http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crim ... 101428746/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
At least the police didn't have far to go to respond to it. Allegedly a friend of his wanted the shooter to go with him to purchase a shotgun because he was concerned about a robbery, so the shooter was basically along for protection purposes. This may or may not have been a robbery attempt, could have been a crazy street person. The driver allegedly tried to call 911 prior to the shooting but was interfered with by the deceased throwing a traffic cone.
Man claims self defense outside Milwaukee police station
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
- Posts: 4782
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
- catfish86
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2571
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm
Re: Man claims self defense outside Milwaukee police station
That news article made it sound like the popcorn defense...deceased threw a traffic cone and was shot in retaliation...Reality is that he had exited the vehicle he was in to return it to its proper place when the deceased came at him and when faced with a drawn gun shown as a warning, grinned, said "oh you've got a gun" and kept coming with the shots fired from three feet away. Deceased was apparently a younger, stronger man. Facts are important things.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.
Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.
Gun control is racist.
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.
Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.
Gun control is racist.
-
- Posts: 4782
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
Re: Man claims self defense outside Milwaukee police station
If you think the news article is bad, you should hear some of the prosecutors arguments. It also wasn't just that the deceased was younger and stronger either.catfish86 wrote:That news article made it sound like the popcorn defense...deceased threw a traffic cone and was shot in retaliation...Reality is that he had exited the vehicle he was in to return it to its proper place when the deceased came at him and when faced with a drawn gun shown as a warning, grinned, said "oh you've got a gun" and kept coming with the shots fired from three feet away. Deceased was apparently a younger, stronger man. Facts are important things.
http://www.wisn.com/article/police-man- ... -1/6334289" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A clear view of the station means nothing to the victim, if you can't safely get there.In clear view of the station, police said the van's passenger got out and fired his gun three times.
Carlsen last lived in a building near 64th Street and Lincoln Avenue, where neighbors said his conduct had been violent and unpredictable.
"I can understand why someone shot him. He was crazy," Greg Lind said.
Officials told WISN 12 News Carlsen had a history of mental illness, and arrest records show Carlsen had been in jail four times in the last year.
"This guy was scary. He really was. You didn't want to run across him," Lind said. "He just looked like he was ready to snap. I can understand somebody being physically afraid of him."
So the defender made it into the police station before any officers could check out what was going on.Police said officers inside District six heard the shots outside. Seconds later, the 65-year-old shooter and his friend, 52, walked into the precinct and turned in themselves and the gun.
I don't understand this one. If the buyer of the shotgun is a former cop, why doesn't he have a carry permit? (unless there are circumstances that prevent him from getting one) Anyway, apparently it took the jury a whooping 20 minutes to acquit the guy. It's too bad he had to go thru the expense of a defense, along with all the other stuff that goes along with a charge. It's sounds like a malicious prosecution to me, based on the things said. It's nonsense like this that gives credibility to the various legal protection services for CCW I guess.His friend, the guy driving the van is a former Milwaukee Police Department office who once worked at District Six.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crim ... 101464666/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
After more than 300,000 Wisconsin residents obtained permits to carry concealed firearms since 2011, it was only a matter of time before some started using the weapons in ways gun rights advocates said would allow citizens to protect themselves.
I'm surprised that the prosecution even allowed someone on the jury that knew anything about guns at all on the jury, much less a CW permit holder.Drescher was charged with first-degree reckless homicide because prosecutors said it was unreasonable to use deadly force against Reed E. Carlsen, who had not threatened Drescher but had hit him with a rubber traffic cone.
"It's really not self-defense," Assistant District Attorney Paul Tiffin told jurors in his closing argument. "In some ways, he executed him."
But the jury, which included at least one concealed weapon permit holder, clearly disagreed, reaching a verdict in about 20 minutes.
The men testified they sat stunned and fearful until Carlsen walked a good distance away before Drescher got out to put the cone back in place in front of the District 6 station on the south side. That's when he saw Carlsen turn around and come at him.
Drescher testified he has bad knees and can't run and felt he didn't have enough time to get back to the van or into the station. Instead, he assumed "a good, solid stance," and glared at Carlsen but got no reaction.
That's when Drescher drew his .40-caliber Sig Sauer pistol and pointed it at Carlsen, assuming he would turn and retreat. Instead, Drescher said, Carlsen only laughed and kept coming.
"I was scared to death," Drescher said, because he feared Carlsen would "beat me up, put me in a coma, maybe kill me." When Carlsen got within just a few feet, Drescher fired.
"I gave him as much chance I could," he said. "When all else failed, I had to shoot the guy."
Of course the problem with the bolded statement is it wasn't just the gun being pointed at the deceased, it was allegedly the deceased's own actions afterwards.Earlier, retired Milwaukee police lieutenant Conrad Zvarra testified that an unarmed aggressor can often overpower and harm even an armed person, sometimes with the person's own weapon.
Zvarra said someone holding a gun becomes more vulnerable by not shooting, because it leaves the person with only one hand to ward off the attacker, and the person must concentrate on not letting the attacker get the weapon.
In his closing argument, Tiffin said that was like saying anyone pointing a gun gets an automatic excuse to use it because the other person might disarm the gun holder and use the weapon against the person.
"The only reason a gun is in the scenario is because the defendant introduced one," Tiffin said.