Can These things Happen In Wisconsin Also?

Wisconsin has just gone through a major political turbulence. I remember watching angry public union protesters confronting lawmakers over the genesis of the collective bargaining bill. I was waiting for the first shot to be fired from the gallery overlooking the chambers and outside when the suppoters of the bill clashed with union thugs. Thankfully no shots were fired. I think a few counter protesters got banged up. Then the union crowd stalked the Governor's mansion and homes of lawmakers who crafted the collective bargaining bill.
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley was going to be a victim by a student volunteer who wanted to bring a gun to school where the governor was visiting and shoot her. Thankfully the plot was passed on to the police.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pol...to-smuggle-in-a-gun-and-kill-gov-nikki-haley/

In another incident an Autozone and a veteran employee saved his manager's life by running out the back to his truck to get his Glock 40 and confronting the robber who ran away. The employee was fired. What?? Wow!! Now I know that the law in Wisconsin allows us to keep our weapons in our vehicles in company parking lots. Does anyone know if this sort of thing has happened under the radar here? I work in Minneapolis and need to apply for the Utah lisense. I have taken the basic training. I suppose I need to look at MN laws for keeping gun in my vehicle while at work. I asked for our CEO to clearify a policy if the company had one, but that was last year and no answer yet

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/aut...d-for-using-his-gun-to-ward-off-armed-robber/

Sure, these things can happen in your state .. what makes you think similar stuff cannot happen where your are?

Law abider said:

In another incident an Autozone and a veteran employee saved his manager's life by running out the back to his truck to get his Glock 40 and confronting the robber who ran away. ..

Click to expand...

Some things to think about in WI... Let's say this happened in WI. The person could not claim self defense as they had already successfully used the Nike defense (ran away) and the felon was no longer a threat to them personally. Deadly force may not be used to defend property but you may draw your firearm and use it as a threat of force in a self defense situation if you:

reasonably believe that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what what you reasonably believe to be an unlawful interference.

Click to expand...

The act of drawing your weapon is not actually using deadly force. If there is a threat, you must draw soon enough or risk drawing too late all while balancing the desire not to escalate a confrontation.
Deadly force may be used to defend someone else's life if there is an imminent threat but you must use a lesser force if it is available to you. This is why discussion of Preclusion should be a part of any Concealed Carry training curriculum.

Preclusion
Necessary. You must reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary before you can use it. This means that even when a person has the intent, weapon, and delivery system to put you under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, you can only use deadly force if no other reasonable option is available. You may not have the time or ability to do anything else except shoot, and you are not expected to make unreasonable or ineffective attempts to stop the assault before shooting. Still, deadly force should only be used as a last resort.

Click to expand...

If the felon made no direct threats other than drawing the weapon and would have taken the money and left, you may not use deadly force once he/she is in the act of leaving.

I think I am being a little misunderstood. The recalls of Governor walker, state senators and assemblymen and women was in response to anger that collective bargaining was thrown out of the window and they had to pay a little from their pockets for their benefits and insurance. Walker won by more votes than when he was first elected. Almost all of the senarors and assembly persons recalled were elected back. Now the 3 houses are in Republican hands. I do not belong to either party. Dane county judges have blocked the law again and it is back in the courts. Are the government unions going to stoop so low so as to threaten the life of our governor if the collective bargaining bill will be reinstated by the courts? Can't they see that the taxpayer has spoken? Will they now threaten the juctices if they reinstate the law? I hope that Scott Walker also has a CCL for his protection. I realize he has secutity detail, but not the SS.

The second issue was that WI law allows us to CC in our vehicles that are parked where we work. Imagine if the same senario were to occur that I have described. Now if it has, was the employee terminated, if so he may have a case against the employer. Has such a thing happened under the radar in WI that has not been reported?

Law abider said:

The second issue was that WI law allows us to CC in our vehicles that are parked where we work. Imagine if the same senario were to occur that I have described. Now if it has, was the employee terminated, if so he may have a case against the employer. Has such a thing happened under the radar in WI that has not been reported?

Click to expand...

The WI Statute states that a Licensee may only have a firearm IN their vehicle while in the parking lot. This man removed the firearm from his vehicle and subsequently brought the firearm into the building. He is screwed and so would a WI resident who would choose to do the same. The company would argue that no lives were saved and lives were actually in more peril because the confrontation could have easily escalated because of the employee confronting the felon with a firearm.

