• 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.

Castle Doctrine expands rights of citizens to defend themselves. Lakeland Times

  • Thread starter Herr Heckler Koch
  • Start date
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=14486

Excellent analysis!

R. Moore said:
As Castle Doctrine laws have spread around the country this past decade, critics have tried to marshall their arguments to stop it, to little avail. Prominent among them are trial lawyers and district attorneys, and in 2007, with funding from the Joyce Foundation, they convened a symposium of prosecution, law enforcement, government, public health, and academic experts to set out their arguments.

Steven Jansen and Elaine Nugent-Borakove summarized the critiques in a follow-up paper.

[ ... ]

What's more, they continued, certain provisions - also included in the Wisconsin law - actually put officers in real harm's way out on the streets. Of particular concern, they asserted, was officer safety during 'no-knock' warrants, where police officers can enter without identifying themselves as law enforcement.

The expanded laws allow those inside to shoot the officers, they contended.

"Officers can enter a home without announcing their presence only if they have a particular concern, articulated to the court issuing the warrant," they wrote. "Generally 'no-knock' warrants issue when there is a fear that suspects will destroy evidence or there is probable cause that the occupants may have access to weapons."

Because the expanded laws presume that breaking and entering justifies a deadly response, and harming a police officer is an exception only if the officer has been identified as such, officers may be put into an untenable position, they wrote.

[ ... ]

Supporters

Supporters are diverse, however, and include Democrats as well as Republicans, and some prominent law enforcement officials, such as Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke.
Click to expand...
Better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent die in no-knock warrant service. The contrary is the tyrant's, "You may beat the rap but you cannot beat the ride."
 
davegran

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
It's a pretty good article, but Richard Moore, the author, is writing fiction (highlighted in red) when he reports that the memo written by Legislative Council senior staff attorney Jessica Karls-Ruplinger states,
Then, too, the law enlarges the boundaries of deadly self-defense to areas outside the home, Karls-Ruplinger wrote. That includes your car or your business, and, what's more, the use of force can be used to protect property, not only life.
....
"Once you reasonably fear attack or your actions are covered by the 'presumption of reasonableness,' you can legally use deadly force anywhere that you have a right to be," she stated.
Click to expand...
She doesn't write either one of those things highlighted in red. His quotes are a lie.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Thanks for the link URL to the memo.

I read your first instance as obviously his, RM's, conclusion based on what she wrote.

And now I'm reading the LC memo.

ETA: The word "reasonableness" does not occur in your cited memo, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/publications/amendment/2011/PDFs/ab069.pdf "Memo published: November 3, 2011 Contact: Jessica Karls-Ruplinger, Senior Staff Attorney (266-2230)"

Out of respect for RM I must suspect the quotation is from some other document. I'll ask him.
 
Last edited:
davegran

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
Herr Heckler Koch said:
Thanks for the link URL to the memo.

I read your first instance as obviously his, RM's, conclusion based on what she wrote.

And now I'm reading the LC memo.

ETA: The word "reasonableness" does not occur in your cited memo, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lc/publications/amendment/2011/PDFs/ab069.pdf "Memo published: November 3, 2011 Contact: Jessica Karls-Ruplinger, Senior Staff Attorney (266-2230)"

Out of respect for RM I must suspect the quotation is from some other document. I'll ask him.
Click to expand...
Sorry I got the document for the wrong date. Here is the correct one that he actually refers to in his article.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
davegran said:
Sorry I got the document for the wrong date. Here is the correct one that he actually refers to in his article.
Click to expand...
You are again correct that that phrase does not occur in that linked document.
 
Last edited:
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
The Steven Jansen and Elaine Nugent-Borakove 'Expansions to the Castle Doctrine: Impl

The Steven Jansen and Elaine Nugent-Borakove 'Expansions to the Castle Doctrine: Implications for Policy and Practice,' National District Attorneys Association symposium funded by the Joyce Foundation

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Castle Doctrine.pdf 24 pages 5 MB
 
wild boar

wild boar

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
445
Location
wisconsin
When did the press start printing the truth?

There bias is enough to make a reasonable person ill. Thats it, if their in a suit, carrying a briefcase, or wearing a badge, I will not get involved. When the police who put their ass on the line, and not behind a desk, stand up and say" hell ya I'd want someone to help if I was in danger", I'm not going to be liable. boar out.
 
MKEgal

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
I realize that law enforcement can be a hair-raising (or pulling) profession, though it rarely makes the top 10 most dangerous (see my blog).

But I worry about those street criminals who are smart enough to yell "POLICE!" as they're committing a home invasion. It's already happened. It happened in IN within a couple weeks after their SC made that dumbass decision saying that police don't need a warrant to enter homes. [BTW, has that been stricken down yet?]
Here's a "DEA" home invasion in WA just a couple days ago.
That problem (using people's trust to harm them) is one of the reasons impersonating an officer is a crime.

Seems Walker was the one confusing Castle Doctrine with Stand Your Ground:
I support citizens' rights to protect themselves in their own homes and anywhere they have a legal right to be, by adopting a strong Castle Doctrine law," Walker said.
...
Walker did indeed sign the still controversial bill into law.
...
Wisconsin became the 30th state to adopt a Castle Doctrine... starting with Florida in 2005.
Click to expand...
Whatinell is controversial about being able to defend yourself in your own home?!?!?!?
(Let alone not exactly breaking new ground.)
The Senate passed it 26-7, the Assembly 71-24; "controversial" my left gonad.

Joyce Fdn. said:
[SYG & Castle] could have significant implications for public safety and the justice system's ability to hold people accountable for violent acts.
Click to expand...
:banghead: Acting in self-defense isn't the sort of violence you should be concerned about.
Try stopping the initial, criminal, acts of violence.

JF said:
there is no research to bear out the notion that arming victims deters attackers
Click to expand...
Except that FBI report... Violent Encounters, where federal felons admitted they avoid people & places they think might be armed. And how about More Guns Less Crime? And Kennesaw, GA (the postponed Waffle House robbery)?

The JF also tries to conflate the rules governing actions of LEO on the job with the laws governing every citizen w/r/t the use of force in self-defense.
created a double standard between law enforcement and citizens
Click to expand...
a) there's long been a double standard
b) aren't LEO citizens too? (or is this an example of a?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top