• 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?

Interceptor_Knight

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
paul@paul-fisher.com said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is the way the quoted text reads. It is a valid defense (knowledge that the victim had previously committed violent acts and had a violent character) if the belief that the defendent was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and belief that the force used was necessary to defend themself was unreasonable.
 
Interceptor_Knight

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Doug Huffman said:
We know that carjackings are frequently violent incidents causing reasonable fear of bodily harm during a carjacking and justifying (making righteous) self-defense. Evidence can be discovered during trial preparation.
Click to expand...

The reasonable fear must be of "great" bodily harm or death in order to justify the use of deadly force. It certainly helps your case if the carjacker is armed.
 
?

__

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
94
Location
, ,
Counselor, ya gotta see my great hangnail!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Great_Bodily_Harm said:
The term "great bodily harm" forms the basis of many statutory definitions regarding the implied use of deadly or lethal force. Regrettably, statutes remain obscure as to what actual types of injuries constitute a judgment that great bodily harm has occurred. A search of case law shows that most determinations of great bodily harm are decided on a case-by-case basis, left up to a judge or jury to evaluate and declare.

Some examples of great bodily harm cited by the court include:

1. scarring 2. permanent disfigurement 3. broken bones 4. Extended hospital stays (in one case "extended" was meant to mean overnight.
Click to expand...
 
C

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
The annotation maybe does assume that the defendant knew of the victim's violent past. It does not stipulate how the defendant must know of that factual evidence. It could be from third person conversation, media reporting, court records, a number of sources. There is no stipulation in the annotation that the factual evidence can only be known acts committed on the defendant by the victim.

Some of you may be interested in reading the State v Head case. The State Supreme Court overturned both the district and appeals court decisions.

http://www.wicourts.gov/html/sc/99/99-3071.htm
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Interceptor_Knight said:
SNIP You had better be justified in using deadly force before you even draw your firearm.
Click to expand...

I have no information that anyone is legally required to have justification for lethal force before even drawing their weapon.

If a person is in the right situation, waiting for justification to shoot to even draw the gun might well be too late. A simple example is being verbally threatened with a brandished knife inside 21 feet, and beyond lunging distance, without the threat actually yet moving to close the distance. Such a circumstance still lacks the "jeopardy/intent" element of AOJ.

Also, police can be seen in numerous videos going to low-ready without justification to actually use lethal force. In that police may not use lethal force to apprehend criminals (see Tennessee vs Garner which includes exceptions for criminals dangerous to the community), clearly the police in many videos we see are drawing their weapons in preparation for self-defense in case the criminal escalates while being taken into custody.
 
Interceptor_Knight

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Citizen said:
I have no information that anyone is legally required to have justification for lethal force before even drawing their weapon.

If a person is in the right situation, waiting for justification to shoot to even draw the gun might well be too late. A simple example is being verbally threatened with a brandished knife inside 21 feet, and beyond lunging distance, without the threat actually yet moving to close the distance. Such a circumstance still lacks the "jeopardy/intent" element of AOJ. .
Click to expand...
My point is that you should not draw if it is obvious that deadly force is not going to be warranted. Someone verbally threatening you for instance.
That being said, I do not agree that the circumstance you paint lacks the jeopardy aspect. In this scenerio, being verbally threatened with a brandished knife (displaying it in a threatening manner) is enough justification to use deadly force. The soon to be eliminated threat has the opportunity, ability and you are in jeopardy (the 3 things which will justify deadly force) as the knife is in their hand and they are too close for you to hesitate. Inside 21 feet is too close for you to evade the threat without using force to defend yourself. The threat can stick you before you can draw if you hesitate and they close the gap. There is no requirement for the threat to be within lunging distance. A reasonable person in this position would draw on this threat. Once you draw you are not obligated to squeeze the trigger and if the threat hastily makes a dash away from you instead of closing the gap you may not shoot them while they retreat.
We all know that the Police and the mere citizens of WI are held to different standards in the use of force.
 
Last edited:
Interceptor_Knight

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Captain Nemo said:
The annotation maybe does assume that the defendant knew of the victim's violent past. It does not stipulate how the defendant must know of that factual evidence. It could be from third person conversation, media reporting, court records, a number of sources. There is no stipulation in the annotation that the factual evidence can only be known acts committed on the defendant by the victim.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
T

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Doug Huffman said:
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
Click to expand...

Um...

Yes he was. "First Degree Intentional Homicide" == "Murder in the first degree".

Felony murder would be what they'd charge you with, if...oh...say you helped a friend steal a car. Unknown to you, he was carrying a gun and during the commission of the crime, shot the owner dead. You'd be on the hook for felony murder even though you didn't know it was gonna happen and didn't have any actual part in the killing. You were committing a crime during which someone died. That's FM.

940.01 == Murder 1. It's an A-Felony.

