Self-Defense laws in your state?

[Psilent Knight]

Where I live the law states you have the right to defend yourself if it is reasonable to believe your life is in danger of death or great bodily harm. The law also states you have the right to defend yourself anywhere you have the lawful right to be.

Now....explain how these self defense laws are unreasonable?

And where I live the law states what is and is not considered reasonable force (regardless of the offender and the crime he's committing against you) and what may or may not be used as a weapon for self defense (again, regardless of the offender and the crime he's committing against you).

Now....explain how these self defense laws are not unreasonable?

And other than what these laws state you still conveniently ignore how the laws are applied in actual practice. You don't seem to want to touch that which is understandable.

 

[CB Jones]

where I live the law states what is and is not considered reasonable force (regardless of the offender) and what may or may not be used as a weapon for self defense (again, regardless of the offender).

Explain or post what these laws state....and I will comment on if i believe them reasonable or not.

And other than what these laws state you still conveniently ignore how the laws are applied in actual practice. You don't seem to want to touch that which is understandable.

Where I live the law is applied pretty evenly along the spirit of the law.


And the laws of my state follow along with many other states....so again....how are they unreasonable.

It seems you are taking the law and it application in a few places and assuming its like that everywhere.

 

[Psilent Knight]

Explain or post what these laws state....and I will comment on if i believe them reasonable or not.

I live in the state of Pennsylvania. Feel free to look them up if you want.

Where I live the law is applied pretty evenly along the spirit of the law.

And where I live it's not applied evenly along the spirit of the law. Plain and Simple.

And the laws of my state follow along with many other states....so again....how are they unreasonable.

As I already stated, dictating what is reasonable force and what a person can and cannot use as a weapon for defending himself.....so again....how are they not unreasonable.

It seems you are taking the law and it application in a few places and assuming its like that everywhere.

Again, you are still missing part of my point. The misapplication of the law should not happen in ANY PLACE regardless if it's a few places or everywhere. It happens in America is my point. I live in America. I face the risk of a double whammy because of this. Who do I get victimized by, the first enemy (thug, sociopath, drug addict, home invader) or the second enemy (the law)?

MY LIFE OR THE LIVES OF MY LOVED ONES ARE NOT WORTHLESS! OUR LIVES HAVE JUST AS MUCH VALUE AS THOSE WHO WISH TO INFRINGE UPON OUR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS!!

 

[Paul_D]

You know, the whole judged by 12 instead of buried by 6 thing.

Which represents a false choice, because your only two options are not die or end up in court. You can defend yourself and stay within the law.

Well, while defending myself I certainly will not be thinking about how much trouble I can get into if I do serious or lethal harm to someone. I'll be too busy fighting to survive.

You don't have to think about the laws, this is the point. If your training is structed correctly, to stay with in the law, then under pressure you will do what you have trained yourself to do, and you will thereby stay within the law without having to think about it.

 

[Paul_D]

You are just as familiar with Geoff Thompson as I am. Recall that he would always refer to the Law as "The Second Enemy". There's a reason who said this.

True, however, he refers to it as such because people do not think this far ahead and do not prepare for giving their statement to the police.

As such they are often convicted, as he says, not on whet they did, but on what they said in their statement which was given the immediate aftermath. Therefore they can have acted legally, but come u stuck when giving their statement. Which infact reinforces the point that you need to structure your training within the law (which includes knowing what key words and phrases to include in a statement). Your opinion that you would rather not learn about the law and you will just deal with the incident (and the aftermath as and when it happens ) means you are more likely to trip yourself me up giving your statement even if your actions were within the law.

You can ignore the law and deal and worry about the legal side if and when it happens and hope you come out of it ok. But you dont need to, you don't need to expose yourself to the possibility of legal consequences as you can defend yourself and your loved ones and stay within the law.

 

[Psilent Knight]

I'm not going to say there's a right way or wrong way to look at this. I'll just say there's the way I see it based on my own observations, reflections and experiences and the way others see it for the same reasons. I'll just have to leave it at that.

If forced to do so I'll do whatever is necessary to protect myself and/or my loved ones against the brain shy who wish to infringe upon my rights.

I'll see my way out of this thread by stating one final time MY LIFE HAS VALUE! MY LIFE IS NOT OF LESSER VALUE THAN THOSE WHO THINK/SAY OTHERWISE!

There's a bigger picture I've been looking at all along.

 

[CB Jones]

I live in the state of Pennsylvania. Feel free to look them up if you want.

Pennsylvania Title 18 Section 505 - Use of force in self-protection

Section 505 - Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES


So basically:

a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

Furthermore,

You have a duty to retreat unless you are :

An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:

(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;

(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and

(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:

(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or

(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.



Laws seem reasonable to me.

 

[CB Jones]

As I already stated, dictating what is reasonable force and what a person can and cannot use as a weapon for defending himself

I'm not seeing where this is a problem. Do you have a link?

 

[Brownielox]

I don't usually throw in my 2 cents, but I feel like I have to because a few years ago this was a HUGE deal that affected loved ones...

Yes, in my state we have the "stand your ground" law. A few years back while I was still home, someone (without giving away any of my personal details) really hurt someone and justified it using the law. There was a huge debate about whether or not that person was in the right/wrong to use that law.

So....with that perspective in mind, my opinion is: if someone is trying to seriously hurt me, I'd use anything in my power -- my legs, feet, arms, anything -- to defend myself. I'd worry about the consequences later. Call me arrogant, but I stand by my choice.

 

[jks9199]

In the USA the law says you're allowed to defend yourself. It doesn't matter where you are in the country in the USA you have the right by law to defend yourself if you're attacked. Now that doesn't mean you can continue to beat on an attacker once you've stopped them. When it comes to self defense you're intent should be to stop the attacker. You're intent should not be to kill, it should not be to injure, it should be to stop. Once you've stopped your attacker you've fulfilled your intent so there is no reason to keep using force at that point and thus it would not validate self defense. But up until you've stopped your attacker you can fight back as that would be self defense.

There are many members on this forum who don't live in the USA and I don't know how it is regarding the legality of self defense in other countries but that's how it is in the USA.

Overly broad statement. There are too many loopholes and specific rules to go with that statement.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Psilent Knight]

Pennsylvania Title 18 Section 505 - Use of force in self-protection

Section 505 - Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES


So basically:

a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

Furthermore,

You have a duty to retreat unless you are :

An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:

(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;

(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and

(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:

(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or

(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.



Laws seem reasonable to me.

I'm not seeing where this is a problem. Do you have a link?

OMG!! This is ridiculous. I don't even know where to begin with this.

I informed you that you need to look at the overall bigger picture. You mistakenly looked up 18:505 In Isolation and did not look up (and bring into play and context) 18:907, 908, 908.1, Chapters 25 and 27. When you have to engage in a physical altercation you then have to deal with CRIMINAL LAW and risk facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for the actions you were forced to take. There is absolutely NO WAY you can isolate 18:505 because then that section is grossly taken out of context and plus they do not stand on their own anyway. Chapter 5 always stands side by side with Chapters 25 and 27, 18:907, 908, 908.1. Lie to yourself if you want to but I know better.

It is through 907, 908, 908.1, 25 and 27 that the unfairness of our so called Justice System shows itself and it is 25 and 27 that INFORM US PENNSYLVANIA residents what is considered justifiable force (in their eyes) and what can and cannot be used as a weapon (in their eyes). And YES, to me this is highly unreasonable. If you disagree then feel free to act within "their definition of reasonable/justifiable" when you have to defend your life or the life of a loved one.

EVEN IF I was to isolate 18:505 on it's own (as you have) I still insist it is unreasonable because all altercations do not play out in the simplistic manner that is written in that section. Every Altercation will have it's own set of circumstances and those circumstances are examined in The Court of Law and it is there that the actions of citizens will be judged by others to be appropriate or not. That is, if his actions were criminal or not.

An example of what I mean is that the beginning of 18:505 states "The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person"

The two problems that I have with this are a) THEY determine what THEY consider justifiable force (even though they weren't there and don't know the full circumstances of the situation) and b) If THEY determine the force you used was not justified then you are looking at possibly assault or homicide charges. So 18:505 says I can defend myself. But if I feel that my life is in danger and I preempt a guy then they'll say forget about 18:505 let's throw Chapter 25 or 27 at him.

If you cannot see this then I really don't know what to tell you. Nothing I say here will make you see it which is fine by me. And I see absolutely no point in going back and forth with you on it since you see it the way you do and I see it the way that I do. If you're in a situation where you have to defend your life and/or the life of loved ones be my guest in keeping "the law" in mind as you do so. As for me, I'll just repeat what @Brownielox said:

"if someone is trying to seriously hurt me, I'd use anything in my power -- my legs, feet, arms, anything -- to defend myself. I'd worry about the consequences later. Call me arrogant, but I stand by my choice."

I'm done and I'm out.

 

[Psilent Knight]

Overly broad statement. There are too many loopholes and specific rules to go with that statement.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I like the wording you chose. This is what I should have said to CB Jones concerning 18:505:

There are too many loopholes and specific rules to go with that statement (or rather section).

Each altercation is different and has it's own set of circumstances. There's NO WAY these people can broadly stroke every situation with one brush. This is where the truth of their Justice System shows itself and this is how they punish many good people and basically reward bad guys due to the loopholes of their justice system and how THEY furnish the definitions of use of force and legal weapons, etc.

I'm actually at a loss for words at how people can't see this. Or maybe it's the whole Ostrich's head in the sand thing. IDK. We're letting other people tell us whether or not we can defend ourselves and our loved ones and if so what we can and cannot do in order to do so and what we can and cannot use as a weapon in order to do so. I'm truly baffled by this.

 

[jobo]

I like the wording you chose. This is what I should have said to CB Jones concerning 18:505:

There are too many loopholes and specific rules to go with that statement (or rather section).

Each altercation is different and has it's own set of circumstances. There's NO WAY these people can broadly stroke every situation with one brush. This is where the truth of their Justice System shows itself and this is how they punish many good people and basically reward bad guys due to the loopholes of their justice system and how THEY furnish the definitions of use of force and legal weapons, etc.

I'm actually at a loss for words at how people can't see this. Or maybe it's the whole Ostrich's head in the sand thing. IDK. We're letting other people tell us whether or not we can defend ourselves and our loved ones and if so what we can and cannot do in order to do so and what we can and cannot use as a weapon in order to do so. I'm truly baffled by this.

well no we are not, you can defend yourself, but you might be punished later, that's not the same as saying you can't defend yourself. No one is going to stand there and get beaten up because it might be illegal to use force to stop it.

there has to be some principals as to what is self defence and how much force can be used, otherwise it would just be a free for all

 

[CB Jones]

OMG!! This is ridiculous. I don't even know where to begin with this.

I informed you that you need to look at the overall bigger picture. You mistakenly looked up 18:505 In Isolation and did not look up (and bring into play and context) 18:907, 908, 908.1, Chapters 25 and 27. When you have to engage in a physical altercation you then have to deal with CRIMINAL LAW and risk facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for the actions you were forced to take. There is absolutely NO WAY you can isolate 18:505 because then that section is grossly taken out of context and plus they do not stand on their own anyway. Chapter 5 always stands side by side with Chapters 25 and 27, 18:907, 908, 908.1. Lie to yourself if you want to but I know better.

It is through 907, 908, 908.1, 25 and 27 that the unfairness of our so called Justice System shows itself and it is 25 and 27 that INFORM US PENNSYLVANIA residents what is considered justifiable force (in their eyes) and what can and cannot be used as a weapon (in their eyes). And YES, to me this is highly unreasonable. If you disagree then feel free to act within "their definition of reasonable/justifiable" when you have to defend your life or the life of a loved one.

EVEN IF I was to isolate 18:505 on it's own (as you have) I still insist it is unreasonable because all altercations do not play out in the simplistic manner that is written in that section. Every Altercation will have it's own set of circumstances and those circumstances are examined in The Court of Law and it is there that the actions of citizens will be judged by others to be appropriate or not. That is, if his actions were criminal or not.

An example of what I mean is that the beginning of 18:505 states "The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person"

The two problems that I have with this are a) THEY determine what THEY consider justifiable force (even though they weren't there and don't know the full circumstances of the situation) and b) If THEY determine the force you used was not justified then you are looking at possibly assault or homicide charges. So 18:505 says I can defend myself. But if I feel that my life is in danger and I preempt a guy then they'll say forget about 18:505 let's throw Chapter 25 or 27 at him.

If you cannot see this then I really don't know what to tell you. Nothing I say here will make you see it which is fine by me. And I see absolutely no point in going back and forth with you on it since you see it the way you do and I see it the way that I do. If you're in a situation where you have to defend your life and/or the life of loved ones be my guest in keeping "the law" in mind as you do so. As for me, I'll just repeat what @Brownielox said:

"if someone is trying to seriously hurt me, I'd use anything in my power -- my legs, feet, arms, anything -- to defend myself. I'd worry about the consequences later. Call me arrogant, but I stand by my choice."

I'm done and I'm out.

Then why didn't you point that out in the first place

 

[CB Jones]

I informed you that you need to look at the overall bigger picture. You mistakenly looked up 18:505 In Isolation and did not look up (and bring into play and context) 18:907, 908, 908.1, Chapters 25 and 27. When you have to engage in a physical altercation you then have to deal with CRIMINAL LAW and risk facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for the actions you were forced to take. There is absolutely NO WAY you can isolate 18:505 because then that section is grossly taken out of context and plus they do not stand on their own anyway. Chapter 5 always stands side by side with Chapters 25 and 27, 18:907, 908, 908.1. Lie to yourself if you want to but I know better.

1st off, Chapter 5 protects you from Chapter 25 and 27. If it is ruled justified under Chapter 5 you cannot be found guilty of Chapter 25 (Homicide Statute) or Chapter 27 (Assault Statute).

2nd 18:907, 908, and 908.1 are statutes that deal with the use of certain instruments in the commission of a crime. Again, if you are ruled to to be justified under Chapter 5, you cannot be found guilty of 907, 908, and/or 908.1.

It is through 907, 908, 908.1, 25 and 27 that the unfairness of our so called Justice System shows itself and it is 25 and 27 that INFORM US PENNSYLVANIA residents what is considered justifiable force (in their eyes) and what can and cannot be used as a weapon (in their eyes). And YES, to me this is highly unreasonable. If you disagree then feel free to act within "their definition of reasonable/justifiable" when you have to defend your life or the life of a loved one.

Incorrect, 907, 908, 908.1, 25 and 27 only come into effect if it is ruled unjustified under Chapter 5........they do not supercede Chapter 5.

An example of what I mean is that the beginning of 18:505 states "The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person"

The two problems that I have with this are a) THEY determine what THEY consider justifiable force (even though they weren't there and don't know the full circumstances of the situation) and b) If THEY determine the force you used was not justified then you are looking at possibly assault or homicide charges. So 18:505 says I can defend myself. But if I feel that my life is in danger and I preempt a guy then they'll say forget about 18:505 let's throw Chapter 25 or 27 at him.

No....Chapter 5 is what you claim as your defense against Chapter 25 or 27. If you are ruled to be justified under Chapter 5 you cannot be found guilty of 25 or 27.

And THEY are a jury of your peers. That is how our system works.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Does SYG only apply to certain situations though? Suchas if you are in your home defending yourself against an intruder. Or does it literally apply anehete you have a lawful right to be, such as a street?

Generally speaking, that would be "castle doctrine" (often also applied to a place of work). "Stand your ground" is the same principle, applied outside the home/place of work.

I side with Headhunter on this one. I've reached a point where I now say to hell with those laws and the scoundrels who make them.

You guys really need to remind yourselves that the value of your lives and the lives of your loved ones should not be determined by laws made by people who do not live among the common citizens, who travel with bodyguards and live in million dollar gated communities.

The issue isn't the value of your life or those of your loved ones. It's more a matter of knowing how to appropriately provide that self-defense justification (often just what's different after the fact) with the best chance of using the affirmative defense successfully. In other words, in many cases (not all, and it's worth knowing what those are in your jurisdiction), all you'd change is what you do once the cops show up.

 

[lklawson]

No, I mean politically motivated prosecutors cherry picking the charges they bring

That's what I said.

 

[thanson02]

Personally, I find the dichotomy between "following the law" and "must do everything to save my family" to be false. It is the whole, "I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6" mentality. It sounds cool and makes people feel tough, but whether you end up in jail or end up seriously hurt or dying, you are causing harm to your family. In the end it is a judgment call on what you value and following through with it, accepting the consequences of your actions. Now as for the OP question, Here are the Wisconsin laws on self-defense:

Wisconsin State Law:
939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. 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 present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. 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 reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. 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.
2. 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 subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. 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.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
939.48(6)(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
History: 1987 a. 399; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 253; 2011 a. 94.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (3) is amended by conforming references to the statute titles as affected by this bill. [Bill 191-S]
When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self-defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).
Sub. (2) (b) is inapplicable to a defendant if the nature of the initial provocation is a gun-in-hand confrontation of an intended victim by a self-identified robber. Under these circumstances the intended victim is justified in the use of force in the exercise of the right of self-defense. Ruff v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 713, 223 N.W.2d 446 (1974).
Whether a defendant's belief was reasonable under subs. (1) and (4) depends, in part, upon the parties' personal characteristics and histories and whether events were continuous. State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806, 434 N.W.2d 380 (1989).
Evidence of prior specific instances of violence that were known to the accused may be presented to support a defense of self-defense. The evidence is not limited to the accused's own testimony, but the evidence may not be extended to the point that it is being offered to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his or her violent tendencies. State v. Daniels, 160 Wis. 2d 85, 465 N.W.2d 633 (1991).
Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).
The reasonableness of a person's belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant. A defendant's psycho-social history showing past violence toward the defendant is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant. State v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).
The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self-defense. It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96-0914.
While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739.
When a defendant fails to establish a factual basis to raise self-defense, prior specific acts of violence by the victim have no probative value. The presentation of subjective testimony by an accused, going to a belief that taking steps in self-defense was necessary, is not sufficient for the admission of self-defense evidence. State v. Head, 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9, 99-3071.
Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st-degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.
When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
When the circuit court instructed the jury to “consider the evidence relating to ... defense of others, in deciding whether defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk.... If the defendant was acting lawfully in defense of others, his conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another," the instruction on the state's burden of proof on defendant's defense of others defense was wholly omitted and the instructions were erroneous. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
Sub. (1m) does not justify continued use of deadly force against an intruder when that intruder is no longer in the actor's dwelling. The applicable definition of the actor's dwelling, s. 895.07 (1) (h), requires that the part of the lot or site in question be “devoted to residential use." While s. 895.07 (1) (h) lists several parts of a residential lot that are part of a “dwelling," it does not include a parking lot. The common denominator of the listed parts of dwellings is that all are property over which the actor has exclusive control. An apartment building parking lot is not exclusive to one tenant or devoted to the residential use of any one tenant. State v. Chew, 2014 WI App 116, 358 Wis. 2d 368, 856 N.W.2d 541, 13-2592.
A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).
Self-defense — prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.
State v. Camacho: The Judicial Creation of an Objective Element to Wisconsin's Law of Imperfect Self-defense Homicide. Leiser. 1995 WLR 742.
Home Safe Home: Wisconsin's Castle Doctrine and Trespasser Liability Laws. Hinkston. Wis. Law. July 2013.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

The general rule of thumb is that you can go one step above what is coming at you to end the situation. Also, it is based on a preceded threat. If you believe that your life is in danger and you act accordingly, it qualifies as self-defense. If you see a knife or a gun, you are expected to be in danger of your life and you are expected to act accordingly. Also, if you are actively working to deescalate the situation while you are defending yourself in the above matter, it improves your situation.

 

[CB Jones]

Personally, I find the dichotomy between "following the law" and "must do everything to save my family" to be false. It is the whole, "I would rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6" mentality

The thing is.....no where in the US can you not defend yourself or family if you have no other choice. What everyone needs to know is if they can legally stand their ground or are they required to retreat.......thats the difference.

 

[thanson02]

The thing is.....no where in the US can you not defend yourself or family if you have no other choice. What everyone needs to know is if they can legally stand their ground or are they required to retreat.......thats the difference.

Well yea, that is why it is a false dichotomy. If you understand this point, then it isn't an issue. My problem is the stories that people come up with around these things to make them sound like something they are not. I have just as much issue with the "we have to follow the laws and not do anything or we will get in trouble" mentality in this situation as "screw the laws, my families lives are in danger from the horrible monster!!!". If you understand the law and how it works, you know that there is no issue and you can do what you need to to protect yourself and your family.

If I wasn't clear on this, thank you for the opportunity to make it so.