Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Let's look at "Stand Your Ground"

  1. #1
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Post Let's look at "Stand Your Ground"

    We learned a lot when we composed our own Constitutional Carry bill, so I thought it might be useful to look at one of the most important components of a strong Castle Doctrine law, "Stand Your Ground". Wikipedia has a great list of links to states with Stand-your-ground law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
    This list was last verified to be current on June 21, 2008.

    States with a Stand-your-ground law. No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.


    I followed the links and picked out some interesting sections from each of the state laws. Sorry for the length of this, but there is a lot of information and some of it might be used to improve AB-69.
    West Virginia:
    §55-7-22 of the Code of West Virginia
    (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.

    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section.

    (c) A person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in any place he or she has a legal right to be outside of his home or residence may use reasonable and proportionate force against an intruder or attacker: Provided, That such person may use deadly force against an intruder or attacker in a place that is not his residence without a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that he or she or another is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he or she or another can only be saved by the use of deadly force against the intruder or attacker.

    (d) The justified use of reasonable and proportionate force under this section shall constitute a full and complete defense to any civil action brought by an intruder or attacker against a person using such force.

    (e) The full and complete civil defense created by the provisions of this section is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing or escaping from the commission of a felony; (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or another with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or (3) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself or another, unless he or she withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

    (f) The provisions of this section do not apply to the creation of a hazardous or dangerous condition on or in any real or personal property designed to prevent criminal conduct or cause injury to a person engaging in criminal conduct

    Florida:
    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
    History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.

    Georgia:
    All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.

    Louisiana:
    RS 14:20
    (2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
    (3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.
    (4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.
    (b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
    B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:
    (1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.
    (2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
    C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.
    D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.
    Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

    Montana:
    Section 1. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.
    Section 2. Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.
    (2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.
    Section 6. Landlords and tenants -- no firearm prohibition allowed. A landlord or operator of a hotel or motel may not, by contract or otherwise, prevent a tenant or a guest of a tenant from possessing on the premises a firearm that it is legal for the tenant or guest to possess. A landlord or operator of a hotel or motel may prohibit the discharge of a firearm on the premises except in self-defense.

    Oklahoma:
    F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
    G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
    H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.

    South Carolina:
    SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.
    (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:
    (1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.
    (B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:
    (1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or
    (2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or
    (3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
    (4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.
    (C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
    (D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.
    (E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.
    SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.
    (A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.
    (B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.
    (C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A)

    Tennessee:
    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the others' use or attempted use of unlawful force.
    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if:
    (A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
    (B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
    (C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
    (c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

    Texas:
    [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the others' use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or(B) to prevent the others' imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
    SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
    Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

    Utah:
    (4) (a) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.
    (b) Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony.
    (c) Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.

    Washington State:
    The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[4][5]

    Missouri:
    Missouri has a good one: “Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyances temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily,permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs,and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.”

