• 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.

Aldi's robbery--- does Aldi's have any liability?

skorittnig

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
89
Location
Neenah, WI
It is my understanding that Aldi's is a posted " no CCW zone". Does anyone know if they are liable for anything resulting from the attempted robbery?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Everyone has liability, whether it is posted or not. However, if posted, they lose immunity.
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
Don't know about their liability.

I do know that a concealed carry permit is for the carrier's self defense.

It does not equip an individual to be a vigilante in a grocery store holdup.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,....!!!

Don't know about their liability.

I do know that a concealed carry permit is for the carrier's self defense.

It does not equip an individual to be a vigilante in a grocery store holdup.

A Concealed Carry Permit has absolutly NOTHING to do with how you put your gun to use...
Our Right to self Defense is Unailable,,,

the good guy "Hero" used his Right to Defense of Himself, his Family and Others, as they were ALL clearly threatened
with imminant death or seious bodily harm!

P.S. I find it hard to believe that after months of you slinking back to the Polite and Friendly arms
of Torustotters.net, you would come back here to a site that stresses lawfull self defense
and accuse a Brave and Rightious law abiding family man of being a VIGILANTE!!!
 
Last edited:

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Don't know about their liability.

I do know that a concealed carry permit is for the carrier's self defense.

It does not equip an individual to be a vigilante in a grocery store holdup.
There was no vigilante in the case at hand, simply the lawful use of deadly force to defend life.
Apparently you do not know what you believe that you know. Here in WI you may defend the life of others as well as your own.
According to WI law you are privileged to use deadly force in the defense of another so long as that other person is privileged to use it themselves. While deadly force may not be used to defend property, having a shotgun pointed at you in a threatening manner is an imminent danger to your life. Deadly force may be used to defend against such said imminent danger.
The applicable Chapter (943.48) is actually titled "Self Defense and Defense of Others".
939.48(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
 
Last edited:

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Aldi's should give him a one year shopping spree card. If I had been in the store unarmed and there was a good guy (or gal) there with a gun I would hope he or she would have used it to stop the imminent threat of death by the criminals.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
Don't know about their liability.

I do know that a concealed carry permit is for the carrier's self defense.

It does not equip an individual to be a vigilante in a grocery store holdup.

Wisconsin's license is affirmation of our willingness to allow our government to regulate our constitutional right. Our right of self defense is granted by God. Using your statement if your wife or neighbor was getting mugged you would not be able to use your firearm to defend them, only yourself.


Your statement as to vigilantism is an affront to anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment and the sanctity of human life.
 

JJC

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
283
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
Ok, I'm going to be the "Devils Advocate" here.

Since Aldi's is posted, can the bad guy sue Aldi's for letting him get injured in their store?

I know, this is a really dumb question.

Just a question on the Libility issue.

Just wondering if there's a lawyer out there thinking along those lines.

I wouldn't be surprised.

JJC
 

xc9subcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
106
Location
Secure Undisclosed
Yes, he can sue. Anyone can sue. Reality is he needs to either find a lawyer willing to take his case on contingency or he needs to foot the bill for the lawyer.
And if this was England, He might win. Here he would likely lose. Hence the reason a lawyer would be descouraged from taking the case on contingency. Odds are he is broke, he was probably robbing the store to get money for drugs.
 
Last edited:

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
P.S. I find it hard to believe that after months of you slinking back to the Polite and Friendly arms
of Torustotters.net, you would come back here to a site that stresses lawfull self defense
and accuse a Brave and Rightious law abiding family man of being a VIGILANTE!!!

"Slinking back...?"
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Everyone has liability, whether it is posted or not. However, if posted, they lose immunity.


Please provide the verbiage for the statute, code, or case law precedent upon which you base this assertion.

Otherwise, I call "shenanigans" on this statement.

I AGREE with it in theory, but I have yet to find ANY jurisdiction that has a statute (or any case law where a court ruled in a manner) to hold private property owners liable for injury or damage due the being posted against self-defense.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Please provide the verbiage for the statute, code, or case law precedent upon which you base this assertion.

Otherwise, I call "shenanigans" on this statement.

I AGREE with it in theory, but I have yet to find ANY jurisdiction that has a statute (or any case law where a court ruled in a manner) to hold private property owners liable for injury or damage due the being posted against self-defense.

175.60(21)(b): A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
175.60(21)(b): A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.


I am curious about this clause. There was a heated debate posted here some time ago about this. It states immunity for those that choose NOT to post or prohibit but doesn't necessarily indicate they have any additional liabilities if they do post. One would ASSUME that if they are granted immunity if they don't post that means with post there is liability to be immune from but it really doesn't state such.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I am curious about this clause. There was a heated debate posted here some time ago about this. It states immunity for those that choose NOT to post or prohibit but doesn't necessarily indicate they have any additional liabilities if they do post. One would ASSUME that if they are granted immunity if they don't post that means with post there is liability to be immune from but it really doesn't state such.

Right, and there isn't a limit for businesses, but there is for government bodies.
 

skorittnig

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
89
Location
Neenah, WI
I started this thread with the hope that (because of Aldi's anti-gun policy) Aldi's would somehow be liable for physical/emotional damages, and make other business reconsider their stance.

Any hope here???
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I started this thread with the hope that (because of Aldi's anti-gun policy) Aldi's would somehow be liable for physical/emotional damages, and make other business reconsider their stance.

Any hope here???

Depends on if they get sued or not.
 

HolyOrangeJuice

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
221
Location
AZ
I would be in fear for my life as soon as those thugs came in the door pointing their firearms everywhere. If someone is pointing the weapon at people you must assume they are ready to use it and if they are some lowlife your only one sneeze, slip, cough, or accidental discharge away from being shot. You or them?
 
Top