patrol vehicles showed up).

 

[SteveS]

Had I been in the wrong, I'm sure the Deputy would have so informed me, and he NEVER saw the firearm anyway...but he did know about it (three patrol vehicles showed up).

Not always. I am familiar with plenty of instances where someone was in the wrong and not arrested or charged. Police and prosecutors have a great deal of discretion.

If you take the NRA PPitH class to get your CPL, the person doing the legal portion should explain the law in reagrds to self-defense.

 

[Troutman]

Posters sig:

<<"If there is anything that I learned in twenty years of service in the U.S. Military, I learned that NO decison is worse than making a BAD decision." >>

True in civilian life as well. Don't forget it.


wait a minute....its better to make a decision, than no decision at all.