Interesting Michigan court decision...

Interesting Michigan court decision...

This is a discussion on Interesting Michigan court decision... within the Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This sounds a bit like the Florida "Warning Shot" law being put to the test, abet in MI. Woman points (empty) gun, does not fire, ...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: Interesting Michigan court decision...

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,730

    Interesting Michigan court decision...

    This sounds a bit like the Florida "Warning Shot" law being put to the test, abet in MI.

    Woman points (empty) gun, does not fire, does not meet "deadly force" requirement.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/michigan-...201846122.html
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  2. #2
    Distinguished Member
    Array PPS1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Free State of Georgia
    Posts
    1,521
    Sounds like a good decision. Not all lawyers in black robes are dolts it seems.
    OldChap likes this.
    __________________
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    - Thomas Jefferson 1787
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    NRA Life Member - Member GA Carry Organization

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,829
    I think they got it right. However, I have to wonder: if the other party had pulled a loaded gun, and shot the woman with the unloaded gun, would that have been self-defense, too?
    OldChap likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    946
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    I think they got it right. However, I have to wonder: if the other party had pulled a loaded gun, and shot the woman with the unloaded gun, would that have been self-defense, too?
    Good point.
    If someone points a gun at me and I can draw and fire before them, I will take the shot.
    I consider every firearm loaded.
    maxwell97 likes this.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,270
    An SD gun is a tool one uses to prevent criminal action that threatens immediate, grave bodily harm. First, if it is unloaded, it can't do that and didn't do that in this case. Yes, just showing a gun can sometimes stop a criminal action, but only because it threatens the next step, which is firing it. Pointing an unloaded gun is stupid.

    Second, pointing any gun after the criminal action has taken place is not SD. If Ra had been trying to prevent Harvey from ramming the car, that would be SD because the daughter was inside. But that is not what the trial court, which is always the finder of fact, actually found. If Harvey was going to ram the car again, that would have been SD. But to point an unloaded gun after the action is over is not SD.

    This sounds like some inner city excrement-show where both parties should go to jail. It is embarrassing that the NRA, or anyone else, would use this as some example of the effectiveness guns for SD. This is exactly the kind of thing the anti-gunners caricature that law abiding gun owners are likely to do.
    AzQkr likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,730
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    I think they got it right. However, I have to wonder: if the other party had pulled a loaded gun, and shot the woman with the unloaded gun, would that have been self-defense, too?
    May depend on whom was determined to be the initial aggressor.

    FL's statute on deadly force says "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force...," so I don't know if FL courts would agree that presenting and not firing a firearm does not equate to deadly force. The statute is, more or less, all inclusive.
    OldChap and maxwell97 like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member
    Array 1942bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    1,999
    THe decision clarifies law. That is good. This decision applies in Michigan only, but could be cited in any case nationwide. I was impressed about how well reasoned it is and how ell that reasoning was stated.
    OldVet and OldChap like this.
    "You don't hurt them if you don't hit them." Lt. Gen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller, USMC Retired

    USMC 9/59 through 9/69
    Vietnam June ‘66 to February ‘68
    MOS: 4641, Combat Photographer

    Memberships:
    Gun Owners of America
    Second Amendment Foundation
    Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Against Crime

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array NECCdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    This sounds a bit like the Florida "Warning Shot" law being put to the test, abet in MI.

    Woman points (empty) gun, does not fire, does not meet "deadly force" requirement.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/michigan-...201846122.html
    If I read that article correctly, the woman with the unloaded weapon was put in prison and I'm suppose to applaud that court decision? When I began reading the article I got the impression that she wasn't going to be convicted because she was exercising her self defense rights. What am I missing?
    Member NRA, SAF, GOA, NFOA, USCCA

    Microwave radio technicians are fully deviated.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,730
    Quote Originally Posted by NECCdude View Post
    If I read that article correctly, the woman with the unloaded weapon was put in prison and I'm suppose to applaud that court decision? When I began reading the article I got the impression that she wasn't going to be convicted because she was exercising her self defense rights. What am I missing?
    The nutshell version is the higher court tossed her conviction and said she didn't use deadly force. Essentially the court said not firing a gun is not use of deadly force.
    OldChap and AzQkr like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    I think they got it right. However, I have to wonder: if the other party had pulled a loaded gun, and shot the woman with the unloaded gun, would that have been self-defense, too?
    In one instigates the use of deadly force, then the right to self defense is forfeited - in most states. In that case it was the activities before the drawing of weapons. The legal definition of "deadly force" is hazy at best - clear as muddy water in most states' laws. I can't remember any case I saw or heard where someone was actually charged with anything if they legally drew a weapon but didn't fire it. But then Texas has no "brandishing" law.
    maxwell97 likes this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,829
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    In one instigates the use of deadly force, then the right to self defense is forfeited - in most states. In that case it was the activities before the drawing of weapons. The legal definition of "deadly force" is hazy at best - clear as muddy water in most states' laws. I can't remember any case I saw or heard where someone was actually charged with anything if they legally drew a weapon but didn't fire it. But then Texas has no "brandishing" law.
    Yeah, I think the principle here is really hazy. So, she didn't use deadly force, because she didn't shoot; but she certainly threatened to use deadly force, so unless the second woman had done more than shout, presumably she may have been justified in actually using deadly force against the first woman.

    I think I'll stick with the idea that it's best to leave the gun in the holster unless it needs to be fired.
    OldChap likes this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  13. #12
    DG
    DG is offline
    Senior Member Array DG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    966
    The appeals court basically overturned the conviction on the grounds of improper jury instruction. Prosecutors still have the option of retrying the case, so she's not out of the woods yet.

    This Tuesday, as it reversed Ra's convictions, the Michigan Court of Appeals stated that “the trial court’s failure to give the jury instruction regarding the use of non-deadly force in self-defense was erroneous."

    Ra's case now rests with prosecutors, who can decide to appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, pursue another trial or drop the case.


    https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...rt/2070567001/

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    946
    I'm so confused, my head hurts. I need a drink of whiskey to sort this all out.
    OldChap likes this.

  15. #14
    Member Array NoDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by NECCdude View Post
    If I read that article correctly, the woman with the unloaded weapon was put in prison and I'm suppose to applaud that court decision? When I began reading the article I got the impression that she wasn't going to be convicted because she was exercising her self defense rights. What am I missing?
    You are missing page 2 of the article. I had to go back and read it again as I came to the same conclusion as you, then I saw the "continue story" button, which explains the appeals court decision.
    By now our forefathers would be shooting.

    Life is too important to take seriously.

    Lansing Muzzle Loading Gun Club
    visit us at: http://www.lansingmuzzleloadinggunclub.com/

  16. #15
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Any other states courts will be unlikely to accept their finding in threatening deadly force not being deadly force. Careful out there, this isn't a license to draw on someone not imminently threatening deadly force against the defender.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •