Homeowner Shoots Intruder In Polk County (WI)

[Ghost]

347.22 DAMAGES, OWNER LIABLE.
If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term "owner" includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable. The term "dog" includes both male and female of the canine species.

So does kicking in the door classify as without provocation and acting peaceably?

I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't that come down to a he said/she said type of thing in court? without a 3rd or 4th party to see. It states if the person is acting peaceably in a place where the person may lawfully be..... If the person can lawfully be on the sidewalk. Even if he was the one who broke the door open, but as soon as he heard the dog, took off running. He could very easily claim it wasn't him, he saw the criminal running, and he's an innocent bystander that was attacked by your dog.

Whomever calls the cops first is generally initially assumed to be the victim. Better be dialing 911 and saying somebody just broke into your house and your dog took after him.

[greenfarmer]

I still say.... System is broke.... To much leeway to criminals...

[tman]

My standard response is: it depends.

As the law stands, someone who enters your home without permission and only damages property upon entry, is NOT committing a felony.

Take a outwit permit class, talk you your instructor, retain a criminal attorney.... Discuss this with them.

[tman]

My standard response is: it depends.

As the law stands, someone who enters your home without permission and only damages property upon entry, is NOT committing a felony.

Take a permit class, talk you your instructor, retain a criminal attorney.... Discuss this with them.

[greenfarmer]

My standard response is: it depends.

As the law stands, someone who enters your home without permission and only damages property upon entry, is NOT committing a felony.

Take a permit class, talk you your instructor, retain a criminal attorney.... Discuss this with them.

But if the person breaks a large bay window... Say 2000-2500 dollar window. Isn't that considered a felony at that point? Isn't the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony in a dollar amount?

[tman]

Imagine yourself explaining to the police, or your attorney, how you decided to shoot someone because they did $XXXX of property damage to your window.

Am I being too obtuse here?

[jshuberg]

Any crime that an unauthorized intruder commits inside your home is 1st degree burglary, and can be resisted with deadly force.

Tman is right though, that shooting someone for a property crime is ridiculously stupid, even if it was completely legal it will forever alter your life.

There is still self defense in the home though, which is entirely separate from defense of dwelling. If someone smashes through my door or window, and comes into my home I will be yelling at the top of my lungs for him to get out. If he doesn't, I will reasonably believe that his intent is to cause me harm. I will shoot him in self defense. The felony that I'm preventing is an assault. This would be a case where both self defense and defense of dwelling come into play.

You can't shoot someone for the initial trespass unless it's justified self defense. If they are threatening you while breaking in, or have a weapon of any kind, or have any reason to suspect that they intend to cause great bodily harm or death, you don't have to wait for them to first commit another crime inside your home.

Tman was wrong about one extremely important thing though, he mentioned explaining your actions to the police. You should never, under any circumstance explain your actions to the police. That is what your lawyer is for.

[greenfarmer]

Imagine yourself explaining to the police, or your attorney, how you decided to shoot someone because they did $XXXX of property damage to your window.

Am I being too obtuse here?

No, your not being to obtuse here at all.

I'm just saying. I think the system is broken. It's flawed. To an extent, you need more protections offered to the homeowner. More ways for the person to legally protect himself, his home, and his family.

So we are supposed to distinguish, whether this person that's breaking in, is trying to, or not trying to commit a felony or not? Your supposed to know his or her intentions when they break into your house? How do you distinguish if that person is breaking in, to steal something so he can sell it to get his next fix, or is he breaking in to harm your wife, or young daughter, or yourself? It's not like this person is going to sit down in the living room with me and have a conversation about his plans first. And tell me exactly what his intentions are. I mean if he's breaking in to steal a tv, or computer or something, whatever, go right ahead! I have homeowners insurance. They will cover it. Doesn't bother me. Steal whatever you need. If that's going to help you with your next fix, or whatever you might need, then go ahead.

As someone who will protect my family at all costs. That's what makes it hard to distinguish what that person is doing. How do you in all reguards protect your family from harm when you have a bad person breaking in? And how do you distinguish that he's just there to steal something. Just a typical smash and grab thing? Here we have a plan in place. A funny noise, whatever. Wife calls 911, and I investigate it. I will then identify the person. And if they charge me, I react. If they head for the window they came in, fine, run! Go for it. My wife called 911, and the cops will be coming. While your running, i'm gonna make a pot of coffee, and sit in the house, because chasing after him, I don't know if he has buddies outside or not. I'll stay in the house, with coffee, and a gun. When the cops find ya, you can deal with them. I'm not gonna shoot someone over a tv, and breaking a window. You charge me, in my house, go after my daughter, or wife. In my house, it would be a completely different outcome. But I still feel that the system is flawed enough, that even though your protecting yourself, your wife, and your daughter, from harm. That you still could be in a lot of trouble. Because you didn't know if that guy had a weapon or not. But because that person charged you, and didn't leave when you gave them a chance to leave, just beause they didn't have a weapon on them. You could still be in trouble. So I feel it's still flawed.

[greenfarmer]

To me, this is all great discussion. Plays out certain scenarios In your mind now. Gives us all a chance to think about things. And hopefully none of us ever have to go down any of these roads in the future. But it's always good to discuss things, and have certain things come up. Atleast right now, you have time to think about things while your discussing them. When that moment comes, you won't have time to think. It will happen fast, so you need to be prepared, and have that plan in your mind and go over it over and over, and know. So you don't make that wrong decision because your scared, or weren't ready. You never want to run from one place in your house, to another, to investigate a noise, and see a robber run out of the door he just broke into carrying out a computer, and then shoot him in the back because he stole something from you! Shooting someone over stealing something is foolish. Shooting someone in the back as they are running away, is foolish... But you also don't want to freeze up when the person charges you with a knife, or gun. If they are running away, let them. Just make sure that if you see if they had a weapon or not. If they have a weapon as they are running away, KNOW ABOUT IT! Because when the police are there, and they catch the person, you want them to know you saw he had a gun or knife. Because he could have thrown it, or ditched it or something. And you want them to know.

And what we have saw happen in the news before. You want to make sure you identify the person! You don't want to be asleep and hear a racket, and run out to investigate, and be some gun wielding person, that's trigger happy, and find out it's your teenage kid that just got home from the basketball game! And you make a mistake. Didn't something similar happen about a year ago? A grandparent shot a grandchild?

[Nougat]

an actor is immune from civil liability arising out of his or her use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person

that was bolded in the original quote...IANAL either but when would it be unreasonable to believe the person who ''only threw a brick through the window'' or used some other force to break in was going to harm (''in any way''?-doesn't say great up there in the quoted part) someone in the house they just broke into?

sorry if I'm late to the party

addendum: weird how people are saying we need better laws to defend ourselves? I'm pretty sure my interpretation above is what was originally intended. as far as holding your laptop...if they are ''just stealing it'' what would be unreasonable of you to believe that since you ''caught'' them they would throw it at your face, thus justifying your use of force as per above?

I guess I was wrong I agree only to the extent that if they are obviously hightailing it they should be allowed to escape, but if they are ''just hanging out'' uninvited like how can you not ''reasonably believe'' their intention is to harm you or your family?

[Ghost]

Didn't something similar happen about a year ago? A grandparent shot a grandchild?

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20315749/rochester-granddaughter-shot-mistaken-for-intruder

[jgalt]

I guess I was wrong I agree only to the extent that if they are obviously hightailing it they should be allowed to escape, but if they are ''just hanging out'' uninvited like how can you not ''reasonably believe'' their intention is to harm you or your family?

To me, the key thing to remember re: "reasonableness" is that, ultimately, you are not the one who gets to determine whether or not your actions were or were not reasonable.

Obviously, if you do, in fact "reasonably believe" you are in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm (or that someone else is) then you should of course act accordingly. However, unless the physical evidence clearly demonstrates that your fear was in fact both immediate & reasonable, whether or not there is any legal consequence to that action depends entirely on your ability (hopefullly, your attorney's ability...!) to persuade others that they were.

Basically, the only person who doesn't get to decide whether or not your actions were reasonable is you.

[Spartan]

Burglary implies theft of property, robbery is the term you are looking for..... If a burglar comes ... hold the door for him to load up your old TVS and computers ... your insurance will send you on a shopping spree .......... Robbers may do you harm ...

[Spartan]

Oh and I keep wishing a cat Burglar would come and steal my wife's cat...... no such luck

[Grayskies]

Imagine yourself explaining to the police, or your attorney, how you decided to shoot someone because they did $XXXX of property damage to your window.

Am I being too obtuse here?

The front door on our house is mostly glass (not good for Zombie defense). It is 1950s era stained glass and it had to be added to the house insurance policy. You would be amazed at the replacement cost of glass.

Some of these high tech sealed frame (gas filled) energy efficent windows to, you break them...

Just because it was glass doesn't mean it's inexpensive.