WI CCW shoots robbery suspect in no-CCW zone

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Apparently, Wisconsin just had their first public shooting involving a licensed concealed carry permit holder.
http://www.wbay.com/story/16654053/2012/02/01/man-with-concealed-carry-permit-shoots-robbery-suspect

The CCW was in al Aldi grocery store when he noticed two men holding up the clerk and at least one of the men armed with a shotgun. Coincidentally, the Aldi store also had a sign banning CCW on its premises. The CCW made the decision to intervene and shot one of the men twice. Both robbery suspects were arrested and the CCW has a meeting with the DA this week.

1. I thought this was interesting because the first CCW shooting in a state that has a new concealed carry law inevitably gets a LOT of attention.

2. We talk a lot about no concealed carry signs and whether we should patronize those places. It will be interesting to see how the local DA handles this case.
 
Should be interesting.

It's a shame that the CCW holder's decision to carry on the premesis where a "no CCW" sign was posted is somehow overshadowing the fact that he prevented a robbery or possibly worse by these two armed robbers.

Hanging a sign which states "No CCW" basically let's the bad guys know it's a place where they would most likely have little to no resistance. It's like posting a sign on your home which states "we don't have an alarm". :rolleyes:
 
I think in Wisconsin, ignoring a sign and getting caught is a civil infraction (like a parking ticket) but the fine is quite high -- $1000 comes to mind.
 
BR said:
2. We talk a lot about no concealed carry signs and whether we should patronize those places. It will be interesting to see how the local DA handles this case.
Click to expand...
Counselor, do you happen to know if "No Firearms" signs in Wisconsin carry force of law? Or are they advisory in nature, and if someone who ignores one gets "made" all they can do is ask him to leave and never darken their doors again?

It would seem that this distinction might be significant in this case.
 
Originally posted by Aguila Blanca:
Counselor, do you happen to know if "No Firearms" signs in Wisconsin carry force of law? Or are they advisory in nature, and if someone who ignores one gets "made" all they can do is ask him to leave and never darken their doors again?

It would seem that this distinction might be significant in this case.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about this as well. Here in Virginia, I was under the impression that ignoring a "no weapons" sign at a private business just meant that you were subject to a trespassing charge if you refused to leave when asked.
 
"Business and property owners may post signs that firearms (concealed or open) are not allowed on the premises. The signs must be at least 5-inches high x 7 inches wide and posted in conspicuous locations near all entrances to the building. The prohibition applies to customers, vendors, guests and employees. Violations are subject to a $1,000 forfeiture."
 
That would also be the case in Missouri... (Edit: another post came in while I was checking the codes... my Missouri comment was in regard to ScottRiqui's post.)

I'm not a lawyer. I looked up Wisconsin on handgunlaw.us, and then cross-referenced to Wisconsin Statute 943.13 (1m) (c). Based on my (not a lawyer) reading of the statute, IF the Aldi sign met the requirements of Wisconsin law (5x7, prominently posted), then carry in the Aldi would be trespass punishable by a Class B forfeiture (fine of up to $1000).

It didn't seem to imply any jail time, and I couldn't find anything that linked possible jail time to a Class B forfeiture, but again I am not a lawyer. (Nor am I from Wisconsin, nor am I likely to travel to Wisconsin.)

As always, people should check with an attorney for their jurisdiction.
 
This is what's interesting: But under the bill, private individuals and groups that allow concealed carry on their property would have blanket immunity from any legal liability from that decision. Groups and individuals who post signs prohibiting concealed weapons would not receive that immunity.
 
This is what's interesting: But under the bill, private individuals and groups that allow concealed carry on their property would have blanket immunity from any legal liability from that decision. Groups and individuals who post signs prohibiting concealed weapons would not receive that immunity.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting. Does that mean that the bad guy can sue the owner?
 
A lot of what happens to the CCW carrier is going to depend upon Milwaukee itself.
  • If it had happened in Madison ("78 square miles surrounded by reality"), no question in my mind that he would be fined.
  • In most of rural Wisconsin, I couldn't see the DA pursuing the charges.
I don't have a good feel for Milwaukee, though I have friends in the Fond du Lac and Sheboygan areas. I'll call them today and see what they have heard about it.
 
Flops, bad guys sue the owners all the time. Yes. Hopefully, it wouldn't get passed a summary judgment on causation, but there are idiots everywhere, including the judiciary.
 
What would be interesting is if there are two bad guys and you kill one, the other goes down for the crime of felony murder. But that is off the topic... I apologize.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but if there is a fine attached wouldn't it be criminal and not civil?

That the district attorney is involved also makes me think it is being handled as a criminal matter (unless the district attorney - a constitutional officer - also serves as the city attorney - a civil servant).
 
Forfeiture is quasi criminal, meaning it's both or neither. Make sense? Forfeiture is a special proceeding more similar to criminal in the sense it's punitive. It's against your property and not your person tho. It differs from fines.
 
The infraction would be trespassing. The store owner would need to press charges. What will probably happen is the bad guys will sue the store for not enforcing the no carry policy. I mean "we wouldn't have robbed the place if we didn't think they would enforce their no carry policy".
 
The news from WTMJ (Milwaukee) this noon is that the DA is NOT issuing any charges against the shooter. Good for the DA ... got this one 100% right!
They even had an interview with the shooter ... a solid, sensible kinda' guy and a good spokesperson for why Concealed Carry was loooooong overdue in our state. Hey, Springfield, get your head out of your .....!
 
Expensive, but I could afford the $1000 and think it worth it. A civil fine like that would never prevent me from carrying, there would have to be a criminal charge to make it not worth it to me.

Good on the shooter for taking out the threat even if Aldi's corporate is gutless.
 
Lockinload wrote -
The infraction would be trespassing. The store owner would need to press charges. What will probably happen is the bad guys will sue the store for not enforcing the no carry policy. I mean "we wouldn't have robbed the place if we didn't think they would enforce their no carry policy".
Click to expand...

The bad guy is between a rock and a hard place. To carry the day in civil court, he'll have to admit to the robbery. Sworn public statements carry a great deal of weight in criminal matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top