Two teenagers allegedly shot to death by a maintenance worker at a west side apartment building were identified by Milwaukee police Thursday as Anmarie Miller, 17, and James Bell Jr., 19, both of Milwaukee.
The 39-year-old man accused of shooting the two Wednesday afternoon while he was being beaten with a baseball bat is being held in the Milwaukee County Jail on possible homicide charges.
The shootings were reported about 1 p.m. Wednesday at an apartment building in the 1400 block of N. 27th St.
Police said an argument occurred between the janitor and three people: the teens and a 20-year-old man.
The argument in the apartment stairwell led to a physical altercation, during which the maintenance worker was being held while one of the three beat him with the bat, officials said Wednesday.
The janitor then drew a gun and fired, shooting the two teens, police said.
He was hospitalized for injuries related to the bat-beating and has since been released.
The maintenance worker is now being held in jail on two possible counts of first-degree intentional homicide, according to jail records.
"The argument in the apartment stairwell led to a physical altercation, during which the maintenance worker was being held while one of the three beat him with the bat"
Three on one, holding him while beating him with a baseball bat?
Not only is it justified, but I'm glad they're dead and I wish the third hadn't been spared.
The man shouldn't be in custody, and if what I've heard is true and they have a video showing the whole thing, and what was happening to him is as described... then it seems to me he should've been released about two seconds after the first detective viewed that video one time.
Even if the video shows something which tips it in the other way a bit, like the threat had ended but he shot anyway... I really don't think "murder" is on the table based on the known facts at this time.
trollUm, this is Wisconsin, we are a little more civilized up here. We do NOT tolerate vigilantes like they do down south.
Um, this is Wisconsin, we are a little more civilized up here. We do NOT tolerate vigilantes like they do down south.
Um, this is Wisconsin, we are a little more civilized up here. We do NOT tolerate vigilantes like they do down south.
Edit: I believe Wisconsin law requires that the party using force must not have committed an action that provokes an attack. I would think they would be determining this due to the description of a verbal altercation preceeding the violence.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a)(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(b)(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(c)(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
Yup. So even that being the case if he is being held he has already exhausted the stated duty to attempt to retreat first.Here is the statute:
OP couldn't even read the article correctly, and now wants us to believe he can read legal statutes.
lol
Hold a shooter in a case of double homicide until it is fully investigated> OH THE INHUMANITY! Have I got enough sarcasm expressed here?
If this had been done with Trayvon and Zimmerman it may not have exploded as big as it did.
939.48(2)(c)(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
939.48(2)(a)(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
Here is the statute:
Basically I think they are giving exception 939.48(2)(c)(c) a good look over right now.......(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a)(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(b)(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(c)(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
If it was 1 on 1 and he provoked the altercation he would most likely lose his right to self defense. 3 on 1 and being beaten with a deadly weapon should allow him to regain his right to self defense in the event he provoked the altercation.776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unlessa) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
Um, this is Wisconsin, we are a little more civilized up here. We do NOT tolerate vigilantes like they do down south.
You might have missed this part.
If he's being restrained, the bolded is satisfied irrelevant if he initiated the confrontation.
939.48(2)(c)(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.