Caller: What happens if you miss and do property damage or kill or injure another person?
If you are going to use a deadly weapon, you must be prepared to defend your actions after the fact.
This BLOG does not provide legal advice, so think of this as fatherly or brotherly advice: if you are ever in any type of situation in which you may be charged for a criminal offense, the first and best act you can take is to contact a criminal defense lawyer and demand to have that lawyer present during all questioning.
Helpful information:
Criminal property damage
Prevention of a felony
Self defense
Intentional vs. unintentional homicide
Negligent homicide
Showing posts with label Homicide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homicide. Show all posts
Friday, November 4, 2011
Thursday, September 17, 2009
FITCHBURG INTRUDER SHOOTING: OKAY OR NOT?
Yesterday's shooting of an apparent home intruder in an upscale subdivision of Fitchburg, Wisconsin has sparked a raging city-wide, media-saturated debate about using deadly force to defend yourself and your home.
A lot of local residents are offering opinions that range from a far left, anti-gun viewpoint all the way to Dirty Harry threats if they were to confront anyone in their own home under similar circumstances.
Here, for those who care, is the basic Wisconsin law on when you may use deadly force - hell, when you can shoot an intruder - in self defense, defense of others, and defense of property. This discussion is drawn right from the approved Wisconsin Jury Instructions on these issues. Shooting the Intruder - Wisconsin Law of Self Defense & Defense of Others
A lot of local residents are offering opinions that range from a far left, anti-gun viewpoint all the way to Dirty Harry threats if they were to confront anyone in their own home under similar circumstances.
Here, for those who care, is the basic Wisconsin law on when you may use deadly force - hell, when you can shoot an intruder - in self defense, defense of others, and defense of property. This discussion is drawn right from the approved Wisconsin Jury Instructions on these issues. Shooting the Intruder - Wisconsin Law of Self Defense & Defense of Others
- You reasonably believed that someone was actually harming or about to harm you or others (technically, called "interference with your person").
- You reasonably believed that deadly force (force which is either intended to kill or likely to kill) was needed to prevent great bodily harm to you or others.
- Your belief is reasonable if it is what any average Joe would also believe under exactly the same circumstances; not how a Madison jury of hand-wringers might later feel you should have acted, but viewed strictly from your standpoint in the face of danger.
- In Wisconsin you have absolutely no legal duty to retreat from the threat, although if it was possible to beat a safe, fast retreat that can be considered by those jurors later as one of many circumstances you, the average Joe, faced at that very moment.
Use of Force in Defense of Your Home - Wisconsin Law
- IT IS NOT OKAY, AND NOT LAWFUL, TO USE DEADLY FORCE JUST TO PROTECT YOUR HOME AND YOUR PROPERTY. PERIOD. BUT ... (Isn't there always a "but"?) ...
- You CAN use non-deadly force to the extent reasonably necessary to stop someone from "unlawfully interfering with" - or, in English, trespassing in or on or stealing from - your home or your property, and that means everyone's property who lives there.
- You must reasonably believe that someone is interfering with your home or your property under all the circumstances - again, not from the standpoint of a later jury but from your precise standpoint at the moment of great decision, as any ordinary Joe would have believed if he stood in your shoes.
SO ... WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE YOU?
Yes, you can shoot someone who breaks in the house in the middle of the night... IF - and this is a big IF - you reasonably fear death or great harm to you or your loved ones.
No, you cannot shoot the "sumbitch" just because he's trying to get in - or out - of your living room or den with the family stereo. Nor can you do so because he won't "git out da yard!"
But in the latter case, if he makes a move that puts you in great fear of harm or death, or maybe flashes something akin to a deadly weapon or comes at you, you are within your rights to shoot.
So get a 45 magnum? That's a personal choice. Keep in mind that the right to shoot someone and the nerve to shoot someone are two different things - and this isn't deer-hunting, either. So, before you go and stick your friend's Smith & Wesson under the pillow or atop the nightstand, ask yourself: would you? Could you? Because if you are unsure, there is a better than even chance that the only time that 6-shooter will get fired is AT YOU - by the far more criminal-thinking intruder (guns are the most popular item taken in break-in's) or - worse - by a kid who finds it and plays around with it, like kids often do.
My two cents: Consider a loud, large, barking dog. Burglars hate 'em. Leave the Dirty Harry stuff for those who are well-experienced with guns and shooting them. Or become that person yourself. And if you do, keep the guns away from those who don't. Like your kids.
Relavant information:
Self Defense
Intentional Homicide
Homicide
Channel 3 Madison, Fitchburg Intruder Shot & Killed
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Smiley Face Killers
If you have seen the Today Show on MSNBC, ABC News, picked up on Albany Times, or read Village Voice, you’ve likely noted irregularities amongst the media.
As is the case with the smiley face killers, police often provide numerous reports, some of which are constructed long after the incident. But when police “want their man” and they have some evidence, it is not impossible to imagine that they might go to great lengths to get that evidence into a trial to convict the person they believe committed the crime. Sometimes the investigator’s narrow focus on the need to make an arrest can lead to sloppy work or worse. When your only tool is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. In short, when police believe a particular person is the “do-er”, the killer, then they tend to see every sign that points to that suspect, sometimes missing other better suspects along the way.
Another common phenomena in criminal investigations is one of mistaken cause and effect. For example, our webmaster has a favorite statistical analogy: “If you were to assess the sale of ice cream and the number of arrests, you might mistakenly conclude that ice cream sales cause crime”. Whether all of the smiley face killings are tied, it is apparent that police would like to join all of those killings in which there was a smiley face present at the scene together to find one killer for many crimes. The serial killer theory may or may not be correct, but you can bet that if they find a perpetrator upon which to pin one, they will seek to pin on that person every other crimes with smiley faces left at the scene. This, of course, ignores the common criminal phenomena known as “copy cat” crimes.
Just as a mistake of fact is not an excuse to break the law in the criminal courts, it is also not an excuse that can be permitted to hold sway when advanced by police or investigators. Unfortunately, all too often, those types of mistakes of fact - like the ones that may be present in the smiley face killer crimes - are put together nicely and persuasively by the police for a DA to use to negotiate from what appears to be a stronger bargaining position – while the real facts and better suspects are left behind at the cop shop.
However, the facts of every case are that evidence is not evidence unless it is admitted into a trial, mistakes in fact can be disproved, and even hometown juries acquit people that may have previously been found guilty by public opinion. O. J. Simpson, for instance.
When we take a case at Van Wagner & Wood, we work it as though it will go to trial. We believe in our clients, and we stand ready to go the extra mile to defend them. That was the situation in a couple child sexual assault cases that I tried (and won) last year. The local communities had all but hung the accused, the DA’s claimed to have overwhelming evidence of guilt, but when the case concluded, a jury comprised of people from the same community found each of those two clients NOT guilty of anything.
Helpful links:
Murder
Sexual Assault
As is the case with the smiley face killers, police often provide numerous reports, some of which are constructed long after the incident. But when police “want their man” and they have some evidence, it is not impossible to imagine that they might go to great lengths to get that evidence into a trial to convict the person they believe committed the crime. Sometimes the investigator’s narrow focus on the need to make an arrest can lead to sloppy work or worse. When your only tool is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. In short, when police believe a particular person is the “do-er”, the killer, then they tend to see every sign that points to that suspect, sometimes missing other better suspects along the way.
Another common phenomena in criminal investigations is one of mistaken cause and effect. For example, our webmaster has a favorite statistical analogy: “If you were to assess the sale of ice cream and the number of arrests, you might mistakenly conclude that ice cream sales cause crime”. Whether all of the smiley face killings are tied, it is apparent that police would like to join all of those killings in which there was a smiley face present at the scene together to find one killer for many crimes. The serial killer theory may or may not be correct, but you can bet that if they find a perpetrator upon which to pin one, they will seek to pin on that person every other crimes with smiley faces left at the scene. This, of course, ignores the common criminal phenomena known as “copy cat” crimes.
