![\"Can](\"https:\/\/www.baronedefensefirm.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/blogimgg.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Yes, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals case suggests that you can.\u00a0 The name of the case is People v. Ra[i]. In this case, the defendant, Ms. Ra, was visiting the home of her mother. Ms. Ra\u2019s teenage niece was also at the home.\u00a0 Ms. Ra and her mother were both sitting on the porch watching Ms. Ra\u2019s two-year old daughter play in her car which was parked in front of the house. The niece\u2019s teenage friend showed up and since it was believed that this young woman had beaten up the niece at school earlier, Ms. Ra told her to call her mother to pick her up.\u00a0 The mother showed up in response to the call and proceed to create a big scene. \u00a0Ms. Ra then asked her to leave as well, and this request apparently infuriated the teenager\u2019s mother.\u00a0 At trial different versions of what happened next were presented by the two parties, but it appears that after the teenager got into her mother\u2019s car, the mother rammed the car into the car in which Ms. Ra\u2019s child was playing.\u00a0 Ms. Ra then went to her car and retrieved a handgun from the consol.\u00a0 She then pointed the gun at the other car, demanding that they leave.\u00a0 The teenager\u2019s mother got out, apparently unafraid, and took pictures of Ms. Ra holding the gun.\u00a0 She then left, went to the police department, and filed a complaint.\u00a0 The defendant ended up charged with two felonies; assault with a dangerous weapon (felonious assault), pursuant to MCL \u00a7 750.82, and possessing a firearm while committing a felony (felony-firearm), pursuant to MCL \u00a7 750.227b.<\/p>\n
Ms. Ra\u2019s was convicted of both felonies counts at trial, and on appeal her attorney that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the use of nondeadly force in self-defense.\u00a0 Her attorney argued that she used only nondeadly force by pointing her gun at the car, and that the trial court thereby unfairly restricted the circumstances justifying self-defense to whether defendant reasonably feared death or serious bodily harm.\u00a0 The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.<\/p>\n
Self-defense is an affirmative defense that justifies otherwise punishable criminal conduct, and applies when the defendant acted intentionally, but under circumstances that justified her actions. The\u00a0 use\u00a0 of\u00a0 deadly\u00a0 force\u00a0 in\u00a0 self-defense\u00a0 requires\u00a0 that\u00a0 the\u00a0 defendant\u00a0 honestly\u00a0 and reasonably believe that she or another is in danger of being killed or seriously injured, M Crim JI 7.15(3), while the use of nondeadly force in self-defense requires that the defendant honestly and reasonably\u00a0 believe that\u00a0 the use of force is\u00a0 necessary to\u00a0 protect\u00a0 herself\u00a0 or\u00a0 others\u00a0 from the imminent unlawful use of force by another.\u00a0 M Crim JI 7.22(4).\u00a0 Thus, the use of deadly force in self-defense requires a reasonable belief that the circumstances were more dire than the circumstances necessary to support a use of nondeadly force in self-defense.\u00a0 The Michigan Self Defense Act does not define \u201cforce\u201d or \u201cdeadly force.\u201d\u00a0 The Michigan Supreme Court, however, has applied the term \u201cdeadly force\u201d as defined as force used in a circumstance in which the natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of the act is death. People v Couch<\/em>, 436 Mich. 414, 428 n 3; 461 NW2d 683 (1990).\u00a0 In this case the Michigan Court of Appeals held that brandishing a gun, which is essentially the threat of deadly force, is itself non deadly force.\u00a0 Because Ms. Ra may have honestly and reasonably believed that non-deadly force was necessary to protect her daughter from the imminent use of force by the teenager\u2019s mother, Ms. Ra was entitled to brandish the gun in self-defense.<\/p>\n