Joined
·
15,230 Posts
It does and you can.I think 16-3-21 permits use of force to defend a third party, as well? You see folks stringing your neighbors up and I'm pretty sure you can forcefully intercede!
DH
It does and you can.I think 16-3-21 permits use of force to defend a third party, as well? You see folks stringing your neighbors up and I'm pretty sure you can forcefully intercede!
DH
Depends on the neighbor. Watching may accomplish more.You see folks stringing your neighbors up and I'm pretty sure you can forcefully intercede!
That's a shame.You are permitted to defend your property today, just not with lethal force. The law only permits the use of lethal force to save a life. It is unlikely that there exists political will or popular opinion to reduce that standard any.
I'm not responsible for the decisions someone else makes. If you know that you run the risk of getting capped for stealing my TV, you accept the possible outcome.Un-killing a man is even harder.
I have a few new neighbors like that.Depends on the neighbor. Watching may accomplish more.dhaller said:You see folks stringing your neighbors up and I'm pretty sure you can forcefully intercede!
I know. I encourage them to stay at that end of the County.:mrgreen:I have a few new neighbors like that.
I don't understand your reasoning. How does 16-3-21 not cover your concern?We might agree on 16-3-23 but I think it's wrong and should be amended to reflect the current reality. I don't really care about political will or popular opinion. If sh*t's going down, there's no way I'm letting anyone, let alone a savage crowd with no respect for life, get within throwing distance of me. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.
You're not...I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.
I could be in a situation where my unoccupied house is about to be torched by the mob, we're relatively safe from harm by the mob, yet I can't protect the house from being torched. I don't see where 16-3-21 considers protection of "property" unless destroying an unoccupied dwelling is considered a forcible felony.I don't understand your reasoning. How does 16-3-21 not cover your concern?
"Relatively safe" is not "safe". If you're close enough to your property to defend it, then you're in danger.I could be in a situation where my unoccupied house is about to be torched by the mob, we're relatively safe from harm by the mob, yet I can't protect the house from being torched. I don't see where 16-3-21 considers protection of "property" unless destroying an unoccupied dwelling is considered a forcible felony.
Wouldn't 16-3-23(3) cover that scenario? Note that there is no requirement that the habitation be occupied (or even your own) and no requirement that the felony be forcible.I could be in a situation where my unoccupied house is about to be torched by the mob, we're relatively safe from harm by the mob, yet I can't protect the house from being torched. I don't see where 16-3-21 considers protection of "property" unless destroying an unoccupied dwelling is considered a forcible felony.
Yes, of course. But the scenario I was considering (on page 7) didn't involve the mob making entry of any kind. Just staying outside and attempting to burn down the house, occupied or not.Wouldn't 16-3-23(3) cover that scenario? Note that there is no requirement that the habitation be occupied (or even your own) and no requirement that the felony be forcible.
16-3-23 applies to an "unlawful entry or attack upon a habitation." But then in none of the 3 forms of defense of habitation does it talk about an attack (as opposed to an "entry.") So there is arguably no justification for shooting a would-be arsonist who merely stands outside (pretermitting whether he is "entering" your house when he throws a torch through the window). But the hook, I think, is that you are not likely to know that the arsonist is content to do his work from your front hard. As he and his associates are rushing up your driveway with their pitchforks and torches, are they going to be chanting, "Don't shoot, we're not coming inside and we are not offering personal violence to anyone!" And even if they did, who trusts the word of a pitchfork-wielding arsonist? The better conclusion is they are attempting to enter your habitation, violently and tumultuously, unlawfully and forcibly, and they therefore are subject to being heavily ventilated with impunity.But the scenario I was considering (on page 7) didn't involve the mob making entry of any kind. Just staying outside and attempting to burn down the house, occupied or not.
I like your "but." No, not like that!But the hook, I think, is...
Grosskreutz said he has had run-ins with police in his past and paid his debt. But he says he had every right to carry his firearm.
"I'm not a felon," he said. "I have my concealed carry, I've had it for years. That was my gun. My firearm. I had a legal right to possess it and to possess it concealed."
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/11/us/kenosha-gaige-grosskreutz-shooting-victim-interview/index.html
He was apparently charged with felony burglary though. The question is whether he was convicted for it. CNN didn't deem that incident and others worthy of inclusion in their article. It would put a dent in his halo.Grosskreutz said he has had run-ins with police in his past and paid his debt. But he says he had every right to carry his firearm.
"I'm not a felon," he said. "I have my concealed carry, I've had it for years. That was my gun. My firearm. I had a legal right to possess it and to possess it concealed."
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/11/us/kenosha-gaige-grosskreutz-shooting-victim-interview/index.html
The burglary charge is a either a fabrication, or it happened when he was a juvenile and is sealed. I'd bet $10,000 on the former (if I approved of betting: I do not.)He was apparently charged with felony burglary though. The question is whether he was convicted for it. CNN didn't deem that incident and others worthy of inclusion in their article. It would put a dent in his halo.
https://themadtruther.com/2020/08/2...rioters-shot-have-violent-criminal-histories/
https://archive.is/kccfA
Really. Certainly you would never think any of us here would feel that way about you.:lol:since I'm a big ol' Liberal so I might be practicing some kind of sinister disinfo here?
I've seen it reported that he was arrested for burglary, but I've never seen it reported that he was convicted of it. Arrests do not show up on CCAP (Wisconsin's online court access system). You'd have to be able to access his criminal history to find out if he were arrested.The burglary charge is a either a fabrication, or it happened when he was a juvenile
Not in Wisconsin, no.No felony convictions.
The amazing thing is the CCAP system has been around for decades, and it is a uniform, statewide system. It's still hands down one of the best in the country.Someone tell Texas to hire Wisconsin's web designer, by the way.