Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on September 7, 2005, to create a new law establishing that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home, contiguous private property or occupied vehicle need not first flee from a threatening attacker, and that there is a rebuttable presumption that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters one of these is doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, with certain minor exceptions. This would place the “home is my castle” doctrine in statute. Also, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be, has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm

The vote was 90 in favor, 16 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 372 at House Journal 38)

Click here to view bill details.

It's about time that we eliminate the stupid idea that law abiding citizens have a "duty" to surrender or run from criminals. The criminals have a "duty" to be responsible law abiding citizens but choose not to. It is about time that we are not be held liable for defending ourselves against those misfits. This law should let the criminals know that we are not easy prey. The same people who predicted "blood flowing in the streets" and "gunfight at the OK Corral etc. when the CCW laws were passed are now saying we will be more likely to shoot our sons coming home late from a date etc. Where do those idiots get their ideas. Maybe they would do something like that because they are driven by emotion, not logic or common sense. If they are concerned about the safety of the criminals, they can " This is a gun free household, car etc. signs on their cars or wear clothing that has a similar message so they can identify themselves as easy prey.

This bill (Jones-5143) is better than Casperson's bill for providing real improvements in personal protection. While it is not as broad as Florida's new "Duty to Retreat" law, it is a much better step in the right direction. Dial 1911 for immediate safety and dial 9-11 to get a report filed.

Yes it's about time that we have laws that support law - abiding families simply trying to protect themselves and their families. It is ludricrous to think that when invaded in your own home or on your own property that one has to retreat first. How much easier can one make it for criminals? I'm glad that this "let's be nice to criminals" mentality is finally being straightened out in our society's thinking.

This law should do much to provide for protection of honest citizens, both in their homes and vehicles and everywhere else. Not to be overlooked is what in my opinion is one of the most critical parts of this law: immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability. In our CPL classes we have always taught that if you are ever compelled to use deadly force in your home to protect your family, you should be prepared to (1) be handcuffed and thrown in jail, (2) pay out $100,000 or so to defend yourself against criminal charges, and (3) be prepared to defend yourself against civil liability at an unknown cost. This bill provides much better protection for the honest Michigan citizen than he has ever had. So cheers and thanks to Rep. Jones! Now let's get this through the committee, then the Senate, and to the governor with 90%+ favorable votes. We can do it.

When, in your recollection, has anyone in Michigan been harmed by retreating or prosecuted for defending himself or his family with force while on his own property or in his home or car under the current law? What we need is facts. Document the cases, and demonstrate that this is a common or frequent enough occurrence in Michigan to warrant this proposed law, and I'll support it. But not before. (And before you go off the deep end and start calling me a gun-grabbing liberal, know that I fully support Michigan's vastly improved CCW law, prefer the Vermont model for CCW, believe a man's home is -- or should be -- his castle, and am a staunch law-and-order advocate. I just don't think the use of deadly force should be encouraged as a first option.)

Taken from section 4 of the text of the bill. "A person who uses force as permitted in section 1, 2, or 3 is justified in using that force and is immune from criminal prosecution and from any civil action for the use of that force." This eliminates the criminal or families of criminals bringing a lawsuit against someone using force to justifiably defend themselves. This makes sure that crime (or the true victim) doesn't pay!!!

I think you have a duty to society to kill an intruder in your house even if they are unarmed. If you just pull a gun on him and wait for the police, he'll go to jail for a little while and with our revolving door prisons, he'll be out soon. Then, as a hardened criminal, he might rape or murder someone. It's better to nip the problem in the bud with some upper chest shots. I like that the law bans survivors from sueing you. These lawsuits are total BS.

Actually, there's no "but." You raise legitimate points. In response to them, I will refer to the current state of the law regarding homeowners insurance policies' duty to cover your liability if you "shoot the burglar." Apparently, they have none (see bill below), and this bill would fix that by preemptively removing any such potential liability. 2005 Senate Bill 580 - Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus on June 14, 2005, to prohibit an insurance company from excluding coverage in a homeowners insurance policy for injuries resulting from an act committed by a homeowner in self-defense, and establish that self-defense is an exception to any “intentional acts” exclusion in a policy. Under the bill, an inflicting an injury in self-defense could not be considered an “expected” or “intended” act. In the 1990s, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a homeowner who had injured an intruder in self-defense had committed an “intentional” act, and so was not covered by his insurance.

