Michigan Appeals Court: Brandishing isn't Deadly Force

[JEBland]

Case with some disputed facts. At the end of it: Michigan woman sentenced to 2 years and overturned on basis that jury was given instructions inconsistent with Michigan law.

A Michigan Court Case Shows the Right of Armed Self-Defense Is Broader Than You Might Think | National Review

Brandishing a weapon without firing it is sometimes the appropriate response to a threat.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[jwamplerusa]

Hey, Indiana Supreme Court, pay attention!

Can't you fix Nantz? If Michiganders can figure this out, surely you can.

 

[marvin02]

Put the shoe on the other foot. A person approaches you brandishing a gun and you shoot them. Did they threaten you with deadly force? Was your response appropriate?

 

[rosejm]

I'd like to read the entirety of the court's decision. It sounds like they got this one wrong, even if the outcome was correct.

While I agree that "readying" your firearm for a potential threat should be lawful...
_Pointing_ your firearm (loaded or unloaded) at another w/o reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm is too far.

The article seems to imply the court would require the start of a trigger press for acting in self-defense, rather than simply being pointed at you.

The court of appeals, however, said that’s not the law. When one brandishes a weapon without firing it, they don’t, in fact, use “deadly force.” They use nondeadly force, and the legal standard for the use of nondeadly force only requires the defendant to prove that she “reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.”

A person on the spicy end of a firearm would likely disagree with the court's interpretation of this level of force.

 

[JEBland]

Put the shoe on the other foot. A person approaches you brandishing a gun and you shoot them. Did they threaten you with deadly force? Was your response appropriate?

I think they cover that, based on the quotes of the state code in the article. The main difference seems to be whether or not it's defensive and the degree to which the preemptive force is used.

From the article
Deadly force standard:

A person reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

General (nonlethal) force standard:

A person reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

The strange thing to me is how they reach the question of brandishing as nonlethal in this case - I don't understand a legal theory where using a car as a weapon isn't deadly force with a child inside but using a handgun to defend the now extracted child is the first instance of deadly/gravely injurious force. In fairness, this is part of the disputed facts as to whether the gun was pointed before or after using Ra's car was struck.

 

[radar8756]

Isn't this the argument they used in the BLM guy pointing a AK47 at a guy in Vehicle - who then Shot them

 

[Libertarian01]

This is where video could be very helpful, because the jury is in a butt-ugly situation. That being, who do you believe?

By the way, what does "brandishing" mean in Michigan? Is it just holding a firearm, or do you need to point it at someone?

Either way, you have a huge problem with both sides just coming out of a "...heated confrontation..." The elevated anger from both sides would most certainly be contributory to fast escalation.

And both sides could be telling the truth, as they remember it, regarding the timeline of when the occupied vehicle was hit. When things are heated and moving quickly it is natural to be inaccurate on certain facts, which is where video is so valuable. So who does the jury believe when there is no 3rd party witness? That could be hard as heck.

My friends mother was once on a civil jury. They were there to settle a dispute between the minor league version of the Hatfield's and the McCoy's. She explained that when they went back to deliberate they didn't know who to believe. Both sides were stupid. They knew both sides were lying about things, but about what exactly? They finally decided to pin their ENTIRE VERDICT on the testimony of a 12 year old girl! She was the only one everyone thought was reasonably credible.

I'll leave my previous comments stand, but after rereading the story I believe the jury got it wrong and the MSC got it right. Pointing a firearm at someone while demanding they leave your property may(?) be illegal, but doing so in order to prevent harm to a two (2) year olde is proper. Even if the car hadn't been hit yet, if the accused believed it was they were acting appropriately. To my thinking it comes down to the mindset of the person holding the gun and demanding withdrawal of the "offending" party.

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

Hey, Indiana Supreme Court, pay attention!

Can't you fix Nantz? If Michiganders can figure this out, surely you can.

In Indiana, "brandish" if you want to. "Pointing" is different.