    Minnesota:
    ARTICLE 3
    5.18 SELF-DEFENSE: USE OF FORCE
    5.19 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 609.065, is amended to read:
    5.20 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN
    5.21 DEFENSE OF HOME AND PERSON.
    5.22 Subdivision 1. Definitions. The intentional taking of the life of another is not
    5.23 authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense
    5.24 which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or
    5.25 death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode. (a) For
    5.26 purposes of this section, the terms in this subdivision have the meanings given them.
    5.27 (b) "Court order" means an order for protection issued under section 518B.01, a
    5.28 restraining order issued under section 609.748, a no contact order issued under section
    5.29 518B.01 or 629.75, or a substantively similar order issued by any court in this state,
    5.30 another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United States.
    5.31 (c) "Deadly force" means force used by an individual with the purpose of causing,
    5.32 or which the individual should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing,
    5.33 great bodily harm or death. The intentional discharge of a firearm by an individual at
    5.34 another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes
    6.1 deadly force. A threat to cause great bodily harm or death, by the production of a weapon
    6.2 or otherwise, constitutes reasonable force and not deadly force, when the individual's
    6.3 objective is limited to creating an expectation that the individual will use deadly force
    6.4 only if authorized by law.
    6.5 (d) "Dwelling" means a building defined under section 609.556, subdivision 3, an
    6.6 overnight stopping accommodation of any kind, or a place of abode, that an individual
    6.7 temporarily or permanently is occupying or intending to occupy as a habitation or home.
    6.8 A dwelling may include, but is not limited to, a building or conveyance and that building's
    6.9 or conveyance's curtilage and any attached or adjacent deck, porch, appurtenance, or
    6.10 other structure, whether the building or conveyance is used temporarily or permanently
    6.11 for these purposes, is mobile or immobile, or is a motor vehicle, watercraft, motor home,
    6.12 tent, or the equivalent.
    6.13 (e) "Forcible felony" means any crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one
    6.14 year the elements of which include the use or threatened use of physical force or a deadly
    6.15 weapon against the person of another.
    6.16 (f) "Great bodily harm" has the meaning given in section 609.02, subdivision 7a.
    6.17 (g) "Substantial bodily harm" has the meaning given in section 609.02, subdivision 8.
    6.18 (h) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any type, including but not limited to a motor
    6.19 vehicle, boat, train, or airplane; a person-powered or animal-powered buggy, wagon,
    6.20 carriage, sled, or sleigh; a bicycle, pedicab, or Segway; or any other conveyance device.
    6.21 Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized. (a) The use of deadly force by an
    6.22 individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
    6.23 (1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual's dwelling;
    6.24 (2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is an offense or
    6.25 attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial
    6.26 bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
    6.27 (3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or
    6.28 imminent commission of a forcible felony.
    6.29 (b) The use of deadly force is not authorized under this section if the individual
    6.30 knows that the person against whom force is being used is a licensed peace officer from
    6.31this state, another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United
    6.32 States, who is acting lawfully.
    6.33 Subd. 3. Degree of force; retreat. An individual taking defensive action pursuant
    6.34 to subdivision 2 may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual
    6.35 honestly and in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense. The individual may
    6.36 meet force with superior force when the individual's objective is defensive; the individual
    7.1 is not required to retreat; and the individual may continue defensive actions against an
    7.2 assailant until the danger is eliminated.
    7.3 Subd. 4. Presumptions. (a) An individual using deadly force is presumed to possess
    7.4 a reasonable belief that there exists an imminent threat of substantial bodily harm, great
    7.5 bodily harm, or death to the individual or another person, if the individual knows or
    7.6 has reason to know that:
    7.7 (1) the person against whom the defensive action is being taken is entering or
    7.8 attempting to enter by force or by stealth, or has entered by force or by stealth and remains
    7.9 within, the dwelling or occupied vehicle of the individual; or
    7.10 (2) the person against whom the defensive action is being taken is in the process of
    7.11 removing, or attempting to remove, the individual or another person from the dwelling or
    7.12 occupied vehicle of the individual.
    7.13 (b) The individual is not entitled to the benefit of the presumption in paragraph (a) if
    7.14 the individual knows that the person against whom the defensive action is being taken:
    7.15 (1) is a lawful resident of the dwelling or a lawful possessor of the vehicle, or is
    7.16 otherwise lawfully permitted to enter the dwelling or vehicle; or
    7.17 (2) is a person who has lawful custody of the person being removed from the
    7.18 dwelling or vehicle or whose removal from the dwelling or vehicle is being attempted.
    7.19 A person who is prohibited by a court order from contacting another individual or
    7.20 from entering a dwelling or possessing a vehicle of another individual is not a lawful
    7.21 resident of that individual's dwelling and is not a lawful possessor of that individual's
    7.22 vehicle.
    7.23 Subd. 5. Criminal investigation; immunity from prosecution. (a) An individual
    7.24 who uses force, including deadly force, according to this section or as otherwise provided
    7.25 by law in defense of the individual, the individual's dwelling, or another individual is
    7.26 justified in using such force and is immune from any civil liability or criminal prosecution
    7.27 for that act.
    7.28 (b) A law enforcement agency may arrest an individual using force under
    7.29 circumstances described in this section only after considering any claims or circumstances
    7.30 supporting self-defense or lawful defense of another individual.
    7.31 Subd. 6. Justifiable use of force; burden of proof. In a criminal trial, when there
    7.32 is any evidence of justifiable use of force under this section or section 609.06, the state
    7.33 has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were
    7.34 not justifiable.
    Last edited by davegran; 05-22-2011 at 10:47 AM.
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Thumbs up Thanks Dave!

