Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: this just occurred moments ago

  1. #1
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    Well at this point, and in my opinion, you did everything correctly. It sounds like there really wasn't much you could do to begin with. You recognized a problem and immediately prepared yourself in case the situation spilled over to you. I can't speak for everyone on here but I will not get involved in any situation like that unless I am sure that someone's life is in danger. For example, if I'm in a store while it's being robbed the safest thing I can do is let the guy have the money and leave. I would not act unless I was sure he was going to start shooting people. Property is replaceable, life is not.
    The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair. Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    I have to agree with GM for the most part. The only thing I would have done is be ready in case he came after me personally, and do my best to be a good witness. Sounds like you did just that. Any more could have gotten hairy (crossfire hitting innocents, school zone, all what you mentioned earlier). Sad situation for the guy across the street, but it could have been much worse.

    Thank you for sharing your experience. Hopefully this guy gets caught.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    SNIP A store across the street was robbed, at gunpoint, one of the criminals ran out of the store, with the owner in hot persuit.
    :what:
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    McX wrote:
    SNIP A store across the street was robbed, at gunpoint, one of the criminals ran out of the store, with the owner in hot persuit.
    :what:
    Yes, it's the job of the police to pursue criminals. It's not in our job description.
    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"

  6. #6
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  7. #7
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    I can't speak for everyone on here but I will not get involved in any situation like that unless I am sure that someone's life is in danger. For example, if I'm in a store while it's being robbed the safest thing I can do is let the guy have the money and leave.
    See I totally agree I won't and wouldn't draw my gun unless a life was in danger, but I WOULD take action if I was in a place being robbed. I'm DONE letting criminals think we will sit by and let them "have their way just as long as they don't kill anyone". Hell no.

    I won't draw my gun if no life is in danger, but bet your ass I'll try to tackle or detain the person so long as doing so wouldn't (realistically) endanger lives.

    No more free pass for criminals. Threaten a life, your life is in danger. Try to make a quick swipe or petty theft... I won't stand by.



  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:
    SNIP I won't draw my gun if no life is in danger, but bet your ass I'll try to tackle or detain the person so long as doing so wouldn't (realistically) endanger lives.
    Mind the hidden knife.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

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

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Mind the hidden knife.
    Yes, once you draw an armed assailant's attention to you, for what ever purpose or reason, then you might as well prepare to defend yourself. Because you have arguably violated the first element of common-law self-defense, "be innocent of instigation."

    The elements of common-law self-defense are four; Be innocent of instigation. Be in reasonable fear of bodily harm. Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil. Attempt to withdraw.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    I rec'd training during an exercise involving a Columbine-like scenario.

    We were taught 3 options, all workable and I believe defendable in court.

    1. Evacuate (attempt to withdraw).

    2. Barricade in place

    3. "Let's roll" (go on the offensive if the event escalates).

    It looks like you chose #2 in this case and IMHO you chose wisely. If the streets become filled with law enforcement, you could easily be mistaken for the BG, particularly if you're carrying.

    If I were to barricade in place, I'm drawing my weapon and holding it at the low to medium ready position. At least that's what I've played thru in my mind.

    Carry on.

  11. #11
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    mcx, I think you did exactly the right thing.

    The attempt to retreat and reluctant participant that Doug mentions are the keys here. Say, for instance, if someone is robbing a store and you are able to get out of the situation by leaving through a door. You have a gun in your car. Do you go back in to confront the criminal, or do you wait near your car with your gun holstered should the criminal attempt to rob you? In Wisconsin, the answer in my opinion is to wait since by going back in or advancing on the store, you are violating the retreat and reluctant participant by putting yourself back into the situation. In other states the answer will be different.

    edit: spelling

  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:
    Citizen wrote:
    Mind the hidden knife.
    Yes, once you draw an armed assailant's attention to you, for what ever purpose or reason, then you might as well prepare to defend yourself. Because you have arguably violated the first element of common-law self-defense, "be innocent of instigation."

    The elements of common-law self-defense are four; Be innocent of instigation. Be in reasonable fear of bodily harm. Use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil. Attempt to withdraw.
    I think the armed assailant is the "instigator" in this case. One can hardly commit armed robbery and then claim no responsibility for the consequences. Well, one CAN make that claim, but see how far it goes.
    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