If insurance coverage for acts of self defense is a real problem, then Senator McManus’ SB 580 would be more than sufficient to address it. HB 5143, which would elminate the “duty to retreat” appears to be overkill (pardon the pun). The impression I have is that prosecutors in Michigan seldom if ever go after folks who use deadly force in true self defense. So I’m not at this point persuaded there is a good public purpose to be served in passing a law that would eliminate the “duty to retreat” standard or doctrine. My further concern is that HB 5143 well might encourage rather than discourage violent confrontations. The end result may be more harm to innocents emboldened to stand their ground but who lose the battle, than the thwarting of bad guys. Bottom line is that as a conservative, I see no need to enact HB 5143 into law. But I might be persuaded in the other direction if someone can cite real cases in which the “duty to retreat” doctrine has resulted in harm -- physical harm, criminal prosecution or substantial civil liability -- to people defending themselves, their families or their homes against aggressive intruders.

Some years ago, while I was living in Clinton Township, the Macomb County Gun Board adopted an informal policy under which it began to grant concealed pistol permits to virtually every applicant unless it had a reason to deny a request. After some time, word spread. "They're handing out gun permits like popcorn," one guy told me. While it wasn't widely publicized at the time, the policy did have an effect: The rate of personal crime in Macomb County fell and the bad guys started going elsewhere. Oakland County, for example, experienced an increase in its personal crime rate during this same period. That was a number of years ago and I don't know where things sit today...but I can tell you that the bad guys do factor into their decisionmaking the odds that a potential victim may be armed and willing to use their weapon. The "willing to use" part is important. Legislation that affirms the true exercise of self defense by getting rid of this "duty to retreat" nonsense and by immunizing against lawsuits should result in the good guys being more willing to use their weapons. And the bad guys will catch on to this idea pretty quickly. When the crooks understand that nothing -- not a vague fear of prosecution or the risk of some garbage lawuit -- stands between the muzzle of their intended victim's .45 and they're own chest, they'll think twice before instigating. And that's a good thing. As far as your professed conservativism...well...I know no conservative who would ever presume to tell a guy to stand down in the face of criminal confrontation for the reason that he might get hurt. Instead, conservatives foster the freedoms that allow the individual to decide among appropriate responses.

Please Pass HB 5143

The Macomb county gun board anecdote is interesting, but not persuasive. We need real cases demonstrating that innocent people are being hurt -- physically, or through criminal prosecution, or by lawsuits -- by the law as it now stands in Michigan. That would support the contention that the law needs changing. >Legislation that affirms the true exercise of self defense by getting rid of this "duty to retreat" nonsense and by immunizing against lawsuits should result in the good guys being more willing to use their weapons. And the bad guys will catch on to this idea pretty quickly.< Alternatively, perhaps a number of “good guys” will either be badly hurt or wind up dead when “bad guys” take their weapons away and . . .. Or, perhaps when the bad guys catch onto the game more true innocents will get hurt because the bad guys will use greater violence earlier in the confrontation. These are real possibilities. See, conjecture can work both ways. >As far as your professed conservativism...well...I know no conservative who would ever presume to tell a guy to stand down in the face of criminal confrontation for the reason that he might get hurt. Instead, conservatives foster the freedoms that allow the individual to decide among appropriate responses. < I believe the freedom exists (in the way current law is applied) to make a decision as to whether one should stand his ground or retreat, since nobody yet has taken up the challenge to cite actual Michigan cases that indicate otherwise. The conservative view is, if the system ain’t broke don’t tinker with it. The conservative view, also, advises that discretion is the better part of valor. Thus, when faced with aggression the conservative will in fact retreat to the extent possible rather than place his family and himself at greater risk than necessary to extract himself and his mfamily from the situation. That’s just making responsible and sensible choices and behaving accordingly.

See HR 648, 108th Congress, 2/2/03, Section 2(3): "Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self- defense. For example: * * * (C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges." * * * When I worked armed, I was specifically -- albeit informally -- instructed to make sure the bad guy didn't make it. Otherwise, I was warned, I could be sued. And that was years ago. You go run and hide so you can maybe live to hide another day. Me...I'm gonna' put a three-round burst on center mass.

>(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges."< One odball incident that occurred 14 years ago and which ended with charges being dropped does not make a persuasive case for HB 4153. Basing public policy on rare exceptions (like this) is a poor practice.

