It now appears a Grand Jury will convene April 10 to consider murder charges against a Florida man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin three weeks ago.
Police say George Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, while acting as a neighborhood “watch captain,” had a 9 mm handgun and followed Martin, a black teenager, past several houses in the neighborhood; Martin was holding a plastic bag and told his girlfriend on his cell phone “some guy’s after me.” Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest as they reportedly fought on the ground.
Zimmerman claimed the homicide was justified under Florida’s so-called “Stand Your Ground” law. Florida’s law, like Michigan, takes the issue of “self-defense” several steps further than many states, by allowing deadly force “anywhere (you) have a lawful right be,” not just in homes or vehicles.
Could this happen in Michigan? What’s the current state of the law here regarding self-defense, and when can you use deadly force in defending yourself, your home, and others?
Castle doctrine: Generally, in Michigan, the “castle doctrine” (derived from the phrase “Your home is your castle”) provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker.
However in recent years about 15 states, including Michigan, have adopted laws expanding and enlarging the circumstances where a person can use self-defense without retreating and containing provisions such as civil immunity.
In 2006, Michigan enacted the Self Defense Act, which allows an individual to use deadly force anywhere she has a legal right to be, with no duty to retreat. The new law changed the old “duty to retreat before using deadly force” rule, unless a person is inside his home.
The ability to defend oneself against physical attack is a fundamental right recognized by Article 1, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution. This right is not absolute, however; the key test for determining when the use of deadly force is justified is whether a person "honestly and reasonably" believed he was in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Nevertheless, deadly force is not permissible without a showing that the defendant had done "all which is reasonably in his power to avoid the necessity of extreme resistance."
There are three major exceptions to this rule:
- when one is suddenly, fiercely, and violently attacked;
- when one believes the attacker is about to use a deadly weapon; and
- when a person is assaulted in her own dwelling.
The Self Defense Act: The 2006 Self-Defense Act (MCL 780.971) is similar to Florida’s laws; a person is allowed to use deadly force, without the duty to retreat from any place she has the legal right to be if she honestly and reasonably believes that death, great bodily harm or sexual assault to herself or others may be imminent. In addition, MCL 768.21c was enacted to expand the castle doctrine to include not only a porch or garage, but fenced-in grounds and buildings immediately surrounding a house or dwelling.
Thus, Michigan citizens acting in self-defense now have substantial immunity from both criminal and civil liability under the new laws. When using defensive force against someone, a person is now automatically presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault, as long as both the following apply:
(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking 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; and
(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described above.
This legal presumption must be overcome by the prosecutor, who is required to present evidence at each stage of the criminal proceedings, to rebut the presumption that the individual did not act within the constraints of the Self-Defense Act.
There are, however, exceptions to the presumption cited above. These include the following:
- The person against whom force is used has a legal right to be present in the dwelling or vehicle (such as an owner, lessee or titleholder);
- the person being removed is a child or grandchild or in lawful custody of the person against whom the defensive force was used;
- the person against whom defensive force is used is a police officer engaged in performing official duties; or
- the person using defensive force was engaged in an unlawful activity or using the dwelling or vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
If none of these exceptions apply, then the person is essentially immune from criminal prosecution.
Conclusion: Michigan’s laws of “Self-Defense” are somewhat similar to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws that are the subject of the recent Trayvon Martin shooting. Each case must be individually analyzed for justifying a homicide, however; even though Michigan has done away with the “duty to retreat” rule, a shooter who “followed, chased or went after” – as some reports suggest Zimmerman did in Florida – will be regarded as highly suspicious, and not likely a valid case of self-defense.
(Richard G. Marcil www.MarcilAttorney.com 586-412-0444 is an attorney in Clinton Township practicing in criminal defense, divorce and family law, civil rights, and personal injury cases, as well as juvenile, probate, real estate and business litigation.)
DJG you should put on a cape and volunteer your services.
Personally, I think that Trayvon was the one who's actions should be protected under Stand Your Ground -- From what we do know about Zimmermans "pursuit," it is not hard to imagine that a 17yo would feel that his safety and life were threatened. If Trayvon felt his saftey and life were threatened, would he not be the one justified in defending himself under either or both of the Self Defense and Stand Your Ground laws of FL? If Trayvon was protected to defend himself under either of those laws in FL, I would think that determination would negate Zimmerman from using ether as a defense?
