|
Post by Alpo on Jul 13, 2014 6:21:26 GMT -6
Woke up this morning thinking this one.
Leave us say that as you are sleeping the sleep of the righteous, some foul varlet enters your domicile and attempts to abscond with the family heirlooms.
Naturally, taking umbrage at this, you arise, and arming yourself with both a bright light and a large-bore firearm, you request him to cease and desist in this endeavor.
Then you intend to send for the authorities. BUT, you sleep as Mother Nature made you, and not being desirous of meeting said authorities "swinging in the breeze" (as it were) you wish to clothe yourself. You also would prefer to not have to wait for any length of time holding a gun on the miscreant in your living room.
The solution is to have said evil-doer prostrate himself on the living room floor, and then using some type of device - whether fur-lined handcuffs from your last romantic encounter, zip-ties from your handy-dandy home-repair-and-improvement kit, or a length of rope left over from your Tenderfoot knot-tying class, you render him immobile.
You then dial 911, put some garments upon your beauteous nudidity, and seating yourself in your favorite comfy chair, await the gendarmes.
Could you be charged with anything for doing this? False imprisonment, or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by SaddleLT on Jul 13, 2014 10:44:04 GMT -6
Short answer (depending on your law enforcement in the area), no. The perp would be lucky not to be a, "decedent," instead of a would-be burglar. A reasonable person would believe that someone who comes into your home at night with the intent to commit petty or grand larceny, or any other felony, is a potentially very dangerous person. False imprisonment would not come into play because you rendered a legal, citizen's arrest/detention. A true, 'false imprisonment', for grins and giggles, does not require any instrument nor any physical contact to come into play. In addition, for my laws, the person did not have the legal or expressed right to be present while removing personal property. Of course, the perp is going to say that you gave him/her permission to take said family heirloom at 0200 hours! Of course, you could be liable if you injured the perp (civilly) because you put the zippy ties on too tight. (Not to be construed as "legal advice.")
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 13, 2014 20:43:26 GMT -6
Short answer (depending on your law enforcement in the area), no. The perp would be lucky not to be a, "decedent," instead of a would-be burglar. A reasonable person would believe that someone who comes into your home at night with the intent to commit petty or grand larceny, or any other felony, is a potentially very dangerous person. False imprisonment would not come into play because you rendered a legal, citizen's arrest/detention. A true, 'false imprisonment', for grins and giggles, does not require any instrument nor any physical contact to come into play. In addition, for my laws, the person did not have the legal or expressed right to be present while removing personal property. Of course, the perp is going to say that you gave him/her permission to take said family heirloom at 0200 hours! Of course, you could be liable if you injured the perp (civilly) because you put the zippy ties on too tight. (Not to be construed as "legal advice.")Wouldn't it be simpler just to blow his useless and parasitical carcass into the next universe, then swear up and down you feared for your life? Only two witnesses that way, and one of them ain't likely to do much talking.
|
|
|
Post by SaddleLT on Jul 13, 2014 21:52:55 GMT -6
Short answer (depending on your law enforcement in the area), no. The perp would be lucky not to be a, "decedent," instead of a would-be burglar. A reasonable person would believe that someone who comes into your home at night with the intent to commit petty or grand larceny, or any other felony, is a potentially very dangerous person. False imprisonment would not come into play because you rendered a legal, citizen's arrest/detention. A true, 'false imprisonment', for grins and giggles, does not require any instrument nor any physical contact to come into play. In addition, for my laws, the person did not have the legal or expressed right to be present while removing personal property. Of course, the perp is going to say that you gave him/her permission to take said family heirloom at 0200 hours! Of course, you could be liable if you injured the perp (civilly) because you put the zippy ties on too tight. (Not to be construed as "legal advice.")Wouldn't it be simpler just to blow his useless and parasitical carcass into the next universe, then swear up and down you feared for your life? Only two witnesses that way, and one of them ain't likely to do much talking. No, your Honor,... Pistol was the one who made that statement. However, I can't remember the who vs whom (or is that, whom vs who, or; whom vs whom, or; who vs who)... It was drunk midget's (or dwarf's) family (or the state) vs homeowner. Facts: Housing tract where every 3rd house is identical in layout; said midget (or dwarf) is extremely intoxicated, enters home (unlocked), homeowner blows his (little) away; homeowner found negligent; no criminal "intent" present on the part of the drunken midget/dwarf. Yeah, real case about 20+/- years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 14, 2014 12:09:47 GMT -6
