WISCONSIN: Both House and Senate to vote on Castle Doctrine bill early next week.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7153

As the 2011 legislative session progresses, legislators are once again continuing their efforts to guarantee a person’s right to self-defense within the state. Following in the same vein as the Personal Protection Act, the state House and Senate versions of “Castle Doctrine” self-defense legislation are expected to receive a full vote in their respective chambers early next week. Also of note is the Department of Administration’s recent efforts to establish a policy which would allow permit holder to carry in the state capital for self-defense.

Wisconsin Assembly Bill 69 and Senate Bill 79 commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine,” would provide essential protections for law abiding citizens who defend themselves and their families from a criminal looking to do them harm. “Castle Doctrine” establishes the presumption that an individual who forcibly enters ones home, business or occupied motor vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, and allows force, including deadly force, against that person. This bill also eliminates any “duty to retreat” so that law abiding citizens no longer must turn their back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Finally, AB 69 and SB 79 would provide that any person who uses force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.

The bill is expected to pass and will be signed by the governor.

[ileus]

1. Give citizens the tools to defend themselves without fear of lawsuits or prosecution.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. I don't like it.

I like Washington State, where we just have no duty to retreat.

All we need is civil liability immunity in any case where a prosecutor won't file charges, and we're golden.

[Euromutt]

6. Doesn't RCW 9A.16.110 provide that?

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

Strikes me that "legal jeopardy of any kind" (emphasis mine) would include civil suits resulting from use of force.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. I don't think it covers civil suits.

But I could be wrong. Not a lawyer. Don't play one on tv.

[S_B_Jackson]

10. Civil immunity is part of the bill

from Assembly Bill 69:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/ab69

(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 great 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 residence, the actor was present in the
residence, 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 residence
after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the residence, and
the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly
entered the residence.

And from Senate Bill 79:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb79

(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 great 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 residence, the actor was present in the
residence, 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 residence
after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the residence, and
the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly
entered the residence.

It's fairly clear that the state is providing immunity from civil suits. Yes?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

3. Do you care to address the actual topic under discussion?

Is this a good or bad thing for WI, and why?

[socialindependocrat]

4. This protects citizens...

This allows citizens to protect themselves and their families.

Without it people can be arrested for protecting themselves.

We need to face the fact that the police have a hard time stopping a crime.

They show up after the damage is done and
unless there is a murder, they take a report.

Here, we have one of those issues where people disagree on gun ownership

We need to agree to disagree
There will never be - NO guns
People need the freedom to choose
Do I protect myself or do I not feel comfortable with owning a gun

The passage of the Castle Law does not put more guns on the street
It just allows people the freedom from arrest and harassment
when they protect their home and their loved ones.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. welcome to DU

:hi:

[iverglas]

12. what a dog's breakfast

This law has nothing to do with gun ownership. It refers to the use of force, which may involve knives, baseball bats, chairs, wine bottles or no weapon at all.


It just allows people the freedom from arrest and harassment
when they protect their home and their loved ones.

No, the law already did that.

What this law does is allow people to assault and kill other people with absolute impunity, including in situations where no use of force whatsoever was justified and the person who used the force had no believe whatsoever that it was necessary.

[krispos42]

13. Justified use of force is subject to interpretation

You and I, for example, probably have similar but not identical real-life standards.

But your terminology shows your view of the matter. "Assault and kill other people with immunity". It's assault if I attack somebody breaking into my house?

:shrug:

The problem is that district or state's attorneys have standards that are variable, depending upon other things like political pressure from above and below as well as political or career ambitions. Prosecuting even though the government attorney knows the case is a loser because of such reasons, even if justice is ultimately done, can ruin the defendant. And it is done to make a point, or to make a name or reputation. After all, it's not the prosecutor's money...

Also remember that lawyers make or break cases on their ability to prove or disprove beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is based on evidence and testimony presented to a jury months or years after it happened and after the lawyers involved have had gratuitous amounts of time to fight to include and exclude evidence and testimony.

Justice isn't free. We have a two-tiered system here. The rich can overwhelm the government attorneys with legal teams to their own advantage; but at the same time the power of the state is overwhelming to those that lack money. And who is far more likely to be involved in a self-defense shooting? The non-rich. The ones that will drain themselves dry to defend themselves, take a gamble on an under-funded and inexperienced public defender, or plead out and spend time in jail to avoid impoverishing their families.


I have no doubt that there are a very few individuals who would relish the chance to legally kill somebody, especially if that person was of a certain skin color. But there are very few of them, and practically none of them are in a situation to exercise that fantasy. Rather more prosecutors are in positions to abuse their power and burnish their reputations.

[iverglas]

15. yeah, it's called "the law" and "the legal process"

How come this is the only place where it should be ousted?

Why not adopt statutory presumptions for every situation where a court might get it wrong?

A civil court might find someone negligent where they were not. Let's have laws that require that the court presume that no one is ever negligent.


The problem is that district or state's attorneys have standards that are variable, depending upon other things like political pressure from above and below as well as political or career ambitions. ... ... ... ...

Then deal with the problem.

