Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 15, 2006, 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 a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters one of these is presumed is to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, with certain exceptions specified in the bill. This would place the “home is my castle” doctrine in statute

The vote was 30 in favor, 8 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 462 at Senate Journal 55)

Click here to view bill details.

It is sad that such a bill is needed, but recent court cases show that such a clarification will be beneficial to both the courts as well as citizens. People should not live in fear; fear of criminals and violence, nor fear that, should they defend themselves, they'll be again victimized by the legal machine. This bill is worthy of support!

The right to self defense already is solidly established in Michigan law. This bill, and the several others like it that have been introduced during this legislative session, panders to baseless fears regarding inappropriate prosecution for self defense violence. Prosecutions of that sort happen so seldom they can be said to not happen at all. Further, by restricting or putting impediments in the way of access to the courts for victims of so-called "self defense" violence, this proposal (and the others like it create) potential for real injustice.

I'd remove that section. Criminals impersonate police officers to gain advantage over victims. Just because someone yells, "Police! Drop your weapons." doesn't mean they are law enforcement officers. The public should be protected from prosecution given that criminals use this tactic.

Currently if a crook breaks into your house and trips and falls down the stairs They can sue you for hospital bills and lost wages in this state. Remember the family in Grand Rapids anyone? The man who got killed on the porch. The man was Drunk! The man had criminal intent! But the crooks surviving family sued and put that homeowner through serious legal misery. And the news media slanted the story in favor of the drunk who was threatening to kill the occupants! That could happen to any us! you! me! the next door neighbor! Ever count how many robberies are going on as we speak in this state right now. We need more legislation like this that favors the homeowner and not the criminal Sinerely Zack Raha

About time.

The Eaton County Prosecuting Attorney’s web site provides these comments regarding self defense, as it now stands in Michigan: “Legally-justified use of force to protect one's self, another person, or property against some injury attempted by another person ... the right to repel force with force ... the defendant (i) must have honestly and reasonably believed that he had to use force for protection, (ii) may use only the type and degree of force that seems necessary for protection at the time based on the circumstances known to him, (iii) must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assault (i.e., provoked the attack) “In Michigan, a Prosecutor has the burden of dis proving a defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clearly, the rght to self defense already stands well and reasonably protected in Michigan law. Further, I can find no string of Michigan legal cases showing that the legal system routinely or frequently (or even ever) abuses individuals who act in self defense. So why do we need SB 1046 or any of the other bills like it introduced in this session of the Legislature? The answer: We don’t.

...when you can fix it right now. Sorry, but if I'm attacked, the last thing running through my mind is whether or not I have... (i) honestly and reasonably believed that I had to use force for protection, (ii) may use only the type and degree of force that seems necessary for protection at the time based on the circumstances known to him, (iii) must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assault (i.e., provoked the attack). The first thought running through my mind is to make sure that my family and myself are safe and that ANY threat is neutralized, the above criteria be damned! Criminals by definition do not follow laws (why else would they be breaking into my home), and have a penchant of mucking up the system with superfluous lawsuits to pass their time (usually at our expense). Why give them that opportunity?

>Sorry, but if I'm attacked, the last thing running through my mind is whether or not I have... (i) honestly and reasonably believed that I had to use force for protection, (ii) may use only the type and degree of force that seems necessary for protection at the time based on the circumstances known to him, (iii) must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assault (i.e., provoked the attack).< Sorry, but decent people (that is, non-criminals) have a natural instinct for these things, which only amount to knowing the difference between right and wrong. If you have to think about them . . . then, what does that say about you? And you conveniently left out this important bit of advisory from the Eaton County Prosecuting Attorney web site: “In Michigan, a Prosecutor has the burden of dis proving a defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” That means, the claim of self-defense is given the benefit of being regarded as valid unless the proscutor can produce massive evidence to refute it. What more do you want? In fact and truth, there is no real history of justice miscarriages involving self defense in Michigan. The law works and works extemely well to protect all public interests as it stands. When you look at the facts and situation unemotionally, SB 1046 and other bills like it that have been introduced in this legislative session are unnecessary by any common sense standard.

So what happens if someone attacks me and it proved to be self-defense, that still don't protect me from a civil suit!

