Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Drive by shooting in D.C.

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

    Post imported post

    How could this ever happen in a place with such strict gun laws? Another instance showing that criminals will be criminals and we the people should be just as armed.

    Snippet from news source:

    "WASHINGTON - Two people have been charged in connection with a drive-by shooting that killed four people and left five others wounded in Southeast Tuesday night. "

    http://wtop.com/?nid=596&sid=1923703

    Quik! Re-enact the handgun ban! Help US Gov't SAVE US from the scawy bad men!!!

    IMO,Let some idiotstry this crap around me, I'll be the guy biting thedirt and returning fire . Which while we're on the subject, what are the legalities of doing so?
    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

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    Which while we're on the subject, what are the legalities of doing so?
    http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc...e-in-wisconsin

    What if You Hurt a Third Party While Defending Yourself?

    If while defending yourself from one person, you unintentionally hurt another, you may be responsible for injury to that other person, and guilty of a crime arising from that. It will depend on whether your conduct recklessly or negligently created an unreasonable risk to the third person.

    Defense of Others and Defense of Property

    You also have the right to defend others, similar to the conditional right to defend yourself as described above. You also have the right to defend property, but this comes with one further limitation. In Wisconsin, there is no right to defend property by intentional use of force likely to cause serious injury or death.

    Free legal advice is worth what you pay for it. Paid for advice from other than your attorney is worth less.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    So in other words, keep your shots clean, or don't shoot at all.
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

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

    Post imported post

    http://wisconsincriminallaw.blogspot.com/

    A lot of local residents are offering opinions that range from a far left, anti-gun viewpoint all the way to Dirty Harry threats if they were to confront anyone in their own home under similar circumstances.

    Here, for those who care, is the basic Wisconsin law on when you may use deadly force - hell, when you can shoot an intruder - in self defense, defense of others, and defense of property. This discussion is drawn right from the approved Wisconsin Jury Instructions on these issues. Shooting the Intruder - Wisconsin Law of Self Defense & Defense of Others
    1. You reasonably believed that someone was actually harming or about to harm you or others (technically, called "interference with your person").
    2. You reasonably believed that deadly force (force which is either intended to kill or likely to kill) was needed to prevent great bodily harm to you or others.
    3. Your belief is reasonable if it is what any average Joe would also believe under exactly the same circumstances; not how a Madison jury of hand-wringers might later feel you should have acted, but viewed strictly from your standpoint in the face of danger.
    4. In Wisconsin you have absolutely no legal duty to retreat from the threat, although if it was possible to beat a safe, fast retreat that can be considered by those jurors later as one of many circumstances you, the average Joe, faced at that very moment.
    Use of Force in Defense of Your Home - Wisconsin Law
    1. IT IS NOT OKAY, AND NOT LAWFUL, TO USE DEADLY FORCE JUST TO PROTECT YOUR HOME AND YOUR PROPERTY. PERIOD. BUT ... (Isn't there always a "but"?) ...
    2. You CAN use non-deadly force to the extent reasonably necessary to stop someone from "unlawfully interfering with" - or, in English, trespassing in or on or stealing from - your home or your property, and that means everyone's property who lives there.
    3. You must reasonably believe that someone is interfering with your home or your property under all the circumstances - again, not from the standpoint of a later jury but from your precise standpoint at the moment of great decision, as any ordinary Joe would have believed if he stood in your shoes.
    SO ... WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE YOU?
    Yes, you can shoot someone who breaks in the house in the middle of the night... IF - and this is a big IF - you reasonably fear death or great harm to you or your loved ones.

    No, you cannot shoot the "sumbitch" just because he's trying to get in - or out - of your living room or den with the family stereo. Nor can you do so because he won't "git out da yard!"

    But in the latter case, if he makes a move that puts you in great fear of harm or death, or maybe flashes something akin to a deadly weapon or comes at you, you are within your rights to shoot.

    So get a 45 magnum? That's a personal choice. Keep in mind that the right to shoot someone and the nerve to shoot someone are two different things - and this isn't deer-hunting, either. So, before you go and stick your friend's Smith & Wesson under the pillow or atop the nightstand, ask yourself: would you? Could you? Because if you are unsure, there is a better than even chance that the only time that 6-shooter will get fired is AT YOU - by the far more criminal-thinking intruder (guns are the most popular item taken in break-in's) or - worse - by a kid who finds it and plays around with it, like kids often do.

    My two cents: Consider a loud, large, barking dog. Burglars hate 'em. Leave the Dirty Harry stuff for those who are well-experienced with guns and shooting them. Or become that person yourself. And if you do, keep the guns away from those who don't. Like your kids.


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

    Post imported post

    .45 Magnum huh? Well that would be an unusual choice. I think only one gun maker manufacturers firearms in that caliber.

