This death courtesy Wisconsin’s “Castle Doctrine”

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.

Share:

Related Articles

96 thoughts on “This death courtesy Wisconsin’s “Castle Doctrine”

  1. @WoodDB
    I feel the same way you do, if someone forces their way into my home and does not follow my commands when confronted, then unfortunately I will protect my loved ones with deadly actions. As someone who has been around guns my whole life and properly trained to use them. It is the gun owners right to protect, but, you must be 100% sure that shooting the intruder is your last resort. Many of you who grew up here in the small towns of the Mid West have not been exposed to the DAILY violence of larger cities and may find it easy to find the errors in the home owners actions. But unless you have ever had to kill, you will NEVER no the pain that goes with it, unless that man has no heart at all, I promise you, he’s a wreck over this.

  2. It’s a well known fact that—When you choose the action….. you choose the consequence.
    … and so it was is Bo’s case.
    He CHOSE to break not only ONE law, but TWO laws … and received the consequence of his actions.
    1) Under age drinking is a violation of the law in all 50 states and in most countries.
    2) Trespassing on someone else’s property is against the law in all states.
    Trying to “Hide” to escape being caught for the violations he committed, is, at the very least,
    an ACT of COWARDICE.

    So, that being the case…. we should blame the homeowner for Bo’s acts of stupidity.

    R i i i g h t !

    (Duh-Uh !!!!!)

    Perhaps we should also blame his parents;
    – for not doing a better job of supervising his actions;
    – for not doing a better job of teaching him Right-from-Wrong; and
    – for not teaching him how to be a man and to own up and accept responsibility
    for his actions instead of running away and trying to hide like a coward.

    Yup !

    “When you choose the action….. you choose the consequence.”

    It was ever thus!

    1. In how many states is death the punishment for underage drinking?

      I’m betting the answer is a number less than one.

    1. Jeff, Zach, Rich, and all the others who think Bo Morrison is dead because he drank while underage. That is not the reason he is dead. He is dead because he trespassed into a stranger’s home…and the homeowner said he feared for is his safety and his family’s safety at the time of the shooting. I don’t like the way the left is using the homeowner as a political tool against the Castle Doctrine. No one on here knows him or his family…and it’s not fair to him to make him out to be some monster…or a “killer”.

      Also…people keep making the comment…about “asking Bo what happened” but you can’t “because he is dead”. I’m just wondering what would you ask him? Why he ran into a stranger’s home in the dead of night? What does that matter at this point? All that matters is what the homeowner felt when he shot Bo Morrison. The homeowner didn’t have the luxury of picking apart the situation on a blog. It was a moment of seconds that he had to decide what to do with an unknown intruder in his family’s home…with his wife and children upstairs.

      1. I think Bo Morrison is dead because a homeowner chose to shoot and kill him….plain and simple.

        My previous comment was directed at Straight Shooter’s comment that Bo Morrison “received the consequences of his actions” by drinking underage.

        1. When can a person use deadly force to defend themselves and their family if not in their own home in the middle of the night from an intruder?

          1. My understanding is Bo Morrison wasn’t inside the home; he was on the porch.

            But hey, if you’re comfortable shooting and killing folks (no matter if they intended to do you harm or were simply drunk/confused/etc.) then so be it.

            Me? I’d rather exercise some judgment, call the police, and let them handle it, since that’s what they’re there for.

        2. Also…how much of this is about the Castle Doctrine and how much of this is about Bo Morrison? Does anyone think the homeowner would have shot Bo Morrison even if there were no such thing as the Castle Doctrine? I do.

      1. Zach…what kind of asshole is this nonquixote? Don’t blame me if I recipocate my feelings about him/her.

        Again…a different point of view not allowed by some on here. Such a shame people can’t discuss different ideas on here like adults.

        1. I’m done. It doesn’t matter. This has been weighing on my mind. I went from believing the homeowner should be arrested to thinking he may not have acted like the way most of us would have…but in his mind he was fearful…and rightly so. It’s hard to imagine he would have shot someone just because he could. Anyhoo…I was hoping to get a little back and forth discussion to help with my conflicting feelings about the case.

  3. Truth be told…aside from blaming Bo Morrison for his own actions that night that led to his death…I blame the police for not doing their jobs. Why would they (cops) leave the scene of a loud party at that time of the night knowing there were young adults in there holding the door shut AND with the smell of pot in the air?? Had they done their jobs right they would have prevented this whole incident.

    1. Yeah, it’s just too bad the homeowner didn’t let the police do their jobs when he heard Bo Morrison on his porch, instead of just shooting him to death.

      1. Maybe if the homeowner had the luxury of knowing all the facts at the time he would have…but he didn’t.

        1. That’s a valid point, but that’s an argument in favor of letting police handle the situation, because they’re trained to make life and death decisions.

  4. The police were trying to handle it calmly – backing off and watching from a distance. It sure didn’t help that the father of the hosts disobeyed the cops and went to the garage and told the kids to get out the place was surrounded. That caused the kids to run. Bo would be alive if he had done what the cops requested.

    1. Yes. He should have anticipated that his neighbor was a trigger-happy idiot.

      1. Who stores valuables in a bureau and in a fridge on their unlocked porch, that would be so valuable as to think someone would come to steal them, and who would think it would be worth killing someone to protect them, and why didn’t the castle owner consider that the intruder was armed as well?

