In Wisconsin You Shoot First, Ask Questions Later

Scott Walker’s Wisconsin is a state hardly recognizable to long-time residents. First was the assault on working people and their rights. Then came the relentless push to eliminate health care services for the poor.

Now Gov. Walker has embraced a “shoot first ask later” approach to criminal justice by signing a law that revives an archaic legal concept called the “castle doctrine.” The castle doctrine allows homeowners to legally kill intruders by creating a presumption of immunity for someone who kills or injures a person breaking into his or her home, vehicle, or workplace. Under those circumstances a judge must presume that the use of deadly force was necessary making prosecution for the act an impossibility.

The bill contains a narrow exception that prevents the presumption from applying if a shooter attacked someone he or she should have known was a public safety officer.

The bill passed with bi-partisan support, which may be the most troubling aspect of this story. The castle doctrine runs contrary to established notions of due process in favor of an individualized “liberty” incompatible with civilized society. Deadly force is always a legal justification when a person’s life is in danger. Wisconsin has now expanded those protections to unnecessary proportions.


Related Stories:

Wisconsin Voter ID Law May Force 84 Year Old Woman To Pay $200 To Get A Voter ID

Walker-Recall Me!

Photo from gideon tsang via flickr.


New G.
W. C6 years ago

Thank you for the news.

Robby C.
Past Member 6 years ago


...happened ~15mi away too. I know people who were close friends of theirs & one of the family members, personally! And the cretins who raped & mutilated them want a retrial! I have very emotional feelings towards self-defense, so anyone who whines about gun control- well, sometimes I get a bit overzealous.

And sometimes my typewriter outruns my brain. My apologies. But that is one platform that disgusts me about deomcrats. Just like the conservatives whole 100% anti-choice (from the moment of conception). Financially? BOTH are idiots. Dems want to feed us to union bosses & foreign countries & reps want to feed us to corporations & ship jobs overseas... I'll digress before it's too late & I'll be here typing for an hour!

Robby C.
Past Member 6 years ago

"I beleieve the only difference between most liberals and most conservatives in this country is a little bit of a gray area."

I agree! It's a series of comprimises all decided behind closed doors. I've already apologized for my comment. But please understand what I meant- any full-on gun control democrat is an anti-gun liberal moron. And any anti-gun conservative is even MORE of a moron. Plenty of (mostly) democrats have my utmost respect & many (mostly) conservatives do too. But, I have no respect for anyone who's 100% dem or rep... That, to me, is silly- both parties are full of inconsistencies!

Even Thomas & Kenneth admit they're not gun control advocates, despite being democrats- I respect that- it shows they are not 100% party line people. I detest party lines. I'm for people- not parties. I did, however, believe that Thomas H was against guns after having read some of his earlier posts- he sort of confused me, as he apparently did several others :-)

I too have some gun stories. I've dated a few girls who'd been raped. One had a new neighbor try to rape her, after we broke up. When I dated her, she carried- .38 P to 1911 .45. [I'd ask her to marry me if I could go back in time.] Her attacker ended up w/a face full of JHPs. She gave a statement (from home) & he went to the morgue. Beautiful! Later, it was revealed he'd raped other girls before. Now, I live in a "safe" area. BUT, the Channon Christian, Christopher Newsom situation happened ~15mi away

Redgie H.
Redgie H6 years ago

Thomas H, Kenneth M,
:) I beleieve the only difference between most liberals and most conservatives in this country is a little bit of a gray area. :)
Let me be the next "bleeding heart liberal moron" to come down solidly in defense of the "castle doctrine" that this author mysteriously refers to as an archaic legal concept.

James W.
James W6 years ago

About time

Patrick F.
Patrick f6 years ago

Rolf P. Nice rant, and you call ME crazy?

Susan S.
Susan S6 years ago

Patrick F wrote: Wisconsin is ONE state I will stay the hell out of.

You will want to stay out of the 30 states that also have this law in effect right now, and more considering it. Eventually, your only choice where to live (in the US) may be Chicago or Washington DC - two of the most dangerous places in the US to live, but hey, at least they are "gun free". LOL!!! Gun free zones mean only the criminals will have guns (THEY don't care about no stinkin' laws!), and law abiding citizens are extremely limited on how they are "allowed" to defend themselves. And, if they do defend themselves, they could be sued by the criminal and/or his family for damages, potentially bankrupting the victim. WOW, nothing like being victimized TWICE!! Yeah, you'll want to stay out of those states who's laws favor the victim instead of the criminal.

ROLF P6 years ago

PATRICK YOU ARE TRULY CRAZY, Stay away from reality, Walker actually makes sense unless you can give me $12 when you only have $10 then you are an economist and certainly not an Accountant. As to the 2nd Amendment, put a sign on you lawn and tell everyone that you don't believe in Gun's and that you have a CRIMINAL SAFE ZONE and then you can call your self a victim, but don't call your neighbors because that would be wrong since they have guns, For the sake of your family I hope nothing ever happens unless you are alone because you need to wake up.

Patrick F.
Patrick f6 years ago

Wisconsin is ONE state I will stay the hell out of. Soon, people will be shot for sneezing without covering their mouths....

Kenneth M.
Kenneth M6 years ago

Thomas H. -- Enjoyed greatly your comment to Robbie C. about "stereotypical generalizations". Like you, I am someone these vacuous Teabaggers would label as "liberal", yet I feel I have more core conservative values in my pinkie than they've likely displayed their whole lives. Many of them are terribly confused about the terms "rightwing" and "conservative", and our mainstream media seems to love to perpetuate the ERROR.

These chuckleheads like to ignore (or revise) the 1st amendment, yet hold to their activist interpretation of the 2nd amendent like it was one of the religions that the 1st amendment shouldn't apply to. Quite amusing to see people like that beating their jingoistic chests about being "conservative" while displaying amazing levels of intellectual inconsistency and reactionaryism. As their drama-queen rhetoric shows, they love laws like this new one in Wisc., so they can dream to act on their reactionary impulses without consequence.

Like you TH, I have no particular problem with the accepted, "activist" interpretation of the 2nd god help the criminal that comes to harm me.... but likewise, god help the neo-morons who come to harm my country.