If legislatures can enact garbage, constitutionally impermissible legislation like this, why can't you people elect legislatures and officials who will do the job that actually needs doing?

If this legislation is tacit recognition of all the dreadful failings of the system that you conjure up, why aren't the legislatures in question doing something about them?

I'd say it's because the legislation is no such thing, myself.



typo fixed

[krispos42]

27. I doubt it's the only place where it is ousted.

But as I recall you have some involvement with a law firm, so you're in a better position than I am to research that, even informally.


If this legislation is tacit recognition of all the dreadful failings of the system that you conjure up, why aren't the legislatures in question doing something about them?

Because half of the voters don't see it as a failing, that's why.

"Look, he's using his discretion to do something we like! Yay!"

"Shit, he's using his discretion to do something we don't like! Boo!"

After all, if the same prosecutor also had a habit of aggressively busting, say, kiddie porn or child molesters or drug users, many people would say "the system is fine so don't mess with it."

[iverglas]

28. you recall strangely

I have no involvement with any law firm. I don't know why you would recall that I would. Are we still belabouring that "paralegal" nonsense?

I did provide some services to one of those super-sized law firms last month ... still waiting for the 7 grand it owes me ... It hadn't better pull the trick that the handful of law firms I've provided services to in the last couple of decades mostly did, which was not get around to paying at all. Bloody head of the prosecutors association took a year to come up with my money!


If this legislation is tacit recognition of all the dreadful failings of the system that you conjure up, why aren't the legislatures in question doing something about them?
Because half of the voters don't see it as a failing, that's why.

Okay, I give up. If they don't see a problem, what do they imagine this legislation is the solution to?

[krispos42]

31. You're saying what you don't do

But you're not saying what you do do, which would be a bit faster than "20 Questions".


Anyway, problems exist whether a percentage of the population wants to see it or not, so addressing problems becomes a matter of a) the public being aware of it, b) the public being concerned about it, and c) the public willing to put their voice and their vote where their concern is.

If "they" (the people that don't see overzealous or political prosecutions of people that shoot in self-defense) don't see a problem, they I would assume that they imagine this legislation is a bone being tossed to the red-meat gun-totin' conservatives.

[iverglas]

35. and that would be because

it's not actually any of your business. If I said what I do do, people with a few brain cells and a mouse would determine my identity in a few minutes. I have no desire for the fan club to have that information.


If "they" (the people that don't see overzealous or political prosecutions of people that shoot in self-defense) don't see a problem, they I would assume that they imagine this legislation is a bone being tossed to the red-meat gun-totin' conservatives.

Give me a break, was this supposed to make sense?

I would really think that the people who don't share your views about the awful things that prosecutors do to the downtrodden ARE the gun-totin' conservatives to whom this decaying garbage is being tossed.

You have created a Moebius strip here from which there is no escape.

Having finished my work for the day some 10 minutes ago, I shall go have supper and resist the urge to help you extricate yourself.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. We do and this is a job that needed doing

More to go, but this is a step in the right direction.

We don't have a lot of faith in "the system" with some justification.

[socialindependocrat]

16. This is called deterrence

If you don't want to risk being shot don't break into someone's home.

Since you probably won't break into someone's home
this upsets you for what reason?

If you are upset because a criminal gets shot
while perpetrating a crime then, I don't understand.
The person has already proven their desire to break the law.
So, what's your problem?

What is the homeowner to do in this situation.
I would rather err on the side of the homeowner.

[iverglas]

19. this is called laughable dumbness

If you don't want to risk being shot don't break into someone's home.

If you don't want to risk being shot don't look sideways at me on the sidewalk.

Since you probably won't break into someone's home this upsets you for what reason?

Since you probably won't look sideways at me on the sidewalk, this upsets you for what reason?

(Forgive my assumption that it upsets you; perhaps it doesn't. Of course, laws that allow assault and homicide to be committed with impunity might "upset me", since normal people are distressed by that kind of thing, but my emotional state isn't in issue here, of course. Thanks for your concern, though, I'm sure.)

If you are upset because a criminal gets shot while perpetrating a crime then, I don't understand.

Aw, I'm sorry, did I make your head hurt?

I'll bet you wouldn't be upset if your 12-yr-old got shot while stealing a chocolate bar, would you?

The person has already proven their desire to break the law. So, what's your problem?

Me? None at all. Let's allow members of the public to shoot on sight everyone who fails to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

What is the homeowner to do in this situation. I would rather err on the side of the homeowner.

Er ... what situation is that?

Maybe you're unaware that it is actually the job of the courts to assess actual situations ...

The "situation" the legislation is providing for is a totally imaginary one, you see.

Oh, probably you don't. I doubt I can help you, though.

[socialindependocrat]

21. We're talking about home invasion....

We're not talking about someone looking at you "on the street"
or "my child stealing a candybar somewhere".

We are talking about someone breaking into someone else's home.

[iverglas]

23. ah, the concrete thinking

You're talking about granting a licence to kill.

You think people should have a licence to kill anyone who forcibly and unlawfully enters their home.