Interceptor_Knight said:

The WI Statute states that a Licensee may only have a firearm IN their vehicle while in the parking lot. This man removed the firearm from his vehicle and subsequently brought the firearm into the building. He is screwed and so would a WI resident who would choose to do the same. The company would argue that no lives were saved and lives were actually in more peril because the confrontation could have easily escalated because of the employee confronting the felon with a firearm.

Click to expand...

So our work places are GFZs. Great. Now I suppose it is the same in Minnesota. My CEO has not stated a policy yet. In fact I remember his secetary saying no policy exists.

Interceptor_Knight said:

Some things to think about in WI... Let's say this happened in WI. The person could not claim self defense as they had already successfully used the Nike defense (ran away) and the felon was no longer a threat to them personally. Deadly force may not be used to defend property but you may draw your firearm and use it as a threat of force in a self defense situation if you:
The act of drawing your weapon is not actually using deadly force. If there is a threat, you must draw soon enough or risk drawing too late all while balancing the desire not to escalate a confrontation.
Deadly force may be used to defend someone else's life if there is an imminent threat but you must use a lesser force if it is available to you. This is why discussion of Preclusion should be a part of any Concealed Carry training curriculum.

If the felon made no direct threats other than drawing the weapon and would have taken the money and left, you may not use deadly force once he/she is in the act of leaving.

Click to expand...

This not a particularly accurate description of WI self-defense law. It doesn't matter that the "felon was no longer a threat to them personally" after the guy ran out the store. Under WI law he had every right to return to come to the defense of the manager. Secondly, nothing says you lose the privilege of self-defense if you successfully flee and then return. It might be true in a state where there is a duty to flee, but Wisconsin is a stand your ground state, and always has been. Under WI law the only complication might be that a jury would be instructed to consider whether the guy used a reasonable amount of force (State v Wenger) but that would only apply if there wasn't a 3rd party (the manager) who was being defended. Since the manager was there and still facing a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, the issue is moot.

It's not accurate to say you "must use a lesser force if it is available to you." No, you must use the least amount of force needed to terminate the threat. Perhaps that's what you meant to say.

You're right "the act of drawing your weapon is not using deadly force." But it IS threatening force and threatening force of any level is something that is covered under the self-defense statute. Drawing a gun is a threat of force, unless nobody knows you've done it.

Interceptor_Knight said:

The WI Statute states that a Licensee may only have a firearm IN their vehicle while in the parking lot. This man removed the firearm from his vehicle and subsequently brought the firearm into the building. He is screwed and so would a WI resident who would choose to do the same. The company would argue that no lives were saved and lives were actually in more peril because the confrontation could have easily escalated because of the employee confronting the felon with a firearm.

Click to expand...

No, the WI statute doesn't say a "licensee may only have a firearm in their vehicle in the parking lot." It says an employer cannot prohibit them from having a weapon in their personal vehicle, even if it is in the employer's parking lot. Nothing says an employer cannot allow the person to do more than just keep it in the car. You're looking at it as if the statute imposes a limitation on the licensee. It's not. It imposes a limitation on the employer, but the employer is free to subject the employee to fewer or no limitations.

Shotgun said:

No, the WI statute doesn't say a "licensee may only have a firearm in their vehicle in the parking lot." ...

Click to expand...

No kidding. We all are clear that this is an exception to the employers' ability to prohibit firearms. This is a protection of the ability for a licensee to carry which does not go beyond the interior of the vehicle. You may not even step outside of the vehicle to place it in the trunk while in the parking lot if this is prohibited by the employer.

Shotgun said:

Under WI law he had every right to return to come to the defense of the manager.

Click to expand...

No he did not. There is no exception to a private property owners' rights for self defense.

Shotgun said:

*Secondly, nothing says you lose the privilege of self-defense if you successfully flee and then return. *It might be true in a state where there is a duty to flee, but Wisconsin is a stand your ground state, and always has been. **

Click to expand...

Wisconsin is not and has not been a "stand your ground" State in any recent history.
Preclusion is part of case law. If you have the ability to retreat and retreating would stop the unlawful interference then deadly force is not necessary and the use of it is excessive use of force.

While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person.

Click to expand...