    That is a lot of reference material to dig through!

    In my opinion Florida has the best "Castle Doctrine" law and we should get one just like it here in Wisconsin. I lived in Florida when it was passed and put into effect. It was amazing how the "criminal element" was affected by it.

    It went into effect on 1OCT2005. On Thanksgiving weekend of that same year a family that lived in my town (Plant City) were returning home from visiting family....around midnight. The father unlocked the door and let his wife in and he began unloading the luggage from their car. The wife had taken their two small children (both asleep) into their home and placed them in bed. Unknown to the husband a man had been waiting in the bushes (criminal opportunity) when they pulled up and had entered their home after the husband had unlocked and opened the door. The perpetrator assaulted the wife while the husband was outside. Husband hears the wife screaming and immediately runs into his home pulling his CONCEALED handgun and shoots the attacker.

    Aftermath? No charges against husband, no civil charges. Life went on for this family due to Florida's concealed carry law (unfortunately not Constitutional Carry) and the Castle Doctrine. The perpetrator did not die and was charged accordingly.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    89
    I thought I wrote up a pretty good version of castle doctrine loosely based on Wisconsin's proposed one. I believe I said I could write a better CD-SYG law than the one being drafted in under two minutes, of which I accomplished.

    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 defensive force was at any location
    they are legally allowed to occupy.


    just dug it up. 1 paragraph long, more solid than what the "real" politicians could come up with.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    If Your Wife is Being Assaulted

    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    That is a lot of reference material to dig through!

    In my opinion Florida has the best "Castle Doctrine" law and we should get one just like it here in Wisconsin. I lived in Florida when it was passed and put into effect. It was amazing how the "criminal element" was affected by it.

    It went into effect on 1OCT2005. On Thanksgiving weekend of that same year a family that lived in my town (Plant City) were returning home from visiting family....around midnight. The father unlocked the door and let his wife in and he began unloading the luggage from their car. The wife had taken their two small children (both asleep) into their home and placed them in bed. Unknown to the husband a man had been waiting in the bushes (criminal opportunity) when they pulled up and had entered their home after the husband had unlocked and opened the door. The perpetrator assaulted the wife while the husband was outside. Husband hears the wife screaming and immediately runs into his home pulling his CONCEALED handgun and shoots the attacker.

    Aftermath? No charges against husband, no civil charges. Life went on for this family due to Florida's concealed carry law (unfortunately not Constitutional Carry) and the Castle Doctrine. The perpetrator did not die and was charged accordingly.
    the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground is irrelevant. Even if it were, I don't know many men (in fact, none) that would stop and think about the Castle Doctrine at that instant. I am not sure why the emphasis on the concealed weapon. The outcome would have been the same if he had been openly carrying. Both of these concepts have specific meaning and application. I am not sure how much they change a person's response. And even if you are 100% legal, killing another human being, even a despicable one is a lifelong burden you will carry. This type of law may remove the duty to retreat but this does not mean that retreat is not the best option in some circumstances. They types of situations that would be affected are a thin slice of the pie. An actual attack on a third party - what changes? A nonthreating yet illegal incursion - what changes? Only when you are under attack does it really help - because you do not need to evaluate whether or not retreat is possible or practicable. Even then you would get the benefit of the doubt. I am not saying the law shouldn't have been changed - could somebody provide a scenario where the outcome would have been different post-law vs pre-law?
    Last edited by apjonas; 05-22-2011 at 01:56 PM. Reason: add

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    The "Stand your ground" or "Castle Doctrine" laws do many things. What I feel is most important is that a person cannot be brought up on charges for defending himself/herself against an intruder.