Wouldn't it be simpler just to blow his useless and parasitical carcass into the next universe, then swear up and down you feared for your life? Only two witnesses that way, and one of them ain't likely to do much talking. No, your Honor,... Pistol was the one who made that statement. However, I can't remember the who vs whom (or is that, whom vs who, or; whom vs whom, or; who vs who)... It was drunk midget's (or dwarf's) family (or the state) vs homeowner. Facts: Housing tract where every 3rd house is identical in layout; said midget (or dwarf) is extremely intoxicated, enters home (unlocked), homeowner blows his (little) away; homeowner found negligent; no criminal "intent" present on the part of the drunken midget/dwarf. Yeah, real case about 20+/- years ago. It's "who" v. "whom." "Who" is the subject form of the relative/interrogative pronoun, while "whom" is the objective form. In other words, "who" does what to "whom." Wasn't there a case some years ago wherein an exchange student, new to this country and apparently confused, tried to enter the wrong condo-type dwelling thinking it was where he was staying at the time, whereupon the owner blasted him through the door with a shotgun? I don't remember what the ultimate outcome of that case was, but it seems likely the homeowner might well have been charged with negligent homicide since the student had not actually entered the dwelling, but was simply rattling and pushing on the door trying to get in. On the other hand, it's not hard to see how the homeowners, an elderly man and his wife, might honestly believe someone was trying to break in and they sincerely feared for their safety. I wouldn't want to have been on the jury in such a trial, nor the judge on such a case. The killing of the student was certainly a tragic mistake, but to all appearances, the homeowner was only acting to protect himself and his wife, based on what he knew at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Alpo on Jul 14, 2014 12:55:08 GMT -6
I remember one, several years ago. A Japanese student. Halloween party. Dressed as John Revolting in Night Fever - white polyester 3-piece suit. Went to the wrong address. When they would not let him in, he (they suppose) thought he was being "pranked" or "punked" or whatever the hell it's called, and forced the door. 44 magnum blew him back outside.
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 14, 2014 13:48:14 GMT -6
I remember one, several years ago. A Japanese student. Halloween party. Dressed as John Revolting in Night Fever - white polyester 3-piece suit. Went to the wrong address. When they would not let him in, he (they suppose) thought he was being "pranked" or "punked" or whatever the hell it's called, and forced the door. 44 magnum blew him back outside. That could be the one I was thinking about, Alpo. The details are kind of hazy in my mind, but I do remember it made the national news and there was considerable commentary on it. If I'm not mistaken, the case was in California. Now that you mention it, I do seem to remember the student was Japanese.
|
|
|
Post by SaddleLT on Jul 14, 2014 14:09:18 GMT -6
Quite a difference in circs. Would a reasonable person fear the possibility of death or great bodily injury in the set of circumstances from someone forcing entry through the door to their residence? The answer would be, yes. Mere 'fear' alone does not satisfy the equation in use of force/deadly force situations.
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 14, 2014 14:27:00 GMT -6
Quite a difference in circs. Would a reasonable person fear the possibility of death or great bodily injury in the set of circumstances from someone forcing entry through the door to their residence? The answer would be, yes. Mere 'fear' alone does not satisfy the equation in use of force/deadly force situations. Phil, would you agree that one question that is likely to be asked in such a case is, "what should a reasonable man be charged with knowing before he used deadly force against the apparent intruder?" In this case, if I remember correctly, it was held that the homeowner could not be burdened with knowledge of the apparent intruder's true motive because there was no way he could have reasonably known, nor was there any reasonable way for him to inquire further before he acted. If I recall correctly, the homeowner was acquitted at trial.
|
|
|
Post by Alpo on Jul 14, 2014 15:19:52 GMT -6
Which pissed off the Japanese people. "Them damn trigger-happy Americans".
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 14, 2014 15:23:34 GMT -6
Which pissed off the Japanese people. "Them damn trigger-happy Americans". Yup, I remember that as well. It created quite a stir as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by SaddleLT on Jul 14, 2014 21:15:07 GMT -6
The issue there is the decedent's act of violence regardless of maybe knowing he was John Ravolta. The courts still (believe it or not) hold the 4th amendment in the highest regard in that a man's home is his castle. It isn't Kings X, but there is no greater test. Once violence is employed, a reasonable person will assume more violence is forthcoming (death or GBI). I believe that is the standard applied in this case as I also vaguely remember it.
|
|