I think I should have a licence to kill anybody who looks sideways at me on the sidewalk.

What's your problem? Who are you to say that I, a woman in a society where women are victims of violence, should not be presumed to be in fear for my life or limb when that happens?

The law should protect me from zealous prosecutors out to get me, a member of a disadvantaged group in society.

[ileus]

20. Blood in the streets....oh the gnashing of teeth.

Oh there'll be dead bodies everywhere just like in the wild west.....yeah that's it.


people believe that stuff you know.

[ileus]

17. What we need is a nationwide version of this.

[spin]

8. I feel that Florida's Castle Doctine or Stand Your Ground law has worked out well in Florida ...

But of course the VPC, the Brady Campaign and many liberal newspapers disagree.

A text of the law can be viewed at:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

[iverglas]

24. omg, "liberal newspapers"

The great satans of our societies.

[spin]

33. No liberal newspapers are not the "great Satans" of our society ...

but they definitely are opposed to "shall issue" concealed carry and the civilian ownership of "assault weapons" and often push for draconian gun laws. They take any information published by the Brady Campaign as gospel and push it on the public with little research.

Both conservative and liberal newspapers suffer from laziness and do little research but merely pander to the views of the conservative or liberal side they support. There are few unbiased and accurate sources of information on our society. That's what makes it hard to understand what side of an issue to support.

However, knowledge of firearms is not rocket science and when the liberal news organizations publish propaganda it is very obvious to anyone who is familiar with firearms. For example it is amazing just how many times a semi-automatic firearm morphs into a fully automatic machine gun in news stories or a .223 is described as a high powered rifle or a scoped bolt action hunting rifle becomes a sniper rifle. Gun owners are quick to detect such faults in an newspaper article. They quickly become convinced that the newspaper believes its readers are stupid.

Unfortunately, when a newspaper engages in such sloppy reporting, many gun owners tend to distrust anything the newspaper reports or any opinion of the newspaper. This enables a more conservative newspaper to be able to publish bullshit about a far more complicated subject such as economics and still have the confidence of its conservative readers.

[ileus]

25. Castle Doctrine laws work out everywhere they are in place...no blood in the streets.

[iverglas]

11. what it means

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/ab69

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.


Section 2. 939.48 (1m) of the statutes is created to read:

939.48 (1m) (a) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court 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 any 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 residence, the actor was present in the residence, 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 residence after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the residence, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence.

b) The presumption described in par. (a) does not apply if any of the following applies: ...

THE COURT SHALL PRESUME ... even if it is totally false.

Even if the person who used force knew to an absolute certainty that the force used was not necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

All the person has to do is "make such a claim".

The victim of the force can be alive and kicking, having survived being shot in the back by the householder, and have the most credible account of events to show that the householder absolutely had no such belief, and the court may not heed that evidence.

Yup, murder (and of course all levels of assault) with impunity will be alive and well in Wisconsin too now.

[socialindependocrat]

18. How often is this going to happen?

You wrote:
Even if the person who used force knew to an absolute certainty that the force used was not necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Could you give us an example of how this would play out?

[iverglas]

22. actually, the burden is on the proponent of a change to a law

to demonstrate the need for the change.

But what the hell.

Have a read. Inform yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

How hard can it be for you to come up with your own example of how it would play out?

Yeesh.

Neighbour's unarmed guest comes home drunk, can't get key in door, climbs in window ... of wrong house ...

Neighbour's unarmed 12-yr-old kid decides to break in a basement window looking for, oh, booze ...

Genuine burglar breaks in, believing the house is empty, hears voices, turns and tries to run back out door ...

Do you have no imagination?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. There is no such burden, real or imagined, even in Canada

Legislators can change something just because it is Tuesday. They need no reason and have no burden or threshold of demonstrated need.

[iverglas]

36. I keep forgetting

You just aren't on speaking terms with that "civil discourse" thing, are you?


edit to provide a clue lest you really don't have one: I wasn't talking about any onus on a legislator. There are no legislators here, to my knowledge.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. I am quite well aquainted with civil discourse

It is you who are the stranger...

I replied to your assertion that there was some sort of burden. There clearly is not.

[ileus]

14. Keeping our fingers crossed for our good friends in WI....

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Certain of our California DUers never mention *their* "Castle Doctrine"

You'd think if it was such a bad idea, they'd be champing at the bit to get it repealed, but no...I wonder why that is?

From the California Penal Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=08547827454+8+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve


198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.



199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. I don't because it is limited and does not preclude civil suits

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. I'm aware that it does not preclude civil suits, but I was referring to another poster,

also from California.

[Atypical Liberal]

32. Oh the backlash! n/t

[era veteran]

39. Some numbers about home invasion and related crimes

The police even told me that our secluded house was a easy looking target. Lots of security upgrades here and have purchased a revolver. Was broken into last December and it was just luck Ms era out visiting while I was at work.

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.homeownersinsurance.org/home-invasion-statistics/"><img src="" alt="Home Invasion Statistics" width="500" border="0" /></a><br />Via: <a href="http://www.homeownersinsurance.org/">Homeowners Insurance</a>