Gun Battle in Michigan

There is some proposed legislation here in Michigan that is shaping up to be the next gun control/rights battle in the nation. The language in this bill mirrors that in the law that recently passed in Florida removing the duty to retreat in cases of self defense. Gun control advocates are opposed to this bill, fearing that such a law will produce a wild west mentality here in the Great Lakes State (like Florida where I presume people are now blasting each other to kingdom come at the drop of a hat?) I beg to differ.

Why should a law abiding citizen be restrained by a duty to retreat in the face of imminent violence? If someone is out of hand and is about to or is in the process of inflicting unprovoked violence THAT person is the criminal who must be restrained. Placing a duty of restraint on the victim(s) is counterproductive as it creates an atmosphere of safety for the violent criminal (which is what actually encourages the wild west mentality). “I can intimidate with force and they can’t respond in kind or we both go to jail haha!” If you think this sounds absurd think back to school days when some kids would get out of line because they knew the teachers did not have the right to touch them. Here is another example:

Let’s go back to the day some clown got in my face at the bar. Nose to nose in my face and he’s trying to shout me into submission. If I try to retreat I might get hit anyway and he has the advantage of the first swing. That’s worst case scenario. If I successfully retreat (god that sounds French) this guy wins and he learns that all he has to do is act an an ass and he wins the argument, he makes his mark as the big dog of the place and now he commands respect. Even his stupid lizard brain understands that. If those who would use violence are allowed to go unchecked then they win which makes it more likely that they will use that tactic again. That is the logical result of the duty to retreat.

If the violent, however, are met with their own weapon (violence) then they learn that their tactic does not guarantee success and it is in most cases more trouble than it’s worth. Sometimes they will lose (and lose big) but even in cases where they prevail they still are likely to go home with a mouth full of blood, ripped up clothes or even some very serious injuries. The removal of the self defense duty to retreat in Michigan law should only concern you if you are violent criminal. And as for the possiblility of innocent bystanders getting hurt I will answer that this already happens and will continue to happen until the initiation of force becomes unthinkable.

As long as we live in a world where the ignorant will initiate force it is only right that the citizens should be permitted to defend themselves to the fullest of their abilities. Only when the violent are served back until they understand violence in its full meaning will any significant behavior change be effected. If you were a violent criminal like a mugger or a rapist would you not think twice about preying on someone who was armed with both a weapon and some victim-friendly law?

The question with this bill is whether Michigan legislators favor the criminals or their potential victims. Pay attention to how our representatives vote and remember that in the next election.

34 Responses to “Gun Battle in Michigan”

  1. R says:

    Your bar brawl has little relevance to the issue. The issue, I believe, deals with the lethality of firearms as a self-defensive measure.

    1) The legislation has no wording as to what kind of violence one would defend themselves from. It could be a guy in a bar wanting to sock you, or it could be a gun-wielding criminal wanting to shoot you. Would you say the proper response to a drunk brawler would be to shoot him in the head? It’s probably not necessary.

    2) This isn’t about running away versus all-out pumping a guy full of lead. This, again, is about the fact that firearms are lethal weapons and what that means. It means that if you opt to pull out a gun to defend yourself, the situation is already pretty fucking bad, and you’re going to be shooting to kill. I’m not talking about showing some punk a gun in your pants or waving the gun around. This is when you have NO CHOICE but to draw a gun and fire on an individual because you will not live given any other type of action.

    That being said, there is a point where a potential criminal’s actions go from being merely menacing to downright life-threatening.

    If some guy steps out of a car in front of Wal-Mart and waves a gun around, I’m not sticking around to find out if his actions ever get to life-threatening. I’m running my ass the fuck away. If, however, this guy decides to pursue me, then he’s crossed the line into life-threatening and that’s when I pull out my glock and cap the sucka. (If I believed in guns.)

    I don’t know what the history is in Michigan about prosecuting people who’ve shot and killed a person in self-defense. I imagine some type of life-threatening situation must be established first in order to justify such lethal action, but if you just outright shoot some guy who’s looking at you the wrong way, it’d be hard to establish said situation.

  2. Mexigogue says:

    Simply removing the duty to to retreat doesn’t make it open season. There is still the issue of excessive force which is a matter for a jury to decide. If you turn somebody into a collander just for stealing a stick of gum I don’t think self defense is gonna float. Removing the duty to retreat just takes away that one (misguided)element of the law.

