Wisconsin Castle Doctrine Legislation Stuck in Committee!

[LarryO1970]

Wisconsin Castle Doctrine Legislation Stuck in Committee!

Please Contact the Senate Committee Today!

Assembly Bill 35 is currently stuck in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, and Housing.

AB35 would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes. It is clearly stated that there is no “duty to retreat” from an attacker, allowing law-abiding citizens to stand their ground to protect themselves and their family. AB35 also protects individuals from civil lawsuits by the attacker or the attacker’s family when force is used.
Please contact members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, and Housing and request that AB35 be heard at the next Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections, and Housing meeting.
Senator Lena Taylor (Chair) (D-4)
Phone: (608) 266-5810
Email: Sen.Taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Jim Sullivan (Vice-Chair) (D-5)
Phone: (608) 266-2512
Email: Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Kathleen Vinehout (D-31)
Phone: (608) 266-8546
Email: Sen.Vinehout@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Mary Lazich (R-28)
Phone: (608) 266-5400
Email: Sen.Lazich@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Glenn Grothman (R-20)
Phone: (608) 266-7513
Email: Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov




2007 − 2008 LEGISLATURE
2007 ASSEMBLY BILL 35
January 24, 2007 − Introduced by Representatives OWENS, ALBERS, FRISKE,
GRONEMUS, GUNDERSON, HAHN, HINES, JESKEWITZ, KERKMAN, F. LASEE, MURSAU,
MUSSER, NASS, OTT, PETROWSKI, VOS and VUKMIR, cosponsored by Senators
ROESSLER and DECKER. Referred to Committee on Criminal Justice.
AN ACT to create 939.48 (1m) of the statutes; relating to: the privilege of
self−defense.

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau In general, a person who uses force in self−defense or in the defense of another person may not be convicted of a crime stemming from that use of force. This law applies only when:
1) the amount of force used is reasonable.
2) the person uses that force to prevent or stop what he or she reasonably believes is an unlawful interference with himself or herself or another person (such as the crime of battery).
Current law specifies that a person may use force that is intended or likely to cause
the death of or great bodily harm to another individual only if the person reasonably
believes that using such force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or great
bodily harm to himself or herself or another person.

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 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
3) the person knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was
occurring or had occurred.

This presumption, however, does not apply if:

1) the person who used the force was engaged in an unlawful activity or was using his or her residence to further an unlawful activity.
2) the individual against whom the force was used had identified himself or herself as a peace officer (or was or should have been known to be a peace officer) and was entering the residence in the performance of his or her official duties.

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
enact as follows:
SECTION 1. 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 had reason to believe 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 had reason to believe 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:
1. The actor was engaged in an unlawful activity or was using his or her
residence to further an unlawful activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a peace officer who entered
or attempted to enter the actor’s residence in the performance of his or her official
duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:

ASSEMBLY BILL 35 SECTION 1
a. The officer identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described
in par. (a) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering
or attempting to enter his or her residence was a peace officer.
(END)

Privilege eh? Last I knew, self defense was a right.

[neophyte]

LarryO1970: Sir; they will not let me vote in Wisconsin, Maybe I could slip a note through.
NC had this 'shelved' last year about this time. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to protect yourself and not face a bunch of 'crap'.

[LarryO1970]

What concerns me is that the right to self defense is referred to as a privilege. Bullsh*t ... it is a right as an American citizen, period.

[GlockMeister]

The way I see it, or as far as I'm concerned, it should be a right of just being a human being and the right to self preservation. I mean, no one asks for these that would wish to rob,steal and or do harm in the process when they come onto ones property in the first place. Had they not, they'd of not gotten shot. Why is it even an issue is what gets my goat.

[LarryO1970]

Senators,

Please support the right of Wisconsin residents’ rights to defend themselves in their own homes and remove the requirement that homeowners flee their homes(Castles) to GIVE away their possessions and livelihood to the criminals who prey on the fact they do not have the right to defend themselves. Criminals will attack the people without the means of self defense… basically they take the easy target. Knowing Wisconsin homeowners are “required” to flee, this makes the crime easier and less of a threat to them. Thus, the crime occurs.

Consider this hypothetical situation:

Much like the “Castle Doctrine” … Concealed Carry does the same for the individual Wisconsin resident. Senators Taylor, Vinehout and Lazich, put yourself in the shoes of a female jogger out for a morning run before heading out to work. You feel you are being watched during your jog and turn for home out of general discomfort and a rising belief you are being stalked. Before you get home, you are cut off by a man with a knife… what that man wants… well, isn’t money since you are not carrying a purse. IF you and other women in the same position had the RIGHT to carry concealed, there would be a much different ending here with a man in prison or the ground for an attempted “armed something”.

