WISCONSIN: State Senate Passes Castle Doctrine, 26-7

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/lawmakers-pass-bill-protecting-homeowners-who-shoot-intruders-133227288.html

Madison - Homeowners who shoot intruders would receive strong legal protection, under a bill approved by the state Senate on Thursday and the Assembly early Friday.

The bill passed in the Senate on a bipartisan 26-7 vote and then was returned to the Assembly. All Republican senators voted for the bill along with nine Democrats, including three from southeastern Wisconsin: Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee), Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee), and Bob Wirch (D-Pleasant Prairie).

The Assembly also passed the proposal on a bipartisan vote Tuesday, but since the Senate tweaked the proposal Thursday, the Assembly had to take it up again. Lawmakers in that house approved the Senate change on a voice vote shortly after 5 a.m. Friday. GOP Gov. Scott Walker has said that he supports the bill in principle but will still review it before deciding whether to sign it.

Under the bill, courts in most criminal and civil matters would presume that property owners using deadly force had acted reasonably against anyone unlawfully inside their residence, business or vehicle, whether the trespasser was armed or not. The proposal is sometimes known as the "castle doctrine," a reference to the saying that one's home is one's castle.

MORE AT LINK

Signature by the Governor is almost certain.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. Unless they are cops?

How many people have SWAT teams killed by mistake? Just this week they killed one in error and hurt another.

[midnight]

6. Oops... Did they have the castle law too....

[jmg257]

2. Discussed here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=476524&mesg_id=476524

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Nope. That was the House passing it. This was the Senate.

And when the governor signs it I will post a thread on that.

[jmg257]

15. Why? 'Someone' already noted in that thread that the senate passed it.

We even commented (though briefly) on Walker signing it.

Are you going to post again when the house passes the revised version?

Why?

Isn't it easier to discuss the subject, which I would think is the actual bill, all in one place...make sure we don't miss anything good, important, vital to to the topic?

[Scuba]

3. Concealed carry was vetoed twice by Jim Doyle, and was instrumental...

... in Scott Walker's victory in 2010. While I advocate for reasonable restrictions, I also acknowledge this is a losing issue for Democrats. I predict Dems will NOT make this an issue in the recall or future elections. Doing so will hurt, badly.

[jmodden]

7. "losing issue"

This is not a "losing issue" for reasonable people.

[Scuba]

8. Agreed. Too bad we're not dealing with only reasonable People. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. It a losing issue for those running for office in many parts of the USA

Whether or not the voters are reasonable people is a legitimate question

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. It clearly was a loser for Doyle. You can bet it will be brought up

should the recall be successful. Any candidate will find some words to support castle defense.

[iverglas]

14. what does this have to do with the subject of this thread?

And how surprising is it that a right-wing piece of shit politician got elected by promising right-wing piece of shit policies?

If people want right-wing piece of shit policies, they're going to vote for right-wing piece of shit politicians.

So if you want those people to vote for you, you'd best adopt all the right-wing piece of shit policies you can think of, I guess.

Or hell, politicians (and their supporters) who are NOT right-wing pieces of shit could try doing their damned jobs and using honest tactics to advocate their own policies and persuade people of the wisdom of them.

What an idea.

There's nothing to say that people will vote for decent politicians and decent policies over right-wing pieces of shit, no matter how persuasive the arguments.

But there's nothing to say they will vote for them if they dress themselves up in right-wing shit, either.

Why vote for right-wing shit lite when you can have the real thing??

Never understood that theory, myself.



why do I only ever see the typos immediately after I click submit??

[SteveM]

16. "Right wing shit" nine (9) times. Must really stink where you live. nt

[iverglas]

17. wow, lucky it wasn't 11 times

You would have run out of fingers.

[PavePusher]

20. And yet you continually claim to want civil debate...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dichotomy


:shrug:

[iverglas]

23. the concept is "civil discourse"

Few here appear to grasp it, but it's not my problem.

A response to someone's comment that consists of nothing but counting words in that comment, apparently in an attempt to discredit the person who made it based on some pseudo-prissy sensibility and pseudo-failure to understand the reasons behind the rhetorial device used, does not fall within the parameters of civil discourse. I replied appropriately.

[SteveM]

21. Never thought you took this forum as an art form. nt

[jmg257]

22. LOL! Don't care who you are..that is funny shit right there! :). nt

[gejohnston]

18. everyone is for reasonable restrictions

the problem is defining reasonable. I think much of current law is reasonable (a few things I would change), what's yours?

[rfranklin]

4. This is sure to create jobs in Wisconsin...isn't it?

another stupid ass waste of time.

[Scuba]

5. Demand for ER doctors and coroners is up. n/t

[iverglas]

12. why is it you need to keep starting new threads about the same thing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=476524&mesg_id=476524

Maybe there's a chance that some newbie will wander in and not realize that this has already been discussed, and miss all of the quite serious and informative discussion in the existing thread?

(The thread you posted and ran from, I might note.)

One chamber passes a bill and then the other chamber passes it.

Well gosh darn, that's just a whole noter ball of earthshaking news, isn't it?

Don't forget to let us know in a brand new thread when Governor piece of shit Walker signs the think, 'k?

[GreenStormCloud]

19. When it is signed I will start a thread on that, Thank You. N/T

[iverglas]

13. and why don't you tell us what the bill actually says

rather than what some clueless journalist says it says?

Under the bill, courts in most criminal and civil matters would presume that property owners using deadly force had acted reasonably against anyone unlawfully inside their residence, business or vehicle, whether the trespasser was armed or not.

Nope.

Criminal courts MUST presume (that's what the bills says), where a person uses force against someone when

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; and
3) the person knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

that the person reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.


Even where there is not the slightest chance in the world that the person DID reasonably believe that the force was necessary for that reason.


So, knowing that, how about you reply to the question I asked in your other thread?

In the order set out above:

1) the 12-year-old neighbour kid is in your basement rec room with three bottles of booze stuffed in his pockets
2) you arrive home and find him there
3) you see that the basement window above where the kid is standing is broken and the glass is all on the shag rug at his feet

You bash the kid over the head with the nearest wine bottle. Let's say the injury wasn't life-threatening and the kid survives so you have only committed whatever an assault causing bodily harm is called in the jurisdiction.

What course(s) of action are open to the court?

[ileus]

24. are there a lot of 12yo's getting killed somewhere?

I read about it all the time in your post but can't remember the last time anyone in my area killed a 12yo neighbor kid playing the Wii in the basement.

[iverglas]

25. were you going to tell us what the bill actually says?

I'm listening.