• 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.

No charges for Franklin homeowner

K

keepyourreceipt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
42
Location
Mequon, WI
Apologies if this was posted somewhere else and I missed it. I didn't hear about this until this morning, it isn't getting any media attention.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwau...man-outside-his-window-no5u96t-160599405.html

"A Franklin homeowner who fired a gun at a stranger pounding on his living room window acted reasonably and won't face any charges, according to the Milwaukee County district attorneys office.

Franklin police had referred the matter to the district attorney as a possible case of second degree reckless endangering safety. But after meeting with the homeowner Tuesday, prosecutors decided not to issue any charges."
 
AaronS

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I would never fire a warning shot OVER the bad mans head. I would not even think of any "warning" shot at all.

If I ever feel the NEED to take my firearm out of it's holster and fire a round off, I will only do my best to hit the threat. I will continue to fire until the threat is gone.

I say this was a bad use of a firearm.
 
K

keepyourreceipt

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
42
Location
Mequon, WI
AaronS said:
I would never fire a warning shot OVER the bad mans head. I would not even think of any "warning" shot at all.

If I ever feel the NEED to take my firearm out of it's holster and fire a round off, I will only do my best to hit the threat. I will continue to fire until the threat is gone.

I say this was a bad use of a firearm.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree... I mean, then you not only have to replace the window, but now the window is open and the bad guy could just use it to gain access to the house. If he's on drugs, which I believe he was in this case, he won't be stopped by cutting his arms up trying to climb in. The fact that he didn't run away, but still banged on the door really shows how ineffective that move was, in my opinion. At least it all worked out in the end.
 
E

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
I think it would be difficult to show that a man outside the home and banging on the window or door, would be considered to be breaking in. That would leave out the new Wisconsin law sometimes called Castle Doctrine. Trying to force the door open probably would be sufficient for the Castle Doctrine to apply.

To support conventional Wisconsin self-defense and use of deadly force, the requirements of this section of statute would need to be met:

Here is the link to the statute. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
939.48(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
F

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,431
Location
northern wis
Warning shots?

Never is very strong.

Each defensive use is unique.

Have they worked yes, have they failed yes.

Would I fire one maybe.

Are they generally a good idea most likely not.

Are there situations were one could and be justifiable yes.

Shooting some one in self defense is always a serious situation killing them more so.

If one can save ones life with out shooting or killing ones attacker one will save ones self a lot of trouble.

A lot of serious thought has to go into any selfdefense situation a warning shot the same.

One is responsible for the bullet or bullets after they leave the barrel.

I can't say I would never fire one.

I can say I will use every legal means to defend myself and my love ones.
 
C

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
I agree with Firearms Instructor 100%. In a split second each incident must be judged on it's own merits. Let's hope none of us ever needs to make that judgement. If we do, let's hope it is the correct one.
 
Shotgun

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
When I discuss warning shots in my classes I give a list of the pros and cons and tell people to use their own judgement based on the circumstances. On the whole the cons generally outweigh the pros, but every situation is unique and one ought not try to impose imaginary rules of gun fighting on situations that requires a flexible response.

I disagree that this was automatically a "bad" use of the firearm. To approach the subject as if the goal is to put holes in another human being is a bit blood thirsty. The goal is to remain out of jail, out of the hospital, and out of the morgue. If you accomplish that without causing damage or death to another person, so much the better.
 
M

McX

Guest
depending upon the circumstances, i might opt to 'brandish', and see if they take the hint, if they dont, or they make any sudden moves................well, tsk-tsk.
 
Lurchiron

Lurchiron

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,011
Location
Shawano,WI.
A: Warning shots & Skittles...:p

Q: What two things you should NOT use at a gunfight




Free George NOW!!!
 
Last edited:
AaronS

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Shotgun said:
When I discuss warning shots in my classes I give a list of the pros and cons and tell people to use their own judgement based on the circumstances. On the whole the cons generally outweigh the pros, but every situation is unique and one ought not try to impose imaginary rules of gun fighting on situations that requires a flexible response.

I disagree that this was automatically a "bad" use of the firearm. To approach the subject as if the goal is to put holes in another human being is a bit blood thirsty. The goal is to remain out of jail, out of the hospital, and out of the morgue. If you accomplish that without causing damage or death to another person, so much the better.
Click to expand...


When the home owner was in true fear for his life, he made the correct call. He called 911, and positioned himself behind his door. If the bad man would have kicked in his door, that would have been the time to take a shot/shots. The home owner had the upper hand (per the report)the whole time.
I do not know, I did not see it but I have to wonder, did the home owner just miss? Glass can deflect a round.
Anyway, the "warning" shot did not work for him at all. It did nothing to stop the bad guy. It just pissed the BG off even more...
 
G

GreenCountyPete

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
145
Location
Green County, Wisconsin, USA
Captain Nemo said:
I agree with Firearms Instructor 100%. In a split second each incident must be judged on it's own merits. Let's hope none of us ever needs to make that judgement. If we do, let's hope it is the correct one.
Click to expand...

I also agree each is different.

he should think about how he might handle it differently next time , and we should think about how we might best handle it, so that if we are confronted with a similar situation , we can respond in the way we have told ourselves is best and adjust as needed

we all need to think about our own plans , and work with them as a base

best to not berate someone for their Reasonable decision , they have to live with it , don't make that any harder.
 
