I think he meant it doesn't serve the liberal media's agenda to bring up the 20-yr-old's record.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBuckwheat
Printable View
I think he meant it doesn't serve the liberal media's agenda to bring up the 20-yr-old's record.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBuckwheat
"the media should bring up the 20 year olds record." This is what I was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBuckwheat
Got it.!! Today was a bad media day with the story,recall stuff, mine gets turned down (no new jobs) and also a Dane county judge puts an injunction on our voter id law. Tonight they will probably show this story for five minutes and show the mom and friends will talk about this 20 year old like a hero of something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokeman
And the Judge was working for and signed the recall conflict of interest ??Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBuckwheat
yes... but thats for another thread. ( I will stay on topic from now on! ). Once we hear from the homeowner, I will have plenty to say. Lets hope tomorrow will bring us better newsQuote:
Originally Posted by Smitty901
Statements released today indicate the deceased (Morrison) knew the neighbor (the shooter) had called the authorities. It appears far more likely he broke into the neighbors enclosed porch to confront or possibly assault the caller. I feel sorry for the parents - it appears this kid was a drunken drug user with 15+ arrests with a pattern of escalating violence the outcome is not a suprise.
The burden of proof always seems to be on the one justifiably defending theirself when using deadly force. Despite the castle doctrine, I think the usual tests for deadly force still might come in play. Usually in the use of deadly force in self defense, use of reasonable force is a test. The test of whether you were able to escape rather than shoot is eliminated by the castle doctrine. I think the homeowner has to establish that at the time that he truly believed the trespasser had a weapon (or could overpower him) and that he had to act immediately (could not wait for police). From a previous posting, I didn't see that the trespasser had a violent crime history or any gun violation which does not help the homeowner out.
Either way, it's going to cost the homeowner financially (more so if it is prosecuted) and emotionally until it is resolved. Even if not charged, there is always the possibility a civil suit can be brought by the family of the dead man. I don't believe the castle doctrine protects one from civil liability.
Have a defense attorney you know and who knows you. Know what you can say and what you shouldn't say immediately after. Also, be prepared for the financial costs and stress.
The media perhaps should remove the horse blinders from there own eyes, everyone is crying foul how the young man died and he was a good boy etc. etc. etc.
I recommend all people to go to the following web site. Wisconsin Circuit Court Access. Type in last name Morrison, first name Bo. DOB 1992. Look for your self. He was not what the media is portraying.
In Colorado the castle doctrine definitely protects the homeowner from civil liability. Don't know about Wisconsin. In Colorado, the ususal tests for deadly force don't apply, either. The test is whether the ". . .occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." Again, don't know the law in Wisconsin.Quote:
Originally Posted by jasgo
But this all reinforces the need for every one of us to absolutely understand the laws their state. The devil is in the details.
Doc
Close the thread, the homeowner will get no-billed.
Sixto's favorite saying,,,,,,,
Say it with me now,
"Play stupid games,win stupid prizes"
Punks are punks, and they usually live out their lives as punks, cause they usually never learn.
The shooter will spend a lot of his money for his defence of a justified shooting.
Where did you find those releases? I wanted to see some more info for myself and haven't found anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by pstrombeck
"We can't have Bo back, and Bo can't tell his side of the story because...he was busy doing the following...
02-19-2009 - Underage Drinking - Guilty, No Contest
11-17-2009 - Underage Drinking - Guilty, No Contest
01-12-2011 - Open Intoxicants in Moving Vehicle - Guilty, No Contest
01-12-2011 - Violate Absolute Sobriety Law - Guilty, No Contest
01-12-2011 - Possess Drug Paraphernalia - Guilty Plea, Possession of THC, Charge Dismissed (Probably from Guilty Plea for drug paraphernalia and open intoxicants in a MV, etc.?)
02-17-2011 - Underage Drinking - Guilty, No Contest
05-04-2011 - Bail Jumping - Charge Dismissed
06-03-2011 - Resisting/Obstructing an Officer and Disorderly Conduct - Still Open
01-03-2012 - Resisting/Obstructing an Officer, Battery, Disorderly Conduct, Bail Jumping - Still Open
01-30-2012 - Resisting/Obstructing an Officer - Still Open
02-20-2012 - Resisting/Obstructing an Officer and Bail Jumping - Still Open
I believe police will be willing to close the four crimes still open...:rolleyes:
4 cases still open; he committed 9 crimes between the 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by retsupt99
Probably something like a $25,000 retainer and 2 to 4 times that if it goes to jury trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogertc1