This is a discussion on 40-50 Kalamazoo teens beat cyclist unconscious within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by hogdaddy And nobody called CHUCK NORIS ????? No, he is working as Jack Bauer's maid....
This is finally getting sorted out. And that is a good thing as everyone will now be on one page. Weather or not you decide to come the mans aid, or call the cops and stay out of the situation. There is something here in this thread for everyone to learn. Alot of good intention, alot of correct quoting of the law, and alot of misunderstanding.
I will make no assumptions of any one heres knowledge. So there are a few terms mention here that I think some people are confused about, some have come around, some might not fully understand. so take a few spare minutes to look up the terms and read and under stand exactly what they mean. After all most law is interpitation, and this forum is one used to learn more about Defensive carry, and learning how to better protect your self, family, and bystanders.
Duty to retreat- Know exactly when you would need to retreat from an impending attack on yourself. Not think you have to retreat when someone is attacking a person who cannot retreat or defend himself.
Escilation of Force Proper steps, physically and mentally, in escilating from Retreat, non leathal force, and leathal force
Intimate Domain ( No Duty to retreat) The right to stand your ground and defend yourself, family, or any third party from an impending attack.
Deadly Force The act of taking ones life in self defense, or the defense of others.
Good Samaritin Law A law put in place to protect a good samaritin from legal procedings after attempting to help or save someones life.
An example of this would be if you were driving down a highway, you come upon a car crash with casualties. You stop and attempt to render first aid to the best of your knowledge. But something that you did to help hurt someone worse or caused death.
You stopped with all intentions to help them, not hurt them. This law prevents the family of the victim ect from coming after you in court saying that you caused the death ect.
It is better to attempt to help someone, even if you lack knowledge, Than to drive by and not try to help save a life.
I hope everyone has taken a little bit of knowledge from this situation that the OP posted. Afterall this is why there is a Scenario Forum.
Robbie "Hollywood Paratrooper"
On a local MI forum they are discussing this same topic and a local lawyer had this to say.
the OP asked
and the lawyer answeredDoes Michigan law cover "disparity of force" as a lawful reason to use deadly force?
The case in point is from an articel in the Free Press where 40 to 50 youths (K'zoo area) attacked a person on a bike. They beat him very badly.
So, would it be permissible/legal for a person to defend themselves in this scenario with deadly force?
http://www.paamtrafficsafety.com/www...ructions_7.htmMichigan's jury instruction on self-defense in mutiple attacker situations:
A defendant who is attacked by more than one person [or by one person and others helping and encouraging the attacker] has the right to act in self-defense against all of them. [However, before using deadly force against one of the attackers, the defendant must honestly and reasonably believe that (he / she) is in danger of being (killed / seriously injured / forcibly sexually penetrated) by that particular person.]
Which is why in my last post I said you could defend somebody who can not defend themselves.
I will try to find the actual law that you can click and read, but you are able to defend somebody in the situation as we have here in the OP.
If you read what you posted from the lawyers response you are incorrect. YOU are not the defendant and are not in danger of being killed or seriously injured, you are a bystander and have not right to act in self defense.
Your post would be correct if you were the one getting beat down, but then this thread wouldn't be 12 pages long because we all know that it would be authorized to use deadly force.
However, when you say I know it says somewhere that you can defend somebody doesn't really hold it's weight in water during your trial for killing someone whether it be a suspect or bystander.
Good luck with that.
"The great object is, that every man be armed.... Every one who is able may have a gun."
- Patrick Henry
The bottom line is;CJI2d 7.21 - Defense of Others -- Deadly Force
(1) The defendant claims that [he / she] acted lawfully to defend __________. A person has the right to use force or even take a life to defend someone else under certain circumstances. If a person acts in lawful defense of another, [his / her] actions are excused and [he / she] is not guilty of any crime.
(2) You should consider all the evidence and use the following rules to decide whether the defendant acted in lawful defense of another. Remember to judge the defendant's conduct according to how the circumstances appeared to [him / her] at the time [he / she] acted.
(3) First, when [he / she] acted, the defendant must have honestly and reasonably believed that __________ was in danger of being [killed / seriously injured / forcibly sexually penetrated]. If [his / her] belief was honest and reasonable, [he / she] could act at once to defend __________, even if it turns out later that the defendant was wrong about how much danger __________ was in.
(4) Second, if the defendant was only afraid that __________ would receive a minor injury, then [he / she] was not justified in killing or seriously injuring the attacker. The defendant must have been afraid that __________ would be [killed / seriously physically injured / forcibly sexually penetrated]. When you decide if [he / she] was so afraid, you should consider all the circumstances: [the conditions of the people involved, including their relative strength / whether the other person was armed with a dangerous weapon or had some other means of injuring __________ / the nature of the other person's attack or threat / whether the defendant knew about any previous violent acts or threats made by the attacker].
