No Charges For Kenosha Store Owner Wh...

No Charges For Kenosha Store Owner Who Shot Robber

There are 16 comments on the Channel 3000 story from Sep 11, 2009, titled No Charges For Kenosha Store Owner Who Shot Robber. In it, Channel 3000 reports that:

Prosecutors in Kenosha County said a jewelry store owner who shot and wounded an armed robber won't face any charges in the incident.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Channel 3000.

Patriot

Terre Haute, IN

#1 Sep 14, 2009
What the assistant DA actually said was,“But the privilege to use deadly force exists for a reason, and this was a situation where a reasonable person would feel compelled to use it.“ Nice job channel3000....

Protecting ones self is NOT a privilege it is a right, more than that it is nature at its purest. Ginkowski either misspoke or is a complete idiot, after reading the rest of his quote i am leaning towards the later. Here is the rest of his quote,“I am mindful that there are legitimate concerns that our community should not take on the character of the fabled ‘Wild West.”

How does he relate protecting ones self to the wild west? This sounds to me like an anti-gun nut as they all use the same exact "logic". I carry and i will shoot anyone who pulls a weapon on me or those near me. That has nothing to do with the wild west, it has to do with self preservation.

I see this man as a hero of the community tho i am sure taking someones life will leave a scar on him permanently. Criminals think twice, many of us citizens have had enough, we do not want to kill you but we will if we have to.
Max Lode

Brookfield, WI

#2 Sep 14, 2009
Thanks, but I don't see that text in the article above.
Maybe you'd better quote the exact source.
Area Man

North Chicago, IL

#3 Sep 14, 2009
I don't want to speak for the guy, but by 'wild west', he could mean settling disputes by guns instead of words. Like shooting a card cheat for instance.

My view of the wild west would be two guys can't agree to disagree about the Bears and Packers, so one guy shoots the other guy.

The robbery is not the same thing. The guy had a legitimate reason to use his weapon.
Patriot

Terre Haute, IN

#4 Sep 14, 2009
Max Lode wrote:
Thanks, but I don't see that text in the article above.
Maybe you'd better quote the exact source.
http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/das_office_fo...
2nd Amendment

Saint Marys, GA

#5 Sep 14, 2009
The guy is an ex-cop and gun owner, douchebag.
"Privilege" is a legal term in the Wisconsin statutes as a defense to criminal liability. Where the hell did you get your law degree?
He said the use of deadly force was completely justified. As for Wild West, we don't want idiots shooting up the street. But the shopkeeper was spot on and was promptly cleared by the DA. Doesn't get better than that.
Max Lode

Brookfield, WI

#6 Sep 14, 2009
As for Patriot, thank you!
As to 2nd amendment above, these people will always sneak in these little terms and phrases, to try and garner sympathy.
IE: Shoot up the streets.

That would have no meaning here, as these robbers entered private property.
Patriot

Terre Haute, IN

#7 Sep 14, 2009
2nd Amendment wrote:
The guy is an ex-cop and gun owner, douchebag.
"Privilege" is a legal term in the Wisconsin statutes as a defense to criminal liability. Where the hell did you get your law degree?
He said the use of deadly force was completely justified. As for Wild West, we don't want idiots shooting up the street. But the shopkeeper was spot on and was promptly cleared by the DA. Doesn't get better than that.
I couldnt give a frogs fart if he is an ex-cop, that means nothing to me. Law degree? Who needs a law degree to know the difference between the word privilege and right? You obviously have no idea what the difference is and he wasnt addressing lawyers he was addressing the general public and believe it or not most of us do not have law degrees.

No one wants idiots shooting up the streets and this particular case had nothing to do with the wild west so why include it in his speech to the press? This case needed no more investigation than some questions and perhaps seeing the video of the attempted robbery, anymore was just a waste of money this city doesnt have.

Put on your thinking cap real tight so you can learn the difference between these two terms.

Here you go, privilege: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Privil...

And the word, right: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right

He is in a position of power in this town if he cannot say what he means then he shouldnt say anything at all.
Patriot

Terre Haute, IN

#8 Sep 14, 2009
Your welcome Max.
Max Lode

Brookfield, WI

#9 Sep 14, 2009
Area Man wrote:
I don't want to speak for the guy, but by 'wild west', he could mean settling disputes by guns instead of words. Like shooting a card cheat for instance.
My view of the wild west would be two guys can't agree to disagree about the Bears and Packers, so one guy shoots the other guy.
The robbery is not the same thing. The guy had a
legitimate reason to use his weapon.
I find fault in your packers/ Bears analogy, in that the Packer fan, would be a legitimate gun owner and the Bears fan, probably wouldn't be.
2nd Amendment

Saint Marys, GA

#10 Sep 15, 2009
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.


