This is a discussion on Update on Photographer shooting within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; http://woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7181616 Justified....
Lex et Libertas — Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!
"Not only do the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us deserve better, we all deserve better than to have our own security undermined by those who undermine law enforcement." -Thomas Sowell
This is a good example of our new Castle law. With the Affirmative Defense provision, the prosecutor would have had to prove that the victim WASN'T in fear of death or serious injury.
Here is a short summary of the laws.
Each of these Bills provide rather specific circumstances and protections which, taken as a whole, provide strong protection for a person who is forced to defend himself from criminal attack (which here means grievous bodily injury, rape, or death).
PA 311 provides a "rebuttable presumption" in a civil or criminal case that a person who defends himself believes that criminal attack is threatened if (1) he is in a dwelling or business, or (2) the criminal is attempting to remove someone from a dwelling, business, or vehicle. This does not apply if the alleged criminal has a legal right to be in the dwelling or business, or if the person defending himself is committing a crime, or if the person entering is a law enforcement officer in the course of his duties.
PA 310 states that a prosecutor may still charge a person who has defended himself if the prosecutor can present to the court evidence that the person did not believe he was threatened with criminal attack. This represents a substantial change from the prior law which puts the burden of proof on the person defending himself to show that he did believe he was subject to criminal attack.
PA 309 says that if a person is anywhere he has a legal right to be, he has no duty to retreat if he believe he is threatened by criminal attack. Note that this differs from the home/business situation where it is presumed that he believes he is subject to criminal attack.
PA 313 is subtle: "Sec. 21c. (1) In cases in which section 2 of the self-defense act does not apply, the common law of this state applies except that the duty to retreat before using deadly force is not required if an individual is in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling."
PA 314 states that a person who defends himself (or in defense of another individual) with deadly force or less than deadly force anywhere he has a right to be is immune from civil liability for damages.
PA 312 provides attorney fees to a defendant if a civil suit is filed and the court determines that the defendant is immune from civil liability under PA 314.
NRA Benefactor member
Michigan Antique Arms Collectors life member
Ohio Gun Collectors member
Opinions expressed here are based upon Michigan state law ONLY. Other state laws may differ. Know and observe your local laws.
Glad to hear this, that poor guy has been through enough.
This just in...
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Messing with someone’s livelihood is risky business.
Image is of my 442 always on me in the studio.
TTpete, nice summary of the castle doctrine in MI.
good deal,thats the verdict that would have been reached in Texas
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
― Thomas Paine
Bang Bang goodnite
USN 78-82/USAF 82-93 Medically Retired
Desert Shield/Desert Storm
DAV Life Member
NRA Life Member