Shotgun said:

**Under WI law the only complication might be that a jury would be instructed to consider whether the guy used a reasonable amount of force (State v Wenger) but that would only apply if there wasn't a 3rd party (the manager) who was being defended. *Since the manager was there and still facing a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, the issue is moot. *

Click to expand...

It is not moot. The level of force will always be in question. You would be at the mercy of jury to determine if the threat was imminent. If a lesser force would have stopped the robbery, then deadly force would be considered excessive. If you use deadly force believing it is necessary and a jury rules that your belief was unreasonable, your charge could be reduced from 1st degree to 2nd degree intentional homicide but it is not a defense against a homicide charge altogether. There is no "pre-meditation" component. If you caused the death of someone while intending to kill them, you may be convicted of 1st degree intentional homicide.

Shotgun said:

*It's not accurate to say you "must use a lesser force if it is available to you." *No, you must use the least amount of force needed to terminate the threat. *Perhaps that's what you meant to say. *

Click to expand...

Your point of clarification is valid. If a lesser force is available to you AND would have stopped the unlawful interference (terminated the threat) then you must use a lesser force.

Your point of clarification is valid. If a lesser force is available to you AND would have stopped the unlawful interference (terminated the threat) then you must use a lesser force.[/QUOTE]

Right-o Interceptor. I fully agree.
Now to go back to my earlier point: If another employee or a person off the street comes into the company where I work and holds the gun at our CEO's head, WE by law ( I am sure MN has it too) are not allowed to get our firearm and defend him/her. Now our company as far as I know has no policy prohibiting firearms, what should the course of action be? Call the Cops?

Law abider said:

Now to go back to my earlier point: If another employee or a person off the street comes into the company where I work and holds the gun at our CEO's head, WE by law ( I am sure MN has it too) are not allowed to get our firearm and defend him/her.

Click to expand...

In WI, If someone has a gun at someone else's head and is threatening to shoot them, both the person who has the gun to their head may use deadly force as well as anyone else may use deadly force to defend this 3rd person. You are not prohibited from going to your car and getting your firearm to do so. That was not my earlier point. The earlier scenario was a simple armed robbery in which you are not prohibited from using the threat of deadly force including pointing a firearm at the person to stop the unlawful interference (even if you have to go to your car to get it). The immediate issue was the employer prohibiting the firearm from being in their building.

Law abider said:

Now our company as far as I know has no policy prohibiting firearms, what should the course of action be? Call the Cops?

Click to expand...

If someone has a gun at someone else's head, I would call the cops and stay clear. You may choose to retrieve your firearm, enter the building but avoid direct confrontation until absolutely necessary but you risk escalation which may not be necessary. The last thing you wish to do is to turn the threat of shooting someone into an active shooting situation. Incoming fire has the right of way. It could cost the person with the gun to their head their life, it could cost you your life and/or another innocent person in the building their life.

Example No Two

Now here is another incident, this time in Michigan. I hope the governor has good security detail and has a CCL. I hope the legislators are protected too and have their CCs. Now I don't think they or we can OC/CC in our respective capitol buildings. So Will a shot be fired there? Now our collective bargaining law is in the courts. If the justices allow it to stand or if they send it back to the legislators for whatever and they do to it whatever, say broaden it and it becomes law. We are going to have a problem. I am afraid that someone, just like the school volunteer will step up to the plate and do something with a gun. It behoves us to be armed and have a good CCL law and true constitutional carry, that does not restrict us from GFZs. I would hope that a union member who has a CCL would be a lawabiding citizen and stop another member from doing something stupid. I hope that SC allows OC and has good CC laws. Threats of the aforementioned kind should not happen. WE should all have patience when we have to deal with someone in power who we did not vote for who will lead a state on a path we do not agree. That should include the other side. I just wish we could go back to true constitutional carry in every state.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rig...own-mich-capitol-building-eight-arrests-made/

Auric said:

Under WI law he had every right to return to come to the defense of the manager.

Click to expand...

IK said:

No he did not. There is no exception to a private property owners' rights for self defense.

Click to expand...

The self-defense law says his actions in defending someone else with the threat of deadly force were lawful.

His employer's rule saying he's not allowed to act in self-defense is a separate issue. If it were in WI, he could be (was) fired, and he could be ticketed for trespassing. (Up to $1000 ticket, not a crime.)

