Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Madison Police ticket Bow and Arrow OCer

  1. #1
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    A 22-year-old downtown resident was so ticked off at the loud bar crowd next door he grabbed a bow and arrow and went out to confront the most boorish of the brood, Madison police reported.

    http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loca...cc4c03286.html
    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"

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    299

    Post imported post

    thats actually kind of amusing.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283

    Post imported post

    You beat me to it.

    I just read that article. DC for brandishing? Had that been one of us (not that any of us would ever draw our sidearm like this guy and his bow) the sh!t would hit the fan!

    Where's HankT?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132

    Post imported post

    Brendon .45 wrote:
    Had that been one of us (not that any of us would ever draw our sidearm like this guy and his bow) the sh!t would hit the fan!
    Actually, this would/should have been quite different had it been a firearm.

    Firearm's are pre-empted, archery equipment isn't. The AG's memo says carrying a firearm isn't disorderly, he NEVER addressed archery.

    The article doesn't say he actually "drew" the bow, just that he had it on his person.

    So although the guy was cited because it was a archery equipment, had he been carrying a holstered firearm, the police should not have been able to cite him at all.

    OR a "loaded shotgun" in the words of Chief Justice Abrahamson.



  5. #5
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    what if it had been a cross bow for 'my learning' sake?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283

    Post imported post

    Was the arrow in a quiver? How was the bow being carried? I suspect it was not slung around his neck.

    In hand is definitely not in the holster.

    The article also states he "grabbed his bow and arrow and headed out to the street to confront the other man". Very much a no-go for us,takes away the whole unwilling participant thing should things go south.



  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Brendon .45 wrote:
    Was the arrow in a quiver? How was the bow being carried? I suspect it was not slung around his neck.

    In hand is definitely not in the holster.

    The article also states he "grabbed his bow and arrow and headed out to the street to confront the other man". Very much a no-go for us,takes away the whole unwilling participant thing should things go south.
    Hold on there: Are you saying that IF I go out to confront anyone, for any reason I MUST be unarmed? I will disagree. I am NOT required to give up my freedom of speech just because I choose to carry.

    I am always an unwilling participant, because I am unwilling to use the firearm unless I have no other option.


  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    A 22-year-old downtown resident ... grabbed a bow and arrow and went out to confront
    § 939.48(2)(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.

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

    Be innocent of instigation - FAIL
    In fear of harm - FAIL
    Attempt to withdraw - FAIL
    Use only sufficient force - Arguable


  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Be innocent of instigation - So we cannot confront anyone while armed???
    In fear of harm - We can only carry if we are "in fear of harm"?????
    Attempt to withdraw - Same argument as instigation, we cannot confront???
    Use only sufficient force - No force was used.
    I fail to see the logic in your argument Doug.

    It would appear that by your assertions we surrender all other rights if armed.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The law is an ass that lawyers ride to work.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    The archer should have exercised his right to remain silent.

    By the way, just for conversational sake, what if the archer had an arrow noched and the bow pulled back, would the officer have shot? because so would have the archer.
    If someone was then shot by the arrow, would that be thefault of the officer? LOL

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    283

    Post imported post

    bnhcomputing wrote:
    Brendon .45 wrote:
    Was the arrow in a quiver? How was the bow being carried? I suspect it was not slung around his neck.

    In hand is definitely not in the holster.

    The article also states he "grabbed his bow and arrow and headed out to the street to confront the other man". Very much a no-go for us,takes away the whole unwilling participant thing should things go south.
    Hold on there: Are you saying that IF I go out to confront anyone, for any reason I MUST be unarmed? I will disagree. I am NOT required to give up my freedom of speech just because I choose to carry.

    I am always an unwilling participant, because I am unwilling to use the firearm unless I have no other option.

    If someone needs to be confronted, by all means do it. We should always stand up for what is right.

    but...

