Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Castle Doctrine reintroduced!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Castle Doctrine legislation has been reintroduced by State Senator Jim Holperin (D-12) in the Senate and in the House by State Representatives Chris Danou (D-91) and Ann Hraychuck (D-28). Castle Doctrine legislation would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes. This legislation clearly states that there is no "duty to retreat" from an attacker, enabling law-abiding citizens to stand their ground to protect themselves and their family. It also protects individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attacker's family when force is used. The bill, which is awaiting a bill number, is currently being circulated for cosponsors. Please contact your legislators and respectfully ask them to support and cosponsor this important legislation.

    From a N.R.A. E-mail. Lets make it work this time.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Link URL to wi.gov source please. All I got searching wi.gov was errors.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Sorry Doug no state link info. I got the info from a NRA E-mail and the link for the story is below sorry I cannot give you more to go on.

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4503



    One thing I just noticed is that the story is dated Feb 27th so it may be old news by now. But I am sure you will tellus that soon enough.





  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    No. I'll wait and read the thing itself, ding an sich, and make my own judgment. Thanks. I'll probably be able to find it when the wi.gov site is up during the week.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glendale, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    ding an sich?

    What dose that mean?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The thing itself. Kant used it synonymously with noumenon (contrast phenomenon).

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Funny thing about the retreat clause, In the current self-defense laws we do not have a duty to retreat before defending yourself, but if your in your home instead of outside they expected you to try and retreat first?

    The reason I know this is becuase I had a recent incidentwhere I was forced to defend myself against an attacker. I was traveling in a vehicle so I did not have my firearm with me, even if I did, I would not have had time to uncase and load it.

    becuase I did not intimatelyknow the laws pertaining to self-defense at that time, I refused to speak to the officers that arrived for this(15 minutes after I placed the call). Although I did retreat a few steps on several occasions until it was very clear to me that this person was not going to stop their attack. I also made sure to not advance on that person but instead stood my ground and made defensive strikes only until they stopped, and then struck again when they charged me on multiple occasions. The last time, they didn't get up, and I again retreated .



  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Will you specify, please, Wisconsin statutes regarding self-defense, assuming that's what you're speaking of in "the laws pertaining to self-defense".

    The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil and attempt to withdraw.

  9. #9
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    The thing itself. Kant used it synonymously with noumenon (contrast phenomenon).
    Yes, but according to Kant, one could never have knowledge of noumena.
    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
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Will you specify, please, Wisconsin statutes regarding self-defense, assuming that's what you're speaking of in "the laws pertaining to self-defense".

    The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil and attempt to withdraw.
    Wisconsin statutes contain no duty to retreat, but the courts have ruled that if there is an opportunity to retreat that is not taken, it can be weighed as to the reasonableness of the force used to defend one's self.
    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"

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Will you specify, please, Wisconsin statutes regarding self-defense, assuming that's what you're speaking of in "the laws pertaining to self-defense".

    The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil and attempt to withdraw.
    Wisconsin statutes contain no duty to retreat, but the courts have ruled that if there is an opportunity to retreat that is not taken, it can be weighed as to the reasonableness of the force used to defend one's self.
    Thank you for the 'specification'.

    If you have read and understood Kant then you may also know that denial of a universally quantified attribute requires examination of the entire universe of discourse. Hence my polite(?) request for the specification-citation of the exception that would falsify (a la Popper).

    To say truthfully that there is no black swan (duty to retreat) in the universe of swans (Wi statutes) requires examination of every swan (statute) to find that black one.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Wisconsin State Statute 939.48 -- Self Defense and the Defense of Others:
    (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 (unlawful) 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 to herself.
    (2.) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (a.) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self defense against such attack, except when the attack, which ensues, is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force
    intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant, unless the person reasonably believes that he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailants. (b.) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and givesadequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. (c.) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
    (4.) A person is privileged to defend a third person from real or apparent unlawful
    interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person in privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the third person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the third person.


