Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Michigan Legislative Bill to create 'Castle Doctrine'
Included in this posting is a bill that was introduced at the State of
Michigan congress. This bill is designed to prevent criminal or civil
prosecution against those people who have legally defended themselves
through use of deadly force. Called "justifiable homicide", people who use
deadly force to defend themselves or others are often saddled with
incredible legal costs to ensure that they are not found guilty of a crime.
Those persons are also subject to frivolous lawsuits brought about by the
family members of the dead or injured criminal, and often times the "legal"
system and a liberal jury will end up finding in favor of the plaintiff and
stick the person who use legal force with being financially responsible for
An article in the Monday, September 26 2005 copy of the Detroit Free Press
spoke of this bill and gave some insight as to what can happen if a person
uses deadly force in defending themselves or others. This bill will also
allow a person to "stand and defend" their home, as opposed to having to
retreat. This is also known as the "Castle Doctrine", and is currently a
law in Florida. What this means is that if someone breaks into your home
illegally, you are not bound by law to seek an egress. If you feel that
your life is in danger should you remain in your home, you have a right to
defend yourself in that home.
Pass this on to any who you know feel that they have a right to defend
themselves or others through whatever means is necessary. Contact your
Representative, Congressman and Senator to make sure this bill gets passed.
I guarantee that Governor Granholm will seek to have this bill stopped or
set aside because of her liberalistic, criminal loving view of the world.
This Bill was written by Representative Rick Jones, a Republican former
Sheriff of Eaton County. Oakland County and Wayne County prosecutors
oppose this law, feeling that it will invite people to take on conflict
rather than avoid it. Remember though, that these are the same people who
opposed the relaxation of the right to carry laws, stating that it will
bring about an increase in gun related injuries and deaths in the state of
Michigan and the counties where the laws stood. That assumption has become
a falsehood, as violent crime and gun related incidents has dropped
dramatically in those areas, which include both Wayne and Oakland counties.
This bill does not create the "Wild West" atmosphere that some judges and
prosecutors will have us believe. What it does is tell criminals and their
families that if you are committing a crime, it will not eventually pay
through our civil courts any longer. This bill simply brings a sense of
logic to the whole ordeal, stating matter-of-factly that a person who is
legally defending themselves or others is not a criminal, and should not be
subject to being viewed as such by anyone, including the officers, judges
or criminals that were the target of the force used.
Remember also that this bill is not directed solely at the use of a handgun or shotgun as 'deadly force', but also includes the use of a knife, club or even and hand-to-hand manuever that has lethal capabilities.
HOUSE BILL No. 5143
September 7, 2005, Introduced by Rep. Jones and referred to the Committee
A bill to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and
the defense of others; to provide for criminal and civil immunity
under certain circumstances; to regulate the investigation of
incidents involving self-defense or the defense of others; and to
provide for certain remedies.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1. (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable
fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or
herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or
likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of
the following apply:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was
in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had
unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied
vehicle, or that person had removed or was attempting to remove
another person against that person's will from the dwelling,
residence, or occupied vehicle.
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to
believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and
forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply
if any of the following apply:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has
the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling,
residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder,
and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic
violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact
against that person.
(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild
of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful
guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an
unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied
vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a
law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling,
residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official
duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance
with applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably
should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter
was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and
who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to
be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or
she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or
to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to
enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is
presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act
involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind,
including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is
temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over
it, including a tent, and that is designed to be occupied by
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides
either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not
motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.
Sec. 2. (1) A person is justified in using force, except
deadly force, against another person when and to the extent that
the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to
defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent
use of unlawful force.
(2) A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does
not have a duty under this section to retreat if either of the
(a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary
to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or
herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a
(b) Any of the circumstances enumerated under section 1.
Sec. 3. (1) A person is justified in the use of force, except
deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the
person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to
prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other
tortious or criminal interference with real property, other than a
dwelling or personal property, that is lawfully in his or her
possession or in the possession of another person who is a member
of his or her immediate family or household, or of a person whose
property he or she has a legal duty to protect.
(2) A person is justified in the use of deadly force only if
he or she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to
prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does
not have a duty under this section to retreat if the person is in a
place where he or she has a right to be.
Sec. 4. (1) A person who uses force as permitted in section 1,
2, or 3 is justified in using that force and is immune from
criminal prosecution and from any civil action for the use of that
force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law
enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of his or her
official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in
accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew
or reasonably should have known that the person was a law
enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, "criminal
prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, charging, or
prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for
investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but
the agency shall not arrest the person for using force unless it
determines that there is probable cause that the force that was
used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court
costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred
by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a
plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from
prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.