• 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 Published Today! Goes Into Effect Tomorrow The 21st!

H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
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?

Wisc. Stats. said:
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:

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Presumption of Immunity for Criminal Liability???

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/related/lcactmemo/ab69.pdf and here: http://docs.legis.wi.gov/2011/related/lcamendmemo/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:"
 
H

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:

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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:
H

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
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

wild boar

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
445
Location
wisconsin
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:

msteinhilber

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
125
Location
Verona, WI
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>
 

xenophon

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
316
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

wild boar

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
445
Location
wisconsin
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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Civil Liability....Castle Doctrine??

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.
 
M

McX

Guest
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.
 

oliverclotheshoff

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
845
Location
mauston wi
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
 
M

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?
 
Top