Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Trespassing....?????????

  1. #1
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249

    Trespassing....?????????

    I posted this on another thread....

    Kenosha AM radio newscast this morning said something like it was now ok to “kill trespassers”. I called in and to my surprise actual got on the air with the news guy and tried to point out to him that the use of the word trespassers was very inaccurate and that there were very strict specific guidelines in the new Castle Doctrine law that mandated when and when not to use deadly force, and that trespassing was NOT a reason. I told him that the main factor was that the intruder had to have entered your dwelling illegally and that you had to be in fear of death or great bodily harm. He kinda got on the defensive and asked me if someone in your home was not trespassing. I said yes, but trespassing was a broad term and those that were not familiar with the law could misinterpret the law based on his broadcast. He still maintained that he felt trespassing was ok based on his interpolation of the word. He also suggested I call back into his talk show (“Lip Off”) (as in WLIP Radio) to discuss the issue further. I have already called that program a few times on various C.C., OC, and other issues. This program starts at 5:00 PM. I told him that if that newscast was taped (they play it many times throughout the day (hourly) that he should consider changing it to be more accurate. I also told him that it is common and has happened a lot in Milwaukee, that the news media constantly reports inaccuracies about the new C.C. Law, Open Carry Laws, and now the new Castle Doctrine Law. My last words were…”I’d consider changing your report”…

    After the call he said something to his co-announcer that he did not like getting ambushed on the air. I can’t wait to tell him I was on hold for 15 minutes waiting for him to pick up my call OFF the air.

    Anyway… today 5:05 – 5:10, Kenosha AM Radio 1050 (on the dial)…I'll be on…Should be a pretty good discussion…

    Outdoorsman1
    But what about this.....

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1641584

    Was I wrong in what I told the news guy...??????

    Outdoorsman1
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (1891–1970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman1 View Post
    I posted this on another thread....



    But what about this.....

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1641584

    Was I wrong in what I told the news guy...??????

    Outdoorsman1
    No, separate issues. Though I haven't delved deeply enough into the link you posted on whether or not it indirectly affects anything in ACT 35.

    For years, IIRC, private property owners that gave consent have been pretty much immune to liability from people hunting and fishing on their property. I believe this just expands that to trespassers as well. The thing I'm concerned about is dealing with children and an "artificial condition" W T F is an "artificial condition"? A swimming pool? A pond? A barbed wire fence? I can't seem to see where it's defined.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  3. #3
    Regular Member Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    108
    No, you weren't wrong. As stated in the law, Quote
    "Under the bill, a private property owner may be liable for injuries that he or she intentionally causes to a trespasser, unless the private property owner was acting reasonably in self−defense or in the defense of another."
    Shooting a trespasser who is no threat to you merely because he/she is on your property is by no means acting reasonably. You would find yourself on the wrong side of the jail bars, IMHO and IANAL.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    The word trespasing is a very vague term in Wisconsin statutes. It can mean different things in different situations. Best to avoid getting into discussions about it like the plague. For example the trespass to land says it is unlawful to enter the lands of another without permission or implied consent. What is implied consent. Does that mean that if a person allows some people hunting access to their property that they must allow other hunters access? Have they given the unwanted people access by implied consent. Then there is the issue of fenced land versus unfenced. Cultivated land v wild land. Also the issue of posted land. Can you post your land to keep out all unwanteds because it is your land and you should be able to limit access? Act 35 says you can't restrict access to your land if the expressed intent is to prevent carry of firearms. Getting into discussions concerning "trespass" is a no win situation.

    Even land ownership is vague. As private citizens we only manage the land we claim to own. The state and local goverments own nearly all the land in Wisconsin. Don't believe me? Stop paying your property taxes. You will find out who owns "your" land in short order.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 11-04-2011 at 01:12 PM.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    The word trespasing is a very vague term in Wisconsin statutes. It can mean different things in different situations. Best to avoid getting into discussions about it like the plague. For example the trespass to land says it is unlawful to enter the lands of another without permission or implied consent. What is implied consent. Does that mean that if a person allows some people hunting access to their property that they must allow other hunters access? Have they given the unwanted people access by implied consent. Then there is the issue of fenced land versus unfenced. Cultivated land v wild land. Also the issue of posted land. Can you post your land to keep out all unwanteds because it is your land and you should be able to limit access? Act 35 says you can't restrict access to your land if the expressed intent is to prevent carry of firearms. Getting into discussions concerning "trespass" is a no win situation.

    Even land ownership is vague. As private citizens we only manage the land we claim to own. The state and local goverments own nearly all the land in Wisconsin. Don't believe me? Stop paying your property taxes. You will find out who owns "your" land in short order.
    Implied and express consent have set and generally accepted legal definitions AFAIK. A buisness, open to the public, is said to give implied consent to enter. Private property not open to the public requires express consent to enter. Whether or not an owner who gave express consent to enter one time means that person has implied consent the next time is another issue. For instance, I let my neighbor hunt rabbits on my property but specifically told him that he needs to ask me every time before he wants to hunt. Therefore; IMO, keeping it express consent.

    With the other stuff I have to agree; especially having a hard time with "artificial condition".
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 11-04-2011 at 01:19 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Brass:
    Please cite the source of your definitions and distinctions..

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Brass:
    Please cite the source of your definitions and distinctions..
    I can, when I get back to a computer Monday. Only have a phone this weekend. Sorry. I was going from memory, that's why the "AFAIK", but I found a legalese writeup a while back on this. If you're antsy, try googling "implied vs. express consent property" and you may come across it.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    P.S. Where's alloidial (sp? Stupid phone) title when you need it?

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  9. #9
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post

    Shooting a trespasser who is no threat to you merely because he/she is on your property is by no means acting reasonably. You would find yourself on the wrong side of the jail bars...
    And...rightfully so!
    Last edited by MilProGuy; 11-07-2011 at 11:02 AM. Reason: edited to change font color
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Brass:
    Please cite the source of your definitions and distinctions..
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    I can, when I get back to a computer Monday. Only have a phone this weekend. Sorry. I was going from memory, that's why the "AFAIK", but I found a legalese writeup a while back on this. If you're antsy, try googling "implied vs. express consent property" and you may come across it.
    I'm still looking for the very distinctive write-up I found a while back but here's some stuff:

    http://trespass.uslegal.com/trespass...ting-trespass/
    http://www.rcfp.org/places/accesstoprivateproperty.html
    http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-e...ia/trespassing



    Some WI specific stuff:
    http://www.aae.wisc.edu/aae336/Readings/TRESPASS.pdf

    The write-up I found before was a bit better but this stuff should suffice. Implied and express consent are used a lot in law from trespassing and auto theft to searches, contracts and even court proceedings.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

Posting Permissions

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