Castle Doctrine on Governor's Desk

[Barbara]

Fate of Castle Doctrine in governor's hands

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 27, 2006
Contact: Phyllis Washburn
Pwashburn@house.mi.gov
(517) 373-1690

Bill inspired by Dr. Sweet passed by Legislature
Home safety falls into governor’s hands

A bill sponsored by state Rep. Rick Jones to protect law-abiding Michigan residents was sent to the governor today. The legislation gives Michigan residents the right to use force to defend themselves and their families, when facing imminent death, great bodily harm or rape at the hands of a violent criminal.
Jones said his bill clarifies the law on self-defense and makes it clear that law abiding citizens cannot be prosecuted or sued civilly for defending themselves.
“One of America’s most basic values is the right to protect oneself and their families,� said Jones, R-Grand Ledge. “This will give every resident in Michigan the confidence to know that they can act to defend themselves and their family without threat of repercussion. The House and the senate have done the right thing by passing the bills; now it is in the governor's hands.�
The legislation eliminates the duty of law-abiding citizens to retreat and establishes a presumption that a criminal who breaks and enters or car jacks intends to cause death, great bodily harm or rape. In addition, the bills make anyone who lawfully defends themselves immune from civil liability, and make it clear that they cannot be prosecuted.
"In 33 years of law enforcement, I saw many victims of crime,� Jones said. “This important package of bills protects crime victims and allows citizens to defend themselves, their spouse and their children from imminent death or rape.�
The inspiration for the bill came from the historical account of Dr. Ossian Sweet’s 1925 trial defending his home against the Ku Klux Klan in Michigan. The case began in 1925 when Ossian Sweet, a Detroit doctor and grandson of slaves, moved his family to a neighborhood where they would be the only black family. This enraged the Ku Klux Klan, who and surrounded his home yelling insults and racial slurs. Some of the crowd rushed and shots were fired from the house. One man was killed and another was injured. Dr. Sweet was charged with murder and eventually acquitted.

#####

[Barbara]

FTR, it's veto proof, so there's little doubt she'll sign it. Yay!!

[douglasd]

I am a bit confused. As I understood this package of legislation, it not only protected ones right to use deadly force and no duty to retreat in his/her own home and car, but also any place he/she had a legal right to be.

I don't see that in the final bill. Am I just missing it? Maybe I just didn't read far enough.

Please enlighten me....Thanks.

[Divegeek]

Doug which particular bill were you looking at? The "Castle Doctrine Package" is actually a package of 6 bills.

[RS2]

Read them all, but look particularly at 5143.

[douglasd]

Ok...I freely admit I am not well versed in "legal-ese." I see HB 5143, and the modifed version by the Senate. I see that it says "any place a person has a right to be" that there is no duty to retreat. However, in section 3, it says:

Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "<<"Dr.
Ossian Sweet>> self-defense act".

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.

Sec. 3. Except as provided in section 2, this act does not modify the
common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006
regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force
other than deadly force.

It almost seems to me that Section 3 contradicts Section 2. As I said, I am not up on "lawyer-speak". If I understand this right, some of the other bills give you the right to stand your ground in your house or car, and this one extends it to anywhere you have a legal right to be.

What I don't see, is IMMUNITY from legal and civil prosecution when it takes place "anywhere you have a right to be", in other words outside your house or car. Am I immune if the incident takes place as I walk down the street, at the mall, in a parking lot? Forgive my ignorance, but is that spelled out specifically in one of the other bills?

[RS2]

It almost seems to me that Section 3 contradicts Section 2. As I said, I am not up on "lawyer-speak". If I understand this right, some of the other bills give you the right to stand your ground in your house or car, and this one extends it to anywhere you have a legal right to be.

You need to read the Michigan Supreme Court's 2002 opinion in People v Riddle.
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/docu...e4apr02.op.pdf

What I don't see, is IMMUNITY from legal and civil prosecution when it takes place "anywhere you have a right to be", in other words outside your house or car. Am I immune if the incident takes place as I walk down the street, at the mall, in a parking lot? Forgive my ignorance, but is that spelled out specifically in one of the other bills?

See HB 5548

Sec. 2922b. An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another individual in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to either of the following by the use of that deadly force or force other than deadly force:

(a) The individual against whom the use of deadly force or force other than deadly force is authorized.

(b) Any individual claiming damages arising out of injury to or the death of the individual described in subdivision (a), based upon his or her relationship to that individual.

[douglasd]

Ok...It is becoming clearer, after reading all the bills.

HOWEVER....I still do not see it spelled out in so many words that we are immune no matter where the incident takes place.

I see it spelled out that we are immune if it is in our dwelling, car, or place of business, but not "anywhere we are legally permitted to be".

I also see in one of the bills that we will be reimbursed for all court costs and legal fees if we are sued. How can that be if we cannot be sued in the first place?

Also,

See HB 5548

Sec. 2922b. An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another individual in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to either of the following by the use of that deadly force or force other than deadly force:

(a) The individual against whom the use of deadly force or force other than deadly force is authorized.

(b) Any individual claiming damages arising out of injury to or the death of the individual described in subdivision (a), based upon his or her relationship to that individual.

Section 2 of the self-defense act seems to only deal with attacks in the home, car, or business.


I must be missing something. I like the bills in general, and hope Jenny signs them, but I just wish they were more clear.

Maybe it's just me.

[douglasd]

Also, anyone have an idea about how long it will take before Jenny signs the bills? What's the norm on things like this?

From what I can see they will all take effect on October 1st, 2006...is that correct?

Thanks

[RS2]

Also, anyone have an idea about how long it will take before Jenny signs the bills? What's the norm on things like this?

From what I can see they will all take effect on October 1st, 2006...is that correct?

Thanks

Hi Douglas

I know this stuff can be pretty hard to read, but this is relatively straight forward legislative language ("trust me," I actually am a lawyer).

October 1, 2006 is the date on which the acts would become operative, assuming the Governor signs them, which I believe she will. I don't know when she'll do that, but I should think it will be relatively soon.

Section 2 refers to the use of deadly force by an individual "anywhere he or
she has the legal right."


Regardless of statutory immunity, one can always be sued. If, under the circumstances of the specific case, the immunity is applicable, the suit would be dismissed on a motion for summary disposition, and costs and fees would then be awarded.