Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: No charges for Franklin homeowner

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Mequon, WI
    Posts
    42

    No charges for Franklin homeowner

    Apologies if this was posted somewhere else and I missed it. I didn't hear about this until this morning, it isn't getting any media attention.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...160599405.html

    "A Franklin homeowner who fired a gun at a stranger pounding on his living room window acted reasonably and won't face any charges, according to the Milwaukee County district attorneys office.

    Franklin police had referred the matter to the district attorney as a possible case of second degree reckless endangering safety. But after meeting with the homeowner Tuesday, prosecutors decided not to issue any charges."

  2. #2
    McX
    Guest
    stand your ground, criminals beware.

  3. #3
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823
    Outstanding!!!!!
    Wisconsin Carry Member
    My Castle Doctrine Law

    Don't wish ill upon your enemy......plan it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    I would never fire a warning shot OVER the bad mans head. I would not even think of any "warning" shot at all.

    If I ever feel the NEED to take my firearm out of it's holster and fire a round off, I will only do my best to hit the threat. I will continue to fire until the threat is gone.

    I say this was a bad use of a firearm.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Mequon, WI
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronS View Post
    I would never fire a warning shot OVER the bad mans head. I would not even think of any "warning" shot at all.

    If I ever feel the NEED to take my firearm out of it's holster and fire a round off, I will only do my best to hit the threat. I will continue to fire until the threat is gone.

    I say this was a bad use of a firearm.
    I tend to agree... I mean, then you not only have to replace the window, but now the window is open and the bad guy could just use it to gain access to the house. If he's on drugs, which I believe he was in this case, he won't be stopped by cutting his arms up trying to climb in. The fact that he didn't run away, but still banged on the door really shows how ineffective that move was, in my opinion. At least it all worked out in the end.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    I think it would be difficult to show that a man outside the home and banging on the window or door, would be considered to be breaking in. That would leave out the new Wisconsin law sometimes called Castle Doctrine. Trying to force the door open probably would be sufficient for the Castle Doctrine to apply.

    To support conventional Wisconsin self-defense and use of deadly force, the requirements of this section of statute would need to be met:

    Here is the link to the statute. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/939/III/48

    939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
    939.48(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.
    ...
    Last edited by E6chevron; 07-02-2012 at 01:43 AM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    Warning shots?

    Never is very strong.

    Each defensive use is unique.

    Have they worked yes, have they failed yes.

    Would I fire one maybe.

    Are they generally a good idea most likely not.

    Are there situations were one could and be justifiable yes.

    Shooting some one in self defense is always a serious situation killing them more so.

    If one can save ones life with out shooting or killing ones attacker one will save ones self a lot of trouble.

    A lot of serious thought has to go into any selfdefense situation a warning shot the same.

    One is responsible for the bullet or bullets after they leave the barrel.

    I can't say I would never fire one.

    I can say I will use every legal means to defend myself and my love ones.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I agree with Firearms Instructor 100%. In a split second each incident must be judged on it's own merits. Let's hope none of us ever needs to make that judgement. If we do, let's hope it is the correct one.

  9. #9
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    When I discuss warning shots in my classes I give a list of the pros and cons and tell people to use their own judgement based on the circumstances. On the whole the cons generally outweigh the pros, but every situation is unique and one ought not try to impose imaginary rules of gun fighting on situations that requires a flexible response.

    I disagree that this was automatically a "bad" use of the firearm. To approach the subject as if the goal is to put holes in another human being is a bit blood thirsty. The goal is to remain out of jail, out of the hospital, and out of the morgue. If you accomplish that without causing damage or death to another person, so much the better.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  10. #10
    McX
    Guest
    depending upon the circumstances, i might opt to 'brandish', and see if they take the hint, if they dont, or they make any sudden moves................well, tsk-tsk.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011
    A: Warning shots & Skittles...

    Q: What two things you should NOT use at a gunfight




    Free George NOW!!!
    Last edited by Lurchiron; 07-02-2012 at 11:59 AM.
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  12. #12
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    When I discuss warning shots in my classes I give a list of the pros and cons and tell people to use their own judgement based on the circumstances. On the whole the cons generally outweigh the pros, but every situation is unique and one ought not try to impose imaginary rules of gun fighting on situations that requires a flexible response.

    I disagree that this was automatically a "bad" use of the firearm. To approach the subject as if the goal is to put holes in another human being is a bit blood thirsty. The goal is to remain out of jail, out of the hospital, and out of the morgue. If you accomplish that without causing damage or death to another person, so much the better.

