Michigan’s Castle Doctrine Law and You

From the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO):

The basic rule on use of force in self-defense is that the force must be proportional to the threat.

Essentially, deadly force is only authorized in self-defense when preventing: great bodily harm that could lead death, death, or rape (known modernly in Miichigan as sexual assault.) The individual using deadly force in legitimate self defense must have an actual belief that he is preventing one of those three things, and that belief has to be reasonable under all the circumstances. In other words, a jury would have to agree that, if they were in the same situation, they would share that same belief that great bodily harm, death, or sexual assault were about to occur.

Read the whole thing here.

Are you in fear for your life and the life of your wife?

Murdoc’s answer is: Yes, almost certainly.

In Florida, a masked man invaded one home, left, and then tried to invade another. The second homeowner shot him twice.

“Our homeowner didn’t have an obligation to retreat. He is able to protect his property,” said Lt. James Clark, of the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office. “The questions we’re trying to answer: If he was in fear for his life and the life of his wife. If he was, he would be justified in this shooting.”

Florida’s passage of a Castle Doctrine law has been controversial in some circles. Including, I suspect, the criminal circles.

The shootee has an

extensive criminal history involving drugs, fleeing/eluding law enforcement. He was also investigated for a previous armed robbery.

Homeowner foils burglary attempt in NW Tallahassee

“There have been several burglaries in this area in recent weeks,” said Sgt. Tony Drzewiecki, spokesman for the Sheriff’s Office said about northwest Tallahassee. “We don’t know if this is related to those recent burglaries; however, we have uniformed deputies in the area now and we are working on any leads.”

Drzewiecki said the resident, armed with a shotgun, investigated. Upon finding an unknown person breaking into the home, the owner fired a shot, which missed, and the suspect fled.

Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that the “several burglaries in this area in recent weeks” have all been committed by the same person(s). Let’s also say that this near-hit by a shotgun has scared the loser into seeking another line of work. X number of future burglaries by this moron may have been prevented, and another Y number of burglaries by other dead-enders inspired by this moron’s success could also have been prevented.

An ongoing series of shooting or shooting at invaders will eventually convince all but the most hard-core to stop invading. Some will die. That’s okay. You want to be safe? Don’t break into my house.

As long as the trend is tipped in favor of the good guys, the bad guys will have to think twice.

That, friends, is how things work in a near-perfect world.

Say Uncle points out an observation made over at Lew Rockwell:

They Never Mention Guns
Every so often one one of the “major” broadcast networks airs a report on home safety. A security expert will go on and on about locking doors and windows, installing alarm systems, using motion detectors and a bunch of other things that a home owner might do including, of course, calling the police. But what about that useful, portable, concealable, reusable and affordable equalizer and tool of last resort? In fact, when have we ever been told not to rely on the state for anything?

Apparently, even cactus are too dangerous for mere citizens to rely on when it comes to home defense. After the savage 2007 home invasion in Cheshire, CT, that left a prominent doctor’s wife and two daughters dead, an expert on ABC’s Good Morning America suggested that wind chimes and cactus on window sills would deter criminals.

As a commenter pointed out:

If cactus was actually effective at stopping malefactors, CT and MA would’ve required a license to buy, sell, and transport it long ago.

Guns, of course, shouldn’t be counted on as the first, last, and only line of home defense. Effective home security requires a layered approach, and different tactics are going to work against different threats.

Against random burglars and violent criminals selecting targets of opportunity, locked doors, motion-detecting lights, and even wind chimes and cactus on the window sill can provide a certain level of security. Man’s best friend, the dog, can also do an awful lot to ward off chance encounters. Better to never face a home invader than to have to shoot one.

Against criminals who have selected a specific target ahead of time, however, passive defenses aren’t nearly so effective. All but the dumbest home invader will have at least a rudimentary plan to deal with common passive defenses. These are the ones where guns might be the only hope.

Pulling the trigger should always be an absolute last resort. The problems arise when the bad guys escalate to last resort territory with their first move.

Happened across this on the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association forum in a thread about what laws should gun owners be pushing for in 2009:

At the very bottom of the list are “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws. I’d rather have more freedom to carry guns in order to protect my life and the lives of loved ones, than to be able to shoot someone for stealing a lawn gnome or running away with a case of beer.

Below, the writer adds

Ya caught me… I was using hyperbole.

