AB69 going before assembly next

bmwguy11 · Sep 30, 2011

The bill as amended passed the committee on a vote of 6 to 2 (1 Democrat joining with all of the Republicans)

Assembly Substitute Amendment 3 was approved - https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/amendments/ab69/asa3_ab69
The bill will next go before the full State Assembly.
The Legislative Council attorney that staffs the committee is not in today, but I am told they will be issuing a memo next week which will be posted to the Bill History website at: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/ab69

List of registered Supporters and Opponents:
http://ethics.state.wi.us/scripts/currentSession/LegProps.asp?key=REGAB69

(Text From Assembly Substitute Amendment 3)
Under this substitute amendment, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, a court in a criminal case against the person 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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or, in the case of a business owner or operator, place of business of the person who used the force;
2) the person was present in that dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; 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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business 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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.
Under the substitute amendment, 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 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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business of the person who
used the force;
2) the person who used the force was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; 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 substitute amendment 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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business 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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.
Under the substitute amendment, 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.

Outdoorsman1 · Sep 30, 2011

Ok.. I have a question...????

Snip...

2) the person was present in that dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business;

This is used more than once... Does this mean that if someone is not at home and comes home to find an intruder in his house, then because he was not "present" at the time of the breakin, this statute will not apply..???

Outdoorsman1

davegran · Sep 30, 2011

Outdoorsman1 said:
Ok.. I have a question...????

Snip...

2) the person was present in that dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business;

Click to expand...

This is used more than once... Does this mean that if someone is not at home and comes home to find an intruder in his house, then because he was not "present" at the time of the breakin, this statute will not apply..???

Outdoorsman1

According to

895.62AB69-ASA3,3,6 2(2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune from civil liability arising
3out of his or her use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily
4harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent
5imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and either
6of the following applies:

AB69-ASA3,3,117 (a) The person against whom the force was used was in the process of
8unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of
9business, the actor was on his or her property or present in the dwelling, motor
10vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an
11unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.

AB69-ASA3,3,1612 (b) The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling,
13motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor
14was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew
15or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the
16dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.

(h) “Dwelling” means any premises or portion of a premises
that is used as a home or a place of residence and that part of the
lot or site on which the dwelling is situated that is devoted to resi-
dential use. “Dwelling” includes other existing structures on the
immediate residential premises such as driveways, sidewalks,
swimming pools, terraces, patios, fences, porches, garages, and
basements.

It sounds to me like section (b) says you don't have to be present when the forcible entry occurs. You and the bad guy have to both be in the dwelling and you have to know that a forcible entry occurred before you can use deadly force.

ksks · Oct 2, 2011

The problem is going to be, what does "forceable" mean. Do you have to show a jimmied lock or a broken window for you to be justified in your judgment of your level of force?

Interceptor_Knight · Oct 2, 2011

Outdoorsman1 said:
This is used more than once... Does this mean that if someone is not at home and comes home to find an intruder in his house, then because he was not "present" at the time of the breakin, this statute will not apply..???

If you know that the intruder is in your home before you enter it, you do not have a green light for the use of deadly force...

rcav8r · Oct 3, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
If you know that the intruder is in your home before you enter it, you do not have a green light for the use of deadly force...

What if you know your family is inside?

davegran · Oct 3, 2011

Interceptor_Knight said:
If you know that the intruder is in your home before you enter it, you do not have a green light for the use of deadly force...

Not correct. Read it again:

895.62AB69-ASA3,3,6 2(2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune from civil liability arising
3out of his or her use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily
4harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent
5imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person and either
6of the following applies:

AB69-ASA3,3,117 (a) The person against whom the force was used was in the process of
8unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of
9business, the actor was on his or her property or present in the dwelling, motor
10vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an
11unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.

AB69-ASA3,3,1612 (b) The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling,
13motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor
14was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew
15or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the
16dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Oct 4, 2011

I got this from my Rep. Is he right?

Hi Paul,

Good to hear from you!

