[hga]

Because that's what the courts want very badly, at least as of the '80s. Several rounds of the solidly Democratic legislature passing "this time we mean it!" laws and the courts judicially nullifying as much as they could.

In one case I "watched" by reading the Boston Globe as it was tried, a man was sent to prison because he wasn't willing to leave his sleep daughter to the tender mercies of an home invader.

Too many people wonder why Michael Dukakis won only 10 states in 1988; not those of us in the the state who were paying attention to e.g. these judges he elevated to the bench.

[jbooth]

In the 80s? It's 2013, man, get with the times and start ripping on Chicago.

In this decade, I'd go to the anecdote from WI last year of the dude who, upon a high school party being broken up by the cops next door, shot a kid hiding from the cops on his porch and wasn't charged.

[hga]

I'm referring to the '80s because that was when I was residing in Massachusetts, and that was what I could look forward to if I used lethal force in self-defense. Also an automatic 1st degree murder trial, "Let the jury sort it out" was the AG's idea of prosecutorial discretion.

As for the Wisconson case you're referring to, the facts not surprisingly paint a very different picture. Per this news item: http://fox6now.com/2012/05/05/photos-of-bo-morrison-crime-sc... and others, the porch was only technically one, it was fully enclosed and furnished like an interior room, had an appliance (fridge/freezer?) and other indoor style stuff, and critically, from looking at the outside, it appears to be fully a part of the house. I say critically because the outdoor pictures make it very clear this can be legitimately scored as a home invasion, whatever friends and family of the deceased propagandize.

And per this from the shooter's wife, "[she] told investigators she heard her husband say, “What are you doing in my house” twice, then “Stay where you are” twice, and later a single shot was fired."

So only "weak", no duty to retreat (in 46 states) Castle Doctrine comes into play. He was not shot out of the blue or from behind, there was a confrontation, so as long as the couple have proper account of the story and the authorities don't catch them lying the failure to prosecute looks like its solid. Just like the Zimmerman/Martin was before it become a political show trial.

ADDED: Not surprisingly for a state that was until that year solid Blue, Wisconsin as of 2010 didn't have a strong Castle Doctrine, the case law explicitly says "The doctrine is for defensive and not offensive purposes."

When you hear "unbelievable" stories like this, you should be suspicious, they're generally unbelievable because they're flatly not true, except in the sense of Revolutionary Truth, which as techies we shouldn't approve of (our computers do not care about politics, just that 1 + 1 = 010).

[jbooth]

If we're being honest, the only reason to shoot the kid in that situation is because you've always hoped you'd get to shoot a home invader one day.

[hga]

A 20 year old "kid"???

Yes, he's in that awkward period between 18 and 21 where he's legally an adult who can't legally do a bunch of adult things, like the relevant posited drinking (according to the more detailed accounts I read he wasn't hiding from the police, the party was broken up by the incensed homeowner of the property where it was happening arriving), but if you're going to call young men who aren't even "teens" "kids", we have no basis for a discussion, we cannot get past your idée fixe that he was automatically an innocent.

[jbooth]

Its Occam's razor -- if a house party full of underage drinkers just got busted, and a drunk 20 yo is hiding on your porch, do you personally think this is a flight or fight situation? Think this guy had a bit of an itchy trigger finger? Honest question.

[cobrausn]

I think he was referencing the events of the 80s because there was such a backlash to it that it led directly to events like you describe. The middle ground is dead.

[hga]

The backlash from the nation's "soft on crime" policies started much earlier, e.g. see Dirty Harry in 1971 and I gather Death Wish in 1974. Real world traction on reversing them, I think seriously started in the '80s.

But see my other reply in this sub-sub-thread: what middle ground is there between being forced by the law to retreat from your home and being allowed to use lethal force upon a reasonable apprehension of a sufficient threat? Do you really believe in allowing criminals to chase you out of your home, abandoning your loved ones who can't defend themselves?

It's ancient, ancient doctrine; per Wikipedia "The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic." When it comes to Western law you can't get older than the Twelve Tables in 450 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Tables), in which I assume this was codified.

[cobrausn]

No, I don't, but I was trying to clarify the statement. A middle ground for this is difficult, because it basically depends upon determining after the fact whether or not you or anyone else in the home was actually threatened (or whether you could reasonably perceive it that way).

[hga]

Errr, the latter is how these incidents are judged. E.g. the woman who recently ran down a man carrying a sawed off air soft shotgun; especially with the orange tip removed, she could not tell that he wasn't actually threatening in that way. Similarly, a criminal using a fake gun to commit a robbery gets a charge of armed or aggravated robbery.

This is determined after the fact all the time, presumably in the Wisconsin case, and definitely in the Zimmerman/Martin case before it was politicized.