• 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.

Craziest thing you have heard While you were Oc'ing

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Well Paul, I could see your argument if the guy had called her that to her face. Stating an opinion here in the forum doesn't hurt this movement. The fact is we open carriers are called disrespectful names all the time. Even by some LEO. Sometimes it is nice to have someplace to vent and I for one see nothing wrong with his remark. It was after all the truth and if people browsing this forum are not looking for the truth then why are they here?

I think the moderators of this forum would have said something if his remark was over the limit. While this forum is used by WCI members, we must remember we are not here to censor anyone. While we stand for 2nd Amendment rights we also support all other rights and that includes the right to free speech. Besides the Libtard deserved it!


James,

I was making an assumption that the person who used the term libtard here was the same one calling people that on the comment section of the Janesville Gazette article. It might be a bad assumption and if it is, I apologize.

Once again. I support everyones rights, all I'm saying is that resorting to name calling doesn't help our cause. There are more productive ways to win arguments. I am working to represent the open carry community in the most positive light possible without backing down on my rights. Some people have knee jerk reactions and think we are all right wing gun nuts. Stooping to their level and calling them names or saying something to the effect that 'well, people like you just wouldn't understand' doesn't help. A soft answer turns away wrath.

Also, I'm not sure what WCI has to do with it. While I am a proud member, I do not speak for them.
 
Last edited:

Mlutz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
758
Location
, ,
I fail to see how many of the posts above this one relate to "crazy things you have heard while you oc"... You are all more than welcome to start your own thread. :)
 

Foxyjosh

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
1
Location
Middlefield
This isn't something I heard...

But something I said.

My aunt doesn't allow CCW in her business. I visited her there and explained that CPZs attract criminals and "if one of them does start something and I can get to my truck, I am not coming back in to save anyone, I am leaving."
Then she said "You'd come in to save me right?"
I explained to her that "I have a duty to retreat and if I disobeyed that sign, even if a life is saved, I would be treated as a criminal and would lose my firearm rights. I am not about to let that happen."

I doubt she will change her ways but at least she knows that I won't help.
 
M

McX

Guest
i've had to caution some people i know; they seem to feel my firearm, and the protection it affords me automatically extends to them. i warn them; no phone boothing me. if a problem arises, i have a duty to retreat, if you are concerned for your welfare, carry your own gun.

* phone boothing is the term i settled on for another citizen starting something, or having something happen to them, then hiding behind me, or expecting/demanding my intervention.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
My aunt doesn't allow CCW in her business. I visited her there and explained that CPZs attract criminals and "if one of them does start something and I can get to my truck, I am not coming back in to save anyone, I am leaving." Then she said "You'd come in to save me right?" I explained to her that "I have a duty to retreat and if I disobeyed that sign, even if a life is saved, I would be treated as a criminal and would lose my firearm rights. I am not about to let that happen." I doubt she will change her ways but at least she knows that I won't help.
Please, what does the sign say? Disobeying a sign, be it a no trespassing sign, or a no guns sign or a no illegal guns sign or a no CCW sign has no legal effect. The proprietor may pursue (criminal) trespassing charges, or complain to the DA but your presumption of a felony criminal conviction is premature.

Oh, welcome to WI-OCDO. The commercial carriers will welcome you too, I'm sure.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Not On Topic But In Response To Posts On This Thread

Folks, there is no duty to retreat in Wisconsin. None.

Here is an article from last September about a home intruder being shot: http://wisconsincriminallaw.blogspot.com/2009/09/yesterdays-shooting-of-apparent-home.html

And more: ¶4. The privilege of self-defense is codified in Wis. Stat. §939.48(1), which states in pertinent part:

A person is privileged to ... 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.

This defense is set forth in the standard jury instructions on self defense, see Wis JI-Criminal 801 (1994). Applying self-defense to this case, Korbisch would have needed to show the following:

(1) that he actually and reasonably believed he was threatened with an unlawful interference with his person;

(2) that he actually and reasonably believed that the threat of force he used was necessary to prevent the unlawful interference; and

(3) that he only used such force or threat of force as he actually and reasonably believed was necessary to prevent the unlawful interference.

See Wis JI-Criminal 801; State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 869, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).

¶5. Also relevant here is the jury instruction on duty to retreat. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 810 (1994) contains the following language:

There is no duty to retreat. However, in determining whether the defendant reasonably believed the amount of force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference, you may consider whether the defendant had the opportunity to retreat with safety, whether such retreat was feasible, and whether the defendant knew of the opportunity to retreat.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
Well said. But 'retreat' is emotionaly loaded, try "withdraw", as below.