Just as a mistake of fact is not an excuse to break the law in the criminal courts, it is also not an excuse that can be permitted to hold sway when advanced by police or investigators. Unfortunately, all too often, those types of mistakes of fact - like the ones that may be present in the smiley face killer crimes - are put together nicely and persuasively by the police for a DA to use to negotiate from what appears to be a stronger bargaining position – while the real facts and better suspects are left behind at the cop shop.
However, the facts of every case are that evidence is not evidence unless it is admitted into a trial, mistakes in fact can be disproved, and even hometown juries acquit people that may have previously been found guilty by public opinion. O. J. Simpson, for instance.
When we take a case at Van Wagner & Wood, we work it as though it will go to trial. We believe in our clients, and we stand ready to go the extra mile to defend them. That was the situation in a couple child sexual assault cases that I tried (and won) last year. The local communities had all but hung the accused, the DA’s claimed to have overwhelming evidence of guilt, but when the case concluded, a jury comprised of people from the same community found each of those two clients NOT guilty of anything.
Helpful links:
Murder
Sexual Assault
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Jurors In Mark Jensen Murder Trial Return Guilty Verdict
The jurors in the Mark Jensen trial returned their verdict: murder. Mark Jensen was convicted of First Degree Intentional Homicide, a Class A Felony in the state of Wisconsin punishable by a mandatory life sentence to prison.
Under Wisconsin's sentencing laws, Jensen may be eligible for parole after serving at least 20 years. Parole is at the court's discretion.
Under Wisconsin's sentencing laws, Jensen may be eligible for parole after serving at least 20 years. Parole is at the court's discretion.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Day 2 Jensen Murder Trial Jury Deliberations
What does it mean when the jury deliberates for two days?
That is a question that many criminal defense attorneys ask when they wait for the jury's verdict. Some say that it means a hung jury (and it likely does in many cases), but the jury is going over evidence from the trial a piece at a time.
That is a question that many criminal defense attorneys ask when they wait for the jury's verdict. Some say that it means a hung jury (and it likely does in many cases), but the jury is going over evidence from the trial a piece at a time.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Jensen Trial - Jury Deliberations Begin
The trial of Mark Jensen in State of Wisconsin -v- Mark D. Jensen has come to a close, and the jury has begun deliberations. Over the course of a 7-week trial, the jurors have listened to more than 160 hours of evidence. And now, they carry the greatest burden of all - the burden of determining whether reasonable doubt exists.
The jury in the Jensen trial is comprised of 7 women and 5 men from the local Walworth County area. The men's occupations include a truck driver, an engineering technician, production tester, facilities manager, and machine operator. The women's occupations include a medical secretary, a housewife, an unemployed female, a retired female, a certified nursing assistant, a proofreader, and a bookkeeper.
Thus far, the deliberating jurors have asked for certain testimonial transcripts and evidence: the letter allegedly written by Julie Jensen, testimony from Mark Jensen's co-worker, photos of Julie Jensen when medical personal arrived at her home, and both Mark and Julie's day planners.
The jury in the Jensen trial is comprised of 7 women and 5 men from the local Walworth County area. The men's occupations include a truck driver, an engineering technician, production tester, facilities manager, and machine operator. The women's occupations include a medical secretary, a housewife, an unemployed female, a retired female, a certified nursing assistant, a proofreader, and a bookkeeper.
Thus far, the deliberating jurors have asked for certain testimonial transcripts and evidence: the letter allegedly written by Julie Jensen, testimony from Mark Jensen's co-worker, photos of Julie Jensen when medical personal arrived at her home, and both Mark and Julie's day planners.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Triple Murder Charges Filed
One Year After A Triple Murder, Charges Are Filed
One year ago, on January 11, 2007, a triple murder took the lives of three people at their Janesville, Wisconsin home. Today, charges were filed against a suspect.
