The "Stand your Ground" doctrine....

[Dr Mordrid]

For starters; Michigan is already a concealed carry state. This means that anyone who can pass the state & federal records check can get a permit to carry a firearm in most public places.

Enhancing this right Michigan's Senate has passed a package of 6 bills known as the "Stand your Ground" or "Castle" Doctrine (as in your home is your castle);

LANSING, Mich. (AP)

The state Senate approved legislation Tuesday aimed at fortifying and clarifying self-defense rights in Michigan.

The measures would allow people to use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if they reasonably think they face imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault. They could use deadly force on their property or anywhere they have a legal right to be.

The legislation also would protect people from civil lawsuits if they have used force in self-defense.

It's already been passed by the state House of Representatives, and is now headed to the Governors desk. It's expected she'll sign it.

[Technoid]

First Florida and now Michigan, NRA must be honking happy

[az]

So if I feel threatened, I have the right to kill?

Every second post of yours makes me glad I live here.

[Jessterw]

I knew there was a reason I left Florida. Sorry, but laws like this, especially where I grew up, cause more harm than good... erm, well something like that given there's damn near nothing 'good' about this.

[High_Jumbllama]

So if I feel threatened, I have the right to kill?

Every second post of yours makes me glad I live here.

You ignore the conditons in the part he quoted. Personally if myself or a family member or friend are in threat of being immediately killed by someone, as far as I'm concerned the person or persons causing or threatening have forfeit their own life/lives as at that point it is a me/us versus them argument.

As for great bodilly harm or sexual assault, the perpetrator would definitely get beat severly enough or somehow otherwise incapacitated so that either myself and/or friends/family could get away which could then very easiily escalate into a life or death situation.

[az]

Of course, but isn't self defense already covered by some kind of law?

[Wombat]

Sort of.

1. You said "self-defense." These laws specifically allow defending your loved ones.

2. Usually, self-defense protections are limited to a roughly equal amount of force. So, if they had a knife, you could use a knife. If they were bare-handed, you had to be roughly the same. Now it's recognized that it's reasonable to shoot a guy if he's attacking you with "only" a knife.

[Jessterw]

The problem is how one determines that there was actually a threat of imminent death, bodily harm, or sexual assault. If the 'assailant' is incapacitated in a permanent fashion and there are no unbiased witnesses, it's often hard to do anything but take the word of the 'victim'. Of course, this isn't any different than any other self-defense related laws.

Now, I don't have any issues with a notion of kill-or-be-killed type laws, because, let's face it, there are people in this world with less than honourable intentions and I'd rather see them be the victim of their own crime(s) than the intended victim of bystander.

That said, I'm firmly against concealed carry laws and to a large degree the allowing for civilians to even carry a firearm on their person just any old time. If someone is packing, I sure as hell want to know they are.

[KRSESQ]

I'd be willing to bet that you have a lot less to fear from someone who has gone through all the requisite tests and checks and examinations to be leagally licensed to carry a concealed weapon than you do from the random thug with a lengthy criminal record packing heat.

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

Of the 50 states >37 have "Concealed Carry" laws which permit citizens to carry a weapon in public places once they have passed the required background tests. There are exceptions to these places, but in general they are the common sense ones you'd expect; stadiums, government buildings etc.

Of these states 17 have passed "Castle Doctrine" laws. They are (so far);

* Alabama
* Alaska
* Arizona
* Colorado
* Florida
* Georgia
* Indiana
* Kentucky
* Michigan (passed, awaiting signature)
* Mississippi
* Nebraska
* New Hampshire
* North Dakota
* Oklahoma (passed, awaiting signature)
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas

The reason for these laws come down to the following;

1. acceptance of the fact that the police cannot be every where. As such there are many occaisions where people must defend themselves or risk great harm or death.

2. in most states the civil and criminal laws have "evolved" in such a way that there is, believe it or not, a "duty to retreat"; that is the victim must first avoid conflict and take reasonable steps to retreat.

Of course this is silly in that it fails the "blink test"; if you do retreat you end up being attacked from behind, placing you in a far inferior position in order to defend yourself in the first place. It's also nonsensical in situations where a small victim is faced by a 200+ lb attacker(s).

Absent the required retreat even the most innocent of victims can end up being charged criminally then sued civilly by the attacker or his surviving family. Some agressive prosecutors have even charged victims with murder

Obviously with Concealed Carry laws in place it makes sense to coordinate them with reforms in the self-defense statutes.

The changes vary from state to state, but most come down to some version of what Florida did. This includes extending the Castle Doctrine to public places where people have a right to be and removing civil liability, thereby moving the burden of proof from the victim and placing it where it belongs; on the perpetrator.

So far the experience of the states with these laws is that they deter crime, especially once a few old ladies repel, or perforate, some perpetrator. Even crooks have a survival instinct

[Jessterw]

Outright, yes, but put someone under pressure and they don't always react the way one might expect a person with said qualifications to. It really has nothing to do with fear, it has to do with experience and some feeling that there's no reason for anyone to need to carry a concealed weapon 99% of the time (ignoring those who require one for their line of work).

But we're getting a little off-topic, given this isn't about conceal carry and that topic has been beaten to death.

Edit: Given we do have conceal carry laws, it does make sense for this type of law to be put into effect. Even without the former, something along these lines has been needed for awhile. So while, I'm not entirely comfortable with some of the side-effects (as minimal as they may be) of these laws, they do go some way in giving true victims back a degree of power against their assailants.

[Dr Mordrid]

80% of my last post had to do with the Castle Doctrine

[Jessterw]

Mine was actually in reply to KRSEQ, you just happened to post before I did. Added a bit to mine after I saw that you had.

[KvHagedorn]

Well, a petite woman would often be easy to disarm if she were alone in a dangerous area. Still better to be with a Father/Brother/Boyfriend/Friend in those situations.

On a side note.. if you had a gun and saw a petite woman being hustled into a back alley by three big thugs, would you be justified in blowing them away, even if she is not related to you? Surely she would be raped and possibly killed within moments unless you were to act now to save her.

[Dr Mordrid]

Or it could be just someone being "kidnapped" for a bachelorette party etc. That's why the laws limit it to yourself and/or your campanions/family.

Dr. Mordrid