Other State DGU - Results in Felony Assault Charge - Reversed on Appeal

[RicInOR]

Michigan Court of Appeals Has Reversed the Felony Assault Convictions of a Gun Owner Who Acted in Self-Defense

A then-pregnant Siwatu-Salama Ra was sentenced to two years in prison after using an unloaded gun to protect herself, her daughter, and her mom.

reason.com

1. Do be first to the Police.
2. Do not count on the court / jury to get it right.
3. You may still end up in jail
4. It will be expensive.


Follow up question
Do you think the wrongfully convicted will have her rights automatically restored ? That is can she today go buy a gun? Or, will that take more lawyers and court appearances?

Read More

 

[RicInOR]

"Related: A Michigan Court Case Shows the Right of Armed Self-Defense Is Broader Than You Might Think. "It justifies the brandishing of a gun as pre-emptive measure to block the use of unlawful force. . . . Police officers, for example, sometimes point a weapon at an individual as a means of preventing unlawful force even when they don't have the legal right to fire a shot. . . . A contrary rule places civilians in an untenable position. They could not even pull their weapon until the threat of death is actively upon them. They would be forced to maintain maximum vulnerability right up until the point of maximum danger — a legal position that would be most threatening to people of slight physical stature who lack alternative effective means of self-defense."
via Instapundit Instapundit

 

[RicInOR]

Threatening with a Gun vs. Shooting at Someone

There are different legal standards for the two actions, the Michigan Court of Appeals correctly concludes (in the Siwatu-Salama Ra case).

reason.com

There are different legal standards for the two actions, the Michigan Court of Appeals correctly concludes (in the Siwatu-Salama Ra case).
EUGENE VOLOKH | 8.22.2019 12:31 PM

 

[66PonyCar]

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

 

[Stomper]

Crucially, this legal doctrine does not create a license to kill. Nondeadly force becomes deadly force the very instant a person pulls the trigger, and when a person pulls the trigger they have to prove the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. The doctrine does — as a practical matter — allow citizens to use the threat of decisive force to deter unlawful violence.

I take exception to the above statement....


Wrong, the STATE has to prove the person pulling the trigger DIDIN'T have just cause to end the threat.

Don't EVER forget that!!