Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Not all robberies are done with guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Apparently the shell on OneidaSt. in Ashwaubenonwas robbed at knife point, I wonder would this still have gone down if a customer hadbeen OC'n when this happend?

    Snippet from news source:

    "The robbery occurred at 12:51 a.m. when a black man with a dark-colored cloth covering his face entered the store, displayed a small carpenter’s knife to the clerk and demanded money.



    He is described as 6-foot-2 to 6-foot-4, weighing about 255 pounds, wearing a black sweatshirt with white T-shirt, black pants,white tennis shoes and black knit hat"...

    http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...mp;located=rss

    On a related note, would it have been lawful for one of us OC'rs to draw and prone him untill the police arrived?
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    In general, no.

    Without detailed and advised knowledge of the self-defense law of a jurisdiction I would look to common-law.

    The common law elements of self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from harm and attempt to withdraw.



  3. #3
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    I think it would be lawful. Advisable? Perhaps not. A person who just committed or was in the act of committing a felony and who is in your presence, armed, certainly presents a threat and you may fear for you life. The self-defense law is the same for police and non-police alike. If the police were there, they certainly would draw on him. They'd also have the option of using a taser, something unavailable to the rest of us.

    If he ran, you couldn't shoot him. Probably shouldn't even try to give chase. Police give chase because it's part of their job.





    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"

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    On a related note, would it have been lawful for one of us ... to draw and prone him untill the police arrived?
    Probably not.

    940.30 False imprisonment. Whoever intentionally confines
    or restrains another without the person’s consent and with
    knowledge that he or she has no lawful authority to do so is guilty
    of a Class H felony.
    History: 1977 c. 173; 2001 a. 109.

    False imprisonment is not a lesser included offense of the crime of kidnapping.
    Geitner v. State, 59 Wis. 2d 128, 207 N.W.2d 837.
    A victim need only take advantage of reasonable means of escape; a victim need
    not expose himself or herself or others to danger in attempt to escape. State v. C.V.C.
    153 Wis. 2d 145, 450 N.W.2d 463 (Ct. App. 1989).
    False imprisonment, or confinement, is the intentional, unlawful, and uncontested
    restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another. State v. Burroughs, 2002
    WI App 18, 250 Wis. 2d 180, 640 N.W.2d 190, 01−0738.

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

    Post imported post

    Probably can.

    See AG's Opinion regarding citizen arrests:

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/ag/opinio..._09_03Mohr.pdf
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    See AG's Opinion regarding citizen arrests:

    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/ag/opinio..._09_03Mohr.pdf
    http://www.doj.state.wi.us/ag/opinio..._09_03Mohr.pdf

    addresses the "authority of private security guards employed by Brown County." It includes the statement, in passing, "Except for the situation described in §943.50(3), the common law sets the requirements for a valid citizen's arrest." There follow pages of legal analysis of case law with each concluding paragraph qualified by the presence of a status other than a citizen's. The final paragraph is clear, "While the above cases are not binding on a Wisconsin court,..."

    Indeed, §943.50 addresses the legal capabilities of a person qualified beyond citizen...

    (3) A merchant, a merchant’s adult employee or a merchant’s
    security agent ...

    The phrase "citizen's arrest" does not occur in my copy of the Wisconsin Statutes.

    So, I ask myself, self, what does Wisconsin say about citizen's arrest? I highlight it and right click it into my favorite search engine. What do you imagine is the first hit...smell smoke yet?...yep, 2008_09_03Mohr.pdf.


    citizens arrest on what grounds can you make a citizens arrest and what means can you use to do it 2/09/08, 4:35 pm

    Answer Citizen's Arrests I could not even consider advising you without knowing the fact situation you are concerned with. However, the best bet if someone needs to be arrested is generally to call the authorities rather than attempting a citizen's arrest. While law enforcement officers are legally immune from suit when they are acting within the scope of their lawful duties in arresting someone, citizens have no such immunity. Any unauthorized person detaining somebody may therefore get sued civilly for false imprisonment or even charged criminally with kidnapping.

