Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > Concealed Carry & Self Defense
o

Notices

Concealed Carry & Self Defense All aspects of Concealed and Open Carry, Home and Self Defense.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:25 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 686-380 View Post
I'd like to know whether the trespasser was charged with trespassing.
In my state, it's not "trespassing" unless the property is conspicuously posted, or the people have been warned in the past that they are now allowed on the property, AND that this can be proven, or the police already know it.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #52  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:30 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
Pretty sure it's the same everywhere that you have to be in immediate fear of death or serious physical injury . . .
Nope. In MI you can shoot a fleeing felon. Even for a non-violent felony and even if your life isn't in danger. You can be sued and may or may not be held civilly liable, but not criminally prosecuted. Can't shoot em if they stop though.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-20-2016, 12:33 PM
Springfeildkid585 Springfeildkid585 is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 487
Likes: 37
Liked 141 Times in 70 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Nope. In MI you can shoot a fleeing felon. Even for a non-violent felony and even if your life isn't in danger. You can be sued and may or may not be held civilly liable, but not criminally prosecuted. Can't shoot em if they stop though.
Or if you're a cop. (Tennessee v. Gardner)
__________________
Just the opinion of a kid
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-20-2016, 01:04 PM
Muss Muggins's Avatar
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is online now
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: bootheel of Missouri
Posts: 16,853
Likes: 6,981
Liked 28,083 Times in 8,897 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Nope. In MI you can shoot a fleeing felon. Even for a non-violent felony and even if your life isn't in danger. You can be sued and may or may not be held civilly liable, but not criminally prosecuted. Can't shoot em if they stop though.
There's a little more to it than that. You must also articulate a belief that the fleeing felon poses a risk of death or serious bodily injury to others.

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.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006
© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

They are also clarified, or further clarified in Section 780.951:
PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE (EXCERPT)
Act 311 of 2006

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).

(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.
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #55  
Old 12-20-2016, 01:22 PM
Ed Fowler's Avatar
Ed Fowler Ed Fowler is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Central Wyoming
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 3,146
Liked 1,569 Times in 635 Posts
Default

"There's a little more to it than that. You must also articulate a belief that the fleeing felon poses a risk of death or serious bodily injury to others."

You said a real sounds like the fine print stuff!

Thanks for posting that it was interesting!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-20-2016, 06:58 PM
hardcase60's Avatar
hardcase60 hardcase60 is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 1,284
Likes: 2,972
Liked 1,494 Times in 702 Posts
Default

Steve912.

Texas statues are like that. At 2:00 AM in a rural part of any Texas County if a 5' 8" 70 year old man confronts a 6" 2" 20 year old male in an effort to stop felony criminal mischief being done to his property or any trespass (peeping in a window) it would be hoped that the victim could convey to law enforcement how he reasonably believed that any force other than deadly would have exposed him to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. If not then may the force be with him. hardcase60
__________________
You want me to do what?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-29-2016, 07:09 PM
mrchuck's Avatar
mrchuck mrchuck is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: BISHOP, California
Posts: 953
Likes: 4,433
Liked 1,291 Times in 533 Posts
Default

The Texas "Castle" law is clear an indisputable.
Period.....
Look it up.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #58  
Old 01-02-2017, 10:22 AM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springfeildkid585 View Post
Or if you're a cop. (Tennessee v. Gardner)
Wrong, same rules apply to cops and non-cops. TN v. GARNER (not Gardner) was a CIVIL case, not a criminal case. It did not set precedent for criminal law, only civil. After TN v. Garner most states passed legislation that made it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. Michigan wasn't one of them, so the "Fleeing Felon Rule" still applies. They won't tell you this in your $99.00 CPL class because you shouldn't be shooting at non-violent fleeing felons anyway. But it's good to know that you can not be criminally charged in MI for shooting one. Good way to win a bet too.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-02-2017, 10:26 AM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
There's a little more to it than that. You must also articulate a belief that the fleeing felon poses a risk of death or serious bodily injury to others.

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.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006
© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

They are also clarified, or further clarified in Section 780.951:
PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE (EXCERPT)
Act 311 of 2006

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).

(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.
Nope. What you posted is what is required for a "self defense" case, and Michigan's "castle doctrine" not the "fleeing felon rule". There is not a "fleeing felon" statute, it's based on common law and case law in MI. Read People V. Couch, one of the definitive cases on the subject in MI. Also the following article. Same rules apply for non-cops. Nothing has changed since the following cases when it comes to Michigan's "fleeing felon rule".

