Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Support for Wisconsin Castle Doctrine Legislation

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Contact you state legislators and request that they support this legislation. There is no rational reason why an individual defending their home and family should face financial ruin by defendingthemselves against a criminal charge or civil liability.

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us//2009/data/SB129hst.html
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Flipper wrote:
    Contact you state legislators and request that they support this legislation. There is no rational reason why an individual defending their home and family should face financial ruin by defendingthemselves against a criminal charge or civil liability.

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us//2009/data/SB129hst.html
    Amen,

    I contacted my reps a few weeks ago about this. It's pretty good but it could be better.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    You find out who to contact here:

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx

    My representative is a co-sponser. My elitist state senator refuses to support the bill because it could result in a perpetuator getting killed without warning.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Winneconne, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    Flipper wrote:
    My representative is a co-sponser. My elitist state senator refuses to support the bill because it could result in a perpetrator getting killed without warning.

    So your elitist senator cares more about the perpetrator than the people in the home?

    Outrageous...

    That guy needs to be de-throned immediately. More concern for a known criminal than an innocent family. Let's all cater to the bad guys!

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Sgt_Habz wrote:

    Outrageous...

    That guy needs to be de-throned immediately. More concern for a known criminal than an innocent family. Let's all cater to the bad guys!
    This bill is co-sponsored by both dems & repubs. Failure to support this bill will be a big issueif an opponent wants it to be.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    :celebrate

    WOO HOO

    I had written and was just about to send a not so nice email to my rep(whom I know personally) for not cosponsoring and took 1 last look at cosponsors. He was on there, whew, glad I peeked again.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran logan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greeley, CO
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    Woodchuck wrote:
    :celebrate

    WOO HOO

    I had written and was just about to send a not so nice email to my rep(whom I know personally) for not cosponsoring and took 1 last look at cosponsors. He was on there, whew, glad I peeked again.
    I put your e-mail as my Facebook status! lol. E-mailed a couple senators earlier. Retreating from my own home...that's bs.
    Logan - Laugh lots, Love Often, and Defend the Irreplaceable
    Walther PPS 9mm, Ruger LCP
    CC permits: MN, FL, NH, PA and CO

    Member of:
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc., Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and National Rifle Association

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Great article on Wisconsin Self Defense Laws

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Coast, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    logan wrote:
    Woodchuck wrote:
    :celebrate

    WOO HOO

    I had written and was just about to send a not so nice email to my rep(whom I know personally) for not cosponsoring and took 1 last look at cosponsors. He was on there, whew, glad I peeked again.
    I put your e-mail as my Facebook status! lol. E-mailed a couple senators earlier. Retreating from my own home...that's bs.
    The option of retreat must be exhausted, thats what's BS. Why should I have to retreat from a threat that's INSIDE my home?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Waukesha, ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Your house is your last retreat. If it is in your house, you have exhausted your retreats. That makes sense to me.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    the only retreat someone coming into my house will get is me getting behind cover and taking aim.

    castle doctrine or not..

    the only thing it will do is lessen the amount of BS i have to wade through afterwords.
    i cant believe that there actually needs to be a law on it.. but then again common sense never was the law of the land..

  12. #12
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't rush to support this bill. Currently, you have no statutory duty to retreat from ANYWHERE you are legally standing. The "castle doctrine" limits you to not retreating within your residence.
    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"

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    But it will lessen the risk of being charged by the DA and would not change the "no duty to retreat" elsewhere (if there a "no duty to retreat" doctrine). I think that killing someone when you could have avoided it by removing yourself from the threat situation would result in a lot of explaining to do, to say nothing of legal bills for criminal and civil actions. Would your insurance cover your legal costs?
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    From annotation Wisc. Statute 939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
    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

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Burglar posing as officer shoots, injures homeowners in tiny Wilson, Wis.
    St. Croix sheriff says Wilson, Wis., residence was targeted


    Residents in a small Wisconsin town were shocked Sunday to hear that a man posing as a sheriff's deputy invaded a home in their neighborhood, demanded money and drugs, shot a couple, then fled.
    Police had not arrested the suspect as of Sunday night. During a search of the home, police found a few ounces of marijuana. They do not think the incident was random.
    "This is a very small community, and that's one of the reasons that we moved here," said Heather Smith, who lives across the street from where the home invasion occurred in Wilson, Wis. "It was scary."
    It happened at 11 p.m. Saturday in the town of 176 residents, 30 miles east of Hudson, Wis.
    Tom and Maria Erickson were in bed at their home in the 600 block of Main Street when Maria Erickson awoke to "four or five large bangs," said Chief Deputy John Shilts of the St. Croix County Sheriff's Department. The couple's 3-year-old son also was home.
    The Ericksons went to investigate and found the suspect outside their bedroom door.
    They described him as a white male, about 5 feet 10 inches tall and between 150 and 180 pounds, Shilts said.
    He was wearing camouflage pants, a dark shirt with "SHERIFF" written across it, a baseball cap and a bandana or mask covering his face, Shilts said. The man was armed with a long gun.
    The invader told the couple he was with the sheriff's department.
    He forced the couple to the floor and demanded money and drugs, Shilts said.
    "This caused the Ericksons to be suspicious, so they asked the individual to produce a badge or identification," Shilts said. "Obviously this suspect was not able to produce those."
    The suspect pretended to talk into a radio on his shoulder and told the Ericksons backup was on the way, Shilts said.
    That's when a struggle ensued between Tom Erickson and the intruder over the gun. During the fight, the gun went off, shooting Maria Erickson in her leg, Shilts said. She fled to a bathroom.
    Her husband continued to fight the suspect for the gun.
    Several more shots were fired — one hitting Tom Erickson in his abdomen, Shilts said.
    The suspect fled the house, taking nothing. Maria Erickson called 911.
    Paramedics took the couple to Regions Hospital in St. Paul. Maria Erickson was treated and released. Tom Erickson remained at the hospital Sunday in good condition. Their son was unharmed during the attack.
    The family declined interviews with the media, a hospital spokeswoman said.
    Investigators believe the home was targeted for the invasion, Shilts said.
    Deputies said the amount of marijuana found was "not consistent with personal use," Shilts said. However, Shilts said he did not know of previous police calls to the home, and police and neighbors said it was not known as a drug house.
    Shilts said investigators have no doubt that the drugs belonged to the couple, based on where authorities found it.
    Les Peterson, a neighbor, grew up with the couple in the nearby town of Spring Valley, Wis. Peterson, 35, described the couple as "pretty laid-back" and always playing sports with their children outside.
    Peterson said he did not associate the couple as drug users.
    The event "freaked him out," said Peterson, who got out his gun after it happened.
    A couple of houses down, Smith was watching a movie with her husband when the attack took place.
    "We heard popping noises, but we thought it was coming from the kitchen," said Smith, 49.
    After deputies came to her door with questions, she realized it was gunshots she heard.
    Anyone with information about the incident can call the St. Croix County Sheriff's Department between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday at 715-381-4320, or the dispatch line after hours at 715-386-4701.
    Maricella Miranda can be reached at 651-228-5421.