    When the home owner was in true fear for his life, he made the correct call. He called 911, and positioned himself behind his door. If the bad man would have kicked in his door, that would have been the time to take a shot/shots. The home owner had the upper hand (per the report)the whole time.
    I do not know, I did not see it but I have to wonder, did the home owner just miss? Glass can deflect a round.
    Anyway, the "warning" shot did not work for him at all. It did nothing to stop the bad guy. It just pissed the BG off even more...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Green County, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    I agree with Firearms Instructor 100%. In a split second each incident must be judged on it's own merits. Let's hope none of us ever needs to make that judgement. If we do, let's hope it is the correct one.
    I also agree each is different.

    he should think about how he might handle it differently next time , and we should think about how we might best handle it, so that if we are confronted with a similar situation , we can respond in the way we have told ourselves is best and adjust as needed

    we all need to think about our own plans , and work with them as a base

    best to not berate someone for their Reasonable decision , they have to live with it , don't make that any harder.

  14. #14
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronS View Post
    When the home owner was in true fear for his life, he made the correct call. He called 911, and positioned himself behind his door. If the bad man would have kicked in his door, that would have been the time to take a shot/shots. The home owner had the upper hand (per the report)the whole time.
    I do not know, I did not see it but I have to wonder, did the home owner just miss? Glass can deflect a round.
    Anyway, the "warning" shot did not work for him at all. It did nothing to stop the bad guy. It just pissed the BG off even more...
    I don't know how you would define it, but to me a "bad" use of a firearm is one that worsens your situation. Use that improves your situation is a good use, and use that neither improves nor worsens the situation isn't bad either: it's neutral. I think if one sticks to your reasoning you'd have to say that the use of a warning shot in this case was neutral in the results. If you want to maintain that it was a "bad" use, you'd have to identify detrimental consequences of the use.

    We can't get inside the head of the perpetrator, so we really don't know what, if any, impression the warning shot made on him. We don't know that it pissed him off. All we know is he went from window to the door. Actually, that is perhaps a slight improvement in the situation from the standpoint of the homeowner, since doors are generally more resistant to forced entry than windows. In this instance the perpetrator was-- for whatever reason-- highly irrational, so we can't expect a rational reaction from him (e.g., acting out of a sense of self-preservation.) Warning shots are predicated on the assumption that the person being warned is acting with a certain amount of rationality and sense of self-preservation.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurchiron View Post
    A: Warning shots & Skittles...

    Q: What two things you should NOT use at a gunfight




    Free George NOW!!!



    What if it is not a gun fight ?

    Not all defensive uses involve gun attacks.

  16. #16
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    I don't know how you would define it, but to me a "bad" use of a firearm is one that worsens your situation. Use that improves your situation is a good use, and use that neither improves nor worsens the situation isn't bad either: it's neutral. I think if one sticks to your reasoning you'd have to say that the use of a warning shot in this case was neutral in the results. If you want to maintain that it was a "bad" use, you'd have to identify detrimental consequences of the use.

    We can't get inside the head of the perpetrator, so we really don't know what, if any, impression the warning shot made on him. We don't know that it pissed him off. All we know is he went from window to the door. Actually, that is perhaps a slight improvement in the situation from the standpoint of the homeowner, since doors are generally more resistant to forced entry than windows. In this instance the perpetrator was-- for whatever reason-- highly irrational, so we can't expect a rational reaction from him (e.g., acting out of a sense of self-preservation.) Warning shots are predicated on the assumption that the person being warned is acting with a certain amount of rationality and sense of self-preservation.
    I guess you do have a point about "bad" use of a gun.

    I can only add that it looks like no people were hurt, that is a good thing.

    I still think it was a bad choice though. Not one I would have made, might be a better way of putting it...

  17. #17
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Fair enough. And I agree, I probably wouldn't have fired a warning shot either, because as I stated before: on the whole the potential drawbacks outweigh the potential benefits. In fact I doubt I would have fired any sort of shot in that situation (one guy, outside, no appearance of being armed.) I would have viewed him as a genuine nuisance but only a potential threat. Remain alert and prepared to act, and let the police handle it.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by AaronS View Post
    I guess you do have a point about "bad" use of a gun.

    I can only add that it looks like no people were hurt, that is a good thing.

    I still think it was a bad choice though. Not one I would have made, might be a better way of putting it...


    Many years ago a young sheriffs deputy investagated a similar event. A young man high on drugs wanders off from his party on the way back he goes to the wrong house. thinking his freinds are screwing with him and have locked him out. he starts pounding on the door yelling making a fuss.

    He then breaks a window and stand there yelling.

    The deputy arrives and arrest the young man for criminal damage to property and DC. on the way to the jail the young man keeps repeating he shot at me he shot at me.

    After getting him booked and locked up the deputy goes back out to the house and talks with the home owner. And asked if he shot at the young man the home owner says naw I took my 44 mag a ruger black hawk and fire in the air near him.

    The muzzle blast alone along side of the young mans head was enought to stop his actions.

    Some how that fact was never mentioned in the reports and the young man was convicted of above crimes.

    He was so high he didn't remember what happen when he woke up in jail the next morning.

    Things were simpler in rural Wis 30 plus years ago.

  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Valuable information

    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Many years ago a young sheriffs deputy investagated a similar event. A young man high on drugs wanders off from his party on the way back he goes to the wrong house. thinking his freinds are screwing with him and have locked him out. he starts pounding on the door yelling making a fuss.

