Wisconsin: "You're armed, and the stairs creak "

[cuchulainn]

from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct03/180552.asp

Oct. 27, 2003

You're armed, and the stairs creak

Eugene Kane

OK, all you would-be Clint Eastwoods out there:

As Wisconsin edges closer to becoming the latest state to allow regular citizens to carry concealed handguns, maybe now's a good time to figure out exactly when you can let somebody have it - blam! - and when you can't.

Here's a scenario to chew on:

An armed woman is alone in her bedroom on the second floor of her home.

She hears a window break, followed by the sounds of drawers being opened downstairs, and then footsteps coming up the stairs.

A shadowy figure appears at her bedroom door. She demands the person stop, but he keeps coming into the room.

Blam! She lets him have it, killing him instantly.

Is it a good shoot, or not? Jim Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement, says bad shoot.

Very bad shoot.

"How did she know it wasn't a family member who forgot their key?" asked Fendry.

(She admitted never seeing the person's face.)

"How did she know it wasn't a drunk person confused and in the wrong house?" Fendry continued.

"How did she know it wasn't a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?"

According to Fendry, all those questions could be asked by a savvy district attorney. If she didn't have the right answers, she could be charged with homicide.

"The litmus test is always, 'What did you think in your own mind at the time?' " said Fendry, who spends much of his time training police officers and civilians about existing gun laws.

The armed woman in the second-floor bedroom scenario is taken from one of his own lessons.

It's meant to show gun owners that just because you have a gun, the law doesn't allow you to fire it willy-nilly.

Same thing goes for people who decide to shoot just because someone had invaded their personal property. Fendry said Wisconsin is not one of many states with a so-called "my house is my castle" law that allows for such actions.

But Fendry said many such incidents are decided by using a "common sense" standard that doesn't always adhere to the exact letter of the law.

For example, Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann has declined to prosecute some homeowners who defended their property by gunfire.

Fendry recalled one case in which McCann excused a husband who killed a would-be thief by shooting him as the man was escaping through a window.

Technically, Fendry said, that didn't qualify as self-defense.

"You don't have the right to be judge, jury and executioner," said Fendry.

But he said he agreed with McCann's decision in that case.

It struck me that much of this type of gun-law training was designed not just to educate gun owners but also provide them with a legal rationale in the event they shoot someone.

Fendry denied that; he insisted his classes were mainly about obeying the law.

He also believes there's little chance of shooting to wound an intruder. Most times, you're better off shooting to kill.

Unlike some who believe Gov. Jim Doyle will veto the concealed weapons bill, Fendry predicts there's a good chance Doyle will sign it into law due to political considerations.

I hope not; with all these details to remember, it's no wonder Clint never wanted to bother with all that technical stuff.

Most times, he went straight to the blam!

 

[Monkeyleg]

What's remarkable about this is the good relationship that Jim Fendry has built with Eugene Kane. This article is mild compared to Kane's rantings last week.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Damn fine article.

TBO

 

[xenophon]

dang, i was just fixing to post that same article. The author of the article is bent on being against ccw.

x

 

[geekWithA.45]

He also believes there's little chance of shooting to wound an intruder. Most times, you're better off shooting to kill.

YIKES!

I thought the well informed knew better than that.

You never shoot to "kill", you shoot to STOP.

And as far as the law is concerned, firing a gun at someone is LETHAL force, there's no legal recognition of aiming at his toe and considering it mere force.

 

[Gordon Fink]

I’m sorry, but what was that? Did I just read an anti-CCW article that was trying to make its point by describing a questionable non-CCW shoot?

“How did she know it wasn’t a family member who forgot their [sic] key?†asked Fendry.

Did he also forget the door bell?

“How did she know it wasn’t a drunk person confused and in the wrong house?†Fendry continued.

How would she know that the “drunk†wasn’t also about to confuse her for his “wife�

“How did she know it wasn’t a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?â€

If he’s breaking in, he sure isn’t harmless.

~G. Fink

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Gordon Fink makes a good point. The scenario described has nothing to do with CCW.

If someone breaks into my house by knocking out a window, and doesn't promptly identify himself as someone I know, then there is a pretty good chance he might get shot. Too bad if he is drunk or an escapee from a mental institution.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Gordon Fink makes a good point. The scenario described has nothing to do with CCW.

If someone enters into my house by knocking out a window in the middle of the night, and doesn't promptly identify himself as someone I know, then there is a pretty good chance he is going to quickly have to figure out how to dig 125 grain hollowpoints out of his head.

 

[Atticus]

"How did she know it wasn't a family member who forgot their key?" asked Fendry.