Take my opinion what it’s worth, but it seems to me that it would be more beneficial to allow more people to more easily defend themselves against crimes for which lethal force is currently justified for self-defense, than to expand the justifications for the use of lethal force for the same number of people who are carrying now. It would be nice to do both, but we only have enough political capital to do one or the other.

This is actually a pretty good point, though I don’t know that I happen to agree with it. ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws won’t help a lot if only the bad guys have guns (which often seems to be the case in certain parts of Pennsylvania, I gather), but if attackers (or their survivors) can successfully sue those who defend themselves there is still no balance.

Still, I’d rather put down a bad guy today and get sued tomorrow than not have a gun when I need one.

Ban guns. Think of the children.

Police say teen was shot burglarizing home with dad

A man and his son tried to break into a far West Side home on Monday, police said, but failed when the homeowner shot and injured the 15-year-old boy.

The San Antonio homeowner awoke around 1 a.m. and saw two figures on his back porch. He grabbed his 9mm and shot at a figure entering through a window that had just been bashed in.

Keep in mind that this 15-year-old will be included in the 2009 statistics for children injured by guns when the antis trumpet the numbers.

In the comments:

I am afraid that this “castle doctrine” is going to lead to real trouble.

Well, in this case it certainly did lead to trouble. For the bad guys.

Found by JR from Blanco County, Texas:

Disturbance. 2:28 AM. A complainant had a gun pointed at a subject who had broken into the residence. Officers responded and secured the situation. The subject was released to his parents.

Writes JR:

That homeowner showed commendable restraint. I wonder if staring down the barrel of a gun was one of those “life altering” moments for this kid?

Murdoc hopes that he’d never shoot anyone who didn’t absolutely need shooting. However, if I don’t know for sure (and if you’re in my house at 2:28 am without an invite I’m pretty sure I won’t know for sure) there’s not much margin for error.

Bullets fly in sign prank

Warren, Pennsylvania:

A pair of teenage boys thought they were playing a prank by knocking down a John McCain campaign sign Saturday afternoon and yelling, “This is for Obama” to the homeowner.

But the homeowner, Kenneth Rowles, 50, was sitting on the front porch and didn’t think it was funny, especially since this was the second time vandals had damaged his campaign signs.

Rowles went into his 1237 Dover St. home in Warren Township, got a .22-caliber rifle and went back to the porch to confront the boys at about 2 p.m.

Rowles said he fired the rifle three times “to scare them” but never pointed the rifle at the boys or the car.

Nonetheless, at about 11 a.m. Sunday, the mother of one of the boys called police — saying her nephew, Kyree Flowers, 17, of 1205 Dover, had been shot once in the arm, and that her tan GMC SUV had been hit by two other bullets.

Now, I think nearly everyone would agree that shooting someone messing with a political sign on your front yard and shooting at their vehicle as it leaves are a bit over the line. The homeowner continues to deny that he shot at them.

One of the kids said he was “joking and playing” when he did it. That doesn’t give him the right to do it and they should be charged.

Campaign sign vandalism can be a local crime, not a federal one. But [Warren’s law director Greg] Hicks added that he doesn’t believe the boys are likely to face any criminal charges “based on the scope of what happened” when Rowles fired his gun at them.

I’m not sure what that means. Based on the scope of what happened, they won’t be charged with trespassing or vandalism? What sense does that make? The homeowner did what he did and should pay the price. The kids did what they did and should pay the price.

Dan Rather investigates “Castle Doctrine” in Jackson

Mississippi:

The retired CBS news anchor is investigating the Castle Doctrine for the TV network HDNet…

“We inform people, we educate people, we illuminate controversial subjects,” Rather said.

Whatever.

Armed Intruder Shot and Killed

Vero Beach, Florida:

At about 5 a.m. Thomas “T.C.” Thompson, an alleged intruder, made his way into a Vero Beach home on 74th Avenue, by prying open the front window and popping out the screen.

Inside police say Thomspon held 2 knives threatening a mother of 2, Joanne Hornsby, laying in bed. She screamed, and detectives with the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office said there was some type of struggle, her sons, Austin and Roger, ages 19 and 20 began to fight the intruder.

The youngest son, Austin pulled out a shotgun and fired on shot at Thompson. Thompson was found dead on the screened-in porch, said police.

You know how this is going to go, right? Intruders using knives will be removed from the pool by homeowners with shotguns. That will leave intruders with guns, and then gun crime will be blamed on people defending their home with firearms.