I am a co-sponsor of AB-69 and do support the stand-your-ground clause added to the bill. The stand-your-ground clause was added to the bill in substitute amendment 3 page 3 line 17-20. I have attached a copy for you to review. I am encouraged that Rep. Kaufert added this language into Sub. Amend. 3.

AB-69 has now passed committee and is available for scheduling on the floor. I will be voting for this bill when it is placed before our body.

Thank you for your continued support, Paul. I appreciate your dedication. Please feel free to let me know of any other questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Steve Nass

State Representative

Outdoorsman1 · Oct 4, 2011

I could be wrong but I do not think he is right....

I had a long telephone conversation the other night with my Rep. Samantha Kerkman. The call was about the resisting arrest issue but I brought up the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. She told me that that "Stand Your Ground" (as I explained it to her) (Florida's statute) would not be part of this Castle Doctrine Bill. She said something about being open to a future Stand Your Ground Bill but "one step at a time" and "the first step was to get the Castle Doctrine Bill passed". What your Rep. MIGHT have been refering to was Ms. Kerkman did say something about "Stand Your Ground" (no duty to retreat) was in the Castle Doctrine Bill but only applied to the areas that what was specifically spelled out in the Castle Doctine Bill and NOT to where ever you happened to be legally carrying when encountered by a threat.

As stated... I could be wrong.

Outdoorsman1

Edited to add; This conversation took place the night before Castle Doctrine was goingup for debate in the Judiciary (?) Commitee... MAYBE an admendment was added during the debate.... but I highly doubt it...

protias · Oct 4, 2011

I'm not seeing it either. From the looks of it, it seems there is no duty to retreat in those specific areas (car, home, business).

BROKENSPROKET · Oct 5, 2011

Outdoorsman1 said:
I could be wrong but I do not think he is right....

I had a long telephone conversation the other night with my Rep. Samantha Kerkman. The call was about the resisting arrest issue but I brought up the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. She told me that that "Stand Your Ground" (as I explained it to her) (Florida's statute) would not be part of this Castle Doctrine Bill. She said something about being open to a future Stand Your Ground Bill but "one step at a time" and "the first step was to get the Castle Doctrine Bill passed". What your Rep. MIGHT have been refering to was Ms. Kerkman did say something about "Stand Your Ground" (no duty to retreat) was in the Castle Doctrine Bill but only applied to the areas that what was specifically spelled out in the Castle Doctine Bill and NOT to where ever you happened to be legally carrying when encountered by a threat.

As stated... I could be wrong.

Outdoorsman1

Edited to add; This conversation took place the night before Castle Doctrine was goingup for debate in the Judiciary (?) Commitee... MAYBE an admendment was added during the debate.... but I highly doubt it...

Kerkman is right. Nass is mistaken, confusing not duty to retreat with Stand Your Ground.

Nothing happened to SB69-ASA3, except a technical ammendment SB69-ASA3-AA2

davegran · Oct 5, 2011

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
I got this from my Rep. Is he right?

Hi Paul,

Good to hear from you!

I am a co-sponsor of AB-69 and do support the stand-your-ground clause added to the bill. The stand-your-ground clause was added to the bill in substitute amendment 3 page 3 line 17-20. I have attached a copy for you to review. I am encouraged that Rep. Kaufert added this language into Sub. Amend. 3.

AB-69 has now passed committee and is available for scheduling on the floor. I will be voting for this bill when it is placed before our body.

Thank you for your continued support, Paul. I appreciate your dedication. Please feel free to let me know of any other questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Steve Nass

State Representative

Click to expand...

This is great; a co-sponsor of the bill doesn't know what it means or contains...Geezuz! (We need a smiley of a clown or somebody wearing a dunce cap...) I hope that you straighten him out, Paul.

springfield40 · Oct 5, 2011

davegran said:
This is great; a co-sponsor of the bill doesn't know what it means or contains...Geezuz! (We need a smiley of a clown or somebody wearing a dunce cap...) I hope that you straighten him out, Paul.

