Stunning conviction

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

A guy gets dragged out of a car by a man intent on attacking him; he gets hit with fists; he pulls a gun and shoots his attacker. The jury convicts him of first-degree reckless homicide while armed with a deadly weapon.



Said the prosecutor, "...it was unreasonable for [the shooter] to use deadly force in what was clearly "a fist fight."


Isn't that amazing?
If anyone needs a lawyer in Wisconsin regarding guns , don't go with Dennis Coffey


From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel


http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/j...239316951.html

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't think the conviction is necessarily stunning.

The story indicates the convicted individual made several errors in judgment. He went to bad places with folks he had a history with. He gave an initial statement that contradicted a self-defense claim:

Huebner also asked Green why, in a recorded interview with detectives soon after the shooting, he estimated Banks was more like eight feet away and didn't say Banks was coming at him when he fired.

Green said he was traumatized by the whole experience and unclear about details in the first hours after it happened. He said he'd never been arrested — or shot a gun — before.

He tells a tale to the detective without counsel?

He carries a gun and has never shot one before? Without actually hearing all the testimony and seeing the exhibits - this is not a stunning conviction apriori.

Perhaps the jury didn't think the level of force was appropriate. We haven't read the transcript. If he wasn't believable - that was the game.

[KyJim]

The conviction underscores the need to consult with counsel before saying anything except "I was scared for my life and shot in self-defense."

[Frank Ettin]

I can pretty much guarantee that there were some factors focused on at trial that weren't focused on in the article.

It looks like the incident involved some sort of altercation between friends or acquaintances, and they apparently had been drinking. Those factors can cause the appropriateness of the use of lethal force to be legally uncertain.

It's notable that the jury took only a short time, three hours, to reach a verdict.

[filthy phil]

Dont talk to the police besides "i was in fear of my life and I want a lawyer"

[WyMark]

Dont talk to the police besides "i was in fear of my life and I want a lawyer"

How about this one too: Don't carry a gun when you're drunk, especially with preexisting stoopid.

[Double Naught Spy]

Green said he was traumatized by the whole experience and unclear about details in the first hours after it happened. He said he'd never been arrested — or shot a gun — before.

Interesting. How does one get a permit in Minnesota without the firearms qualification?

[Salmoneye]

How does one get a permit in Minnesota without the firearms qualification?

It's Wisconsin:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/...g-requirements

[Double Naught Spy]

Oops, LOL, I had Minnesota in mind when I looked up the laws. Of course it is Wisconsin.

However, the question still stands, changing the state's name. WI requires firearms certification proof which includes the firing of a gun.

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/...g-requirements
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code...de/jus/17/03/7

or does getting a hunter safety certificate not require actually firing a gun?

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

Oh, that gleaming Jewel of the Midwest, that Wonder on the Lake, that Endless Parade of Attractive People- Wisconsin.

I took the hunter safety course 20 years ago and I didn't need to shoot. I only needed to handle a firearm for 45 seconds.

No permit for open carry needed. You want to carry concealed? Tell the State you're a law abiding sane person and they'll mail it to you, just like that.

[44 AMP]

You want to carry concealed? Tell the State you're a law abiding sane person and they'll mail it to you, just like that.

While this approach does mean the occasional idiot gets a permit, it also means the rest of us don't have to stand around, hat in hand, and wallet open, possibly for months, while the state decides whether or not to grant us the privilege...

There's no free lunch.

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

I didn't mean to imply the concealed permit is free.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret

I didn't mean to imply the concealed permit is free.

Nobody thought you did. By "no free lunch" he meant there're pros and cons to everything; if it's easier for idiots to get permits it also means it's easier for good, responsible citizens to get permits. He wasn't referring to the cost of the permit itself.

[Aguila Blanca]

We're a funny bunch, aren't we? "We" [collective "we"] all sit at our keyboards and lament the fact that the gummint doesn't respect the Constitution and the Second Amendment, boo hoo, boo hoo -- and then along comes someone who has a gun and does something silly or foolish and all of a sudden major subsets of the "pro-gun, pro-RKBA" community start channeling their inner Dick Metcalf and bemoaning the fact that this idiot or that idiot was allowed to carry (or just own) a firearm.

It's a logical fallacy to argue that the Second Amendment should prevail and at the same time argue that "some" people just shouldn't be allowed to have guns ...

Make up your minds, folks. Either you support the Second Amendment ... or you don't. "In for a penny, in for a pound," as the saying goes.

[oldbadger]

"Oh, that gleaming Jewel of the Midwest, that Wonder on the Lake, that Endless Parade of Attractive People- Wisconsin.

I took the hunter safety course 20 years ago and I didn't need to shoot. I only needed to handle a firearm for 45 seconds.

No permit for open carry needed. You want to carry concealed? Tell the State you're a law abiding sane person and they'll mail it to you, just like that."
Well, ouch.
I suspect that in most areas of Wisconsin if you open carry, although legal by law, you will come to the attention of the local law enforcement officers since they must respond to a "MWAG" call and a lot of people in Wisconsin do not know that open carry is legal. Obtaining a CCW in Wisconsin is not quite as simple as implied in the quoted post.
One must survive a real background check done after all the rest of this is done. Then one must take a course (amount of time is not specified but must be attested to by the instructor whose teaching license is at risk should he lie). Course content usually involves safety procedures and ethics of carrying a weapon. In the course I took, easily as much time was spent on when NOt to shoot and how to avoid having to shoot. Online courses are NOT allowed. In addition one must submit a letter of character reference. At this time, I can see nothing in the law that requires firing the weapon. It looks to me that Wisconsin is close to getting it right about the shooting drill....most would not simply buy the weapon and not learn to use it. Some will. Some courses offered do include some range time. An application must be sent to the state along with a fee, now $40.
I have recently researched this thoroughly.

[towboat-er]

Many thumbs up to Aguila Blanca. I'll agree 100%

[44 AMP]

It's a logical fallacy to argue that the Second Amendment should prevail and at the same time argue that "some" people just shouldn't be allowed to have guns ...

I believe I subscribe to a version of a logical fallacy. While I do believe in the primacy of the 2nd Amendment, I also believe that there are people who just shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

AFTER they have proven themselves dangerously irresponsible with them. The same people who we don't allow to have matches, lighters, sharp knives, etc. are in that category as well.

I don't believe in prior restraint, nor having to prove to a bureaucrat how "good" you are. But if you do something that proves you a danger to self or others, then, no, you shouldn't be allowed a gun.

I realize that this isn't the most popular opinion these days, because it allows greater risk of harm than the currently popular idea of disarming people because of what you think they might do.

To me, that's the price we pay for liberty.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As I celebrate the right of law abiding idiots to carry guns, I celebrate the right of idiot citizens to vote for politicians who would ban carry and all guns.

The argument that the Second Amendment is absolute is an old one.

Kids, felons, Lanza types?

[seeker_two]

The fact that idiots have rights shows that EVERYONE has rights....and that's a good thing.....

.....having to get the government's permission to have said rights, not so much....

[Brian Pfleuger]

I don't believe it's any kind of fallacy to say that "everyone" should be allowed to own guns and also believe that there are exclusions from "everyone".

We believe in freedom in general but we still put people in jail, that's not a contradiction.

Some exceptions go without saying. Nobody (of sane mind) thinks Charles Manson should be freed and allowed to own guns.

The trouble comes when we start excoriating some poor schmuck who just happened to have won the reverse lottery and got caught doing something that a million other people did the same day, many times we ourselves have done before, but without getting caught.

As 44AMP said, prior restraint ain't cool. It's very much a Minority Report phenomenon.

Examinations of military, police and even firearms trainer accidents prove that NO AMOUNT of training will ever completely and totally eliminate accidents or even stupid behavior.

Requiring training before a person can carry a gun is really no different than requiring karate before they can defend themselves with their hands.

[Salmoneye]

Make up your minds, folks. Either you support the Second Amendment ... or you don't.

I made up my mind long ago...

Kids, felons, Lanza types?

If a 'criminal' is ready to be allowed back into society, then I believe it is just as much their right to self defence, as it is anyone else's...If they are not 'safe' to own a gun, then they probably shouldn't be released into society...

If a person is of age to vote, sign contracts, get married without parental consent, etc, then they too have their right to self defence...As we have it now, people between 18-21 can do the above, but can not legally have a glass of wine at their own wedding, or the night before they ship out, or defend their home and family from bad guys with a handgun purchased from an FFL...

If a person has been 'adjudicated mentally defective', there should also be a means of appeal to be 'adjudicated sane', or 'better' or 'well', so that they too can defend themselves if the need should arise...

As for 'Lanza', I should not have to remind everyone that he did not own guns...

He killed his mother and stole hers, so disallowing him guns would have meant nothing...

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

Frank Ettin says:

It looks like the incident involved some sort of altercation between friends or acquaintances, and they apparently had been drinking. Those factors can cause the appropriateness of the use of lethal force to be legally uncertain.

Frank, did you know that police (in this case Milwaukee police) are allowed to drink alcohol on duty?


Milwaukee police code of conduct. Page 4 Section 1.09
"No department member shall consume, purchase or possess any intoxicating liquor and/or fermented malt beverage while on duty or in uniform except with the approval of the Chief of Police or designee."

http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibra...SpreadComp.pdf

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret

...Frank, did you know that police (in this case Milwaukee police) are allowed to drink alcohol on duty?...

Wrong.

What you quoted from the Code Of Conduct actually says pretty much the opposite. According to the statement you quoted from the Code of Conduct (emphasis added):

No department member shall consume, purchase or possess any intoxicating liquor and/or fermented malt beverage while on duty or in uniform except with the approval of the Chief of Police or designee.

The standard, default policy is that an officer may not consume alcohol (or even purchase or possess alcohol) while on duty. The policy does allow the Chief of Police or designee to approve the consumption of alcohol by an officer while on duty. So when and under what circumstances has the Chief of Police or designee approved an on duty cop's drinking alcohol (or purchasing or possessing alcoholic beverages)?

I could imagine an officer being authorized to buy a round of drinks and perhaps have a few sips during the course of some sort of undercover activity. But I seriously doubt that an officer could with impunity have an "eye opener" at the start of his shift.

[Double Naught Spy]

If a 'criminal' is ready to be allowed back into society, then I believe it is just as much their right to self defence, as it is anyone else's...If they are not 'safe' to own a gun, then they probably shouldn't be released into society...

If only the convicted felons felt so strongly about getting their rights restored as well, but alas, they don't seem to hold the same interest as a group. Sure, a few work to get their own rights restored, but most could not care about their fellow felons' rights. However, felon advocacy groups abound. Most such groups are undersupported, underfunded, and understaffed. Now is your chance to make a difference.

You might start my not referring to them as criminals, even with the quotation marks, LOL. They seem to consider that offensive.

[WardenWolf]

We'll see what happens on appeal. This whole trial seems fishy, on both sides.