imported post
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil and attempt to withdraw.
I do not believe you have a duty to withdraw or retreat, You are able to stand your ground in WI.
But it always looks better for your claim of self-defense if you attempt to withdraw IMO.
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 gives adequate 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.
Wisconsin State Statute 939.49 -- Defense of property and protection against retail theft:
(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 that person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of the defense of one's property. (2.) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property 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 is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person
reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's
employee or actor.
939.22(4) Definition of "Bodily Harm" : "Bodily Harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
939.22(14) Definition of "Great Bodily Harm": "Great Bodily Harm" means bodily
injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.
939.22(32) Definition of "Reasonably Believes"; "Reasonably believes" means that the actor believes that a certain fact situation exists and such believe under the circumstances is reasonable, even though it may be later found to be erroneous.
939.22(38) Definition of "Substantial Bodily Harm": "Substantial Bodily Harm" means bodily injury that causes a laceration that requires stitches; any fracture of a bone; a burn; a temporary loss of consciousness, sight, or hearing, a concussion, or loss or fracture of a tooth.
939.23(3) Definition of "Intentionally": "Intentionally" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or is aware that his or her conduct is practically certain to cause that result. (4.) "With intent to" or "with intent that" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or is aware that his or her conduct is practically certain to cause that result.
Edited to add;
I remember a few 2-3 decades back there was an incident in Racine or Kenosha where a small fender-bender angered one of the drivers so much he started swinging a friggin sword at people, he killed 2 people, injured others, and was still going aftermore of the people that weretrying to stop him,
A guy in traffic that witnessed this horrific sight removed his legally transported shotgun from the trunk, loaded it, and took care of the problem by shooting the killer swordsman. The good Samaritanwas arrested, charged, and found guilty of murder for defending others against the guy that killed others right on front of him. This was over 30 years ago, and I believe the self-defenselaws have changed his successful prosecution for murder by defending others.
the public saw him as a hero, the prosecutor saw him as a cold-blooded murderer, I also remember news reports about disparity of force, and how stupid it was to arrest the guy that stopped the attacking clown with the sword.
Does anyone else remember the news reports of that incident? Maybe it can be found on microfiche at a local library??