Every time I read a comment these folks make about laws like this, I hear it as: If you are attacked, there is nothing you can do! You have no right to life unless otherwise decided by your attacker. It's best to just just give the attacker what he wants, even if it is your life. He has a right to live, you DON'T!!! WHAT BS!!! I read a comment from Sarah Brady that stated: "These laws are there to preserve life!"...in other words, our current laws are there to protect the criminals against vigilanti law-abiding citizens. The way I see it, if me or my family are attacked, the attacker has givin up his right to life!!!

>So what happens if someone attacks me and it proved to be self-defense, that still don't protect me from a civil suit!< If it really is self defense, then the civil suit will fail on its merits. Pretty simple, eh? So far in these discussions nobody has delivered the frequently requested string of actual cases demonstrating that miscarriages of justice routinely occur in Michigan self defense incidents under current law. Most likely, that's because there isn't any such string of cases.

of your post scares me. If you are doing nothing wrong then you won't care if the nice policeman pulls you over to look in your truck, will you? The bottom line is that when a criminal breaks into My House he has given up any and all rights he may have had when standing outside. All this bill does is recognize that fact and save the good people of Michigan a bunch of hassel if they should ever need to eradicate a threat.

>If you are doing nothing wrong then you won't care if the nice policeman pulls you over to look in your truck, will you?< We’re not discussing the rights of the police to stop and frisk citizens who have done nothing in particular that should draw police attention. We are discussing the ins and outs of what happens when one person decides to and does bring violent and perhaps lethal force against another person. That is the business of the police, and a matter of public concern, and very much so. Michigan law as it stands very clearly allows for the use of force in self defense or defense of another person from imminent threat of violence. SB 1046 is not needed. >The bottom line is that when a criminal breaks into My House he has given up any and all rights he may have had when standing outside.< It is for the courts to determine whose rights should be stripped, and not any private citizen's or police officer's authority to do so. The castle doctrine exists, and is hale and hearty in Michigan. You are quite entitled to defend yourself against a person who breaks into your residence while you are there, with force necessary to repel him/her. It is an established element of the law. That makes SB 1046 totally unnecessary. I challenge you to demonstrate, by presenting verifiable cases and case histories that Michigan law regarding self defense frequently or routinely or even ever in the last 10-20 years has resulted in miscarriages of justice. Only such a record could even begin to justify what is proposed in SB 1046. If you can’t produce such a record then you have no rational or reasonable basis for supporting passage of SB 1046 or other bills of its sort.

"It is for the courts to determine whose rights should be stripped, and not any private citizen's or police officer's authority to do so." Not in my house. In my house you obey my rules. Example: You may have the right to free speech but in my house if you say things I don't like I have the right to send you to the curb. There you are free to spout. "Michigan law as it stands very clearly allows for the use of force in self defense or defense of another person from imminent threat of violence. SB 1046 is not needed." Then why are you against it? If it is redundant, who cares. I think that we need this to be spelled out because there are way too many bunny hugging liberal/socialist morons that if put on a jury feel sorry for the criminal and ruin good folks lives.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. (Or perhaps you do not understand the American way.) Our revered Declaration of Independence unambigously says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life . . ..” This is bolstered further by a declaration in Amendment V to the United States Constitution (Item 5 in the Bill of Rights) that says, quite clearly, “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Thus, there are means by which a person may be stripped of his rights in our country, through “due process of law,” as administered by the justice and judicial system. This ensures that no one person has the authority to arbitrarily strip another person of his rights. That’s the way it works in the USA. It works very well. And has worked very well like that for more than 200 years. >Not in my house. In my house you obey my rules. Example: You may have the right to free speech but in my house if you say things I don't like I have the right to send you to the curb. There you are free to spout. < This is an absurd argument -- another one of your apples vs oranges scenarios. I acknowledge your right to control what goes in your house, and respect it. You certainly do have the authority to restrict what I say in your house. You have the authority to order me from your house if I don’t abide by your rules. You have the right to call the police and have me removed if I won’t go of my own accord. But you do not automatically have the right to bring violence to bear against me merely because I say something you do not like while I am in your house. The point is, I do not automatically give up my fundamental rights as a human being when I enter your property any more than you give up your fundamental rights as a human being when you enter mine. And that’s the way things should be. My guess is you are one of those big time “with rights go responsibility” folks. I sure advocate that, myself. Michigan law regarding self defense as it stands provides a proper balance of protecting rights and distributing responsibilities and accountability -- everyone’s rights and responsibilities and accountability. SB 1046 is not needed to create something that already is established. What makes SB 1046 particularly objectionable is that it doesn’t stop with reiterating something already established. SB 1046 proposes to create an entirely new balance of rights vs responsibilities and accountability with absolutely no real evidence that such an adjustment is necessary or even desireable in the cause of justice and public interest. > I think that we need this to be spelled out because there are way too many bunny hugging liberal/socialist morons that if put on a jury feel sorry for the criminal and ruin good folks lives.< This is what makes you a very scary person. You evidently are filled with vindictiveness toward anyone who crosses you, and hatred toward people who do not see eye-to-eye with you on matters of judgement, to the extent you can’t even be civil in a discussion of this matter. You also seem paranoid. And there are touches of megalomania, in which you grandiosely demand to be judge, jury and executioner of those who cross you, all rolled into one. A very, very scary combination. Once again, I challenge you to demonstrate, by presenting verifiable cases and case histories that Michigan law regarding self defense frequently or routinely or even ever in the last 10-20 years has resulted in miscarriages of justice. Only such a record could even begin to justify what is proposed in SB 1046. If you can’t produce such a record then you have no rational or reasonable basis for supporting passage of SB 1046 or other bills of its sort.

