davegran
Regular Member
Thanks for the good advice; I changed my post.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Aldi Robbery in Milwaukee stopped by armed citizen
- Thread starter E6chevron
- Start date
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
943.13 Trespass to land.
1. In this paragraph, "sign" means a sign that states a restriction imposed under subd. 2. that is at least 5 inches by 7 inches.
2.
am. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 2., 4., and 5., an owner or occupant of a part of a nonresidential building, the state or a local governmental unit, or a university or a college has notified an individual not to enter or remain in a part of the building while carrying a firearm or with a particular type of firearm if the owner, occupant, state, local governmental unit, university, or college has posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign.
As with all Wisconsin laws; the word "near" all of the entrances muddies the water because "near" isn't defined. The sign is required near all entrances however.
I believe the legislative intent was that the sign must be posted on the outermost entrance. Once you enter the outermost door you are already "in" the building.
1. In this paragraph, "sign" means a sign that states a restriction imposed under subd. 2. that is at least 5 inches by 7 inches.
2.
am. For the purposes of sub. (1m) (c) 2., 4., and 5., an owner or occupant of a part of a nonresidential building, the state or a local governmental unit, or a university or a college has notified an individual not to enter or remain in a part of the building while carrying a firearm or with a particular type of firearm if the owner, occupant, state, local governmental unit, university, or college has posted a sign that is located in a prominent place near all of the entrances to the part of the building to which the restriction applies and any individual entering the building can be reasonably expected to see the sign.
As with all Wisconsin laws; the word "near" all of the entrances muddies the water because "near" isn't defined. The sign is required near all entrances however.
I believe the legislative intent was that the sign must be posted on the outermost entrance. Once you enter the outermost door you are already "in" the building.
MKEgal
Regular Member
It wasn't properly posted, because if it were then the LAC would have seen the sign & shopped somewhere else, and the thug would have seen the sign & robbed somewhere else.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
(.500 is good in baseball)
Seriously, I've seen a couple of Aldi signs & they were not conspicuous -
by the inside door, so you have to enter the property to learn of the restriction,
well below eye level for any adult of anything resembling average height,
& in low-contrast (black or grey on clear, with boxes through the window behind them also with black printing).
If they're proud of their criminal empowerment stance they should have a 12" square gunbuster sign - bold black & red on a white background - centered at 5' high on both customer doors. (And if they prohibit their employees from self-defense, on the employee entrances too.)
THAT is conspicuously posted. :exclaim:
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
(.500 is good in baseball)
Seriously, I've seen a couple of Aldi signs & they were not conspicuous -
by the inside door, so you have to enter the property to learn of the restriction,
well below eye level for any adult of anything resembling average height,
& in low-contrast (black or grey on clear, with boxes through the window behind them also with black printing).
If they're proud of their criminal empowerment stance they should have a 12" square gunbuster sign - bold black & red on a white background - centered at 5' high on both customer doors. (And if they prohibit their employees from self-defense, on the employee entrances too.)
THAT is conspicuously posted. :exclaim:
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
So heres another Question if you have a entrance only and a exit only door close to each other and the sign is on the exit door is it a legal posting.
Just something to think about.
Just something to think about.
Cobra469
Regular Member
I don't know if that is "legal posting" per say but I am pretty sure I wouldn't notice it. I don't think many "reasonable" people look at an exit door when walking through the entrance door.
GreenCountyPete
Regular Member
if you really don't want people to carry in your business , post every door in or out , employee , emergency exit only doors the law says all entrances , if you let the delivery guy in the back door , the dock door , or a side door it is an entrance.
I would still like to...
...know how the windows were broken out of the entrance and exit. It looked like every one was broken in the first videos, and a Glass Co.Truck is parked outside the area in the latter ones. boar out.
...know how the windows were broken out of the entrance and exit. It looked like every one was broken in the first videos, and a Glass Co.Truck is parked outside the area in the latter ones. boar out.
