Posted on 11/22/2011 6:31:02 AM PST by marktwain
With two recent armed robberies in the area, we wanted to know if anything might change with a new self defense law in place. A bill known as the ‘castle doctrine’ cleared the senate and assembly earlier this month.
Monday morning in two separate incidence's two homes were robbed at gun point. One was in Eau Claire the other was in Hudson. In both cases the suspects were arrested a short time later but home invasions could soon change in Wisconsin.
"With the advent of the castle doctrine the theory is if someone unlawfully enters your home armed or unarmed whether, they indicate to you that they intended to hurt you or stumble in, the homeowner will have the right to protect their home," says Harry Hertel, who is a local defense attorney.
Police say with the robbery in Eau Claire four people were arrested after they forced their way into a home on Hobart. They had a shotgun and during a struggle with the person inside a shot was fired but no one was hurt. In Hudson police arrested a suspect at a gas station after they say he tied up a homeowner at gun point and took handguns and cash. While there's no way to say if a castle doctrine would have helped the victims in these situations, Eau Claire County Sheriff, Ron Cramer, says if you ever do find yourself a target let the intruder know quickly that you're armed.
"Verbalization is very important. Letting them know you will use the gun if they come any closer," says Cramer.
Hertel says the measure could help keep someone from being prosecuted but he says there are some issues with the law he’s worried about.
"I think there is a feeling the homeowner is entitled to some type of protection as a home owner I there's an intruder in the home. The dilemma is if it's a student from the university on Water Street that drank too much should that person be shot, that's where the question marks arise," says Hertel.
Sheriff Cramer says he's also worried about someone being shot for entering a home mistakenly but he says new law or not officers will still dig deep into shootings.
"The homeowner will go through a tough set of questions because we want to get to the bottom of this," says Cramer.
Cramer says if you're going to arm yourself he says training is a big help to keep you and your family safe.
The castle doctrine bill will now be sent to Governor Walker to be signed into law. There's no word on when that will happen, but a statement from his office says he supports the legislation.
It's not a "feeling" or an "entitlement", it's a basic human right.
Check to see if it is included in the bill that you are immune from civil suits from the criminals family if you put him at room temperature!If not they can sue your A$$ off !
One thing pacifists never take into account... They always give this example, such as, “Poor drunk college kid stumbles into your home doesn’t deserve to get shot.”
Well, what about the after effects of NOT shooting/defending?
You kill: you go to sleep every night thinking you might have to do the same again.
You don’t: you go to sleep every night thinking someone might bust in again and kill you or family.
It’s not just a right to defend your life. It’s the right to sleep tight for the rest of your life.
My response to that claim is a quote from one of my favorite Clint Eastwood movies: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it".
Seriously, though, while they may not "deserve" to get shot, they DID choose to get so drunk they did not know what they were doing, and they ARE ultimately responsible for their own actions. Sometimes the price one pays for one's actions is more than one "deserves".
“Doctor! It hurts when I do _this_”
Doctor: “Don’t do dat!”
Obviously, the answer for the unfortunate college student in this scenario is
“don’t get drunk and stumble into the wrong house”
Now that is just sad. The word is incidents, Chris. Incidents.
I’ve been hearing this argument about how some drunk is going to enter somebody’s house by accident and the homeowner’s gonna kill him by mistake, but I’ve never heard of it actually happening. It’s kind of like those “blood will flow in the streets” scenarios that anti-gunners used to try to stop concealed carry.
Good point on the immunity from civil action. In a just world, one would not have to worry about that but it is what we made it by empowering criminals and their deep pocket looking solicitors.
So, drunk college student stumbles into your home and someone thinks you don’t have to shoot them. Well, take it one step farther, he stumbles into his home and thinks your wife is his and beings to fondler her or worse. What do you do, go get him a cup of coffee to try to wake him up?
I am not a violent person but as my flag says in front of my home, don’t tread on me. Even a drunk should be able to read it.
Sounds like the good Sheriff is more worried about the safety of criminals than the safety of innocent homeowners.
But not VA, unfortunately.
we have it here in FL and it also applies to any of your property i.e your car while driving on the highway.
I love the law.
bring this up every time to the socialists and far left dumb fools but I’ll use this instance.
If college kid gets drunk and comes in, thinks your wife is his woman and tries to get into bed are you going to phone the cops and then wait for them to turn up?
Are you going to get the gun and point it right at him and tell him to get on the floor and stay there and if he moves he gets shot?
Funny how the left always avoid answering just like if a man breaks in and comes at you or your family with a weapon will you phone the cops or get your gun and shoot him or her ?
I think you are reading this Sheriff correctly.
The extremely unlikely nature of the scenarios described are
actually support for the Castle Doctrine. Step back and think about how unlikely it is that Billy from the local
frat house staggers away from his Friday night drinking
extravaganza but, although ambulatory, is not quite up to recognizing an unfamiliar home. He is able to stumble to an entry point, open a door, then wander inside. Meanwhile, the resident is unable to get the drunk to recognize his poor choice of domiciles, must obtain a weapon because the interloper is threatening serious harm despite being too drunk to know where he is, and decides to shoot rather than get the police to extract Billy. Possible—yes; but unlikely.
A more likely possibility would be if college student Billy lives in apartment 312 of a high rise, drinks to excess, then wanders into apartment 314 at 215am on Saturday morning. If Tatiana in 314 determines Billy to be a serious threat, what might Tatiana do? Then it becomes important for Billy to retain just enough sobriety to know it is a good idea to leave Tatiana’s apartment.
Just some thoughts.
It is rare, but it does happen. I remember a case in Colorado where it happened. The drunk had actually broken a window in the back door and was groping around for the latch when he was shot.
Here is an early report on the Colorado case that I mentioned:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2157320/posts
Given that most of us have steel doors, and bolt locks, I do not see how its even plausible for any drunk to “stumble” into someones home.
If someone’s in your home in the middle of the night—you do have a right kill him—on the very good assumption he would kill you.
The recent election changed the balance of power just a little, so maybe soon?
I hope it happens, I will work to make it happen, but I also will not be holding my breath waiting for it to pass here.
On the plus side, police, prosecutors and courts in Virginia have historically been MUCH more reasonable than those in a lot of other states in recognizing the people's fundamental right to self-defense even without a 'Castle Doctrine' law.
That’s because Virginia juries readily identify with the concept of causing a home-invading perp to rapidly assume room temperatiure.
BANG! "I have a gun."
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.