Posted on 04/14/2012 4:34:45 AM PDT by rellimpank
Recently, we saw Wisconsin's castle doctrine law applied for the first time in a case in Slinger. A young man, apparently running from police during the breakup of an underage drinking party, hid in the porch of the next-door neighbor. The neighbor, reportedly frightened by the noises and presence of a stranger, confronted the young man and shot him. Emergency help arrived in response to the homeowner's call, but the young man died of the single wound.
The use of deadly force always has been a complete defense to a homicide charge where the person using it reasonably believed that it was necessary to protect himself or another from imminent death or great bodily harm. The new castle doctrine law expanded the concept by presuming that the person using deadly force had a reasonable belief that its use was necessary where an intruder has or is forcibly entering the "dwelling."
The term "dwelling" in the new law includes not just the home but all the immediate property, including the yard, driveway and garage. The Washington County district attorney did a thorough analysis of the facts, applied the law of self-defense with the castle doctrine and came to the conclusion that no charges were justified.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
I’d say the increased possibility of being shot changes the risk-reward profile on “pranks.” Good.
I suspect there’s a little more to this than the article describes.
This was probably a high crime hood are with lots of indigenous personnel floating around.
Since when is evading police to avoid arrest/ticketing a “prank?”
Praytell, you aren’t suggesting the media might be leaving out a few facts for the sake of an article, are you? /s
ping
Time for kids to behave, I guess. It also doesn’t hurt if parents would explain the doctrine to their kids.
This happened in a quiet suburban, almost rural area. The "porch" as it's described is not some slab of concrete- it is an attached structure with two doors that needed to be crossed in order to enter - in other words - the young man was INSIDE the house.
When the owner heard noises and went to investigate, he was aproached in the dark by a person inside his house. In the JS mindset, he should have paused to consider all the possibilities about why an intruder could have been there before taking action including the possibility that it could be some young adult who was hiding from the cops because he was at a drinking party down the road that the homeowner didn't even know was happening. Yeah, right.
Yeah, I'm sure that's how it went down.
"Hey you're a kid pulling a 'prank?'" KABOOM.
The man shot in Slinger was 20 so he was not a minor. But of course, that is irrelevant because a homeowner cannot always ascertain the age of an intruder, and if they could, they cannot divine intent. Sure, many teens are just up to harmless mischief, but others are used as stooges in criminal gangs because the penalties are much lower for juveniles.
Finally in WI, we have some legal protections when defending ourselves in our homes and businesses. So now liberal parents will have to tell their little precious ones that they can’t go around drinking and cavorting around in that mean old extreme guy’s property or they might get shot. Isn’t deterrence great!
Last time I ever step in one to knock on somebody's door ~ in Wisconsin!
He was the person who called the police to complain about noise from the party. Still, I think he was justified in the shooting.
He was not a juvenile. In the United States as of 1995, minor is legally defined as a person under the age of 21
...an armed society is a polite society.
Depends if you are talking alcohol. Under 18 is a minor.
The comments on the article correctly point out that the DA would have reached the same conclusion (no charges) without the new Castle Doctrine law. Odd the editorial doesn’t mention this. Wait, no it’s not.
I certainly hope you’re not doing that in the wee hours of the morning...in Wisconsin or anywhere else! :O)
Fed Ex, UPS and other companies who do residential delivery all share in the problem.
Best bet for the delivery employees is for their employers to REFUSE to do "to the door delivery" anymore ~ and not just in Wisconsin, but everywhere.
This interpretation of the Stand Your Ground concept certainly justifies widespread installation of Cluster Boxes all over America.
No sense taking the risk that some guy just doesn't recognize the carrier and decides to shoot him.
—yep—one always needs to read the comments—Wisconsin’s firearms fans are on to the J-S-—
Well, where I grew up this was assumed and everyone understood the rules... you didn't trespass and you didn't go sneaking around on anyone's property; especially at night. It's not like living in the city. The only safe way to approach is in plain sight and at the front door. Simple rules of courtesy applied.
We respected that and there weren't any problems.
The ‘castle doctrine’ is not a license to kill trespassers. It means that when one is being threatened with serious bodily injury or death, that person need not flee their own home to avoid the threat, even if it is a viable option. Outside of your own home, there IS a duty to retreat, when it is a viable option and can be safely done. We need to quit letting the leftists frame the argument based on their own flawed assupmptions.
Hmm ~ you just raised more questions than anyone could possibly have answers for. BTW, I couldn’t find that “article’ ~ I presume there are more.
Legal gun owners are a responsible group and they do not take that responsibility lightly. No one is protected from prosecution for recklessly hauling off and shooting a person who sets foot on their property.
And for that matter, there are places in Milwaukee where the likelihood of getting shot during daytime hours is increased and it's not because of concealed carry or the castle doctrine.
At the same time USPS and all the others need to cut costs ~ a lot!
Moving subrbanites over to cluster units seems to me to be just the thing! If SYG can be used as a reason for forcing you off off curbside or door delivery, so much the better!
The biggest liberal excuse for eroding freedoms ever......if it can only save ONE CHILD, etc. etc.
Life carries risks. Liberals want to think that all risk can be managed away by governmental regulation. Then nobody will die or get hurt or have accidents ever again.
A letter carrier can get hit by a bus crossing the street. If only ONE gets killed should we ban vehicles too?
HA! We, the civil society, WON and the punk thug LOST.
I call that a WIN.
Buying alcohol age is 21 in my state, I thought it was the same everywhere. You have to be 18 to buy tobacco products.
However, the INTERPRETATION a single attorney placed on Wisconsin's version of the law suggests that door deliveries in the dark are not really feasible anymore SO, to CUT GOVERNMENT COSTS and to save the USPS from bankruptcy at the hands of a runaway Congress I see no reason to continue door deliveries.