PQ36
Regular Member
Yep, this guy is a poster child for what liberalism can do for you.
Remember, when fleeing from danger, wait for the light, stay in the cross-walk, look both ways, and walk, don't run. The law is the law. Jaywalkers will be prosecuted!
If the good guy had run into the store to warn folks of some danger (fire? flood? tyrants?) should he be thrown under the bus for doing the right thing? Of course not.
Mr. Wells, wake up, smell the coffee!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, just two words: Jury Nullification
It's the only way to force reality to prevail in our illegal system. Educate friends, neighbors, co-workers.
(Don't forget to strike Mr. Wells from the jury pool.)
Good job Mr. CCW Customer! You got my vote!
TaurusToter
Campaign Veteran
He would probably sue, and win. It would get overturned, but it would be a huge initial slap in the corporate face of all posting businesses. I haven't been over on Jeri's page, but I'm sure they aren't reporting this in a positive way.
I say good for the guy that stood up. I would have done the same. Yet, at the same time, I wouldn't have been THERE because I don't patronize posting businesses. The article saying no one noticed the ill-posted sign until police pointed it out causes me to shake my head. Probably wasn't there until the getaway car driver threw it on the window before taking off....
davegran
Regular Member
Here is an excerpt of their "facts":
I hope this falls under fair use, but this guy had an interesting comment, although I'd be surprised if it is still up there.
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
That is so perfect I almost teared up...
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
We have to put this into perspective. The penalty for ignoring a "no weapons sign" is a Class B forfeiture. A class B forfeiture penalty is a fine of up to $1000. A forfeiture is not a criminal conviction. Also a forfeiture does not provide cause to revoke his CCL.
My thought is that the DA isn't so concerned about the trespass issue but is concentrating on whether or not the use of deadly force was justified under the circumstances. A conviction on that charge would be criminal and could involve revocation of his CCL.
As many have commented the shooter's best move is to get a lawyer and take the "Sgt. Shultz" position "I know nothing". Just having a lawyer present , indicating he is willing to fight any charges, might back the DA off.
Cites:
ss175.60
ss939.52
ss943.13
My thought is that the DA isn't so concerned about the trespass issue but is concentrating on whether or not the use of deadly force was justified under the circumstances. A conviction on that charge would be criminal and could involve revocation of his CCL.
As many have commented the shooter's best move is to get a lawyer and take the "Sgt. Shultz" position "I know nothing". Just having a lawyer present , indicating he is willing to fight any charges, might back the DA off.
Cites:
ss175.60
ss939.52
ss943.13
Last edited:
Cobra469
Regular Member
TMJ4 had reported that the DA was doing just that. Determining if deadly force was justified.
"Assistant DA Kent Lovern says his office will examine whether this customer used his gun properly, meaning, did he fire out of fear or was there imminent danger to himself or others around."
http://search.todaystmj4.com/todaystmj4.aspx?k=aldi
That's because we didn't get Stand Your Ground or the "No Duty to Retreat" put in our Castle Doctrine.
rcawdor57
Campaign Veteran
If Only Every Wisconsin CWL Holder Was A Member Of Wisconsin Carry....
How many people have contacted or joined WCI after something has happened to them? Hmmm?? Well, if this guy joined after the shooting that makes four people I know of.
If WCI had 70,000 new members from those that have just received their licenses.....
How many people have contacted or joined WCI after something has happened to them? Hmmm?? Well, if this guy joined after the shooting that makes four people I know of.
If WCI had 70,000 new members from those that have just received their licenses.....
Captain Nemo
Regular Member
"Assistant DA Kent Lovern says his office will examine whether this customer used his gun properly, meaning, did he fire out of fear or was there imminent danger to himself or others around."
A clerk has a shotgun pointed in her face and there is wonder if someone was in imminent danger. What kind of funny water do those DA's drink?
A clerk has a shotgun pointed in her face and there is wonder if someone was in imminent danger. What kind of funny water do those DA's drink?