• 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.

Madison Police ticket Bow and Arrow OCer

Support The 2nd

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
132
Location
, ,
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.
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

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

Brendon .45

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
282
Location
Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

J.Gleason

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

Brendon .45

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
282
Location
Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

MK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
396
Location
USA
imported post

This reminds me of that ninja boy in the woods.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
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.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
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....;)

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".....:confused:
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
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 STFU 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)..
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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 STFU 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.
 
Top