Homeowner Shoots Intruder In Polk County (WI)

[minnesotatv]

Authorities say a homeowner in western Wisconsin shot and injured a man who
was attempting to break into his home on New Year’s Day.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/01/0 ... ounty-wis/

[linksep]

Oh I can just see it now. "We the jury find the defendant guilty of needlessly shooting the plaintiff in the junk and award $1,000,000 for pain & suffering..."

[2in2out]

The account I read on KARE11 was spares on details, but from what I gather, intruder broke down the door, was shot and then the homeowner got out of the house to call 911 and wait for the police. I don't see an opening for a law suit in that narrative, and I hope there isn't.

[LePetomane]

The account I read on KARE11 was spares on details, but from what I gather, intruder broke down the door, was shot and then the homeowner got out of the house to call 911 and wait for the police. I don't see an opening for a law suit in that narrative, and I hope there isn't.

I'm with you but keep in mind that there will be a dirtbag ambulance chasing lawyer who will try to make a victim out of the perp by dragging the homeowner through the mud. These lawsuits take a lot out of you, even if you win.

[Ironbear]

This is Polk county.... not Dane county, or any of the Milwaukee suburbs. Should be OK.

...but then... you never know.

[Spartan]

This is why we need castle doctrine ..... everywhere! My house is my family's castle.... its too cold for a moat with dragons or alligator's but
thanks to Theodor Koch, Edmund Heckler and Alex Seidel my family is safe.

[greenfarmer]

This is Polk county.... not Dane county, or any of the Milwaukee suburbs. Should be OK.

...but then... you never know.

That's why..... Sometimes you have to wonder.... If your the only one there, no witnesses..... Would you be better off with the Shoot, Shovel, Shut up approach?

None of us ever want to be put into that situation. Where you have an intruder, someone breaking into your house, you don't know their intentions. If they can inflict bodily harm to you, if they are some cracked out, smoked up pot head that has a gun, and is willing to kill you just so they can find something to steal work a couple hundred bucks so they can get their next fix... Not a single person here, or anywhere wants to be that person faced with the decision of having to defend your house, home, family and self.. In your own house.. But when it comes right down to it. Wouldn't the 3 S's make more sense? After all of those lawyers trying to find a way to make a few bucks off of the family of the deceased, and all of the legal fees your going to have to spend to defend yourself, for justification of guarding your family, and keeping them from harm. Sometimes you wonder... Shoot, Shovel, Shut up! And i'm probably not the only one out there who has wondered this.

[xd ED]

I wonder what is not being told about this story;

There were no 3rd party witnesses, and the Sheriff seems to be buying this guy's story(not suggesting he's lying), there must be some evidence, or history that guided and supports their confidence in the shooter's story..

[xd ED]

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/895/II/62

895.62  Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; civil liability immunity.
(1) In this section:
(a) "Actor" means a person who uses force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another person.
(b) "Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
(c) "Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(2) Except as provided in sub. (4), 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 and either of the following applies:
(a) 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 on his or her property or present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
(b) 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 had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(3) If sub. (2) (a) or (b) applies, the finder of fact may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and the actor is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.
(4) The presumption described in sub. (3) does not apply if any of the following are true:
(a) 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 he or she used the force described in sub. (2).
(b) 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 paragraph applies only if at least one of the following applies:
1. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in sub. (2) was used by the actor.
2. 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.
895.62(5) (5) In any civil action, if a court finds that a person is immune from civil liability under sub. (2), the court shall award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for loss of income, and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred by the person.
(6) Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or impair any defense to civil or criminal liability otherwise available.

Sounds like he made a better move than S, S, & S.
However,
Remember what you paid for this information
and
IANAL.

[tman]

If you think you're better off hiding a homicide than claiming self defense, or defense of dwelling, you're nuts. These incidents don't happen in a vacuum.

[tman]

Apparently one cannot copy a link to the Wisconsin courts public access, but one MAY look up the criminal record of a 25 year old man named Derek W. Amoroso.

[greenfarmer]

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/895/II/62

895.62  Use of force in response to unlawful and forcible entry into a dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business; civil liability immunity.
(1) In this section:
(a) "Actor" means a person who uses force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another person.
(b) "Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
(c) "Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(2) Except as provided in sub. (4), 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 and either of the following applies:
(a) 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 on his or her property or present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
(b) 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 had reason to believe that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(3) If sub. (2) (a) or (b) applies, the finder of fact may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and the actor is presumed to have reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person.
(4) The presumption described in sub. (3) does not apply if any of the following are true:
(a) 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 he or she used the force described in sub. (2).
(b) 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 paragraph applies only if at least one of the following applies:
1. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in sub. (2) was used by the actor.
2. 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.
895.62(5) (5) In any civil action, if a court finds that a person is immune from civil liability under sub. (2), the court shall award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for loss of income, and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred by the person.
(6) Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or impair any defense to civil or criminal liability otherwise available.

