• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

*breaking news*

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't a BIG step at all, it's a very tiny one.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't a BIG step at all, it's a very tiny one.

I have to agree.
Looks like we are going to get one more law that needs to be fixed, again. And once again we know this new law is broken before it ever even gets passed...

Not so sure this bill makes a good gift, but Happy Birthday Mike!
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't a BIG step at all, it's a very tiny one.

You really can't believe that. This is a BIG game changer for those who have to use deadly force in thier dwelling, business or vehicle. Granted, it didn't go as faw as we needed it to this time, those that have gone bankrupt to defend themselves in criminal court, and/or been sued by the perp or thier family, would find your statement very contemptuous.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on.

Without stand your ground, it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't a BIG step at all, it's a very tiny one.

I agree,
Wasn't it Lena Taylor who fought hard to keep the "anywhere you are legally able to be" clause out? I guess she doesn't want people to defend themselves against her band of crooks.
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I agree,
Wasn't it Lena Taylor who fought hard to keep the "anywhere you are legally able to be" clause out? I guess she doesn't want people to defend themselves against her band of crooks.

Stand Your Ground was never introduced, so she did not have to fight to keep it out, because it was never in. All that discussion happened between legislators, so we can only speculate what happened.
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
NRA has a press release on AB69. The press release says the bill includes "no duty to retreat" which is the often the same as "stand your ground".

My question: Which is correct; NRA Press Release or previous post expressing disappointment in not having "stand your ground" language?

Link: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7187

Question answered: I got a copy of the Bill and the "no duty to retreat" is limited to the home, business, or vehicle and thus is not really a "stand your ground" law in the sense that I typically use when teaching. The next step then is to get legislation that includes "stand your ground in and on any place you have a lawful right to be".
 
Last edited:

svelectric

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
83
Location
, ,
NRA has a press release on AB69. The press release says the bill includes "no duty to retreat" which is the often the same as "stand your ground".

My question: Which is correct; NRA Press Release or previous post expressing disappointment in not having "stand your ground" language?

Link: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7187

Question answered: I got a copy of the Bill and the "no duty to retreat" is limited to the home, business, or vehicle and thus is not really a "stand your ground" law in the sense that I typically use when teaching. The next step then is to get legislation that includes "stand your ground in and on any place you have a lawful right to be".

I was wondering the same thing. While not perfect I see this as a very good step. If I'm in my home, business OR vehicle, I don't have to run, I can meet force with force and can't be sued for it or "hope" I don't get charged. Thanks Gov Walker.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
The broad meaning of "Dwelling"

I was wondering the same thing. While not perfect I see this as a very good step. If I'm in my home, business OR vehicle, I don't have to run, I can meet force with force and can't be sued for it or "hope" I don't get charged. Thanks Gov Walker.
Not only "in your home", but in your "Dwelling".
895.62 (2) Except as provided in sub. (4), an actor is immune
from civil liability arising out of his or her use of force
that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily
harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was
necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to
himself or herself or to another person and either of the
following applies:
(a) The person against whom the force was used was
in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the
actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the
actor was on his or her property or present in the dwelling,
motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew
or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible
entry was occurring.
895.62(b) “Dwelling” has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1)(h).
895.07 (1)(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.
My driveway happens to be 900 feet long.... So if my wife walks out to the mailbox and somebody attacks her, she can pull out her concealed weapon and defend herself with immunity. That is close to "Stand Your Ground".
 
Last edited:

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
I was wondering the same thing. While not perfect I see this as a very good step. If I'm in my home, business OR vehicle, I don't have to run, I can meet force with force and can't be sued for it or "hope" I don't get charged. Thanks Gov Walker.

I aggree with you, but Hubert Hoffman says that AB69 is barely worth the paper its printed on.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
NRA has a press release on AB69. The press release says the bill includes "no duty to retreat" which is the often the same as "stand your ground".

My question: Which is correct; NRA Press Release or previous post expressing disappointment in not having "stand your ground" language?

Link: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7187

Question answered: I got a copy of the Bill and the "no duty to retreat" is limited to the home, business, or vehicle and thus is not really a "stand your ground" law in the sense that I typically use when teaching. The next step then is to get legislation that includes "stand your ground in and on any place you have a lawful right to be".

It is a step in the right direction, but if they would have just changed "home, business, or vehicle" to "anywhere you have a legal right to be" it would be a much better bill. Our law in MI reads like this-

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
 
Last edited:

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
It is a step in the right direction, but if they would have just changed "home, business, or vehicle" to "anywhere you have a legal right to be" it would be a much better bill. Our law in MI reads like this-

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.
Do you have immunity from civil suits?
 

scm54449

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Marshfield, WI
Not only "in your home", but in your "Dwelling".My driveway happens to be 700 feet long.... So if my wife walks out to the mailbox and somebody attacks her, she can pull out her concealed weapon and defend herself with immunity. That is close to "Stand Your Ground".

I am struggling with the language in 895.62 (2) which states, "The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business", and "the actor knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring." How does a "forcible entry" occur if someone approaches you on your property and verbally states their desire to turn your brains into something to be flushed down the drain at the local meat market? While the definition of "dwelling" in 895.7(1)(h) provides a liberal definition of "dwelling", the wording of 895.62 speaks of unlawfully and forcibly entering a dwelling, vehicle, or place of business. I don't see anything remotely resembling "stand your ground" here but I am happy to gain knowledge from opinions of others who are better versed in the law than I am.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Do you have immunity from civil suits?

Yes we do.-

PA 314 states that a person who defends himself (or in defense of another individual) with deadly force or less than deadly force anywhere he has a right to be is immune from civil liability for damages.


PA 312 provides attorney fees to a defendant if a civil suit is filed and the court determines that the defendant is immune from civil liability under PA 314.
 

scm54449

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Marshfield, WI
Yes we do.- PA 314 states that a person who defends himself (or in defense of another individual) with deadly force or less than deadly force anywhere he has a right to be is immune from civil liability for damages. PA 312 provides attorney fees to a defendant if a civil suit is filed and the court determines that the defendant is immune from civil liability under PA 314.

Unfortunately, you have posted in the Wisconsin forum. For better or worse, Michigan law is not the "law of the land" in Wisconsin.
 
Top