(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Max and Patriot are ignorant asswipes who give legitimate gun owners a bad name. Shame on you.

NRA all the way!
Max Lode

Franklin, WI

#11 Sep 15, 2009
I am a legitimate gun owner.

Suppose you show me what I said that leads you to believe otherwise.
Area Man

North Chicago, IL

#12 Sep 15, 2009
Max Lode wrote:
<quoted text>
I find fault in your packers/ Bears analogy, in that the Packer fan, would be a legitimate gun owner and the Bears fan, probably wouldn't be.
Probably true! I was just using that as a situation where cooler heads may not prevail and in the 'old west', it would be settled by one guy shooting the other.
Patriot

Terre Haute, IN

#15 Sep 15, 2009
2nd Amendment wrote:
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
Max and Patriot are ignorant asswipes who give legitimate gun owners a bad name. Shame on you.
NRA all the way!
You are the "ignorant asswipe" here, ALL laws outside the Constitution are illegal. You should be ashamed to use the name 2nd Amendment. Where in the 2nd does it say anything about privilege? It says, "shall not be infringed". The framers of the Constitution did not use legal trickery and double speak, they used plain English so the masses could understand the words written, this also left no room for interpretation.

The NRA? You are a total sheep. The NRA has no right whatso ever to bargain the the rights of the citizens of this great nation and neither does anyone else. We live in a Constitutional Republic NOT a Democracy.

Did you even bother to look up the links i posted for you? It is quite clear you believe there are two class of people in this country and i gather from what you have written that you feel you are above the rest of us. An officer of the law perhaps? In other words, you feel you are privileged.

Please show me a definition of the word that means the same thing as right. You wont be able to find it as it doesnt exist.
Max Lode

Franklin, WI

#16 Sep 15, 2009
Ecce_Homo wrote:
<quoted text>Ownership isn't a term used in whether or not a firearm is possessed legally. Otherwise, a convicted felon found in possession of a stolen firearm could use the defense of "not owning" that firearm.
OK then Einstien, I possess all of my guns legally AND am a legitimate gun owner.
Maybe you'd better check my spelling and punctuation too.
Patriot

Terre Haute, IN

#17 Sep 15, 2009
Ecce_Homo wrote:
<quoted text>Many states permit the privilege of licensed concealed carry, Wisconsin does not. Therefore, if you're talking about open carry, you're only going to get away with that in your own yard, maybe. Wisconsin makes it illegal to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle, so you can't be carrying a conveniently loaded firearm in that sitution. I doubt many private businesses in Wisconsin would allow you to carry openly on their property, which is well within their rights to prohibit. Addtionally, I doubt you can open carry on a city bus or on government property like a post office or city hall.
Of course i conceal carry as the 2nd Amendment says, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means no state or municipality can make any laws to the contrary. The state law is illegal unless WI has broken away from the union and no one told me. Protecting ones self is NOT a privilege it IS a right.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson.
Judge Roy Bean

Madison, WI

#18 Sep 15, 2009
Article I,§25 (Wisconsin constitution)
Right to keep and bear arms. Section 25.[As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.[1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]

Article I,§25 - ANNOT.
The state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental, but it is not absolute. This section does not affect the reasonable regulation of guns. The standard of review for challenges to statutes allegedly in violation of this section is whether the statute is a reasonable exercise of police power. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01-0350.


Article I,§25 - ANNOT.
The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.


Article I,§25 - ANNOT.
A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.


Article I,§25 - ANNOT.
Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen's desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in the citizen's home or in his or her privately-owned business. It logically and necessarily follows that the individual's interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations. An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04-2989.


Article I,§25 - ANNOT.
The most natural reading of "keep arms" in the 2nd Amendment is to have weapons. The natural meaning of "bear arms" is to "wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Putting all textual elements together, the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. However, like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.___, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 128 S. Ct. 2783,(2008)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kenosha County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Assault charges: Former Village President of Si... (Nov '09) Aug 2 going to heaven 39
Kenosha County Arrest Records and Criminal Mu... (Oct '16) Oct '16 Riley 2
News Assailants in Lake Shangri-la shooting incident... (Apr '15) Apr '15 Armed Citizen 1
News U.S. Senate candidate's son tells voters to sen... (Oct '12) Apr '14 KPD241 5
News Kenosha Authorities Makes Largest Heroin Bust I... (Jan '09) Nov '13 Jerry 13
News Kenosha County EMT faces reduced charges of sex... (May '13) May '13 zanmanvandam 1
News Zerban considering another run against Ryan in ... (Apr '13) Apr '13 Haha 1
More from around the web