Homeowner charged with attempted murder.
- Thread starter The_Outlaw
- Start date
E
ezkl2230
Guest
I'm still trying to figure out how people are concluding that the homeowner went looking for trouble. The report says that the homeowner heard his dog making noise and went to check it out, just like any of us would have done. And like most of us would have done at 1:45 AM, we would have had our firearms with us on the off chance that something bad was actually happening. Why? Because that's what we do. There is nothing to indicate that this homeowner was some sort of a vigilante looking to bust a cap the first chance he got, and we certainly don't call the police every time our dog makes noise in the middle of the night.
How is this looking for trouble?
Way to jump to conclusions.
How is this looking for trouble?
Way to jump to conclusions.
whodat2710
New member
Don't be absurd. "Castle" laws technically permit you to protect property, under the premise that anyone invading your property would probably do you harm.
E
ezkl2230
Guest
Michigan MCL 750.224f:
2006 PA 311, presumption that an individual breaking and entering intends to do great bodily harm or kill:
MI MCL 768.21c expands Castle to the "curtilage" of a dwelling (the property surrounding the dwelling):
Finally, Michigan has a fleeing felon rule:
You may be illegally entering my property to steal, but MI law presumes that your presence on my property constitutes a threat of great bodily injury, rape or death, and I can deal with you accordingly - ANYWHERE ON MY PROPERTY. It also gives me the right to use force up to and including deadly force if your presence on my property can be construed as a threat of force against my property. Michigan law also gives me the right to shoot your felonious backside to keep you from fleeing the scene of the felony. Now, am I going to automatically take advantage of these rights? Not if I can help it. But if you give me any reason at all to think that your presence on my property constitutes a threat against my family, me, or my property, the law gives me the right to use force up to and including deadly force with no duty to retreat to protect my property and family AND the legal presumption that my shoot was righteous.
whodat2710
New member
The crime did not happen in MI, though you do show how some people's posts are not well researched.
E
ezkl2230
Guest
Yup, I know. My previous posts regarding this incident were based on LA law (the actual LAlaw - not the TV show! :wink
. The person to whom I responded with this particular post made the remark that no state allows the use of force to protect property; I simply demonstrated that MI is one state that DOES allow the use of force to protect property when the crime is a felony.gmforsythe
New member
Evidently my post has generated a lot of derision, so let me clarify. If you read my statement closely, you will see that I said "I do not know of any state etc." Had I said "There are no states etc." then the criticism that I had not researched the issue before posting would have been correct. But to say that I had not researched what I know is one that nobody can make with any validity. Nobody by I myself is aware of everything that I know. Since the folks who instead of simply stating their examples felt the need to state that I had not researched, I will state that it is THEY who did not do their research, because nobody researched what I knew prior to their inaccurate evaluations of my statement.
That having been said, I am glad of the education that has been provided on this site. I have been in Michigan only twice in my life, and have survived both instances. It is very enlightening to learn that in Michigan a person who jumps over a fence onto someone's property and attempts to steal an automobile tire is subject to being shot and killed for this heinous crime. I do not intend to steal anything from anyone, but I will stay out of Michigan just to insure that I am not shot for any other act that my be considered punishable by death at the hands of the offended party.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I think after two months of no replies no one really cares anymore what you did or did not research or where you intend to visit...
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
gmforsythe
New member
Ah yes, the old "At this point, what difference does it make?" comeback. I believe a certain disreputable Secretary of State made the same statement with reference to misdeeds in the Benghazi cover-up. I guess I should feel complimented that rather than admitting having failed to accurately comprehend my original statement which invited correction on the merits of the issue, you have regressed to personal attacks.
wolf_fire
New member
Firefighterchen, I care and will respond.
gmforsythe: Stay out of PA, TX, AZ, and many other states that protect homeowners from villainous thieves if you are scared someone will mistake you for one.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Umm....Really? This is how you started the post to which you refer:
So the criticism that you had (and probably still have) not researched the issue before posting is correct, correct? In reality, your claim now, two months later, that you didn't say anything approaching "there are no states etc." is exactly as true as the original statement that got you some "derision" from the knowledgeable folks here at USA Carry. That is to say that there is zero truth to either statement. The fact that the next line of that post said something about you "knowing of no state" etc. was written to emphasize the previous lines, not as a disclaimer that they may not have been accurate. You can claim such if you want to, but we're all pretty well adept at reading and understanding the English language, as well as being fairly well-versed in the most rudimentary provisions of self-defense laws in our respective states. Fact is, you screwed the pooch with the above statement. You should just accept that people sometimes react negatively to such blatant ignorance and quit whining about it two months later.