Since the US government doesn't write postal rules "state by state" they'll just have to do it to everybody.
Cluster boxes for all! And if chilluns have a higher risk of being hurt going down the block to get your mail, so what ~ this is about MONEY and consequential damages to a valuable employee who, if he simply turns into a vegetable and doesn't die will cost the rate payers MILLIONS over his life in a nursing facility.
Doggone are you Conservative or not! You must deal with the rights of gun-owners, even crazy ones, potential monetary risk by injured employees, the meaningless of run down chillun', and the true cost of mail delivery.
NOTE: so far no one has come up with detailed information about whether or not the perp broke in or did he just open the door. Since he hadn't been "invited" he's in the same deep doo doo of course. So far the only scenario is this guy shows up in/on someone's porch which may be an enclosed breezeway ~ a very common structural element in the Midwest. He advances. Homeowner fires. Cops come.
My concern isn't with perps, but that lawyer's interpretation and its secondary impact on people going about their legitimate business. Telling me that only a few of them will get killed is no comfort.
Thanks. With that i was able to find the site on Google Earth. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1111&bih=574&q=slinger+wi&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8804590832196bfd:0x8a197a69816656ca,Slinger,+WI&gl=us&ei=E7aJT7jaH4ni2AX4reXACQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA It is conceivable the kid got the wrong house when he ran out of the garage ~ at the same time there were already cops on the scene. I this is stretching it to say somebody had to get shot ~ can you imagine if the cops had joined in ~ which they sometimes do. Gad. At the same time this is at the corner of the Slinger community Park and I’d just bet everybody around there is on edge some times.
Key words in this layout:
ENCLOSED PORCH !!!!!!
Intering that enclosed porch is no different than entering the kitchen or the living room.
Walls & doors mean something!!
This is a line NOT to cross!!
Same thing with my perimeter fencing & signs on my property!
I can shoot an intruder.
Obviously, I was very short of coffee this morning...thanks for elaborating.
But why would he run into the house of the person that owned the garage, the person breaking up the party?
Why run and hide at all?
Seems it’s just as likely he was using the party noise as cover to break into the ‘right’ house.
Went looking for the closest Indian reservation in that area ~ there it is ~ Menominee ~ been there. Interesting place to go. Nothing at all going on. Just indians.
We've covered that particular constitutional right in the 4th amendment discussions.
It was cold that night. The first videos show about 6 inches of snow on the ground.
And why would you think he was there just to rob that guy's house ~ after all he'd already revealed his identity to the folks who invited him to their party?
He ran when he and others decided to evade the cops WHO WERE PARKED ON THE STREET in front of the house he ran to.
There was a cop parked IN BACK OF THE SAME PROPERTY. It was surrounded.
I think he's a Menominee Indian, as are the others.
Thanks. Good info. This thread is the first I’ve heard of this.
Wisconsin “Castle Doctrine” discussion
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/homeowner-knew-police-partyers-were-nearby-before-firing-5s4n7e0-144120795.html ~ this is a bit more comprehensive ~ answers a lot of the details. Notice how quickly the cops responded ~ and they hung around an hour ~ WOW! Usually the other way around elsewhere. Kid had a drinking problem already.
live near by. Why did he run??
you missed this detail in the js link in post 42...
He was out on bail from four pending criminal cases, and as a condition was not to consume alcohol. An autopsy showed he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.19.
The young man made several bad decisions that night.
Also meant to address reply to Moe
The reason he ran was he was going to go back to jail if they caught him drinking (that was his parole agreement ~ no drinking). He'd obviously violated it.
The chillun at the party told the police that Bo hadn't been there ~ until they found out he was dead. They didn't want to squeal on somebody and send him to jail, but if he was dead they didn't care.
The stories report the attendees were somewhat indifferent to Bo's death. Probably didn't know him well.
BTW, if he wasn't driving a car his blood-alcohol level probably wasn't going to bother anyone except his parole officer.
His biggest mistake was going to the party. His second biggest mistake was leaving the party!
The castle doctrine changes the rules for teen pranks
Is “prank” a new word for “criminal tresspass?
Hyperbole much?
Many states have enjoyed castle laws for years. Have you got any actual data on letter carriers shot by a homeowner while in performance of their duties in one of these states?
Go take a safety course at your local range. You'll learn that those big bad guns aren't really so scary.
Incidentally, anyone outside my home will be challenged by my neighbor before I even see them. He's with the local Sheriff’s department and we're on a remote cul-de-sac.
you missed this detail in the js link in post 42...
He was out on bail from four pending criminal cases, and as a condition was not to consume alcohol. An autopsy showed he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.19.
You missed post 28. Apparently SYG should be banned because the little felon might have been delivering mail while drunk and fleeing the authorities.
The DA didn't even need to get beyond the self defense statutes in WI on this one. He added a section on SYG but it didn't make any difference.
What may be disturbing you is the neighbor called on the kids earlier to keep down the noise. He even speculated that Bo was preparing to retaliate ~ which the DA said wasn't the case because Bo was not part of the earlier confrontation. He simply made a mistake in going into the neighbor's house.
BTW, I've never figured out which side you are on in any of these discussions ~ or do you even have a position.
Can you get out of here with your "I'm a big gun owner so I know stuff you can't possibly know" business.
What nonsense. Everybody's got guns.
I was referring to the DA's apparent interpretation as reflected in the S-J news piece.
Turns out that when you read the DA's opinion he goes through the self defense and the SYG laws and finds that both lead you to the same conclusion ~ justifiable self defense!
Try reading beyond the elements in a developmental conversation about what we have in the news, or in government releases, to help us understand what's going on.
And don't come messin' round my house in the dark, yo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.