19 Year Old Girl Shot Looking for Help

[Londo_Jowo]

The law states breaking and entering. The legal definition of the "breaking" in Michigan requires an element of force to break in.

I think you should actually read the law.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5q...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-115

750.115 Breaking and entering or entering without breaking; buildings, tents, boats, railroad cars; entering public buildings when expressly denied.
Sec. 115.
(1) Any person who breaks and enters or enters without breaking, any dwelling, house, tent, hotel, office, store, shop, warehouse, barn, granary, factory or other building, boat, ship, railroad car or structure used or kept for public or private use, or any private apartment therein, or any cottage, clubhouse, boat house, hunting or fishing lodge, garage or the out-buildings belonging thereto, any ice shanty with a value of $100.00 or more, or any other structure, whether occupied or unoccupied, without first obtaining permission to enter from the owner or occupant, agent, or person having immediate control thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to entering without breaking, any place which at the time of the entry was open to the public, unless the entry was expressly denied. Subsection (1) does not apply if the breaking and entering or entering without breaking was committed by a peace officer or an individual under the peace officer's direction in the lawful performance of his or her duties as a peace officer.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 74, Eff. Oct. 11, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 750.115 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 148, Imd. Eff. June 7, 2000
Former Law: See sections 1 and 2 of Act 181 of 1929, being CL 1929, §§ 16957 and 16958.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I think you should actually read the law.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5q...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-115

That link is lumping two different offenses together. B&E is different than E.

http://www.michiganlawgrad.com/home-invasionbe.html

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Breaking and entering is just one of the listed reasons in the law. Home invasion is the other which, by precedent, means entering the home unlawfully. This is one of the very foundations of castle doctrine in that you don't have to wait until they enter illegally - you can use deadly force to stop the home invasion. It's that way in other states with castle doctrine and it is the same in Michigan.

There are plenty of other cases just like this one and the home owner isn't charged.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(te...72&query=on&highlight=duty AND to AND retreat

No, you don't get to apply your own definition of home invasion. Is is distinct offense defined by Michigan Law. The definition that you using is close to the Michigan definition of illegal entry, which is not covered under the Castle law. The legislature intentionally created the Castle so that it does not apply in the way that you claim.

http://www.michiganlawgrad.com/home-invasionbe.html

 

[SheHateMe]

You can see the screen door in all of the photos we have so far of his house. It's black. The other door to his home appears to be brown.

 

[spidey07]

Nice link. Backs up what I've been saying. Like I said, this has happened plenty of times and the homeowner isn't charged. Notice the enter without permission (aka, unlawfully).

This is all covered in CCDW classes very thoroughly and the situations are explained on when deadly force is allowed. Attempting to enter without permission is one that is covered and deadly force is permitted.

For example, if somebody is in the process of opening your unlocked door (aka, turning the knob or attempting to open the door) deadly force is authorized. This exact scenario was covered and explained. If her prints are anywhere on that door knob deadly force is authorized.

(2) Michigan Home Invasion Second Degree

Home Invasion in the Second Degree differs from First Degree in that, the Prosecution is not required to show that the alleged had a dangerous weapon or that a person is lawfully present in the dwelling.

A person who breaks and enters a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, a person who enters a dwelling without permission with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, or a person who breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling, commits a felony, larceny, or assault is guilty of home invasion in the second degree. Penalty - "Home invasion in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $3,000.00, or both."

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Trying to push out the screen in a screen doesn't require any tools, just force. Doing such would be considered "in the process of" breaking and entering.

Most people I know do not lock the screen door unless they have the storm door open. I still wonder if the home owner fell asleep with the doors in this condition. If this was the case he could reasonably fear that the person was about to enter the house. I would like to see his statement/s to the police.

 

[Jaskalas]

Don't forget he's innocent until proven guilty. Now the prosecution must proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't in the process of trying to enter the house when the homeowner shot her. The lack of signs of a forcible entry isn't all telling as one can be in the process of entering the house without using a tool or device.

The prosecution must prove a negative beyond reasonable doubt?

It is not possible for there to be proof of her NOT trying to enter. Not without a complete and clear video of the incident.

 

[spidey07]

The prosecution must prove a negative beyond reasonable doubt?

It is not possible for there to be proof of her NOT trying to enter. Not without a complete and clear video of the incident.

And there is the reasonable doubt. Not guilty is the only correct verdict.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The prosecution must prove a negative beyond reasonable doubt?

It is not possible for there to be proof of her NOT trying to enter. Not without a complete and clear video of the incident.