"The point is, I do not automatically give up my fundamental rights as a human being when I enter your property" If you enter my home, uninvited you have given up all your rights. At this point you are a criminal and I don't have the time or inclination to wait and see what you are going to do next. What I can do is make sure that you are well ventilated. Why do you insist on giving criminals more rights than law abiding citizens? If someone broke into your home and was heading down the hall to your daughters room, what would you do? Maybe you could talk him into getting some counseling. Maybe he's only there because he had a bad childhood. Maybe he's just there to take your computer. Who knows? Maybe he thinks you have too much stuff and he is poor. If this is the case you could cure the problem with your checkbook. This law is a pre-emptive and well thought out attempt to cure problems that have happened in other locales. "You evidently are filled with vindictiveness toward anyone who crosses you, and hatred toward people who do not see eye-to-eye with you on matters of judgement, to the extent you can’t even be civil in a discussion of this matter. You also seem paranoid." I'm not vindictive, just want to be free to protect my family. Though I hope I never have to. Not full of hatred. Just don't believe that a criminal in my home has the same rights as I do. Paranoid? Not. But I think you may be. If you are not a criminal, why do you care about this law?

>If you enter my home, uninvited . . . I don't have the time or inclination to wait and see what you are going to do next. What I can do is make sure that you are well ventilated. Why do you insist on giving criminals more rights than law abiding citizens?< Michigan law, as it stands, recognizes the so-called Castle Doctrine,” which allows you to defend yourself against someone who illegally enters your residence. That hardly gives criminals more rights than law abiding citizens. Why do you insist in mischaracterizing -- writing lies -- about the position I’ve taken on this. But more to the point, why are you so aggressively agitating to pass a bill which grants you rights you already have? >If someone broke into your home and was heading down the hall to your daughters room, what would you do?< I’d flat out stop that person. By whatever means I had at hand and found necessary. Quite a simple answer, eh? Michigan law now allows me to do just that. I do not need SB 1046 or any of the similar bills that have been introduced to empower me to defend my home and family from invaders. Neither do you. >This law is a pre-emptive and well thought out attempt to cure problems that have happened in other locales.< Even the Senate committee summary of SB 1046 says, “There are no data to indicate how many individuals have been convicted of crimes for using defensive force.” In other words, SB 1046 has been written to address a problem that is purely speculative and for which there is no real evidence suggesting it exists. That doesn’t make sense. Again, I challenge you to demonstrate, by presenting verifiable cases and case histories that Michigan law regarding self defense frequently or routinely or even ever in the last 10-20 years has resulted in miscarriages of justice. No vague references to your imagined injustices, or things that have happened in other states. Real facts pertaining to Michigan. Only such a record could even begin to justify what is proposed in SB 1046. If you can’t produce such a record then you have no rational or reasonable basis for supporting passage of SB 1046 or other bills of its sort. As it stands, SB 1046 is irrational. Instead of spending your time and energy swatting at me with irrational and vindictive remarks about my character (suggesting that I am a criminal), perhaps you would do better spending your time and energy researching case law to come up with real (as contrasted to imaginary) evidence that supports and legitimizes SB 1046. >I'm not vindictive . . .< Is that why you have offered to “make sure that (I am) well ventilated” and suggested I am a criminal? >Not full of hatred.< Is that why you have offered to “make sure that (I am) well ventilated,” and suggested I am a criminal during the course of a discussion about a bill in the Michigan legislature? >Paranoid? Not.< Then why are you so obsessive and aggressive about wanting to pass a bill that proposes self defense rights already firmly established in Michigan law? >If you are not a criminal, why do you care about this law?< I happen to be an upright citizen who believes rights and responsibilities and accountability go hand in hand. Can’t have any one without the other. I’m perfectly willing to accept responsibility and stand accountable for actions I take in asserting my many rights as a person and Michigan citizen. I have faith and confidence that if I assert my rights responsibly, then my assertion of my rights will be vindicated if it is challenged. However, there is plenty of evidence out that suggests criminals often seek ways of evading both responsibility and accountability for their actions. SB 1046 proposes to diminish accountability for the use of force or violence brought by one person against another in certain instances, in ways that are not justified by the factual record. That is a travesty in my opinion.