Sometimes this is all the response that can be made: Idiot. "Gong, again." Unbelievable. Did you read the resolution? Do you follow news? While that was one case, the trend in local jurisdictions has been to whittle away at the right of self defense. Apart from an outright weapons ban, this has occurred in at least two ways: the way in which justifiable homicide is defined and a through a practice of enforcing gun-related violations apart from the actual act of self defense (discharge w/in city limits is one example). Tacit acceptance of related lawsuits could be considered a third. I found the 2003 House Resolution, affirming the right of self defense, on a quick Google search and in response to your question regarding the merits. That resolution was not simply a response to the Michigan case, the Michigan case was but one example of political prosecutions that have been taking place across the country. "Oh Those Statistics." "More Ouch." Don't misrepresent yourself as a conservative. Those of us who are are loathe to identify with your ilk. * * * * * Being too lethargic to perform any research yourself, you reject the proposal out of hand because, you say, it may not be needed. In response I refered you to a national resolution addressing this same issue, dated 2003 and which cited an incident that occurred in Michigan. But that's not enough to cause you to think that there might actually be an issue here? Still you don't investigate. Instead, you dismiss it out of hand as an old case. It doesn't count. Your Frankenesque style clearly pegs you as an Air America fan. Instead of arguing a point, you cut and paste excerpts from others' posts into your reply. Then you poke at what you have chosen to excerpt, add a silly phrase for effect and gloss over all with a superior tone. All characteristic of the classic empty liberalism you represent. The bill(s) under discussion do nothing more than affirm a traditional American right. Why would that bug you so much?

To the misguided soul who labeled me an idiot, accused me of being lazy and spent a lot of energy with other miscellaneous name-calling and trying to advance unsupported claims about the need for this bill . . . again, no sale. My conservative nature and philosophy dictates that I decline to support HB 5143 without seeing credible citation of incidents, in sufficient numbers, to demonstrate there is a change needed in the Michigan law as it stands regarding self defense. So far, proponents of HB 5143 here have cited only one Michigan case in support of the argument that HB 5143 is needed to prevent miscarriages of justice. The one case cited is an incident that occurred 14 years ago, and in which the inappropriate charges were dropped by the prosecutor. Not at all persuasive as justification for a change in the law today. It is not my obligation to go out and research evidence that supports the argument a windy and bombastic detractor wishes to mount against my posture. Not asking for or seeking a change in the law, I have nothing to prove. Conversely, the guy who eagerly wishes to see this bill become law bears the very serious burden of documenting need or reason to make the proposed change. Like it or not, that’s the way these things work in rational discourse. At this point I continue to regard HB 5143 as a solution looking for a problem. I also am a good American who does believe individuals have a right to defend themselves against hostile assailants. And so I have the capacity to be persuaded of the need for passing HB 5143 by credible evidence that the “duty to retreat” doctrine in current Michigan law routinely and frequently produces perverse results and miscarriages of justice. Care to give it a whack?

The fact that this happened 14 years ago is irrelevant. The point is, it DOES happen.

The term “moot,” in this case would be taken to mean, “deprived of practical significance.” In this instance we are talking about a 14-year old (1991) case from Port Huron that resulted in charges being dropped and no prosecution. That is not a miscarriage of justice. It is justice at work. There was a proper outcome. Those are the facts that “deprive” the 1991 Port Huron case of “practical significance” -- i.e., irrelevant -- as an argument for significantly liberalizing existing Michigan law in respect to the use of deadly force in self defense. Perhaps you need to study the factual record a bit more broadly and closely to gain clearer understanding of what Michigan law really is in respect to self defense. Then, if you think with your brain rather than your gut about the matter, you may conclude there is little or no rational basis for HB 5143 and its siblings, HB 4654, HB 5142, and HB 5153. If you want to see a legislative proposal that appears to address an actual problem in current Michigan law regarding self defense, check out Senator McManus’ SB 580.

It should never be illegal to defend your life. That is beyond obvious. This law puts into statute the general approach that case law has mostly agreed with.

