|
Latest post 01-06-2012 6:12 AM by khushi625. 181 replies.
-
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
  - Joined on 11-22-2008
|
Version That Passed Is Much Improved
As passed by the House on April 25, 2006, HB 5143 is substantially improved from its originally introduced versions. (Note that HB 5143 was one of several such bills introduced last year.)
The improvement is that HB 5143’s new language puts it closer in line with well established common law principles regarding self defense, as affirmed and articulated by the Michigan Supreme Court most recently in the 2002 case, People v Riddle (SC# 118181). Perhaps the most important improvement is that HB 5143 allows for full investigation and examination by police and prosecutors of cases in which self defense is claimed. This maintains accountability and helps ensure that those who use deadly force in self defense will be held to a high standard of responsibility in doing so.
HB 5143’s prime defect at this point is an ambiguous reference to “sexual assault,” which appears to leave the door wide open for legalized brutal response to even the most minor of infractions. If we must have this kind of law on the books to replace the common law standards that have served Michigan well for more than 150 years, this should be fixed in the Senate with clarifying language.
One note about HB 5143 that is worth contemplating: it is not a “gun rights” bill, even if many of its supporters gleefully see the proposal as empowering them to use their firearms at will. This legislation speaks to the issue of using force, including lethal force against another human being, to repel assaults upon oneself or another person. The instrument used in such defense is of no special consequence, according to the language of the bill.
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
 - Joined on 11-22-2008
|
yes, the bill as passed IS much improved, and yet, there are liberals still attacking it as an unwarranted piece of legislation.
this bill is a good step in the right direction for honest people to be able to defend themselves without fear of reprisals from their perpetrator or the government.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
Be Careful What You Wish For
>there are liberals still attacking it as an unwarranted piece of legislation.<
I’m anything but a liberal and still believe the legislation is unnecessary, and even undesireable. Here’s why:
There is no credible evidence that the existing system is broken, which in the true conservative mind obviates any attempt to fix it. Self defense rights have been well established and protected in Michigan common law for 150 years or more.
Self defense rights now are in the hands of the courts, which rule by precedent rather than politics. Once self defense rights are addressed by statute they become subject to tampering by legislative-political whim.
Legislative liberalization of the right today very well may turn to severe burdening of the right in future years, as the makeup of the legislature changes. (And the makeup of the legislature will change, sooner or later.) That risk is very real. The very best example of how this works is the self defense legislation itself -- legislation based in political posturing rather than in need.
We should be very careful (conservative) about what we wish for, lest we get it.
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
you are right... judges decide cases based on precedent.
and if the current law in michigan is so great, how come several states with laws just like it are changing?
how come the michigan legislature is looking to change it?
maybe because the "right to retreat" clauses take away your right to "stand your ground" and defend yourself.
by the way, the "other states" have had their laws just as long, and as to whether the law "serves" the people...
who is "served" by having a victim be compelled by law to retreat before they may legally defend themselves against an attacker?
what makes "simple assault" (one without any other weapons involved) require that the VICTIM retreat?
why do you have to skitter away from those who would rob us, rape us, and perhaps for grins and giggles, murder us, before the law says "ok, you've run far enough, NOW you can defend yourself."?
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
HB 5143 Is A Legislative Fakeroo
Crazycajun rants on, apparently believing that the common law regarding self defense is sorely defective as it has existed here in Michigan for more than 150 years. (He presents lots of misleading rhetoric and rhetorical questions, but no real evidence to support his contention, however.)
What happened here is that when pressed to make a decision on HB 5143, members of the Michigan House voted overwhelmingly (90-16) to approve a proposal that by and large would conservatively codify established common law principle and practice rather than radically liberalize the law regarding self defense. In the end, Representives evidently saw the wisdom of not upsetting the applecart, even as they could not resist pressure to appease. So they merely shuffled the the apples a bit.
A legitimate way of looking at this is that 90 members of the House have thrown a first class fakeroo to satisfy the self defense fanatics. HB 5143 remains cleverly labeled to imply that it is making radical changes in the law, but its actual content largely maintains the bland status quo. A classic trick.
