A - Question

L

Longun

New member
I Live in Mich. No castle doctrine we have to retreat if possible. How will Heller affect States with out the castle doctrine. Will we now have the right to defend are self & are property. Possibly a test case ?
( A son shot and killed, and a father in the hospital, after investigators say they broke into a home. A woman called 911 saying her estranged boyfriend and his son were in her home. Police say by the time they got to the house, the two men had already been shot by the woman's friend in the house at the time. The son died shortly after leaving the home. The father was taken to the hospital. The fatal shooting happened just after 12:30 a.m. on Monday at the home in Lakeview in Montcalm county. Kelly Keating had suspected the men may come over because her ex-boyfriend, Robert Stevens, had made threats to her earlier. The sheriff says she asked a male friend to come over last night, just in case.

9&10'S Mona Nair and photojournalist Jason Dotsch have more on the investigation. )

It could argued they new they where coming.

longun
 
It won't

(Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.) Did they not affirm defense of self, family, and property.
 
(Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.) Did they not affirm defense of self, family, and property
Click to expand...

Fine, have it your own way. Why did you ask? You can be the test case.

It did precisely as you understand. It just hasn't been tested yet.
Click to expand...

I'm glad the Constitutional scholars are on this. I can't wait to see the briefs.
 
Mich. Bill 1046 I don’t believe is the true castle act it only provides for self protection. Not protection of property ? ( It is being hashed around by the state representatives now. )

( Sec. 1. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:
(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of break in and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).



Hkuser As I under stand the law each word has a meaning. ( I could be wrong have been many times before. ) So I found this part of the Syllabus important to me.

( Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.)

The justices could have easily left out this part And came to the same conclusion but they did not.


longun
 
Hkuser As I under stand the law each word has a meaning. ( I could be wrong have been many times before. ) So I found this part of the Syllabus important to me.
Click to expand...

In reference to appellate opinions, you understand incorrectly.

( Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.)
Click to expand...

And you're not being prohibited from exercising your right of self-defense. Imposing a duty to act reasonably in exercising that right is not a prohibition. This is simply not a Heller question. You may not like the presumption, or standard, but "retreat, if possible" is in no way a prohibition.

The justices could have easily left out this part And came to the same conclusion but they did not.
Click to expand...

If that's so, then it's obiter dicta, not part of the holding.
 
Mich. Bill 1046 I don’t believe is the true castle act it only provides for self protection. Not protection of property ? ( It is being hashed around by the state representatives now. )
Click to expand...

Michigan Bill 1046 might not be your "true" Castle Doctrine, but it covers the case you mentioned. As such it would be a pretty lousy test case.

I suspect it will be difficult to argue that the Heller decision gives you the right to defend your property with deadly force. It seems like a stretch to insist that Scalia meant defense of self and property when he wrote "self defense." Michigan already gives the presumption of self defense if you use deadly force in your own home on an intruder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top