>It should never be illegal to defend your life. That is beyond obvious. This law puts into statute the general approach that case law has mostly agreed with. < First of all, it is not in any way illegal to defend one’s own life in Michigan. To imply that it is illegal to defend one’s own life in Michigan is to distort the truth quite completely. HB 5143 and its twin HB 5153, and its cousins HB 4654 and HB 5142 all seek to liberalize existing Michigan law regarding self defense to the point that a mockery is made of independent, objective review to determine the facts of each case in which lethal force is brought to bear. These bills create presumptions that the use of lethal force always is justified and create prohibitions that prospectively leave certain injured parties without any hope of seeing justice done. There is no reasonable basis for this kind of change in Michigan law, based on the way current law has been applied. If you want to see a lucid, thorough, informative and binding discussion of current Michigan law regarding the use of lethal force in self defense, the “duty to retreat” doctrine and the “castle doctrine,” read the entire text of the 2002 Michigan Supreme Court decision in People v Riddle, case #118181. It should convince any reasonable person that the current crop of House bills regarding self defense are radical and unnecessary proposals.

I am a Corrections Officer of the Michigan Department of Corrections, I have asked many of the prisoners whom have been convicted of B&E, carjacking, strong arm and so on. Just about all of them show a "Deer in headlights look" and say that after a few examples are made the numbers of the crimes will go down. Also that they would have put more thought into what they were doing with the risk of being hurt or killed. They wish for the bill to pass to keep others from making the same mistake they had.

I think the bill is a response to the case of People v Marcel Riddle, 467 Mich 116 (2002), in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that a man shot in his backyard (in the threshold of his detached garage) was neither entitled to the no-duty-to-retreat instruction he asked for nor deprived of a fair trial by the duty-to-retreat instruction that was instead given.

House Bill 5143 would, as written, allow citizens of Michigan to use deadly force against persons who are breaking into their homes or, and this is the troubling part, had “reason to believe” that that an unlawful or forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. Therein lies the danger, as I see it. As a school teacher in Detroit, and as a combat veteran in Vietnam, I have seen, first hand, frightened people who shoot first and ask questions later. In Vietnam, as in all wars, friendly fire was a leading cause of death among U.S. soldiers and it is, more often than not, the result of inexperienced men, armed with deadly weapons, who shoot at anything that they perceive as a threat - even if it is one of their own men. Jones has introduced yet another piece of pro-gun legislation, that serves to mollify fearful suburban constituents (no doubt, mostly white) who see danger at every turn. We don't need anymore scared people with guns running around with a license to shoot first and ask questions later. Fearful suburbanites would do better spending more time in Detroit getting to know people, and less time imagining danger in the eyes of every black face they encounter. The fact that the only case cited in this entire discussion is 14 years old is very telling. The current law has served us very well. Rep. Jones says that Detroiters support this bill. I'd like to see that poll!

I'd like to reposnd to the Detroit teacher. I am very critical of someone attributing race to this bill. I do not believe the statement "that serves to mollify fearful suburban constituents (no doubt, mostly white)is either fair or accurate. I am a retired Naval Officer having achieved the rank of Rear Admiral and am also an African-American. I have taught at the Naval War College, possess advanced mathematics degrees and I suuport the law based on it's merit of realigning the law on the side of the citizen rather than the criminal. In my opinion no member of the criminal's family nor the criminal, for that matter, should have any civil appelate rights if I defend myself using deadly force. I assume that anyone committing criminal acts may have a propensity for violence and should be considered dangerous. If someone breaks into my home while we are away then they are "safe". If we are at home I will defend my family vigourously and with any means at my disposal up to and including the use of deadly force. The same holds true while in my vehicle. Please consider this when you assume that all suburbanites are as you say "mostly white"

This (below) is a very troubling statement. Did you sleep through all your training in the area of rights to due process? Maybe it demonstrates that possessing an “advanced mathematics degrees” and a commission in the Armed Forces and having held a prestigious teaching position are not -- and I repeat, not -- credentials that automatically qualify an individual to evaluate laws like the one proposed in HB 5143. >I am a retired Naval Officer having achieved the rank of Rear Admiral and am also an African-American. I have taught at the Naval War College, possess advanced mathematics degrees and I suuport the law based on it's merit of realigning the law on the side of the citizen rather than the criminal. In my opinion no member of the criminal's family nor the criminal, for that matter, should have any civil appelate rights if I defend myself using deadly force. I assume that anyone committing criminal acts may have a propensity for violence and should be considered dangerous.< Fact is, HB 5143 would “codify” what already is established in long-standing and firmly established Michigan law insofar as the use of “deadly force” and the “castle doctrine” and “standing one’s ground” in self defense is concerned. But it goes a step beyond that, which is the pernicious part: >In my opinion no member of the criminal's family nor the criminal, for that matter, should have any civil appelate rights.< For all intents and purposes that statement and the one immediately preceding it and HB 5143 presume that the person who claims “self defense” always is “in the right,” and that the person who suffers death or injury at the self defense claimant’s hand always is “in the wrong.” Thus, the person who claims "self defense" would get to act as cop, judge, jury and executioner, without challenge. This precludes the real trial and test of the facts in a court of law when deliberate injury to another’s life or limb is called into question. And that is fundamentally wrong in the United States of America the vast majority of us know and revere. The claim made above asserts, in essence, that because one is a high ranking ex-naval officer with an advanced academic degree and certain teaching experience, his/her judgement and behavior is beyond question and reproach. That is an elitist claim of the worst sort. The debate over this questionable bill deserves far better than that.