    Wisconsin State Statute 939.45 -- Privilege: The fact that the actor's conduct is privileged, although otherwise criminal, is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of privilege can be claimed under any of the following circumstances:
    (2.) When the actor's conduct is in defense of persons or property under any of the circumstances
    described in 939.48 (Self-Defense and the Defense of others) or 939.49 ((Defense of Property and protection against retail theft): or
    (3.) When the actor's conduct is in good faith and is an apparently authorized and reasonable fulfillment of any duties of a public office; or
    (4.) When the actor's conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of a lawful arrest.


    Interpretation: You have the right to defend yourself from an "interference" with your person, subject to certain conditions. An interference is generally an unwanted touch of some sort. The less the interference, the less right you have to fend it off. The interference must be actual or about to happen. Your evaluation of the situation and what to do about it must be reasonable. Of course you may have little time to weigh what's reasonable. Do what you need to do, but be mindful that someday 12 strangers (a jury) may be reviewing your conduct in hindsight, and they may disapprove of your choices.

    Duty to retreat;
    There is no duty to retreat, in and of itself. But if you had the opportunity to safely retreat, and recognized it, that becomes a factor in whether your response to an interference will be considered reasonable.


    So the way ths reads to me; if someone brings a knife to you, you better defend yourself with a knife of equal size or less becuase a gun will most likely be considered excessive force and your going to be sitting at the wrong table in court.

    I would rather be judged by a group of 12 then caried by a group of 6.

    Does anyone remember an incident 20+ years ago in Racine or Kenosha where a crazed guy with a large sword was attacking people on a road, and a guy witnessed this on his way back from duck hunting, stopped, got his gun out of his trunk, shot the guyin defense of others and they arrested and succesfully prosecuted the guy that shot the nutjob. That is what I am afraid will happen If I ever need to unholster my weapon in WI

  13. #13
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Shotgun wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Will you specify, please, Wisconsin statutes regarding self-defense, assuming that's what you're speaking of in "the laws pertaining to self-defense".

    The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil and attempt to withdraw.
    Wisconsin statutes contain no duty to retreat, but the courts have ruled that if there is an opportunity to retreat that is not taken, it can be weighed as to the reasonableness of the force used to defend one's self.
    Thank you for the 'specification'.

    If you have read and understood Kant then you may also know that denial of a universally quantified attribute requires examination of the entire universe of discourse. Hence my polite(?) request for the specification-citation of the exception that would falsify (a la Popper).

    To say truthfully that there is no black swan (duty to retreat) in the universe of swans (Wi statutes) requires examination of every swan (statute) to find that black one.
    I've read Kant. I majored in philosophy as an undergrad and in graduate school at UW-Madison. To say truthfully that there is no black swan doesn't require examination of anything. It merely requires that I make a statement that happens to be true. To have KOWLEDGE of the truthfulness may require examination of many or all examples, but not necessarily. For example I do not need to examine every circle in the universe to KNOW that every point on the circle is exactly the same distance to the point in it's center. In fact I do not need to emperically examine any circle to know the truth of that statement, it is a priori knowledge. But I do enjoy philosophical conversations with you Doug! (Even if nobody else is interested!)

    More to the issue, the courts have ruled repeatedly that there is no statutory duty to retreat in Wisconsin, and presumably they're the ones more inclined to examine all the swans. I'm willing to defer to their expertise at swan examination.


    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"

  14. #14
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    So the way ths reads to me; if someone brings a knife to you, you better defend yourself with a knife of equal size or less becuase a gun will most likely be considered excessive force and your going to be sitting at the wrong table in court.
    I strongly disagree. A knife is considered deadly force and the use of deadly force is justified in defense. The police have exactly the same right to self-defense as anyone else, and they often shoot suspects who are armed "only" with a knife. I'm not aware of the case you reference from 20 years ago, but it is possible that either that guy had a very lousy lawyer--- or, the swordsman was too far off to be an imminent threat. A guy with a sword at 50 feet is not a imminent threat. A guy with a sword at 5 feet is a threat to even the most skilled combat shooter --- it's a judgment call. Either way there is nothing in the law that says you have to fight "fairly" with equal or lesser weaponry. Combat fighting is not a sport.
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Wisconsin State Statute 939.48 -- Self Defense and the Defense of Others:
    Thanks

