Castle Doctrine smear.

I don't know about the rest of you but I am getting tired of all the law enforcement and media hype concerning "castle doctrine'. Especially so when they try to imply that the new Wisconsin law was central to the Bo Morrison and Taryvon Martin cases. If they would take the time to read the Washington County District Attorneys report concerning the Morrison case they would conclude that the new Wisconsin castle doctrine law had no bearing on the DA's conclusion. As the DA stated; Kind was exhonerated under the old Wisconsin defense of self, others and property laws (ss939.48 and 939.49). I realize that those are idle words because some law enforcement, and for certain all anti-gun circles have a self serving agenda to march to, and will take any opportunity presented to foster that agenda.

Under the forementioned statutes Wisconsonites have always had the lawful privilege to use deadly force to protect their well being, the well being of others and the protection of property. Wisconsonites have always had a "stand your ground" privilege. There is no former or current statute requirement that a threatened Wisconsin citizen must purposedly attempt to retreat from danger before using deadly force.

For sure, the Wisconsin judicial system has set the bar very high when it concerns use of deadly force, but perhaps justifiably so. Under any circumstance the taking of another human beings life is a traumatic and life changing event. We must not be flippant about it.

The recently enacted Wisconsin "castile doctrine" law really didn't bring much new to the table. It clarify the "property" aspects and specifically included other buildings and vehicles as being included under it's umbrella. Other than that the only other significant impact is that it put the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove deadly force was not necessary. Under the old statute it was a burden on the defense to prove that deadly force was needed to quell a situation. Don't mis-understand me. That in itself is HUGE. It re-establishes an innocent until proven guitly position. That by itself makes all the effort to establish a castle doctrine law more than worthwhile.

Wisconsonites have had a long standing privilege to stand their ground and protect themselves, others and property from imminent danger and bodily harm. The new castle doctrine law fortifies that privilege but rest assured, under the complexion of the Wisconsin court judicial system, if you see someone ransacking your out-buildings or vehicle and you shoot them from hiding or from inside your home, you will have a hard road to travel. Under the current court philosophy there must certainly be some element of personal danger involved, in spite of the castle doctrine.

I corrected the local paper here in west bend since they said castle "gives people the right to shoot an intruder" when that's not what it does at all. They actually printed my editorial and corrected their statement, and in articles after they made sure they continued with the correct "definition" of what castle does. And yea I have to deal with these morons in west bend who can't accept personal responsibility and instead want to scapegoat castle. It's disgusting how these kids aren't learning a damn thing except to blame everyone else for your bad choices. They seriously talk as if Bo Morrison was ENTITLED to be in that guy's home.

Well...

Let's be careful...

Captain Nemo said:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am getting tired of all the law enforcement and media hype concerning "castle doctrine'. Especially so when they try to imply that the new Wisconsin law was central to the Bo Morrison and Taryvon Martin cases. If they would take the time to read the Washington County District Attorneys report concerning the Morrison case they would conclude that the new Wisconsin castle doctrine law had no bearing on the DA's conclusion. As the DA stated; Kind was exhonerated under the old Wisconsin defense of self, others and property laws (ss939.48 and 939.49). I realize that those are idle words because some law enforcement, and for certain all anti-gun circles have a self serving agenda to march to, and will take any opportunity presented to foster that agenda.

Under the forementioned statutes Wisconsonites have always had the lawful privilege to use deadly force to protect their well being, the well being of others and the protection of property. Wisconsonites have always had a "stand your ground" privilege. There is no former or current statute requirement that a threatened Wisconsin citizen must purposedly attempt to retreat from danger before using deadly force.

Click to expand...

You misstate the law, whether former or current. Protection of "well being" has never been justification for use of deadly force. Also there is no, repeat no, legal justification for using deadly force to protect property in Wisconsin.

For sure, the Wisconsin judicial system has set the bar very high when it concerns use of deadly force, but perhaps justifiably so. Under any circumstance the taking of another human beings life is a traumatic and life changing event. We must not be flippant about it.

Click to expand...