    Current Wisconsin law does allow for use of a deadly weapon, and it does not require a person to retreat. but we are only allowed to use equal force as the attacker has. Both of these laws allow the use of deadly force in ANY home invasion scenario, as opposed to now where the burden of proof is put on the person that defended themselves that they did face a life or death situation to justify their actions

    With either new law, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor instead of the person who was attacked.

    with the castle doctrine, it allows deadly force to be used in any and all home invasion scenario's.

    Just as the death penalty is supposed to act as a deterrent, so is the castle doctrine.
    it really isn't too hard to understand the benefits.

  6. #6
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Wisconsin is a stand your ground state also, and it has been since 1909.

    I don't know any legal citation to support the concept that we can only use force equal to what an attacker uses. In any reasonable interpretation it cannot be taken literally.

    It certainly doesn't mean you can only use a gun against a gun or a knife against a knife.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637
    I'm with Shotgun on this. Nothing I've ever seen says that you can only use the same level of force as your attacker. That said their are only two levels of force for that I know of for an untrained "Joe citizen". Non-lethal and lethal. Since thing like Batons and Tasers are illegal in WI they don't have a less-lethal option. That said an untrained person with a baton is considered deadly force. Of course I'm of the opinion that if an unarmed individual or group attacks a man who's legally armed then I think deadly force or threat of deadly force would be appropriate.
    “The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.” — Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

  8. #8
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockMeisterG21 View Post
    I'm with Shotgun on this. Nothing I've ever seen says that you can only use the same level of force as your attacker. That said their are only two levels of force for that I know of for an untrained "Joe citizen". Non-lethal and lethal. Since thing like Batons and Tasers are illegal in WI they don't have a less-lethal option. That said an untrained person with a baton is considered deadly force. Of course I'm of the opinion that if an unarmed individual or group attacks a man who's legally armed then I think deadly force or threat of deadly force would be appropriate.
    Batons are legal in Wisconsin, although you may have some local ordinances that regulate them in some places. It probably would not be wise to carry one concealed.

    I disagree that deadly force or even the threat of it is automatically appropriate against an unarmed individual or group. It depends upon the situation. Deadly force is only appropriate (and legal) when there's a reasonable belief of a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's unlikely that four unarmed 80 year-old 100-pound grannies attacking you or me presents a threat of death or great bodily harm. On the other hand, four unarmed 30 year old guys who look like NFL defensive tackles would be another matter. Put a gun or knife in the hands of one of the grannies, and then they present a deadly threat too.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    Batons are legal in Wisconsin, although you may have some local ordinances that regulate them in some places. It probably would not be wise to carry one concealed.

    I disagree that deadly force or even the threat of it is automatically appropriate against an unarmed individual or group. It depends upon the situation. Deadly force is only appropriate (and legal) when there's a reasonable belief of a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's unlikely that four unarmed 80 year-old 100-pound grannies attacking you or me presents a threat of death or great bodily harm. On the other hand, four unarmed 30 year old guys who look like NFL defensive tackles would be another matter. Put a gun or knife in the hands of one of the grannies, and then they present a deadly threat too.
    Just did a bit of research and while Batons are legal my interpretation of the law (IANAL) is that they are considered a "Dangerous Weapon" and cannot be concealed (dammit). Got my hopes up there for a minute. Still good to know I don't have to hide the one I have anymore. Back into the car it goes. Here are the relevant statues i found. I haven't checked my local ordinances yet but that's a project for another day.

    939.22(10)
    (10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

    939.22(14)
    (14) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.

    I agree that deadly force is not the solution for everything. My point was that depending on how you look at it, lethal force can be justified even if you attacker is unarmed. 4 unarmed linebackers attacking me after i have presented my sidearm due to their threats, are clearly planning to take my gun and kill me. I'm not going to shoot a granny whacking my with her purse when I can restrain her or just walk away.

    Every scenario is different and requires an appropriate response. Being well versed in judicious use of force is extremely important when carrying a firearm.
    “The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.” — Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    Wisconsin is a stand your ground state also, and it has been since 1909.

    I don't know any legal citation to support the concept that we can only use force equal to what an attacker uses. In any reasonable interpretation it cannot be taken literally.