Truth-challenged much?
Nobody had to "research" what you "knew," because your post revealed unequivocally that you knew nothing about the subject of which you spoke two months ago.
Great, then stay out of Alabama too, and the three states that wolf_fire mentioned, as well as the 22 other states that I mentioned in Post #95 that have Castle Doctrine laws on the books that protect the rights of property owners/legal occupiers to protect their property with deadly force through the legal presumption of a threat towards anyone who breaks in. And in some of those states, simple trespass can trigger the legal presumption of a threat too.
So good, now you've narrowed your travel plans down to 24 potential states (probably fewer than that, because the absence of a Castle Doctrine law does not necessarily preclude the presence of strong property and self-defense laws). It seems you have a ton of homework to do before you can step out of your own front door, or certainly before you can travel to any other state in good conscience, because it might just be a state that empowers its citizens to protect what is theirs from the criminal element by any means necessary. Bunch o' savages that we are here in Bamania and PA and TX and the other states that we know for sure about, you should protect your conscience forthwith and forevermore from giving your tourism dollars to us for having such barbaric laws on the books.
Blues
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Just to reiterate the complete lie from gm, yes you indeed did say there are no states.
You also said," you know of no state," not that "you do not know of any state." Completely different statements, one claiming knowledge the other claiming ignorance, both wrong none the less.
Oh don't get me wrong, there definitely was a difference that had been made all ready, which you gave two months in hopes those of us would forget. Your actions are not much different than your beloved Secretary, whom will always point the finger no matter how inept you prove yourself to be. Let's not forget the most important point of recent, which sheds light on your credibility, that point being you're a liar.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
E
ezkl2230
Guest
Thank you. We have enough home-grown trolls as it is. We're in no particular hurry to begin importing more.
EDITED
And BTW, the fact that you and millions of other tourists made it out of Michigan alive should tell you how eager we are to drop the hammer on someone. Find somewhere else to peddle your trash.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
So should we start a pool on how many months it will be before gmforsythe comes back to tell us he didn't say what he did say in this exchange?
1.5 months is my WAG.
Blues
1.5 months is my WAG.
Blues
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
gmforsythe
New member
OK, guys....I apologize for offending y'all. I read over the comments on this thread and started marking all the comments I appreciated. Among the positive comments that educated me and were non-offensive, were whodat2710, Firefighterchen, Bc1, kelcarry, cluznar obwana1, and BlueStringer. Some of these later got pissed at me, and I apologize. I was not trying to get into a pissing contest with anyone. I agree that my statements about the laws contained errors of interpretation. I do hope that I can learn from all you out there who are evidently much more versed in the laws than I am. All I had to go on was what I was taught in the SC, TX and NY training I went through. The instructors there gave me the general rule that you don't use deadly force to protect property. I see now that some states allow it. That being said, after seeing what Zimmerman went through I would be very nervous using my weapon if I or someone else were not physically threatened with grave bodily harm or death. There are just too many liberals out there on juries looking to put responsible gun owners in jail or bankruptcy court.
GM Forsythe
GM Forsythe
wolf_fire
New member
Castle Doctrine has been in law in TX since 2007. It gives a homeowner, car owner, or business owner the right to use deadly force to protect their home, car, or business, respectively. What were you taught in your training while you were in TX, or did being in NY make you forget your right to life and liberty and pursuit of happiness?
I mostly write this in jest, because you used TX and NY in the same sentence with firearms training, and it struck me as odd. But seriously, there are many states that have some form of castle law doctrine in place, and some of the states that do not have the law on the law books, rule as if they do.
gmforsythe
New member
First off, all three states where I was trained (let's not forget SC) and hold licenses emphasized that although they are Castle Doctrine states, you can be put into a world of hurt if you do not exhaust other methods to protect your property first. And all three states (in SC, the course was taught by a LEO) they told us NOT to use deadly force to protect property. I know I'm going to get a lot of flames for stating this, but that is what I was taught, and I'm only repeating it, not imagining it.
Yes, the training in TX and NY were totally different. NY training was a joke. TX and SC definitely gave better training!!
Yes, the training in TX and NY were totally different. NY training was a joke. TX and SC definitely gave better training!!
whodat2710
New member
Unfortunately those liberals on the juries have to follow the rule of law. Even with the anti-gun crowd breathing down their necks and it being an unreasonably high profile case, they still found him innocent, as they should. Know your state laws, read up on the laws of other states you frequent if you travel, and know that there are lawyers on both sides of the every case trying to twist the law to serve their client. If you need clarification on something be careful who you ask.
