BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
I would like to buy him a beverage of his choice. Heck I'll buy him dinner if I get the chance.
I have no doubt he will reach Rock-Star status.
I would like to buy him a beverage of his choice. Heck I'll buy him dinner if I get the chance.
And, we can only pray, role model status.I have no doubt he will reach Rock-Star status.
By Jesse Garza of the Journal Sentinel
Feb. 3, 2012
A suspected armed robber who was shot by a customer during a stickup at an Aldi store on Milwaukee's northwest side was charged Friday with that robbery and two other armed robberies, one in Wauwatosa and another in Milwaukee.
Dierre D. Cotton, 20, who was shot Monday night during the Aldi store robbery, and Edyon M. Hibbler, 21, each were charged with two counts of armed robbery, use of force, party to a crime. Cotton was charged with an additional count of armed robbery, use of force, according to a criminal complaint.
Cotton was shot in the left eye and grazed in the head by a bullet fired by Nazir Al-Mujaahid, 35, of Milwaukee, who holds a concealed carry permit that allows him to carry a firearm.
Al-Mujaahid will not face any criminal charges for the incident, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm said Friday.
Concealed carry became law in Wisconsin in November.
I forget, does Act 35 provide immunity from civil suit?
175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon.
...
175.60(21) IMMUNITY. (a) The department of justice, the
department of transportation, and the employees of each
department; clerks, as defined in sub. (11) (a) 1. a., and
their staff; and court automated information systems, as
defined under sub. (11) (a) 1. b., and their employees are
immune from liability arising from any act or omission
under this section, if done so in good faith.
__ (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.
__ (c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more
employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub.
(15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
Provides immunity for non posting/ non prohibiting building owners/managers/occupants.
That hit/miss ratio is pretty typical of most defensive shootings, even at closer distances.
Anything you can do to stimulate the adrenaline dump you get during the flight or fight response is helpful in training; that is the theory behind competitive combat shooting like IDPA. Nobody is shooting back, but the adrenaline does flow.... The first time you try it, you suddenly won't know if you're on foot or on horseback because of the stimulation; but after several competitions you get past that response and perform much better under stressful conditions. :dude:Couldn't agree more. It's kind of hard to train in an environment which creates the same stress you experience when your life really is in danger.
So the shooter would fall under ACT 69 which IIRC doesn't extend your bubble of immunity to anywhere you might happen to be?
I assume that you meant AB-69, which became Act 94. Act 69 has nothing to do with this issue. Well, maybe if there is a subsequent civil suit but that is coincidental.
Everybody should remember that Act 94 does not guarantee no liability in all cases but helps with the tilt of the field. Conversely, being outside the location scope of Act 94 does not mean liability will attach. There are still a slew of other laws that would impact such incidents. Likewise the posted/not posted provisions of Act 35 are helpful but in and of themselves don't mandate a particular outcome.
While the facts of the Aldi case (to the extent they are publicly known and true) are favorable to the non-robber, it is important not to set up a frame of reference where a shooter has to be perfect (or nearly perfect) in every aspect of his actions to be free from prosecution. Such is seldom the case. Furthermore, the game day cheerleader mentality does not serve the individual in question or concealed carry.