Welcome to the Republican vision for Wisconsin (emphasis added)…

According to police, Bo Morrison was killed at a Slinger home at about 2 a.m. Saturday.

Friends said the 20-year-old had just left a party when the shooting happened. They told 12 News they believe a neighbor mistook him for an intruder and shot him to death.

Tagged with:
 

96 Responses to This death courtesy Wisconsin’s “Castle Doctrine”

  1. Aunt Bee says:

    Shoot first; ask questions later.

  2. Jeff Simpson says:

    I was just working on one about this. The point here is that it IS WORKING. The way that the republicans set this up it is working perfectly. I wonder if WIggy and MacIver will be putting out an ad celebrating the death of Bo Morrison.

    When something like that happens, its very important for NRA to have the discussion here that Bo morrison was out drinking illegally than it is to discuss guns. This is also why i do not put too much stock in statistics related to guns. I doubt this will ever make a single statistic in terms of the dangers of guns.

    I think Scott Walker and the rest of the republicans should call up Bo’s family and explain that they are sorry but they are in the pocket of the NRA and they have to do what they are told.

    Maybe instead of Cranes Joel Kleefisch can have a porch hunting season……

    • woodDB says:

      Perhaps the dangers of alcohol, DUI and underage drinking need to be discussed before you focus on a home owner who acted in self-defense when confronting someone breaking into his home.

      http://www.centurycouncil.org/state-facts/wisconsin

      Question: Which has caused more fatalities in WI, homeowners acting in self defense or DUI’s related to underage drinking?

      Anyone remember the home invasion case in CT where Dr. Petit witnessed the rape, torture and murder of his wife and teen daughters?

      If you need a reminder: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/01/05/dr-petit-engaged-recovering-after-horrific-loss/

      • nonquixote says:

        Keep on bringing your FALSE equivalency (google it, if you don’t know what that means) arguments to distract from the main objection to this Republican created fiasco designed to throw red meat to buy political loyalty from a segment of troubled, fearful, lied to and used people.

        The homeowner could have just as easily shot any purported intruder prior to the new castle doctrine being enacted. The DIFFERENCE is that there would have been potential consequences to the homeowner if it was determined in a court of law that the homeowner had acted recklessly or negligently or otherwise illegally.

        The homeowner knew the police were on the way. The homeowner was apparently in the locked portion of the house and could have shouted to the young man that he had just called the police or to get out, I have a gun.

        Your comments and links have nothing to do with the flawed legislation passed by the current state GOP. Are you really saying that it is OK that a few people might unnecessarily be shot to death because more people die in traffic crashes and we should just say, “oh so what if an intoxicated young man was brutally shot through the chest, because the trigger happy homeowner was eager to shoot his new gun. Because the homeowner was an idiot to come out and deliberately confront a person with that gun, WHERE HE MIGHT HAVE LOST THE GUN, instead of staying behind a locked door where there was limited danger? GET F#*king REAL.

        • woodDB says:

          my my, your an angry little guy aren’t you, nonquixote.

          Your logic is flawed, you make assumption about the home owners state of mind and intent. Fact is, a drunk individual was breaking into this mans home. The intoxicated kid was the criminal at that moment in time, not the home owner. I’m not making a judgment call about his character but he made a really bad decision at paid for it with his life. Not really much different then the kid who decides to drive drunk or texting and dies when they slam into a semi.

          The Castle Doctrine protects you and I from endless lawsuits for doing what is our natural right to protect our family within the confines of our home.

          ITS MY HOME, MY REFUGE. IF YOU TRY TO ENTER FORCIBLY YOU ARE FORCING ME TO ASSUME YOU ARE THERE TO HURT ME OR MY WIFE OR ONE OF MY DAUGHTERS. I WILL STOP YOU IF I FEEL MY LIFE IS IN DANGER.

          Being drunk is not an excuse. It never has been and hopefully never will be. Stop trying to protect the criminal. There are consequences in life. Whether your trying to break into a home drunk or thinking its ok to drive drunk, you face deadly consequences.

          My heart goes out to the family and friends to all those involved.

          • nonquixote says:

            Unfortunately I seemed to have failed to make my point about the Castle Doctrine law with you. Because you initially failed to make a valid verbal argument, go right ahead and attack me personally for not agreeing with your nonsensical notions. Name calling trumps discussion every time in your world?

            Unlike you, I made a distinction between you as an individual and the BS you were trying to peddle in your first comment. I didn’t attempt to belittle you with abusive demeaning personal characterizations. I addressed your written comments without elementary school bullying and third grade name calling. So much for attempted good manners.