(She admitted never seeing the person's face.)

"How did she know it wasn't a drunk person confused and in the wrong house?" Fendry continued.

"How did she know it wasn't a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?"

Better question- What if it isn't any of the above?

 

[ARperson]

To my knowledge, Indiana leans more towards the "my home is my castle" side of the legal argument. Several times the news has a quick clip of a local store owner that nailed a BG and didn't get prosecuted for it. The only time I can remember a homeowner being prosecuted was the guy recently who killed his pregnant girlfriend (baby died 1 day after delivery). He claimed she surprised him by coming home early. That might have worked had he not use TWO firearms to do it: a 9mm (I think) and an AK.

You know the AK had to be fodder for the prosecutor too.

Anyhow, my family knows I'm armed. And they all know I'll shoot. So they're all real good about identifying themselves.

I think the article is baseless if it hinges all of its credibility on that one example.

 

[CommonSense]

Eugene Kane’s job is to tick people off and get them talking. Anyone that reads the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel knows that. I agree that he is out in left field.

However, I do believe that the bill’s authors are just as crazy. They want to take away the rights of every property/business owner to dictate who can be on their premises. Any resident that has had to deal with the DNR should agree with me. Allowing the state to create rules for a business that they didn’t invest a dime in is wrong. Gun rights, smoker rights, diaper changing station rights, etc., etc. I forgot to mention – Wisconsin restaurants were once prohibited from serving margarine.

The current CCW bill is so full of holes; it makes Swiss cheese seem solid as a rock.

I have called and/or emailed our members in the Senate, House, and Governor – has everyone else?

Please call your state representatives and beg them to fill the holes if you want a CCW law enacted.

 

[cracked butt]

I beg your pardon 'Commonsense' but the law is not full of holes. It merely states that business need to put up a sign stating that they do not allow ccw on their site. The law also prohibits companies from prohibiting employees from keeping guns in their personal vehicles. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[CommonSense]

I’m sorry, “cracked buttâ€, but you are VERY wrong. Please download the proposed bill. It states that you have to post an 11 x 11†sign, and then “personally†tell them they are not allowed on the premises. Most of Wisconsin’s companies cannot afford to hire a door person or metal detectors. Those are your only 2 options as the bill is currently written.

Further, the mere size of the sign requirements and having to hire a personal door person is anti-business.

Businesses spend millions of dollars a year to design inviting architecture, colors, POS, and POP advertising. Who are you or the state to deny them their property rights?

Please think about this before replying to me: I smoke. Eau Claire, Madison, Janesville and others have enacted laws dictating that business not allow smokers on their premises unless they loose 20% of their revenue. Think about that. The state is dictating that you have to loose business. As a smoker, I go to exempt restaurants if I think I might want to have a cigarette. The people that feel the need to carry a concealed weapon should do the same. I don’t want to tell any business that they have to let me smoke there because cigarettes are a legal commodity. If they don’t want my business, I’ll find somewhere that does.

Seems black and white to me. You’re either pro-State property abuse laws or anti. The CCW doesn’t even come in to play.

 

[Monkeyleg]

CommonSense, I see that you have just one post here on THR, and you're objecting to the proposed CCW bill.

I'm going to assume that you're not here to try to create a divide in the WI CCW fight. Those of us who have been in the fight every hour, day and week for several years are busting our tails hard to get this bill passed. Is it the utopia of concealed carry bills? No. But it's one of the best in the country.

If you'd like to debate the merits of pure Second Amendment rights versus the WI concealed carry bill, please feel free to chime in on this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46690

 

[Standing Wolf]

"How did she know it wasn't a drunk person confused and in the wrong house?" Fendry continued.
"How did she know it wasn't a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?"

Anybody who breaks into your house is a felon—and what have these hypothetical situations to do with concealed carry?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Who are you or the state to deny them their property rights?

If a business is open to the public, it ought to be open to all the public. Does a business have a legal right to exclude blacks, or Jews, or homosexuals, or Native Americans, or firearms owners, or women, or...?

 

[CommonSense]

I’m sorry “Monkeylegâ€. I didn’t see your comment on whether you were pro-State property abuse or anti. And I’m not a person that has just now decided to voice my opinion on State or Federal abuses. Another member of this group can vouch for that. I’ve been trying for a long time to teach people about allowing the government to take away our rights – any of them - and straying from their constitutional job.

It appears in your message that you are saying that the proposed bill is pretty good. After 130 years without a CCW, is that the best we can hope for?

And no, I don’t wish to debate you or anyone else regarding this bill. Your invitation in and of it self tells me where that would lead.

