palmprep
New member
Deleted until all this is over. I will update as I find more out.
Thank you for the Support and help.
Alexander
Thank you for the Support and help.
Alexander
Last edited:
-
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.
-
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.
Advice.
- Thread starter palmprep
- Start date
IANAL, but you have good grounds for self defense. They took you out of your car at gun point, which they have no reason to, and then have the audacity to put you in jail.
Two people you should contact, Nik Clark (Nik@WisconsinCarry.org), which he'll most likely forward to Joe Olson (jlolson@michaelbest.com).
Two people you should contact, Nik Clark (Nik@WisconsinCarry.org), which he'll most likely forward to Joe Olson (jlolson@michaelbest.com).
Have her spend the night at your place from now on.
I would have drawn too but it gets murky when you're in that situation. Hopefully he admitted mouthing off and coming at you, otherwise he could claim he thought you were a BG since it was his residence.
Talk to a lawyer.
I would have drawn too but it gets murky when you're in that situation. Hopefully he admitted mouthing off and coming at you, otherwise he could claim he thought you were a BG since it was his residence.
Talk to a lawyer.
Terry Lou
Regular Member
Interesting stuff Alexander. Keep in mind according to Wisconsin Department of Justice FAQ concerning firearms instructors, the trainer may possibly have legal liability or responsibility for the conduct of persons provided training.
There may be circumstances where such liability may exist according to the Wisconsin DOJ.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/all/themes/wi-doj-ag/dles/ccw/ccw-faq.pdf
There may be circumstances where such liability may exist according to the Wisconsin DOJ.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/all/themes/wi-doj-ag/dles/ccw/ccw-faq.pdf
Last edited:
MKEgal
Regular Member
Alex, don't listen to the troll, currently incarnated as "terry lou".
He's been banned probably 10 times now.
As for his claim that the instructor can be held liable, that's wrong.
The law says that an instructor cannot be held liable.
See 175.60(21)(d)
And your questions would be best answered by a lawyer. I strongly suggest you do as Protias suggests & contact both Nik Clark & Joe Olson.
From what you have described, I think your actions were reasonable. But I'm not on your jury.
Yes, the DA can delay charging you. AMHIK.
What the police were probably referring to was 939.24, titled criminal recklessness.
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/939/I/24
Or 941.20, endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/20
941.30 recklessly endangering safety
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/941/IV/30
But they're completely ignoring 939.48 which is the self-defense & castle doctrine statute
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48
Since he was coming at you, threatening to harm you, then left the apartment with the stated purpose of getting a shotgun & killing you, I can't see how you could be in any trouble in this.
In fact, the police & DA should have arrested him, instead of or at least in addition to you.
He's been banned probably 10 times now.
As for his claim that the instructor can be held liable, that's wrong.
The law says that an instructor cannot be held liable.
See 175.60(21)(d)
And your questions would be best answered by a lawyer. I strongly suggest you do as Protias suggests & contact both Nik Clark & Joe Olson.
From what you have described, I think your actions were reasonable. But I'm not on your jury.
Yes, the DA can delay charging you. AMHIK.
What the police were probably referring to was 939.24, titled criminal recklessness.
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/939/I/24
Or 941.20, endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/20
941.30 recklessly endangering safety
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/941/IV/30
But they're completely ignoring 939.48 which is the self-defense & castle doctrine statute
http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48
Since he was coming at you, threatening to harm you, then left the apartment with the stated purpose of getting a shotgun & killing you, I can't see how you could be in any trouble in this.
In fact, the police & DA should have arrested him, instead of or at least in addition to you.
Last edited:
Terry Lou
Regular Member
Alexander, my cite is legit. Certain people on this forum tend to conveniently leave out information that they deem unfavorable to them. Seek out an attorney of your choice.
Your own cite said what she said
Then it made up it's own law and said there may be circumstances outside the scope of the document.
Last edited:
Terry Lou
Regular Member
Your own cite said what she said
She conveniently left out the Wis DOJ information on possible liability issues for a firearms instructor on my cite. Maybe because she is a self proclaimed firearms instructor.
Your own cite said what she said
Then it made up it's own law and said there may be circumstances outside the scope of the document.
Well, a FAQ is not law...As for the troll, just report it.
Terry Lou
Regular Member
I stand by my cite, if you would bother to call the DOJ helpline as I did and confirmed my cite you possibly may learn something new.
Name calling and bullying are juvenile tactics generally used by the uninformed.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/conceal-carry/concealed-carry
Last edited:
Trip20
Regular Member
Deleted for benefit of your pending legal stuffs.
But I meant what I said!!!
JJC -- might want to scrap your quote of me as well...
But I meant what I said!!!
JJC -- might want to scrap your quote of me as well...
Last edited:
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Ditto, delete or edit to just keep us updated on what lawyer you have procured, court dates and the like until this is over. We know for a fact these forums are watched by a host of unusual suspects for various reasons.
And if the good people on this forum identify a troll by it's stench then it is a troll for sure.
MKEgal
Regular Member
I don't know why I bother...
Stop misleading & misinforming the newbies.
We've caught the DOJ in everything from misstatements of fact (just like you, troll) to deliberately misleading statements (just like you, troll) to outright lies (just like you, troll).
The DOJ FAQ won't stand up in court. The statutes will.
The law says that if an instructor provides training, s/he isn't liable for acts or omissions.
Stop misleading & misinforming the newbies.
Troll said:
Troll said:
The only bit in those 56 pages which says anything about instructors being penalized is 4 not-complete lines (bottom of p.47) and has to do with false swearing - saying that a student has had training when s/he hasn't.Troll said:
We've caught the DOJ in everything from misstatements of fact (just like you, troll) to deliberately misleading statements (just like you, troll) to outright lies (just like you, troll).