And we're back to the discussion of whether the real rights of natural persons can/should be put aside for the invented 'rights' of a legal entity (corporation, company). I would concede that the interests of the owner of private property, owned by a real person (such as a home & its land), does/should rise above the natural rights of people who are not owners or residents of that property.

MKEgal said:

The self-defense law says his actions in defending someone else with the threat of deadly force were lawful.

His employer's rule saying he's not allowed to act in self-defense is a separate issue.

Click to expand...

The employer's rule and trespassing are what I was referring to. I stated in this thread that the threat of deadly force is lawful in "defending" a 3rd party.

Interceptor_Knight said:

Wisconsin is not and has not been a "stand your ground" State in any recent history.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that is simply not true. Wisconsin has been a "stand your ground" state for it's entire history. This was affirmed by the WI Supreme Court in Miller v. State, 139 Wis. 57, 119 N.W. 850 (1909). The legislature has never enacted laws that changed it, and the court has never reversed it's opinion. State v Wenger, which you allude to, does not impose a duty to retreat. Wenger correctly and clearly affirms that there is no duty to retreat. It only says that when there is an opportunity to retreat it may be used by a jury as part of its task of weighing whether the amount of force was reasonable. The castle doctrine law removes even this consideration in certain places.

Reasonableness of force is something that will be weighed with, or without and opportunity to retreat; but again in certain places and under certain circumstances the castle doctrine law removes "reasonableness of force" also from the equation.

Appeals courts do not overturn higher courts; it's the other way around!

Duty to retreat and reasonableness of force are not the same thing. The court saying it will weigh an opportunity to retreat against reasonable force is not the same thing as imposing a "duty to retreat."

Shotgun said:

Duty to retreat and reasonableness of force are not the same thing. The court saying it will weigh an opportunity to retreat against reasonable force is not the same thing as imposing a "duty to retreat."

Click to expand...

Which is not the same as a "stand your ground" law. We lack one.

Here is an example of what an actual "Stand Your Ground" law is. All we have is car and home castle doctrine. Stand your ground extends to anywhere you may lawfully be.

It shall be an act of lawful defense if a person, who is an occupant of a dwelling or
4 in any place that they have a right to be, used deadly force, or less than deadly force, if he or she
5 acted in the reasonable belief that an assailant was about to inflict great bodily injury or death
6 upon themselves or upon another person who also had a right to be in the location. There shall be
7 no duty on a person to retreat from any place that they have a right to be.

Click to expand...

Interceptor_Knight said:

Which is not the same as a "stand your ground" law. We lack one.

Here is an example of what an actual "Stand Your Ground" law is. All we have is car and home castle doctrine. Stand your ground extends to anywhere you may lawfully be.

Click to expand...

You fail to realize that "law" consists of more than just statutory law. Laws originate in other ways also. There is also something known as "case law." Hence, "stand your ground" is the law in Wisconsin with the same legal force as if the legislature enacted a "stand your ground" statute.

The opposite of "stand your ground" is a duty to retreat. The only duty to retreat in Wisconsin is when one has provoked an attack, then one must exhaust every reasonable means of escape in order to regain the privilege of self-defense.

Shotgun said:

The opposite of "stand your ground" is a duty to retreat. The only duty to retreat in Wisconsin is when one has provoked an attack, then one must exhaust every reasonable means of escape in order to regain the privilege of self-defense.

Click to expand...

Even if "legally" we do not have a "duty to retreat", don't we all have a moral, ethical or simple common sense duty to do so? So long as you can escape the threat with complete safety by leaving or avoiding the person who is a threat, is not this the "best" choice to make? Why would you escalate any situation to gun fire unless it is not absolutely necessary? If you have the opportunity to retreat, how can you justify the use of deadly force? How can you claim that a lesser force would not have ceased the threat? Why should not our first priority be to always exhaust every reasonable means of escape before resorting to the use of deadly force?
Finally, even if you believe that Miller vs State will support your use of deadly force, why would you not try to avoid being in that position if it is at all "reasonable" to do so?
If retreat is not a reasonable option, then clearly deadly force is necessary to stop the imminent threat. If the threat is truly imminent then there exists no ability/option to retreat and so it is not a consideration.

Can it happen yes.

I know state patrol officers who are getting a lot of over time guarding the governors home because of the threats to the governor and his family.