WI Statutes and Use of Force...

[GLOCK21GB]

I hope I never have to find out.
To be honest, I would still try to run first. I bet I go a little faster when my life is at stake.

Bottom line, I feel we need a real "stand your ground" law.

+2

 

[GlockMeisterG21]

Your imminent fear of death was based on the fact that your personal space was being infringed and the chance that he may take your firearm and use it against you?

And his actions. He continued coming at you after many attempts to ward him off. Clearly he had evil intent and was going to do you harm. Just because someone looks unarmed doesn't mean they are. Every conflict you are in is an armed conflict. Your firearm can be taken from you.

You were forced to use your firearm because you chose to carry a firearm and you had already removed it from its holster?

It actually has nothing to do with it being removed from it's holster. Let's say I never did and never even placed my hand on it. Anywhere in that 30ft zone he can charge at me, drawing a knife, and stab me. This is fact (Tueller Drill) Because of his close proximity and the fact I did not prepare myself I'm now likely dead. Am I supposed to wait until he is already upon me to defend myself? This is not MN where the threat has to be immediate. This is WI where it only has to be imminent. My point is that I only had two levels of force available to me. I am not confident fighting someone of unknown capability with an unknown level of weapons with one hand while the other retains my firearm. What possible reason could he have for continuing to advance on me after I had presented my firearm other than to kill me???

It appears that your scenario and justification for the use of deadly force is being put to the test this week in Milwaukee. There is not much more to say on the matter until the jury rules.

Or until the entire story of events is told.

 

[GlockMeisterG21]

To Glock21GB, that avatar is awesome and a little sickening all at the same time.

 

[GlockMeisterG21]

All of the discussion so far on this thread is making the assumption that you are alone and have the ability, although maybe not the opportunity, to retreat. I am carrying more for the protection of my wife and kids than for me. I am 56, but still in good enough condition to cause the typical predator to think twice about taking me on. I like to think they would look for easier prey. Suffice it to say that if I was with my family, retreat becomes problematic as my wife and kids cannot run, or backpedal, as fast as I can. Reasonability (?) and standing my ground take on completely different meanings when I am standing between a creep and my kids. No way he gets past me. No way he gets close. If it comes down to keeping my wife and kids safe from harm, I'll make sure they live and take my chances with the jury.

Fast Ed

Fast Ed

In WI, if you have the ability to retreat then you have the obligation to do so. If retreat is not practical then you've met one of the four elements of self defense.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

And his actions. He continued coming at you after many attempts to ward him off. Clearly he had evil intent and was going to do you harm. Just because someone looks unarmed doesn't mean they are. Every conflict you are in is an armed conflict. Your firearm can be taken from you.



It actually has nothing to do with it being removed from it's holster. Let's say I never did and never even placed my hand on it. Anywhere in that 30ft zone he can charge at me, drawing a knife, and stab me. This is fact (Tueller Drill) Because of his close proximity and the fact I did not prepare myself I'm now likely dead. Am I supposed to wait until he is already upon me to defend myself? ....

You have to wait until the threat to your life is immenant before you use deadly force. Imminent would infer the means and the opportunity to threaten your life.
The Tueller Drill does not establish a free fire zone where deadly force is automatically justified because someone is approaching you within 21 feet and might represent a threat to your life. It was designed as a test for LEO to show that someone with a knife may be able to stab you before you can draw your handgun and fire. It took an average of 1.5 seconds for an officer to draw which was the amount of time someone can close on you if they are 21 feet away.
If someone is unarmed and you do not reasonably believe that they are armed, you are going to have some 'splaining to do if you choose to draw and fire on them.
You have no authority to "ward off" someone walking towards you. They can walk right up to you and talk smack. You do not have a 21 foot personal space which you may automatically defend with deadly force.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

To Glock21GB, that avatar is awesome and a little sickening all at the same time.

Winning I thought it was cool too.

 

[Jason in WI]

I am not confident fighting someone of unknown capability with an unknown level of weapons with one hand while the other retains my firearm

I'm not trying to get in on the discussion but this comment is what makes most scenarios difficult for me.

Like has been siad any fight i'm in becomes an armed conflict for the mere fact that I have a firearm and retaining my firearm with the ability to bring it to bear will have to take priority. That alone will change the dynamics and lessen my options in a conflict. The problem is I think I'd have a hard time convincing twelve jurors of that.




Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

I won't say what I'd do since i have no clue but in UT, for example, even if 2 people are consensually boxing, as soon as one of the combatants disengages, if the other keeps coming, self-defense is justified.

In my opinion, if someone keeps coming after a firearm is displayed, that shows that they are willing to kill me.

 

[Trip20]

Are we required to take a punch?

To use an extreme example, disparity of force can be proven when one individual (mid-20's physically fit male) engages another individual (70's-something physically limited female) with nothing more than his fists.

But what if the two individuals are, based on outward appearance, equals? Is the non-aggressor required to take a beating? Retreat, yes.... but one can only attempt to retreat to a point before one must face the threat of violence head on else be taken at a disadvantage. Once engaged in physical combat, at what point can the non-aggressor reasonably assume deadly force is warranted?

Is it as soon as the aggressor does not respond to requests to cease aggressive action? If so, that non-compliance can take place before any punches are thrown.

Is it as soon as more "deadly" events take place such as the aggressor kicking the non-aggressor while he's down, or maybe kicks to the head? At that point, the non-aggressor's ability to employ a deadly instrument in defense of his own life may be severely hampered. Or, even worse, doing so may provide the aggressor with opportunity to remove said deadly weapon and use for their own purposes.

I don't believe we must allow people to get in our personal space and beat on us to a certain degree before we are allowed to defend ourselves with deadly force. I also don't believe that means we can shoot anyone with a grumpy look that gets with in a 21' radius.

There is a lot of gray area since how we may react is based on.... wait for it... the totality of the circumstances. Events leading up to the altercation... Verbal communication between those involved... Known or expected behavior based on familiarity with aggressor... We can only hope that being reasonable people, we're able to communicate what we feared at the time and that others (our peers) will agree the response was reasonable.

 

[Outdoorsman1]

To Glock21GB, that avatar is awesome and a little sickening all at the same time.

+1... I saw a pic on the internet (can't remeber exactly where) of something similar and a littler more gruesome... Pumpkin Suicide... A sidearm was stuck in one side of the pumpkins head wirh a large hole opposite the pistol with all the pumkin guts (brains) laying on the porch next to it...

Outdoorsman1