WI Statutes and Use of Force...

[Interceptor_Knight]

Like the guy at the gas station in Ohio who shot to stop a threat from 2 unarmed and untrained physical attackers who up until they shot him hadn't "landed any blows" but were trying to pull him from his vehicle? And you're saying that my pregnant wife could be cornered and threatened by 2 large men, and she is not able to use her gun until AFTER they have "landed a single blow"?.

Pulling from the vehicle is an articulable threat and far different than when the other person has made no attack at all. When you use the word "cornered" you are inferring that there is no practical evasion possible and in your scenario it may be reasonable to use deadly force.
Finally we have specific scenarios where deadly force may be justified.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Um, did you conveniently skip the part about the Ohio self defense case at the gas station?

See the post above...

 

[bmwguy11]

You will be held accountable if a reasonable person would have first tried a lesser force.

Wrong. If the person is able to articulate why they felt lesser force would not have stopped the imminent threat, then they do not need to first have "tried" lesser force.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

I have had training in both, and this is why I'm showing you that you are very wrong in your assumptions and generalizations. I could name plenty of scenarios that could and have played out in real life in which deadly force against an unarmed attacker would have been warranted.

Unarmed but otherwise presenting a tangible threat, not just the perception of a hyper-sensitive, timid or untrained individual

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Wrong. If the person is able to articulate why they felt lesser force would not have stopped the imminent threat, then they do not need to first have "tried" lesser force.

That is difficult to do for an unarmed person if they are not actively aggressive towards you and your route of escape is not blocked.

 

[bmwguy11]

Pulling from the vehicle is an articulable threat and far different than when the other person has made no attack at all. When you use the word "cornered" you are inferring that there is no practical evasion possible and in your scenario it may be reasonable to use deadly force.
Finally we have specific scenarios where deadly force may be justified.

Right, and we could come up with all sorts of scenarios like that where deadly force was justified. So why do you keep arguing with that fact? We have already stated that a person has to be able to reasonably articulate why they couldn't escape and why lesser force was inadequate, and that they must be able to reasonably articulate why they felt the use of deadly force was justified. So what is it you are trying to argue with about what we've said?

 

[HandyHamlet]

You have not yet presented a real world scenario where it is justified.

In the end it ain't about the law. It's about the PA.

http://waukesha.patch.com/articles/report-waukesha-man-killed-when-burglarizing-home

Report: Waukesha Man Killed When Burglarizing Home

WTMJ-4, Fox 6 says man was shot dead by Okauchee home owner.

By Sarah Millard
Updated: Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel told a reporter with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Babe was not armed when he was shot. However, the prosecutor still needs to investigate whether or not the shooting was justified.

 

[Brass Magnet]

You will be held accountable if a reasonable person would have first tried a lesser force. You should always have the mind set to be prepared to execute a lesser level of force if you can or you are deliberately and necessarily risking a charge for excessive force.

Here you go talking in circles again. This is the same argument you tried before and it's still wrong. As long as a reasonable person could also have acted the way you did it still meets the reasonableness standard.

Here was the previous exchange:

It does. If a reasonable person would believe that a lesser force would be effective in the same situation then deadly force is clearly not justified (necessary). The self defense statute does not protect the hyper-sensitive individual or one who is not willing to consider a lesser force...

To which I replied:

Yes, it doesn't protect a hyper-sensitive individual but it also doesn't use the other extreme end of the spectrum to pronounce judgment. The criteria is not "if ANY reasonable person would have acted differently" it's if a reasonable person could have reasonably acted in the way that he/she did.

Just because some reasonable person would have acted one way doesn't preclude self defense if another reasonable person would have acted differently.

 

[bmwguy11]

Unarmed but otherwise presenting a tangible threat, not just the perception of a hyper-sensitive, timid or untrained individual

Oh really? Cite please? Last I checked wisconsin statutes say "reasonable person". Nowhere in the statute do I recall how a "reasonable person" is defined, and that someone who is untrained, timid, or hyper-sensitive, is not a reasonable person, nor that anything they can reasonably articulate doesn't count.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

The point of this thread is for people to think about when they are NOT justified in using deadly force. Strapping on a handgun is not the end-all plan for personal defense.
If you are Openly Carrying or Carrying Concealed you had better be prepared to use a lesser force or you may end up killing or maiming someone when it is not necessary and/or end up loosing your right to ever possess a handgun or at the least have a WI Carry License ever again if you make the wrong decision.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

Oh really? Cite please? Last I checked wisconsin statutes say "reasonable person". Nowhere in the statute do I recall how a "reasonable person" is defined, and that someone who is untrained, timid, or hyper-sensitive, is not a reasonable person, nor that anything they can reasonably articulate doesn't count.

The standard for any specific case will be decided by the 12 members of the jury.

 

[bmwguy11]

That is difficult to do for an unarmed person if they are not actively aggressive towards you and your route of escape is not blocked.

Why do you constantly reply with crap like this where you put words into my mouth or come back with remarks that say "oh yea well if X Y and Z happens then nana na boo boo that won't qualify".

Did I say the person was "not actively aggressive" or that escape was an option? No I didn't. In fact I am talking about situations where those things are not true, so stop trying to twist everything I say by adding disqualifying scenario variables to them.

 

[bmwguy11]

The point of this thread is for people to think about when they are NOT justified in using deadly force. Strapping on a handgun is not the end-all plan for personal defense.
If you are Openly Carrying or Carrying Concealed you had better be prepared to use a lesser force if lesser force is a reasonable option or you may end up killing or maiming someone when it is not necessary and/or end up loosing your right to ever possess a handgun or at the least have a WI Carry License ever again if you make the wrong decision.

I fixed your statement for you, since that seems to be the crux of the argument, and a point you continually miss.

 

[bmwguy11]

The standard for any specific case will be decided by the 12 members of the jury.

Then don't present it as fact.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Why do you constantly reply with crap like this where you put words into my mouth or come back with remarks that say "oh yea well if X Y and Z happens then nana na boo boo that won't qualify".

Did I say the person was "not actively aggressive" or that escape was an option? No I didn't. In fact I am talking about situations where those things are not true, so stop trying to twist everything I say by adding disqualifying scenario variables to them.

They're called strawman arguments and logical fallacies and he seems to be full up to the brim with them today.

 

[protias]

What about Miller v. State, 139 Wis. 57, 119 N.W. 850 (1909)?

 

[Brass Magnet]

What about Miller v. State, 139 Wis. 57, 119 N.W. 850 (1909)?

That one talks about how standing your ground vs. retreating goes to the reasonableness standard right? I can't find the .pdf of the case but found a quote in State v. Wegner.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight
The standard for any specific case will be decided by the 12 members of the jury.

Then don't present it as fact.

Ugh.... it's wrong anyway. The standard is called a standard because it doesn't change. The jury's job is to decide if it meets the standard.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

I never made the statement that deadly force is never justified against an unarmed person. My point is that it is much more difficult to justify than if the person is armed. The tone of this board appears that people feel it is justified most of the time when someone is interfering with their person and that drawing their handgun is their first line of defense. I am trying to discuss other options as being more reasonable in most cases.
I will put this another way. It is your responsibility as a reasonable rational adult while carrying a firearm that you are prepared mentally and physically to use a lesser force. Your first thought when someone uses deadly force against an unarmed person should be "Why couldn't they use a lesser force?" and not "Good for them they took another bad guy off of the streets who deserved to be shot".
If it is clear that deadly force was the reasonable choice based on the totality of circumstances then all is good. If it is not then you should be thinking about what you might have tried differently before deciding to take a life.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I never made the statement that deadly force is never justified against an unarmed person.(...)

Not precisely.

QFT

http://forum.opencarry.com/forums/newreply.php?p=1634461&noquote=1

self defense is NOT a crime!

It is if a lesser force would have sufficed.(...)

(...)My point is that it is much more difficult to justify than if the person is armed. The tone of this board appears that people feel it is justified most of the time when someone is interfering with their person and that drawing their handgun is their first line of defense. I am trying to discuss other options as being more reasonable in most cases.
I will put this another way. It is your responsibility as a reasonable rational adult while carrying a firearm that you are prepared mentally and physically to use a lesser force. Your first thought when someone uses deadly force against an unarmed person should be "Why couldn't they use a lesser force?" and not "Good for them they took another bad guy off of the streets who deserved to be shot".
If it is clear that deadly force was the reasonable choice based on the totality of circumstances then all is good. If it is not then you should be thinking about what you might have tried differently before deciding to take a life.

I don't see anyone here advocating going out shooting people all willy nilly. You're perception of that is unreasonable; in that a reasonable person reading the same forum would not reasonably believe this to be the case. Further, "totality of circumstances" after the fact have little bearing on the standard. This is hindsight again, the totality of circumstances perceived at the time have the weight.