Sounds like he made a better move than S, S, & S.
However,
Remember what you paid for this information
and
IANAL.

So the court will award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for loss of income and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred by the person? Ok, so where is that money going to come from? The party that brought up the civil case? Odds are if your defending yourself against person "x", who broke into your house because he needed to steal something to support his crack habit, odds are, that the family of person "x", is suing you because they don't have a pot to pee in, or a window to throw it out of. So it just cost you 50k to fight this. That someone might have had to sell some assets or take out a second mortgage or whatever to afford. Well now your financing them to pay you back?

Sounds to me, like either way, and as I prior thought, there is no winning solution, party, person, or way about this. Nobody wins! Nobody ever wants to have to be put in the situation where they have to make that decision on protecting their family, but when faced with it, there should be "protections" afforded to that person. If person "A", lives in his home, and person "x" is breaking in, So person "A" hears a window break, and wakes up, sees person "x" in the house, and shoots him dead, (1 shot). Person "a" should never have to worry about defending himself. Never! He should never have to worry about being brought into a wrongful death lawsuit, or anything like that. Person "x" broke the window, and intruded into "A"'s home. Then the family of "x", should never even have the opportunity to go after cash. And that should be a law. It should be put into law to protect innocent people from the criminals.

This isn't 1965 anymore. It's 2015.... Everyone will sue anyone and everyone they can. It's just how society has gotten the past 20-30 years. You look at someone wrong and they sue you. It's pretty sad, but everyone seems to be looking for the "easy get rich strategy" in life. I don't feel like working this week, so i'm gonna find a reason to sue someone. It's just how people have been turning over the years.

[greenfarmer]

If you think you're better off hiding a homicide than claiming self defense, or defense of dwelling, you're nuts. These incidents don't happen in a vacuum.

Oh, your never better off hiding it. NEVER!..... I'm just trying to show how flawed our system is. No matter how you look at it, our system is flawed. Even in our own home we have no protections.

The only thing you can hope for is, the person that breaks in, has a gun, or a 2x4 or something like that, shoots you in the knee, or hits you in the shoulder with the 2x4, and then your still vertical. At that point if you shoot him, atleast you have proof that you were protecting your family, and that you did what you needed to do, because there was a threat of bodily harm. Because you know if he just threw a brick thru your window, and walked in, and you felt your life was in danger, that if you stopped the threat, his family would still come after you. You would get the whole, "he had a drug problem and was spaced out, he didn't know any better, you killed our son!"

Point is..... The system is flawed. Always has been, and always will be. Until politicians can get over the whole gun grabbing thing, and that criminals are the only ones that have guns, they will never fix the system. They will never understand and see that law abiding people have guns, and if you take ours away, fine... But you'll never get them away from the criminals. So your going to have a problem on your hands of mass hysteria.

If every person was afforded the right, under our constitution, to protect his family, at all costs, without fear of retribution, from law, lawsuits, or anything else. And CRIMINALS KNEW THIS...... I'm willing to bet that home invasions or break ins, would drop drastically. Who would ever want to break in knowing that the minute they break in, they might see that shiny new big screen, and be able to touch it, but odds are, they won't make it out of the house with it. And there's not a darn thing they, or their family, or anyone can do about it. You break the law, you live with the consequences of your actions. Because as of right now, they can break in, and steal from you. And there really isn't anything you can do to them without fear of being sued. But if they break in with a gun, and intend on harming you, then you can do something. So our system is completely flawed

[xd ED]

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/895/II/62

<<<quote shortened for brevity>>>>

Sounds like he made a better move than S, S, & S.
However,
Remember what you paid for this information
and
IANAL.

So the court will award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for loss of income and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred by the person? Ok, so where is that money going to come from? The party that brought up the civil case? Odds are if your defending yourself against person "x", who broke into your house because he needed to steal something to support his crack habit, odds are, that the family of person "x", is suing you because they don't have a pot to pee in, or a window to throw it out of. So it just cost you 50k to fight this. That someone might have had to sell some assets or take out a second mortgage or whatever to afford. Well now your financing them to pay you back?

Sounds to me, like either way, and as I prior thought, there is no winning solution, party, person, or way about this. Nobody wins! Nobody ever wants to have to be put in the situation where they have to make that decision on protecting their family, but when faced with it, there should be "protections" afforded to that person. If person "A", lives in his home, and person "x" is breaking in, So person "A" hears a window break, and wakes up, sees person "x" in the house, and shoots him dead, (1 shot). Person "a" should never have to worry about defending himself. Never! He should never have to worry about being brought into a wrongful death lawsuit, or anything like that. Person "x" broke the window, and intruded into "A"'s home. Then the family of "x", should never even have the opportunity to go after cash. And that should be a law. It should be put into law to protect innocent people from the criminals.