  16. #16
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Flipper wrote:
    But it will lessen the risk of being charged by the DA and would not change the "no duty to retreat" elsewhere (if there a "no duty to retreat" doctrine). I think that killing someone when you could have avoided it by removing yourself from the threat situation would result in a lot of explaining to do, to say nothing of legal bills for criminal and civil actions. Would your insurance cover your legal costs?
    The bill states that if you are in your residence, you have no duty to retreat. The possible implication is that if you are outside your residence, there may be a duty to retreat. Or at least that is how a prosecutor may wish to argue. As it stands right now, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere you are at where it is legal for you to be. I am fine with that. Taking another person's life or limb is quite a serious matter, and I do not think one ought be more inclined to do it simply because one is inside one's residence.

    I would always avoid shooting someone, if possible, regardless of where I am at the time. I would particularly avoid shooting someone inside my residence, if possible, because I would worry more about whether the insurance covers the clean-up cost, not the legal cost. If you have seen the aftermath of shootings you know it can be exceedingly messy. More importantly, from a tactical standpoint, it is more prudent to withdraw to safety when you can, than it is to willingly engage a threatening person in combat.

    Outside of a military setting, the primary purpose of carrying a gun is to help YOU to survive. If you have a gun your options are multiplied. You can do more with your legs and a gun than you can do with just your legs. Consequently, your chances of survival are multiplied. If you're particularly skilled with a gun, your chances of survival are somewhat further enhanced. Most people come nowhere close to achieving and maintaining a level of gun fighting skill that will increase their odds beyond the formula: [I have a] gun + dumb luck.

    Your gun is not primarily for the purpose of destroying another human being. If you must destroy another person in order for you, or other innocent person to survive-- so be it, that is something that may be unavoidable in some circumstances. But attempt destroy the other person only when all other options are unavailable. But when avoidable, it ought to be avoided. Only a fool would choose to "duke it out" with a threat when there is an option is to move to safety. This bill simply protects people who wish to choose the foolish option when inside their house. If you withdraw and live, you have won- - legally and physically. If you stay and fight, this bill may help you win the legal battle, but the results of the physical battle are pending.

    If your goal is to survive, you will always retreat when possible.
    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"

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    The bill states that if you are in your residence, you have no duty to retreat.
    Already settled law. See State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999),98−1739

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

    Post imported post

    SB129 is a start, but I think it needs to be alot more clear and concise.:?

    if it had specifically stated;
    Anyperson who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is to be presumed to be there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

    SB129 justseems like too much fluff without any substance, It leaves too much up to individual interpretation, Just like JB's O-C memo.

    Here is the law as written in Florida, lets get our politicians to copy exactly what Florida has done. I feel that this may be a great step forward forhaving firearmcarry rightsin vehicles, motorized or otherwise.


    FL statute 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

    (1)A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
    (a)The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (b)The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
    (2)The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
    (a)The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
    (b)The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
    (c)The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
    (d)The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
    (3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    (4)A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
    (5)As used in this section, the term:
    (a)"Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
    (b)"Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
    (c)"Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

    Although FL does not recognize open-carry as a legal right, they do allow anybody that is legal to own a firearm,the ability to keep a loaded firearm in their vehicle for any legal purpose. The only requirement is that it be enclosed or holstered so it is not readily accessible for immediate use.
    A center console or glove-compartment is acceptable. I kept mine in the center console until I got my concealed carry permit. Then it stayed on me holstered. It only got unholstered once, and that was the result of an attempted carjacking.
    the look onthat scumbagsface was priceless when he gotmy stainless-steel .357 pointed at him and the hammer pulled back!



    Edited for spelling

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Makes you wonder why Wisconsin has to keep reinventing the wheel rather than adopt legislation that has proven successful in other states. Most likely part of it is full employment for attorneys in the Legislative Reference Bureau. These attorneys actually draft all new legislation. Thereforea "Madison bias"gets into anyintroduced legislation.
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Posting Permissions

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