Milwaukee Cty. Sheriff - Great Quote on Castle Doctrine

[Wishoot]

I don't always agree with Sheriff Clark, but I love this press release. Scroll down towards the end of his release (bold and italics added)....

Sheriff Clarke Urges Senate to Pass ‘Castle Doctrine Law’
Milwaukee, WI –

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. today urged members of the Wisconsin state senate to pass Senate Bill 79, which would protect people in their own homes when defending themselves from a would-be attacker if deadly force is used.

“There is no place more sacred in our system of justice, as evidenced by our Constitution, nor is there any place in which a person has more of a right to be safe and secure from the threats of the outside world, than in their own home,” Clarke said.

“With the recently enacted Personal Protection Act and the proposed ‘Castle Law,’ I am encouraged that our lawmakers are starting to “get it” when it comes to law-abiding people not surrendering the upper hand to the criminal element. I’m through telling law-abiding people to automatically run first from crime. I’m not going to tell anyone what they should do under similar circumstances, but the only time I am going to run from my own home is if it’s on fire or flooding. If an intruder enters, my first move will not be to dial 9-1-1, it is going to be protecting and defending my family and myself. Once that threat of an intruder has been identified and neutralized, then I’ll call for police. If that means it is after I shoot the intruder, then so be it. Telling or expecting people to call 9-1-1 first and then hide in a closet waiting for the police to arrive is silly. What happens if the intruder is between you and the door to the home, do we expect people to jump out a second story window?

“I have taken this position because with the lenient circuit courts in Milwaukee County citizens can no longer rely on protection from their institutions of justice, which today are more concerned about the welfare of the criminals than they are about law-abiding citizens. It disgusts me beyond belief that certain public officials and criminal advocates trust career criminals (many of them violent) with probation, parole, early release, low bail and deferred prosecution, but they don’t trust law-abiding citizens to handle their right to defend themselves. Someone needs to remind those public officials of their duty to represent law-abiding people as well.”

 

[calaverasslim]

Great to see a politician taking this point of view. Howerver, it needs to spread.

Here in TX., while we have the "castle doctrine", places like the "People Republik of California", "People Republik of Massachuttes", or PR of NEW YORK do not but do need it.

Let's hope others will vote out the criminal supporters and vote in the officials who believe in the 2nd admendment

 

[Ryanxia]

Probably won't make a difference, but good statement.

 

[316SS]

places like the "People Republik of California" ... do not but do need it.

California Penal Code
§ 198.5 Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

I don't claim that California is a bastion of pro-gun sentiment, but when they get it right we should give them credit for it.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Are there any links to that quote? That seems awfully strong for a politician, even Clarke.

 

[Wishoot]

Are there any links to that quote? That seems awfully strong for a politician, even Clarke.

http://wispolitics.com/1006/111102sherriff.pdf

 

[vito]

My son is an LEO in Wisconsin and the quoted opinion clearly does not represent all LEO's in that state. My son stated that as the law was explained to him and his fellow officers, the law gives homeowners the right to shoot anyone that is in their home that they consider an intruder. He posed the scenario of an ex-wife who still has the legal right to enter what was her home and her ex-husband claiming he thought it was an intruder and shot and killed her. Or an LEO entering a house after announcing he/she is a police officer and the occupant shooting them, later claiming that they did not hear the police officer announce themself. My son stated that the law explicitly or implicitly removes the requirement for the homeowner to even claim that they had a reasonable fear of suffering harm before shooting. I strongly approve of the concept of the Castle Doctrine but I hope that the Wisconsin law was not so poorly written as to unduly endanger my son in the course of his duties. My sincere hope is that between WI getting concealed carry and now the Castle Doctrine, that the overall impact will be positive for ordinary citizens and that might improve the chances that here in IL we will finally be given the same rights as enjoyed by the rest of the nation.

 

[Jaypo]

Vito quoted "My son is an LEO in Wisconsin and the quoted opinion clearly does not represent all LEO's in that state. My son stated that as the law was explained to him and his fellow officers, the law gives homeowners the right to shoot anyone that is in their home that they consider an intruder."

That is most definately wrong. WI law states that even if an intruder is in ones home, the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm must be present to employ deadly force.

Castle doctine should be enacted in WI and WI would be a safer place.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

I agree, it needs to be "in law". While in most instances the court might be inclined to give the benefit to the home owner, if it's NOT "in law", all that means is that things can change over time. I engaged in the same arguments for a change in the Wisconsin State Constitution with respect to a "Second Amendment" provision. Many agrued that it was not necessary because there was no threat to deprive anyone of their guns. My point was always that unless it's the law ... it's just a whim and I don't want to rest my rights on a whim.