Do YOU want to debate me personally about the State abusing small business and/or landowners?

 

[CommonSense]

WOW! You took a large leap there, “Standing Wolfâ€! Discrimination against those groups is already against the law. People cannot dictate the color of their skin or national origin.

I missed your comments on pro/anti-property rights as well.

 

[cracked butt]

So if I understand you correctly 'CommonSense', you care much more about the property rights of owners of public businesses and the asthetics of buildings more than the individual rights and safety of citizens?

 

[CommonSense]

No “cracked buttâ€. That couldn’t be further from the truth of what I said. I don’t feel any business owner has the right to force you or anyone else in to his or her establishment! And if you’re out on the street and one of those business owners tries to force you in to their store, I’m all for you defending yourself with whatever it takes!

 

[CommonSense]

“cracked buttâ€: I stated in a previous post that smokers have learned to live with respecting the rights of business and the mandates of law. Why are you having such a problem with this? I’m guessing you’re anti-business.

 

[Gordon Fink]

CommonSense, regarding your concern for the right of business owners to prohibit concealed weapons on their premises, how would you resolve the problem? Would any sign, regardless of size, be acceptable? Must the permit holder ask permission before entering? Or should he psychically know the business owner prohibits concealed carry?

For that matter, how will business owners prohibit “illegal†concealed carry?

~G. Fink

 

[AJ Dual]

Commonsense, your smoking analogy doesn’t hold water.

The person most likely to obey a no CCW posting on a business is the CCW permit holder.

Criminals carrying concealed illegally will just waltz on in, and presumably they already do now. It's pretty hard for someone to smoke surreptitiously in a posted "No Smoking" business, or argue that unwanted smoke or odors wouldn’t waft towards others looking to breathe cleaner air, but it’s obvious that they would be completely unaware of an illegally carried gun.

And since you're so big on private property rights, is my personal property, namely what's inside and under my clothes, subject to any and all regulations or rules the business owner would care to impose? Does the contents of my car become the property or concern of a business just because I parked inside their parking structure? I would say that the standard of privacy for what's under my clothes is even higher, no?

My body space and items secured on it is my personal property and does not cease being so the minute I walk in someone else's door. It's only when anything I possess, or my actions, inside that business intrude or alter their private property does it become a concern. Until I unholster it, or brandish it does that firearm intrude upon or alter the private property of the business. Unless I expose it, draw it, or make a conscious decision to pull the trigger, my firearm is as inert as my wallet or my watch.

If I did draw, brandish or discharge my sidearm, it will certainly be in defense of another or myself from death or great bodily harm. And most will agree that preventing death or great bodily harm supersedes private property rights.

These "weak" provisions for preventing CCW in public establishments is in recognition of this fact, and an attempt to balance the rights of CCW holders and private businesses.

Ultimately, I find myself in agreement with Monkeyleg, I too suspect you are anti-CCW altogether, and are merely trying to couch your arguments in a framework of "conservative" business and property rights in an attempt to get some traction on a pro-gun venue.

 

[CommonSense]

Gordon Fink: Certainly a sign would have to be posted. I believe signs for “no smoking†at most businesses use the international “NO†symbol (a circle with a line through it) and they are approximately 4 inches square. These are usually placed near the door handle.

On the final part of your question, any concealed carry would remain “illegal†if the business does not want weapons entering his/her establishment. What a business decides to do about this behavior should be their decision, along with stiff legal penalties.

Did you notice Gordon that this bill softens the penalty for these criminals that decide to break the law? There’s Madison at work for you!

 

[HankB]

An armed woman is alone in her bedroom . . . She hears a window break . . . footsteps coming up the stairs. A shadowy figure appears at her bedroom door. She demands the person stop, but he keeps coming into the room . . . "How did she know it wasn't a family member who forgot their key?" asked Fendry

If Fendry's family members break in (rather than use the doorbell) and don't respond to verbal challenges, but rather keep advancing in the dark . . . I feel sorry for him. He and his family need some serious counseling.

How did she know it wasn't a drunk person confused and in the wrong house?

Drunks who break in at night and advance on a lone woman when challenged verbally are NOT to be regarded as "harmless" by any reasonable standard.

How did she know it wasn't a harmless walkaway from a mental institution confused and trying to get back home?

Breaking and entering, followed by advancing on a lone woman in the dark after a verbal challenge, is not behavior that any reasonable person would associate with "harmless."

I'm guessing that in a misguided effort to appear "reasonable" to an anti, Jim Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement, inadvertently entered the realm of the absurd.