    Jay K. Nixon
    NIXON LAW OFFICES
    333 South Main St Racine,
    WI 53401-1555

  7. #7
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    authority? i got no steenkin' authority. but i do have this .40 cal on my hip, so bess keep back with the sharp object!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    I would not advise it. Unless your life is in imminent danger during such a robbery, I would advise not drawing on a robber. It is better to retreat to a part of the store where you can see what is happening. If he comes near to you and threatens you, then retreat is no longer an option, you are are a reluctant participant, you are in fear for your life, and using the gun in your possession is the only way to stop the danger to your life.

    In some other states, it would be verifiably legal for someone to draw in such a situation as you posed. However, it is fuzzy in Wisconsin at best. Sure the AG opinion is out there, but I am not a policeman. If Wisconsin would pass a clear law to protect my interests in such a situation then I would be more likely to assist.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Waukesha, ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    What about the 20 foot rule?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    What about the 'twenty foot' rule? It is not a rule of law or even common law, but of self-defense received knowledge. I doubt that it has received even judicial notice.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    In some other states, it would be verifiably legal for someone to draw in such a situation as you posed.
    What does this mean, please?

    Do you mean to say that there may/is be a law that you can draw your weapon legally in some hypothetical circumstance resembling a knife robbery of another?



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Welllets say Mr. Masked Robberson gets eyes on meand starts towards my directionwith his knife above his head as if to slash/stab at me or wants me wallet...etc, then is this a circumstance when one could draw? And for that matter would deadly force be justifiable?
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  13. #13
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    Welllets say Mr. Masked Robberson gets eyes on meand starts towards my directionwith his knife above his head as if to slash/stab at me or wants me wallet...etc, then is this a circumstance when one could draw? And for that matter would deadly force be justifiable?
    Yes and Perhaps.


    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 orher 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.


    4)
    A person is privileged to defend a 3rd 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 is 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 3rd person would be privileged to act in self−defense and that the person’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.


    The reasonableness of a person’s belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant. A defendant’s psycho−social history showing past violence toward the defendant is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant.

    Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self−defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00−0064


  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    That station is just a few blocks from my house, I go in there all the time.:?
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    I would not advise it. Unless your life is in imminent danger during such a robbery, I would advise not drawing on a robber. It is better to retreat to a part of the store where you can see what is happening. If he comes near to you and threatens you, then retreat is no longer an option, you are are a reluctant participant, you are in fear for your life, and using the gun in your possession is the only way to stop the danger to your life.

    In some other states, it would be verifiably legal for someone to draw in such a situation as you posed. However, it is fuzzy in Wisconsin at best. Sure the AG opinion is out there, but I am not a policeman. If Wisconsin would pass a clear law to protect my interests in such a situation then I would be more likely to assist.
    sometimes you have to do what you feel is right at the time, regardless of the law. deal with the consequences after.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    so how would/does that differ if that person was holding a gun instead of a knife??? should you still go hide, or assist the employee??? how does that differ from the video that was posted on here a while back of the bank teller pulling his gun on the person robbing the bank???

    so is the difference the knife vs. gun???

    so at which point of watching him hold the knife would it be acceptable to offer assistance??? the second he threatens??? while he stabs the employee??? never because he "only" had a knife???


    maybe it's just me, but last time somebody used a box cutter, tons of people died when the planes crashed. so how is the threat level not the same as if the robber had a gun???

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    sometimes you have to do what you feel is right at the time, regardless of the law. deal with the consequences after.
    Gonna have to agree with 34 on this one, IMHO,He signed on the dotted line the minute he decided to rob the store and endanger the life ofthe clerk/customers. On the other hand,I have to wonder if the bad guy would use discretion whilst weilding his boxcutter?
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    A.K.A. the "Castle Doctrine, 3rd Party Defense, that not being protecting property from being taken, stolen or deprived of it.

