Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Castle Doctrine Published Today! Goes Into Effect Tomorrow The 21st!

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Thumbs up Castle Doctrine Published Today! Goes Into Effect Tomorrow The 21st!

    http://docs.legis.wi.gov/2011/proposals/ab69

    So folks, the legal protections from the Castle Doctrine go into effect tomorrow, one day after publication....which is today.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  2. #2
    Regular Member thieltech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Beaver Dam
    Posts
    92
    what does this do / or mean exactly ?

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by thieltech View Post
    what does this do / or mean exactly ?
    It means we are protected from civil and criminal lawsuits if we have to defend ourselves in homes, vehicles, and if you own your own business.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  4. #4
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    It means we are protected from civil and criminal lawsuits if we have to defend ourselves in homes, vehicles, and if you own your own business.
    Thank you for making me re-read Act 94 yet again. Red is the limited immunity from civil liability. Where, please is any criminal immunity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisc. Stats.
    895.62 Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; civil liability immunity.
    [ ... ]
    (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.
    (b) The person against whom the force was used was in the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that
    the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
    (3) If sub. (2) (a) or (b) applies, the finder of fact may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and the actor is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to
    himself or herself or to another person.
    (4) The presumption described in sub. (3) does not apply if any of the following are true:
    (a) The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time he or she used the force described in sub. (2).
    (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.
    (5) In any civil action, if a court finds that a person is immune from civil liability under sub. (2), the court shall award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for loss of income, and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred by the person.
    (6) Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or impair any defense to civil or criminal liability otherwise available.

    939.48 (1m) (a) In this subsection:
    [ ... ]
    (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
    1. 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 present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
    2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that
    the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
    (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
    1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
    2. 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 subdivision applies only
    if at least one of the following applies:
    a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
    b. 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.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 12-20-2011 at 05:21 PM.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Question Presumption of Immunity for Criminal Liability???

    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Thank you for making me re-read Act 94 yet again. Red is the limited immunity from civil liability. Where, please is any criminal immunity?
    I have to agree it isn't written IN Act 94 but it is written in the Memos: 1) http://docs.legis.wi.gov/2011/relate...tmemo/ab69.pdf and here: http://docs.legis.wi.gov/2011/relate...dmemo/ab69.pdf

    Snip: "2011 ASSEMBLY BILL 69
    Presumption of Immunity for Criminal Liability

    Assembly Bill 69 creates a presumption of immunity for criminal actions involving force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm. An actor is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if either of the following applies:"
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  6. #6
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Am I correct that you cite the Memos as Legislative intent?

    Legislative intent comes to bear only in questions of interpretation by a court. Please hypothesize a scenario leading to a question of criminal immunity for the actor otherwise playing a role within the scope of Act 94.

    I make this request in earnest, knowing that we are widely read by lurkers pro and lurkers against the rights of law abiding citizens. A shot across their bow, so to speak.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 12-20-2011 at 06:01 PM.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Am I correct that you cite the Memos as Legislative intent?

    Legislative intent comes to bear only in questions of interpretation by a court. Please hypothesize a scenario leading to a question of criminal immunity for the actor otherwise playing a role within the scope of Act 94.

    I make this request in earnest, knowing that we are widely read by lurkers pro and lurkers against the rights of law abiding citizens. A shot across their bow, so to speak.

    I know memos are not law but then again why write them? Most people that read everything on the legis site about the Castle Doctrine will see the memos and believe that is the intent of the law.

    My thoughts are that if we now have a law that allows us to use up to and including deadly force in the locations described in said law then how can we legally be charged with a crime if we are within the boundaries of said law?

    For some reason the Wisconsin legislature has a very bad habit of not completing the task that they intended to complete. Not to derail my own thread but this is reminiscent of Act 35 where we can "possess, load, unload...in or on a vehicle without a license"....but don't do it concealed. Whatever that means.

    So do we now have a Castle Doctrine that is all but hot air when it comes to criminal charges? Who will be the first test case for this one?
    Last edited by rcawdor57; 12-20-2011 at 07:32 PM.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  8. #8
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    I am sure that we both were taught, though I can't remember the particular lesson, "be not the one!"

    An ex-MM civilian engineer was making his pre-watch tour when the the ship isolated a loop without a CHV station watchstander. He did like he was trained and prevented depressurizing the loop. Publicly admonished, privately praised. Be not the one. R. J. Gandy ~1975

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    I am sure that we both were taught, though I can't remember the particular lesson, "be not the one!"

    An ex-MM civilian engineer was making his pre-watch tour when the the ship isolated a loop without a CHV station watchstander. He did like he was trained and prevented depressurizing the loop. Publicly admonished, privately praised. Be not the one. R. J. Gandy ~1975
    It will happen and someone will be "the one" to be charged criminally. Let's hope our legal system does the right thing and does not charge anyone for defending themselves or their families.

