Self-Defense Law Signed By Granholm

[Onyx]

Self-Defense Law Signed By Granholm

POSTED: 2:02 pm EDT July 20, 2006

UPDATED: 2:38 pm EDT July 20, 2006

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has signed legislation that supporters say will strengthen and clarify self-defense rights in Michigan.

People now will be allowed to use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if they reasonably think they face imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault.

The law also protects people from civil lawsuits if they have used force in self-defense.

Critics say the law is not only dangerous but also unnecessary because prosecutors already don't charge people who have justifiably used deadly force to protect themselves.

Supporters say the law is needed to protect people from getting sued.

Previously, Michigan law required people to first retreat before using deadly force.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/9549731/detail.html

[Onyx]

So, what do you think? Good thing, dangerous?

It seems to me it's a good thing, though I suppose some will try to misuse the law and claim self defense when it wasn't.

[phee]

I don't know... we'll see

[Scary Guy]

So, what do you think?  Good thing, dangerous? 

It seems to me it's a good thing, though I suppose some will try to misuse the law and claim self defense when it wasn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More than they do now?

Anyhow yeah, I'm for it. Anything that gives me more rights to kill people for being morons is great.

[Homicidalheathen]

Don't know. I guess if I see people not getting charged for sticking up for themselves, which I have seen happen around here allot.....and others not lying to get out of being vandals or bullies...then.....It might work. We'll see.

[BrassFusion]

I could waffle my ass either way on this one. Really, this sort of thing should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I believe that if one has the option to retreat, one should DEFINITELY do that, and the new law smacks of vigilanteism... but people should never be sued for defending themselves. I would never make it as a politician.

[wheresmypiggy]

Where the hell was this law when i got my ass beat by my ex bf and I took a swing at him?

I got charged with domestic violence. And I was the one who lost a baby and had a broken hand and bruised body and ego. Not a scratch on him.

Damn you granholm!

[The_Dark]

Washington DC has the strictest gun laws in the country.

The State of Florida has the weakest.

Florida also has a law that allowes deadly force in self defense. (this new law is actually almost exactly the same as Florida's)

Florida has the LOWEST violent crime rate in 40 years.

DC is in a state of Emergancy because the the violent crime rate.

[BrassFusion]

Washington DC has the strictest gun laws in the country.

The State of Florida has the weakest.

Florida also has a law that allowes deadly force in self defense. (this new law is actually almost exactly the same as Florida's)

Florida has the LOWEST violent crime rate in 40 years.

DC is in a state of Emergancy because the the violent crime rate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And since correlation always proves causation, that means our crime rates should drop!

[Msterbeau]

OK... First. I don't have a big problem with this law. If you break into my house, I'm going to do everything I can to protect myself and my children. Generally I'm not the type to stick around if there's an escape route. I'd rather not fight. But If I HAVE to... It's nice to know I don't have to worry about going to jail for beating/killing someone when they're the one's commiting a crime.

Second. There are probably some people who will take advantage of this law to do things they might not have felt justified doing otherwise. That sucks.

Third. Mark... This wasn't really about gun control. Deadly force doesn't require a gun. Why did you feel the need to interject that into this thread? Furthermore.. Your statistics prove very little without a lot of other info to understand context. Florida is a large state with lots of rural areas. DC is a tiny and very urbanized area. It's had problems with corrupt mayors, crime, poverty, etc for a long time. It's apples and oranges. How about comparing two states that are more similar but with opposing gun contol solutions?

[Msterbeau]

And since correlation always proves causation, that means our crime rates should drop!

Statistics are your friend. No matter what side of a debate you're on... you can always make them do your bidding. =)

[pharoh]

Actually Marc, in a small way, this is about gun control, because if you were to shoot someone before this law came into effect, and they were still breathing, they can sue you and take everything you have. You would be in less trouble if you unloaded a clip on a person, at least now this gives us gun owners alittle "cushion" when protecting there home.

And yes there probably will be some people that will abuse this law as with any other law created where people will find loop holes, but personally I find this to be a step in the right direction.

[BrassFusion]

Statistics are your friend.  No matter what side of a debate you're on...  you can always make them do your bidding.  =)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you realize I was being facetious. Well. At least now you probably do.

[Msterbeau]

I hope you realize I was being facetious. Well. At least now you probably do.

I'm not.

[Msterbeau]

Actually Marc, in a small way, this is about gun control, because if you were to shoot someone before this law came into effect, and they were still breathing, they can sue you and take everything you have.  You would be in less trouble if you unloaded a clip on a person, at least now this gives us gun owners alittle "cushion" when protecting there home. 

What does that have to do with gun control? You could club them to near death and they could sue too. This is a "I have the right to kill you if you enter my home" law.

[Head Wreck]

of course crime rates would drop. its no longer a crime to shot someone. theres part of your figure there.

[pharoh]

What does that have to do with gun control?  You could club them to near death and they could sue too.  This is a "I have the right to kill you if you enter my home" law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, and I can aggree with you on that, but Clubbin takes too long

lol j/k

[torn asunder]

if someone is stupid enough to break into my house while i'm home, they deserve to die - i'm glad this law passed...

[pharoh]

if someone is stupid enough to break into my house while i'm home, they deserve to die - i'm glad this law passed...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Word.

[BrassFusion]

The death penalty for B&E... pretty extreme

But yeah, you gotta shoot to kill in situations like those, pretty much.

[torn asunder]

The death penalty for B&E... pretty extreme

But yeah, you gotta shoot to kill in situations like those, pretty much.

well, it's not like i have time to ask them, "hey, are you just here for my stuff, or are you gonna hurt me!? oh, you're here to rape & kill my family? wait, let me get my gun..."

:blink :erm

[The_Dark]

I'm tired of this bullshit. If any of you ever read anything beyond the fucking headlines you would find that people talk about whole subjects.. not just one tiny facet that supports thier cause. I brought up Florida, DC and Gun control laws because those were all subjects brought up when this law and simular ones around the country are/were debated in thier respective congresseses. They are the subjects all the pundits from both sides of the debates talk about.

Honestly... find out what your really talking about or shut the fuck up.

[torn asunder]

Honestly... find out what your really talking about or shut the fuck up.

:blink

damn... harsh, dude... :erm

[pharoh]

well, it's not like i have time to ask them, "hey, are you just here for my stuff, or are you gonna hurt me!? oh, you're here to rape & kill my family? wait, let me get my gun..."

:blink  :erm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell in Texas you can shoot someone for being on your property, I think the law passed is more reasonable.

[pharoh]

:blink

damn... harsh, dude...  :erm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

harsh but necessary.