Again, someone who missed the entire point of my post. My response was to the assertion that the bill was introduced to appease the "mostly white suburbanites" when in fact not all of us are white as asserted by the detroit educator. As for being an elitist think what you will, but I grew up on a farm in the rural South and worked my way through college and up through the ranks in the military. If working for my education and achieving something in my life makes an elitist then I am proud to be one. Perhaps if everyone enjoyed the same work ethic that I have then we wouldn't need to have this bill. My work days were about 14 hours a day in the Navy and if my Battlegroup was deployed I was available 24 hours a day in my sea cabin while underway. As to your assertions that there is no due process, it is in place during the investigation of the shooting. If you bother to read the propsed bill you will see an investigation by the police will ensue after any shooting. The police we assume are a competent authority in these matters and should be able to determine if the shooting was justified or not. Due process in the military is another matter. It can and will only apply in cases of Courts Martial or similar legal action. I have held numerous Masts or hearings, if you will, as both a Captain and my present rank and there are no evidentiary processes in place. The military is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice which goes so far as to make adultery a punishable offense. Punishment up to and including confinement, extra duties, and even being placed on bread and water rations has been used for hundreds of years and the military is none the worse for wear. We don't have the types of crime or unrest you see in the general populace because one is punished for their actions and not slapped on the wrist and told not to do that again. Since I believe that a person has the right to defend themselves against an agressor, I'm suddenly the bad guy. Where would we be if our founding fathers had chosen to allow England to continue her agression toward us with out responding, let's just say our use of the "English" language would be quite different. Let's suppose a criminal breaks into your house with your wife and you children at home, do you think he would give your wife the choice before raping or sodomizing her in front of youor your kids? How may women walking to their cars have gotten this choice? Suppose your wife shoots this individual, only wounding him. The police begin by taking your wife into custody. They inviestigate and decide that it was a justifiable shooting. Your wife is realeased and she comes home. Two days later you are served with a subpoena in a civil trial because your wife injured him. Should you lose the case you have to pay the criminal damages. This bill would protect you from this by removing the assailants or his family's ability to do this. You can't presume to believe that this hasn't happened because we have all heard of cases like this. This bill only strengthens case law already in place. I chose to serve in the military and help provide you with the luxury of being able to disagree with me. My main reason was to defend our Nation, its Constitution, and her people from threats like the savage terrorists we now face. Would you provide the Achilles Laurel terrorists the same luxury of due process. These guys hijacked a luxury liner and pushed a wheelchair bound man overboard to die and killed a number of other hostages. These hijackers were subsequently caught by a joint military and FBI operation. What if one of the terrorists had survived 9-11? Would you be so willing to allow them due process? What if you had been on the plane would you have acted to stop them from killing anyone else or would you have kept your seat and let someone else do the dirty work? I tend to see things in black and white to a fault. I'm not rigid in my views, I believe in due process, but if you commit a crime and are killed and the police find that it was justifiable it should end there. Why should the victim be liable in a civil trial?

I am in 100 percent agreement with our Naval admiral. I am sick and tired of hearing the criminals getting off "scott free". If I am truly defending Me and and/or my family, Hell even my dog. If you have a gun/weapon and you are in my house (un invited). I will not ask you to take a chair and discuss why you are in my house with a weapon. No sir, I WILL DELETE YOU! It seems to be that if someone is in your house and has a gun and someone is defending themselves, they shoot the criminal, the home owner (defender) always draws the short straw. This is not a race issue. I don’t care what color you are! What background you come from, I do not see differences, we are all equal. Sadly in this world that does matter to some people. I do not pity those people. But race does not matter at all in this bill. The analogy that the admiral gives is a perfect, real life scenario. If my wife shoots someone that was attempting to do harm and wounds them after they broke into our house. Then the police determine that she didn’t trick them with candy to invite them into our house just to shoot them. They can tell that they were intending to do harm. IT SHOULD END THERE! The criminal’s family should not be entitled anything. It does not apply to them. A part of their family has chosen that way of life. They know they are doing wrong, therefore they should expect to encounter force. It should NOT be a surprise to anyone. I too am getting sick and tired of people getting slapped on their hands and being told "no no Johnny, you shouldn’t be doing those bad things....go in time out". I have been through and all of the CPL (CCW) courses. I will defend myself if I need. I do not think if someone is intending on doing harm to me. To set aside precious seconds to think, well do i have a lawyer to defend me against this criminals family. I need to use the years of training that I have and be able to react to the threat. End of story!