The one thing HB 5143 will change, if it becomes law, is to end 150 years of stable common law protection for self defense rights and place them at the mercy of unstable legislative whim. The current form of HB 5143 gives clear witness to what can happen and how cleverly duplicitous legislators can be.
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
isn't THIS change done at the whim of the legislature?
no law is safe from that whim as long as the winds of public opinion are the compass by which our legislators lead.
by the way, it's ok to label my questions 'rhetorical'...
now, try ANSWERING them.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
Thanks For Reinforcing A Point Of Grave Concern
>no law is safe from that whim as long as the winds of public opinion are the compass by which our legislators lead.<
No kidding? It's good that some sees that right and wrong, and what might best "promote the general Welfare" (as the Preamble to our United States Constitution puts it) doesn't necessarily count in legislative decision-making. Only public opinion counts. Shocking. But oh so true these days.
Now that the legislature has decided to monkey with them, that means Michiganders' long- and well-established self defense rights stand in serious jeopardy. Look at the shell game that's already been played to get them in the legislature's hands. Stay tuned for more.
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
now all you have to do is TRUST that the court system(who has the great job of "interpreting" the law) will "do what is in the best interest of the people" (and not the party that elected/appointed them)
squirming yet???
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
and still no answers to my rhetorical questions...
imagine that...
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
i don't know what fuzzy pink world you travel around in, but in the REAL world...
judges MAKE precedents ALL THE TIME.
thats why cases go up and down the ladder to the supreme court all the time.
it was ESTABLISHED LAW for over three hundred years (we inherited the what we call the napoleonic code, actually old french law) that convicted murderers would be executed.
the liberals took over, and all of a sudden, the will of the people went away, not because of any laws, but because some judge thought that the death penalty was unjust.
call it jury nullification on a national scale.
now, conservatism ISN'T just keeping things as they are, but rather, making, then keeping things as they SHOULD BE.
the average american liberal gets VERY upset when it appears that a GUN RIGHT is moving forward...
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
you are exactly right.
liberals also get VERY UPSET
when you talk about putting a criminal to death
hmmm...
killing babies but not criminals...
taking rights away from law abiding citizens...
no wonder the majority of the nation has moved to the conservative side of the fence.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
thank you for imparting those words of wisdom.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
i wish more anonymous citizens would choose monicers,so that we can know who to thank.
i found the monicer "crazycajun" fits me quite well.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
Admin003
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
Sen. Cropsey's "journal statement"
Senator Cropsey asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows:
There's a lot of misinformation, I think, out there. All you have to do is just read the bills. The bills are not lengthy. There are technical issues in them, but they are understandable. Let me give you an example: Under one of the main bills, House Bill No.5143, this is section 2, the first one is the naming section, but it says, "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 (two things) apply:".
Now, first of all, even in that introductory part, they can't be involved in the commission of a crime. Now what does that mean? If somebody is carrying concealed, but they don't have a concealed weapons permit, they are committing a crime. They cannot use that weapon and come under this law. What is that saying? Very frankly, it is saying that when people get a concealed weapons permit, they are being taught and trained how to properly use their weapon. Education is a huge, huge issue in this. And for somebody to go out there and claim that they are using this, but yet they do not have a concealed weapons permit, they can't use this if it's apart from their property.
What's one of the first things there, the individual honestly and reasonably--there's a reasonable standard in this--believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual. So you have to have a reasonable belief that there's death involved or will be involved or honestly and reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or another individual.
I mean, this is one of those things that you just say, okay, you've got a reasonable belief that there's death or a reasonable belief of rape. I don't know of anybody in this institution who doesn't think that they ought to be able to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves from death or from rape. That's what we are talking about. This is basic common sense. Much of this is codifying the current law, the common law, and that's what we are talking about here.
|
|
-
-
Admin003
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
Sen. Brater's "no vote explanation"
Senator Brater, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No.5143 and Senate Bill No.1046 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of House Bill No.5142 be printed as her reasons for voting "no."
The motion prevailed.
Senator Brater's statement is as follows:
I am appreciative of the improvements that have been made to the package and the amendments that have been accepted. I want to thank especially my colleague from the 23rd District who worked so hard to make some important improvements to these bills.