            ( Zach W cleanup at isle 7:27 PM please)

            Please re-read what I wrote and then re-read your response again and as most people will surmise, I was not attempting to protect a, “criminal,” as you have inferred, though YOU apparently are deeming yourself capable of being,”judge, jury and executioner.”

            I do agree with you that trespassing is a criminal act, but not one that warrants the death penalty without a trial, so your assumption that I am trying to protect a criminal is totally false as is your lame analogy about drunk driving or texting. Did that semi-trailer pull a gun and shoot the drunk driver for tailgating?

            Oh yea, you claim that in your world that is the same as or equal to, someone trespassing on an unlocked porch. I would be careful if I were you, in claiming that carelessness and stupidity deserve the death penalty as you assuredly infer with your analogy . I hope you can appreciate the sarcasm in the last paragraph here. It is at your expense.

            So, good luck with those scary little bumps in the night when your daughter tries to sneak out with her new boyfriend after dark or your wife comes home late after seeking company less fearful and less abusive in nature. Be careful polishing your gun, it might prematurely shoot its wad.

            • woodDB says:

              So when you wrote, “GET F#*king REAL” you were not being condescending or attacking me personally????

              Fact is, everything you do has a consequence. You drive drunk and accidentally kill a family, guess what, your going to jail for a long time. It doesn’t matter how good of a person you were prior to making that fatally flawed decision.

              Equally, if you let yourself get drunk to the point you can’t distinguish a strangers house from your buddies house and decide to try to break in to what ends up being some gun nuts house, you stand a great chance of getting shot… With our without the Castle Doctrine.

              Most people realize their actions have consequences…. Unfortunately, some do not. Knowing I have young daughters and also knowing they may try to sneak their boyfriend into the house, I won’t ever “shoot first ask questions later” but, that being said, if some freak tries to bust my door down at 1:30 am and doesn’t respond to my commands to stand down and leave, you better believe he will be met with force.

              Go back to your little hugs and kisses, puppy’s and bubble gum world and put your head deep in the sand. Regardless of what you think is fair, if your dumb A$$ decides to confront and threaten my life or the lives of my family members by trying to break into my home you will not leave alive….

              • nonquixote says:

                An emphatic declarative using the ever ubiquitous “f,” word to urge someone to expand their vision of the world would only appear to be an attack to someone with a small world view or someone with their head in the sand.

                An expanded false equivalency (driving drunk and now killing others instead of just killing ones self) is still what it is, a false equivalency to the castle doctrine debate.

                Now read slowly and carefully here. If you can show me where I actually DID say that there were no consequences for behaviors or actions, then I can be certain that you actually understood my initial point. I’ll make it easy for you. It is the SHOOTER who is free of consequences.

                Thanks so very much for making my point that the castle doctrine is ridiculous because, as you have stated, “Most people realize their actions have consequences….”

                I so agree with you my good buddy, that there should not be a truth or consequences LOOPHOLE for the shooters to escape scrutiny for their actions. As you have demanded, consequences for every action. Right on.

  3. Randy Bastard says:

    I can’t find the original article any more, but here is the Wikipedia article about Yoshiro Hattori.

    I lived in Baton Rouge when this happened and to this day I mourn this child’s death.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

  4. gnarlytrombone says:

    And shoot-first is no exaggeration. It’s really mind-blowing how perverse the incentives are under this law. The less you know about the threat the person you’re shooting poses, the stronger the presumption of self-defense. Which is precisely the opposite of how it used to be.

    Thus if you hear the gravel rustling in your driveway, it makes more sense legally to begin blindly firing out the window than to look out first to see if you’re shooting at a Girl Scout.

  5. Smokey says:

    Maybe alcohol had a part in this ?

  6. CJ McD says:

    No attempt to call 911? Nada?

    There aren’t many details in this story. It would be interesting to find out if the young man was outside the house or inside. I suspect he was outside.

    We’re stuck with Castle Doctrine right now and it might behoove us all to start ANOTHER letter writing campaign. This time to the state repreentatives that wrote and passed this bill. This young ma’s blood is on their hands.

    Meantime, once his family stabilizes from the shock of losing their loved one, a wrongful death suit would be next in order.

  7. Palli says:

    Shouldn’t this be another church/state issue? When will a Jehovah’s Witness lose their life for simply placing a newsprint booklet on a porch?

    Sorry this is license to kill.

  8. Q says:

    Okay folks. What part of “still investigating” do we not understand?!
    STILL INVESTIGATING.