The DOJ FAQ won't stand up in court. The statutes will.
The law says that if an instructor provides training, s/he isn't liable for acts or omissions.
Besides: Paul already knows this, and Paul isn't an instructor.175.60(21)(d) said:
Terry Lou
Regular Member
Stop misleading & misinforming the newbies.
The only bit in those 56 pages which says anything about instructors being penalized is 4 not-complete lines (bottom of p.47) and has to do with false swearing - saying that a student has had training when s/he hasn't.
We've caught the DOJ in everything from misstatements of fact (just like you, troll) to deliberately misleading statements (just like you, troll) to outright lies (just like you, troll).
The DOJ FAQ won't stand up in court. The statutes will.
The law says that if an instructor provides training, s/he isn't liable for acts or omissions.
Besides: Paul already knows this, and Paul isn't an instructor.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/all/themes/wi-doj-ag/dles/ccw/ccw-faq.pdf Page 8 specifically states liability under certain circumstances for a firearms instructor.
What does this have to do with P. Fisher? I certainly do not have any idea. Mr. Fisher has never been an instructor as far as I know.
Your little temper tantrum is misleading and misinforming. Legal has counseled me to ask that you stop the libelous statements and accusations, first step.
Last edited:
Law abider
Regular Member
Even I the WI blog bozo knows that. I believe even homeowners who have invited a CCL holder and have an incident where the CCL holder goes beserk are immune from prosecution Further WI is also a state where if stopped does not have to declare his CCL as the DOJ says we should automatically. They believe we should automatically bec it is safer Right MKE???Stop misleading & misinforming the newbies.
The only bit in those 56 pages which says anything about instructors being penalized is 4 not-complete lines (bottom of p.47) and has to do with false swearing - saying that a student has had training when s/he hasn't.
We've caught the DOJ in everything from misstatements of fact (just like you, troll) to deliberately misleading statements (just like you, troll) to outright lies (just like you, troll).
The DOJ FAQ won't stand up in court. The statutes will.
The law says that if an instructor provides training, s/he isn't liable for acts or omissions.
Besides: Paul already knows this, and Paul isn't an instructor.
Last edited:
M
McX
Guest
interesting
Last edited:
MKEgal
Regular Member
Safer for whom?Law abider said:
Follow me here...
Officer stops someone for some reason which to him seems like RAS.
Officer asks if the person is armed.
1) person is a citizen, is not armed, says he's not armed
2) person is a citizen, is armed, says he's armed
3) person is a criminal, is not armed, says he's not armed
4) person is a criminal, is armed, says he's not armed
The only one of those which could harm the officer is #4. (Potentially #3, but less likely.)
I'm willing to bet that the only one which would raise the stress level is #2.
Only a citizen (one who hasn't had a bad experience with LEO) would admit to being armed.
How does that make a LEO safer?
I have heard the argument that it makes me safer because if they see it they won't go crazy on me, but that supposes that officers are idiots who can't read body language & would fire on someone with a holstered pistol. Even with what I've been through, I wouldn't make that generalization.
Law abider
Regular Member
Now according to US handgun law website, it states: Must Inform Officer by Law: NO. However as I scroll down, it states: 175.60 (2g) (c) Unless the licensee or out-of-state licensee is carrying a concealed weapon in a manner described under s. 941.23 (2) (e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her license document and photographic identification card and an out-of-state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her out-of-state license and photographic identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the REQUEST by the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority. I seem to understand that only when requested by officer to present the CCL or if he asks are you armed should you say yes as opposed to the DOJ FAQ which states that you should AUTOMATICALLY present the CCL even if not asked.
You are right on #2, but unlike you I have not experienced a whacked out leo encounter yet. I will not disclose unless asked. Besides I plan to have a good criminal lawyer who I can hire if I am arrested for nothing. any advice on a good lawyer??? Thanks for being patient with me. Must hit the sack
Last edited:
MKEgal
Regular Member
That section of 941.23 is the "dwelling, business, land you own, lease, or legally occupy" exception.
You are required to show your licenses IF the officer asks and IF the officer had RAS to stop you in the first place. Note the underlined part above.
If you're sitting at Starbuck's or Culver's with a bunch of your crazy gun-toting friends, & you're cc while they're OC, and a platoon of police cars descends upon you & the officers demand ID & cc licenses from you all, they don't have RAS because they don't have any reason to suspect you're cc, and OC doesn't need a license, esp. on private property.
Minus the cc, that's what got the Madistan PD into trouble at Culver's.
You can have a conversation about any topic with any person you choose. If you want to tell the Nice Officer that you're lawfully armed (just like he is) that's your choice.
If you don't want to have a conversation, you don't have to.
I have informed once voluntarily when I was OC in the car* (I'd called 911 on a dangerous driver), and since I was in a sensible part of the state absolutely nothing happened. The cop on my side of the car didn't even take my cc license from my hand.
The one on the passenger side was more or less leaning in the window & grinning at me. He was kinda cute. Wish I'd thought to get his name/phone.
*I was cc too, but they had no way to know that.
For criminal defense, I've worked with Rebecca Coffee. Craig Mastantuono is also a partner in the firm (it's named after him) & I know both are experienced with defending gun cases.
There are 2 other lawyers in the firm; I've not met them & don't know their strengths or experience.
They work all around the state, but are based in Milwaukee. This is the firm that won the pizza guy case.
http://www.milwaukeecriminallawyers.com/
414 276 8662
866 645 2558
For the civil rights issues, there are several people on the WI forum who will second my recommendation of John Monroe. He's based in GA but handles cases across the country.
Last edited: