WI High Roaders, are we a "Retreat State"?

[AJ Dual]

I'm pretty sure WI is not a "castle doctrine" state, where you have pretty much carte blance to use lethal force on an intruder in your home. If they're willing to violate the sanctity of another's home, it's presumed they're willing to harm it's occupants. I also don't believe we have any of the nice "make my day laws" in response to carjackings etc.

However, it came up in another thread that we are a "duty to retreat" state that if in your home, and confronted with an invader, if you can retreat, you must. If you use lethal force with an open avenue for escape the victim could be charged.

If that's true, it's disgusting, and needs to be addressed as much as our current lack of CCW does.

So are we or aren't we a "Retreat State"?

 

[sturmruger]

I hate to admit it Aj but I really don't know for sure. I guess if there was a guybetween me and the door and he is threatening me I would probably shoot him. I don't really have anywhere to retreat to except my bedroom.

 

[Jay Kominek]

checking case law might be more useful than taking a poll.

 

[AJ Dual]

True...

However, I'm just as interested in what WI residents think, and I'm finding case law that seems to indicate both that there is a duty to retreat, and that it dosen't exist?

Also, all of the case law I can find seems to be about grey areas, where the assailant and victim knew one another, were drunk, and there was some question as to who the victim was etc. I haven't come across one where it was more cut-n-dried where it was a resident against a burglar, robber, rapist etc.

Perhaps that's cause for faith in WI DA's not prosecuting, or Grand Juries no-billing. But I won't hold my breath.

From the WI Bar website: http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/z2000/00-1985.htm

¶5. Also relevant here is the jury instruction on duty to retreat. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 810 (1994) contains the following language:

There is no duty to retreat. However, in determining whether the defendant reasonably believed the amount of force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference, you may consider whether the defendant had the opportunity to retreat with safety, whether such retreat was feasible, and whether the defendant knew of the opportunity to retreat.

The best answer I can find is that WI does not have a codified "Duty to Retreat" but that the "Duty to Retreat" can be considered? Gee. That is sooo helpful.

 

[mpthole]

I'm pretty sure WI is not a "castle doctrine" state, where you have pretty much carte blance to use lethal force on an intruder in your home.

Andrew, I'm not sure that "castle doctrine" and using lethal force on an "intruder" are in the same ballpark. It depends on what the definition of "intruder" is. What I mean is that just because someone may be in your house - aka an "intruder" - does not give cause to use lethal force. In MN the intruder must be in progress of committing a felony.

So, if our assumption is to define "intruder" as someone who has the ability, opportunity and intent to commit serious bodily injury or death, then I'd say "Yes" the castle doctrine exists... a reasonable person can only be expected to retreat so far within the confines of their own home when confronted with someone such as this.

Now, if someone wanders into you home to use the telephone because their car broke down... you probably can't use lethal force "legally".

 

[Monkeyleg]

In practice it pretty much boils down to whether the good guy had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of great bodily harm. Even at that, it's often prosecutor discretion. For example, a store owner in Menomonee Falls chased a robber out of his store and then shot him in the parking lot. To my mind, it wasn't a good shoot, but the DA declined to press charges.