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    This could turn out to be a very interesting subject in court. The State statutes specifically refer to defense when referring to use of deadly force to protect oneself or others. Article I section 25 possibly threw a wrinkle into that philosophy by including security as a reason to keep and bear arms.In State v Nollie, Nollie used the argument of privilege of defense and it was rejected by the SSC on the grounds that Nollie was not in imminent danger. (Note:Nollie was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon because he put a firearm in his waistband while changing a tire in a high crime area. His fears were fueled by four young men standing nearby issuing profanities). The SSC ruled that the men did not present an imminent threat so the defense of privilege was not allowed. In Hamdan the SSC rejected Hamdan's defense of privilege on the same logic. The Court stated that in Hamdan's situation anargument of security was more appropriate. The Court in fact defined both terms, terms that have equal weight in Article I section 25. The Court defined defense as a condition where a person's well being isin imminent danger. The Court defined security as a condition where a person's well being is in perceived danger. When both cases came to court the word security was not frequently used in connection with personal protection. Article I section 25 changed thatin Wisconsin. It would have been very interesting to see what the outcome of both cases would have been if both defendants claimed a privilege of security under the umbrella of Article I section 25. In fact there are no Wisconsin statutes that even address the conduct that would applywhen using deadly force to provide for the security of oneself or others. By definition security applies not only to property and business but it also applies to security of one's personal well being and safety and/or the well being and safety of others.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court was perceptive when it said that Article I section 25 would challenge state firearm statutes for some time to come.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    So the way ths reads to me; if someone brings a knife to you, you better defend yourself with a knife of equal size or less becuase a gun will most likely be considered excessive force and your going to be sitting at the wrong table in court.
    This is flat out incorrect. If someone threatens your life with their fists and then begins to beat and mug you and you have no retreat option, that you can only use your fists when you may have a gun available? LEOs don't use a knife on a criminal when they are being attacked with a knife, they use a service pistol.

    One of the problems with that story you mention....the good Samaritan is that HE HIMSELF may not have been in grave danger of bodily harm AND given he went back to the crime he probably had the opportunity to retreat. Those who carry are not supposed to be police officers...if I'm carrying and notice somebody who maybe being robbed I have no responsibility to assist the "robee" for many reasons, including that I don't know their relationship.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    It is late now, But there is also a state statuteconcerning defense of others. Iwill post it in the daylight hours

    You have the same rights defending yourself, as you do defending someone elses well-being. Maybe it is a new statute born from this old case involving the sword swinging maniac.

    Ok, lets say your getting attacked, you use a flashlight to defend yourself and hurt the guy pretty bad, What do you expect to happen? I expected the police to ask me if I wanted to press charges agaibnst my attacker, but instead they are looking for reasons to arrest and charge me with Ag-bat! I acted within the law, but here again we have officers that do not know the law, arrest everyone involved, and let the courts figure it out! How fair is that to the guy just trying to defend himself? It Isn't!



  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    9/11/2001 changed a lot of things in our lives. It embarassed the U.S. Goverment because it proved how vulnerable we are in spite of being the most powerful country in the world. Too many autocratic agencies were hastily concoccted to solve the problem. The result was a agency of poorly trained individuals put together under the management of politicians that had no idea how to confront a terroristicarmy. The newfound authorities put many of those persons in an euphoria of power. One that made the demonstration of that powermore important than the exercise of their duties. That, and the fact that they were in a fishbowl for the world to see, replaced their patriotism,love of countryand in too many caseshuman respect. They let visibility and the fear of being caught screwing up dictate the performance of their duties and their human engineering. The Department of Homeland Security has demonstrated in miniature exactly the tryanny the framers of the constitution feared.

    My opinion

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Wisconsin State Statute 939.48 -- Self Defense and the Defense of
    (4.) A person is privileged to defend a third person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person in privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the third person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the third person.



