Slipping into Chaos, Citizens can use Deadly Force against Police Officers in Indiana.

Americans were broken, scare stiff after 9/11, the terrorist threat levels, the Great Recession, joblessness and the pressure of economic uncertainty. This is what disaster capitalism looks like.

And now this, the unthinkable has happened:

Opposing Views: In Indiana, police officers are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. The law was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March … adopted after the Indiana State Supreme Court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," after a man assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call.

From that odd ruling came…

The law's author, Republican state Sen. Michael Young, said there haven't been any cases [yet] in which people have used the law to justify shooting police.

And from the hunters best friend…

The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, claiming that the Indiana State Supreme Court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.

An odd way of looking at law enforcement. Perhaps they could add “union members” to that description.

Tim Downs, President of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, told Bloomberg News that the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes: “It’s just a recipe for disaster. It just puts a bounty on our heads.”

Police unionista’s are now categorized as possible attackers and shoot-to-kill threats to public safety.

Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers. 

"Zombie" Drunk Woman Shot after Entering Wrong Home, Wrong Bedroom.

Thank god the homeowners are protected by a "make my day" law...

The Castle Doctrine, and why it should be Repealed.

1670 WTDY's Sly in the Morning is gun crazy. He and I have been debating this for years. Sly tried his best a few weeks back to defend the states new Castle Doctrine, a law that's already claimed its first victim, Bo Morrison. Guest attorney John Walsh presents a simple and convincing case against it. But the small part of the brain that accepts the logic of gun ownership, is like a cerebral weed, spreading its toxic roots into every neuron and cranial cavity.

We should ban guns today and create testosterone release centers (regulated militia's), to keep these thuggish tendencies in check.

The Castle Doctrine in Slinger: It's now a reasonable use of Deadly Force against noisy Teenagers!!!

It didn't take long for the Republicans gun crazy irresponsible castle doctrine law to take a life. The details of the Slinger shooting of 20 year old Bo Morrison is even more chilling than I imagined. And the cavalier way the police and DA Mark Bensen have approached this is astonishing. The Journal Sentinel headline offered up this jaw dropper: "Homeowner knew police, partyers were nearby before firing."

The shooter knew he wasn't being confronted by robbers or terrorists, just a bunch of noisy kids next door he got pissed off at. That's when the gun came out. 

Up for recall, Wanggaard may leave behind a deadly legacy. 

Less than five minutes before a Slinger homeowner shot and killed a man hiding in his back porch, he had been on the phone with nearby police about how they handled his earlier complaint about an underage drinking party next door, according to a prosecutor's decision that the shooting was justified under Wisconsin's new castle doctrine law.

The victim, 20-year-old Bo Morrison of West Bend, was one of about 20 people at the March 3 party. A report released by District Attorney Mark Bensen … It does raise the question of why Adam Kind chose to get a gun when officers familiar with the situation were less than 300 feet away … His attorney, Craig Mastantuono, said Kind's wife called 911 at the same time her husband went to investigate banging near his back door.

Here’s where “castle doctrine” rage, gripped Adam Kind:

The noisy gathering had awakened Kind, and he went to his neighbor's driveway about 1 a.m. to ask someone inside a car with very loud music to turn it down. After a verbal confrontation with someone else in the car, Kind returned home and called police … he heard "banging" from the back of his house. He later told police he was scared that someone from the party might be retaliating for calling the police. So instead of calling the officer back, he got his .45-caliber Colt revolver from a closet, loaded it and went to check out the noise.

All a perfectly natural and logical, reasonable response? What did he think the party goers were going to do to him, hold him hostage and kill off his family if they didn’t get safe passage out of the country? The B movie plot. He knew these were teenagers, and he was angry. They weren’t robbers, killers or terrorists.  

Morrison was on the right side of the porch, crouching between a refrigerator and a dresser. Friends said he had gone there to hide from police, not to go farther into Kind's house. Kind said … he took a couple steps toward the door to the exterior he noticed someone stand up in the dark. Kind told police he thought he said something like "Who are you," or "What are you doing," and then fired a single shot after the person raised a hand and took a step forward.

Kind didn't bother to wait for an answer.

When police arrived, they found Morrison still crouched between the dresser and refrigerator, Morrison had been shot through the heart and lung.

According to the report, Kind told police he thought he had locked the door from the porch to outside when he returned from next door after asking that the music be turned down. Bensen's analysis indicated simply opening the door would amount to a "forcible" entry by Morrison. Bensen also concluded that the late hour, the darkness, the expectation that the intruder had broken in through a locked door, the close quarters of the porch, and the fact that his wife and children were in the home all supported the castle doctrine's presumption that Kind acted reasonably in using deadly force.

Deadly force against noisy partiers next door? That's considered a reasonable use of deadly force? 