A safe work environment for criminals. To make rapist, thieves and murderers jobs easier and give them a wider selection of victims.

If some one breaks in your house to take your property without intent to harm you you better leave him alone. If he does want to harm you you better retreat from you property first. READhttp://www.icle.org/Michlaw/oview.cfm?caseid=11818111

The case you cite is known as People v Riddle, decided by the Michigan Supreme Court, July 31, 2002. Read carefully this item from the Court's opinion, and particularly read the sentence that begins, “However, . . ..” “We hold that the cardinal rule, applicable to all claims of self-defense, is that the killing of another person is justifiable homicide if, under all the circumstances, the defendant honestly and reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that it is necessary for him to exercise deadly force. As part and parcel of the “necessity” requirement that inheres in every claim of lawful self-defense, evidence that a defendant could have safely avoided using deadly force is normally relevant in determining whether it was reasonably necessary for him to kill his assailant. However, (1) one who is without fault is never obligated to retreat from a sudden, violent attack or to retreat when to do so would be unsafe, and in such circumstances, the presence of an avenue of retreat cannot be a factor in determining necessity; (2) our law imposes an affirmative “duty to retreat” only upon one who is at fault in voluntarily participating in mutual nondeadly combat; and (3) the “castle doctrine” permits one who is within his dwelling to exercise deadly force even if an avenue of safe retreat is available, as long as it is otherwise reasonably necessary to exercise deadly force.” Again, for emphasis, the court ruled that: “(3) the “castle doctrine” permits one who is within his dwelling to exercise deadly force even if an avenue of safe retreat is available, as long as it is otherwise reasonably necessary to exercise deadly force.” Note, again, also what the Eaton County Presecutor’s office web site says about how this is dealt with, as a practical matter: “In Michigan, a Prosecutor has the burden of dis proving a defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clearly, great deference is given to the claim of self defense under current Michigan law. The prosecutor is left to DISprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. SB 1046 has no rational basis unless you can produce a string of Michigan cases in which the law pertaining to self defense has been unjustly or otherwise improperly applied to the detriment of those who claim to have acted in self defense.

