First incident of CCW used in WI shooting.

Status
Not open for further replies.
In talking to a LEO friend about this earlier today he said there were a coupla concerns. It stems from the fact that there was a legal sign outside the building prohibiting bringing firearms inside. This means the shooter, altho he saved the day, could face criminal charges. If the state does not bring charges against the shooter, it would set precedence and mean the signs mean nuttin'. If there are criminal charges filed against the shooter, since this did not happen in his home or on property he owns, Castle Doctrine does not apply and he could face a civil lawsuit from the kid he wounded
Click to expand...




2 things:



1.) Apparently the sign was on the 2nd set of double doors and not easily readable.



2.) If Aldi' wanted to prosecute the public outcry would be tremendous and they would most likely be boycotted, not something they want.




I don't see a prosecutor prosecuting the shooter either.





For the guy who said "You don't shoot"............


Just google robbery and shooting and you'll see plenty of security camera footage where guys rob the store and then shoot people for no reason. Even if they are trying to kill all the witnesses you'll see a robber shoot at 1 guy and run off even though there are 3 people standing there. You never know what's in the mind of a robber. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
.
 
Last edited:
usmarine0352_2005 said:
2 things:



1.) Apparently the sign was on the 2nd set of double doors and not easily readable.



2.) If Aldi' wanted to prosecute the public outcry would be tremendous and they would most likely be boycotted, not something they want.




I don't see a prosecutor prosecuting the shooter either.
Click to expand...

usmarine0352_2005....I'm guessin' you know more about this case and WI law than my friend. Me, I know only what I have read online and heard on the radio. Neither has given me enough information to form any kind of opinion or to define what the shooter did was right or wrong. My gut says he did the right thing and I hope there is no repercussions. Time will tell.
 
usmarine0352_2005....I'm guessin' you know more about this case and WI law than my friend. Me, I know only what I have read online and heard on the radio. Neither has given me enough information to form any kind of opinion or to define what the shooter did was right or wrong. My gut says he did the right thing and I hope there is no repercussions. Time will tell.
Click to expand...


I'm just going off what I read.




But I know that if Aldi's did attempt to prosecute the shooter the backlash would be great and they wouldn't risk it I don't think.


So he hasn't been charged for the shooting and I don't think he will be. He is a poster child for CCW and how it worked as intended.
.
 
People should not jump to conclusions with out all the evidence.

A couple of weeks ago, in the Daytona Beach shooting where an 82 year old man shot and killed a masked robber, attempting to enter his home. Some people, based on the original, very sketchy report, assumed that the 82 year old victim, fired blindly through a solid door, despite the fact that the Chief of Police, stated that the homeowner acted properly. They then proceeded to attack the home owner and the Chief of Police, based upon their false assumption of facts, and when later facts became available, including the video showing the door in question had a very large window in it, they refused to acknowledge the new information, and doubled down on their erroneous statements.

People, don't jump to conclusions without all the facts.

While, I agree that in general one should not shoot robbers simply because they are stealing, when you commit armed robbery, you are threatening people with a deadly weapon. With out being there at the scene and witnessing the event, we don't know how the perpetrators were behaving, They may well have been acting pretty crazy, which made the armed citizen decide he had to shoot to prevent them from killing people.

My general plan when confronted with a similar situation, is to get my gun ready to use, but not display it or intervene, and try to be a good witness. But if I believe that the robbers are about to commit violence, and that I can successfully intervene, then I will do so. To do less would be immoral. But I want to emphasize that I would not intervene unless I felt that not doing so would result in bodily harm or death to the victims or myself. Such decisions are often judgment calls, unless one waits until the perpetrators are shooting people, by which time it may be too late.

In this case, the Police have several witnesses to interview and possibly security camera tape. They will be far better informed about what happened than useless and baseless speculation from uninformed kibitzers.
 
Since we don't know all the details our criticism is worth a piss into the wind. Let the anti-gun crowd do the complaining as they surely will do... we can sit back and enjoy knowing that someone let the crooks have what fer.
 
I've lived in Wisconsin all my life and believe me the guy will most likely be sued and charged.This state has one of the highest number of "gun enthusist" but the vast majority unfortunatly are too stupid to vote or participate in getting gun laws passed and done right. That is why any place can just put a sign on their door and make a CCW person comit a crime for doing what he has a licence to do .Pretty dumb.
 
Local news is reporting that DA has determined no charges will be filed. As for the no weapons sign, it is said that Aldis will not likely press charges, which would have been a fine only anyway. Now the crook may try to sue though since we do not have those protections outside the home in WI.

I am glad the first case was justified. Though the media seems focused on saying he stopped a robbery, rather than focusing on the fact that he may have saved lives.
 
