Trail 133 between Gay and Lac La Belle closed for good!
- Thread starter radsrh
- Start date
This will be your best way to catch someone in the act. Do not tell anyone when you install them or where. Simple! We have these up on our property!
anonomoose
New member
Here is the law (Michigan Castle Law) you refer to...and before you go shooting anyone understand that a prosecutor would like to make an example of this new law and why it should NOT be in place...so you would be serving yourself up on a big ole platter.
MCL 780.951 (Public Act 311 of 2006) states:
Essentially, deadly force is only authorized in self-defense when preventing: great bodily harm that could lead to death, or rape (known modernly in Miichigan as sexual assault.) The individual using deadly force in legitimate self defense must have an actual belief that he is preventing one of those three things, and that belief has to be reasonable under all the circumstances. In other words, a jury would have to agree that, if they were in the same situation, they would share that same belief that great bodily harm, death, or sexual assault were about to occur.
Prior to enactment of this law, which became effective as of October 1, 2006, there was a possibility that a homeowner who used deadly force in defense would have found himself charged criminally or sued by the intruder, or the intruder’s family. This is because deadly force is NEVER appropriate when defending property. In other words, it could have been argued that the intruder perhaps meant only to commit a property crime and, therefore, deadly force was not proportionate. This is still possible under the current law. An individual who breaks in to one of the places listed above may not present a deadly threat and it is possible that in some circumstances, use of deadly force may be still considered disproportionate. However, the presumption is that someone who breaks into a home or business, or who attempts to drag a motorist from a car, does mean to do something that calls for deadly force in self defense.
This statute gives the benefit of the doubt to the home or business owner or motorist. However, it is not a blanket license to kill. Remember that a firearm is always considered deadly force and use your guns wisely, judiciously and effectively. The presumption raised by this statutes is rebuttable. Meaning, that a bloodthirsty or negligent individual who shoots at someone who is found to have been clearly not a threat, may still run afoul of the law.
....as a result of this statute, ... if someone kicks your front door down at 3:00 a.m., you no longer have to hesitate before defending yourself and your family. This bill essentially codified common sense in that most people know that someone who would do such a thing is probably a dangerous person intent on harming others. The burden of proof is now on the intruder to prove that there is no way that the homeowner, business owner, or motorist could have felt seriously threatened.
The presumption DOES NOT APPLY if:
MCL 780.951 (Public Act 311 of 2006) states:
“(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).”
The basic rule on use of force in self-defense is that the force must be proportional to the threat.(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).”
Essentially, deadly force is only authorized in self-defense when preventing: great bodily harm that could lead to death, or rape (known modernly in Miichigan as sexual assault.) The individual using deadly force in legitimate self defense must have an actual belief that he is preventing one of those three things, and that belief has to be reasonable under all the circumstances. In other words, a jury would have to agree that, if they were in the same situation, they would share that same belief that great bodily harm, death, or sexual assault were about to occur.
Prior to enactment of this law, which became effective as of October 1, 2006, there was a possibility that a homeowner who used deadly force in defense would have found himself charged criminally or sued by the intruder, or the intruder’s family. This is because deadly force is NEVER appropriate when defending property. In other words, it could have been argued that the intruder perhaps meant only to commit a property crime and, therefore, deadly force was not proportionate. This is still possible under the current law. An individual who breaks in to one of the places listed above may not present a deadly threat and it is possible that in some circumstances, use of deadly force may be still considered disproportionate. However, the presumption is that someone who breaks into a home or business, or who attempts to drag a motorist from a car, does mean to do something that calls for deadly force in self defense.
This statute gives the benefit of the doubt to the home or business owner or motorist. However, it is not a blanket license to kill. Remember that a firearm is always considered deadly force and use your guns wisely, judiciously and effectively. The presumption raised by this statutes is rebuttable. Meaning, that a bloodthirsty or negligent individual who shoots at someone who is found to have been clearly not a threat, may still run afoul of the law.
....as a result of this statute, ... if someone kicks your front door down at 3:00 a.m., you no longer have to hesitate before defending yourself and your family. This bill essentially codified common sense in that most people know that someone who would do such a thing is probably a dangerous person intent on harming others. The burden of proof is now on the intruder to prove that there is no way that the homeowner, business owner, or motorist could have felt seriously threatened.
The presumption DOES NOT APPLY if:
“(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.
(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.
(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.
(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.
(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.”
(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.
(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.
(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.
(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.”
F
fusion
Guest
I completely agree! Spend the money on a real high quality motion sensitive camera rather than digging holes in your property you will be forced to fill in at some point. I completely understand your frustration, and I wouldn't mind catching this idiots myself, but you can't just go around shooting people in this day and age. They will crucify you in court. Once you get them on camera they will have great difficulty defending themselves legally and you will be in the drivers seat.
anonomoose
New member
Actually it would NEVER apply to someone driving in your front yard, backyard, or side yard or up the hill from you, unless you could prove that he was about to run you over and likely had attempted it already....
