Question about castle law

Question about castle law

This is a discussion on Question about castle law within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; This is hypothetical for starts. I am from Michigan and obviously you are allowed to defend your "castle" with a firearm. I also learned in ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Question about castle law

  1. #1
    Member Array C Zeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    44

    Question about castle law

    This is hypothetical for starts. I am from Michigan and obviously you are allowed to defend your "castle" with a firearm. I also learned in my CCW class that you may defend the castle of where you are sleeping if that is not your own house, but a house you have permission to stay in. My hypothetical situation is, if I am watching my grandparents house while they are gone on vacation ( I am not sleeping there) and I walk in on a robbery when I do my daily visit, am I justified in drawing on the thief if they are not threatening my life, just for the mere fact of trespassing and robbery? Now, I am not trigger happy, nor sure if I would even draw on somebody for that anyway and would probably just leave the house and dial 911. Just curious if any of you know the law on that. Well, my hypothetical situation could have been real if I would have visited my grandparents house at the "right" time (for the record, I am partly glad I didn't walk in on the guy, but also kind of wish I did because he stole some things my grandparents will never get back.) Thanks for any comments and how you would handle a similar situation.
    I know what you're thinking, "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself...you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? - Dirty Harry


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Whether you are in your home, out in the street, or in your grandparent's home, you need to be able to honestly answer one question, "were you in fear for your life?"

    Who can say what courts will do and all situations are different depending on who witnesses what and who lives to testify. But with a clear conceince you have a better chance of winning in front of a jury.

    If you are not in fear for your life, then you need to look at citizens arrest laws.
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  3. #3
    Member Array C Zeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    44
    Makes sense. Thanks, I just hope I don't actually get into a situation like that ever. That would give me a clear conscience.
    I know what you're thinking, "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself...you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? - Dirty Harry

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Quote Originally Posted by C Zeller View Post
    This is hypothetical for starts. I am from Michigan and obviously you are allowed to defend your "castle" with a firearm. I also learned in my CCW class that you may defend the castle of where you are sleeping if that is not your own house, but a house you have permission to stay in. My hypothetical situation is, if I am watching my grandparents house while they are gone on vacation ( I am not sleeping there) and I walk in on a robbery when I do my daily visit, am I justified in drawing on the thief if they are not threatening my life, just for the mere fact of trespassing and robbery?
    Yes. If someone is illegally in your house (or grandparent's house in this case) the law presumes them to be there to cause great bodily injury or death, regardless if anyone is home or not. If you walk in on them you are within your legal right to kill them. Whether you drop the hammer or not is your choice. My only advice is: call it like you see it and go home safely.

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    If you are not in fear for your life, then you need to look at citizens arrest laws.
    In Michigan, felony only.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  5. #5
    Member Array Trumpetchuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Suburban Detroit
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    Yes. If someone is illegally in your house (or grandparent's house in this case) the law presumes them to be there to cause great bodily injury or death, regardless if anyone is home or not. If you walk in on them you are within your legal right to kill them. Whether you drop the hammer or not is your choice. My only advice is: call it like you see it and go home safely.


    In Michigan, felony only.
    That's not what I understand in MI.

    You better not kill/or shoot ANYONE unless you are in fear of your life.

    You draw and they turn and run....better not shoot them.

    You go into Grandpa's house, see the bad guys and they run, let 'em go, call the police.
    "Don't be afraid to see what you see.
    -Ronald Reagan-

  6. #6
    Member Array C Zeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    44
    Thanks for the help guys. And like I said, this is totally hypothetical. I in now way would ever actually fire a deadly weapon on someone unless my life or anyone I love's life is in danger. I can't justify shooting and/or killing someone for stealing, for instance, a laptop and jewelry. Those people can still change, but I won't risk it with someone that wants to kill me. I am going to go home safe if they turn toward bodily harm toward me or my family.
    I know what you're thinking, "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself...you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? - Dirty Harry

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpetchuck View Post
    That's not what I understand in MI.

    You better not kill/or shoot ANYONE unless you are in fear of your life.

    You draw and they turn and run....better not shoot them.

    You go into Grandpa's house, see the bad guys and they run, let 'em go, call the police.
    Read the statute again. Bold is my emphasis.

    780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

    Sec. 1.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

    (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

    (b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).
    Translation: if someone is breaking into your home and you reasonably believe they are breaking into your home, then the law presumes them to be a deadly threat and you are within your legal rights to use deadly force.

    The exemptions are here:

    (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

    (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

    (b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

    (c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

    (d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

    (e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.

    If I come home and someone is illegally in my house, they better run faster than my bullets because I will kill them. Don't want to get shot? Don't break into my home. Simple really.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  8. #8
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    If your grandparents basically trusted you to take care of the home, yes, I would say castle doctrine certainly applies in that case. Even if there were only "regular" self-defense laws, I'd say you're quite justified in this situation anyway, since walking in on a home burglary is an almost sure way of getting shot, stabbed, beaten, or all three, very quickly.

    Criminals don't like being startled, especially those who didn't think there were going to be any witnesses.

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    If you walk in on them you are within your legal right to kill them.
    No you are within your right to use deadly force to stop a threat,We don't shoot to kill,as a result of using deadly force the BG dies we can't help that but to imply that you keep shooting til he's dead would be setting yourself up for a murder rap
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post

    Whether you are in your home, out in the street, or in your grandparent's home, you need to be able to honestly answer one question, "were you in fear for your life?"


    Sorry, not true.

    By definition, a castle doctrine grants the presumption that someone who forcibly enters your home is there to commit great bodily harm upon the lawful occupants of that home. As such, you don't have to "prove" anything beyond the fact that it's your home, and they didn't have a right to be there.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

    Theodore Roosevelt

  11. #11
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
    Sorry, not true.

