• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

No charges for Franklin homeowner

Old Grump

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
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:

scaled.php
 
Last edited:
MKEgal

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Since someone else already resurrected this...
E6chevron said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
F

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,431
Location
northern wis
MKEgal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NoTolerance

NoTolerance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
292
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Firearms Iinstuctor said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have obviously never seen a horror movie.

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

08-michael-myers-jason-voorhees.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top