You are as stupid as can be. Dude, get educated.

RR_Broccoli · Oct 6, 2011

Under this substitute amendment, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, a court in a criminal case against the person 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:

I like this, point of view of the defender is the key, not an outside observer. Just keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer do the talking and chances are they won't be able to jail you for defending yourself.

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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or, in the case of a business owner or operator, place of business of the person who used the force;

Those "And" should be "or". If I am sleeping in a tent in my back yard, and someone comes in, how can they "forcefully" enter? Open the zipper real fast? Quite lame, does not go far enough. I am supposed to know a window in the back had the screen cut before doing anything? What if my kid left a door unlocked? Opening a door and walking in is not forcible and according to this negates the right to defend oneself.

2) the person was present in that dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; and

Weasel words nothing more. This should be completely removed. I need an accurate timeline of events to defend myself?

3) the person knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

Again, that should be an "OR". Better yet, just say "unlawful entry." If you are in my home and I didn't invite you that's all I need to know. Note, I am talking about my specific case where I am the only resident, unless my landlord has been sneaking in, there have only been two other people in my apartment in the last four years.

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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity; or

Fair enough, those guys that shoot intruders trying to steal their pot grow operation are not off the hook. Though, they need to spell out the criminal types here, if they find out I made a mistake on my taxes it shouldn't apply.

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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.

"should have been known" as a peace officer is someone else's point of view. For some boot-lickers, the fact that someone is busting in the front door and yelling is reason enough to think it's a cop. This sentence makes this law crap. Completely useless, that phrase puts super-human expectations back on the defender of the home. Likewise, if I happen to be recording something, and some criminal breaks in and yells he's a police officer, and it gets on my recording, and I shoot him thinking I am defending myself anyway. Did I commit a crime? The vagueness of this is unacceptable to me.

Under the substitute amendment, 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 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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business of the person who used the force;

Hmm... looks like businesses are not civilly immune. Not good for them and the people that work for them. Why the difference here? Is burglary two separate crimes when it's against a home verses a business?

2) the person who used the force was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; and

Weasel words, need not be in here.

3) the person who used the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

Again, if you are in there and I didn't invite you it's go time.

Under the substitute amendment 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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity; or

Again, fair enough.

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 dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties.

Again, complete crap. Someone else's standard as a third party who has all the facts and doesn't have to act without any chance to get them. This needs to read "successfully identified himself or as a peace officer" and the part in parens taken out completely.

Under the substitute amendment, 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.

Good. Your dirtbag relatives are going to have to pay for their chance to cash in on your life of crime and bad luck.

Nigh useless in my opinion. No different than what is the de-facto standard now and pretty much zero benefit aside from a little bit of civil liability removed. I want a castle law with teeth, and NO WEASEL WORDS.

McX · Oct 6, 2011

how will this stuff apply if you are on a motorcycle, or a bicycle? They arent entering anything, aside from your personal space.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Oct 13, 2011

10-12. A. Referred to committee on Rules.This usually means it will be scheduled for a vote soon.http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69hst.html

protias · Oct 13, 2011

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
10-12. A. Referred to committee on Rules.This usually means it will be scheduled for a vote soon.http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB69hst.html

And I would assume the "no duty to retreat" is not in there. :cuss:

McX · Oct 13, 2011

protias said:
And I would assume the "no duty to retreat" is not in there. :cuss:

Protias, i have spoken with them, and made sure they added no train horn honking to the bill. your out there guy.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Oct 13, 2011

protias said:
And I would assume the "no duty to retreat" is not in there. :cuss:

To pick a nit, it is in your home and in your car, just not 'wherever I am legally'.

protias · Oct 13, 2011

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
To pick a nit, it is in your home and in your car, just not 'wherever I am legally'.

I know the bill says no duty to retreat in your home, car, or business, but it says nothing about being out in public. That was the question I had.

AB69 going before assembly next

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

McX

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

McX

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member