Wisconsin Statutes said:
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.
Again, because we are not lawyers, the elements of common law self-defense are four;
  1. be innocent of instigation ("provocation" above),
  2. be in reasonable fear of bodily harm ("danger of death or great bodily harm" above),
  3. use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil ("...not privileged to resort ... avoid death ..." above),
  4. attempt to withdraw.
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
Again, because we are not lawyers, the elements of common law self-defense are four;
  1. be innocent of instigation ("provocation" above),
  2. be in reasonable fear of bodily harm ("danger of death or great bodily harm" above),
  3. use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil ("...not privileged to resort ... avoid death ..." above),
  4. attempt to withdraw.

I have read similar words. Using more informal language these points are:

1. You must be a reluctant participant. In other words, you cannot go looking for a fight.

2. You are not able to retreat (withdraw).

3. No lesser force will do.

4. You must be in immediate fear of great bodily harm or had an immediate fear of death.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
Craziest thing I heard while OC'ing.

Pick n Save West Allis. A younger guy and his girlfriend shopping with their kid in the cart.
Guy says: "are you a cop."

Me: "absolutely not"

Him: "i didn't think it was legal to carry in Wisconsin"

Me: "in Wisconsin its totally legal to carry if you carry openly."

Him: "Oh yeah thats that new law Obama made"

.... I didn't even bother
 

logan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
433
Location
Greeley, CO
Craziest thing I heard while OC'ing.

Pick n Save West Allis. A younger guy and his girlfriend shopping with their kid in the cart.
Guy says: "are you a cop."

Me: "absolutely not"

Him: "i didn't think it was legal to carry in Wisconsin"

Me: "in Wisconsin its totally legal to carry if you carry openly."

Him: "Oh yeah thats that new law Obama made"

.... I didn't even bother

lol. Lets all thank Obama for our new law!
 

kd6sxa

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
91
Location
Quad Cities, Iowa, USA
Well, I just wanted to make sure your intentions were as pure as everyone else here.

How funny. I am surprised at the class of people A&W and KFC draw these days.
 

otter

New member
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
25
Location
West Bend, Wisconsin, USA
Again, because we are not lawyers, the elements of common law self-defense are four;
  1. be innocent of instigation ("provocation" above),
  2. be in reasonable fear of bodily harm ("danger of death or great bodily harm" above),
  3. use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil ("...not privileged to resort ... avoid death ..." above),
  4. attempt to withdraw.

THERE IS NO STATUTORY DUTY TO RETREAT!!!!!

"Withdraws" doesn't pertain to the important part of the statute, which for us is subsection (1).

Our actual statute for self defense is fine, but courts have twisted it up through case law. In any event, if you happen to shoot someone, and it's a good shoot, you won't be charged. Whether you could have run away is only going to come into play if you are somewhere like Madison, and even then, it's not very likely (especially if you're in your own home or on your property).
 
M

McX

Guest
Well, I just wanted to make sure your intentions were as pure as everyone else here.

How funny. I am surprised at the class of people A&W and KFC draw these days.


kd6, you ever get the chance, stroll through our local popeye's Chicken joint here, you'll immediately wonder if you have enough guns and ammo on you!
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
I was at a store and I go to swipe my card at the cashier. The male customer in front of me leaned back about 6" from my face and asked me quietly if it was real, I said yes of course it is. He asked if I was an officer or just protesting gun laws. I said no I'm not and, it's perfectly legal so I'm not protesting anything. "He says, well I yea I know, I have heard about it. I have guns too but I've never done that."

At a Taco Bell, I was getting a refill. A guy standing next to me asked if I'm an officer. I said Noooo I'm not. He paused for a second and turned and left.

A mason asked me "why are you carrying a gun" a couple of answers later he says "does it get you more chicks" I just laughed and kept on walking.

I was talking to a friend who works security at the front door of a Best Buy. Another female employee is leaving and she walks up to us and says "I love that your open carrying, it's so cool. I love it love it love it"

Another time at Best Buy a lady behind me at the cashier, humpty dumpty's sister asked in a cute tiny voice. "Is that a real gun?" I replied yes it is, not good for much if it's a toy. She then asks in that same little voice "are you the Po Po" I said Noooooo I am not. The cashier then says..."Oh I didn't even notice"
 
Last edited:

otter

New member
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
25
Location
West Bend, Wisconsin, USA
Pretty sharp! You're right, "Again, because we are not lawyers, the elements of common law self-defense are four; ... 4. attempt to withdraw." That's why I wrote "common law" and not "statute".

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Ne personal attacks

That has no bearing in WI. What does is the statute as written, and relevant case law; none of which requires retreat.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
I would have said...after she injected the FBI thing....... Oh your hubby is an FBI agent ? well my wife wife being a CIA agent trumps your husband being in the FBI. Then smile and walk away.
 
M

McX

Guest
i suspect my wife is K.G.B. but then again i'm paranoid, and think everyone is K.G.B.
 
Top