The fact of the matter remains that this is still a dangerous and reckless package, and I want to tell you why I am voting "no" on all of these bills. First of all, in the state of Michigan we already have the right of self-defense without the duty to retreat in the home or from a violent and sudden attack. We can and we should and we do have that right. There's nothing that needs to be done to assert the right. It already exists. In specific, the current common law use of deadly force in self-defense is as follows: If the defendant honestly and reasonably believes that he or she is in danger of being killed, seriously injured, or sexually assaulted, or the defendant honestly and reasonably believes that it is immediately necessary to use deadly force; but without the use of deadly force if there's only a threat of a minor injury. That is the current common law use of the deadly force in self-defense. Michigan law already adequately addresses the use of deadly force.
In People v Riddle, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the issue of the use of deadly force in self-defense and found that there is no duty to retreat from a sudden and violent attack. A person is never required to retreat from a sudden, fierce, and violent attack, nor is he or she required to retreat from an attacker whom he or she reasonably believes is about to use a deadly weapon. In these circumstances, he or she may stand his or her ground and meet force with force. A person attacked in his or her own dwelling is never required to retreat. There was some question about the area around the home or the curtilage, and I could see some if you felt the need to refine that in law I would have perhaps supported that, but these bills go far beyond that.
This goes far beyond codifying existing common law. What about a situation in public places? If you are approached by a person with mental illness or a person who is drunk, or, as we just heard on the news today, 3 out of 100 people are afflicted with intermittent explosive disorder--the disorder that causes road rage--what are you going to do if you are approached by a person like that and you perceive yourself to be in a state of danger? We are creating a Wild West mentality in this state and I oppose it.
I am also very concerned about the establishment of the rebuttable presumption in this package. The Harvard Law Journal on Legislation recently outlined some inherent problems with the Castle Doctrine as passed in Florida, which is the basis for the package of these bills. The article focused on a case in Florida where two children found several comic books and PEZ dispensers in a trailer and they began searching for the owner so they could ask permission to take what they had found. During their search, the children found another trailer and entered through an unlocked sliding glass door, and the owner jumped up and asked them what they were doing there. Before the children could answer, the owner fired at close range and killed one of the little boys. I repeat, the owner shot and killed a little boy armed with comic books and a PEZ dispenser.
Applying this situation to the package of bills before us, there would be a presumption that the owner of the trailer was justified in using deadly force against these little boys. Not only that, but civil immunity would also apply.
There was also an assertion that this package dealt with victims' rights. The sponsors of these bills could not find one case where a victim of home invasion was prosecuted for trying to defend himself or herself. They reached back to 1925 to the Sweet case, which, as we heard earlier on the floor today, was not even applicable.
There were also assertions that gun violence is not a problem in this state. They brought up the issue of people with concealed weapons permits not having a high risk of inapplicable use or inappropriate use of their weapons. Well, this package has nothing to do with concealed weapons permits. This package applies to everybody in the state of Michigan. I could go on and on with the statistics of the incidents of gun violence in this state. It is an epidemic and it's killing people night and day in this state.
This legislation sends the wrong message. We should try to resolve our conflicts peacefully with words, not guns. It is reckless and I urge you to oppose it.
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
court gave this one to the insurance agencies once, what makes you think that they won't give it to them again?
the supreme court is there to INTERPRET the law, not write law.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
Friendly Advice: Do A Little More Reading, Less Prattling
Yo there, kookytransplant!
You say:
>court gave this one to the insurance agencies once, what makes you think that they won't give it to them again? the supreme court is there to INTERPRET the law, not write law.<
This (I guess) is in reference to a case called Auto Owners Insurance Company v Harrington, which the Michigan Supreme Court decided in 1995.
Actually, what the Supreme Court did was interpret Michigan law regarding the content of contractual agreements between insurance companies and insured parties.
You probably should read the Supreme Court opinion in Auto Owners v Harrington before spouting off here, if you wish to be respectful of facts.
Actually, Senate Bill 580, Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus a year ago would remedy any complaints about the Supreme Court’s having upheld Michigan law regarding insurance contracts in respect to self defense exclusions. But for some reason SB 580 has gone nowhere. You like to speculate and spout: any guesses as to why SB 580 has stalled in committee?
|
|
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
Changed Bill Goes Back To The House
On June 6 the Senate passed an amended version of HB 5143 as passed in late April by the House. (Makes your head spin, doesn't it?) The new version -- now awaiting further action in the House -- adds these interesting provisions:
“Sec. 3. Except as provided in section 2, this act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 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 .”
