The Law Library, Thread: The Castle Doctrine - does your state have a fake "castle do

The Law Library, Thread: The Castle Doctrine - does your state have a fake "castle do

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...e-doctrine-quot-statute&p=1709409#post1709409

user said:

I suggest that if your state's statute does not incorporate most of what I've put into this thing, particularly as to the defense of habitation rule, you need to modify your state's statute. And states that lack the English common law foundation for their legal systems should enact this proposal entirely. Whether or not it incorporates the pre-existing law of your state, I think it's what the law ought to be throughout the U.S.

I suppose I sound presumptuous in saying so, but let me point out that I didn't make this stuff up, all I did was to compile a thousand years of legal history into a seven-page proposal. The contents are the result of centuries of painful experience in actual litigation on a case-by-case basis and opinions by authoritative courts. See what you think; please download this file and read it locally - if you open it in your browser it may look fuzzy:

Personal Defense law proposal with commentary - http://www.virginialegaldefense.com/Stuff/Documents/castledoctrine.pdf

Click to expand...

59 pages 312 KB

Originally Posted by user I suggest that if your state's statute does not incorporate most of what I've put into this thing, particularly as to the defense of habitation rule, you need to modify your state's statute. And states that lack the English common law foundation for their legal systems should enact this proposal entirely. Whether or not it incorporates the pre-existing law of your state, I think it's what the law ought to be throughout the U.S.

I suppose I sound presumptuous in saying so, but let me point out that I didn't make this stuff up, all I did was to compile a thousand years of legal history into a seven-page proposal. The contents are the result of centuries of painful experience in actual litigation on a case-by-case basis and opinions by authoritative courts. See what you think; please download this file and read it locally - if you open it in your browser it may look fuzzy:

Personal Defense law proposal with commentary - http://www.virginialegaldefense.com/...ledoctrine.pdf

Click to expand...

From 96-0914:

Article XIV, section 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution
preserves the English common law in the condition in which it
existed at the time of the American Revolution until modified or
abrogated.

Click to expand...

You will find some useful information regarding Wisconsin and common English law as regards self defense in 96-914. The case Davegran refernces.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-supreme-court/1274229.html

There is a lot of noise going around that Wisconsin has a decent "castle doctrine" law but it is weak because it has no "stand your ground" provision. That claim is echoed from third party comments that are probably not aware of the facts.

Ever since the ratification of the Wisconsin constitution and it's preservation of English common law Wisconsin citizens have had the right to self protection, any time, any place. There has never been a mandate that a person attempt to retreat from danger before using deadly force. The opportunity to retreat may come into question in regards to reasonableness on a case by case basis but there is no judicial requirement to "run from danger". Never has been.

While we have never had the obligation to retreat the Wisconsin court system has always taken the use of deadly force seriously. Historically if a person claimed the privilege of self defense (ss939.48) and the actor reasonably believed he/she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, it was their responsibility to prove to the court and jury that the use of deadly force was justified. In other words "guilty until proven innocent". The recently adopted castle doctrine law (Assembly bill 69) reversed that obligation. It put the burden on the prosecution to prove that the actor was not reasonable in the presumption that deadly force was justified. That in itself was a huge change. In addition Ab69 was built on the foundation of English common law that a person's self, home and property were his "castle" and if threatened he/she can use any force necessary to defend it, including deadly force. Ab69 verified that presumption.

The requirement to prove deadly force was necessary in a public location still falls on the shoulders of the defendant, however, the right to personal safety is still valid. The one shortcoming of Ab69 is it did not address that specific issue, and maybe it shouldn't address it under the "castle" umbrella. If a person is out in public and must use deadly force in defense of self and others there should be a damn good reason.

Ab69 may not be perfect but it's pretty darn good.

I am not a lawyer and these are only my opinions.