    If there was no call to police, and if (as it looks) there was no break-in attempt, no violence, no threats. No kick-marks on the door, no “stay-on-the-line” phone call to be played back, where the Homeowner is clearly near hysteria (like we were), where you could hear the chaos in the house, the frantically barking dogs, the loud noises of the guy trying to break down the door like we had just a guy who hauls off and shoots a guy on his porch…this will not hold up in court. If it does it will loose on appeal, this will match NO OTHER state’s CC laws. IN addition, this homeowner is in for ONE HELL of a lawsuit.

    Why must well-meaning people in the Left persist in the rhetoric that permit ownership and gun ownership being legal equates with GUN USE? it is a permit to carry, to own. NOT TO SHOOT WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE.
    This homeowner is in a heap of trouble as it looks now. Probably keeping it on the down-low will make potential witnesses (and the shooter himself) feel more confident and more likely to let something slip out, something that reveals THE FACTS, or, we could all make damning decisions based on shreds and speculation. Yeah let’s.

    Might some true gun-nut pay for lawyers for this guy? Yeah, might, nuts are everywhere. But there is a world of difference between shooting a truly non-combative lost stranger OUTSIDE, than is shooting a guy who has broken in to your LOCKED HOUSE while people yell and dogs bark and yet he keeps trying to get in like some In Cold Blood freako.
    World of Difference.
    Laws are written (or at least they were) to handle nuance. why can’t citizens handle nuance anymore? Self-defense always has and always will require that reasonable standards be met.
    I say Castle Doctrine does not cover this guy unless further facts emerge.

    This woman was justified in what she did
    http://www.hlntv.com/embed/5889

    There is no earthly reason, no higher moral principle would have been met if she had sat there and allowed herself to be victimized by violent criminals. That is NOT a more highly developed moral society. It is not. Would you, in a case like hers, sit there and take “it” ? Would you tell your daughter, your Mom, your sister, to DO NOTHING? be raped, beaten? see her baby hurt? WOULD YOU?
    Those cases are what Castle Doctrine is about. NOT shooting people like they’re in an arcade game when you’re not even threatened.

    Still Investigating. Still Investigating. Still Investigating.
    Let’s stop this trial-by-gossip.
    or, we could all go off and start shooting first without asking questions and waiting for facts….and call that “civilization”.

    Irony Much?

    • gnarlytrombone says:

      Know your new wingnut Wisconsin law:

      – There is no investigation other than that perfunctory autopsy, because the shooter can’t be charged. The whole point of the law was to make circumstances irrelevant. The only reasonable cause required is the shooter’s belief that there was a threat. And police are required to take his word on that.

      – It matters not a whit whether it was inside or outside, it only has to be on the shooter’s property (including a automobiles)

      – There will be no lawsuit. The statute makes civil liability in this cases kaput.

    • Zach W says:

      You should really read the Castle Doctrine law.

      There won’t be any criminal charges or much of an investigation, nor will a civil suit have much chance of being successful.

      And I’ll just add that comparing this to allowing someone to be raped or beaten is simply beyond the pale. This young man was SHOT DEAD simply for being drunk and confused and going to the wrong door – not because he was raping or beating anyone.

      • Shirl says:

        How was the homeowner to know he was drunk and confused? The cops had already left the scene – I would be thinking someone is breaking in to get revenge!

        • jeff simpson says:

          If 911 is too hard to remember they probably shouldn’t. Own a gun.

        • Jeff Simpson says:

          Wow shirl, not sure what you do, but most people dont have to worry about someone breaking into their house to get revenge….

          jus sayin…

          • Shirl says:

            True, most people don’t. But when you’re the one who called the cops in the first place and they have already left the scene? Then a little while later hearing a noise in the back of your house what would be your first thought?

            • Jeff Simpson says:

              to call 911….is he the person who called the police in the first place? if so he should have had their number handy…just hit redial.

              Even if he was there was no way for the people of the party to know who called. The police do not come and disclose that info….

  9. CJ McD says:

    From Fox New: http://fox6now.com/2012/03/04/alleged-intruder-shot-and-killed-by-homeowner/

    “At about 12:50 a.m. Slinger police responded to a possible underage drinking party and loud noises at a house on the 100 block of Kettle Moraine Drive North. Officers weren’t able to talk with anybody there and it appeared there was no party. But they got ahold of one of the owners of that home over the phone, who told police she was at work, and her husband was sleeping inside.
    At 2:00 a.m., officers were called to a house on the same block of Kettle Moraine Drive North. This time, it was a homeowner who claimed he had just shot an intruder in his house. Morrison was on the porch area of the house with a single gunshot wound to the chest.”

