Defend state's self-defense laws One of the first questions politicians should ask when tinkering with existing law is: What problem needs to be fixed?
So it is with legislation in the state House that would change Michigan's self-defense laws. Are citizens being unjustly prosecuted for defending their lives and property? Are they afraid to pull a gun on intruders or aggressors because laws are too restrictive? Have people who have defended themselves routinely lost law suits?
As far as we know, the answers to those questions are "no," "no" and "no." That should be the same answer lawmakers give to the bills that would change the perfectly acceptable status quo.
The bills have been introduced by Republican Reps. Tom Casperson of Escanaba and Rick Jones of Grand Ledge. The pair would eliminate a current legal requirement that people being attacked must retreat in some limited circumstances before using deadly force. Also, they would allow people who feel threatened to defend themselves without facing criminal or civil prosecution.
The legislation mirrors changes to Florida law, signed by Gov. Jeb Bush earlier this year. The bills are part of a nation-wide effort by gun advocates to alter state self-defense statutes.
That brand of copy-cat, one-size-fits-all lawmaking doesn't take into account Michigan's already robust protections for citizens. The state grants broad latitude to people to defend themselves and their property when the need arises. Prosecutors have discretion to decide whether or not to charge people who use force, and generally err on the side of law-abiding citizens who feel threatened.
Two years ago, Kevin Clarke of Cedar Springs killed a drunken man who came into his yard in the middle of the night. The man had no gun and made no obvious threat, aside from advancing on Mr. Clarke.
Prosecutor William Forsyth chose not to charge Mr. Clarke. Some, including this newspaper, disagreed with Mr. Forsyth's decision. But the case is a clear example of the ability of prosecutors -- directly elected by voters -- to protect citizens against prosecution.
Where Mr. Forsyth has brought charges against those who use force, it's usually because their actions have put innocent bystanders at risk.
Last year, he charged downtown jewelry store owner Randall Dice with recklessly firing a weapon. Mr. Dice took aim at a fleeing thief who had taken a watch from his store during the lunch hour. Mr. Dice missed the thief. But he hit two cars, and could have seriously injured or killed someone on the busy downtown streets. Mr. Dice pleaded no contest to the charges. Citizens are not required by law to hold back when somebody invades their homes or cars, or when someone attacks them on the street, explains a 2002 Michigan Supreme Court opinion. A person is "never required to retreat from a sudden, fierce, and violent attack," the court states.
The only circumstance in which a person is required to retreat before using force, according to the decision, is when he or she is voluntarily participating in a fight. That's a sensible limitation.
This proposed law would apparently do away with that narrow circumstance in which retreat is required. What's more, it would seem to immunize people against civil or criminal charges, even when an innocent person has been injured or killed. Why? The bills are currently in the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. William Van Regenmorter, R-Georgetown Township. Mr. Van Regenmorter, along with his House colleagues, should shoot down this ill-considered idea, and defend Michigan against bad lawmaking.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1128350771295330.xml&coll=6*FW Note:Would an "innocent" person be in your home uninvited in the middle of the night, pull a gun on you in your own driveway, or stalk you or your wife in a Wal-Mart parking lot?
Who is better qualified to decide when your life is in danger? You, or some fat-ass sitting behind a desk in the state capitol?
:x