The case you cite is known as People v Riddle, decided by the Michigan Supreme Court, July 31, 2002. Read carefully this item from the Court's opinion, and particularly read the sentence that begins, However, . . .. We hold that the cardinal rule, applicable to all claims of self-defense, is that the killing of another person is justifiable homicide if, under all the circumstances, the defendant honestly and reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that it is necessary for him to exercise deadly force. As part and parcel of the necessity requirement that inheres in every claim of lawful self-defense, evidence that a defendant could have safely avoided using deadly force is normally relevant in determining whether it was reasonably necessary for him to kill his assailant. However, (1) one who is without fault is never obligated to retreat from a sudden, violent attack or to retreat when to do so would be unsafe, and in such circumstances, the presence of an avenue of retreat cannot be a factor in determining necessity; (2) our law imposes an affirmative duty to retreat only upon one who is at fault in voluntarily participating in mutual nondeadly combat; and (3) the castle doctrine permits one who is within his dwelling to exercise deadly force even if an avenue of safe retreat is available, as long as it is otherwise reasonably necessary to exercise deadly force. Again, for emphasis, the court ruled that: (3) the castle doctrine permits one who is within his dwelling to exercise deadly force even if an avenue of safe retreat is available, as long as it is otherwise reasonably necessary to exercise deadly force. Note, again, also what the Eaton County Presecutors office web site says about how this is dealt with, as a practical matter: In Michigan, a Prosecutor has the burden of dis proving a defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly, great deference is given to the claim of self defense under current Michigan law. The prosecutor is left to DISprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. SB 1046 has no rational basis unless you can produce a string of Michigan cases in which the law pertaining to self defense has been unjustly or otherwise improperly applied to the detriment of those who claim to have acted in self defense.

If some one breaks in your house to take your property without intent to harm you you better leave him alone. If he does want to harm you you better retreat from you property first.

This update to the law is needed in Michigan. It will protect the right of a potential victim from a civil lawsuit by a criminal when an act of defense is needed when you are NOT in your home! Also, if you were to attend a CCW class sometime you might really understand the legal requirements and not just pretend to have an answer. By the way, so what if it passes? Why do you think you have the right to deny someone this option? Enjoy your day at the beach!!

>If some one breaks in your house to take your property without intent to harm you you better leave him alone. If he does want to harm you you better retreat from you property first. < This is pure fiction that has no basis in fact.

>This update to the law is needed in Michigan. It will protect the right of a potential victim from a civil lawsuit by a criminal when an act of defense is needed when you are NOT in your home!< >Why do you think you have the right to deny someone this option?< That’s the very question you should be asking yourself about this proposed Draconian change in the law. Especially, when there is no record of cases to indicate that such lawsuits are prevalent or even occur occasionally or are employed abusively in Michigan. I might change decide to support this aspect of SB 1046 if you can cite verifiable Michigan cases in which persons who exercise their right to self defense are subsequently sued by the people they injure in the process. The challenge to produce such a record has been made repeatedly in this discussion, but nobody has delivered yet. Could it be that no such record has been cited because no such documentation exists, and that no such documentation exists because no or very few such cases have occurred? That seems the most probable explanation for the lack of factual support for SB 1046. >Also, if you were to attend a CCW class sometime you might really understand the legal requirements and not just pretend to have an answer.< The legal requirements are well established in Michigan, and I have read them numerous times. My guess is that those who teach CCW classes are very wisely conservative, and so prefer to err on the side of extra caution in dealing with this issue because they are helping their charges qualify to take on an awesome responsibility. I am acquainted with a few instructors, and that is exactly the course they take.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/52803p-49473c.html

this is a good law it confirms the rights you say we already have. It should pass. So you should agree with it. unless you feel threatend by it. Being a law abiding citizen you shouldn't. Or should you.........

. . . Michiganders already have thoroughly protected rights to self defense. The law says so and the State Supreme Court says so. That makes SB 1046 completely unnecessary and unsupported by real reason. As for your insinuation that I hold my particular opinion on this pernicious bill because I am a criminal . . . well, that's just a low and uncivil form of argument.

