Defending Someone Else or Your Property Under Michigan Law

Michigan law justifies the use of reasonable force to protect another person on the same terms as self-defense. If a person acts in lawful defense of others, the actions are justified and the person is not guilty.^[1] Protecting property is different: the statutes and model jury instructions reviewed for this guide provide no comparable defense for force used only to protect belongings.^[3][5]

This page covers both halves of that answer. For the full rules on self-defense, including the duty to retreat and who started the confrontation, see Self-defense under Michigan law.

Defending another person: the rule

Michigan uses a single model jury instruction, M Crim JI 7.22, for non-deadly force used in self-defense or in defense of others.^[1] The Self-Defense Act is written the same way. It allows a person who is not committing a crime to use force other than deadly force, anywhere he or she has a legal right to be and with no duty to retreat, if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the force is necessary to defend "himself or herself or another individual" from the imminent unlawful use of force.^[3]

Jurors are given four rules.^[2][7][8][9]

1. When the defendant acted, he or she must have honestly and reasonably believed that force was needed to protect the other person from the imminent unlawful use of force by another. An honest and reasonable belief is enough even if the defendant turns out to have been wrong about how much danger the other person was in.^[2]
2. The defendant must have used only the degree of force that seemed necessary at the time, and the kind of force that was appropriate to the attack.^[7]
3. The right to defend another person only lasts as long as it seems necessary for the purpose of protection.^[8]
4. The person claiming the defense must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assault.^[9]

The other person can be anyone: a child, a relative, a friend or a stranger. The statute says "another individual" and sets no relationship requirement.^[3]

Who has to prove it

A defense-of-others instruction is not automatic. The defendant has the burden of producing some evidence from which the jury could conclude that the elements of the defense are present, and the Court of Appeals has called that burden "not a heavy one."^[10] Once that evidence is in, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not valid.^[11]

In People v Leffew (2022), the defendants testified that they broke into a home in an attempt to rescue a person they believed was being held against her will. Their lawyers did not request a defense-of-others instruction, and the Court held that they were entitled to a new trial.^[12]

Deadly force to protect someone else

Deadly force is held to a stricter standard. The defendant must have honestly and reasonably believed the other person was in danger of being killed, seriously injured or sexually assaulted. If the defendant was only afraid that the other person would receive a minor injury, deadly force was not justified.^[13] The Self-Defense Act uses the same categories: imminent death, imminent great bodily harm or imminent sexual assault of the person or of another individual.^[14]

Threatening deadly force is not the same as using it. In People v Ogilvie, the Court of Appeals held that pointing a loaded gun without shooting is a threat to use deadly force, so the non-deadly force rules applied.^[15]

Protecting a child during a domestic incident

A parent who steps between a child and another adult is judged under the rules above: honest and reasonable belief, proportionate force, and only as long as needed.^[2][7][8] Two related points come up.

• The force being defended against has to be unlawful.^[2] The child abuse statute does not prohibit a parent or guardian from taking steps to reasonably discipline a child, including the use of reasonable force.^[16] See Parental discipline and the line into assault.
• If the person protecting the child is the one charged with child abuse, the statute provides a separate affirmative defense: that the conduct involving the child was a reasonable response to an act of domestic violence. The defendant has the burden of proving that defense by a preponderance of the evidence.^[17]

Police policy reflects the same principle at the scene. Each agency's written policy must emphasize that an officer should not arrest an individual if the officer has reasonable cause to believe the individual was acting in lawful defense of another individual.^[18] What exposure to violence can mean for the adults involved is covered in Domestic violence in front of children.

Protecting property: what Michigan law does and does not provide

Many domestic incidents start with an object: a phone, car keys, a laptop, a door. People often assume they may use force to keep or recover their own things. The sources reviewed for this guide do not support stating that as a rule.

• The Self-Defense Act is about people. Both of its sections authorize force to defend "himself or herself or another individual." Neither mentions property.^[14][3]
• The model jury instructions have no property instruction. The self-defense group of instructions covers self-defense, defense of others and deadly force in defense of the home. As of the August 31, 2026 edition, there is no instruction on using force solely to protect personal property.^[5]
• The assault definition is broad. A battery is the forceful, violent or offensive touching of a person "or something closely connected with him or her," intended by the defendant and against the other person's will.^[19] No injury is needed.^[20]

This is a finding about the statutes, instructions and judicial benchbooks, not a survey of every reported decision.^[5] It should not be read as saying that force used to protect belongings is, or is not, justified in any particular case. Whether older Michigan case law recognizes a privilege to use reasonable force to protect belongings, and how it would apply between two people who share a household, is a question to put to a lawyer about the specific facts.

A dispute over property can still matter to a self-defense claim. A person who trespasses on someone else's property, or tries to take someone else's property in a nonviolent way, does not lose all right to self-defense: if the other person responds with deadly force, the first person may act in self-defense, but only after retreating where it would have been safe to do so.^[21]

Defending a home

Michigan has one model instruction on defense of the home, M Crim JI 7.17. It concerns deadly force, and it applies where the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that the other person used force to enter or was forcibly trying to enter, had no right to enter, and intended to steal property, injure someone lawfully in the home, or commit a sexual assault.^[4] The committee that drafts the instructions adds a caution: there is "a substantial question" whether this common-law defense survived the Self-Defense Act and the related presumption statute.^[4]

The presumption statute helps a person who uses force against someone breaking in. Two of its exclusions bear on domestic cases.^[6]

Situation	Does the intruder presumption apply?
The other person has the legal right to be in the dwelling, and no domestic violence injunction or no-contact pretrial, probation or parole order is in place against that person	No[6]
The other person is a spouse, former spouse, dating partner, co-parent or household member, and the person using force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor	No[6]

Those exclusions are written as limits on the presumption. A claim that falls outside the presumption is decided under the ordinary rules, without a presumption in the defendant's favor.^[6][22] A separate statute provides that a person in his or her own dwelling, or within its curtilage, has no duty to retreat before using deadly force.^[23] When a former partner enters without permission, see Home invasion and entering an ex-partner's home.

Lawful ways to protect or recover property

The sources reviewed do not establish a defense for force used only to protect belongings.^[5] The safer course in a dispute over belongings is one that involves no physical contact. Photograph or list the items, leave if the argument is escalating, and ask about a police standby or a court order. If a criminal no-contact order is in place, read this first: Getting your belongings during a no-contact order. The charges that can follow when property is damaged during an argument are covered in Property damage in a domestic dispute.