SB 611: Ann Arbor Dem introduces repeal of stand your ground

[CitizensHaveRights]

A Democratic state Senator hopes to repeal Michigan’s “stand-your-ground” law.

Under that law, a person can use deadly force against someone else with no requirement to retreat. That’s as long as the person isn’t engaged in a crime, is somewhere they’re legally allowed to be, and feels deadly force is the only way to defend themselves.

State Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, says it provides too many protections for people who engage in gun violence.

She points to incidents such as the (self defense) killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida (which was not a SYG case) as reasons to repeal the law in Michigan. (because it's wrong for violent criminals to be killed in the act of beating innocent citizens to death)

http://michiganradio.org/post/michigan-s-stand-your-ground-law-would-be-repealed-under-new-bill


And this says it all about U of M Public Radio:
An earlier version of this story incorrectly referred to the castle doctrine as allowing a person to use deadly force against someone who has trespassed on their property. The castle doctrine applies to the use of force against someone who has broken into their home or business.

[linux203]

Martin Zale is proof that MI SYG laws don't "give protection for people who engage in gun violence."

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/06/12/martin-zale-road-rage-shooting-howell-sentencing/71141426/

But stories like that don't fit the rhetoric.

[gryphon]

Martin Zale is proof that MI SYG laws don't "give protection for people who engage in gun violence."

And Theodore Wafer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/theodore-wafer-sentenced-in-killing-of-renisha-mcbride.html

[CitizensHaveRights]

I'll be very unhappy if the Idaho deputies who killed Jack Yantis spend less time behind bars than Ted Wafer. I don't think Wafer is innocent, but I suspect it was manslaughter rather than murder. When you jump a man from behind while he's in the act of humanely blowing a crippled bull's brains out and then do a mag dump on him while he's standing on his own homestead, that's just plain murder.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/family-of-man-killed-by-deputies-in-idaho-says-it-was-murder/ar-BBn7ZIj

[bigt8261]

I called the MPR writer and talked to him about the article, specifically the part about Warren saying that her bill doesn't repeal Castle Doctrine.

Here is my followup email to him (all statute references were linked):

SB 611 has five parts in two enacting sections. All repeal sections of our law.

Enacting Section 1 repeals 780.971-780.974

- Michigan's "self-defense act"
- Allows law abiding citizens to use deadly force or force less than deadly force to prevent imminent harm or rape IF they believe that force is necessary to prevent the harm.
- Removes duty to retreat
- Specifically does not alter common law self-defense in ALL other cases.

Enacting Section 2:

(a) Repeals 600.2922b and 600.2922c

- Creates civil immunity for anyone who JUSTIFIABLY and LEGALLY uses lethal force or force less than legal force for self-defense. 
- Awards costs and attorney fees in any civil suit IF the above applies.

(b) Repeals 768.21c

- Michigan Castle Doctrine pt1. Eliminates the duty to retreat when one is in their own dwelling.

(c) Repeals 780.961

- Lawful use of deadly force or force less than deadly force is not a crime. A prosecutor may still charge the person if they believe the actions were unjustified and shall present evidence.

(d) Repeals 780.951

- Michigan Castle Doctrine pt2. Creates a rebuttable presumption that a person who defends themselves in their own dwelling from someone breaking in feared imminent harm. Also provides exemptions.

-----------

There are three main pieces that SB 611 repeals. Stand your ground (SYG), Castle Doctrine, and civil protections.

When it comes to common law self-defense, there are five parts. Innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness, and avoidance. (I use IIPRA to remember that). The person must be both subjectively and objectively innocent, they can't cause the situation. The harm must be imminent, aka going to happen right now. The force used must be proportional, you can't shoot an old lady swinging her purse at you. The actions must be viewed through the reasonable person standard, hence a jury. The person must have no safe option of retreat. Further, self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden shifts to you to prove these things.

All SYG does is remove that last item, avoidance. If you think about it, it is logically impossible to prove there was no safe method of retreat. It is not logically possible to prove a negative. Further, one should never, ever turn their back on an imminent threat. Every other piece of self-defense remains in place and must be satisfied.

For Castle Doctrine, there are two main pieces. The elimination of avoidance and the presumption that a home invader is there to harm the individual. Essentially you don't have to make sure the home invader isn't there to steal your TV and isn't lying before defending yourself. This term and notion predates this country.

The last bit, civil immunity, is just as important. Before these laws were enacted it was said that you can expect to be sued if you use deadly force, or even if you don't. We've all heard of cases where someone breaks in, hurts themselves, and then sues the home owner. Many times families of failed attackers would sue just to see if they could get some money. Even if they lost, there was still great economic and emotional impact to the person who defended themselves. Now the failed attackers or their families have to pay for their frivolous lawsuits. While on the phone, I used the example of a rapist suing his/her victim. That can absolutely happen without these protections in place for people who LAWFULLY use force.

We have our own article about SB 611 (The Gangbanger Protection Act of 2015) here.

Lastly, an anti-gun legislator not knowing what is in their own legislation is not new. I've been raking Jim Townsend and Andy Schor over the coals for the same thing for a few years now.

Critique?

[part deux]

Very detailed, very well written...

However, it goes beyond the 30 second attention span.

Tell them what you're going to write about (30 sec attention span)
Write about it (which you did)
Tell them what you wrote about (again 30 sec attention span, but this is where you add commentary)

I like the detail, that is specific and well articulated.

Thank you for the time spent following up.

[bigt8261]

The email followed a phone call where most of the context was created.