  3. R says:

    Well, the article doesn’t give the exact language of the legislation (and if you could provide a link to that, I’d like to read it), but the article DOES say that the bill would allow anyone who even feels threatened to pull out a gun and kill someone in “self-defense.”

    And that stinks like Iraq’s imminent threat to the United States.

  4. Mexigogue says:

    Again these are issues of fact for a jury to decide. If I blast a hoboe for panhandling and then tell the cops “I felt threatened” I will be put on trial and the jury will get to decide whether or not I’m bullshitting or whether a reasonable person would have felt threatened. It’s not a get out of jail free card. But leaving me aside for a moment how could anyone be opposed to legislation that would help women who get accosted in empty parking lots?

  5. R says:

    I think we have a misunderstanding of terms here. When you use the term “accost,” could you provide a definition as to what you mean?

    We are, after all, talking about threatening actions that would justify someone pulling out a gun and killing someone.

    So if a woman is in an empty parking lot and some guy in a hoodie moves towards her, she shoot and kill him because he made her nervous? What if he just wanted change? What if he was returning something that fell out of her purse?

    The legislation doesn’t seem to make that distinction, wanting to side with the reasoning and “emotions” of a “victim.”

  6. Mexigogue says:

    The law can’t spell out every instance that might make someone feel threatened. What if they say “if the attacker has either a gun, a knife, a scythe, a pitchfork, a baseball bat, or some issues of the Watchtower” and then you get attacked by a guy with boots with spikes on the tips and a homemade Wolverine claw?? The jury is there to decide whether or not a reasonable person would have felt threatened enough to justify using deadly force. The hooded guy asking for change isn’t going to fit that bill.

  7. R says:

    But that’s after the fact, dude.

    So the next time I’m in Michigan and some white lady drops a hundred dollar bill, fuck that bitch. I stay alive and am a hundred bucks richer.

  8. Mexigogue says:

    Apparantly you think that the only thing that keeps people from wantonly capping each other is the law and that if the law is tweaked all hell will break loose. I have news for you. Even if murder were suddenly declared legal I will tell you that the vast majority of people would still not go on shooting sprees. Most people avoid murder because they are decent people who think it’s wrong. It’s only a small percent who need to be dissuaded through threat of relaliation and prison.

  9. Phelps says:

    How is the jury deciding after the fact any worse than the police trying to find the rapist after the fact because this woman tried to comply with the law and run and got caught rather than shooting when she still stood a chance?

  10. Mexigogue says:

    Because when women are abducted it makes “R”‘s heart smile because no firearms went off.

  11. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    I don’t know about you guys but if murder is suddenly declared legal. I’m a going on a killing spree. I have a kill list and everything

  12. R says:

    “How is the jury deciding after the fact any worse than the police trying to find the rapist after the fact because this woman tried to comply with the law and run and got caught rather than shooting when she still stood a chance?”

    Stop being noobs.

    I would imagine that yelling out “stop right there” would constitute trying to evade violence. And if the dude doesn’t stop then she can kill him. I have no problem with that.

    However, I do have a problem with someone taking out a gun and killing someone because they “felt” threatened, and with no other actions whatseover.

  13. Mexigogue says:

    The reason they put the part about feeling threatened is because if you’re not at risk then there is no justification for killing someone. If a security guard is just chilling with a gun in his holster I can’t kill him because he’s not a threat to me. There has to be an aspect of danger in addition to a person being armed in order for me to kill him. If the security guard says “YOU BASTARD YOU FUCKED MY WIFE!!” then draws his sidearm then I am within my rights to kill him because I feel threatened and a jury would most likely agree that this is a reasonable determination.

  14. Phelps says:

    R, the situation you described is exactly what this law encompasses. The way the law is now in Michigan, she would be required to try to run away, even in her own house. That’ crazy anywhere.

  15. Phelps says:

    R, the situation you described is exactly what this law encompasses. The way the law is now in Michigan, she would be required to try to run away, even in her own house. That’ crazy anywhere.

  16. R says:

    That’s what I want to know. Do they mean physically run away, or attempt to evade violence in some form or another?

    Does anyone have a danged link for the actual legislation?

  17. Mexigogue says:

    They mean physically run away. Michigan law currently only recognizes self defense as a right if you have exhausted every reasonable means of running away.

  18. HMT says:

    I love Leroys!

  19. Mexigogue says:

    I hope your state slides into the ocean!!!!!!

