• 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" self defense bill introduced in WI Assembly

safcrkr

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
318
Location
Vilas County, WI, ,
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-69.pdf

<snip>

Under this bill, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily harm, the court must presume that the person reasonably
believed that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself
or herself or to another person if: 1) the individual against whom the force was used
was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already unlawfully and
forcefully entered, the residence of the person who used the force; 2) the person was
present in that residence; and 3) the person knew or reasonably believed that an
unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.


<snip>
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Unless I'm missing something, this only applies inside your house. I thought someone said the castle doctrine bill that was going to be introduced was the 'best in the land'.
 

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
Actually, as it's written is very broad and thus quite good. They just need to extend this to your vehicle as well. Of course, a good "stand your ground" law must follow.
 

anmut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
875
Location
Stevens Point WI, ,
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/AB-69.pdf

<snip>

Under this bill, if a person used defensive force that was intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily harm, the court must presume that the person reasonably
believed that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself
or herself or to another person if: 1) the individual against whom the force was used
was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had already unlawfully and
forcefully entered, the residence of the person who used the force; 2) the person was
present in that residence; and 3) the person knew or reasonably believed that an
unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.


<snip>

Very good step in the right direction. Lets get some names of people in charge of this issue as it goes through the process and let the letter, email and phone calls begin!
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Very good step in the right direction. Lets get some names of people in charge of this issue as it goes through the process and let the letter, email and phone calls begin!

Well, the authors are at the top of the bill. Luckily, Representative Nass, my rep is on the list. We can ask our Senators to be setup as a co-sponsor, I believe.
 

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
It is nice to know that Wisconsin is finally finding fault in the idea that if someone comes into our homes we are still supposed to run away.
 

Jason in WI

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
542
Location
Under your bed
Lame. It's almost worded like they were going to have to convince a Democratic majority to vote on it. I mean it's a great step from what we have now but [strike]I expected[/strike] we deserve more.
 

johnny amish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,025
Location
High altitude of Vernon County, ,
Looks like a very small step in the right direction.
Why is the act of self defense a privilage?
I will be contacting my rep. early next week to talk with him about this. I would think because he was one who has recently recieved death threats he might be eager to address this.
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
Looks like a very small step in the right direction.
Why is the act of self defense a privilage?
I will be contacting my rep. early next week to talk with him about this. I would think because he was one who has recently recieved death threats he might be eager to address this.

Here is an article discussing "rights". Quote:

"Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sentence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights, which is not the case with political rights; for an alien, for example, has no political, although in the full enjoyment of his civil rights.

These latter rights are divided into absolute and relative. The absolute rights of mankind may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security, which consists in a person's legal and uninter-rupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation; the right of personal liberty, which consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's inclination may direct, without any restraint, unless by due course of law; the right of property, which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q167.htm

If personal security is considered by law as a right, perhaps the statute should refer to personal security.

What bothers me is the "reasonably believe that death or great bodily harm" requirement gives a DA the ability to charge an individual for protecting themselves. It gets back to the old you cannot use deadly force to protect property debate. To not get charged what are the parameters that that would be considered "reasonable?"

When this type of legislation was introduced in the last session I asked Fleebagger Senator Miller to support it. He said he would not because it did not require the individual to show self defense.

If someone who is unarmed kicks down your door and you kill them immediately shooting from another room is that reasonable?

You hear a noise, investigate, see someone you do not know in you home, you shoot them, you say that you feared that you would be harmed, there is no sign of forceable entry as you left the doors unlocked, is that reasonable?

You hear a noise, investigate, see someone, you hide in an bedroom, call 911, say you are scared, individual starts to leave you shoot him/her in the back, no sign of forceable entry, is that reasonable?

Same thing, except burglary tools were found, no evidence that forceable entry occurred.

The proposed language should be be changed to get rid of the term "forceable" and just refer to "unlawful entry," with the meaning of unlawful entry defined as entering without permission or implied permission.
 
Last edited:

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
Yes I agree it's a step in the right direction, but it's too restrictive to a "residence"

Actually 939.48 already identifies the use of force for self defense outside the home.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0939.pdf

Being that this is going to be 939.48(1)(m) it would seem to me that this is an attempt to cover the "In the home" aspect of self defense. They do not, however, address the "Stand your ground" aspect of self defense as pointed out in this thread.

As the laws sit, they are very definite on what the individual can or can not do. I personally would like to see this go through, and as there are 30 sponsors/co-sponsors, I would say that it will likely be passed as that is a majority of the house by itself. That is if they don't do the politician shuffle and decide at the last minute to not vote for it, or suspend it indefinitely.

This law would allow a person to defend their home without the "Duty To Retreat" that is an average part of the items that they try and use against law abiding citizens. I would say that this is a huge step in the rite direction.

But thats just my opinion. :dude:
 
Last edited:

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
What about us small business owners, there are still no protections against prosecution and civil cases if we are forced to defend ourselves and our employees at our place of business. Maybe I should just keep a cot in the attic and say it is my home?
 

Lady Glock

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
53
Location
Oklahoma
Yes I agree it's a step in the right direction, but it's too restrictive to a "residence"

Need to define your garage as part of your residence. That's the way most states that have this do...though the garage has to be attached in order to be considered.
 
Top