His attorney, Craig Mastantuono objected to his client's name being used in a news story, saying he's a private person.

How unfair.

The Castle Doctrine's Sense of Arrogance Devalues and Ends Another Human Life in Slinger, Wisconsin.

The Bo Morrison tragedy in Slinger, Wisconsin, has yet to be fully understood.

After a few posts, here, here, and here, a few final thoughts. Below, Ed Schultz talks with John Nichols and State Sen. Chris Larson about our own castle doctrine, it's ties to ALEC, and how it contributed to the mindset that caused the death of Bo Morrison. This is insightful coverage, with audio of the 911 call that night:

As for the empty void the family will feel for a lifetime? They've only just begun to deal with it...From the Phillip Funeral Home: 

Bo A. Morrison, age 20, passed away unexpectedly on Saturday, March 3, 2012.

Dear Bo,

You will be missed deeply; we are all so sorry that your life was taken from you in such a useless, disgusting way. No one should ever leave this life the way you had to. I am so sad you were taken from me. The pain of losing you is unbearable. I never in this world thought I would have to bury my youngest child. Your death could have been prevented, that’s what kills me the most. I will miss you like no other. I hope your with your big brother in heaven. I know he will be waiting for you with open arms. When you hugged me that night and said, “Goodbye Mom, I love you”, I didn’t think it would be forever. Your sisters and brothers are crushed that they’ll never see your smiling face again. I’m so proud of everything you have done or accomplished, graduating college, touring across states, snow boarding, even signing up for the Marines. If your life wasn’t taken from you so young, I know you would’ve succeeded in everything you did. Grandma and Grandpa loved you very much and are devastated they have to bury you so young. Your father and I have created one of the greatest kid to have around. I love you, Bo. When you get to heaven tell your brother Nick Mom and Dad misses and loves him very much. You two stick together. Until we meet again my baby boy, I will miss you and never forget you. I will try to heal my heart, but I don’t thing that will ever happen.

Here's a comment I received on a previous Slinger post, by your typically sociopathic right winger, showing just how attached they are to their guns, and detached from society:

The suspect had violated this mans home with the intent to commit a crime. The homeowner has the right to defend his home against any intrusion. the sole responsiblity for this incident rests entirely on the man who at 2 am, decided to attend an underage drinking party, run from the police and then break into someone elses home to try to hide.

If i choose to leave my doors unlocked and the windows open and someoone breakes into my home you better believe that such action will be met with deadly force. 

Politiscoop did a piece as well.

It's not the "Stand your Ground" law or the self appointed vigilante, but Trayvon Martin's Hoody.

The situation surrounding the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Florida is starting to become clearer now.

We had our own situation here in Wisconsin after a Slinger homeowner shot and killed a 20 year hiding on his porch. Bo Morrison had attended a the loud party next door. More here, and here. But this is about Trayvon Martin.

The story came together for me when Geraldo Rivera blamed Trayvon's hoody for the shooting. If you've ever shopped for your kids, hoody's are basically the only inside/outside top you could buy for the last two years. Because it dominates the racks now, to say it's a gang thing or something minorities wear, is bizarre, inaccurate and out of touch.

The commentary and the clips of the 911 calls I've included here, from the Ed Show and elsewhere, along with Obama's statement, tell just a part of the story.



Great coverage here too from Blogging Blue.

Who needs the "Castle Doctrine" when you can create an outer layer of security?

The castle doctrine is a guarantee that an irresponsible act will go unpunished.

Slinger’s castle doctrine murder says a lot about the GOP’s pro-life agenda, doesn’t it?

But as I’ve mentioned before, many homeowners don’t even bother locking their porches because the neighborhood is either safe, or the door bell is on the inside of the porch. These facts seem to get lost on most the reporters and commenters on this story.

Oddly if these gun toting scaredy-cats used their heads, which they apparently can’t do, they can secure the parameter first, with motion sensing lights etc. A quick synopsis of the killing:

WISN: Friends and family are still trying to piece together how a noisy house party ended with the shooting of West Bend East graduate Bo Morrison. Police found 20-year-old Morrison dead on the porch of a Slinger home early Saturday morning. Friends said he and others took off when police arrived to check out the noise. A short time later, the man next door called police to say he'd shot an intruder.

Here’s writer Barry Eisler’s simple solution to a simple problem:

This is self-defense we're talking about; self-protection. Not fighting, not melodrama. The point is to make the crime difficult enough to carry out that the criminal chooses to pursue his aims elsewhere … all good security is layered.

Thinking like a burglar, you are now ready to implement the outer layer of your home security. By some combination of installing motion-sensor lights, keeping bushes trimmed to avoid concealment opportunities, putting up signs advertising an alarm system, having a dog around, keeping a car or cars in the driveway, leaving on appropriate lights and the television, and making sure there are no newspapers in the driveway or mail left on the porch when you're away, you help the burglar to decide immediately during his casing or surveillance phase that he should rob someone else's house.