    2. Shirl…disobeyed the cops? I thought the father was sleeping until his wife finally woke him with a phone call. When did the father speak to the police? The cops handled the whole situation wrong.

  5. As the DA’s report clearly states: Mr. Kind was thinking the intruder was seeking revenge. That means a possible fight (fists, knife, or worse). Why else would someone be breaking in? Porch was thought to be locked. A lot of poor choices were made by several people (other than Adam Kind)that culminated in an unfortunate death.

    1. Yet the fact remains that Adam Kind’s choice put the hole in this kid’s chest.

    2. The report also states the homeowner thought the noise was someone trying to climb to the upstairs windows where his kids were sleeping.

  6. And we don’t have Bo’s word for what actually happened in the DA’s report for what reason Shirl? Oh, that’s right, Bo can’t speak being dead and all. How about a little less presumptive speculation from the peanut gallery, based on Kind’s reported fantasies of fearfulness.

  7. No, that wasn’t the scenario at all – he fired when Bo stood up and raised his hand when he was told not to move. Turned out what was in his hand was his cellphone. Why did he stand up?? Why didn’t he freeze??

    More blame lies with Bo than with the homeowner. Wanna bet there will be waaaay fewer home break-ins after this?

    1. No, that wasn’t the scenario at all – he fired when Bo stood up and raised his hand when he was told not to move.

      Right Shirl, and you are positive because that is what Kind said happened. Go ahead and prove my point, I don’t mind. What would you say if you just shot and killed someone on your porch? That’s a rhetorical question.

      Violent crime has been on the decrease for a few years already, despite the GOP, NRA fear mongering.

    2. I’ll take that bet. And a side one that this is inevitable:

      “Assume a man kills his wife in cold blood in the family home without witnesses. I suggest that a man who is willing to kill his wife is not squeamish about committing perjury. If he takes the stand and claims that he mistakenly thought she was an intruder, under AB 69, the jury must be instructed that he is presumed to have reasonably believed that force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The jury, in effect, is prevented from considering if his act was unreasonable.”

    3. I’m not sure of a couple of details, Bo’s physical height and my recollection of reading somewhere that the bullet hole in the wall behind Bo was at 49 inches from the floor. Point being, if there was an arrest and a trial, I’m assuming some of the evidence would at least be reviewed and called into question. At six feet tall, when I stand and raise my arm, 49 inches is not my chest

  8. The measurements taken of the bullet hole in the wall – something like 42″ shows he was standing when hit. Mr Kind didn’t have time to concoct a ‘story’. Listen to the 911 tape. I would not shoot someone on my porch. However, I would shoot if I found them in my house and I felt threatened.

    Yes, someone could decide to try to ‘off’ their spouse. I do think the thorough investigation sure to follow would find a motive.

    People have a right to protect their homes – don’t be afraid of the Castle Doctrine. Gun owners are not out to shoot because they can – they want peace of mind for themselves and their loved ones.

    1. “I do think the thorough investigation sure to follow would find a motive.”

      Which wouldn’t matter a whit, given those jury instructions.

    2. Thanks for the height correction, that would put the point of aim at my belt if I was standing up.

    1. You first argument doesn’t hold water, so now you want to change the topic and make this about me? No, I’m just about three inches taller than the average male in the US. Point being, Shirl (get yourself a tape measure), if the bullet hole is at 42 inches as you say, then Bo was an unusually short person to have been shot in the chest while standing, if that is where he was shot. That would make him an extremely and immensely threatening figure standing all of about 4 feet 8 inches tall. Might want to check your math. As I said, I don’t have all the physical evidence. If I am crouching, legs fully bent, upper torso somewhat upright, my chest is at about 42 inches.

  9. I would like to stay in my bubble gum world and have you and your violent friends take your guns and get the hell out of it! That includes the regular criminals, as well as you vigilantes. That way the rest of us can eventually live in peace. Wouldn’t it be nice if we raised a whole generation of kids who believed that guns are just for hunting and for target shooting and not for committing crimes or for protection? Have a nice day 🙂

  10. What the measurements prove is that he wasn’t crouching, or he would have been shot in the head. All we know from the police investigation is what Mr. Kind reported – he didn’t freeze, he made a move to stand up. Most likely he wasn’t fully standing. His heart area was 49″ from the floor at the point of entry/exit – that’s a given. Why question the DA and police report? The DA took his time on this.

    The bottom line: breaking and entering is a crime. If he would have respected authority he would be alive. I’m sorry but there’s nothing more to see here…let’s move on.

    1. Just moving on like nothing happened is not the answer, either. We should discuss it and learn from it.

    2. “The bottom line: breaking and entering is a crime.”

      That wasn’t legally punishable by death until four months ago.

      You can move on, being without conscience. I won’t forget this.

    3. OK just massage the statements now, to fit your desired outcome Shirl, likely the same as Kind or anyone in his situation, would. I already explained WHY I question Kind’s testimony in the DA’s report. Bo doesn’t get a chance to speak. I don’t think I could have been clearer in stating that.

      You go right ahead and move on, if that’s your choice, to ignore that fact. The rest of us will ponder the injustice of the a law that automatically grants immunity from responsibility for a heinous act perpetrated on a human being, a death sentence without trial, for trespassing.

      Since you are moving on, I hope you can keep your word on that. Much appreciated.

Comments are closed.