Quote:
Laws, rules keep cops from removal
Charges can't be brought if suspected felon is shot

May 17, 2000

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
and JOE SWICKARD
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

Sometimes, laws and regulations thwart officials when they try to get rid of a cop for a questionable shooting.

Detroit police executives and prosecutors agreed in 1995, for instance, that a rookie cop was wrong when he shot an unarmed teenager who was tampering with a car. But they couldn't kick him off the force or put him on trial.

"We fired him," Police Chief Benny Napoleon said. "The arbitrator gave him his job back."

The officer, Archie Arp, declined to comment.

On the night of Aug. 23, 1995, Arp was off duty and dropped in to visit his girlfriend at a bar on Joy Road near West Parkway. Arp, 45, had been a cop for a year.

Arp was in the bar a few minutes, police and court records show, when he was asked to check out the parking lot because a kid was seen messing with a car.

Moments later, gunshots were heard and 14-year-old Charles Clay lay dying on the street. Clay was about 90 feet from Arp, and a screwdriver with a 4-inch blade was near the youth's body.

Arp told investigators the youth ran but suddenly turned on him with a shiny object that Arp believed was a weapon. It was the screwdriver.

The autopsy showed that Clay had been shot in the middle of the back. The bullet's path through his body indicated that he may have been running when hit.

Even so, Sgt. Arlie Lovier of the special assignment squad, who was the officer in charge of the homicide investigation, said it was "a good shooting," with no violations of criminal law or department regulations.

The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office wanted to charge Arp, but couldn't. The office determined that a criminal case was impossible because a Michigan Supreme Court ruling said it was legal for anyone -- civilian or police officer -- to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. Assistant prosecutor Michael King said he regretted that he could not bring state charges, "but I feel bound" by the Supreme Court ruling.

However, prosecutors issued a news release indicating that the shooting could be a "civil violation of the deceased's federal rights to be free of unreasonable arrest."

In a September 1995 letter to the police department, county prosecutors said Arp's story wasn't supported by facts, and his use of deadly force appeared to violate department policy.

The police department held hearings and fired Arp, but the dismissal was overturned on appeal in 1998. Arp was suspended for six months, and is still with the department.

Clay's family sued in Wayne County Circuit Court in 1995. The city settled the case for $1 million a year later.

People V. Couch, Michigan Supreme Court: People v. Couch :: 1990 :: Michigan Supreme Court Decisions :: Michigan Case Law :: Michigan Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia


I was down at the prosecutor's office on an unrelated matter and there had just been a case of a guy shooting a man who had broken into his garage. The burglar took off running and the homeowner chased him. The bad guy stopped after being ordered to by the homeowner. If I recall correctly, the burglar said: "Go ahead and shoot me." So the homeowner did. He was charged with some type of criminal homicide. I confirmed with the prosecutor that if the guy had shot the fleeing burglar in the back while he was running away, he wouldn't have been charged at all. There have been various other cases over the years in MI with both cops and non-cops involved. One of them involved a Dr. who caught someone trying to steal his car in a parking structure. Doctor chased the guy and shot him as he was hiding under another car. He was charged. If he would have shot the guy while he was still running, he wouldn't have been.

Last edited by RSanch111; 01-02-2017 at 10:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-02-2017, 10:32 AM
Muss Muggins's Avatar
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is online now
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: bootheel of Missouri
Posts: 16,853
Likes: 6,981
Liked 28,083 Times in 8,897 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Nope. What you posted is civil law, not criminal, and what is required for a "self defense" case, not "fleeing felon". There is not "fleeing felon" statute, it's based on common law and case law in MI. Read People V. Couch, one of the definitive cases on the subject in MI. Also the following article. Same rules apply for non-cops:




People V. Couch, Michigan Supreme Court: People v. Couch :: 1990 :: Michigan Supreme Court Decisions :: Michigan Case Law :: Michigan Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia
Duly noted . . .
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-02-2017, 12:13 PM
vipermd's Avatar
vipermd vipermd is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.P. Mi
Posts: 2,060
Likes: 8,959
Liked 1,270 Times in 693 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtStone View Post
I live in a pretty permissive city but two Fourth Of July's back a sitting County Commissioner -- a close neighbor & backer of the county shooting complex -- was arrested and charged with firing a large bore revolver at a tree stump on his own property.
Arrested and charged for what?? Shooting a stump? Or was he within city limits, with a prohibition on firing firearm within city limits? Just trying to understand. Be Safe,
__________________
I BACK OUR BLUE
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-02-2017, 07:27 PM
T2C's Avatar
T2C T2C is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: CONUS
Posts: 112
Likes: 40
Liked 81 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertrwalsh View Post
Warning shots are, by definition, almost always the discharge of a weapon when there is no imminent threat. That is, generally speaking, both illegal and ill-advised. They also have the bad habit of injuring or killing people and damaging property.
In our area you can only discharge a firearm in warning if you are legally justified in firing a shot at the suspect in self defense. The test is are you or another "in reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm or death"?