Cause i don't see much difference in allowing people the right to carry a legal weapon to church or school and not allowing them to carry inside of the those zones. I can see the reasoning to eliminate those restricted zones, we've all seen the stories of some crazed person or persons shooting up schools, churches, post offices and places of employment. Alot of that might of been ended quickly had someone with a concealed weapons permit been on the scene at the time. So, i can see that side of the reasoning... people should have the right to defend themselves regardless of where they are at. But, I can also see the schools, churches and whomever's desire not to have people in their buildings with a loaded gun. With these increased rights there should also be increased responsibilities. Do these bills have any provisions for that? There should also be increased scrutiny of the people who are allowed to be carrying the weapon's background and mental stability. Is there? The way this "stand your ground" law is being used, i still say it was not applicable to this case because of the fact that Mr.Z intentionally put himself into that situation where he ended up pulling the trigger. The only way it should be applied is against him... for believing he had a free pass. That's where i disagree with the law is with it's misuse. There should be more of an investigation into the incident instead of less.
I am offended by some of your comments. Is it spin to show photos of a young Trayvon, yes, but is it appropriate to assume because he looks like a "gangsta thug" in recent pictures, suddenly he is a less credible person? Absolutely Not! How a teen (or person) dresses is not an indicator of character. All reports say that he was suspended for having a bag that tested positive for marijuana residue--is drug use our PERCEPTION of a normal teen? No, but a 2011 study conducted by a research center at the University of Michigan ( monitoringthefuture.org ), you might find what is Perceived as normal and what is really going on are two different things. In fact the most recent report based on a survey of 46,000+ 8th, 10th and 12th graders found that by the 12th grade 50% of students had tried either marijuana or some other illicit drug. This may not be what we want for our "normal teens," but, a teen making decision(s) we do not like does not make them a bad person, nor does it negate them from being "normal" whatever that really is. It is possible that Trayvon was involved in home invasions, but unless there is proof to back that up, it is simply speculation & an attempt to justify his killing. Carrying candy to cover it up, thats genius, really--no officer, it wasn't me, see I have skittles. Burnie Madoff carried a brief case to further his cover as a business man... maybe everyone with a brief case is really running a ponzi scheme.
1: substitute "white male" into your story and consider your reaction 2: relative to the 'character'issue: any thoughts as to what's been reported about the shooter's past?
You should know the difference between a slur being used to demoralize, denigrate and demean a person and a person who would historically be the target of the slur reclaiming/empowering the slur. A white person calling a black person the n* word is 100% offensive. A black person reclaiming the n* word is empowerment. Although some would disagree, I think the more black youth reclaim the word, the less power it has over them. A straight person/mayor referring to LBGT people as qu**** is 100% offensive, unless of course the mayor is really a lesbian and then it is empowerment. I was getting off the EL in Chicago about 15 years ago and a man called me "cracker"--cheerfully I responded, "I prefer Mr. Cracker." He def. meant it as a slur, but I didn't give him that satisfaction, I reclaimed it. No political party has a claim to empowering slurs either, yesterday I saw a Tea Party guy with a shirt on that said "Proud Tea Bagger" -- yep, I would say empowerment... tho maybe that example (and the humor) is lost on you. If Trayvon chose to empower himself by reclaiming a slur, that was his business, using his social media handle as a politicized attack on his character is something else entirely. How does Trayvon's twitter addy add anything meaningful to the conversation of holding Zimmerman accountable or giving him a pass?
But as far as the "Thug" pictures and statements Trayvon posted online.. it has nothing to do with his credibility.. remember he's not talking anymore. It does go towards the justification for shooting him though. Now did the police know about the pictures and Trayvon's possession charges before they decided to drop the charges? Did they report that to the DA? And was that the reason the DA refused the warrant request? If that is the case then it would appear to me that the police were trying to justify his death by making his character an issue. And other than showing that Trayvon might of been the aggressor in this situation without being in fear of his life, it is really irrelevant as to what either of their postings online might of been after the fact. Truth be told.. Mr Z's character does show a history of anger problems and aggression.. and his "after the fact information" about his past would be more damaging to his credibility than all of the pictures of Trayvon would be towards his own character. As for racial slurs in this blog Ed.. i don't see any. I won't respond to that part.
