Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Home Safe Home: Wisconsinís Castle Doctrine and Trespasser Liability Laws. June 2013

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    Home Safe Home: Wisconsinís Castle Doctrine and Trespasser Liability Laws. June 2013

    "This article discusses the background and components of the castle doctrine law [2011 Act 94]and the trespasser liability act [2011 Act 93] and practical considerations resulting from their enactment."
    [ ... ]
    [In conclusion]
    "In 1921, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. penned a more sophisticated version of Mike Tyson’s “plan until punched” principle, observing that “[d]etached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” Because the castle doctrine law does not inoculate against poor judgment or rash acts under pressure, one obviously hopes that its passage will not embolden gun owners to cavalierly, and with no fear of reprisal, “shoot first and ask questions later.” The goal, of course, is to shore up self-defense while not losing a single innocent life, such as, for example, trick-or-treaters, locked-out teenagers sneaking back in late at night, intoxicated trespassers wondering why they have a different couch, or any other individual who, without intent to forcibly enter and do harm, goes into the proverbial wrong place at the wrong time.
    [More follows]"

    http://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublicatio...rticleID=10836

    This Wisconsin Lawyer (Official Publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin, June 2013, Vol 86 No 5) article was attached as an annotation to Wisconsin Statutes Subsection 939.48 Self−defense and defense of others in July 2013. Much of the subsection and annotations deal with imperfect self-defense and might be re-read in the light of State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman.

    Eugene Volokh also blogs on 'Provocation and Self-Defense' http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/16/pro...-self-defense/ with comments.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-16-2013 at 06:31 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I disagree with Holmes ... one purpose of buying land is so that you should not have to deal with idiots who go on the land w/o permission ... I think it should be OK to shoot anyone not invited.

    Its not "self-defense" ... its "stay off my land" and not a defense at all ... just the way it should be.

    How much effort have I spent trying to get such legislation in my state? Not much .. but I do mention it when discussing other legislation. Legislators just look in horror at the mere mention of this but it was the way it was for centuries before whoosies started to appear.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I disagree with Holmes ... one purpose of buying land is so that you should not have to deal with idiots who go on the land w/o permission ... I think it should be OK to shoot anyone not invited. Its not "self-defense" ... its "stay off my land" and not a defense at all ... just the way it should be. How much effort have I spent trying to get such legislation in my state? Not much .. but I do mention it when discussing other legislation. Legislators just look in horror at the mere mention of this but it was the way it was for centuries before whoosies started to appear.
    Particularly in Wisconsin where trespass notice is presumed in Wisconsin Statutes Subsection 943.13 Trespass to land, (1m)

    Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:

    (a) Enters any enclosed, cultivated or undeveloped land of another, other than open land specified in par. (e) or (f), without the express or implied consent of the owner or occupant.

    (am) Enters any land of another that is occupied by a structure used for agricultural purposes without the express or implied consent of the owner or occupant.

    (b) Enters or remains on any land of another after having been notified by the owner or occupant not to enter or remain on the premises. This paragraph does not apply to a licensee or out−of−state licensee if the ownerís or occupantís intent is to prevent the licensee or out−of−state licensee from carrying a firearm on the ownerís or occupantís land.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

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