It is prudent to learn the laws in your state and county. People have a habit of reading about something being legal in Michigan or Texas and believing they would be legally justified in applying deadly force in Illinois or Wisconsin. That may not work out like they hoped it would.
__________________
Train to win

Last edited by T2C; 01-02-2017 at 07:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-02-2017, 08:24 PM
kbm6893 kbm6893 is offline
SWCA Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,625
Likes: 636
Liked 6,861 Times in 2,541 Posts
Default

Such stupidity. Unless any of us here are lawyers in the state in question, cutting and pasting a section of the penal code is useless. Because every case is different and we don't know all the facts. What we DO know is even if this guy isn't criminally charged and convicted, he is facing civil issues,
Not to mention possible payback from the family members of the kids.

Seems to me that there are some people just itching to use a weapon. Don't know if this case fits that bill, but all I know is I am NOT grabbing my weapon and leaving my house because I think there's a trespasser on my property. The thousands of dollars in legal fees, awarded damages in a civil suit, and just general headaches aren't worth it.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-02-2017, 09:12 PM
SgtStone's Avatar
SgtStone SgtStone is offline
US Veteran
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: High Desert, Nevada
Posts: 120
Likes: 291
Liked 116 Times in 65 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vipermd View Post
Arrested and charged for what?? Shooting a stump? Or was he within city limits, with a prohibition on firing firearm within city limits? Just trying to understand. Be Safe,
Here ya' go, Viper:

Commissioner Collins charged with misdemeanors for discharging firearm | Las Vegas Review-Journal

I was trying to keep Collins's name out of my post but use the issue to note that even connected people are wise to be careful discharging firearms. I'm amazed I got as many details correct as I did as he was frequently in the news. Correction: he was not arrested for this incident, a misdemeanor. He was arrested for other "disturbances" including DUI.

Mind you, I admire the ex-commissioner. The Clark County Shooting Complex is an excellent public facility to shoot a variety of weapons. We locals owe him thanks for that & other actions as the Cowboy Commissioner.

Last edited by SgtStone; 01-02-2017 at 09:13 PM. Reason: fixed apostrophe
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-02-2017, 11:43 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case Another "warning shots" case  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 14,494
Liked 9,263 Times in 3,702 Posts
Default

Trespass laws vary from state to state. Here in WA, either fencing or posting is sufficient. If it is a big enough area, posting well enough to be effective as a practical (not legal) matter would be a pain. My yard is fenced. I don't want people coming to my house unless they have been invited, and I am both strict and unpleasant about it. Any other crime committed in the course of the trespass would make it a burglary. I've filed those.

Bozo (my avatar) died a few months ago, and he was dangerous. (It was genetic - he was part Fila.) I am reasonably certain he would have done severe or lethal damage to anyone who came over the fence (and under WA, we would have a complete defense). NMFP, and I do not and never did GAF.His successor is protective, but not like that.

Parents need to do a much better job of raising their kids about both the stupid stunt with the hat, and the stupid stunt of going after it. I would file that case against that kid in an instant if I was still working in juvenile court. The shooter is a tool, and needs his gluteals kicked up between his shoulder blades. This is the kind of stupid stuff that comes when one only relies on the training that comes in the box.

Could there be a time when a warning shot would not be a problem? Yes. Do the odds favor it? Not often - in fact, darned rarely. If you are not justified and comfortable with putting each and every shot into another person's vital areas, don't press the trigger.
__________________
NHI, 10-8.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB Maroon soft case or "Jewelry Box" case for 3" 65 Ladysmith 3S16 WANTED to Buy 2 07-26-2016 11:06 PM
Has anyone played "Glamour Shots" with their M&P pistols? rjm6120 Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 12 09-14-2015 09:21 PM
Outdoor Channel's "Impossible Shots" Catskinner Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 4 10-13-2010 11:14 PM
627 PC 2 5/8 UDR "bloodwork" first shots and issues chrisjohn S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 3 06-20-2010 06:33 PM
SPF REDUCED FS "New" Case XX USA Made USMC "Kabar" straightshooter1 Accessories/Misc - For Sale or Trade 3 10-20-2009 09:46 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)