No, the statute sets the bar very high. Court decisions may trim around the edges but as you suggest, taking of a human life is frowned upon under the most justifiable of circumstances.

The recently enacted Wisconsin "castile doctrine" law really didn't bring much new to the table. It clarify the "property" aspects and specifically included other buildings and vehicles as being included under it's umbrella. Other than that the only other significant impact is that it put the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove deadly force was not necessary. Under the old statute it was a burden on the defense to prove that deadly force was needed to quell a situation. Don't mis-understand me. That in itself is HUGE. It re-establishes an innocent until proven guitly position. That by itself makes all the effort to establish a castle doctrine law more than worthwhile.

Click to expand...

If you shoot a person, you will have the burden of proving some justification or excuse (a "defense"). The state needs only to to prove that the person was shot and that you did it (other factors depending upon the charge do come in). In self-defense/castle/SYG cases a big difference now is that failure to flee/attempt to flee does not factor in the "reasonableness" calculation. CD is really a specific application of SYG, which is a specific category of self=defense. While there was no explicit duty to flee in the statute, the determination of reasonableness could take that into account with other factors.

Wisconsonites have had a long standing privilege to stand their ground and protect themselves, others and property from imminent danger and bodily harm. The new castle doctrine law fortifies that privilege but rest assured, under the complexion of the Wisconsin court judicial system, if you see someone ransacking your out-buildings or vehicle and you shoot them from hiding or from inside your home, you will have a hard road to travel. Under the current court philosophy there must certainly be some element of personal danger involved, in spite of the castle doctrine.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Please read the relevant statutes/cases for a more refined picture. The law is pretty clear and while you can't be sure of what will happen at trial, it is important not to get sloppy with descriptions/analysis of this subject. It just causes more confusion

One thing I was taught in the class and I agree is that if your property is being stolen in your home, garage, sheds, or your car is being stolen LET IT GO. They are replaceable by insurance. However when you are directly threatened attempt to diffuse the situation by walking away or by other means if possible. If the thief comes at you. Fitst attempt to stop verbally by saying "stop!" And the thief doesn't and attempts to attack you THEN....... WE have to be very careful when we pull the trigger because unlike video games where someone losses a portion of his 'life' or resurrects because he has 10 chances, in real life the person on the other side of the gun has no chance of comming back to life. And WE have to justify our actions. Kinda like the fire arm preemption law for towns. You can't discharge a gun unless justified.

Maybe I am all wrong about this.

2011 WISCONSIN ACT 94, called "Castle Doctrine"

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/94.pdf

Wisconsin's Washington County District Attorney's application of "Castle Doctrine", the first in Wisconsin.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/slingerreport.pdf

This is why I claim the presumption of innocense and not guilt makes the "castle doctrine" valuable.

"In addition, our office
recognizes that the presumption of reasonable use of force under the Castle Doctrine only applies
in a limited number of situations. Under the facts of this case, it appears that all of the
requirements have been met. Therefore, our office concludes that the presumption of the
reasonable use of force would apply in this case. If the homeowner had been charged in this case
and a trial ensued, the homeowner would have been entitled to a jury instruction on the
presumption. While the State could seek to overcome that presumption if sufficient facts existed,
in this case", our office concludes that there are no facts which could be utilized to overcome the
presumption. Since there are no facts in this case to overcome the presumption in this case, no
reasonable jury could convict the homeowner of any crime for his actions on March 3,2012".

"III. ANALYSIS OF SELF DEFENSE ISSUES
The ultimate question in this case is whether or not the homeowner acted lawfully in self defense
when he shot Mr. Morrison on March 3,2012.

The law of self defense has existed in Wisconsin
since Wisconsin became a State. Prior to the adoption of the Castle Doctrine, an individual
always had the right to use lethal force against another if the individual reasonably believed that
the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or a third
person. In fact, prior to the adoption of the Castle Doctrine, there have been numerous cases in
'Wisconsin where an individual shot and killed a home intruder, and the individual was NOT
charged with any crime because the individual was determined to have acted in lawful self
defense.
The adoption of the Castle Doctrine did not change the general law of self defense in Wisconsin.
It simply created a presumption which exists in certain limited situations".