1st deg. Reckless is a B felony.

Felony Murder is a "no more than 15 year" add-on to whatever the original crime was (battery, theft, etc). FM cannot be applied to 940.01 (940.01 is already the most serious crime).

2nd degree homi is a B
2nd Reckless is a D

etc.
 
Last edited:
T

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Doug Huffman said:
The Wisconsin Judicial Council calls it "analogous", quite different from 'identical with' (that "==" signifies in some formal notations). The details of his charges are in WCCA Milwaukee case No. 2010CF002323
Click to expand...

Wisconsin reworded the law titles back in the 80s.

By your logic it is completely impossible to be charged with '1st degree murder' now because the charge no longer exists. What used to be "1st degree murder" is now "1st degree intentional homicide".

Prior to 1988, 940.01 was known as "1st degree murder".

ie: http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?alias=WICASE&cite=53+Wis.2d+322

was convicted on September 11, 1969, of the
charges of first-degree murder, a violation of sec. 940.01, Stats.,
and armed robbery, under sec. 943.32(2).
Click to expand...

That is why that text says "analogous to the prior charge of first degree murder".

I am aware of the meaning of '==' that's why I used it.

You are, technically, correct in that he wasn't charged with murder....but again, because that charge no longer exists. What it comes down to is this - If you sat down and drew out a complicated plan...worked for weeks on said plan...and carried out that plan to take the life of your spouse, or neighbor or whatever...you would be charged with 940.01, exactly as in this case. There is no more serious 'murder' charge than 940.01.
 
Last edited:
T

Teej

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
522
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
And as the WI Supreme Court weighed in in State v Head, 2002.

http://www.wicourts.gov/html/sc/99/99-3071.htm

A. Wisconsin's Law of Homicide

¶54 The law of homicide in Wisconsin was revised in 1988. 1987 Wis. Act 399. Prior to the revision, Chapter 940 listed nine homicide offenses, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. Wis. Stat. §§ 940.01, 940.02, 940.05 (1985-86).

¶55 Section 940.01(1), first-degree murder, read as follows: "Whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony." Wis. Stat. § 940.01 (1985-86). Subsection (2) defined "intent to kill" to mean "the mental purpose to take the life of another human being." Wis. Stat. § 940.02 (1985-86). This two-element offense was punishable by life imprisonment. Wis. Stat. § 939.50(3)(a) (1985-86).

¶56 Section 940.02, second-degree murder, prohibited the causing of death:



(1) By conduct imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life; or



(2) As a natural and probable consequence of the commission of or attempt to commit a felony.

Wis. Stat. § 940.02 (1985-86). Second-degree murder was a Class B felony punishable by imprisonment not to exceed 20 years. Wis. Stat. § 939.50(3)(b) (1985-86).

¶57 Section 940.05, manslaughter, prohibited the causing of death:



(1) Without intent to kill and while in the heat of passion; or



(2) Unnecessarily, in the exercise of his privilege of self-defense or defense of others or the privilege to prevent or terminate the commission of a felony; or



(3) Because such person is coerced by threats made by someone other than his coconspirator and which cause him reasonably to believe that his act is the only means of preventing imminent death to himself or another; or



(4) Because the pressure of natural physical forces causes such person reasonably to believe that his act is the only means of preventing imminent public disaster or imminent death to himself or another.

Wis. Stat. § 940.05 (1985-86). Manslaughter was a Class C felony punishable by imprisonment not to exceed 10 years. Wis. Stat. § 939.50(3)(c) (1985-86).

¶58 The 1988 revision categorizes homicides based upon the degree of culpability involved, as reflected in the mental element required for each offense. Three of the framers of the revision——Walter Dickey, David Schultz, and James L. Fullin, Jr.——describe four gradations of mental element as follows:



(1) The mental element is intentional when the actor has the purpose to cause death or is aware that death is practically certain to be caused by the conduct [Wis. Stat. § 939.23];



(2) The mental element is aggravated recklessness when the actor is aware that the conduct creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life [Wis. Stat. §§ 939.24, 940.02];



(3) The mental element is simple recklessness when the actor is aware that the conduct creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another [Wis. Stat. § 939.24];



(4) The mental element is negligence when the actor should realize that the conduct creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another [Wis. Stat. § 939.25].

Walter Dickey, David Schultz & James L. Fullin, Jr., The Importance of Clarity in the Law of Homicide: The Wisconsin Revision, 1989 Wis. L. Rev. 1323, 1330 [hereinafter The Importance of Clarity].

¶59 These different mental elements are now embodied in different homicide statutes carrying different penalties.

¶60 This case concerns an alleged intentional homicide. Intentional homicides are divided into two categories, first-degree and second-degree. First-degree intentional homicide, Wis. Stat. § 940.01, replaced first-degree murder, Wis. Stat. § 940.01 (1985-86).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top