Thanks buck for posting the truth of the matter....seems like an awful lot of wrong statements were made prior to your posting the truth. Folks seem to ramble on and on with nothing but bad advice and wrong statements. He made good choices, isn't being charged...and it's good to live in Wisconsin!

mingo
 
The only thing wrong about this is the robbers chose the wrong store at the wrong time.
Seems the CCH did everything by the book. Good for him and the other innocent folks in the store.
 
heeler:

It's always interesting to me that politicians such as Chucky Schumer tried to ignore the testimony of Susanne Gratia-Hupp, who was at the Luby's massacre with her parents. For those who are not aware, this was in Killeen TX.
You might enjoy her Congressional testimony on Youtube. Her logic is superb and irrefutable.

Because of the previous laws, she was required to leave her handgun in the car.
She told Schumer and others that it could have made a difference, but her arguments fell on deaf ears, even though both of her parents were murdered along with others.

She later became a Congresswoman and beat her Dem. opponents at least twice.
According to one poster on this topic, even IF the CCW had been possible at that time, it would have been better that she wait until people had been shot...Before shooting back?
 
Last edited:
Corporate policy vs store policy? My bet is it will stay up because that's probably corporate policy. If you're in Wisconsin, shopping at the Woodman's chain is better because they don't have such a policy and they're cheaper anyway.
 
buck460XVR said:
Here is the shooter describing the incident......

CCW describes shooting
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the link. As a mingo stated, too many people jump to conclusions with insufficient facts. It seems that some people feel the need to put in their own two bits worth, despite the fact that they have nothing intelligent to say.:rolleyes:

Good to know this is apparently working out well.
 
Just to add my voice and make it clear on this subject. Regardless of what the rules and arm chair authorities have to say, if in a situation as described in this encounter, or any other where there is a similar threat, to hell with the law, to hell with the rules, to hell with potential suites. I hope I will act as necessary to thwart the threat and worry about the rest later. I say hope because I don't know what I really might do... maybe assume fetal position and sob, so I'll damned well not criticize others.
 
In regards to the stores that place their NO GUNS signs by the front doors of their buisness...they are actually being neglegent for a false assumption of making it a safer place. We all know that's not the case.

The truth of the matter is that...any buisness that places those signs at the entrance is liable for any incident with guns on their property....HOWEVER...if a buisness does not place a sign at the entrance then the STATE is liable because it's their law....kinda no brainer for a buisnees not to display their sign.

mingo
 
Neverwinter said:
For those of us who can't get to the video, what is being said which contradicts the previous posts?
Click to expand...

The CCW's account seems credible. He clearly describes the danger to the cashier particularly (i.e., shotgun to head), and to the customers also as the robber waved his shotgun around. As the robber's demands became more intense, the CCW decided to act. He made eye contact with a customer near the robber and motioned silently for him to move aside. When the CCW saw the shooting lane was clear, he shot the robber twice.

The police were called and handled the scene professionally, according to the CCW's account on the video.

I'm going from memory, having seen the video twice a couple days ago. If I've left out any important details, someone will surely tell us about it.
 
But I know that if Aldi's did attempt to prosecute the shooter the backlash would be great and they wouldn't risk it I don't think.
Click to expand...

If it's a matter of state law, Aldi's has no choice and isn't even the one prosecuting. Criminal violations are not civil violations. Criminal violations are prosecuted by the city/state and will happen if a law is broken regardless of what the private business wants. If a CPL carrier breaks state law, it will be up to a city prosecutor to decide if he wants to proceed with charges. It's out of Aldi's hands.
 
Educated, well appraised of the situation, and properly equipped shooter.

Not to mention, fairly well spoken.

Upon his recollection, and the inference of the local PD/DA....good shoot.



Thats what these laws are for.....

Good show !
 
Does anyone have any qualms about shooting a guy who's pointing a gun at some one and has their finger on the trigger?

Unless it was a head shot, I'd be concerned he might pull the trigger in reflex as he's being hit.

Opinions?
 
You had best ask the person who has the gun pointed at him, no other opinions count.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Couple of CCW question (procedure, legality, etc) (EDIT: MI into WI specific)
Replies
2
Views
319
CNate
C
U
  • Locked
One of the first CCW shootings out of Chicago that made the news?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Coyote3855
Coyote3855
R
  • Locked
KCMO Robbery leads to CCW holder shooting robber
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Halo
H
W
  • Locked
TX) Clerk shoots armed robber 10-25-03
Replies
4
Views
750
twoblink
T
Hokkmike
  • Locked
Chalk up one for the good guys!
Replies
1
Views
425
Chipperman
C
Back
Top