Wisconsin 2011 Act 94 from AB 69. I like it, our new Castle Doctrine.

The test cases will be instructive in determining that shouting "police" satisfies 895.62(4)(b).

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/enrolledbills/2011/REG/AB69.pdf

SECTION 1. 895.62 of the statutes is created to read:
895.62 Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; civil liability immunity.
[ ... ]
(4) The presumption described in sub. (3) does not apply if any of the following are true:
[ ... ]
(b) The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This paragraph applies only if at least one of the following applies:
1. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in sub. (2) was used by the actor.
2. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.

I can't find the link, but the day after IN SC said you cannot resist police entering your home, a robber yelled out police as he broke in.

2 big problems I see with the new Castle Doctrine law are:
1) criminals yelling "police" as they commit a home invasion... as has happened across the country, including IN.

Article on the IN SC decision,

Article from Indiana on 05OCT11 telling how 2 masked men (already on the run from police) broke into a house, claiming to be police.

Article from Phoenix, AZ in 2008 talking about a gang dressed as police who did a home invasion.

Article from Baltimore, MD on 05JUL11 talking about the 3rd home invasion in a week by men claiming to be police (but weren't).

2) it requires that the criminal "unlawfully & forcibly" enter the house / car / business.
So if you invite a repair person in to fix something & along the way s/he decides to try to harm you, Castle Doctrine won't protect you when you defend yourself.
Or it's someone posing as a pollster, repair person, gov't employee... you let them in, so the entry isn't forceful even though it's illegal.
Or if you've left a door unlocked & someone walks in.
How much force is "forcefully"? Pulling off a window screen? Cutting one?

I submit that shouting "police" DOES NOT identify a public safety worker to the actor

I submit that shouting "police" DOES NOT identify a public safety worker to the actor as these examples have amply demonstrated.

What if the Maytag Man wants to have his way with me after I let him in?

MKEgal said:

....
2) it requires that the criminal "unlawfully & forcibly" enter the house / car / business.
So if you invite a repair person in to fix something & along the way s/he decides to try to harm you, Castle Doctrine won't protect you when you defend yourself.
Or it's someone posing as a pollster, repair person, gov't employee... you let them in, so the entry isn't forceful even though it's illegal.
Or if you've left a door unlocked & someone walks in.
How much force is "forcefully"? Pulling off a window screen? Cutting one?

Click to expand...

Well, although I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, I'm going to go out on my IANAL limb and say that "Forcible Entry" doesn't have to include breaking or cutting anything. From the Free Law Dictionary (With apologies to Herr Doug..):

forcible entry n. the crime of taking possession of a house or other structure, or land by the use of physical force or serious threats against the occupants. This can include breaking windows, doors, or using terror to gain entry, as well as forcing the occupants out by threat or violence after having come in peacefully.

Click to expand...

Herr Heckler Koch said:

The test cases will be instructive in determining that shouting "police" satisfies 895.62(4)(b).

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/enrolledbills/2011/REG/AB69.pdf

SECTION 1. 895.62 of the statutes is created to read:
895.62 Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; civil liability immunity.
[ ... ]
(4) The presumption described in sub. (3) does not apply if any of the following are true:
[ ... ]
(b) The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This paragraph applies only if at least one of the following applies:
1. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in sub. (2) was used by the actor.
2. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.

Click to expand...

My thoughts and prayers for the Guerena family, still.

Could always consider how this went down..... (shaking head).... Apparently sounding siren for a few seconds qualified as "notice". Read the article in the huffpo pc. for elaboration. Unbelievable. Sure much much more info available, this is just what I bookmarked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP0f00_JMak

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

'nuf said

Ps: See William Norman Griggs' book : Liberty In Eclipse

LEO community repent (turn back), it's a fraud, a scam, you are being duped.

Even if someone enters your home by false identification or even by invite you still are able to claim the privilege of defense of self or others (ss939.48). Nothing in Wisconsin law requires you to peacefully stand there and be subjected to great bodily harm or possible death. However under ss939.48) the burden of proof is thrust on you. You have to prove to a jury that under the circumstances your actions were reasonable. i.e. you were without doubt in fear of great bodily harm or death and that under the circumstances retreat was not a reasonable option and that the amount of force applied to stop the threat was the minimum needed. Note: "Great bodily harm" implies that there was possible disfigurement, loss of bodily function or loss of use of a limb. In other words "severe injury".

There are some other nuances but essentially what the castle doctrine brings to the table is that if someone has not identified themselves as a public safety worker and forcibly enters your home or property you are presumed to be in danger of great bodily harm or death. The prosecution must prove otherwise. Second it extends that theory to the protection of property and vehicles. Previous law had severe restrictions on the use of deadly force to protect property.

Under certain conditions the castle doctrine only shifts the burden of proof of self defense in homefrom the actor to the prosecution and extends that privilege to occupied vehicles and property. Those are important indeed but I repeat; we have and have always had the privilege of self-defense. The castle doctrine has only changed changed the bar under certain circumstances.

IANL These are but my opinions.

As far as I can see, the cops have no business breaking into ones home. They can knock or ring the bell. If they were to come to my home in the night and try to break in, I would treat them as a burglar.
Their swat tactics are a bunch of crap. Their riot gear makes them look like ninny's.
If they were to eliminate all the bad cops and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, maybe the public would have more respect for them.
All my dealings with the Police have been very positive and I was treated with the utmost respect. They were very professional and courteous.
When they decide to break into my house, they have crossed the line. And I don't care what the law states, I will not be a victim.
This needs to be changed as I believe I'm not the only one who takes this stance.
The Police need to held accountable just as the people of this State.

Partial Quote:

rimmer said:

......When they decide to break into my house, they have crossed the line. And I don't care what the law states, I will not be a victim.
This needs to be changed as I believe I'm not the only one who takes this stance.
The Police need to held accountable just as the people of this State.

Click to expand...

From Reagan's "War on Drugs" to Bush's "Patriot Act" our freedoms have been lessen so a para-military force dressed in black can act, for all practical purposes, on secret "orders."