This isn't 1965 anymore. It's 2015.... Everyone will sue anyone and everyone they can. It's just how society has gotten the past 20-30 years. You look at someone wrong and they sue you. It's pretty sad, but everyone seems to be looking for the "easy get rich strategy" in life. I don't feel like working this week, so i'm gonna find a reason to sue someone. It's just how people have been turning over the years.

Perhaps you should re-read the law.

I interpret it to mean:
If you defend yourself/ your dwelling and are not engaged in criminal activity therein (i.e. meth lab), and the person you shoot was not/ could not be id'd as a LEO, the law protects you from civil liability.

If someone would attempt to sue you they will loose, and your losses can be recouped.
In a real world situation, that suggests the bad guy's incompetent attorney who brought the case would seem be my first choice for compensation.

Having said that, if I'm ever thrust into a SD situation, I'd rather spend the rest of my life chewing through a lawyer bill as opposed to risk sitting in a box for 30 yrs.
I'm guessing one has better legal standing, and public sympathy shooting a burglar in your house, and calling the police than for trying to bury him in your back yard.
Again
IANAL

[greenfarmer]

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/895/II/62

<<<quote shortened for brevity>>>>

Sounds like he made a better move than S, S, & S.
However,
Remember what you paid for this information
and
IANAL.

So the court will award the person reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for loss of income and other costs of the litigation reasonably incurred by the person? Ok, so where is that money going to come from? The party that brought up the civil case? Odds are if your defending yourself against person "x", who broke into your house because he needed to steal something to support his crack habit, odds are, that the family of person "x", is suing you because they don't have a pot to pee in, or a window to throw it out of. So it just cost you 50k to fight this. That someone might have had to sell some assets or take out a second mortgage or whatever to afford. Well now your financing them to pay you back?

Sounds to me, like either way, and as I prior thought, there is no winning solution, party, person, or way about this. Nobody wins! Nobody ever wants to have to be put in the situation where they have to make that decision on protecting their family, but when faced with it, there should be "protections" afforded to that person. If person "A", lives in his home, and person "x" is breaking in, So person "A" hears a window break, and wakes up, sees person "x" in the house, and shoots him dead, (1 shot). Person "a" should never have to worry about defending himself. Never! He should never have to worry about being brought into a wrongful death lawsuit, or anything like that. Person "x" broke the window, and intruded into "A"'s home. Then the family of "x", should never even have the opportunity to go after cash. And that should be a law. It should be put into law to protect innocent people from the criminals.

This isn't 1965 anymore. It's 2015.... Everyone will sue anyone and everyone they can. It's just how society has gotten the past 20-30 years. You look at someone wrong and they sue you. It's pretty sad, but everyone seems to be looking for the "easy get rich strategy" in life. I don't feel like working this week, so i'm gonna find a reason to sue someone. It's just how people have been turning over the years.

Perhaps you should re-read the law.

I interpret it to mean:
If you defend yourself/ your dwelling and are not engaged in criminal activity therein (i.e. meth lab), and the person you shoot was not/ could not be id'd as a LEO, the law protects you from civil liability.

If someone would attempt to sue you they will loose, and your losses can be recouped.
In a real world situation, that suggests the bad guy's incompetent attorney who brought the case would seem be my first choice for compensation.

Having said that, if I'm ever thrust into a SD situation, I'd rather spend the rest of my life chewing through a lawyer bill as opposed to risk sitting in a box for 30 yrs.
I'm guessing one has better legal standing, and public sympathy shooting a burglar in your house, and calling the police than for trying to bury him in your back yard.
Again
IANAL

So "X" breaks into my house. He's out roaming around, knows people that would have things he could steal and get a little cash for his next fix. So he throws a brick thru my window. I wake up, alarmed, and scared. Come out of my room with gun in hand, see him, and shoot him dead. (small house). As I am doing this, wife calls 911.... I notice he has no weapon other than the brick he threw thru my window.

How can that be interpreted that he was here and going to inflict bodily harm? He had no weapon other than the brick laying on the floor across the room, that he threw thru the window. No gun on him, no knife, no weapon at all. How could he possibly inflict bodily harm? What if he was cracked out and didn't think anyone was home? No prior criminal record at all for him. Maybe a speeding or parking ticket. That's it.

You think that some young hot shot attorney won't sit and try and talk his family into suing me in a wrongful death sort of thing? Even though in my mind, i'm doing what I feel is right and protecting my wife and young daughter. So now i'll have to fight this lawsuit for how long, using up how much cash reserves because some young hot shot attorney is thinking he's going to make a name for himself.

This is why I say the system we have in place is flawed. It very well could happen.