    McX wrote:
    Thank you all so much for your input. I've played out a number of "headlines" in my head,as well: Open Carrier enters school zone, and stops criminal, hailed as hero. Open carrier enters school zone, stops criminal, and goes to jail himself. Open carrier accidentally shot by police during attemtpt to stop criminal. None of them realy "worked" for me. My weapon remained holstered during the entire event. Had the criminal moved onto my property I would have drawn, and intercepted I guess saying: Halt, get down on the ground! Surrender, and submit to questioning by civil authorities................pretty lame huh? No "everybody freeze Miami Vice" number came to mind. In any event, it was an extremely stressful situation, and at 50 years old, I wasn't about to run down, and tackle anyone, and I did indeed consider the possibility of me receiving a "shank" to the ribs if I got too close in proximity to the criminal. Either way, it's over..............thank God.
    I don't think you mentioned if the victim was armed during his pursuit. Either way it's not advisable for anyone but a uniformed officer to run down the streets with a drawn weapon. If, for any reason, I was inclined to make a pursuit, I would have concealed first. Or at the least kept the gun holstered. But everything depends on the circumstances. School zone laws be damned if you have a legitimate reason to enter them armed. If I saw a serious enough offense occurring on the front steps of a school I wouldn't hesitate intervene with my gun.
    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

    I would worry about the 'felony murder rule' attaching to the bystander now the interloping third party (intended victim, actor, interloper).

    There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder. Jurisdictions that hold to the agency theory admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Jurisdictions that use the proximate cause theory include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it meets one of several proximate cause tests to determine if the chain of events between the felony and the death was short enough to have legally caused the death.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    The self-defense (and defense of others) laws in WI almost seems to give the criminal the upper-hand in many situations.
    If I am beingattacked without the use of a deadly weapon, my actions to defend myself against my attacker are very limited.
    Although WI does notspecifically mention "it is yourDuty to retreat", it seems to be looked upon favorably by the courts if you do try and retreat and avoid any and all confrontations even if you are actively being beaten on.
    Lets say the guy threatens you with pepper spray, and you shoot this person because you honestly feared for your life. It is your burden to prove you actually did fear for your life instead of the burden being on the prosecutor to prove otherwise! We are actually expected to prove our innocence the twisted way our courts are right now.

    As long as we have Doyle in office, we all know he will fight against any and all ofour 2A rights every chance he has, How about us running an end game by trying to pave the way to get some statutes in place that give us the same rights as a Floridian has to defending themselves, and others?
    This way when Doyle gets ousted. and we have a governor that will bring us in line with the 48 other states that allow concealed carry and their citizens to use any force needed to defend themselves against criminals with solid castle doctrines, we will only be that much farther ahead of the game

    Lets tryget our legislators to introduce a boiler-plate "Castle Doctrine" that is valid in homes, apt's, vehicles and places of business. Lets us legally fend off criminals with any force necessary without needing to worry about being charged with aggravated battery, manslaughter and or murder for protecting ourselves and loved ones.

    We need to make it very clear to the criminals that we will not tolerate their behavior anymore and it will cost them their life if they perpetrate and aggressive act against us. Gives us the legal ability to help out a person in need without fearing or our own arrest and incarceration. With this law, "McX" may have been able to stop this robber so he could be put on trial or his actions without fearing the police arresting and charging him for trying to help his fellow man.

    There is a good examiner article here http://www.examiner.com/x-5103-Wisco...f-defense-lawsThat discusses the goofy statutes in WI when it comes to self-defense.

    Why are we forced to tolerate criminal behavior and sit idly by with our hands tied?

    mcX mentions Douglas Ave, In what city?? Milwaukee? Like between teutonia and 76th St.? Rough area! my bro has a business there. With section 8 apartments right behind him, and 8 foot talltriple row barbed-wire fencing on top of the chain-link that slows them down a little.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sneads Ferry, ,
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    I join the group offering congrats on your choice to stand your ground and not pursue. The recent news of a New York police officer in civilian clothes with a drawn weapon pursueing a thief and being shot and killed by fellow officers is enough to discourage me from even considering such action.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Lets say the guy threatens you with pepper spray, and you shoot this person because you honestly feared for your life. It is your burden to prove you actually did fear for your life instead of the burden being on the prosecutor to prove otherwise! We are actually expected to prove our innocence the twisted way our courts are right now.
    When I went through the Academy I was instructed that if I was carrying a fire arm and some one used an incapacitating agent on me in an effort to take my fire arm and possibly attempt to kill me with it, that I would be justified in using my fire arm against them due to imminent threat.

    Statute 939.48 also covers imminent threat:

    939.48 Self−defense and 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 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 herself.

