Let's look at "Stand Your Ground"

I Had No Idea, I Wonder

Shotgun said:

Batons are legal in Wisconsin, although you may have some local ordinances that regulate them in some places.

Click to expand...

how many majorettes and symphony conductors are doing hard time?

Are You Sure?

Nutczak said:

...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.

Click to expand...

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?

apjonas said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.... :cuss:

apjonas said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, I Was Somewhat Tired

Nutczak said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is the point. Some of the CD/SYG laws state that there is immunity if the homeowner reasonably believed that the intruder intended to do very bad things; they also state that a forcible entry is enough to presume that the homeowner had such reasonable belief. These are their words - not mine. Thus if mistaken CPA kicks down your door - you have, by law, reasonable belief that he intends very bad things...and having such belief may plug him (if you so choose). What mistaken CPA thought will probably be speculation at that point. But let's say his key is jammed in your front door and your security camera shows him muttering about why his *&^%$ door won't open. I guess the moral of the story is make sure it is your own door you are kicking in.....

apjonas said:

This is the point. Some of the CD/SYG laws state that there is immunity if the homeowner reasonably believed that the intruder intended to do very bad things; they also state that a forcible entry is enough to presume that the homeowner had such reasonable belief. These are their words - not mine. Thus if mistaken CPA kicks down your door - you have, by law, reasonable belief that he intends very bad things...and having such belief may plug him (if you so choose). What mistaken CPA thought will probably be speculation at that point. But let's say his key is jammed in your front door and your security camera shows him muttering about why his *&^%$ door won't open. I guess the moral of the story is make sure it is your own door you are kicking in.....

Click to expand...

That sums it up pretty accurately, but could the prosecutor prove that you were watching the security system feed to know it was a mistake? if someone kicks in any persons door, it is a very standard reaction to expect that they have forced entry into your home for nefarious reasons.

Imagine your at home, 3:00 A.M. sleeping in bed with the wife and your small children are in another room, And someone who is unknown to you kicks in your door! Do you want laws that force you to first determine if this intruding persons intents are to simply rob you, or to try and figure out if they intend to kill you before you are able to defend your family?
Or do you want to be given the benefit of the doubt that the persons intents were to rape your dog, kick your wife, and kill your children?
The way the law currently stands, if you cannot prove to the court that the intruder was in fact there to injure or kill you or your family, it is most likely a prosecutor could be successful in having you convicted of murder or manslaughter.
The prosecutor will present witnesses to the court who will say "He was only there to take there TV and his stereo, We didn't even think anyone was home". He will play this out to the court that the kid did not deserve to die because he only wanted your television, you're rich, you can afford another one easily enough. Do you feel killing a person over a television is justified? And he will successfully get you convicted of manslaughter or murder.

Under the C-D and/or SYG legislation, In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many versions of the Castle Doctrine, particularly those with a "Stand-Your-Ground clause", also have a clause which provides immunity from any lawsuit filed on behalf of the assailant for damages/injury resulting from the use of lethal force. Without this clause, it is possible for an assailant to sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain and suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender, or for their next-of-kin to sue for wrongful death in the case of a fatality. Even if successfully refuted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) must often pay thousands of dollars in legal costs as a result of such lawsuits, and thus without immunity, such civil action could be used for revenge against a defender acting lawfully.

So Mr. Criminal busts into your home, you fear for your life, you shoot the intruder, the police and the prosecutor decide that your decision to shoot the intruder was in fact justified. Without a C-D, and SYG law in place. The surviving family can still file suit against you for their loss. Even if you are able to win the case against you, it may bankrupt you. So this legislation also creates an immunity from civil litigation.

I am seeing no bad in C-D laws or SYG laws. Some states have a better law than others. I would be very pleased if WI had laws as solid as FL does right now. Otherwise there is still room for a scumbag attorney to try and break you monetarily.

Since it is late, and I am getting tired. This may not be my best writing. But I am sure you can understand why this legislation is beneficial to almost everyone but the criminal and their family.

I feel plagiaristic all of a sudden....

Nutczak said:

....
Since it is late, and I am getting tired. This may not be my best writing. But I am sure you can understand why this legislation is beneficial to almost everyone but the criminal and their family.

Click to expand...

Nutczak, tired or not, this is one of the best explanations of CD/SYG that I have seen anywhere! Just to prove I'm not exaggerating, I will probably plagiarize it one of these days....

davegran said:

Nutczak, tired or not, this is one of the best explanations of CD/SYG that I have seen anywhere! Just to prove I'm not exaggerating, I will probably plagiarize it one of these days....

Click to expand...

Agreed... the only thing I might change would be.....

"Or do you want to be given the benefit of the doubt that the persons intents were to rape your dog, kick your wife, and kill your children?"

I might change that to...."rape your wife, kick your dog"......

Outdoorsman1

Outdoorsman1 said:

Agreed... the only thing I might change would be.....

"Or do you want to be given the benefit of the doubt that the persons intents were to rape your dog, kick your wife, and kill your children?"

I might change that to...."rape your wife, kick your dog"......

Outdoorsman1

Click to expand...

Some of those criminals are really twisted, and yet another reason that I do not want to be forced to determine their intentions before defending my home and its occupants.

apjonas said:

1. You are at home (alone) holding your [insert favorite pistol here] (full load including a chambered round) - admiring the workmanship, whatever while you watch reruns.
A large man kicks in your door, he is holding an 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?

Click to expand...

Any of the 3 sub-situations, CD makes no difference - he's violently & illegally entered my home, with a weapon, and stated he intends to kill me.
If it's my front door, & I'm sitting on the couch watching TV, there's no way I can even stand before he's on me.
I shoot as soon as I can point the pistol at him.
I can only hope I don't damage the piano in the process of saving my life, & he doesn't fall on me.

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)?

Click to expand...

Not a bit. He's in my home illegally, has a weapon & states his intent to kill me. AOJ.
I still have the same reservation about not damaging the piano.

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.

Click to expand...

He'd be looking at the muzzle of my Glock & being told very sternly that there's no June living here,
if he'd leave a business card on his way out so I know where to send the door repair bill, I'd appreciate it,
& as long as he pays for repairs I won't press charges for B&E.
Slight possibility I'd hold him there & call police anyway, just to CYA.