Arguments made here in support of HB 5143 are hollow, for the following reasons: 1) The right to defend oneself from assaults and home invasions is well established in Michigan law, and so renders HB 5143 unnecessary on that count. For an excellent, lucid and understandable discussion of this, read the July 2002 Michigan Supreme Court opinion in the case of People v Riddle, docket #118181. 2) Cases of Michigan citizens being criminally prosecuted for legitimately using force in self defense evidently are extremely rare. So far the only such case cited in this whole discussion occurred in 1991 (14 years ago), and even in that case the charges were dropped. No convictions have been cited. 3) I don’t pretend to have made an exhaustive search, but have spent some time looking and find no string of Michigan cases in which innocents have been sued by criminals they injured while acting in self defense. I am aware of a very few cases in which police officers were sued. So this aspect of the self defense question in Michigan doesn’t seem critically problematic either. Note that in making the above statement I am not saying or implying that (a) a person should not have the right to defend him- or herself, or that (b) people who act in legitimate self-defense should automatically be prosecuted, or be automatically subject to the award of large damages at the end of a lawsuit. What I am saying is that given the lack of substantial evidence to the contrary, Michigan law in respect to the question of self defense appears to be working just fine as it is, and at this point does not call for legislative meddling of the sort proposed in HB 5143. It is not constructive to speculate on why anyone would support this bill in the virtual absence of verifiable facts that would point to a substantial history of justice miscarriages in Michigan that it presumably would prevent in the future. It is fair and sufficient to note, however, that absent supporting facts, statements calling for passage of HB 5143 so far seem to be long on emotion and short on reason.

Well, I have seen some standing case law be overturned in part and as a whole. I suppose my views are tainted by the fact that I have ordered men and women to carry out actions that would threaten their lives and I have done so with comfort in the fact that it was for the greater good. Having said that, perhaps 5142 & 5143 may not be the best answer but so far no one has stepped forward to offer anything other than the status quo. I encouraged everyone of my subordinates and students alike to think outside the box. This is the same principle. Are there overwhelming cases, admittedly no. Have we all seen the justice system create great miscarriges of justice, absolutely. It only takes one case to change legal precident. As I read these bills They seek to solidify and strengthen the legal precident you cite. My hope is, that we as a society will grow beyond the need to enact such laws and allow common sense to prevail. Everyone is truly entitled to fair and impartial treatment under the law. Common sense also dictates the we should have the right to defend ourselves and families as needed. I do want to make clear that these are my views and not those of the Navy Department, but most of the men and women in the armed forces generally feel that we should defend ourselves and our way of life. Perhaps I am to old and set im my ways but I do believe that someone up to no good and who displays that type of behavior has shown a general propensity for behavior abhorrent to society and should therefore by guarded against. I don't pretend to believe that my answers are the end all answers. Healthy debate of the issues are how our government began and continues to protect the citizens but if it is found that the majority of the public believe that such bills as 5142 & 5143 are needed then there is merity in their being passed.

It's about time maybe people need to start being held accountable for their actions. to protect your family from rap,mudder,or mental suffering. shoot to kill works for me. The system we have now sure is not working.

