The recent controversy surrounding the Trayvon Martin case, in which an unarmed 17-year-old African-American male was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a Hispanic neighborhood watchman, has given rise to protests across the country. Prominent figures such as President Obama, and the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have all made public statements regarding the case. Even the New Black Panther Party, which has a history of supporting violent, leftist, black supremacist causes, has placed a $10,000 bounty out for the capture of Zimmerman.
Meanwhile, a similar case in Wisconsin has gone largely unnoticed by the national media. However, individuals in West Bend protesting the death of Bo Morrison have drawn parallels between the two cases. In Slinger, Wis. during the early morning hours of Saturday, March 3, Morrison, a biracial 20 year old was shot and killed inside the home of Adam Kind.
Kind claimed legal justification under the “Castle Doctrine” law, which was recently passed under the Walker administration. Because the full details of the Trayvon Martin case have yet to be released, I will focus on the Morrison case, arguing that the Castle Doctrine law was not only appropriately applied, but also that the law in general provides good standards of self-defense for property owners.
At around 1 a.m. on Saturday, March 3, Adam Kind was woken by loud music playing at a neighbor’s house. After confronting an individual inside a car on his neighbor’s driveway, Kind called the police. The police arrived and noticed alcohol and the smell of marijuana outside of the garage. The police contacted the owner of the house, Tim Hess, and informed him of the situation. Tim went to the garage, kicked down the door, and told the individuals inside that the police had the place surrounded.
Morrison, who was at the party, ran. He went to Adam Kind’s house, entering in Kind’s three-season room. Kind told police that after hearing a loud disturbance, he grabbed a revolver from his closet, and went downstairs. He found Morrison crouching between a dresser and a refrigerator on his porch. Morrison stood up and was shot by Kind through the heart and lung, which proved to be fatal.
Kind talked to the police about the situation. His actions were found to be justified under 2011 Assembly Bill 69, which passed the legislature with bipartisan support last year and was signed by Gov. Walker.
The bill states that courts must assume an individual using lethal force reasonably believed that it was necessary if the intruder was unlawfully or forcibly entering the residence of the owner, and that the owner was inside his residence at the time force was applied. These two conditions were clearly met in this case.
I believe all life has value, and I am in no way saying Morrison’s death isn’t a tragedy. However, of the few legitimate functions of government, provisions for the protection of property are essential. The previous standard under Wisconsin law stated that an individual must be in harm’s way before lethal force is justified. In my opinion, this previous standard is dangerous and gambles with the safety of the individual who is trying to protect himself.
The new Castle Doctrine standard is far more appropriate, and fair to property owners. If an intruder has forcibly entered a residence without the knowledge or consent of the owner when he or she is home, the potential for harm directed towards the owner is implicit.
I can see how some individuals would protest that this gives property owners the right to shoot anyone that walks on their lawn, or the right to shoot kids trick-or-treating on Halloween. Neither of these two cases meet the standards required under this law. These standards are strong and fair, and provide the owner with a sense of safety in knowing that if someone breaks into his home, he is not defenseless, and the law permits him to act.
What do you think about Wisconsin’s Castle Doctrine? Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