For this law to protect you, it should be crystal clear that you could NOT flee. Because flight is always the first, last and best defense against aggression. If that isn't possible, and life is at risk...then it would probably protect you.
This would hardly be the case in this situation because not only has he indicated that the "intruders" simply crossed the property, broke up signage, and at no point entered "inside" a building, he has now indicated a "grudge match" against them. The fact that he has had on and off issues with these people and that would actually work against him should they end up being dead. If he did this and the prosecutor got wind of this discussion, he would be in deep and rising flubber. As olsmann says, a world of hurt will be a likely thing for you and your family.
michaeladams
New member
in wisconsin if you shoot an intruder and he makes it out side your pretty much done for.ie. shooting himin the back and he makes it out the door, it is considered he was runningaway and there for was posing no threat.
I am on the landowners side here and I do not think that what is being done to his property is justified but, if something were to happen to one of the culprits on his property, based on what he has posted here, anything he does will now be considered premeditated.
I would suggest you stand back and contact the authorities in your area to report all incidents and all damage that has occurred. This may, or may not, take care of the problem but your intent has been established and now it's time to let the "system" go to work.
Just my .02 cents
Dave
I would suggest you stand back and contact the authorities in your area to report all incidents and all damage that has occurred. This may, or may not, take care of the problem but your intent has been established and now it's time to let the "system" go to work.
Just my .02 cents
Dave
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c91_1273321285
This might be a little extreme.
I too own property in another state and allow FOOT traffic and pedal bikes to cross. Used mostly by the locals. Closed it off when dirt bikes decided to "tear it up." Didn't take long for the dirt bikes to get ousted. Back open.
This might be a little extreme.
I too own property in another state and allow FOOT traffic and pedal bikes to cross. Used mostly by the locals. Closed it off when dirt bikes decided to "tear it up." Didn't take long for the dirt bikes to get ousted. Back open.
Last edited:
fusionfool
New member
If you believe it is the campground, why not talk to them and ask how you could work toward a resolution. Maybe this could end as a win, win situation. If it is their guests causing issues, they have a vested interest to work toward a resolution. Is there an area along the edge of your property that a new trail could be made? We had a situation a few years back where trail access was cut off from the Campground. Guests of the campground worked with the land owner to create a new access. Everyone was happy with the outcome, and the ATV groups that visited regularly helped police the trail access with use of pure pressure tacit. Worked well for all involved, and the land owner was plesently surprised when a group of riders brought him an appreciation gift that fall. Just a thought.
A friend of mine had problems with people on his rural property. After he put the driveway in, first it was tressspassers and then after the shed was built, breakins (the building site was out of view from the road). He tried fences and locked gates...nothing helped. Finally, he opened the gates and put a mailbox out by the road. He didn't have another breakin in the five years before he built the house. Doubt if that would work in your situation though. Sounds like your problem is local and they are comfortable enough to do what they are doing in broad daylight. They would figure out there is no house eventually.
I agree with the game camera idea. As much fun as it would be to take matters into your own hands, its not worth it. Hope you can get this resolved before the issue totally ruins your enjoyment of the property.
I agree with the game camera idea. As much fun as it would be to take matters into your own hands, its not worth it. Hope you can get this resolved before the issue totally ruins your enjoyment of the property.
Use of deadly force? Dude you need to lighten up, you're taking this landlord thing a bit to serious, I also own land in the UP but reserve the lock and load clause for someone actually breaking into my home then it is lights out no survivors.
Just another example of one or two buttholes that ruin things for the rest of us.
Just another example of one or two buttholes that ruin things for the rest of us.
radsrh. Protect your property!!! I think frustration brought out "Castle" but you have every right to protect your family and property. While none of us want to loose any trails you have my support. I would ask that when the snowmobile club calls you give them the challenge " find and prosecute and I'll think about reopening it". You have done more than any landowner needs to do. I do like the camers idea. If it is a local person, or business, you will probably have a good time posting the trail cam pictures at local businesses and the local paper. My only suggestion, or word of caution, is how ever you protect your property you can not set traps or conceal restrictions. Every thing you do to deter someone must be visible or the courts will view your actions as criminal. Even on your own property.
michaeladams
New member
it's frustrating but you have to watch out.if you set a trap on your property and someone gets hurt,tresspassing or not,you will be held responsable.doesn't seem right but it is a fact.
if you do dig the deep holes, fill them with water. anyone with an atv will ride through a puddle on the trail. have john put a trail cam there so we can all enjoy the show. i am sorry you are having these problems and appreciate your having the snowmobile trail while it lasted. good luck.