Self Defense Laws In Michigan.

Self Defense Laws In Michigan.

Posted in the Grand Rapids Forum

Since: Feb 08

Battle Creek, MI

#1 Feb 22, 2008
OK, this is obviously about the Shell Gas Station deal. It seems that some of you are not informed on the ACTUAL laws regarding Self Defense. This forum's original idea really isn't thought provoking, or opinionated, just laying the FACTS out there. Right or Wrong, these are the actual laws. Hell, Granholm even signed it...WOW!
2 part comment........

Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones on September 7, 2005, to create a new law establishing that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home, contiguous private property or occupied vehicle need not first flee from a threatening attacker, and that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters one of these is presumed is to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, with certain minor exceptions. This would place the “home is my castle” doctrine in statute. Also, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be, has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2005.
Reported in the House on April 19, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on April 25, 2006, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not presume that a person who breaks and enters into a dwelling or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to committ an unlawful or violent act, and thus may me shot without first retreating. Instead, bill instead establishes a rebuttable presumption that this is the case. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on April 25, 2006.
Amendment offered by Rep. Rick Jones on April 25, 2006, to remove provision that a person who breaks and enters into a dwelling or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to committ an unlawful or violent act. The bill instead establishes a rebuttable presumption that this is the case. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on April 25, 2006.
Amendment offered by Rep. Rick Jones on April 25, 2006, to name the bill the "Dr. Ossian Sweet self-defense act". The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on April 25, 2006.
Passed in the House (90 to 16) on April 25, 2006, to create a new law establishing that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home, contiguous private property or occupied vehicle need not first flee from a threatening attacker, and that there is a rebuttable presumption that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters one of these is doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, with certain minor exceptions. This would place the “home is my castle” doctrine in statute. Also, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be, has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Since: Feb 08

Battle Creek, MI

#2 Feb 22, 2008
Received in the Senate on April 26, 2006.
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 26, 2006.
Reported in the Senate on May 18, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the Senate on June 6, 2006, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that reflects that its home defense provisions are now in Senate Bill 1046. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 6, 2006.
Amendment offered by Sen. Samuel B. Thomas, III on June 6, 2006, to not name the main bill in the package the "Dr. Ossian Sweet Self Defense Act". The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 6, 2006.
Passed in the Senate (28 to 10) on June 6, 2006, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. See also Senate Bill 1046, which places the "castle docrine" regarding home defense in law.[Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 6, 2006.
Passed in the House (90 to 17) on June 27, 2006, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. See also Senate Bill 1046, which places the "castle docrine" regarding home defense in law.[Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 18, 2006.
manman

Byron Center, MI

#3 Apr 4, 2012
o.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Grand Rapids; a good place to live? (Mar '12) 1 hr Lena Gomez 193
News 18-year-old shot by Grand Rapids police during ... 1 hr Lena Gomez 3
White people are selective racist. 1 hr Lena Gomez 2
White males are weak. 2 hr Lena Gomez 1
Lets Chat (Mar '08) 2 hr Lena Gomez 40,232
Why do people act ghetto? I am talking about al... (Dec '12) 2 hr Lena Gomez 49
White women are the biggest hypocrites. 2 hr Lena Gomez 1

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages