Homeowner shoots intruder, avoids charges
March 23, 2012 at 7:22 am in River Falls Journal
Wisconsin News
No charges will be filed against a homeowner in Slinger who shot-and-killed a 20-year-old man who ran into an enclosed porch to hide from the police.
Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
51
It is simple… don’t break into someones home, car, or work place-regardless of the circumstances. People have a right to defend themselves and their property.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
9
Agree 100% Sam. Got my Concealed Carry license (thank you NRA). I hope I never, ever, ever, have to use it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
2
Ummmm, a beer or two? That’s a stretch.
Anyway, I agree with Sam. Don’t break into a stranger’s porch and hide in the middle of the night, and you won’t get shot. It’s a shame the kid died, but it was a direct result of his own actions.
And I don’t understand people who disagree with the castle doctrine. One should never, ever, EVER have to feel threatened at their own home, period. Remember that before this, the burden of proof was on the homeowner, not the guy who might be stealing everything in your living room. How backwards is that?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
47
“He was AT a drinking party but no one has said that he was even drinking”
Sorry, I am a realist. If he wasn’t drinking and said drinking party, he’d have no reason to hide. It’s not brain surgery.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
1
In case anybody wants to actually read the DA’s report instead of simply assuming that evil Scott Walker’s “Castle Doctrine” killed this guy:
http://media.jsonline.com/documents/slingerreport.pdf
The DA did a dual analysis of the case considering both “Scott Walker’s Castle Doctrine” and the WI self defense laws on the books.
“Since our office has concluded that the privilege of self defense does apply to the facts of this case, and since it appears that this is the first case in Wisconsin involving the applicability of the Castle Doctrine our office took the additional step of consulting with the Wisconsin Attorney General’s office…”
“In looking at this case, the Washington County District Attorney’s Office first analyzed this case
by considering the general law of self defense – without applying the Castle Doctrine
presumption. We also analyzed this case by considering the Castle Doctrine. After carefully reviewing the facts and the law, no criminal charges will be filed against the homeowner.
First, the Washington County District Attorney’s Office concludes that under the law of self
defense which exists in Wisconsin (independent of the Castle Doctrine) that there is a basis to
conclude that the homeowner reasonably believed that the force he utilized against Mr. Morrison
was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself; and he therefore acted
lawfully in self defense when he shot Mr. Morrison.”
The “law of self defense” has been on the books since WI became a state. Was Scott Walker governor in 1848?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
44
First of all, not everybody has dogs and/or an alarm system in their house. Secondly, you go ahead and think to yourself that you’d have time to think through that many steps if somebody is breaking into your house.
Yes, the homeowner had a gun, so he should have had the upper hand, however, the article says that the kid lunged toward him even though said gun was in his hands. I might fire my gun too if that were the case. Remember, if the kid actually did intend harm (also remember that the homeowner had no idea what this guy’s intentions were – and you wouldn’t either if a stranger was in your house) and he didn’t fire, then I don’t think I need to spell out possible outcomes out for you.
I don’t think that Adam M was trying to insult you, but you didn’t seem to comprehend that this case would have had the same outcome regardless of the castle doctrine. It CLEARLY wasn’t murder, end of story. It’s not hard to understand.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
1
Quit with the lies – you’re making a fool out of yourself. No where in said article does it say “the kid lunged toward him!”
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Apparently spelling out why you are again wrong by using the quotes from the DA’s report went over your head. I know, when you are a rabid Scott Walker-hater facts are infuriating.
I’ll make it really simple:
The DA states (emphasis mine):
“First, the Washington County District Attorney’s Office concludes that UNDER THE LAW OF SELF DEFENSE which exists in Wisconsin (INDEPENDENT OF THE CASTLE DOCTRINE) that there is a basis to
conclude that the homeowner reasonably believed that the force he utilized against Mr. Morrison
was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself; and he therefore acted
lawfully in self defense when he shot Mr. Morrison.”
I figured everyone reading that would understand that even without the Castle Doctrine law in WI, the homeowner would still NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED, and that’s because of a law from 1848. That’s the DA’s conclusion after an investigation by law enforcement, not simply because the homeowner stated he felt threatened.
In this case nothing has changed because of the Castle Doctrine law, other than the media hyping that aspect and the law’s opponents (and all the anti-Walker sites) incorrectly attributing that as a reason for their perceived injustice here. It’s easy to be uninformed for them, lest they lose a reason to fuel their recall drive.
When we have a case that is specifically resolved because of the Castle Doctrine, we can debate it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
37
While I mostly agree with you Alice – I wouldn’t go so far as to call it murder. There is no way to know what was going through either person’s head. Maybe Mr. Morrison knew homeowner called the cops and threatened him? Or maybe the homeowner thought Mr. Morrison knew and was there to get revenge or something? Maybe Mr. Morrison was really drunk – I haven’t seen any toxicology on that? I’m not trying to defend the homeowner – I do think he over stepped the defending his home, but there are so many factors in the case that will never be known, that you can’t say for certain if the homeowner was or felt threatened. It was a very unfortunate incident. I can only hope that there was nothing intentional about it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
17
Thankfully we are a nation of laws and people aren’t prosecuted based on assumptions and emotions.
This case was resolved based on not one, but two WI state statutes.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
3
http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/homeowner-knew-police-partyers-were-nearby-before-firing-5s4n7e0-144120795.html
The article in the above link indicates that the intruder was underage, had a blood alcohol content of 0.19 (obviously more than a beer or two)and was out on bail from four pending criminal cases, and as a condition was not to consume alcohol.
It also states whether the door to the porch was locked or not it is considered a forced entry. This was not murder. The homeowner was doing what he legally has a right to do. Protect himself and his family.
Teach your kids to obey the law and respect people and their property and they won’t get shot.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
2
Don’t rattle Alice with facts and such. Those compassionate progressives are all about “feelings”…not the law they love to change for their own needs. Alice is without a doubt, the biggest hypocrite on this forum.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
And walter is so afraid he would have to shoot a person standing on his porch.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3