Originally Posted by mkh
is the first thing I thought of , when you explained how fast it went down.
Under the circumstances, you did the most prudent thing one should have done in this case.
I have a 45 miin. drive to work, and a bit longer going home, but never stop to coffee up for the ride in.
Going home I take something from work if I feel like it.
Glad you made it home .
Ok so here is a google overview picture. (1 and 2) is the badguy (Same guy). Number (1) is at which point I seen him and pointing the gun at me. Number (2) is where he stuck the gun through my driver-side window. Number (3) is my path of escape. Green line was my route into the gas station lot, and purple line was his escape route.
I would guess total 3-4 seconds from number (1) to number (2). Ithink I'm being generous with this since he was at a full run at me.
I live another day and learned from.
Wow! Good call on keepin it holstered.
Glad you made it out of this situation alive. A gun is not our most important weapon; it is our brain. The ability to analyze the situation and decide the best course of action to take. The gun is merely a tool to employ once our brains have decided that it is the prudent course of action. Even with a gun, the OP made the decision to ride it out and for that he is alive to tell his story. Those of us who have never been in that situation (including me) can only armchair quarterback and speculate about what we would do. For most of us the training is no good once the gun is to our heads. I'm no Rambo (and neither are most of us) and don't want to die being foolish.
adric, you are in TX and to the best of my knowledge the only state that you can do what you are saying you can. And yes in TX it seems to pass the test of being a right you have that I wish we all had. Why? Because my property can be and is my life. But I don't write laws and no one ask me what I thought.
Originally Posted by adric22
All the training in the world would not have helped. Actual Firearms training that its.
I think the distance parking is best. It puts time on my side
the arm chair qb says you should have got shots off at the 7,6,5 and 4 O'clock positions and two as he was heading up the road
sid1, I think you did what you thought was right and it turned out to be right because you are here posting about it. As to how not to find yourselves in this or other situations I don't know that you can. We can find ourselves in deep trouble anytime and anywhere, because if the BG is there he sets the time and place. All the SA in the world can not always keep you or me or anyone out of a situation all the time sometimes it just happens. The important thing to me is to try and keep our brains working to make the choice that is right at and for that time and place.
Is there ways to have put this guy down? I would say yes. Was this the time and place to do that? I don't know I wasn't there and like most situations there is and were most likely more than one action that could and would have worked. Your choice seemed to have been one of those that worked.
Concealed Carry is still new in Wisconsin and reading the laws I was under the assumption that if my life was no longer in danger, it was a no shoot? I see others see it this way also and others say no, it would still have been a justified shooting if I shot at him as he was leaving? I need to look at this closer to fully understand my states law on this.
Originally Posted by barstoolguru
in texas that boy would have been picking lead out of hair... we can shoot a fleeing felon....
Originally Posted by sid1
Same here in Kentucky!
Originally Posted by barstoolguru
Here is Wisconsin,
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others. 939.48(1) (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
939.48(1m)(a)(a) In this subsection:
939.48(1m)(a)1. 1. "Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
939.48(1m)(a)2. 2. "Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
939.48(1m)(ar) (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and 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 either of the following applies:
939.48(1m)(ar)1. 1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
939.48(1m)(ar)2. 2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
939.48(1m)(b) (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
939.48(1m)(b)1. 1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
939.48(1m)(b)2. 2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
939.48(1m)(b)2.a. a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
939.48(1m)(b)2.b. b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
939.48(3) (3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
939.48(4) (4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
939.48(5) (5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
939.48(6) (6) In this section "unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
939.48 History History: 1987 a. 399; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 253; 2011 a. 94.
939.48 Note Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (3) is amended by conforming references to the statute titles as affected by this bill. [Bill 191-S]
939.48 Annotation When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self-defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).
939.48 Annotation Sub. (2) (b) is inapplicable to a defendant if the nature of the initial provocation is a gun-in-hand confrontation of an intended victim by a self-identified robber. Under these circumstances the intended victim is justified in the use of force in the exercise of the right of self-defense. Ruff v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 713, 223 N.W.2d 446 (1974).
939.48 Annotation Whether a defendant's belief was reasonable under subs. (1) and (4) depends, in part, upon the parties' personal characteristics and histories and whether events were continuous. State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806, 434 N.W.2d 380 (1989).
939.48 Annotation Evidence of prior specific instances of violence that were known to the accused may be presented to support a defense of self-defense. The evidence is not limited to the accused's own testimony, but the evidence may not be extended to the point that it is being offered to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his or her violent tendencies. State v. Daniels, 160 Wis. 2d 85, 465 N.W.2d 633 (1991).
939.48 Annotation Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).
939.48 Annotation The reasonableness of a person's belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant. A defendant's psycho-social history showing past violence toward the defendant is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant. State v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).
939.48 Annotation The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self-defense. It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96-0914.
939.48 Annotation While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739.
939.48 Annotation When a defendant fails to establish a factual basis to raise self-defense, prior specific acts of violence by the victim have no probative value. The presentation of subjective testimony by an accused, going to a belief that taking steps in self-defense was necessary, is not sufficient for the admission of self-defense evidence. State v. Head, 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9, 99-3071.
939.48 Annotation Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
939.48 Annotation A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st-degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.
939.48 Annotation A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).
939.48 Annotation Self-defense — prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.
939.48 Annotation State v. Camacho: The Judicial Creation of an Objective Element to Wisconsin's Law of Imperfect Self-defense Homicide. Leiser. 1995 WLR 742
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft. 939.49(1)(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
939.49(2) (2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
939.49(3) (3) In this section "unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
For all those espousing shooting the fleeing felon as he drives off, even IF legal, have you considered those whom he might drive over once his brains are all over the dash and the vehicle is no longer under anyone's control? Or, that the vehicle may plow into into a major road way under speed, now that the deceased jakker is brain dead and his right foot is now stabbed to the floorboard?
Just curious. A family friend suffered a stroke or similar attack coming home from work, as he slowed for a very sharp turn. The turn is rated 25mph, and as he came out of it and had his siezure, he stabbed his accelerator and it was estimated he hit the power pole at 60+ mph.
So unless others were in the vehicle w the op, brainpoppin' the thug sounds to me like endagering more people than your gonna save just lettin' him skate.
And scumbag brain is so darn hard to get out of cloth interior also!
Originally Posted by jdsumner