Shotgun

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
AaronS said:
When the home owner was in true fear for his life, he made the correct call. He called 911, and positioned himself behind his door. If the bad man would have kicked in his door, that would have been the time to take a shot/shots. The home owner had the upper hand (per the report)the whole time.
I do not know, I did not see it but I have to wonder, did the home owner just miss? Glass can deflect a round.
Anyway, the "warning" shot did not work for him at all. It did nothing to stop the bad guy. It just pissed the BG off even more...
Click to expand...

I don't know how you would define it, but to me a "bad" use of a firearm is one that worsens your situation. Use that improves your situation is a good use, and use that neither improves nor worsens the situation isn't bad either: it's neutral. I think if one sticks to your reasoning you'd have to say that the use of a warning shot in this case was neutral in the results. If you want to maintain that it was a "bad" use, you'd have to identify detrimental consequences of the use.

We can't get inside the head of the perpetrator, so we really don't know what, if any, impression the warning shot made on him. We don't know that it pissed him off. All we know is he went from window to the door. Actually, that is perhaps a slight improvement in the situation from the standpoint of the homeowner, since doors are generally more resistant to forced entry than windows. In this instance the perpetrator was-- for whatever reason-- highly irrational, so we can't expect a rational reaction from him (e.g., acting out of a sense of self-preservation.) Warning shots are predicated on the assumption that the person being warned is acting with a certain amount of rationality and sense of self-preservation.
 
AaronS

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Shotgun said:
I don't know how you would define it, but to me a "bad" use of a firearm is one that worsens your situation. Use that improves your situation is a good use, and use that neither improves nor worsens the situation isn't bad either: it's neutral. I think if one sticks to your reasoning you'd have to say that the use of a warning shot in this case was neutral in the results. If you want to maintain that it was a "bad" use, you'd have to identify detrimental consequences of the use.

We can't get inside the head of the perpetrator, so we really don't know what, if any, impression the warning shot made on him. We don't know that it pissed him off. All we know is he went from window to the door. Actually, that is perhaps a slight improvement in the situation from the standpoint of the homeowner, since doors are generally more resistant to forced entry than windows. In this instance the perpetrator was-- for whatever reason-- highly irrational, so we can't expect a rational reaction from him (e.g., acting out of a sense of self-preservation.) Warning shots are predicated on the assumption that the person being warned is acting with a certain amount of rationality and sense of self-preservation.
Click to expand...

I guess you do have a point about "bad" use of a gun.

I can only add that it looks like no people were hurt, that is a good thing.

I still think it was a bad choice though. Not one I would have made, might be a better way of putting it...
 
Shotgun

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Fair enough. And I agree, I probably wouldn't have fired a warning shot either, because as I stated before: on the whole the potential drawbacks outweigh the potential benefits. In fact I doubt I would have fired any sort of shot in that situation (one guy, outside, no appearance of being armed.) I would have viewed him as a genuine nuisance but only a potential threat. Remain alert and prepared to act, and let the police handle it.
 
F

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,431
Location
northern wis
AaronS said:
I guess you do have a point about "bad" use of a gun.

I can only add that it looks like no people were hurt, that is a good thing.

I still think it was a bad choice though. Not one I would have made, might be a better way of putting it...
Click to expand...



Many years ago a young sheriffs deputy investagated a similar event. A young man high on drugs wanders off from his party on the way back he goes to the wrong house. thinking his freinds are screwing with him and have locked him out. he starts pounding on the door yelling making a fuss.

He then breaks a window and stand there yelling.

The deputy arrives and arrest the young man for criminal damage to property and DC. on the way to the jail the young man keeps repeating he shot at me he shot at me.

After getting him booked and locked up the deputy goes back out to the house and talks with the home owner. And asked if he shot at the young man the home owner says naw I took my 44 mag a ruger black hawk and fire in the air near him.

The muzzle blast alone along side of the young mans head was enought to stop his actions.

Some how that fact was never mentioned in the reports and the young man was convicted of above crimes.

He was so high he didn't remember what happen when he woke up in jail the next morning.

Things were simpler in rural Wis 30 plus years ago.
 
C

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Valuable information

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
Many years ago a young sheriffs deputy investagated a similar event. A young man high on drugs wanders off from his party on the way back he goes to the wrong house. thinking his freinds are screwing with him and have locked him out. he starts pounding on the door yelling making a fuss.

He then breaks a window and stand there yelling.

The deputy arrives and arrest the young man for criminal damage to property and DC. on the way to the jail the young man keeps repeating he shot at me he shot at me.

After getting him booked and locked up the deputy goes back out to the house and talks with the home owner. And asked if he shot at the young man the home owner says naw I took my 44 mag a ruger black hawk and fire in the air near him.

The muzzle blast alone along side of the young mans head was enought to stop his actions.

Some how that fact was never mentioned in the reports and the young man was convicted of above crimes.

He was so high he didn't remember what happen when he woke up in jail the next morning.

Things were simpler in rural Wis 30 plus years ago.
Click to expand...

I started to say it is a sad situation where we have to be so circumspect about what we say. However, I am reading Robert Louis Stevenson's "Kidnapped" and its sequel "Catriona" to my invalid 97 year old mother, and they faced the same necessities back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top