• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Victim Kills Would-Be Robber

pvtschultz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
299
Location
West Allis, WI, ,
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
I think WTMJ is the MSNBC of local news
It really is too bad that 620 WTMJ is affiliated with the broadcast version (Channel 4)bearing the same name. I can listen to Charlie Sykes all day, but their TV news is painful. It is a good thing that I can listen to the one without supporting the other (in terms of ratings anyways).
 

ROOK_WI

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
131
Location
Franklin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Man charged in death of 17-year-old robbery partner
By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel


Posted: Aug. 17, 2009

A 19-year-old Milwaukee man has been charged in the death of his 17-year-old partner in an armed robbery. Police say his partner was fatally shot by one of the pair's intended victims last week.

Damien A. Cole faces charges of felony murder, as well as being party to the crimes of armed robbery and attempted armed robbery. If convicted of felony murder, he faces up to 55 years in prison.

According to the criminal complaint, a 23-year-old man had met his girlfriend at a bus stop to walk her home after she finished her job early Thursday at a Water St. tavern. As they walked up onto her porch in the 2600 block of N. Palmer St. about 2:45 a.m., Cole and a man identified in the complaint as Kevin Ollie appeared and demanded money.

As the woman searched her purse in a panic, her boyfriend took a .25-caliber pistol from his back pocket and began shooting at the suspects, who then ran off. Ollie died a short distance away. Cole was stopped just moments later by police officers who were responding to the shooting and an earlier armed robbery that the complaint also attributes to Cole and Ollie.

In that crime, the pair robbed four men at 2:20 a.m. as they left the Stone Fly Brewing Co. at E. Center and N. Fratney streets, according to the complaint. They fled in Cole's father's white Dodge Intrepid, which was later found parked near the house where the fatal shooting occurred.

Police stopped Cole as he was walking near N. 2nd and W. Center streets because he matched the descriptions given by the earlier robbery victims. He was sweaty, dirty and had been shot in the foot. Last week, police said it was unclear whether Cole's injury was from the 23-year-old man or from Ollie. According to the complaint, Ollie carried the gun for the evening's robberies, and Cole was not armed.

There's a discrepancy over Ollie's name. Police said he goes by the names Kevin and Devin, and court records about Ollie contain both names. A person identifying herself as an aunt called a reporter and said Devin Ollie was involved in the robbery. Kevin Ollie is his brother, and Devin might have used his brother's name in encounters with law enforcement, the aunt said.

The 23-year-old man who shot at Cole and Ollie acted lawfully in self-defense and the defense of his girlfriend and won't face any criminal charge in the matter, according to Chief Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern.

Sharif Durhams of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report.
------------------------------------------------
link to above story

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/53510667.html




Good for the shooter!!!

Better for the thug to be charged in his buddy's death :celebrate



 

Birdhunter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
31
Location
, ,
imported post

So if you keep your pistol concealed in your back pocket and shoot someone in self defense, you won't be charged with concealed carry?
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

:celebrateI knew something was hinky about this incident!
As the woman searched her purse in a panic, her boyfriend took a .25-caliber pistol from his back pocket and began shooting at the suspects, who then ran off.
Although his right to self-defense outweighed the states prohibition on concealed-carry. I hope he is not charged with illegal concealment like Vegas was.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Nutczak wrote:
:celebrateI knew something was hinky about this incident!
As the woman searched her purse in a panic, her boyfriend took a .25-caliber pistol from his back pocket and began shooting at the suspects, who then ran off.
Although his right to self-defense outweighed the states prohibition on concealed-carry. I hope he is not charged with illegal concealment like Vegas was.

This particular incident occurred on private property, so CC wouldn't have been illegal there.

And it would depend on the size of the pistol and the shooters back pocket, as to whether it was concealed or not. Since he was able to get it out quickly, I suspect that at least the gun handle was exposed.
 

springfield 1911

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
484
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Nutczak wrote:
Although his right to self-defense outweighed the states prohibition on concealed-carry. I hope he is not charged with illegal concealment like Vegas was.