Homeowner claims she was trying to enter the house, the prosecution has to disprove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Nice link. Backs up what I've been saying. Like I said, this has happened plenty of times and the homeowner isn't charged. Notice the enter without permission (aka, unlawfully).

This is all covered in CCDW classes very thoroughly and the situations are explained on when deadly force is allowed. Attempting to enter without permission is one that is covered and deadly force is permitted.

For example, if somebody is in the process of opening your unlocked door (aka, turning the knob or attempting to open the door) deadly force is authorized. This exact scenario was covered and explained. If her prints are anywhere on that door knob deadly force is authorized.

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? You keep saying that any it's legal to shoot for any illegal entry despite the fact that that's not what the law says. You are describing illegal entry which by itself does not trigger the Castle law. It has to be B&E and / or home invasion which have other elements beyond mere illegal entry.

In Michigan, the scenario you described would not trigger the Castle law unless the other elements of the B&E or home invasion statutes were met.

In this case, the homeowner will likely argue that the elements for either B&E or home invasion or both were met, but you are incorrectly framing the laws in play here.

 

[spidey07]

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? You keep saying that any it's legal to shoot for any illegal entry despite the fact that that's not what the law says. You are describing illegal entry which by itself does not trigger the Castle law. It has to be B&E and / or home invasion which have other elements beyond mere illegal entry.

In Michigan, the scenario you described would not trigger the Castle law unless the other elements of the B&E or home invasion statutes were met.

In this case, the homeowner will likely argue that the elements for either B&E or home invasion or both were met, but you are incorrectly framing the laws in play here.

Do you have some kind of reading compresion problem? I bolded it for you. The two intertwine with the castle doctrine of PRESUMPTION that victim automatically has a reasonable belief that they are trying to enter to do harm. So entering WITHOUT PERMISSION = attempted home invasion aka entering illegally.

Like I said, this is all covered in CCDW classes and the scenarios are explained. There have also been plenty of cases like this and the shooter isn't charged.

Once more, force is not required.

(2) Michigan Home Invasion Second Degree

Home Invasion in the Second Degree differs from First Degree in that, the Prosecution is not required to show that the alleged had a dangerous weapon or that a person is lawfully present in the dwelling.

A person who breaks and enters a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, a person who enters a dwelling without permission with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, or a person who breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling, commits a felony, larceny, or assault is guilty of home invasion in the second degree. Penalty - "Home invasion in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $3,000.00, or both."

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Do you have some kind of reading compresion problem? I bolded it for you. The two intertwine with the castle doctrine of PRESUMPTION that victim automatically has a reasonable belief that they are trying to enter to do harm. So entering WITHOUT PERMISSION = attempted home invasion aka entering illegally.

Like I said, this is all covered in CCDW classes and the scenarios are explained. There have also been plenty of cases like this and the shooter isn't charged.

Once more, force is not required.

Let me try this another way. Why do you think the Michigan Castle law specifically references breaking and entering and home invasion but does not include the lesser charges of entering without breaking and illegal entry?

 

[shira]

Breaking and entering is just one of the listed reasons in the law. Home invasion is the other which, by precedent, means entering the home unlawfully. This is one of the very foundations of castle doctrine in that you don't have to wait until they enter illegally - you can use deadly force to stop the home invasion. It's that way in other states with castle doctrine and it is the same in Michigan.

There are plenty of other cases just like this one and the home owner isn't charged.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(te...72&query=on&highlight=duty AND to AND retreat

How can you be so stupid? Even your own quotation says that for deadly force to be justified, the person killed must have been in the process of ACTUALLY committing a "home invasion" or "breaking and entering." Do you understand that it's not sufficient for the person "defending" themselves to say that they "believed" the person was committing a home invasion or breaking and entering? The person killed must ACTUALLY have been in the process of committing home invasion/breaking and entering.

Thus, the definition of "home invasion" and "breaking and entering" are the deciding factors. And the definition of both require that the person committing the home invasion or breaking and entering have the INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY, the INTENT TO COMMIT A MISDEMEANOR, or MUST ACTUALLY HAVE COMMITTED A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR.

Now, there's no evidence whatsoever that the girl was attempting to enter the home WITH THE INTENT to commit a felony or misdemeanor. Thus, the girl was not "in the process" of committing a home invasion or breaking and entering. Thus, condition (a) of your quoted text is NOT true, and the killer's deadly force is not justified under the law.

 

[shira]

Do you have some kind of reading compresion problem? I bolded it for you. The two intertwine with the castle doctrine of PRESUMPTION that victim automatically has a reasonable belief that they are trying to enter to do harm. So entering WITHOUT PERMISSION = attempted home invasion aka entering illegally.