Oct. 30, 2005: The following passage has been shamelessly lifted from another thread on this comments board, that focuses on HB 4092, which seeks a ban on “certain multibladed devices.” I don’t think it is taken too far out of context (although the author was discussing a proposal in Great Britain that would ban long kitchen knives). > >I doubt one 70-year-old Detroit homeowner would support such laws. Last week he shot and killed an intruder in his house on Fullerton Street. Neighbors were supportive, including an 86-year-old man who said he owns a .38-caliber pistol and a shotgun (and, I'm guessing, may also have a few long kitchen knives).< > >Similar cases are reported regularly. One last year involved a 32-year-old Farmington woman with a concealed carry gun permit who used a small-caliber pistol in her purse to thwart an armed robber. The robber, with a 9mm pistol in his waistband, turned and fled after the woman waited until he was 10 feet away and then drew her weapon.< > This bears directly on discussion here of HB 5143 and its ilk, in which we have seen repeated (false) assertions or implications that individual Michiganders do not have the right to defend themselves (or others) against aggressive assailants. Clearly, Michiganders do have such a right under present day law, and cases like those cited above from recent history confirm that fact. “The Admiral” has acknowledged that established Michigan law provides this right, but he believes it is unsafe in the hands of the courts and is better protected via statute enacted by the legislature. This is a dubious proposition, if you look at the history of Concealed Carry of Weapons and similar laws in the state of Michigan. While the State Constitution does say clearly that, “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state,” the legislature has tinkered with and restricted that right over the years, usually in keeping with the political climate of the moment. Only in very recent years have serious defects in the legislative handling of this right been modified in a constructive way, but with a law that remains severely restrictive in respect to CCW. So there is little reason to believe that if the right to defend oneself against aggressive assailants is placed in the hands of and at the mercy of the legislature -- as HB 5143 would do -- over time the right will become increasingly muddied, and likely will be more restricted as political winds shift and the legislature tinkers with it in the future. The right to self defense is stable and well understood now, in the hands of the courts, and that is where it stands the best chance of remaining so. Prosecutors already have, and certainly do exercise considerable discretion in whether or not to bring criminal charges against a person who injures or slays or brandishes a weapon against another person in “self defense.” The record speaks to that fact, as the only Michigan “horror story” of inappropriate charges so far cited here dates back to 1991, and even then the charges were dropped. Likewise, no string of civil cases brought against Michigan people who act in self defense has been cited in this discussion. A substantial record of such cases having resulted in unjust outcomes during recent years might lend weight to claims for need of the burdens HB 5143 would place on such lawsuits. Absence of such a record provides compelling evidence that no need exists to impose those burdens. The bottom line, of course, is that by all indicators there are far more reasons to maintain the status quo and NOT enact HB 5143 than there are to rock the boat the put it into law.

For the sake of clarification, I must amend the post labeled “Here’s Something to Ponder, Sailors,” by correcting the following paragraph. >So there is little reason to believe that if the right to defend oneself against aggressive assailants is placed in the hands of and at the mercy of the legislature -- as HB 5143 would do -- over time the right will become increasingly muddied, and likely will be more restricted as political winds shift and the legislature tinkers with it in the future. The right to self defense is stable and well understood now, in the hands of the courts, and that is where it stands the best chance of remaining so.< What I intended to say was this: So there is little reason to believe that if the right to defend oneself against aggressive assailants is placed in the hands of and at the mercy of the legislature -- as HB 5143 would do -- it will be safe and secure. If HB 5143 is enacted, the right will become increasingly muddied and likely will become more restricted as political winds shift and the legislature tinkers with it in the future. The right to self defense is established, stable and well understood now, in the courts, and that is where it stands the best chance of remaining so.

I have to agree with the something to ponder post that sometimes legal clarity makes certain positions untenable and this may be one of them. Just as you say we are protected by the Constitution, however nothing is above legal challenge. Most well thought out laws generally work in favor of the citizens until the lawyers enter. Most people if asked to decide a case on simple facts use plain old common sense and I feel are generally correct in their decisions. I agree the political machine has a way of running over the very citizens they are there to serve. Not all politicians are of the same ilk. Some actually fulfill the trust we have empowered them with, while others are both mediocre and dismal failures. I think if the Courts, Polticians, and the Lawyers all used a little common sense then we wouldn't be having this debate. We could protect our homes and families knowing that justice would prevail and that nothing could preempt common sense. We do not however, have that luxury. More often than not juries are "swung" on legal grandstanding and not the facts. We have an imperfect system and if this law is applied correctly it can be used to support our legal systems failings and hopefully direct us back to using the Constitution as the guiding principles for our legal system. I suppose my views outdated and that I'm living in the past. Life was a lot less complex. I do believe if we act in good faith and do what we think is right that we will be alright.