    By definition, a castle doctrine grants the presumption that someone who forcibly enters your home is there to commit great bodily harm upon the lawful occupants of that home. As such, you don't have to "prove" anything beyond the fact that it's your home, and they didn't have a right to be there.
    And even that isn't quite true. The "Castle Doctrine" creates a "rebuttable" presumption that you were in fear of your life, thereby shifting the burden of proof from the shooter to the prosecutor, but the key term is "rebuttable," so it is possible in the scenario posted by the OP for the prosecutor to carry the burden of proof and establish that, in fact, under the circumstances he was not in fear of his life.
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    What Ron said
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array Rugergirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,954
    If I were to walk into a burglery in progress in my home or that of another family member my first though would be my safety, first. Logically I would retreat to a position of cover, since I don't know how many others may be in the home and if they are armed or not.
    Step two, call 911, inform them what is happening, where I am, and that I am armed, all while I am watching very carefully and keeping the police updated on what is happening, and stay on the phone with them until officers arrive.
    Michigan's Castle Law does state that you do not have the duty to retreat in a place you have a legal right to be and that you do have the right to self defense:
    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
    Sec. 2.

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

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

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

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

    Now if the BG is actively a threat as defined above the answer is very clear and sounds like bang-bang, bang.
    Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron View Post
    And even that isn't quite true. The "Castle Doctrine" creates a "rebuttable" presumption that you were in fear of your life, thereby shifting the burden of proof from the shooter to the prosecutor, but the key term is "rebuttable," so it is possible in the scenario posted by the OP for the prosecutor to carry the burden of proof and establish that, in fact, under the circumstances he was not in fear of his life.

    From Harvard Law:

    Second, the bill claims to codify the castle doctrine, a common law privilege that allows a person attacked within his dwelling to stand his ground. This attempt to codify the castle doctrine is significant because it not only extends the conception of one’s castle to include vehicles but also eliminates the requirement of necessity. The bill accomplishes the latter change through Florida Statute 776.013, which sets forth a pre-sumption that removes the home or vehicle occupant’s burden of provingthat he feared for his safety. Now, a person who uses deadly force againstan intruder is presumed to have a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. According to the Senate Committee Report, this presumption is irrebuttable. Therefore, a court will not entertain arguments showing the non-existence of the presumed fact, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Rather, a court will direct a jury that if they find the basic fact, that the victim was unlawfully in the actor’s dwelling or vehicle, to be proven, then they must find the presumed fact that the actor had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury. This finding in turn justifies the use of deadly force, regardless of the circumstances.

    Full text here:

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/..._1/michael.pdf

    Jon Gutmacher agrees. If you have his book, page 200 under the heading "HOW DOES THIS SECTION, 776.013 WORK?" pertains. In short, it confirms that the presumptions are absolute and cannot be controverted or rebutted in a court of law.

    Of course, we're talking FL specific law here and the castle doctrine in another state may vary. As always, one must know the specific laws as they apply to the state in which they live.

    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

    Theodore Roosevelt

  15. #15
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
    From Harvard Law:

    Second, the bill claims to codify the castle doctrine, a common law privilege that allows a person attacked within his dwelling to stand his ground. This attempt to codify the castle doctrine is significant because it not only extends the conception of one’s castle to include vehicles but also eliminates the requirement of necessity. The bill accomplishes the latter change through Florida Statute 776.013, which sets forth a pre-sumption that removes the home or vehicle occupant’s burden of provingthat he feared for his safety. Now, a person who uses deadly force againstan intruder is presumed to have a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. According to the Senate Committee Report, this presumption is irrebuttable. Therefore, a court will not entertain arguments showing the non-existence of the presumed fact, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Rather, a court will direct a jury that if they find the basic fact, that the victim was unlawfully in the actor’s dwelling or vehicle, to be proven, then they must find the presumed fact that the actor had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury. This finding in turn justifies the use of deadly force, regardless of the circumstances.
    Of course, we're talking FL specific law here and the castle doctrine in another state may vary. As always, one must know the specific laws as they apply to the state in which they live.
    Wouldn't the key part of your statement here by "attacked"?

    Quote Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
    Sorry, not true.

    By definition, a castle doctrine grants the presumption that someone who forcibly enters your home is there to commit great bodily harm upon the lawful occupants of that home. As such, you don't have to "prove" anything beyond the fact that it's your home, and they didn't have a right to be there.
    By your definition, the OP could walk in to his grandpa's house and find two young adults doing the dirty on his grandpa's couch and shoot them both with their pants down. Now say the girlfriend survives and her statement says, "we knew the old man was away and we were just looking for a private place to make love so we broke the window and snuck in." You think castle doctrine is going to protect you there? (if the OP was ALREADY in the home when they broke the window then Castle Law would presume fear and I think the OP WOULD be pretty stinkin scared)

    So I'll go back to my original statement and say; for the sake of your concience and for whatever may happen in court, make sure you are in fear of your life before you draw your weapon.
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Question About Castle Doctrine
    By mojust in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2010, 02:09 PM
  2. Castle Doctrine in NC
    By Deb in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 5th, 2009, 10:17 AM
  3. Castle Law
    By mmwb in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: December 28th, 2007, 04:30 PM
  4. Castle Doctrine in MS
    By FLSquirrelHunter in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 30th, 2007, 02:55 PM
  5. Need Help / Info On Castle Doc
    By nextlevelcell in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 25th, 2007, 06:22 PM

Search tags for this page

castle law michigan
,
defend your castle law michigan
,
is ct a defend your castle state
,
is michigan a defend your castle state
,

michigan defend your castle

,
michigan protect your castle
,

nc defend your castle law

,
protect your castle law in michigan
Click on a term to search for related topics.