When charges lagged and were not immediately filed after the killing, the public began asking questions. As the weeks passed, many people were very upset over the district attorney's failure to file charges. In a Madison TV 3000 special segment, we discussed the burden of proof in a criminal trial, and compared that to the burden of proof required for an arrest. (The Burden of Proof - Beyond A Reasonable Doubt)
Today, the focus is on a one year delay in criminal charges. Why do prosecutors delay charging a person? What happens in the time between the crime and the date on which criminal charges are filed against a suspect?
In some instances, prosecutors choose to delay charges for a particular reason. While in other instances, a delay may be caused by some circumstance outside of the prosecutor's control. It could never be said that the act of filing charges on the one year anniversary date of a crime is not without impact, or that charges filed on the fifth anniversary of a crime send a very different message.
In some cases, a delay is a legal strategy, but most delays are caused by circumstances beyond the prosecutor's control such as when criminal records are not readily available, or the crime lab is backed up (see Wood Speaks Out On Criminal Lab Delays).
Whether criminal charges are filed immediately, the single most important factor to keep in mind is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Whether a prosecutor is quick to file charges or waits to file charges for some certain event to occur should not be construed as an inference of guilt or innocence.
Helpful information:
Wisconsin Criminal Trials - Proceedings explains the criminal trial process and jury selection
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access provides access to some circuit court records including criminal charges, arrests, and convictions
WIBA - Madison 1310
Wisconsin Statutes
Wisconsin Circuit Courts
One year ago, on January 11, 2007, a triple murder took the lives of three people at their Janesville, Wisconsin home. Today, charges were filed against a suspect.
When charges lagged and were not immediately filed after the killing, the public began asking questions. As the weeks passed, many people were very upset over the district attorney's failure to file charges. In a Madison TV 3000 special segment, we discussed the burden of proof in a criminal trial, and compared that to the burden of proof required for an arrest. (The Burden of Proof - Beyond A Reasonable Doubt)
Today, the focus is on a one year delay in criminal charges. Why do prosecutors delay charging a person? What happens in the time between the crime and the date on which criminal charges are filed against a suspect?
In some instances, prosecutors choose to delay charges for a particular reason. While in other instances, a delay may be caused by some circumstance outside of the prosecutor's control. It could never be said that the act of filing charges on the one year anniversary date of a crime is not without impact, or that charges filed on the fifth anniversary of a crime send a very different message.
In some cases, a delay is a legal strategy, but most delays are caused by circumstances beyond the prosecutor's control such as when criminal records are not readily available, or the crime lab is backed up (see Wood Speaks Out On Criminal Lab Delays).
Whether criminal charges are filed immediately, the single most important factor to keep in mind is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Whether a prosecutor is quick to file charges or waits to file charges for some certain event to occur should not be construed as an inference of guilt or innocence.
Helpful information:
Wisconsin Criminal Trials - Proceedings explains the criminal trial process and jury selection
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access provides access to some circuit court records including criminal charges, arrests, and convictions
WIBA - Madison 1310
Wisconsin Statutes
Wisconsin Circuit Courts
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Wisconsin Dells WI DA Holds Body In Vehicular Homicide
In the Wisconsin Dells accident in which Olga Ivanenko was killed, the family, the Ukrainian Embassy, and the Wisconsin Dells funeral home director have begged the Columbia district attorney to release her body, but the DA says she cannot do that. Why does she refuse to release the body? Can she?
ANSWER:
Prosecutors want to retain all of the evidence including the body so that the defense cannot appeal on that basis. However, the district attorney can release the body. If the medical examiner has completed the autopsy and it showed little question as to how the person died, then the DA both can and should release the body to the family.
Helpful information:
Vehicular Homicide
ANSWER:
Prosecutors want to retain all of the evidence including the body so that the defense cannot appeal on that basis. However, the district attorney can release the body. If the medical examiner has completed the autopsy and it showed little question as to how the person died, then the DA both can and should release the body to the family.
Helpful information:
Vehicular Homicide
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)