>I think if the Courts, Polticians, and the Lawyers all used a little common sense then we wouldn't be having this debate.< The debate we’re having was preciptated not by some outrageous action on the part of the courts and lawyers, but by a bunch of politicians exploiting irrational fears and proposing legislation like HB 5143. Remember, again, two key facts that bear on this discussion. First, there is an established right to self defense, and the so-called “castle doctrine” is alive and well in Michigan law right now. The courts have seen to that. Second, only one case has been cited here (in this discussion) to support the contention that Michiganders who act in self defense wind up getting improperly prosecuted. That case dates back to 1991. The case is 14 years old, and even then, the charges were not pursued (they were dropped). Common sense dictates that one case, 14 years old that ended in a just outcome does not argue in favor of HB 5143 and its ilk. Common sense based on examination of the facts dictates that what is proposed in HB 5143 is unnecessary. Common sense argues persuasively for maintaining the status quo. >We could protect our homes and families knowing that justice would prevail and that nothing could preempt common sense.< What makes you think that you can’t protect your family or home now, and that the Michigan courts and prosecutors haven’t used or don’t use common sense on the issue of self defense? There has been no real evidence presented here to support such a contention. See above for pertinent facts. You seem to be arguing that we should put greater faith in the legislature than in the courts on this issue. The fact is, our courts have established decisively that we do have the right to protect our homes and families. Now, since we want to apply “common sense” to this, think about the number of ill-considered laws you’ve seen proposed and enacted by the legislature during the last 14 years or even 14 months, or even 14 days. >. . . More often than not juries are "swung" on legal grandstanding and not the facts. We have an imperfect system and if this law is applied correctly it can be used to support our legal systems failings and hopefully direct us back to using the Constitution as the guiding principles for our legal system.< You libel people who serve on juries with that statement, implying that they are readily duped. Are you easily duped? Do you think you are easily duped? Or is it just "other folks" who are easily duped? I think that a lot of what has been argued in support of HB 5143 and its like here is complete grandstanding distortion of the facts. The favoring arguments have been based on false premises (that a right to self defense does not exist in Michiagan, for example) and nebulous assertions (like the comment about an “imperfect system” and the implied idea that current Michigan law regarding self defense is somehow “unConstiutional”). The actual facts completely debunk those arguments. >I suppose my views outdated and that I'm living in the past. Life was a lot less complex.< I don’t believe your views are outdated and that you are living in the past. I think your views are misguided by irrational and unsupported fears, mythology and faulty application of common sense that keep you from seeing this issue clearly. Life really is no more complex than it was “back when,” if you keep your wits about you and stay in touch with reality. >I do believe if we act in good faith and do what we think is right that we will be alright.< Well, then, the status quo and history of Michigan law covering self defense should be of great comfort to you. Look at the facts and use common sense to evaluate the situation. The system is not broken. Why do you want to monkey around with it, or have a bunch of politicians monkeying around with it?

I agree this Bill and its companion bill need to pass. We are taught in our CPL training that we have a "duty to retreat" in Michigan before using deadly force, even in our our home! This is wrong. I too am sick of "worrying" about will I do the wrong thing (i.e. not run first) if I have to defend myself, due to the current status of the MI law. I am also sick of criminals or their families having the ability to sue ME if I happen to shoot them while defending myself. I am not a fool, and I do NOT want to shoot anybody, and will avoid it at all costs; but if my life or my families are in danger, I want to be able to act with the law on MY side - not on the criminals side. Kill the duty to retreat!

>if my life or my families are in danger, I want to be able to act with the law on MY side - not on the criminals side.< The law is on your side as it stands. Clearly, your underlying premise here is that Michigan law now prohibits you from defending yourself or others from criminal assault. But that is a false premise. Michigan law already does guarantee you that right. Laws based on or arising from false premises (beliefs) invariably make bad laws. HB 5143 is based on false premises. It should be rejected.

That's funny. I was taught in my CPL class that the duty to retreat ONLY exists outside your home. And your duty to retreat ONLY exists if you determine that retreat is possible. IF you reasonably determine that attempting to retreat would put you in greater danger, or that retreat is impossible, then your duty to retreat is nullified, and you can use whatever force is necessary to prevent your being attacked. Of course, the normal limits on deadly force still exist.

I agree with the legislation wholeheartedly. As an experienced public safety professional I have seem many instances in which citizens were victimized by armed assailants with no means of self-defense. The CPL law was a great start to leveling the playing field and giving victims a chance. This is the next step to help assure that law-abiding citizens are not prosecuted for protecting the lives of themselves and their families.

You said it well! Thanks! Only a criminal or those who depend on them would be against this legislation.