Section 2 says:
“Sec. 2. (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in thecommission 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.”
The Supreme Court’s 2002 decision and opinion in People v Riddle -- which rules Michigan self defense law -- includes extensive discussion of the “necessity” question.
All things considered, one readily can get the impression that nothing in HB 5143 would significantly (or materially) change the way self defense cases are viewed in Michigan law at present.
What’s going on here?
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
this is where the legislators get to show their true colors.
whittling away at legislation to remove the parts they don't like.
this bill will probably be back for several more times "under the knife" before it's all over with.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
but i'd say that the insurance companies have used YOUR premium money to purchase the services of YOUR elected representative.
i did read the decision, and several others like it, there were VERY FEW dissenting justices, meaning that the court was pretty sure of it's decision.
when you say "just a contract" like it isn't important, i say that contracts are enforced just like laws.
my rights have been effectively taken away by contracts like these for years, and the legislators recognize that fact, and SOME of them seem to be trying to be seen as DOING SOMETHING about it. whether anything gets DONE or not.
and by the way,
happy name calling.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
i just got back from house bill 5143 on this site,
i read sen. Brater's no vote explanation.
i respect the senator's right to oppose this legislation, but she seems to be saying that the current law "ain't broke, so don't you dare fix it."
while she accurately quotes the michigan supreme court cases, she also threw in an example from florida (a definate no-no on this thread) to back up her arguement.
the fact that the supreme court case she cited had the line in it, dealing with jury instructions that went something like this.
"failure to retreat may be considered when deciding whether or not the defendant was properly defending himself, or was acting in a criminal manner."
this is not an exact quote, but you can look it up for yourself.
ok, one FLORIDA case where some yahoo IMPROPERLY shot a kid who was IMPROPERLY in his trailer.
one unfortunate case...
not a blood bath...
one state out of some twenty-odd...
i need more cases... more MICHIGAN cases before i believe that this bill is a bad idea.
let's see if the hippocracy works BOTH WAYS.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
this bright ray of sanity shines like a beacon from the dark pit of day to day politics.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
your failure to retreat as part of that "proof"...
thats the problem.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
that the current law came from mount michigander, or something...
it came from LEGISLATORS!!!
they can monkey with it whenever they get a free minute, for whatever purpose they choose.
the laws have stood for so many years for a reason.
to mess with them without good cause meant the end of your political career.
now that attitudes have been "liberalized", there is no longer this worry.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
According to the attorney that ...
taught my Michigan CPL course, you are wrong. Retreat is required in all instances except when you are in your home.
|
|
-
-
Anonymous Citizen
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
That atorney may have fibbed to you ...
>According to the attorney that ... taught my Michigan CPL course, you are wrong. Retreat is required in all instances except when you are in your home.<
Although the discussion is moot at this point – since this bundle of legislation has been passed and will become Michigan law – I would recommend you not rely upon that particular attorney for assistance in any serious legal matter. He evidently never read the 2002 Michigan Supreme Court opinion in People v Riddle. Shame on him.
On the other hand, and to be fair, the guy probably was following the NRA training syllabus, which (from what I gather about it from competent instructors with whom I am acquainted) long has emphasized that retreat is the first (best) option, if it can be done safely. That’s a common sense approach to self-defense, irrespective of what is on the law books.
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
taught my police academy class said that michigans "duty to retreat" doctrine was very seldom upheld, but that, seeing as it made it to the supreme court once, it could make it again.
not a good place to be if you just recently defended yourself and didn't retreat.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
crazycajun
- Joined on 11-22-2008
|
helmet law repeal was supposed to become law.
the governor has, to my knowledge, not signed it yet.
nothing should be taken for granted.
and the fact is, that failure to retreat CAN be used against you, meaning that if you fail to retreat, you were NOT defending yourself.
a situation definately in favor of the CRIMINAL.
michigan constitution, article 1. Sec. 6.
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
keep your powder dry.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Bovard 1994
|
|
-
-
-
|
|
|