  19. #19
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    What about the 'twenty foot' rule? It is not a rule of law or even common law, but of self-defense received knowledge. I doubt that it has received even judicial notice.
    The 21 foot "rule" or Tueller Drill frequently comes up in court. I'm certain Massad Ayoob has testified as an expert witness in court regarding it numerous times.

    Whether one is justified in using force, or a certain level of force is based upon a "reasonable person" test. The Tueller Drill, or some close variation of it, is standard training throughout the United States among law enforcement. There would be a strong presumption that acting in accordance with it would be what a reasonable person would do.

    So what would it have to do with the case at hand? Well, it would probably be better to call it a 21-foot guideline, rather than a rule. A person 21 feet away on ice may take 5 or 10 seconds to reach you and present less immediate threat than the same person would on a dry even floor. A person who weighs 600 pounds will not be able to move as quickly either.

    But as a guideline, the studies have shown that the average person can move about 21 feet in approximately the same amount of time that the average police officer is able to draw from a level 2 retention holster and fire one shot into center of mass. The fastest draw is to already have the gun in your hand. So, the 21-foot rule really just is a way of recognizing that you should have the gun in your hand when the potential threat is within a certain distance from you, and not to wait until they launch a charge at you. It is by no means an invitation to automatically shoot someone armed with a knife simply because they are that close to you. That person better be in the act of closing the distance at the moment you shoot them because if you shoot a person who is simply standing there with a knife, 25 feet from the nearest person, you will find yourself with in a world of s&#t.

    I think the discussion about self-defense law here is a bit off course. The question was whether one could legally hold the suspect at gunpoint. There's a difference between threatening force (holding at gunpoint) and using force-- i.e., shooting them. The self-defense statute concerns using force, and how much force on can use. I think some people here are implying that you cannot legally draw your weapon unless you are justified in shooting someone. Baloney. You ought to draw your weapon when it is prudent to have it in your hand rather than in your holster. It may turn out that at no point are you justified in firing the gun... if so, when it is prudent to do so, the gun is returned to the holster. Again, the self-defense statute is a guide to when it is permitted to USE deadly, or a lesser level, of force. It is not the exclusive guide to indicate when you may or may not draw your weapon.

    A simple example should suffice. If you heard suspicious noises in your house at night and you got up to investigate, it would be rather foolish to walk through your house with a holstered gun not knowing if beyond the next corner or behind the couch a criminal was waiting for you. You don't have a reason to shoot unless and until there is an immediate threat discovered, but you have every reason to have the gun in your hand.



    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"

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    What about the 'twenty foot' rule? It is not a rule of law or even common law, but of self-defense received knowledge. I doubt that it has received even judicial notice.
    The 21 foot "rule" or Tueller Drill frequently comes up in court. I'm certain Massad Ayoob has testified as an expert witness in court regarding it numerous times.
    OCDO Rule 7) citation please, to judicial notice, cases and frequency.

    http://federalevidence.com/downloads...f.evidence.pdf
    Federal Rules of Evidence
    ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE
    Rule 201 Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
    (a) Scope of rule. — This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.
    (b) Kinds of facts. — A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
    (c) When discretionary.—A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.
    (d) When mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.
    (e) Opportunity to be heard. — A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken.
    (f) Time of taking notice. — Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.
    (g) Instructing jury. — In a civil action or proceeding, the court shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a criminal case, the court shall instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.

  21. #21
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Doug, since you expressed doubt that the Tueller Drill has received judicial notice; according to YOUR epistemological standards, we can assume that you have examined every court case to verify it does not occur in any of them? Is that right?

    Just in case you haven't, I've contacted Ayoob for more information. I'll let everyone know what I find out.
    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"

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Mr. Ayoob does not determine that judicial notice has been made. See the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(b)(2) quoted above.

    According to my epistemological standards you have to show me the black swan of judicial notice of "the 21 foot rule".

Posting Permissions

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