In re: “Law Is Needed” post with link to a New York Daily News story dated January 19, 2003. The question is, what does a January 2003 story about a self defense incident that happened in new York City have to do with self defense law in Michigan in 2006? The answer is, just about nothing. But it is an interesting story. The referenced story tells a harrowing tale of a fellow in New York City who wounded an intruder who was attempting to burglarize his house. The homeowner, Dixon, inflicted the wounds using an unregistered handgun he kept in a closet. It is illegal to possess an unregistered handgun in New York. Dixon subsequently was charged with “misdemeanor gun possession.” The intruder, Thompson, had an extensive criminal history and was charged with burglary and criminal trespass. Given the facts, this sensational statement in the story is misleading: “District Attorney Charles Hynes is in the difficult position of prosecuting a hardworking, law-abiding Navy veteran for defending his family and home.” Actually, the story clearly tells us that homeowner Dixon was not charged with assault or any such thing stemming directly from his self defense act. He certainly was not prosecuted for “defending his family and home.” He was charged with possessing an unregistered handgun, which is against the law in New York State. It is, of course, unfortunate that Dixon ran afoul of the firearms law through the particular circumstances of this case, but the law is the law . . .. Those charges well could have stemmed from any number of other, less dramatic events. Now, you may have a problem with New York’s law in respect to firearms. And perhaps I share your objections to that part of New York law. But that’s really way beside the point. Very much to the point of this discussion is that facts of the Dixon story clearly indicate the “castle doctrine” as it pertains to self defense acts was alive, well and respected in New York in January 2003, even as it is alive, well and respected in Michigan in 2006. In the course of discussions about SB 1046 and similar proposals there have been vague refrences to allegedly abusive prosecutions and lawsuits targeting individuals who have used force in self defense in the State of Michigan. But even after extensive searching I have been unable to track down such cases to examine them for myself. But I remain curious about them. If anyone has a list of specific citations, that would be helpful and appreciated. In the meantime, absent the citations, my conclusion is that such cases are either extremely rare or non-existant, and that SB 1046 is rationally baseless.

In re: Law Is Needed post with link to a New York Daily News story dated January 19, 2003. The question is, what does a January 2003 story about a self defense incident that happened in new York City have to do with self defense law in Michigan in 2006? The answer is, just about nothing. But it is an interesting story. The referenced story tells a harrowing tale of a fellow in New York City who wounded an intruder who was attempting to burglarize his house. The homeowner, Dixon, inflicted the wounds using an unregistered handgun he kept in a closet. It is illegal to possess an unregistered handgun in New York. Dixon subsequently was charged with misdemeanor gun possession. The intruder, Thompson, had an extensive criminal history and was charged with burglary and criminal trespass. Given the facts, this sensational statement in the story is misleading: District Attorney Charles Hynes is in the difficult position of prosecuting a hardworking, law-abiding Navy veteran for defending his family and home. Actually, the story clearly tells us that homeowner Dixon was not charged with assault or any such thing stemming directly from his self defense act. He certainly was not prosecuted for defending his family and home. He was charged with possessing an unregistered handgun, which is against the law in New York State. It is, of course, unfortunate that Dixon ran afoul of the firearms law through the particular circumstances of this case, but the law is the law . . .. Those charges well could have stemmed from any number of other, less dramatic events. Now, you may have a problem with New Yorks law in respect to firearms. And perhaps I share your objections to that part of New York law. But thats really way beside the point. Very much to the point of this discussion is that facts of the Dixon story clearly indicate the castle doctrine as it pertains to self defense acts was alive, well and respected in New York in January 2003, even as it is alive, well and respected in Michigan in 2006. In the course of discussions about SB 1046 and similar proposals there have been vague refrences to allegedly abusive prosecutions and lawsuits targeting individuals who have used force in self defense in the State of Michigan. But even after extensive searching I have been unable to track down such cases to examine them for myself. But I remain curious about them. If anyone has a list of specific citations, that would be helpful and appreciated. In the meantime, absent the citations, my conclusion is that such cases are either extremely rare or non-existant, and that SB 1046 is rationally baseless.

If someone who breaks into houses for a living knows that there may be someone with a gun inside, he would probably would pick a new career. Not to mention that if you do shoot an intruder, you better kill him. Not only for your own personal safety, but your financial safety as well. A dead man can't sue! If you injure him, some scumbag attorney will try to sue you for his injuries. Shoot first, ask questions later.

""The point is, I do not automatically give up my fundamental rights as a human being when I enter your property" " Yes You Do. If I say you can't have a gun in my house, you have lost your 2nd amend. rights. I can make the rules, if you don't like them, leave. "You evidently are filled with vindictiveness toward anyone who crosses you, and hatred toward people who do not see eye-to-eye with you on matters of judgement, to the extent you can’t even be civil in a discussion of this matter. Where in the heck do you get "vindictiveness" And "hatred" out of these posts? I just think that if an evil doer breaks into my home, he has given up all his rights, including the right to live. All your socialist drivel will not change that. I've got an idea, if someone breaks into your home just try talking to him and build up his self esteem. I'm sure that'll work just fine for you. I will use whatever force I think I need and thank the lawmakers for finally doing something right with this bill.

