Any Good Stories?

[andrea3821]

Originally Posted by rso092

If someone is in my house, their intention is to do me harm. At least, that's what my assumption is. My actions will then, of course, be based on that assumption.

Even in WI, with our lack of a "castle doctrine", we have a strong self defense statute that plainly states how and when you may protect yourself, another person, or property. More specifically, even in Milwaukee County, you aren't even going to be charged if you shoot someone in your home and it is a good shoot.

Oh, and if some kid throws a chunk of pavement through my window, his punishment better be a hell of a lot more than getting grounded for a few weeks

You can't assume that. The person may not know you're home and may have absolutely no intentions to hurt you in any way, they're just there to steal from you or create mischief in some way while they think you're gone. You may be scared and take action against them, b/c you don't know why they're there, which I'm sure is what I would do as well, but you can't just assume their intention is to hurt you.

I'm glad to know that WI has good laws for self-defense. However, they would probably charge you first, ask questions, then drop the charges if you can prove that you were in fact defending yourself or someone else. It's not as simple as "I woke up and this guy was in my house so I shot and killed him!"

I was just giving an example about the mischievous kid getting grounded. That's up to his parent, though, not you, unless you call the police, which you might, and then they would handle it. No reason for eyerolling.

[rso092]

Originally Posted by andrea3821

You can't assume that. The person may not know you're home and may have absolutely no intentions to hurt you in any way, they're just there to steal from you or create mischief in some way while they think you're gone. You may be scared and take action against them, b/c you don't know why they're there, which I'm sure is what I would do as well, but you can't just assume their intention is to hurt you.

I'm glad to know that WI has good laws for self-defense. However, they would probably charge you first, ask questions, then drop the charges if you can prove that you were in fact defending yourself or someone else. It's not as simple as "I woke up and this guy was in my house so I shot and killed him!"

I was just giving an example about the mischievous kid getting grounded. That's up to his parent, though, not you, unless you call the police, which you might, and then they would handle it. No reason for eyerolling.

I most certainly can assume that. If someone breaks into my home while I am there, they have already committed one felony. I'm not going to guess as to what their intention is once they find out the house is occupied. My safety is far more important than that of some *****bag burglar or thief.

You won't get charged if you are involved in a good shoot. Even Milwaukee, or, God forbid, Dane county DA offices aren't going to charge someone in a straight up self defense shooting. Now, you would be open to civil suit, which is another story. For that reason, I strongly advocate a strong "Castle Doctrine" law for WI that would include civil immunity.

You're right, it is up to the parents. At least, up to a point. If some dumbass kid threw a rock through my window intentionally, you bet I'd get him charged. I did stupid things when I was a kid too, but they didn't include property damage like this. If it were still socially acceptable, I'd much rather kick the kids' ***** up and down the street, but alas, that isn't allowed anymore

[Concrete]

What do you mean you won't get charged if you are involved in a "good shot." What is a "good shot," does that mean you didn't shoot them in the back or something. Or are you implying that you have a good shot and killed them?

[rso092]

A good shoot, meaning you were correct in the actions you took. It basically means a reasonable person, with similiar training and experience, and in the same situation, would find your actions acceptable.

Think of it as common sense. Obviously you wouldn't shoot someone for simply standing in your yard and refusing to leave. Now take that same man standing in your yard refusing to leave, but now he is armed with a shotgun and says he is going to kill you, then begins raising his weapon. Reasonable people can agree the first man probably isn't an immediate threat to your safety, while the second man definitely is.

As with law enforcement, the way you articulate your actions and your thought process at the time of the incident is key. In most every case, if you can articulate exactly why you were in fear of your life, a self defense use of force will not be criminally charged (provided your use of force was reasonable).

Hope that all makes sense.

[Ultracorp]

Just remember that you are not permitted to use deadly force to protect your property, only your person. To use a weapon to defend yourself in your house you must be ready and able to demonstrate that you feared great bodily harm was going to happen to you and you had no choice but to defend yourself.

See state statues:

939.45
939.48
939.49

[SeaJay87]

Family: Slinger Shooting Was A Misunderstanding

I wonder what will happen to this guy, based on what you guys have said so far you have to prove you were in danger. If the "intruder" was on the porch then he hadn't intruded yet and couldn't have been much of a danger at that moment.

Manslaughter or murder? Or neither?

[nidex]

I think he's going to get charged. The kid was in the enclosed porch, hiding. Obviously not posing a threat to the homeowner, minus the fact he was in the enclosed porch.
I am all for using deadly force to protect myself and my family if it were to come to that. But the homeowner should have yelled "halt! Who goes there?" like they do in the Army. Then if he did not reply, shout it a second time. If he does not reply again, by the third time you have the safety off of your weapon. I'm guessing this homeowner didn't say a damn thing because the kid would have obviously explained the situation had he been looking down the barrel of a gun. The homeowner should be charged.