If the burglar isn't immediately dissuaded by the outer layer, he receives further discouragement at the next layer in. He … sees that you have deadbolt locks on all the doors, and that your advertisement was not a bluff - the windows are in fact alarmed. Okay, the guy is stupid. He keeps trying anyway. Now the second layer of security described above, which failed to deter him, works to delay him. It's taking him a long time to get in. He's making noise. At some point, the time and noise might combine to persuade him to abort (back to deterrence). 

But instead, the point of a gun is the only law…oh, those are the lyrics from the song "Liberty Valance" by Gene Pitney. I happen to, without thinking, naturally put in this kind of security myself. How expensive is a motion sensing light on the porch? $20.

Castle Doctrine Death proves "law abiding citizens" make mistakes!!

There is no stopping the madness now. The newly protected class of gun owners who are able to shoot first, kill someone and get off scot free got ugly over the weekend, when a student who'd been partying was gunned down for hiding on a guys porch.

The details are still sketchy, but from all appearances, a life was needlessly lost because a gun owner was given a sense of infallibility with the castle doctrine law. I've posted most of the story details from TMJ4 for clarity in this developing story. But so far, the media itself has differed wildly in it's coverage. Check out the video clip, and see for yourself the devastated lives surrounding the consequences of this irresponsibly written law. As tea party ideologue Sen. Pam Galloway said with mind numbing stupidity:

Republican Senator Pam Galloway from Wausau told Newsline 9, "Law-abiding citizens shouldn't be forced to run away from their own homes when being faced with an intruder, and they certainly should not have to worry about being sued for defending themselves."

Friends of the man killed near the scene of an underage drinking party say they want the man who pulled the trigger to be held accountable in the death.

"My son died, killed, shot to the heart," Lauri Morrison says. "From the neighbor on the porch. Like an animal." Danielle Alvaro and a group of friends were at a Friday night party at a house on the 100 block of North Kettle Moraine in the town of Slinger when chaos broke out. "We were hiding from the cops," Alvaro says. "We didn't want to get under age drinking tickets."

Party-goers scattered, including Bo Morrison. The 20-year-old Morrison ran next door to hide in an enclosed porch. The couple that lives there told Slinger Police someone was breaking into their home. That's when he was shot and killed.

Sunday, Bo's circle of friends gathered to offer each other support. "This is like your heart getting crushed into two halfs and you don't know which half to take," friend C.J. Catozzi says. Friends say even though Bo has had past run-ins with the law, what happened early Saturday was no crime. These friends want the shooter to face justice.

"We can't have Bo back, and Bo can't tell his side of the story because he took him away," Alvaro says. "Why not shoot my son in the leg and call 911?" Morrison says. "He took my son's life with one shot," Morrison says. "But killed six of us in our family. His father, me and all the kids are distraught. He took a whole family out with one bullet."

TODAY'S TMJ4's Todd Hicks tried to get the homeowners' side of the story, but no one answered at their Slinger home. The shooter was arrested Saturday, but was later released.

Here are a few comments posted at the jsonline site, that prove my point about the new mindset about our guilt free killing policy:

Post 1: This young 20 year old drunkard should have thought about the $100 underage ticket vs his life. Tragedy, yes.... but also very, very stupid! Is the home owner NOT to protect himself and his family???


Post 2: Maybe the homeowner did say freeze. Take a look at CCAP. Bail jumping, resisting arresst, battery, underage drinking, open intoxicants, speeding etc. The list goes on. Response to the post: “Execution is the only reasonable punishment”

Post 3: To the family members of students at a large campus in Milwaukee: Your students sometimes walk on my lawn. When drunk, some even have come up on my porch, confused as to the address of their next party or incapable of reading the large address numbers. 

A few of your really drunk students have rung my doorbell in the middle of the night. But please know that I have no intention of shooting them for "invading" my lawn and my porch or ringing the doorball of my "castle."

Some of us were idiots when we were young, too. Fortunately, nobody shot us for it, so that we never would grow up and get old and yell "get off of my lawn" or get crotchety about the porches, for pity's sake, of our so-called "castles."

Signed, Your Students' Neighbor

And finally, my interview with Sly in the morning: Click here.

A Silly Death Threat Against Walker, or a Serious Death Threat against Walker Recall Petitioners.

All day I heard about the trumped up “death threat” made to Gov. Scott Walker, in an innocent Facebook events page conversation about the upcoming recall. Heck, the woman who made the comment used her real name and couples picture. Give me a break.

Badger Herald: “I saw it with my own eyes,” Andrew Welhouse, spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, said. “I heard secondhand that the Facebook page itself eventually deleted it.”