It's a good thing we're not debating it. Cause i'd probably end up agreeing with you, or you with me. And then that wouldn't be much of a debate at all. It'd be more like a trial where we were looking at all of the evidence then deciding a verdict. I'd say you were right about there being alot of mistakes made.. and most likely point at the police investigation and the DA's as being highly suspicious. I'd also say that the prosecutor wasn't worried about serving justice myself.. but worried about his win-loss record. That to me is wrong in itself. But then it is what they do. I'd still question why they came to that conclusion so fast. I mean they could of held Mr. Z for 72 hours without charging him.. what harm would it of been to talk to the family first before they made that snap judgement? What harm would it of been for the prosecutor to tell the officer to get more proof.. one way or another? What harm would it of been to gather all of the evidence? That's what really looks fishy. And that does make it appear as if there was some other reason other than this self defense statute as the reason he wasn't charged. My thoughts are the same as yours i think.. that someone.. whether it was his friends on the police force or his father, exerted their influence on the DA to drop the case. I don't know what reason they would of dropped it otherwise.. i can't say any of them did it out of prejudice.. but it does leave the door open for speculation.
"Stand your ground" means you do not have to retreat, it does NOT mean move forward. Self Defense does not begin with Offense. Most states are not property-protection states, which means you cannot shoot someone for a property crime. There are a few "facts" that need verification before anyone can begin to assess just whom is to blame in this unfortunate event. Until then, it's all conjecture and opinion, and really doesn't mean much.
I think your instincts are pretty keen. I hope my perceptions are just as good. Your theory sounds quite plausible. I can't say too much about how it all went down.. but i do have my take on GZ too. I think he was a man with a big ego.. possibly arrogant at times and he had temper issues. I believe the gun gave him a false sense of bravado. It looks like he was a wanna be hero. He was seeking attention just not this kind. I think owning a gun supersized his balls and inflated his head. I don't think he would of been there in that situation without a weapon of some sort.. if not a gun, then a baseball bat or pepper spray or even a kitchen knife. I don't believe he ever learned to respect the power of the weapon he had in his hands, nor that he ever took proper training on how to use it. It doesn't appear as if he was ever a hunter or that he knew how to handle a weapon correctly. I think he was only outside of his vehicle because he had a false sense of security and he thought the weapon gave him more powers than he actually had. Without knowing how to use it he was worse off than if he hadn't had it at all. There is no doubt in my mind that TM's skin color had something to do with the fact that Mr Z singled him out as a suspect...he fit the profile Mr Z was looking for. However it went down, Mr Z was overpowered and found himself at the losing end of a fight and at that point he had no choice except to shoot.
I am offended because your comments are a bunch of "what if's" based on stereotyping & in my opinion a "head in the sand" view of the world that you present as a reason to assassinate Trayvon's character and give a caveat to Zimmermans actions that smack of justification. Would you be making the same comments if Trayvon was a white kid named Mark who was dressed preppy with Altoids & Starbucks in hand? Would you be commenting on his chinos & grill? Would you be focusing on his college applications & his upcoming SAT's or his recent suspension from school or maybe you would downplay it as being peer pressure or that "bad friend" or maybe it was just a misunderstanding? Would you immediately start speculating as to him being responsible for recent home invasions? Would you find some example of a white guy dressing up like a black man to rob 6 banks down in Ohio? When you can buy "gangsta thug"clothing at Sears & JCPenny, etc, we are not talking about something that is isolated to "those kids." Its a Style, its "fashion!" I was going to agree that it is not normal for teenagers to get drug related suspensions, however at the small company I work out, we have 3 employees with 4 teenagers in high school-1 of those kids was given a 1 month suspension for drugs & then expelled for a 2nd drug offense-he was on the honor roll and is mostly a good kid btw. So I will compromise, maybe he wasn't your "normal" teen, but rather my average teen.
You are right, I "really" don't know what motivates a person to use a slur or racial slur towards another person. When that guy called me a "cracker" maybe he just was saying Hi or he liked my Polo Shirt. When I see Fred Phelps at soldier's funerals holding up signs about dead soldiers, ied's and a whole host of gay slurs he really is just saying how much he supports the LGBT community and our military. I could never possibly know what he is really thinking right? When the klan goes marching and they shout the n-word, really its their way of inviting everyone to a pot luck or something? But your right, maybe I should just ask and find out... So Christine, when you call people names or use racial slurs, why do you do it? Don't hold back, I really want to know. Ed, feel free to answer too, I know you have an opinion in there someplace. Mayor Daniels consider this an invitation to discuss why you like to call people names and use slurs. (rolling my eyes) I stand by my comment that Trayvon's twitter handle, a version of the n-word, adds nothing relevant to the situation at hand and is empowerment in itself. I grew up in KS, not Troy, all in KS are Jayhawks, why, because Jayhawker was a slur for "backwards" thinking, and when KS voted FREE, its citizens were labeled Jayhawks by those supporting slavery. The governor said YES WE ARE and empowered the name for his militia. Kansans have empowered that slur with honor ever since.