Source: https://kcplawgroup.com/areas-of-law/criminal-law/self-defense/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:20:48+00:00

Document:
If you have been charged with a crime in Wisconsin and you believe you had a right to self-defense, you may be found not guilty or may be convicted of a lesser crime based on your right of self-defense.
What types of self-defense are there?
In Wisconsin, there are two types of self-defense: perfect self-defense and imperfect self-defense. Perfect self-defense involves a situation in which the criminal behavior you are charged with is privileged, or legally justified, by your right to either threaten or use force to prevent another person from harming you. If you act perfectly in self-defense, you cannot be found guilty of the crimes you are charged with. Imperfect self-defense involves a situation in which the criminal behavior you are charged with is considered less serious but neither privileged nor excused entirely because, generally, your threat or use of force was in excess of what was necessary to prevent the other person from harming you. In this situation, you may be convicted of another, less-serious crime such as Second Degree Intentional Homicide if you kill someone under circumstances where you thought that person was harming you but you did not need to kill them, and could have used less force to stop them from harming you.
What are my self-defense rights?
Criminal Defense Attorney Corey Mehlos.
provided that (1) the person acting in self-defense only threatens or uses force “as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference” and (2) if the person acting in self-defense intentionally uses or threatens to use an amount of force that is “likely to cause death or great bodily harm,” he or she must “reasonably [believe] that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.” Wis.Stat. § 939.48(1).
When could Intentional Homicide be charged?
By contrast, Wisconsin’s statute concerning Second Degree Intentional Homicide specifically states that if a person acts in self-defense based on an actual but mistaken belief about the risk of harm to themselves or the amount of force they need to threaten or use to prevent the other person from harming them while killing the other person in an act of self-defense, then they can be convicted of Second Degree Intentional Homicide rather than First Degree Intentional Homicide. Wisconsin’s statute on Second Degree Intentional Homicide explains that if the prosecution is unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to kill, and did kill, another person yet the person claiming self-defense “believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person” yet one of the defendant’s beliefs were unreasonable, then the defendant can be charged with Second Degree Intentional Homicide. Wis.Stat. § 940.05(1); Wis.Stat. §940.01(2)(b).
What does the prosecution commonly argue?
A common issue that is raised in self-defense cases by the prosecution is whether the defendant could have avoided intentionally using force or threatening to intentionally use force by either retreating from the situation. In Wisconsin, unlike some states, there is no duty for someone to retreat during a conflict but a jury can consider whether a defendant’s failure to retreat, if possible, demonstrates that the defendant’s belief that he or she was at risk of imminent harm from the other person or that he or she needed to use force to stop the other person from harming him or her was a reasonable belief. For example, if you were at your friend’s house, got in a heated argument, and your friend charged at you from the other side of the room while you were standing next to the front door, you may be able to safely leave house and run to your vehicle, rather than engage your friend in a fight.
(3) the person claiming self-defense “in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.” Wis.Stat. § 939.48(2)(b).
Yet if a person intentionally provokes a fight as part of a plan to cause death or great bodily harm another person and claim a right of self-defense, he or she forfeits the right to use self-defense because his or her action is premeditated or intentional. Wis.Stat. § 939.48(2)(b).
Appleton – Sheboygan – Green Bay – Oshkosh domestic violence and battery lawyers.
such that it may be easy to mistake the other person’s actions for a threat even if it later turns out that the belief was mistaken. A good example of this is the Philandro Castile case in Minnesota where a police officer shot the driver of a vehicle he had pulled over when the driver told the officer he had a firearm and then reached in his back pocket, possibly in response to the officer’s command that he present his driver’s license and proof of registration. Under these circumstances, the officer’s belief that Mr. Castile presented an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm may have been considered mistaken but reasonable.
first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed. Wis.Stat. § 939.48(3).
What’s the “Castle Doctrine” defense?
The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
The person against whom the force was used was in the actor’s dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
Under the “Castle Doctrine,” for example, it is presumed to be reasonable for a person to shoot and kill a burglar who broken into a person’s house, appears to be unarmed, and immediately flees when he or she recognizes that the homeowner has a gun. Yet if the person claiming self-defense were to shoot and kill the an unarmed burglar in another person’s home under the same situation, the person claiming self-defense would not have a presumption of reasonableness and therefore could easily be convicted of Second Degree Intentional Homicide under a theory of imperfect self-defense or First Degree Intentional Homicide.

References: § 939
 § 940
 §940
 § 939
 § 939
 § 939