    It certainly doesn't mean you can only use a gun against a gun or a knife against a knife.
    Site please? I'd like to read it because all we hear is we don't have the "legal" ability to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by GlockMeisterG21 View Post
    I'm with Shotgun on this. Nothing I've ever seen says that you can only use the same level of force as your attacker. That said their are only two levels of force for that I know of for an untrained "Joe citizen". Non-lethal and lethal. Since thing like Batons and Tasers are illegal in WI they don't have a less-lethal option. That said an untrained person with a baton is considered deadly force. Of course I'm of the opinion that if an unarmed individual or group attacks a man who's legally armed then I think deadly force or threat of deadly force would be appropriate.
    I think only the extendible batons are illegal.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Lightbulb The reason I mentioned "concealed" is because he was armed when this started....

    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground is irrelevant. Even if it were, I don't know many men (in fact, none) that would stop and think about the Castle Doctrine at that instant. I am not sure why the emphasis on the concealed weapon. The outcome would have been the same if he had been openly carrying. Both of these concepts have specific meaning and application. I am not sure how much they change a person's response. And even if you are 100% legal, killing another human being, even a despicable one is a lifelong burden you will carry. This type of law may remove the duty to retreat but this does not mean that retreat is not the best option in some circumstances. They types of situations that would be affected are a thin slice of the pie. An actual attack on a third party - what changes? A nonthreating yet illegal incursion - what changes? Only when you are under attack does it really help - because you do not need to evaluate whether or not retreat is possible or practicable. Even then you would get the benefit of the doubt. I am not saying the law shouldn't have been changed - could somebody provide a scenario where the outcome would have been different post-law vs pre-law?
    he didn't run into his house or dig through his vehicle to find a gun. If he had, his wife, children and possibly himself would all have been murdered. Since he had a license to carry concealed he was armed when this started.

  12. #12
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Site please? I'd like to read it because all we hear is we don't have the "legal" ability to do so.


    I think only the extendible batons are illegal.
    The citation supporting the concepts of "stand your ground" and "no duty to retreat" in Wisconsin is a WI Supreme Court opinion:

    Miller v. State, 139 Wis. 57, 119 N.W. 850 (1909)

    I'd be interested in the basis for your belief that expandable batons are illegal in Wisconsin. I think that is erroneous. For what it's worth, anyone can come in from the street and buy an expandable baton at Professional Equipment and Supply, the store portion of Deerfield Pistol-- a store owned by, and primarily staffed by cops. That's where I bought mine!
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    If Wisconsin can't get Constitutional carry being completely controled by the GOP & conservatives , we won't get Florida style stand your ground ever...this states elected officials are too concerned with not appearing extreme & peeing off the Libs than doing whats right for the people that elected them into their office.
    Last edited by GLOCK21GB; 05-23-2011 at 11:47 AM.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    The citation supporting the concepts of "stand your ground" and "no duty to retreat" in Wisconsin is a WI Supreme Court opinion:

    Miller v. State, 139 Wis. 57, 119 N.W. 850 (1909)

    I'd be interested in the basis for your belief that expandable batons are illegal in Wisconsin. I think that is erroneous. For what it's worth, anyone can come in from the street and buy an expandable baton at Professional Equipment and Supply, the store portion of Deerfield Pistol-- a store owned by, and primarily staffed by cops. That's where I bought mine!
    Thank you for the Supreme Court decision. I look forward to reading it.

    As for the extendible baton, it was just one what I heard without looking at the law, so I could very well be wrong.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  15. #15
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823
    Also take a look at the "My Castle Doctrine Law" in my sig which is from the US Supreme Court case Beard V. Untied States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895).
    Last edited by XDFDE45; 05-23-2011 at 01:50 PM.
    Wisconsin Carry Member
    My Castle Doctrine Law

    Don't wish ill upon your enemy......plan it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Hypotheticals

    I still am a little foggy on what difference these laws make. Let us say the following happens:

    1. You are at home (alone) holding your M1911 .45 (full load including a chambered round) - admiring the workmanship, whatever while you watch Leave it to Beaver reruns. A large man kicks in your door, he is holding a 8" knife and shouts that he is going to kill you. Fortunately you have a "safe room" that will protect you and give you the means to call the authorities. This is your only means of retreat. What is the difference in the following if your state has such laws vs not?

    a. You can easily get to the safe room without putting yourself at risk.
    b. You are unsure whether or not you can get to the safe room (50-50).
    c. There is no way you can make it to the safe room.