    Wow on the loop! Are you saying the ex-MM actually stationed himself at the charging station and operated the pump himself? If so...WOW! Good for him. He could have stood idly by and done nothing. Heck, he wasn't on watch...he was doing his pre-watch tour.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  10. #10
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445
    Why, with public knowledge that the police have no legal duty to protect a citizen life, the police shoot with civil and legal immunity? When they shoot they do so to protect themselves. The number of times that an officer shoots to save a citizen is small, generally it is done as a reaction to personal threat. This type of action is reserved for the “Special Forces,” like S.W.A.T.
    When a citizen reacts to protect their life, which is their legal right, they have no immunity. Saving oneself from death or bodily harm could result in their losing everything to the family of the bad actor.
    So we can start to protest the law now, or be left with these choices. Defend our self, and possibly suffer the fore mentioned or, call the police, then die while waiting for them to do their job, investigate the death of a person they didn't want protecting them self’s. boar out.
    Last edited by wild boar; 12-21-2011 at 12:14 PM. Reason: kuz
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  11. #11
    Regular Member msteinhilber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Verona, WI
    Posts
    125
    Thank goodness, I've been looking forward to shooting the cable guy and those little brats that stop by trying to peddle their girl scout cookies...

    </sarcasm>

  12. #12
    Regular Member xenophon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    316
    The section you are referring to regarding "criminal" aspects, is:

    (3) If sub. (2) (a) or (b) applies, the finder of fact may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and the actor is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.


    Basically, when considering charges, you are presumed that force was necessary, and you have no duty to retreat. So if Mr. DA is looking to charge you, it's a given that if someone forcibly enters your home, the law backs you on using force. So he can't really bring criminal charges if the facts line up with 2(a) or 2(b). Prior to this law, Mr. DA would consider if you tried to retreat, of if your perception of a threat was genuine or met criteria for self defense.

  13. #13
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by xenophon View Post
    The section you are referring to regarding "criminal" aspects, is:

    (3) If sub. (2) (a) or (b) applies, the finder of fact may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and the actor is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.


    Basically, when considering charges, you are presumed that force was necessary, and you have no duty to retreat. So if Mr. DA is looking to charge you, it's a given that if someone forcibly enters your home, the law backs you on using force. So he can't really bring criminal charges if the facts line up with 2(a) or 2(b). Prior to this law, Mr. DA would consider if you tried to retreat, of if your perception of a threat was genuine or met criteria for self defense.
    Still, we have no protection while acting in fear of our life from civil liability like that of a LEO in a good shoot. We have to pay, out of pocket, for a right that the police have free. Lawful or Justice, you tell me. boar out.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Question Civil Liability....Castle Doctrine??

    Quote Originally Posted by wild boar View Post
    Still, we have no protection while acting in fear of our life from civil liability like that of a LEO in a good shoot. We have to pay, out of pocket, for a right that the police have free. Lawful or Justice, you tell me. boar out.
    Dennis, here is a small part of the Castle Doctrine as pertains to civil liability:

    (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:

    We have protection from civil liabilities within the scope of the Castle Doctrine.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  16. #16
    McX
    Guest
    i put the alligators in the moat this morning.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    i put the alligators in the moat this morning.
    Their going to need ice skates soon.

    Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    McX
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason in WI View Post
    Their going to need ice skates soon.

    Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk
    evil snappin little critters, i have determined i will need 1.4 criminals per day to feed them at their current sizes. at last count all were there, except 2 who got stolen and now undoubtedly shoes or a purse.

  19. #19
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by McX View Post
    evil snappin little critters, i have determined i will need 1.4 criminals per day to feed them at their current sizes. at last count all were there, except 2 who got stolen and now undoubtedly shoes or a purse.
    shoes for sale fresh gator skin 75.00 a pair i know where i can get gators cheap
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  20. #20
    McX
    Guest
    you realize ofcourse the anti's will spin this as guns around gators threaten them, endangered species, and all that.

    PS; them shoes in my size by chance?

  21. #21
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    Rcrawdor57, missed that, my bad, still...

    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    Dennis, here is a small part of the Castle Doctrine as pertains to civil liability:

    (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:

    We have protection from civil liabilities within the scope of the Castle Doctrine.

    ...we sail in uncharted waters. Take a look at what was just released by the DOJ on time of detention by non LEOs. Ten minutes, what the hell happens after that? I'm not sure, but I would imagine it involves the ACLU, and unlawful detention, any move we make will cost us out of pocket. Wisconsin is being treated like it's the first State to allow the carrying of side arms, and the DOJ acts like there is no time tested precedent anywhere. I'm not rich, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not willing to go to prison. These are the reasons I say "FIGHT THE LAW NOW" It is written, but not understood by the people. How can we be compliant to something we don't know? boar out.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

Posting Permissions

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