Senators Sullivan and Grothman, take the same scenario… you are with your wife and the same happens. Current law prohibits you to carry a gun to protect yourself, not even your wife. He has a knife… Even if this were to happen in a home invasion… what do you do… the requirement to flee by "duty-to-retreat" laws or attempt to protect your wife? What if the role is reversed and the husband is in a fight with an intrufder with a knife, what does the wife do to help defend her husband? Does she exercise her requirement of "duty-to-retreat"? What do you do, call the police? Too late…

My point here is that we all deserve the RIGHT, not PRIVILEGE to defend ourselves, our families and our homes from criminals. As it is, the crimainal has more rights and confidence in the “system” than the homeowner. The criminal knows they are going to jail if caught in an armed encounter… the homeowner, defending their family risks jail for standing their ground, defending themselves, their family and their possessions.

Even if the criminal flees, falls down the stairs and breaks their leg… in current law, can sue the homeowner. What is wrong with this picture?

I believe it is “high time” that the politicians put the strength back into the hands of the homeowners to make that choice to defend themselves and protect the homeowner from ridiculous lawsuits brought on them by intruders who are illegally trespassing at the very least.that . Maybe we should be strongly considering enacting laws within the state of Wisconsin that are4 very similar to laws in other states giving the peoples’ rights back to them.



[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SGTLAR%7E1.OLI/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]Fortifying The Right To Self-Defense, every citizen in the USA deserves the same.
Fortifying The Right To Self-Defense "Law is order, and good law is good order," Aristotle said. Without doubt, Florida's recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" law is good law, casting a common-sense light onto the debate over the right of self-defense. It reverses the pendulum that for too long has swung in the direction of protecting the rights of criminals over the rights of their victims. Despite predictable howling from the anti-gun media elite that Florida was taking an unprecedented and dangerous action, in truth it joined 24 other states that reject "duty-to-retreat" laws.

Passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature--unanimously in the Senate and 94-20 in the House--;the new law removes the "duty to retreat" when citizens are outside of their homes and where they have legal right to be. It says that if a criminal breaks into your home or occupied vehicle or a place where you are camping overnight, for example, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and use any force, including deadly force, to protect yourself from a violent attack. Floridians who defend themselves from criminal attack are shielded by the new law from criminal prosecution and from civil suits brought by their attackers.

In testifying for the bill, Marion P. Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, said: "No one knows what is in the twisted mind of a violent criminal. You can't expect a victim to wait before taking action to protect herself and say: 'Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, did you drag me into this alley to rape and kill me or do you just want to beat me up and steal my purse?'"

Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using 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.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

What concerns me is that the right to self defense is referred to as a privilege. Bullsh*t ... it is a right as an American citizen, period.

+1

The right of self-defense is an inherent human right. Everywhere, everytime, all the time.

Only criminals, self-serving legislators, and ambulance chasing lawyers can ever be against a castle doctrine. It really never changes your decision making matrix when dealing with a threat -- you always do what is right and what you need to do. But it keeps bad things from happening to good people by unscrupulous shysters and prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of justice.

[LarryO1970]

... now I am interested to see IF they even reply to me.

As you may also be aware, I sent a message to the Wisconsin Attorney General to see what he had to say. Luckily... a hunter and a Republican against Doyle, a Democrat who has scuttled every attempt at gun freedom by the Wisconsin residents.
This should get interesting...

Off the subject, what did you fly?

[TXplt]

F-15, OT-37, OV-10, EF-111, T-34, T-37 now fly freight in commercial widebody jets. Retired after a little over 20. Great experience overall. Always enjoyed pistol shooting.

Thank you for your continued service and Cheers

[LarryO1970]

Eagle Driver eh? God ... I love those things. I was around them at Eglin AFB... graceful aircraft. Saw the EF 111's at King Abdul Aziz Air Base in Saudi in 96.

It's gotta be one helluva change to go from a Ferrari to a box truck ...

[TXplt]

Awesome airplane -- EF-111 was great too (very fast). We probably retired them shortly after you saw them in very late 96 (Ralston didn't like them). Flew out of Saudi quite a bit.

It's a big change (we do alot on the automatics unlike the fighters/trainers) and I'm more of a "systems manager" in the bigger airplanes. The mission is to get the freight to the destination safely; not to see if I can out-fly the autopilot (which I probably can't anyway....) But Boeing makes an outstanding product, I fly with some great folks, and it's a good job (spend more time home too...). Anyway, most of flying is dealing with weather and fuel in any airplane. I just don't get shot at anymore.

I sure hope you get things squared away there in WI -- Doyle's been no good for your state from what I can read. It's too bad about the CCW stuff over the last couple of years but maybe you all can get that changed. I think as a nation we really need to start voting the nannys out of office right now -- what they preach doesn't work (actually hurts) and it's hurt our self-reliance as a nation. We are always looking to others for help and restitution instead of starting from within. It's great to be able to call 911, but you need to start with helping yourself. I'm happy that help may be on the way (as I arm up in the meantime), but self-defense is entirely too important to delegate away to some third party.

Cheers