    2. How do things change if the intruder walked through your wide open front door?
    3. How do things change if the intruder is a drunken frat boy with a knife (but you believe you can easily disarm).?
    4. How do things change if the intruder is a mistaken business man shouting "June, I'm home!" but he has kicked in the door because he thinks his key is defective.

    For easy reading, label you answers like this:

    1aN, 1aY, 1bN, 1bY,...

    1-4 is each scenario
    a-c is the safe room status
    N or Y is whether or not your location has Castle Doctrine law or not. For example, you might say...

    1cN - I will shoot the intruder. I will not be liable because even though I had a duty to retreat, it was impossible to do so.

    4aY - I will shoot the intruder. Even though I can make it to the safe room I don't have a duty to do so since kicking in the door is sufficient justification for using deadly force. I mean he could have been armed. Plus I don't want to get up from my comfy Barcolounger.

    I don't know what the "right" answers are or even if there is a right answer in each case. I want to explore people's understanding of these laws and hope the exchange will be useful.

    On a totally different subject:

    site = location like a web site/website
    cite = give the source or authority for a statement (or legal infraction) or recognize (e.g. for bravery) or quote
    citation = the actual data/document that does the citing (sometimes citation is abbreviated cite as well)
    sight = the ability to see, an instrument for aiming or visualizing something, a scene (What a sight!), as a verb to employ a sight
    SAIT - Southern Alberta Institute of Technology
    cyt - (abbreviated from cyto-) medical term from Greek meaning "cell" as in cytology
    Last edited by apjonas; 05-23-2011 at 04:26 PM. Reason: grammar

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    With the castle doctrine/stand your ground law that is in place in FL, it does not force a person to try and determine the criminals intent before being able to using deadly force when their home (Castle) is breached.
    The law does three major things, First and foremost, It is supposed to stop a prosecutor from trying to use the old "But he only wanted to steal your television, did he deserve to die for this" sob-story to get a jury to convict you on the murder charges he brought against you in the first place.
    It is a deterrent to the criminals by making them aware that a homeowner can shoot and kill them, and they will be justified in their actions.
    It also keeps the dead criminals family from taking you to civil court for damages. Both the castle doctrines and the stand your ground laws are good things for us, but not so good for the career criminal or the first timer.

    An intoxicated business man entering the wrong home; The prosecutor would easily be able to prove that the breach was unintentional and prove it was a situation that did not justify the shooting.

    What castle doctrine laws do is protect the victim of a home breach from wrongful prosecution. Instead of burden of proof being on the homeowner to show the court that he in did in fact fear for his life, it turns the burden of proof onto the prosecution to prove that the homeowner DID NOT fear for his life or injury, This makes it harder for the prosecutor to railroad an innocent victims like has happened many times in the past.

    In Wisconsin, if I heard someone break into my home and I shoot them while they are holding my plasma TV, do you think I would not be prosecuted for manslaughter? There is no way I could prove fear of death or bodily harm. Therefore current laws force me to just accept people robbing my home with no fear of retribution from me. The current laws help criminals, not innocents. We want laws that help innocents, not criminals!



    What we are trying to accomplish is to keep WI from becoming like the UK! There is no justifiable self-defense in the UK. Imagine living in a world where self-defense is illegal! If you want to live a life like that, go right ahead. But do not try to turn my world into some mamby pamby liberal hell-hole that subscribes to those thoughts
    Last edited by Nutczak; 05-23-2011 at 04:41 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    Current Wisconsin law does allow for use of a deadly weapon, and it does not require a person to retreat. but we are only allowed to use equal force as the attacker has.
    Hmm, so if a guy comes into the home and is waving a big sword around threatening to kill the homeowner, does said homeowner have to put down his HG and go find a sword that is no bigger than the perp's? Or can the homeowner wave his HG around? Would he be charged with brandishing if the the perp tells police he was only kidding?

