Doc Mustang
New member
My understanding of the Michigan Castle doctrine law is that you cannot be held liable in a civil court if use of deadly force is authorized. Here is the difficulty:
It remains up to a court to decide if deadly force was authorized. Even if no criminal charges are filed. Civil liability is another seperate matter and does not relate to criminal liability in any way.
In a self defense shooting there are always going to be 2 elements: criminal and civil liability.
If criminal charges are filed against a defendant in a self defense shooting and he is found guilty (deadly force not authorized) then civil liability will likely follow. If the defendant is found not guilty or charges are not filed then the possibility of civil liability still exists. The reason for this is the different standard of evidence between civil and criminal court.
In criminal court you must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" civil matters use a significantly lower standard called "preponderance of the evidence" meaning place all evidence for the defendant on one side of the scale, all evedence for the plaintiff on the other and whichever way the scale tilts is how the decision will go.
The decision to file criminal charges is up to the prosecutor, if the prosecutor believes he can get a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" or feels like there may be some political benefit in filing charges he may file. On the other hand if it is politically inconvenient to file charges he may not. Perhaps it should not be this way but that is the reality.
I suspect that the Plaintiff's attorney in this case thinks that a jury in a civil case may decide in his client's favor and, as has been mentioned on this forum, find that because the plaintiff was in flight (or appeared to be) the shoot was not justifiable from a civil standpoint.
It remains up to a court to decide if deadly force was authorized. Even if no criminal charges are filed. Civil liability is another seperate matter and does not relate to criminal liability in any way.
In a self defense shooting there are always going to be 2 elements: criminal and civil liability.
If criminal charges are filed against a defendant in a self defense shooting and he is found guilty (deadly force not authorized) then civil liability will likely follow. If the defendant is found not guilty or charges are not filed then the possibility of civil liability still exists. The reason for this is the different standard of evidence between civil and criminal court.
In criminal court you must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" civil matters use a significantly lower standard called "preponderance of the evidence" meaning place all evidence for the defendant on one side of the scale, all evedence for the plaintiff on the other and whichever way the scale tilts is how the decision will go.
The decision to file criminal charges is up to the prosecutor, if the prosecutor believes he can get a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" or feels like there may be some political benefit in filing charges he may file. On the other hand if it is politically inconvenient to file charges he may not. Perhaps it should not be this way but that is the reality.
I suspect that the Plaintiff's attorney in this case thinks that a jury in a civil case may decide in his client's favor and, as has been mentioned on this forum, find that because the plaintiff was in flight (or appeared to be) the shoot was not justifiable from a civil standpoint.