    He then breaks a window and stand there yelling.

    The deputy arrives and arrest the young man for criminal damage to property and DC. on the way to the jail the young man keeps repeating he shot at me he shot at me.

    After getting him booked and locked up the deputy goes back out to the house and talks with the home owner. And asked if he shot at the young man the home owner says naw I took my 44 mag a ruger black hawk and fire in the air near him.

    The muzzle blast alone along side of the young mans head was enought to stop his actions.

    Some how that fact was never mentioned in the reports and the young man was convicted of above crimes.

    He was so high he didn't remember what happen when he woke up in jail the next morning.

    Things were simpler in rural Wis 30 plus years ago.
    I started to say it is a sad situation where we have to be so circumspect about what we say. However, I am reading Robert Louis Stevenson's "Kidnapped" and its sequel "Catriona" to my invalid 97 year old mother, and they faced the same necessities back then.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Lurchiron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Shawano,WI.
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    What if it is not a gun fight ?

    Not all defensive uses involve gun attacks.

    I was speaking in the context of the Zimmerman case;
    if not a gun fight, then at least the same amount anger that the intruder uses...
    Bale da Hay

    "Have you Spanked a leftist today; it's the Right thing to do!!!"


    Within the gates before a man shall go,
    (Fully warily let him watch,)
    Full long let him look about him;
    For little he knows where a foe may lurk,
    And sit in the seats within.

    Havamal (Bellows translation)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387
    Sign just to the left of my door.

    NOTICE
    Due to the uncertain economy, limited finances and the uncertainty of a regular supply of ammunition
    please be advised that I will not fire a warning shot. Please enter if you must but do so at your own risk.
    This homeowner assumes no responsibility for any resultant injuries to your person.

    Thank you for visiting and if you have legitimate business here please ring the doorbell or knock.

    This is my front door:

    Last edited by Old Grump; 08-16-2012 at 10:05 PM.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  22. #22
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Since someone else already resurrected this...
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron
    I think it would be difficult to show that a man outside the home and banging on the window or door, would be considered to be breaking in. That would leave out the new Wisconsin law sometimes called Castle Doctrine.
    To support conventional Wisconsin self-defense and use of deadly force, the requirements of this section of statute would need to be met
    In addition to 939.48 (the self-defense statute, which includes Castle Doctrine),
    there's also 895.62 (use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business)

    They both have very similar wording:
    939.48 (1m) (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

    1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
    895.62
    (2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune from civil liability arising out of his or her use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and either of the following applies:

    (a) The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was on his or her property or present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
    IMO, someone banging on a window (not just knocking, but banging like he's trying to break it) is pretty clearly "in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering". It'd be clearer if the homeowner waited until the window was actually broken.

    If he's banging on a door hard enough, he's going to leave dents / scratches. But you can't dent a window. One second it's whole, the next it's shattered.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Since someone else already resurrected this...

    In addition to 939.48 (the self-defense statute, which includes Castle Doctrine),
    there's also 895.62 (use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business)

    They both have very similar wording:



    IMO, someone banging on a window (not just knocking, but banging like he's trying to break it) is pretty clearly "in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering". It'd be clearer if the homeowner waited until the window was actually broken.

    If he's banging on a door hard enough, he's going to leave dents / scratches. But you can't dent a window. One second it's whole, the next it's shattered.
    No he could just be breaking the window. To make a general statement that he is about to enter is wrong. Breaking the window can and could be a prelude to entry or it could be just vandalism. The size and position of the window would also be a factor.

    A person is still fairly safe inside his house even with the window broken unless the person is armed with a distance weapon like a firearm.

    A person standing out side of a house with a impact or edged weapon is most likely not much of a threat if there is any obstacle impeading is entry. Like if he has to climb up and through the window compared to breaking out a glass patio door and just walking in.

    Once he breaks the physical plane of entering then the situation changes.

    The offenders actions, words if any,conduct,looks all would come into play on making the decision to use force.

    The age,size,physical condition of the person in the house make a differants on what force they use or when they use it.

    A small frail elderly person is given a lot more latitude then some one who is younger,stronger and in good shape.

    The time of day, lighting all can come into play also.

    Some selfdefense situations are very clear cut others not so.

    If you are truely in fear of your life or great harm being done then appropriate action must be taken.

    Automobiles are another situation all togather.

  24. #24
    Regular Member NoTolerance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    A person standing out side of a house with a impact or edged weapon is most likely not much of a threat if there is any obstacle impeading is entry. Like if he has to climb up and through the window compared to breaking out a glass patio door and just walking in.
    You have obviously never seen a horror movie.

    If I see either of these guys standing outside of my house, I'm opening fire:


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    [QUOTE=NoTolerance;1810044]You have obviously never seen a horror movie.

    If I see either of these guys standing outside of my house, I'm opening fire:

    [/QUOT


    As I said

    The offenders actions, words if any,conduct,looks all would come into play on making the decision to use force.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •