• 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.

"castle doctrine" self defense bill introduced in WI Assembly

M

McX

Guest
weak bill, but better than nothing. i'll accept it if it comes with a CheeseBurger.
 
S

SIGdude

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
89
Location
Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
I'm no politician, but allow me to write a better bill. I'll give myself 1 minute, starting now.

Under this bill, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily harm, the court must presume that the person reasonably
believed that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself
or herself or to another person and cannot have legal or civil suit charges brought
against them under any circumstance if the person using defense force was at any location
they are legally allowed to occupy.

There, it took two minutes, because I had to transcribe the first part and then my wife asked what I was typing, so I had to explain it to her.
 
Last edited:
Flipper

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
SIGdude said:
I'm no politician, but allow me to write a better bill. I'll give myself 1 minute, starting now.

Under this bill, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily harm, the court must presume that the person reasonably
believed that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself
or herself or to another person and cannot have legal or civil suit charges brought
against them under any circumstance if the person using defense force was at any location
they are legally allowed to occupy.

There, it took two minutes, because I had to transcribe the first part and then my wife asked what I was typing, so I had to explain it to her.
Click to expand...

Very good. Too bad the LRB cannot find some orginal thoughts in their Madison based brains.
 
Resdon111

Resdon111

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
48
Location
Sussex, WI
SIGdude said:
...and cannot have legal or civil suit charges brought against them under any circumstance if the person using defense force was at any location they are legally allowed to occupy.
Click to expand...

While it doesn't cover legally occupied space, it does cover civil liability
Under the bill, a person who uses force that is intended or likely to cause death
or great bodily harm is immune from civil liability if the person reasonably believed
that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or
herself or to another person and if: 1) the individual against whom...

...

Under the bill, if a court finds that person who is sued in civil court is immune
from liability, the person is entitled to attorney fees, court costs, compensation for
income loss, and other expenses the person incurred to defend himself or herself
against the civil action.
Click to expand...
 
C

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
Definitely a step in the right direction but still too restrictive. It appears to apply only to the residence of the shooter. what if a person is visiting and that home was violated? Is the shooter still protected? There needs to be a third person clause. Also the bill should apply to all property owned. As written it does not protect a store or shop owner unless the store or shop is part of the residence. It also does not protect a person from using deadly force if being car jacked. The vehicle transport law only applies to firearms, bows and arrows and crossbows. If a person knifed or clubbed a person to death that was attempting to car jack his vehicle there would be no deadly force protection.

The bill still need some work. Remember the LRB drafted it. Authors of a bill seldom question the details the LRB injects unless it strays far from the authors outline.

remember too: Article I sec 25 gives us the right to keep and possess arms for defense and security with that comes the presumption that the "arms" will at times need to be used to assure the welfare of ones self and property.
 
johnny amish

johnny amish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,024
Location
High altitude of Vernon County, ,
Flipper said:
Here is an article discussing "rights". Quote:

"Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sentence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights, which is not the case with political rights; for an alien, for example, has no political, although in the full enjoyment of his civil rights.

These latter rights are divided into absolute and relative. The absolute rights of mankind may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security, which consists in a person's legal and uninter-rupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation; the right of personal liberty, which consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's inclination may direct, without any restraint, unless by due course of law; the right of property, which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q167.htm

QUOTE]

Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
Q

qball54208

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
288
Location
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
Glock34 said:
I might be wrong, but when I read this..it seems only good if a scum bag is entering your home. not if your out and about.
Click to expand...

I hate to point out the obvious here, but the definition is in the title of the proposed law. Just like the age old saying, "A man's home is his castle"
WI does have a comprehensive Self Defense & Defense of others Law, called 3rd Party.
I do realize that a more comprehensive "Doctrine" should be adopted, however the Bill may be changed before it leaves the Assembly as well.
 
N

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
qball54208 said:
I hate to point out the obvious here, but the definition is in the title of the proposed law. Just like the age old saying, "A man's home is his castle"
WI does have a comprehensive Self Defense & Defense of others Law, called 3rd Party.
I do realize that a more comprehensive "Doctrine" should be adopted, however the Bill may be changed before it leaves the Assembly as well.
Click to expand...

The current laws only cover prosecution, but they have no protections against frivolous civil suits from families who will immediately say "He was a good boy, he was planning on getting his GED, he was an aspiring professional athlete, he just tried to rob the people, he wasn't planning on killing them, so he did not deserve to be shot and killed for just wanting to rob someone by breaking into their home with an axe while they were sleeping, He just wanted to take their Television so he could pay with his Xbox! He was a good boy!(shall I continue?)
 
P

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
Running Wolf said:
I don't like that the act relates to the "privilege of self-defense."
Click to expand...

I think the word "privilege"is used here because it refers to other state
statutes that use the same phrase "privilege of self defense"

939.45 - ANNOT.
Under the facts of the case, the privilege of self-defense was
inapplicable to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. State v. Nollie,
2002 WI 4, 249 Wis. 2d 538, 638 N.W.2d 280, 00-0744.

939.48(2)(a)
(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.

941.20(3)(e)
(e) A person under par. (a) has a defense of privilege of self-defense or
defense of others in accordance with s. 939.48.
 
M

McX

Guest
any mention in this castle doctrine thing of a moat? i was rather fancying a moat.
 
springfield 1911

springfield 1911

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
484
Location
Racine, Wisconsin, USA
If this is the best that they can come up with , it solves nothing.
The reason it solvse nothing is, Where ever we have a lawful right to be and without malice to others we are not protected when use of force is used without being treated as guilty until proven otherwise from the malice from another , We need to include the stand your ground along with protection from lawsuits.
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

springfield 1911 said:
If this is the best that they can come up with , it solves nothing.
The reason it solvse nothing is, Where ever we have a lawful right to be and without malice to others we are not protected when use of force is used without being treated as guilty until proven otherwise from the malice from another , We need to include the stand your ground along with protection from lawsuits.
Click to expand...

never heard it said more clearly!!!

you must want stand your ground....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top