>Where in the heck do you get "vindictiveness" And "hatred" out of these posts?< The very definition of “vindictive” is, “disposed to seek revenge.” The definition of “hatred” is, “prejudiced hostility or animosity.” Read some of your own verbiage, and see how those definitions fit. >I just think that if an evil doer breaks into my home, he has given up all his rights, including the right to live. All your socialist drivel will not change that.< What Michigan self defense law does now is reasonably and properly balance your right to be secure in your own home against the generally understood, fundamental and presumed “right to life” that every human being -- including a criminal intruder -- has. (Remember, Michigan has no death penalty, by Constitutional provision. See Article IV, Sec. 46, which says, “No law shall be enacted providing for the penalty of death.”) Use of force, including lethal force to neutralize or repel a threatening intruder is entirely permissible under current Michigan self defense law. Moreover, the law as it stands puts the great mass of presumption clearly in the legal occupant’s (innocent victim's) favor. Remember the Eaton County prosecutor’s office web site that says, “In Michigan, a Prosecutor has the burden of DISproving a defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” The history of case law certainly bears out the truth that the right to self defense is well established, recognized and respected in Michigan, since we do not find a string of cases indicating otherwise. (No such string of cases has been cited here, despite repeated challenges to SB 1046 supporters to do so.) Even the Senate committee analysis says, “There are no data to indicate how many individuals have been convicted of crimes for using defensive force.” (That’s probably because that miscarriage of justice doesn’t happen.) Current law wisely draws the line on use of lethal force at delivering vindictive punishment on an intruder who flees when the legal occupant approaches. One of the great problems with SB 1046 is that it erases the line between legitimate self defense and the delivery of vindictive punishment by placing the entire mass of presumptions on the occupant (presumed victim) side of the scale. It precludes a fair assessment of circumstances in individual cases. That lack of balance does not serve the cause of justice. >I've got an idea, if someone breaks into your home just try talking to him and build up his self esteem. I'm sure that'll work just fine for you. I will use whatever force I think I need . . .< An alarming thing in many of these discussions is the expressed eagerness to inflict lethal injury on another human being that seems to be a common theme. I am a big fan of the Second Amendment to our United States Constitution, and of Article 1, Section 6 of the Michigan Constiution, which says, unambiguously, “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.” I also am a big fan of the concept that with rights go responsibilities, that is, when we exercise our rights we are obliged to do so responsibly. And responsibility without accountability is meaningless. Exercising rights responsibly means doing so with reason and restraint. Because SB 1046 seeks to remove virtually all reasonable restraints on the use of lethal force in self defense, it removes accountability and diminishes the burden of personal responsibility for one’s actions in these cases, which never can be a good thing. In the end we see that (a) Michigan law already protects the right to self defense; and (b) no history of cases has been produced to show that protection of the right to self defense in Michigan is inadequate; (c) SB 1046 would upset the balance of presumptions and very likely create injustice rather than foster the cause of justice. That makes SB 1046 (and other bills like it) rationally baseless. SB 1046 and its ilk should be soundly rejected by the Legislature.

A civil form of argument that would satisfy you would be to agree with you. Thin skin is a word that would pertain to your answer as far as considering you a criminal. I am just considering why someone would be opposed to this law and to whom this law would affect the most. Which would be Rapist, Robber, thief, child molester, ect… this law would assist in deterring them from entering a home to commit such a crime. Victims should be allowed to protect themselves; Oh no let me guess a criminal is a victim too. Lets make a safe work environment for them……not. This law is bad for CRIMINALS