    Well anyway.... I had just read earlier today that the number of murders in D.C. last year was the lowest in 50 years. Hmmm..... funny that happens the year after the Heller decision. How will the anti's explain it?
    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
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Obviously nobody in that crowd had done the 16 hours worth of work and paid the $600 in fee's and been approved by the city fathers to carry a gun. It wouldn't have made any difference, they aren't allowed to carry on the street or to shoot the bad guys because that would violate the bad guys civil rights. We would not want that now would we?

    To bad a couple of judges and a few city attorneys weren't in that crowd. I might have forced them to open their eyes and their minds to reality in the street and not as they see it in their gated neighborhoods or apartments with a doorman keeping watch over them.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  7. #7
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    Old Grump wrote:
    Obviously nobody in that crowd had done the 16 hours worth of work and paid the $600 in fee's and been approved by the city fathers to carry a gun. It wouldn't have made any difference, they aren't allowed to carry on the street or to shoot the bad guys because that would violate the bad guys civil rights. We would not want that now would we?

    To bad a couple of judges and a few city attorneys weren't in that crowd. I might have forced them to open their eyes and their minds to reality in the street and not as they see it in their gated neighborhoods or apartments with a doorman keeping watch over them.
    Hey, my local mayor risked the safety of his own family members, and got his ass kicked my a pipe wielding mad man, and he is still "anti-self-protection". Just goes to show, some politicians just will not change. Also just goes to show that some politicians just need to be replaced.

    If only that mad man would have had a bat... I think I would have a new mayor now...

  8. #8
    Regular Member opusd2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Butt is in, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    I still think your mayor got hurt at an "opportune time" for good press in his run for governor. So forgive me if I think something's rotten in Denmark.
    I aim to misbehave

  9. #9
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    opusd2 wrote:
    I still think your mayor got hurt at an "opportune time" for good press in his run for governor. So forgive me if I think something's rotten in Denmark.
    True, sad, but true.

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

    Post imported post

    Landose_theghost wrote:
    I'll be the guy biting thedirt and returning fire . Which while we're on the subject, what are the legalities of doing so?
    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.

    (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 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 assailant.
    (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.

    (3) The privilege of self−defense extends not only to the intentional
    infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but
    also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except
    that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of
    first−degree or 2nd−degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent
    handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first−degree
    or 2nd−degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling
    of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for
    whichever one of those crimes is committed.


    (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.

    (5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the
    person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to
    prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege
    does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely
    to cause death.

    (6) In this section “unlawful” means either tortious or
    expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

    History: 1987 a. 399; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 253.

    Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (3) is amended by conforming references to the
    statute titles as affected by this bill. [Bill 191−S]

    When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not
    claim self−defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).

    Sub. (2) (b) is inapplicable to a defendant if the nature of the initial provocation is
    a gun−in−hand confrontation of an intended victim by a self−identified robber. Under
    these circumstances the intended victim is justified in the use of force in the exercise
    of the right of self−defense. Ruff v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 713, 223 N.W.2d 446 (1974).

    Whether a defendant’s belief was reasonable under subs. (1) and (4) depends, in
    part, upon the parties’ personal characteristics and histories and whether events were
    continuous. State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806, 434 N.W.2d 380 (1989).

    Evidence of prior specific instances of violence that were known to the accused
    may be presented to support a defense of self−defense. The evidence is not limited
    to the accused’s own testimony, but the evidence may not be extended to the point that
    it is being offered to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his or her violent
    tendencies. State v. Daniels, 160 Wis. 2d 85, 465 N.W.2d 633 (1991).

    Imperfect self−defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable
    belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person.
    State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).

    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. State
    v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).

    The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self−defense.
    It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577
    N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96−0914.

    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.

    When a defendant fails to establish a factual basis to raise self−defense, prior specific
    acts of violence by the victim have no probative value. The presentation of subjective
    testimony by an accused, going to a belief that taking steps in self−defense was
    necessary, is not sufficient for the admission of self−defense evidence. State v. Head,
    2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9, 99−3071.

    Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s.
    941.20, 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.

    A defendant asserting perfect self−defense against a charge of 1st−degree murder
    must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he
    or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person
    and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

    A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to
    a charge of 1st−degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing.

    State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99−3071.
    A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably
    believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd−person or one’s self from imminent
    death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other.
    Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).

    Self−defense—prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.

    State v. Camacho: The Judicial Creation of an Objective Element to Wisconsin’s
    Law of Imperfect Self−defense Homicide. Leiser. 1995 WLR 742.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I'm pretty certain none of these Wisconsin Statutes would apply to a shooter in Washington DC who dared to defend himself. He or she would have been the very first one arrested.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    You're right. The OP that asked the question is from Wisconsin. I have no doubt that a shooter in self-defense in Wisconsin would be the first one arrested too.

  13. #13
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    driveby shootings, they still do those? that was so '90's.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    512

    Post imported post

    Yea screwdriveby's, it's 2010 man, nowme and my gangstahomies do glide by's, in our heelies while we slide down tha street. G's up...<-----Just made a Million $ Rap song!
    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  15. #15
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    this one kinda grabs me, being a poor bsardt at the moment:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yMtslWhcGY

Posting Permissions

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