  20. R says:

    Wow. So that means that if me and a bunch of friends scale my buddy’s fence to raid his hot tub, he can come out and shoot us all dead and have it be alright.

    Nice law you got there.

  21. Mexigogue says:

    Only if he genuinely believes he’s in danger. He can’t murder you as a practical joke and then hide behind a technicality.

  22. Citizen Quasar says:

    When one is confronted with someone initiating force against them, one must use on’s own judgment in responding.

    If someone believes that their life, or body in the case of rape etc., is in danger, one has a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to defend one’s self in any manner available. In a civilized society, it is then to be decided by others (a jury…of one’s peers) whether the defender’s SUBJECTIVE judgment was acceptable.

    An example:

    Texas passed a concealed weapon law allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms, if they first attended a gun safety class and obtained a permit.

    Later that week, in Dallas, a panhandler asked a man in a car at a stoplight for some money. The driver refused and the panhandler began to beat the man in the car. The man in the car, being a registered gun toter, pulled his gun out and shot the panhandler.

    The panhandler died.

    The state filed charges against the driver of the car.

    The grand jury no-billed the case.

  23. R says:

    “Only if he genuinely believes he’s in danger.”

    “Did you genuinely believe you were in danger?”

    “Yes.”

    “Case closed!”

    You mean it’s that easy?

  24. Mexigogue says:

    No. For the billionth time the question of whether or not the person genuinely believes he is in danger is a question of fact that must be determined by a jury.

    At the risk of getting you even more confused here is another example. Mistake of fact is a defense against the crime of theft whereas mistake of law is not. I can’t say “I didn’t know it was against the law to steal” because people are presumed to be familiar with the law, but if I accidently snag HMT’s radio because it is the exact same make and model as mine then I did not form the criminal intent that is necessary to be convicted of theft. BUT if I go on a stealing spree the case isn’t simply closed if I only claim mistake of fact, I must get a jury to buy it. Same with our self defense scenario above. Case is NOT just closed if the person says “I thought I was in danger.”

    And that’s the last time I’m going to explain that. Beyond this if you still claim not to understand it I’m going to presume you’re willfully ignoring just to be goofy.

  25. Linny says:

    having recently experienced the threat of violence and having to call the police only to have them tell me that until I get a PPO they can’t do a thing to him (yeah, I’ll leave those instructions in my will so after he kills me someone can get a restraining order against him… butt munches!!!) I wish I’d had a gun… if nothing else, it would have ruined his underwear. πŸ™‚

    I am against guns as a whole but until every single gun on the face of the earth has been dropped into a volcano, I want one.

    But as I have said to our resident NRA member… if there were no guns, no one would ever get shot right? RIGHT? how can he argue that? πŸ™‚

  26. Phelps says:

    That’s right. If there were no guns, we would have a huge stabbing epidemic, and the rate of people murdered by being pushed out of windows would skyrocket.

  27. Mexigogue says:

    Plus stabbing contests give men the advantage over women which means we revert back to cave man days and I don’t think you’d want that Linny.

    (huh huh! “Captain Stabbin'”!

  28. Phelps says:

    Captain Stabbin is real!

  29. R says:

    Case is NOT just closed if the person says “I thought I was in danger.”

    But if you’ve got legislation literally saying it’s okay for you to shoot someone if you feel you’re in danger – and it does – then the jury has to accept it.

  30. Mexigogue says:

    No witness testimoney (including defendants’ because they are witnessess too) is exempt from jury review. Hell even expert witness testimony is subject to jury review.

  31. Linny says:

    and… If there were no knives then we’d eat our steaks with our fingers πŸ™‚

    I have long arms… I bet I could cut off an appendage of yours before you could cut off one of mine (not to mention, I can’t sleep so… eventually you’d doze off) πŸ™‚

  32. Citizen Quasar says:

    There were millenia full of slaughter and bloodshed before guns were invented. Theft, rape, murder, war, et al. were all around back then. (One might even argue that civilization was teetering on the edge of collapse back in those days.)

    The underlying concept being debated here is NOT the use of firearms in self defense. The underlying concept being debated here is THE RIGHT TO USE DEADLY FORCE IN SELF DEFENSE.

    Anyone?

  33. Linny says:

    citizen, my answer is “yes” and yes, it’s my final answer… I would defend myself to the death by any means necessary although I think I’d lose ‘cuz I’m kinda weak.

    and… if penises didn’t exist women couldn’t get raped by them and their owners… but I must admit, I’d miss them terribly.