As some may know, former governor Jennifer Granholm has joined the growing list of celebrities and politicians wearing hoodies to demand justice for murdered teen Trayvon Martin.
Granholm made a bit of news two weeks ago when she choked up on air while discussing the Martin case on her show, “War Room,” which is broadcast on Current TV.
Martin’s death, of course, has become a big national story as no charges have been brought against the man who killed him, self-appointed Neighborhood Watch patrolman George Zimmerman.
Granholm and many others with Michigan connections have joined the high-profile call for Zimmerman’s arrest by the Sanford, Fla., police.
However, what has been much less reported is that Michigan is one of 24 states with a self-defense law similar to Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” statute, which Granholm roundly criticized on her show.
Granholm signed Michigan Act 309 into law in 2006 and it took effect on Oct. 1 of that year. Take a look at the official language, if you can wind your way through the legalese, and decide if it’s similar to the Florida law:
SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 309 of 2006
Act 309 of 2006
780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
Sec. 2.
(1) 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.
(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and 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.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006
Mr Selweski, I find it funny you excerpted the body of a four section, 1/2 page law. The other three sections of the law read tell a much different story:
Sec. 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "self-defense act".
Sec. 3.
Except as provided in section 2, this act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006 regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force other than deadly force.
Sec. 4.
This act does not diminish an individual's right to use deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or defense of another individual as provided by the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006.
You can find the entire law here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(npo0vbauciwnv555gqksgsvg))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-309-of-2006
Up until that point, the Castle Doctrine was considered the standard for use of deadly force–that is, only if an intruder was in your home AND threatening life or limb. Act 309 of 2006 basically expanded the right to use deadly force to an individual's automobile, workplace, and legally owned property, as evidenced by the stipulation that the individual has the right to be at a specific location. That's all it did. It still mandates a duty to retreat in all other situations, as evidenced by section 3.
Florida's law is much longer and far different (Chapter 776 of the Florida Statutes: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html)–It allows the use of deadly force not only if a person feels threatened, but also if that individual feels someone else is being threatened, and to prevent what that person believes to be a commission of a forcible felony against another person or another person's property. It broadens the right to stand one's ground. And it provides criminal and civil awards for individuals who are arrested for using deadly force and later determined by the courts to be justified. The fact is, those two laws couldn't be more different, and attempting to diminish the murder of an unarmed 17-year-old boy who was in a place where he had the legal right to be is downright irresponsible. I expected much better from you, Mr. Selweski.