The threat: “Rather than recall him … can we just kill him instead? Just curious.” Another individual commented on the post, “HA!!! He’s signed a bill allowing conceal to carry IN the capitol. ….. Someone just might get away with it!!!” to which the first individual replied, “I’m game!”

Of course Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs followed up on the threat, and interviewed the woman involved. Yet, this ridiculous incident over a completely innocent back and forth got big play by conservative media. Here's what it looked like:

But not a word was said about the following story on radio or TV, except for a mention on Sly in the Morning and on my own blog: 

I wonder how many will find "humor" in the following "comedic" screenshot tweets by the conservative blogger Kevin Binversie at Lakeshorelaments:

Nothing funnier than posing the possibility of getting shot! And that is what the castle doctrine blatantly suggests. Whether true or not, it's an area that might be gamed by a reckless "law abiding" citizen. 

And so it goes....

The Big Joke Now; "How about I "Castle Doctrine" a few Guys w/recall Petitions."

When the Republican legislature decided gun owners needed a special law, the Castle Doctrine, to protect irrational and irresponsible gun use that could be fatal, I immediately thought of my last month working for the U.S. Census Bureau.

That month dealt with me visiting the "unresponsive" homeowners who didn't want to be bothered by the government, or be counted due to their misinformed constitutional right to participate. They were nasty angry people. So I wonder how many of them will find "humor" in the following "comedic" screenshot tweets by the conservative blogger Kevin Binversie at Lakeshorelaments:

Nothing funnier than posing the possibility of getting shot! And that is what the castle doctrine blatantly suggests. Whether true or not, it's an area that might be gamed by a reckless "law abiding" citizen. 

The New Protected Class? The Castle Doctrine a license to Kill.

Here's a clip from Upfront with Mike Gousha on the castle doctrine and a must see. Sen. Chris Larson and Mary Lazich present their sides of the argument, but Larson nailed it:

Larson: "It's built off of scary movies, you know, somebodies going to come into my house, and I'm going to need to confront them. But policies based off of bad movies, is bad policy."

Wisconsin Anti-violence Effort sounded off here, a little late, about the massive public sentiment against concealed carry. Hey, even law abiding citizens can go off the deep end. Great argument against this insanity! From Here and Now:




From Uppity Wisconsin:

Submitted by xoff on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:43pm

"AB 69 [the so-called Castle Doctrine bill] changes Wisconsin law by providing a defense for irrational people armed with deadly force. Under its provisions, malevolent, reckless, or paranoid people who shoot trick-or-treaters or repairmen on their porch will be presumed to be acting in self-defense." -- Criminal law section of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

Lawyers, Prosecutors, Judges and Academics Oppose Castle Doctrine, the next Special Gun Right to Murder.

The castle doctrine is a law that makes killing someone irresponsibly okay! It at least waters down any penalty for acting irrationally with a deadly weapon. 

Opening the door for concealed carry has ushered in six-gun justice and every other law that effects a special group of paranoid gun owners, who are now a protected class of stone age thugs, like the developmentally challenged. 

The legal community is none too happy:

jsonline: A group representing over 600 criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges and academics "with the purpose of promoting respect, fairness and professionalism in the administration of criminal justice in Wisconsin" opposes the proposed castle doctrine bill.

"AB 69 changes Wisconsin law by providing a defense for irrational people armed with deadly force. Under its provisions, malevolent, reckless, or paranoid people who shoot trick or treaters or repairmen on their porch will be presumed to be acting in self-defense," reads a statement issued Tuesday on behalf of the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

Yeah, like that'll happen. Thankfully, our authoritarian know-it-all leaders will make the tough decisions for us.

jsonline: Homeowners using deadly force against intruders would get powerful legal protection, under a bill approved by the Assembly.

Concealed Carry's Slippery Slope; the Castle Doctrine!

Keep an eye on the new "Mr. Crazy" in the state senate, Van Wanggaard. 

Can there ever be too much scrutiny over why a person was shot to death? State Senator Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) not only thinks so, but wants to codify it into law.

Caledonia Patch: To protect homeowners in situations like this, there is a new bill in the state legislature that would allow law enforcement to make the presumption that the homeowner is the victim. Senator Van Wanggaard fully supports the measure, commonly known as the "Castle Doctrine" because he said he wanted to prevent the victim of a crime from being victimized again by the very system designed to protect them. "There's too much scrutiny when a victim has to testify," he said.

He really did say that.

In a nutshell, AB 69 and SB 79 state homeowners have the right to use force intended to or likely to cause great bodily harm in defense of their home and the people inside. The law would also apply to a place of business and a car in the case of, for example, a car-jacking attempt. "You can't run outside and shoot someone if they're stealing the radio out of your car," Wanggaard clarified.

But to find that out would require “too much scrutiny,” wouldn’t it Mr. Wanggaard?