>A civil form of argument that would satisfy you would be to agree with you.< Not true. You and other supporters of SB 1046 repeatedly have been challenged to validate your arguments by citing a string of Michigan cases demonstrating that current law regarding self defense in Michigan unduly burdens the ordinary, upright citizen. That is the kind of argument I might find persuasive. But so far, nobody has produced those citations. I have even gone so far as to spend several hours searching for such cases on my own, to check my position, and can’t find any. My conclusion at this point is that nobody has produced the citations and I can’t find the cases because they do not exist. Thus, I continue to believe there is no rational for SB 1046 and other proposals like it. Still, I remain open to reasoned argument, based on real and verifiable evidence of need for this bill. Implying or insinuating that I am a criminal is not a valid or persuasive argument. >I am just considering why someone would be opposed to this law and to whom this law would affect the most. Which would be Rapist, Robber, thief, child molester, ect… this law would assist in deterring them from entering a home to commit such a crime. . . . Oh no let me guess a criminal is a victim too. Lets make a safe work environment for them……not. This law is bad for CRIMINALS< This is a prime example of the kind of argument that never can be persuasive. I don’t mean to be uncivil here, but it is the kind of argument that makes those who use it look a tad irrational, especially given the truth about self defense law in Michigan as it stands. >Victims should be allowed to protect themselves;< Self defense law in Michigan already allows persons to protect (defend) themselves against assaults, home invasions and other crimes. So your argument to this effect is moot. The law has been well tested and by all reasonable readings of the known record there is no need to expand or modify it as proposed by SB 1046 and other bills of that sort. >Thin skin is a word that would pertain to your answer as far as considering you a criminal.< I am an upright citizen and proud of that fact. So you’re darned right I’m thin-skinned about insinuations or suggestions that I am a crminal or predisposed to being a criminal. I’ll bet you are pretty much the same way. (By the way, “thin skin” is two words.)

>If it really is self defense, then the civil suit will fail on its merits. Pretty simple, eh?< It may very well be that the civil suit will fail on its merits. But, in the meantime, the defandant has had to pay thousands of dollars for his/her defense. This bill makes the defendant immune to civil suits. It would also provide for recovery of court costs and legal fees if the defendant was sued. This bill needs to pass.

>The Eaton County Prosecuting Attorney’s web site provides these comments regarding self defense, as it now stands in Michigan...< So, one county prosecutor says that he would interpret the law in a reasonable manner. What if I get prosecuted in a different county? What if I get prosecuted, in Eaton county, a few years from now, when this prosecutor has been replaced by someone with a different interpretation of the law in Michigan? No thanks, I'd rather have it spelled out in the law, plain as day, so that no prosecutor in the state could refute it. This bill needs to be passed!

>So, one county prosecutor says that he would interpret the law in a reasonable manner. What if I get prosecuted in a different county? What if I get prosecuted, in Eaton county, a few years from now, when this prosecutor has been replaced by someone with a different interpretation of the law in Michigan? No thanks, I'd rather have it spelled out in the law, plain as day, so that no prosecutor in the state could refute it.< Actually the statement, “In Michigan, a Prosecutor has the burden of dis proving a defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt,” has been picked up by the Eaton County prosecutor from the Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Coordinating Council. The MPACC “is a state agency that heads the Office of Prosecuting Attorney Coordination, an autonimous entity within the Department of Attorney General.” The statement comports with Michigan Supreme Court decisions regarding the matter of self defense. That makes it quite definitive and applicable across the entire state. As usual, your argument in support of SB 1046 and other bills like it is poorly founded. SB 1046 (as other bills like it) has no rational basis, and that makes it a poorly conceived proposal that should be soundly rejected by the Michigan Legislature. As for putting existing law into statute via legislation like SB 1046 to ensure its "stability," you must be joking. Once the Legislature starts fooling around with these things there is no stability and you never know what you're going to get. Why push so hard for jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire? It doesn't make sense.

>It may very well be that the civil suit will fail on its merits. But, in the meantime, the defandant has had to pay thousands of dollars for his/her defense. This bill makes the defendant immune to civil suits. It would also provide for recovery of court costs and legal fees if the defendant was sued.< The right way to correct this kind of thing is not to take away anyone’s rights, but to fix the real problem. Check out SB 580 for a rational solution. It was introduced in June 2005 by Sens McManus, Cropsey, Kuipers, Barcia, Goschka, Jelinek, Garcia and Hardiman. SB 508 says, “a home insurance olicy shall not exclude from coverage any claim resulting from an act commited by an insured in self-defense.” This tackles the real problem here, without creating injustices and imbalances in the system. It is a much better approach than SB 1046 and other bills like it, which actually have no apparent rational foundation based on a verifiable history of injustices stemming from self defense cases.