Like I said, this is all covered in CCDW classes and the scenarios are explained. There have also been plenty of cases like this and the shooter isn't charged.

Once more, force is not required.

You can't even understand your own quotation:

A person who breaks and enters a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling, a person who enters a dwelling without permission with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault in the dwelling,

Notice that word "with intent?" That's where you're missing the entire ocean. There's no evidence whatsoever that the girl had "intent to commit" any of the listed crimes. All we know is that - apparently - she was trying to get inside the house. That's "illegal entry," but absent further intent to commit a crime, it's not "home invasion."

As I stated in my previous post, it's not sufficient for a homeowner to claim that he "believed" that the person had the intent to commit a crime after illegally entering the home. There must be ACTUAL intent.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

A victim does not need to prove intent.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution and they will have to prove the homeowner couldn't have reasonablly feared that the person was breaking into his house at the given time of the incident. I think the woman being intoxicated will hurt the prosecutions case as well.

 

[umbrella39]

I have fond memories growing up when burglars still used to to scream and pound on the door before they'd break in and steal your shit. Used to make it so much easier to thwart... This is before the modern day stealth technology of course... Thankfully this guy had an old school burglar pounding on his door or this might have been more confusing for him to piece together on the fly like he apparently did.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Pounding and screaming? I don't remember this being reported. None of the neighbors that been interviewed have stated they heard any pounding on the door and or screaming.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You can't even understand your own quotation:

Notice that word "with intent?" That's where you're missing the entire ocean. There's no evidence whatsoever that the girl had "intent to commit" any of the listed crimes. All we know is that - apparently - she was trying to get inside the house. That's "illegal entry," but absent further intent to commit a crime, it's not "home invasion."

As I stated in my previous post, it's not sufficient for a homeowner to claim that he "believed" that the person had the intent to commit a crime after illegally entering the home. There must be ACTUAL intent.

So a homeowner must determine the intent of the person trying to enter the house before they can exercise their rights provided by the respective state's Castle Doctrine?

I believe proving the intent would be required by the prosecution if the person was being tried on charges of breaking and entering, not in a Castle Doctrine case.

Please not the last line in the law, no where does it state the homeowner must know the person intent.

780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

Sec. 1.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of 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.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

 

[spidey07]

That's the whole foundation of castle doctrine is the presumption the one who is attempting to enter is doing so to commit harm or death.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

So a homeowner must determine the intent of the person trying to enter the house before they can exercise their rights provided by the respective state's Castle Doctrine?

I believe proving the intent would be required by the prosecution if the person was being tried on charges of breaking and entering, not in a Castle Doctrine case.

Please not the last line in the law, no where does it state the homeowner must know the person intent.

Note the word "both" in the first paragraph. A and B must both apply. You would think that the reasonable belief alone would be enough but the wording is pretty clear that it isn't and that the person must actually be committing B&E or home invasion.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Note the word "both" in the first paragraph. A and B must both apply. You would think that the reasonable belief alone would be enough but the wording is pretty clear that it isn't and that the person must actually be committing B&E or home invasion.

Subdivision (a) also states the person must still be present IN the dwelling or attempting to remove another individual against their will. Given he was behind a locked door and she was outside its hard to argue either condition existed.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Subdivision (a) also states the person must still be present IN the dwelling or attempting to remove another individual against their will. Given he was behind a locked door and she was outside its hard to argue either condition existed.

I don't read it that way. That only applies to the situation where they have already committed B&E or home invasion, not in the "in the process of" situation. Admittedly the sentence structure introduces some ambiguity but the reason for the "still present in the dwelling" clause appears to be there so you can't shoot someone after they've left.

In other words, you can shoot someone:

1. In the act of B&E and / or home invasion or
2. Someone who has committed B&E / home invasion and is still in the dwelling,

but not someone who just committed B&E / home invasion but is no long in the dwelling.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's the whole foundation of castle doctrine is the presumption the one who is attempting to enter is doing so to commit harm or death.

What this case is highlighting is the absurdity of the law. That it's legal to shoot and kill anyone at the front door, or even near your house. Just claim they were "entering". It is not possible to prove they weren't! Not possible to convict if those requirements hold.

 

[umbrella39]

Pounding and screaming? I don't remember this being reported. None of the neighbors that been interviewed have stated they heard any pounding on the door and or screaming.

Neighbors? The shooters own call to 911 and his own words. "Banging on my door" Sorry, I paraphrased.

https://soundcloud.com/fergus-burns/theodore-wafer-911-call-after