    It's all so confusing.

    I think we all need an emergency tactical grandma that we can deploy who would shame any prosecutor who might say there was no fear of life and limb.

    (Fortunately, I always have one in my home, though she's pretty cute and doesn't look her age.)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Did you consider

    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    ...In Wisconsin, if I heard someone break into my home and I shoot them while they are holding my plasma TV, do you think I would not be prosecuted for manslaughter? There is no way I could prove fear of death or bodily harm. Therefore current laws force me to just accept people robbing my home with no fear of retribution from me. The current laws help criminals, not innocents. We want laws that help innocents, not criminals!...
    that he might want to bash you in the head with the TV?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    A Thought

    Maybe we could establish a standard size sword. I mean some guys have big swords and some guys have small swords. Most wield average swords. As long as it fits the scabbard and isn't one of those weird curved swords it really doesn't matter does it? Some people are really funny about swords. My wife doesn't like me to practice with mine in the living room, especially when she has her friend Barbara over. Barbara likes to watch my routine and ends up ignoring my wife. And don't get me started about the time my mother-in-law saw me buffing my sword in the den. Remember -It's okay to admire another guy's sword - just be discrete and certainly don't touch it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    Hmm, so if a guy comes into the home and is waving a big sword around threatening to kill the homeowner, does said homeowner have to put down his HG and go find a sword that is no bigger than the perp's? Or can the homeowner wave his HG around? Would he be charged with brandishing if the the perp tells police he was only kidding?

    It's all so confusing.

    I think we all need an emergency tactical grandma that we can deploy who would shame any prosecutor who might say there was no fear of life and limb.

    (Fortunately, I always have one in my home, though she's pretty cute and doesn't look her age.)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    I Had No Idea, I Wonder

    Quote Originally Posted by Shotgun View Post
    Batons are legal in Wisconsin, although you may have some local ordinances that regulate them in some places.

    how many majorettes and symphony conductors are doing hard time?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Are You Sure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    ...An intoxicated business man entering the wrong home; The prosecutor would easily be able to prove that the breach was unintentional and prove it was a situation that did not justify the shooting.

    Does it matter if the entry was unintentional (something that the intruder may know but the homeowner probably does not)? If deadly force can be used if the occupant reasonably believes that he is in danger of death or serious bodily injury and the law says there is a presumption that the belief is reasonable if the entry is forcible....why can't the shooting of Ward Cleaver be immunized?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Does it matter if the entry was unintentional (something that the intruder may know but the homeowner probably does not)? If deadly force can be used if the occupant reasonably believes that he is in danger of death or serious bodily injury and the law says there is a presumption that the belief is reasonable if the entry is forcible....why can't the shooting of Ward Cleaver be immunized?
    For someone I have known who was good presenting a decent debate, what happened? Ya been hitting up grandpa's special cough medicine.

    Please define "Reasonably Believes"
    The biggest plus with C-D and SYG laws is that the burden of proof has been removed from the person who defended themselves, and put onto the prosecution. So instead of the homeowner being forced to prove that they were in fear for the life, it is now the prosecutors burden to prove that they were not in fear for their life.

    It does not seem like a big deal, but it really is, especially when the only witness for the prosecution is unable to speak in court due to a previous arrangement with the undertaker.

    As I said before, this effectively puts criminals on notice that a homeowner has the legal right and ability to shoot them for any unwanted home invasion. Again, good for us, bad for criminals which is very opposite our current situation.
    Last edited by Nutczak; 05-24-2011 at 09:48 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Angry Otherwise, they will try to make their own laws....

    We absolutely need CD and SYG in Wisconsin to spell out our Right to Self-defense; because we know that law enforcement, lawyers, and judges in this state will try to make their own laws if they aren't prevented by clear, unambigous language. Nothing like a few more convictions to add to the resume....
    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    Maybe we could establish a standard size sword. I mean some guys have big swords and some guys have small swords. Most wield average swords.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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