I’ll post this again for you:
An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and 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.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
That is a patch and paste from Michigan law. No where in there does it say property defense.
Michigan is a Castle Doctrine state and has a stand your ground law as they define it. A person may use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if the individual has an honest and reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault to that person or to another individual. Again, no property threat, just bodily. The castle doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that persons have no duty to retreat in their home, or “castle”, and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, for defense. Outside of the abode, however, a person has a duty to retreat, if possible, before using deadly force in the line of defense from harmful threat.
If further states that any person who uses a gun legitimately in self-defense has immunity from civil liability. The gun was not legally used as no bodily threat existed to anyone except toward the woman in back of the car.
Whether I agree with it or not, doesn’t mean anything. It is Michigan law.
rwood
They didn’t “use” deadly force. Showing a gun may be brandishing, or assault, depending on state law, but it is not “using deadly force” until you pull the trigger. Jesus christ, the dumbassery on these threads is amazing.