    I haven't posted the whole chapter but it is here should anyone need it: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0939.pdf

    A brief excerpt from the Wisconsin Fire Arms Manual:

    The definition of subject behavior that justifies an officer’s use of deadly force is
    any behavior that an officer reasonably believes
    has caused or imminently threatens to cause death or
    great bodily harm to you or another person or persons.
    Note that this definition is not quite the same as the definition of deadly force: it
    includes behavior likely to cause great bodily harm3 as well as death. As you
    learned in DAAT, an officer may respond to a given level of force with a higher
    one, in order to control the situation. Note also that deadly force may be justified
    if the officer reasonably believes the criterion has been met—whether or not that
    belief is in fact correct. For example, if a subject drew a pistol and aimed it at an
    officer, the officer might reasonably believe that the subject was about to shoot,
    even if it turned out later that the pistol was unloaded.
    Imminence
    The word imminent means “about to happen.” An imminent threat is an
    immediate threat. For a subject’s threat to be considered imminent, it must meet
    three criteria:
    • Intent
    • Weapon
    • Delivery system
    Intent. The subject must indicate his or her intent to cause great bodily harm or
    death to you or someone else. Some of the ways that intent might be shown
    would include deliberately pointing a weapon at you, stating an intention to kill
    you, rushing at you with a knife, and so on.

    Weapon. The subject must have a conventional or unconventional weapon
    capable of inflicting great bodily harm or death. Guns and knives are not the only
    weapons—many other common objects can be used as weapons. Beer bottles,
    baseball bats, pieces of broken glass, large rocks or bricks—all of these and
    others can be weapons. Some individuals are even able to inflict death or serious
    injury with their hands or feet alone, and some apparently innocuous items, such
    as a pen or pencil, can be used as a weapon.

    Delivery System. The subject must have a means of using the weapon to inflict
    harm. A person armed with a baseball bat, having stated his or her intention to
    kill you, does not meet the criteria for imminent threat if he or she is standing 50
    yards away from you on the other side of a fence. There is no delivery system.

    I know this excerpt applies to Police Officers, but reading the Chapter 939 of the statutes appears to read closely to the same IMHO, I am not giving any legal advice here.

    I wouldn't place my self in any such position intentionally unless my or someone elses life was at stake.

  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    A personal friend of mine who owns a number of businesses and rental properties around milwaukee was snowblowing one of them last winter. He finished and put the snow blower back in his truck outside the store and then went inside to speak to his employees for less than 3 minutes. Someone came into the store and told him his snowblower had just been stolen out of his truck. He went outside and dialed the police on his cell phone while he FOLLOWED THE TRACKS IN THE SNOW until they ended in a garage. As he stood outside the garage, the "fine young citizen" who stole his snowblower exited the garage and saw him and TOOK OFF RUNNING. My friend followed on foot WITH THE POLICE STILL ON THE PHONE. He described to me the length of the run (my friend is an athlete) which pretty much went from about 27th street to damn near tosa and back. There were several times he got close enough to the thug to tackle him, but he just followed him. The thug was obviously (like they all are) in horrible shape. There were times the thug stopped to walk and my friend just walked behind him. Tell him "you should just stop now, I'm not letting you out of my sight" Of course ALL THIS TIME the police are ZERO help. My friend was on the phone with the police the entire time gave them every street and direction they were going down.

    Finally the thug goes in an apartment locks himself inside. The police then show up and go in and drag him out. Went back to the place the snowblower was taken and find out there were about 50 snowblowers and other stolen machines in the basement and garage.

    I applaud my friend for doing what he did. I will never say "you should have just called police" dozens of people got their stuff back because of what my friend did.

    If I see a thug snatch a purse from a lady outside target and run off, you bet your @ss I'm running after him. If criminals know the agreed upon protocol is to NOT act unless your life is in danger, that will just embolden them. If purse snatching becomes easy because criminals know PEOPLE WON'T DO ANYTHING we'll just have more purse snatching. Hell no.

    I would never ask someone else to do what they felt uncomfortable doing. I think we should ALL make our own decisions about what is right for us. But none-the-less I have no problem sharing my thoughts on what I would do. I won't say I'd act in every situation. Common sense dictates that you evaluate each situation along with the probability of success in accomplishing your goals as well as the risk of possible negative outcomes.

    If I'm standing in a bank and a thug grabs a woman by the neck puts a gun to her head and says "everyone freeze" intelligent thought doesn't dictate that charging the guy OR (even though a life is being threatened) pulling a sidearm and taking action is the wise choice.

    But my intention when I'm out and about is that I will not stand around and appease criminals based on the old-fashioned "just give them what they want" method and everything will be ok.

    What would I have done in your situation McX... I wasn't there, I can't say for certain.

    But I will say that my thought process does not revolve soley around self-preservation and the textbook "safe" definition.

    I evaluate each threat with the intetion of whenever possible, doing everything I can to make "bad-guys pay" and "good guys win". That doesn't mean doing something stupid, but it does mean taking the attitude that when I CAN act, I will act.

    We've been hitting our knees for criminals for FAR too long in this country. We should have learned by now that only leads to more problems.



Posting Permissions

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