    From WISN: http://www.wisn.com/news/30601812/detail.html

    “Police said the homeowner called them saying he shot an intruder on his porch. But Morrison’s friends, who were with him at the party that night, said Morrison would not have tried to break into the home.”

    And this from JSOnline: http://m.jsonline.com/141445703.htm

    “The resident there called police about 2 a.m. to say he had shot an intruder. Morrison was found dead of a single gunshot to the chest.

    Benson said an autopsy was being done on Morrison Monday morning.

    Wisconsin’s new castle doctrine presumes homeowners are justified when using deadly force against intruders. The law covers places like patios, porches and garages.”

    Yes, the case is still under investigation. But the discussion points are still valid. It is the Castle Doctrine that is under fire. And those who still think it’s a good idea. This comes from me, a gun owner and hunter.

  10. CJ McD says:

    @Q- Your comment: “here is no earthly reason, no higher moral principle would have been met if she had sat there and allowed herself to be victimized by violent criminals. That is NOT a more highly developed moral society. It is not. Would you, in a case like hers, sit there and take “it” ? Would you tell your daughter, your Mom, your sister, to DO NOTHING? be raped, beaten? see her baby hurt? WOULD YOU?”

    I think you’ve gone a little off the boards with that one. I wouldn’t think twice about defending myself, my husband, my children, friend or neighbor if they were being attacked. But if someone’s on my porch, I’d call the police. I wouldn’t shoot them in the chest.

    • Zach W says:

      Yeah, calling the police seems to be the prudent thing to do, but apparently in this new Republican version of Wisconsin I can shoot someone the minute they step foot on my porch if I feel “threatened.”

      That’s insanity.

  11. Angry Andy says:

    This is a sad event, my son was a childhood friend of Bo’s. My heart goes out to the family and this is coming from a GOD fearing, CCW, Right Wing Conservative who served his country in two of our Armed Services. Unlike many of you candy ass Libs, I know what it means to protect and serve.

  12. kim says:

    Unfortunate set of circumstances, and terrible outcome.
    However, imagine being a homeowner and waking up to police cars scouring your neighborhood at 1:30am, no idea what or who they are looking for. You return to sleep and a half hour later are awakened by a strange man inside your enclosed porch. In that situation, I’d have to say that if I had a weapon I would use it too. Would I intentionally kill the intruder? No, but we do not know the homeowner’s intenions.
    The 20 year old also has an extensive criminal record showing a pattern of bad decision making that culminated in one really bad decision.
    If the homeowner is charged with anything, they had better also charge whoever provided the alcohol to this minor, as the alcohol was certainly a contributing factor in the death of this young man.
    I feel awful for the victim’s family, and the homeowner, they will all have to live with the tragedy.

    • west bend says:

      Kim, this homeowner was WELL aware what was going on, as HE was the one who called the underage drinking party in to the police. He was not awoken and scared by this situation. He was angry and out to get revenge.

    • T. says:

      I feel awful for the victim’s family, and the homeowner, they will all have to live with the tragedy.

      Except for the one who is dead. ZING.

      • T. says:

        Also: I’m just busting chops, I’m actually not sure what to think of the situation to be honest because I’m pretty pro-gun rights, but this is some serious bullshit.

  13. Jeff Simpson says:

    So if we blame the homeowner who supplied alcohol to the 20 year old kids, should we also blame the gun store owner who sold a gun to someone who obvipusly was unable to handle the responsibility of a gun?

    • kim says:

      Jeff,
      If there was anything illegal in the transaction, such as not running the necessary backround check, then yes the seller of the firearm should be prosecuted.
      The purchaser of the alcohol illegally gave it to an underage person for consumption, that is a criminal act and should be treated as such.
      If Bo had gotten drunk and run his car into a tree you’d be screaming for the head of the person that supplied the alcohol. Instead Bo got drunk, ran from the cops, illegally trespassed in someone’s house, and got shot, either way he’s dead.

      • Jeff Simpson says:

        Kim,

        actually I wouldnt because i think that the drinking sage should be 19. Had he turned 21 would that change things?

        From all reports I see, he was not in his house.

        I just think if your going to own a gun you have to be responsible for it. When you shoot someone you need to take responsibility for that. The castle doctrine takes the responsibility away from the gun owner. It is proven by this case to be a license for murder.

  14. Thomas Jefferson says:

    It amazes me to read so many comments that distort the facts, are pure speculation, hearsay or someones attempt at long distance mind reading.

    How do you know it was the homeowner that called the police to report a noisy party?

