M
McX
Guest
imported post
-
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.
GlockMeisterG21
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
gollbladder13
Regular Member
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.
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.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
McX wrote:
McX wrote:
:what:
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Yes, it's the job of the police to pursue criminals. It's not in our job description.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
hugh jarmis
Centurion
imported post
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.
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.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
hugh jarmis wrote:
hugh jarmis wrote:
Mind the hidden knife.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Citizen wrote:
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.
Citizen wrote:
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.
jmlefler
Regular Member
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.
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.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
smithman
Regular Member
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
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
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
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.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
McX wrote:
McX wrote:
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.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
I would worry about the 'felony murder rule' attaching to the bystander now the interloping third party (intended victim, actor, interloper).
I would worry about the 'felony murder rule' attaching to the bystander now the interloping third party (intended victim, actor, interloper).
Nutczak
Regular Member
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-Wisconsin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d30-Wisconsin-self-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.
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-Wisconsin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d30-Wisconsin-self-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.
buzzsaw
Regular Member
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.
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.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
Nutczak wrote:
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.
Nutczak wrote:
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.
hugh jarmis
Centurion
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.
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.