Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Mr Dean Kaufert, Self Defense Bill. AB-69

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    326

    Mr Dean Kaufert, Self Defense Bill. AB-69

    AB69
    LRB-0392/1
    PJH::jld::rs2011 - 2012 LEGISLATURE2011 ASSEMBLY BILL 69
    Link to Bill History

    March 30, 2011 - Introduced by Representatives Kaufert, Mursau, Jacque,
    LeMahieu, Ziegelbauer, Nass, Kerkman, Williams, Spanbauer, Petryk,
    Knodl, Petrowski, Kestell, Steineke, August, Litjens, A. Ott, Danou,
    Tauchen, Krug, Strachota, Ripp, Honadel, Farrow and Thiesfeldt,
    cosponsored by Senators Wanggaard, Leibham, Holperin, Lazich, Cowles,
    Olsen, Vukmir, Grothman, Hansen, Galloway, Darling, Harsdorf, Hopper,
    Taylor and Moulton. Referred to Committee on Judiciary and Ethics.
    Pg1Ln1 An Act to create 895.62 and 939.48 (1m) of the statutes; relating to: the
    Pg1Ln2 privilege of self-defense.

    __________________________________________________ __________________________


    Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
    AB69
    In general, a person who uses force in self-defense or in the defense of another
    person may not be convicted of a crime stemming from that use of force. This law
    applies only when: 1) the amount of force used is reasonable; and 2) the person uses
    that force to prevent or stop what he or she reasonably believes is an unlawful
    interference with himself or herself or another person, such as the crime of battery.
    Current law specifies that a person may use force that is intended or likely to cause
    the death of or great bodily harm to another individual only if the person reasonably
    believes that using such force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or great
    bodily harm to himself or herself or another person.
    AB69
    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 if: 1) the individual against whom the force was used
    was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already unlawfully and
    forcefully entered, the residence of the person who used the force; 2) the person was
    present in that residence; and 3) the person knew or reasonably believed that an
    unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred. This presumption,
    however, does not apply if: 1) the person who used the force was engaged in a criminal
    activity or was using his or her residence to further a criminal activity; or 2) the
    individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a
    peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace officer) and was
    entering the residence in the performance of his or her official duties.
    AB69
    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 the force was used
    was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already forcibly
    entered, the residence of the person who used the force; 2) the person who used the
    force was present in the residence; and 3) the person who used the force knew or had
    reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
    Under the bill for purposes of civil immunity, a person is not presumed to have
    reasonably believed that the force was necessary if: 1) the person who used the force
    was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her residence to further a
    criminal activity; or 2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified
    himself or herself as a peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace
    officer) and was entering the residence in the performance of his or her official duties.
    AB69
    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.

    __________________________________________________ __________________________


    The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
    enact as follows:

    AB69, s. 1
    Pg2Ln1 Section 1. 895.62 of the statutes is created to read:

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg2Ln2 895.62 Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a
    Pg2Ln3 residence; civil liability immunity. (1) In this section, "actor" means a person
    Pg2Ln4 who uses force that is intended or likely cause death or great bodily harm to another
    Pg2Ln5 person.

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg2Ln6 (2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune from civil liability arising
    Pg2Ln7 out of his or her use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily
    Pg2Ln8 harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent
    Pg2Ln9 imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and
    Pg2Ln10 either of the following applies:

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg3Ln1 (a) The person against whom the force was used was in the process of
    Pg3Ln2 unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's residence, the actor was present in the
    Pg3Ln3 residence, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible
    Pg3Ln4 entry was occurring.

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg3Ln5 (b) The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's residence
    Pg3Ln6 after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the residence, and
    Pg3Ln7 the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly
    Pg3Ln8 entered the residence.

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg3Ln9 (3) An actor is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was
    Pg3Ln10 necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
    Pg3Ln11 to another person if either sub. (2) (a) or (b) applies.

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg3Ln12 (4) The presumption described in sub. (3) does not apply if any of the following
    Pg3Ln13 are true:

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg3Ln14 (a) The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her
    Pg3Ln15 residence to further a criminal activity at the time he or she used the force described
    Pg3Ln16 in sub. (2).

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg3Ln17 (b) The person against whom the force was used was a peace officer who entered
    Pg3Ln18 or attempted to enter the actor's residence in the performance of his or her official
    Pg3Ln19 duties. This paragraph applies only if at least one of the following applies:

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg3Ln20 1. The officer identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described
    Pg3Ln21 in sub. (2) was used by the actor.

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg3Ln22 2. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering
    Pg3Ln23 or attempting to enter his or her residence was a peace officer.

    AB69, s. 1 - continued
    Pg3Ln24 (5) In any civil action, if a court finds that a person is immune from civil liability
    Pg3Ln25 under sub. (2), the court shall award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs,
    Pg4Ln1 compensation for loss of income, and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred
    Pg4Ln2 by the person.

  2. #2
    Regular Member CalicoJack10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Arbor Vitae
    Posts
    559
    This looks like a more complicated re-write of what we already have.
    I am Calico Jack,,,, And I approve this message!
    (Paid for by the blood of patriots, and Calico Jack Defense)
    Calico Jack Defense

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Appleton, WI
    Posts
    276
    see here if you missed it range rat
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...in-WI-Assembly

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •