November 4, 2011

"Loophole" WISGOP

Assume a man kills his wife in cold blood in the family home without witnesses. I suggest that a man who is willing to kill his wife is not squeamish about committing perjury. If he takes the stand and claims that he mistakenly thought she was an intruder, under AB 69, the jury must be instructed that he is presumed to have reasonably believed that force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The jury, in effect, is prevented from considering if his act was unreasonable. Although no prosecutor, judge, or defense attorney knows of a single case where a home owner has been criminally charged for shooting an intruder, each of us is sadly aware of many cases where spouses kill each other. This law erects a presumption in favor of abusive spouses. — The Section opposes Assembly Bill 69.
That's criminal defense lawyers who oppose it.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Having a dispute with a neighbor? Invite him over to talk things out over a cup of coffee and shoot him as he comes through the door. Actually, now that I think about it....

Briane P said...

I think you're all forgetting that those CSI chaps would sort it all out pretty quickly, using bugs found in the yard and a hair that was left on a sweater 32 years ago.

If the people who would benefit MOST (or second most?) from a law oppose it, that really says something. But, as I said to my partner who recently told me not to worry about the change in attorney's fees for consumer cases because the BICR section was opposing it "Sure; if there's one thing that the Walker administration listens to, it's public opposition to their laws."

I'm going to save my money for a few years and buy me a couple of laws.

illusory tenant said...

IIRC the State Bar practice sections had not even seen the initial set of "reforms" that Walker had rubber-stamped in January.

gnarlytrombone said...

I'm going to save my money for a few years and buy me a couple of laws

Mel and not-Floyd are starting a PAC.

CJ said...

Great...does the castle doctrine also cover people who feel threatened in their business and government offices?

Cuz if it does, we're going pure potential for a rootin, tootin, shootin hootenanny at the capitol.

John Foust said...

Come now, Briane. There's no debate over who was shot dead. There's only debate about whether you were in your car or your house and whether it was dark and whether you felt threatened. If it's not already night, you could turn out all the lights and pull all the drapes. You heard a noise like someone was breaking in. You saw someone coming down the hall. You called out - but no one answered, they just kept coming! So you had to shoot.

Sue said...

I have no problem with the Castle doctrine law, but I think that it's reasonable to require that homeowners exhaust all their boiling-oil-from-the-ramparts pouring options before opening fire. It makes sense for the times we're in, or going back to, whatever.
And, I hear Menard's is offering fall specials on moat installations.

CJ said...

Is this going to put a damper on the door-to-door recall campaign? Just askin'....

kay said...

What happens if you say you shot at someone breaking in your window, you miss and the bullet hits the neighbor or some person walking down the street? It's one thing to shoot within your house, it's another to contain the bullet, once fired, within your house. Just curious is this aspect has already been ruled upon.

Anonymous said...

"CJ said Is this going to put a damper on the door-to-door recall campaign? Just askin'...." - Yes. Door to door canvassing, trick-or-treating, Jehovah witness visits, Avon lady, etc.