    From photos that I have seen, what many refer to as a porch appears to me to be a totally enclosed room of the home.

    How do you know what happened between the homeowner and Bo Bo, a 20 year old deliquent that has 15 documented offenses on WCCA since age 18 and god knows how many before age 18?

    How do you know poor Bo Bo was unarmed? How do you know poor Bo Bo wasn’t under the influence and feeling a little aggressive towards the homeowner and made threatening advances towards the homeowner after being discovered in his home?

    If Bo Bo was in this home, univited at 2 am., posing a threat to the homeowner, the homeowner would have been justified in using whatever force necessary to stop the threat. He could have done that before the Castle Doctrine was a law here in Wisconsin. The “Castle Doctrine” and/or its big brother the “Stand Your Ground Doctrine” popular in less liberal states, just places the side of the law on the homeowner instead of the intruder.

    Blaming firearms, the Castle Doctrine or the homeowner for the bad decisions made by poor Bo Bo is truly bleeding hear liberal thinking at it’s best.

    In bleeding heart liberal’s minds poor Bo Bo was a young misunderstood black youth that is entitled to ignore laws the rest of us are expected to abide by. Hey, its ok to get in da mans face and resist arrest and subsequently bail jump. Its not harming anyone to drink and drive without a drivers license. That assault and battery was just a misunderstanding. That crack pipe in the back seat was someone elses. Seatbelt laws and speed limits aren’t real laws, heck those are just guidelines, right?

    Perhaps the homeowner should have sat down with poor Bo Bo and discussed what his intentions were at 2 am. in his house? Perhaps he should have offered poor Bo Bo a cup of hot cocoa.

    I for one would like to see more of the facts surrounding this case be released by police. Was a handgun or a shotgun used for the single shot to the chest? Was the shot immediately fatal? Was anyone else in the house or the room where the shooting occured? Was lighting or lack thereof a factor? What does the toxicology report reveal? What charges if any will be brought against the homeowner that sponsored the underage drinking party? Whats on the 911 call? What was the homeowners statement to police?

    It will certainly be interesting to hear the additional facts and statement made by the homeowner vs the hearsay and speculation offered up by poor Bo Bo’s family and friends.

  15. Angry Andy says:

    @Thomas Jefferson, I’m in agreement with you. But don’t expect any of these Liberials too understand, they think if we just have an old fashion sit down with terrorists and talk about our differences….. See the pattern? One of my kids knew him and they always said he was in trouble of some kind. I do feel bad for him and his survivors, but we are all responsible for our actions, good or bad. In addition, this home owner will now live with this through his life.

  16. Jeff Simpson says:

    Yes whatever we do we must NOt talk about the gun and the gunowner….

    • Shirl says:

      No, but I’m sure if you asked the gunowner’s wife, she is very pleased with our governor and his signing the Castle Doctrine into law 3 months ago.

  17. MadMike says:

    Enter someone elses home at 2 in the morning, be prepared to be shot, Thats pretty simple libbies. Don’t wanna get shot, stay the f out of someone elses home, thats pretty simple too.

  18. K says:

    What are all you bleeding heart liberals gonna do when someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night. Oh wait I know your gonna get raped, beaten, or shot ! Not me. Thank you gov. Walker

  19. Angry Andy says:

    Hahaha! I guess I’m not the only conservative who pokes at the little piggies.

  20. nonquixote says:

    How sweet people, but I’ll wager that none of you can come up with a plausible definition of liberal or the derogatory derivations of the term that so many of you are so fond of using instead of actually intelligently arguing an issue or topic. Name calling trumps reason? Hardly. Name calling combined with reason is another thing though. Follow along carefully.

    Who needs a gun with dronebama and extrajudicial killings of US citizens, on US soil now being OK,” protecting,” all of us. One-upping shrub’s prior distinguishing of constitutional rights, I’m surprised that the right is so bent on ousting Obama. He’s out-Bushed, Bush and you people don’t even seem to get it. I thought repression and fear were what the right was all about.

    • CJ McD says:

      Unbelievable. I’ve just read through the comments. The only thought that comes to mind is, some of you are missing the point.

      I’m a gun owner. You don’t use a gun (and a kill shot) when a 911 call will do. You don’t have a right to take someone’s life, THEIR LIFE if you are not in harm’s way.

      This isn’t a war. This isn’t a terrorist. This isn’t someone who’s raping and beating your loved one. This is some dumb, drunk kid, probably acting obnoxious (I’m making an assumption about obnoxious), on someone’s porch.

      You don’t shoot to kill for a reason like that. You just don’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.