    I already had the statute about defense of a third party in a previous post, but I overlooked it earlier.so i quoted and bolded it, I can also add definitions if anyone feels those are required.



    Does anyone know how to find the date that the statute was made into law? I am still guessing this third person clause has been added since the incident I described about the guy with the sword.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Does anyone know how to find the date that the statute was made into law? I am still guessing this third person clause has been added since the incident I described about the guy with the sword.
    In the history and annotations copied and reformatted for readability below. I think the "History:" is translated as 1987 Act 399; 1993 Act 486; 2005 Act 253

    939.48 Self−defense and defense of others.
    [ ...]
    History: 1987 a. 399; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 253.

    Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (3) is amended by conforming references to the
    statute titles as affected by this bill. [Bill 191−S]

    When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not
    claim self−defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).

    Sub. (2) (b) is inapplicable to a defendant if the nature of the initial provocation is
    a gun−in−hand confrontation of an intended victim by a self−identified robber. Under
    these circumstances the intended victim is justified in the use of force in the exercise
    of the right of self−defense. Ruff v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 713, 223 N.W.2d 446 (1974).

    Whether a defendant’s belief was reasonable under subs. (1) and (4) depends, in
    part, upon the parties’ personal characteristics and histories and whether events were continuous. State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806, 434 N.W.2d 380 (1989).

    Evidence of prior specific instances of violence that were known to the accused
    may be presented to support a defense of self−defense. The evidence is not limited
    to the accused’s own testimony, but the evidence may not be extended to the point that it is being offered to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his or her violent tendencies. State v. Daniels, 160 Wis. 2d 85, 465 N.W.2d 633 (1991).

    Imperfect self−defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable
    belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).

    The reasonableness of a person’s belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position
    of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant.

    A defendant’s psycho−social history showing past violence toward the defendant
    is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in
    spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant. State
    v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).

    The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self−defense.
    It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577
    N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96−0914.

    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. A jury instruction to that
    effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98−1739.

    When a defendant fails to establish a factual basis to raise self−defense, prior specific acts of violence by the victim have no probative value. The presentation of subjective testimony by an accused, going to a belief that taking steps in self−defense was necessary, is not sufficient for the admission of self−defense evidence. State v. Head, 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9, 99−3071.

    Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s.
    941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self−
    defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00−0064.

    A defendant asserting perfect self−defense against a charge of 1st−degree murder
    must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st−degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing.
    State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99−3071.

    A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably
    believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd−person or one’s self from imminent
    death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other.
    Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).

    Self−defense—prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.

    State v. Camacho: The Judicial Creation of an Objective Element to Wisconsin’s
    Law of Imperfect Self−defense Homicide. Leiser. 1995 WLR 742.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Danbury, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    This is very exciting news. I am currently being prosecuted for 2nd degree intentional homicide in Burnett County because we have no Castle Doctrine. Please contact your state senator and assemblyman to cosign for this fundamental protection. What is happening to me could happen to you, and you wont enjoy it!

  23. #23
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    ffhuggie wrote:
    This is very exciting news. I am currently being prosecuted for 2nd degree intentional homicide in Burnett County because we have no Castle Doctrine. Please contact your state senator and assemblyman to cosign for this fundamental protection. What is happening to me could happen to you, and you wont enjoy it!
    Been reading about your case. I don't believe the district attorney there has a full understanding of the self defense law based on some of the statements attributed to him in the press. He makes it sound a little more black and white than I believe it is. Good luck.
    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"

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Will someone provide some details? "Inquiring minds want to know."

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Danbury, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    My case is currently in a motion to be dismissed so I can't go into too much detail. But one thing I've learned is the prosecution has an advantage in a case like mine because they can make public only the information they want to make public. The incident occurred in my home and there were multiple home invaders, not just one. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Law enforcement also didn't preserve invaluable exculpatory evidence and that is the reason our motion was made. But for the time being, lets do what we can to get a castle doctrine passed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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