If i'm not mistaken we have 2 new S.S.C. justices since the Vegas case was decided. Should a simular case come before the court, slight chancethe prohibition on c.c. could be found to be unconstitutional.
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

This particular incident occurred on private property, so CC wouldn't have been illegal there.
Maybe so, but unless the cops are to beleive he keeps it in his mailbox when off his own property, he was carrying concealed in the public.


And it would depend on the size of the pistol and the shooters back pocket, as to whether it was concealed or not. Since he was able to get it out quickly, I suspect that at least the gun handle was exposed.
Virginia tuck is the closest to this situation. WI considers that concealed.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The typical.25 pistol is nolarger then a typical billfold, They are great for shots less than 10' away, but that is about it.the one he used obviouslyserved it's purpose though, it took 2 scumbags off the street and kept him out of harms way. But he was still carrying it concealed

I highly doubt he was carrying a MAC-10 in .25 Cal. So it is most likely a little pocket gun he used. I am actually quite surprised he was able to kill with it and not needing to press it against the assailants chest to do it.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:
This particular incident occurred on private property, so CC wouldn't have been illegal there.
Maybe so, but unless the cops are to beleive he keeps it in his mailbox when off his own property, he was carrying concealed in the public.


And it would depend on the size of the pistol and the shooters back pocket, as to whether it was concealed or not. Since he was able to get it out quickly, I suspect that at least the gun handle was exposed.
Virginia tuck is the closest to this situation. WI considers that concealed.
It does not matter what the cops "Believe" they have to have proof and unless this guy and his girl friend give up their 5th Amendment rights the Police will not get proof.

The incident did take place on private property so he was within the law. The police did not see him CCW off of private property so they can not charge him on assumption. I hope they keep quiet and ask for an attorney.

Now this would be a guy to help out with legal fees. This could very well lead to a SCOTUS decision. "IF" he takes it that far. I know I would.

Of course he hasn't been charged yet and I am sure the DA knows that a decision on this case could lead to the laws changing in Wisconsin.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

springfield 1911 wrote:
Nutczak wrote:
Although his right to self-defense outweighed the states prohibition on concealed-carry. I hope he is not charged with illegal concealment like Vegas was.

If i'm not mistaken we have 2 new S.S.C. justices since the Vegas case was decided. Should a simular case come before the court, slight chancethe prohibition on c.c. could be found to be unconstitutional.



The case was heard in circuit court and never made it to the SSC. The circuit court used the test developed by the SSC in Hamdan to dismiss the case.


J.Gleason wrote:

It does not matter what the cops "Believe" they have to have proof and unless this guy and his girl friend give up their 5th Amendment rights the Police will not get proof.


Exactly, not only do they have to prove he had it then, they have to prove he was aware of it. I know the last part sounds hiliarious but it has gotten people off of a CCW charge before. I don't have the case right now to cite to, but it was a guy that had a pistol under his car seat.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Hillmann wrote:
Dosen't it have to be YOUR property, or rented by you,or some other way under your control to be able to conceal a gun?


There is no statute law saying that you can CCW on your own property, only case law. See Hamdan in link below.

State v. Hamdan - 2003 WSC (§ 941.23 is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefitin the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual’s need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional, as applied. The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises)


There is no statute law saying that you can conceal off of your property but there is case law saying youcan raise a constitutional defense ifyou meet certain ambiguousconditions.

Basically, you must have no reasonable alternative to exercise your right and your need to exercise the right must substantially outweigh the states need to police it. See the below post and read Hamdan and Vegas.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/27414.html

Remember, this is an "as applied" constitutional test. So, you are subject to the good will of the DA, and if they decide to prosecute you must prove that the CCW prohibition is unconstiutional as applied to you.

IANAL, but this is how I understand it.
 

springfield 1911

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
484
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

The case was heard in circuit court and never made it to the SSC. The circuit court used the test developed by the SSC in Hamdan to dismiss the case.
Was just thinking this would be a good case to make it to the supreme court, I know it would never get that far. I see no charges being filed by the D.A. to much at stake for the anti-gunners.
 
Top