Michigan Appeals Court Shows Difference Between Threat and Use of Deadly Force

Siwatu-Salama Ra
Siwatu-Salama Ra

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- This is the case of Siwatu-Salama Ra, who was sentenced to two years in prison after using the display of a gun to protect herself, her mother and her daughter. Ra was pregnant at the time of the event on 16 July, 2017.

The other party involved, Channell Harvey, contacted the police first, three hours before Ra did. The Detroit police assumed that Channell Harvey, the first person reporting the incident, was the victim. This is a common occurrence in law enforcement, which is why there may be a race to the phones to be the first to report an incident to the police.

Channel Harvey had recorded Ra with her phone, showing her displaying her defensive firearm. Ra had a valid Michigan concealed carry permit. Channel was reportedly on probation for felony assault in another case.

Both parties claimed the other had threatened the other. Several organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA, as well as several on the Left, defended Ra's use of non-deadly force.

At the trial, the judge mistakenly ruled that merely displaying a gun was the use of deadly force.  That goes against common sense and several precedents.

This varies from state to state; in Arizona, it is clear merely displaying a firearm is not the same as using deadly force. In Arizona, the threat of deadly force is not the same as using deadly force.

The Michigan Court of Appeals found the legal distinction is important and has meaning. The standard to justify the threat of deadly force is considerably lower than the standard to justify the use of deadly force. From the Michigan Court of Appeals:

The trial court’s conclusion that the brandishing of a gun is the equivalent of deadly force is contrary to this Court’s holding in Pace that brandishing a weapon is not the equivalent of the use of deadly force for purposes of self-defense. Here, evidence was presented to support the defense of non deadly force self-defense. At trial, defendant testified that she brandished the weapon but did not make any attempt to use it, that the gun was not loaded,and that the safety was on. She also testified that she believed brandishing the gun was necessary because she and her mother were both in danger when Harvey drove her car onto the grass at her mother’s home, attempting to hit both defendant and her mother, and in fact did hit defendant’s car. Anderson also testified that Harvey used her car as a weapon and that Harvey nearly hit her. Defendant’s niece also testified that Harvey used her car as a weapon,hit defendant’s car where the two-year old was playing, and attempted to hit defendant and her mother. When a defendant requests a jury instruction on a defense supported by the evidence, the trial court is required to give the instruction. Riddle, 467 Mich at 124. In light of the evidence supporting non deadly force self-defense, the trial court’s failure to give the jury instruction regarding the use of non deadly force in self-defense was erroneous.

To the jury, the difference is considerable. The use of non deadly force only requires the jury find the defendant reasonably believed the non deadly force was required to protect herself or others from the imminent unlawful use of force.

The use of deadly force requires the jury to find the defendant reasonably believed she or others were in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured.

The display or threat of deadly force often defuses a situation through deterrence. Many people are deterred from using force when they face the prospect of deadly force being used against them in response or as a preventive measure.

This truth is as old as life itself. The Appeals Court cited Black's Law Dictionary and the Handbook on Criminal Law by Lafave and Scott.

The mere display of a gun, or the pointing of a gun, is a threat of deadly force, but is not the use of deadly force.

Not all states or all prosecutors can be relied on to interpret the law in this way. Considerable effort has been expended to equate the display of a firearm as the same as the use of a firearm for people who are not police. Police, on the other hand, routinely draw and threaten deadly force with little or no consequences, because the difference is clearly understood.

The Second Amendment protects the individual right to use arms for self defense and the defense of others. Merely displaying arms is not the same as firing them. Displaying them is a use of arms, but not a use of deadly force. The display of arms may be used for deterrence, as in this case, as a First Amendment political statement,  or even as a fashion statement. All should be protected uses under the Constitution.


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

7
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
5 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
CaptainKeroseneWild BillDave CVanns40Bill Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
CaptainKerosene
Member
CaptainKerosene

The State of Kansas amended state law because of this sort of misinterpretation of the written word and court cases. “21-5220. Use of force; construction and application. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3220] The provisions of this act are to be construed and applied retroactively. History: L. 2010, ch. 124, § 1; April 29. 21-5221. Use of force; definitions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3221] (a) As used in article 32 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments thereto: (1) “Use of force” means any or all of the following directed at or upon another person or… Read more »

Dave C
Member
Dave C

She should get a commendation for NOT shooting. Shooting would have been easier.

Bill
Member
Bill

So what is the status of the case. Is she out? Are they headed for a new trial, or…??

Vanns40
Member
Vanns40

An attorney will have to step in on this one for the full meaning but it was reversed. From the Appeals Court ruling:

“….The evidence thus supported the theory of nondeadly force self-defense, entitling defendant to an instruction on that defense, and it is more probable than not that the lack of proper instruction affected the outcome of the case because it altered the test by which the jury decided this central issue.

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.”

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Gentlemen, There is a lot there. Def. did not get a jury instruction from the lower court that she should have gotten, and it was important. Reversed the lower court. Sent back to the lower court. Did not retain jurisdiction (we trust the lower court to do the right thing).
Can’t reinstruct the old jury. Need a new jury and presentation there to. I guess that it will be up to the prosecutor.

Circle8
Member
Circle8

Where did the judge get their law license? Sounds like a cereal box to me.

RoyD
Member
RoyD

I concur.