• 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.

Anybody heard anything about Jesus Gonzales case?

M

McX

Guest
the worst crime here is that they are prosecuting someone for defending themselves.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
what a crock!

Why are they wasting their time & taxpayers' money on this?
Intentional homicide means he meant to kill them. Since he was defending himself, rather than hunting for someone to shoot, it's not intentional, and self-defense is a defense to homicide.
Sheesh.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
That's what the case and, hopefully, trial will be about. Intent of something is obvious by going armed. Jesus was not charged with murder or with reckless homicide.

Read Wisc. Stats. Chapter 940, Crimes Against Life and Bodily Security, § 940.01 First−degree intentional homicide and § 940.03 Felony murder.

First-degree intentional homicide opens the door to the defense of privilege, in Wisconsin including self-defense.
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
the worst crime here is that they are prosecuting someone for defending themselves.
Part of the great responsibility of carrying a firearm is being willing to defend your actions in court should you choose to take a life. You should be willing to articulate why the taking of another life was justified in order to prevent loss of yours. You should be willing to articulate why you felt your life was in danger.
If your child were shot and killed, I am certain that you would demand that the shooter would be able to justify their actions. Since no physical harm was done to Jesus and the men shot had no weapons on them, the prosecutor is forcing Jesus to justify his actions in court. If deadly force was justified, this trial should go well for Jesus.

Why are they wasting their time & taxpayers' money on this?
Intentional homicide means he meant to kill them. Since he was defending himself, rather than hunting for someone to shoot, it's not intentional, and self-defense is a defense to homicide.
Sheesh.

The question which needs to be sorted out is if deadly force was justified. This goes back to the WI Statute regarding self defense. You can not draw and shoot unless you are in immenant danger to lose your life. If someone only verbally threatens harm and they have no weapons, deadly force is difficult to justify in WI. You may not use deadly force to defend against property. Not a single punch was thrown by either side in this case before the gun was drawn and fired.
I sincerely hope that Jesus was justified in his actions and that the facts will support it in court.
939.48... 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.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Not a single punch was thrown by either side in this case before the gun was drawn and fired.


1. Do you know this?
2. If you do KNOW this, why are you publishing it on an open forum?

Also, I do not think fisticuffs are necessary. If someone keeps approaching while I have my gun pointed at them I'd have a tough time not pulling the trigger unless I something that shows I won't be attacked.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
1. Do you know this?
2. If you do KNOW this, why are you publishing it on an open forum?

.
Please excuse my poor choice of words. There has not yet been a trial and any "evidence" for self defense which should include all actions by the 2 men shot has not been made public. A better choice of words would be that there was no claim that any punches were thrown either by Jesus or the men shot in the criminal complaint or the media reports.

Also, I do not think fisticuffs are necessary. If someone keeps approaching while I have my gun pointed at them I'd have a tough time not pulling the trigger unless I something that shows I won't be attacked.
If you shoot someone for simply "approaching" you , then you should be prepared to serve time as a felon. You had better be justified in using deadly force before you even draw your firearm. If you carry a firearm you should think of it as your last line of defense and be prepared to use your hands and feet first. The primary purpose of your feet being to get your threatened butt away from the threat. ;)
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
If you shoot someone for simply "approaching" you , then you should be prepared to serve time as a felon. You had better be justified in using deadly force before you even draw your firearm. If you carry a firearm you should think of it as your last line of defense and be prepared to use your hands and feet first. The primary purpose of your feet being to get your threatened butt away from the threat. ;)

I guess I didn't say it right. I guess I'll know what I mean when it happens.

I don't want to clutter up this thread.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
Part of the great responsibility of carrying a firearm is being willing to defend your actions in court should you choose to take a life. You should be willing to articulate why the taking of another life was justified in order to prevent loss of yours. You should be willing to articulate why you felt your life was in danger.
If your child were shot and killed, I am certain that you would demand that the shooter would be able to justify their actions. Since no physical harm was done to Jesus and the men shot had no weapons on them, the prosecutor is forcing Jesus to justify his actions in court. If deadly force was justified, this trial should go well for Jesus.



The question which needs to be sorted out is if deadly force was justified. This goes back to the WI Statute regarding self defense. You can not draw and shoot unless you are in immenant danger to lose your life. If someone only verbally threatens harm and they have no weapons, deadly force is difficult to justify in WI. You may not use deadly force to defend against property. Not a single punch was thrown by either side in this case before the gun was drawn and fired.
I sincerely hope that Jesus was justified in his actions and that the facts will support it in court.

Yes, but it would be decent to be able to answer those questions before a Grand Jury so if answered satisfactorily by the defendant there will be no trial. If a simple majority of your peers finds no true bill, then what is the likelihood a unanimous 12 will find otherwise?
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Criminal defense is a very specialized practice of law and I'd leave it to my hired criminal defense lawyer. Like my good friend Dale T. Cobb of Charleston, SC firm Belk, Cobb, Infinger & Goldstein, PA We first met on bicycles.

Before going ahead with an action which may require you to enlist the assistance of a Criminal Defense expert, one should be well informed so that you are making prudent choices. These choices will give you the highest probabliity of prevailing should your actions come under scrutiny.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
Interesting.

940.01 - ANNOT.
A defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that he or she actually believed he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend himself or herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.
 

Interceptor_Knight

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

940.01 - ANNOT.
A defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that he or she actually believed he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend himself or herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.

This assumes that the defendent knows of this violent past.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
¶6. Third, we hold that a defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that she actually believed she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable.

IK:
The above is an excerpt from the WSC ruling in State v Head. It says nothing about knowing. It says use evidence.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
¶6. Third, we hold that a defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that she actually believed she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable.

IK:
The above is an excerpt from the WSC ruling in State v Head. It says nothing about knowing. It says use evidence.

Read it again. It states that the defendent may use this violent past as a factual basis that they believed they were in immenant danger.
In other words, they believed that because of the victim's past and character that they were in danger. Because this person harmed others or themself in the past they believed that this person was going to harm them.
It is not a get out of jail free card that you may kill a felon even if your belief that the force used to defend yourself was necessary if it is actually an unreasonable belief.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Read it again. It states that the defendent may use this violent past as a factual basis that they believed they were in immenant danger.
In other words, they believed that because of the victim's past and character that they were in danger. Because this person harmed others or themself in the past they believed that this person was going to harm them.

We are talking hypothetically, right? Because we shouldn't discuss Jesus's case.

Anyhow, hypothetically, does this mean that the defendant has to know that the potential attackers had previously done dangerous/illegal things or is this a post incident judgement?
 
Top