(5) Third, at the time [he / she] acted, the defendant must have honestly and reasonably believed that what [he / she] did was immediately necessary. Under the law, a person may only use as much force as [he / she] thinks is needed at the time to protect the other person. When you decide whether the force used appeared to be necessary, you may consider whether the defendant knew about any other ways of protecting __________, but you may also consider how the excitement of the moment affected the choice the defendant made.
(6) The defendant does not have to prove that [he / she] acted in defense of __________. Instead, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in defense of __________.
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - -- Edmund Burke - --
I posted something similar to the below before about the times we live in and how contrary it is to how I was raised. I seriously do not get it. In the OP a human being who is unable to defend himself is being beaten to death by 40 or 50 sick pieces of crap. There is no other way to say that they are as disgusting as fecal matter and so is anyone who would stand by and do nothing. If I stood by and allowed that to happen, my 78 year old mother would beat me stupid and my dad would never say another word to me in life. To bring so much shame to our family name is just beyond my comprehension. That is a display of selfish cowardice that I honestly did not think people were capable of, until I started reading people proudly proclaiming that they would gladly stand by and allow a fellow human being, an elder to be beaten to death. Claiming, fear of legal consequences, justifies not doing the right thing. That is the definition of a coward, someone who does not do the right thing because of fear. Really who would sit down and think about the legal consequences of that act? With 40 or 50 thugs my concern would be surviving. Not helping, is not, nor will it ever be an option for me.
Regardless of what the law says we have a duty and obligation to protect the weak and helpless, those that can not defend themselves. That said from the beginning I have said I do not believe any state has become so fascist as to make that illegal for a law abiding citizen to aid a fellow citizen. I did not then, and do not now, believe that a jury of my peers would find anyone guilty of a crime for acting in the defense of a disabled old man. Bottom line is it does not make a difference. It is not OK to let a human die because I am afraid of a couple of years in prison. If I end up doing a couple of years to save a life so be it. Thats life, life is not fair. I'll do the time and then leave this country because the day it is illegal to aid each other we have lost. The evil will have won. It will be time to either take up arms in defense of our nation or leave.
This whole mentality of stop you don't know that person, mind you own business. Stand by, do nothing, while that woman is being raped. While that guy is beaten to death. Do nothing while your neighbor is being robbed. Who cares they are no relation to you. Is now a distortion of what this nation is supposed to be about. Believe it or not there was a time in America that was an aberration. When that happened it made national news. A whole nation would shake its head in shame and disgust unable to comprehend the spineless sniveling cowards who would allow any such a deed. Serious I remember two weeks of news about a group of New Yorkers who stood by and let some one get beat down. It was finally concluded that it was something that only happens in New York, that there was something wrong with that city.
When I grew up people looked you in the eyes, Said please and thank you. You helped your neighbor in times of need. Stopped to help strangers stranded on the road. Hitchhikers got rides. WE were all Americans the best people on earth. WE cared and looked out for each other. Helped each other out. It was our obligation, our duty, our responsibility, as citizens. Part of the way we showed our appreciation and gratitude for the privilege for living in this Great Nation. It was We The People that made this a great nation. People that cared about more than just themselves. Thankfully there are still Americans that think that way. Americans that appreciate the fact that today tens of thousands of our very best young men and women are putting themselves in harms way to defend this Nation. We each and every one of us has an obligation to those young men and women and obligation to all those that have gone before to stand up and be counted whenever a fellow American is in need. Just as they have done and are doing.
There will never ever be a legitimate justification for selfish cowardice. IMO anyone who would stand by and allow a defenseless human being to be beaten to death is a POS, that betray all those that have served to defend this nation. They may as well spit on the graves of our veterans. Remember they fought for
The land of the FREE, Home Of the BRAVE
Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution
Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family
I said I would find the actual law, have Patience grasshopper!
I am not a lawyer, I am looking for this law FOR YOU for free.
The lawyer I mentioned earlier from the other board provided me with this link, enjoy. I will tell him you appreciate his help.
SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006
Only partly correct... Michigan has both a strong "Good Samaritan" and 'Castle Law" so in the process of stopping and trying to keep some poor old guy from being beaten to death by a bunch of kids, you in tern have opened yourself up to attack.
I have seen the gang mentality and they act like pack dogs, once they divert from their primary target to you... then you under Michigan Castle law that states that you have a right to defend any place you are legally allowed to be with no retreat necessary, and how could you retreat and protect the old guy at the same time so.....
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
I totally agree with Longrider.
Anyone who does not help the guy is less than human, and certainly no man. The shame of not helping the man would kill me. I'd rather take my chances with a DA ,and do the morally correct thing ,than be morally wrong and legal. All of those who worry more about what's legal than what's right, better hope it's never them, or a loved one, being preyed on by predators like these. If it does happen,you'd better hope that a better person than yourself steps up.
Great post Longrider!
GUN CONTROL= I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THE GUN
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.