    Going out to confront someone while you happen to be carrying in a holster is different from grabbing a gun and going out to confront someone withthe gunin your hand. That is what happened here, only this wasn't a firearm.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    This reminds me of that ninja boy in the woods.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Ok this is interesting I found this story here. I was a sober biker chillin right there that night, on the curb in front of the Red Shed. I was questioned by the officer and put down as a witness. When it began there was not a crowd. It wasn't until the confrontation started getting heated that people started congregating. The guy was being very loud and obnoxious to a few people. He was yelling at somebody up towards university ave. Then the archer I believe yelled out the window, because the guy turned to the house and started yelling in the window. I couldn't hear all that was said. But I clearly heard the guy yelling he was gonna come back tomorrow and burn the house down. He was coming back and gonna #*&% you all up, and more for about 5 min. Then the archer came out and there was a confrontation for about 5 min before the officer arrived and was required to draw on him. Quickly after the archer went outside, there was a third guy that was pulling the guy by the arm trying to escort him down the sidewalk toward State St and away from the house. He kept a pretty constant hold of the guy as far as I could tell. And was trying to get him to leave. But he was strongly resisting and trying to be very confrontational with the archer. As soon as I seen a guy running up to catch a cop and tapping his trunk, I knew it was gonna be bad for the archer. The archer did half draw and point it at the other guy at least 3 times I remember. When questioned, I felt obligated to answer honestly that he did draw it and aim at the guy. I wanted to lie and protect the guy, but I couldn't. I made it very clear to the officer that he was being very defensive and attempting to get the guy to leave.I'm pretty sure the other guy got away even though I gave him a description of him. The funny thing is, I almost OC that night. But decided not to because of the difficulties of riding and OC. I have thought it out in my head a few times...what would I have done. But I think, I would have continued to observe. Because the archer seemed very defensive and not wanting anything but to get the guy to leave. I was only 40' away or so and didn't feel threatened at all.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by bnhcomputing View Post
    Brendon .45 wrote:
    Hold on there: Are you saying that IF I go out to confront anyone, for any reason I MUST be unarmed? I will disagree. I am NOT required to give up my freedom of speech just because I choose to carry.

    I am always an unwilling participant, because I am unwilling to use the firearm unless I have no other option.
    The fact that you chose to confront someone removes the element of an unwilling participant. There is no protection afforded to you for confronting someone for at that point you are the aggressor. Better to call 911....

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendon .45 View Post


    If someone needs to be confronted, by all means do it. We should always stand up for what is right.

    but...

    Going out to confront someone while you happen to be carrying in a holster is different from grabbing a gun and going out to confront someone withthe gunin your hand. That is what happened here, only this wasn't a firearm.
    The law does not always support the person who is "right".....
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 06-27-2010 at 08:18 PM.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    The fact that you chose to confront someone removes the element of an unwilling participant. There is no protection afforded to you for confronting someone for at that point you are the aggressor. Better to call 911....
    I'm going to have to see a cite and quote with full context.

    A person can confront someone without instigating a disturbance. A polite request to hold the noise down is not instigating a disturbance.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/Statutes.html - PDF!

    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.

    There are a dozen or so 'annotations' to case law in the source document.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm going to have to see a cite and quote with full context.

    A person can confront someone without instigating a disturbance. A polite request to hold the noise down is not instigating a disturbance.
    I wish you the best of luck with a positive reaction should you choose to politely request that a bunch of drunks late at night keep the noise down. They will politely tell you to **** and there is nothing you can do about it.... They can tell you to go away or they will kick your butt ,and there is nothing you can do about it unless they actually assault you. Get into a shouting match while you are wearing a holstered handgun and you nad better have a sharp pencil to write out a check for the ensuing fine(s)..

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    I wish you the best of luck with a positive reaction should you choose to politely request that a bunch of drunks late at night keep the noise down. They will politely tell you to **** and there is nothing you can do about it.... They can tell you to go away or they will kick your butt ,and there is nothing you can do about it unless they actually assault you. Get into a shouting match while you are wearing a holstered handgun and you nad better have a sharp pencil to write out a check for the ensuing fine(s)..
    Changing from general back to specific still does not provide a citation for your assertion.

    Cite, please.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    "Interceptor_Knight is offline"

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    "Interceptor_Knight is offline"


    Offline, off sides, off center--don't matter as long as he provides a cite.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Well, I'll stay out of this one so's he can't cry interference. It ain't gonna happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Offline, off sides, off center--don't matter as long as he provides a cite.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm going to have to see a cite and quote with full context.

    A person can confront someone without instigating a disturbance. A polite request to hold the noise down is not instigating a disturbance.
    You are assuming best case scenerio. I am assuming worst. Once a "polite" request falls on deaf ears and the requestor attempts to assert themselves, this is where the trouble would begin. There is noting necessary to cite if as in your scenerio the person politely requests and then exits hastily.

    Good luck in WI taking the "polite" request a step further while carrying if the situation goes south.

    Doug provided the cite above. Once you go beyond the polite request you are being disorderly and you become the provoker as you possess no authority to order them to be quiet.

    939.48 Self−defense and defense of others.
    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.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 06-27-2010 at 09:48 PM.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    SNIP Doug provided the cite above.
    OK. Thanks.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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