By: dmc-admin//January 28, 2002//
This is so because a general and potential threat of interference is not enough to invoke the self-defense privilege; the threat must be imminent and specific. Although defendant claimed that four men were also in the parking lot at the time, there was no indication that the men accosted him or threatened him – or even noticed defendant at the time. There were no men visible to the police officers when they arrived.
Further, where defendant had been asleep in his car when found by the police officers, it would be difficult to show that he did not possess the firearm for longer than reasonably necessary.
Judgment convicting defendant of carrying a concealed weapon is affirmed.
DISSENTING OPINION: Bablitch, J. “In this case, in light of the defendant’s past history with being a victim of a crime, of evidence showing his proximity to several individuals in a high crime area late at night, and of evidence of his vulnerability to becoming a victim of another crime, I would conclude that the defendant’s belief that he may be victimized again was reasonable. Therefore, his claim of self-defense should have been permitted in this case. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.”
Milwaukee County, White, J.; Wilcox, J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Erich C. Straub, Milwaukee
For Respondent: Lara M. Herman, James E. Doyle, Madison