A. Summary
In looking at this case, the Washington County District Attorney's Office first analyzed this case
by considering the general law of self defense - without applying the Castle Doctrine
presumption. We also analyzed this case by considering the Castle Doctrine. After carefully
rieviewing the facts and the law, no criminal charges will be filed against the homeowner.
First, the Washington County District Attorney's Office concludes that under the law of self
defense which exists in Wisconsin (independent of the Castle Doctrine) that there is a basis to
conclude that the homeowner reasonably believed that the force he utilized against Mr. Morrison
was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself; and he therefore acted
lawfully in self defense when he shot Mr. Morrison.

D. No Duty To Retreat
In self defense cases in Wisconsin there is no duty to retreat.18

18 Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instruction 810'

Law abider said:

One thing I was taught in the class and I agree is that if your property is being stolen in your home, garage, sheds, or your car is being stolen LET IT GO. They are replaceable by insurance.

Click to expand...

speak for yourself. i woke up and $30,000+ worth of tools. 10years of working my butt off as a mechanic were gone overnight. and the insurance.......dropped me and decided it was cheaper to lawyer up than to pay out. well guess what........i couldn't afford to lawyer up like they did. go search through the threads started by me. you'll see there were/are others who got screwed more by their insurance than the criminals.


so while this ******** law might not permit me to protect my valuables, i sure as hell won't go as far as saying "they are replaceable by insurance".

apjonas said:

Protection of "well being" has never been justification for use of deadly force.

Click to expand...

Bologna.
"Reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm."

And in some more enlightened states [UT], GBH includes things like injury or the potential for injury to organs...
Think of the methhead guy w/ a baseball bat whaling on the woman's car while she's stuck in traffic.
It's possible that flying glass would injure her eye.
She'd be legal shooting him, even though an eye injury isn't life-threatening.

Here's a link to the cite that MKEgal is referring to:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Click to expand...

This refers to protection of property and the allowable use of non-deadly force:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/49

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section "unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

Click to expand...

If you think you may need to protect your property, in a situation where you might NOT be threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself, you should consider having less deadly ways to subdue or stop or at least chase away the thieves. I would consider stun guns, pepper spray, other weapons that are used for crowd control usage in civil disturbances. The dangerous part, is that when these weapons are used, the bad guys could shift into life-threatening mode, and we would have to change our weapons and tactics just as quickly.

And then, there's always this way to handle it...

[video=youtube;C_uIIZdNVwk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_uIIZdNVwk[/video] :shocker:

Many people have personal pproperty insurance that isn't worth the paper it's written on. I found this out the hard way after paying premiums to an insurance company for 34 years.

There are two kinds of property insurance; cost insurance and replacement insurance. Replacemnet insurance will replace the item with a like or comparable item. Like item does not necessarily mean a new item. You had also better have proof of purchase and video or picture of the item. If you don't have proof and evidence you will be at the mercy of the insurance company lawyers. If, for example you have a 2005 automobile and it is stolen and ends up unrepairable don't expect to get a 2012 model. Most insurance companies will allow one year newer only.

Cost insurance is even worse. Cost insurance award is based on the useable life of the object. Many times if an item is more than 6 years old it is considered to have no value left. Certain things such a roofing, siding, major appliances have longer lives but most things like tools, tv's, guns, vehicles have a much shorter life. If you have a 48inch tv stolen and it is more than 6 years old you may find that it has no cost value left. Most insurance companies will pay you a token amount i.e. $100 to show they acted in good faith.

Unless you go to court and have a sympathetic jury the insurance company will usually win. We don't have insurance for protection. We have insurance out of fear. Fear of fire, fear of storms. fear of floods. fear of vehicle crashes. fear of health problems. fear of theft. fear of death. etc. All to the glee of the insurance companies.

I have had it with the media. I haven't seen much of a bigger, bogus smear than this!! http://www.weau.com/news/headlines/...ises_Castle_Doctrine_questions_148317705.html