So you stumble across a thief...

[Boris bush]

Larry, just for you I will repeat myself

9A.52.025
Residential burglary.

(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

(2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, the sentencing guidelines commission and the juvenile disposition standards commission shall consider residential burglary as a more serious offense than second degree burglary.

9A.52.040
Inference of intent.

In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

Now read the full paragraph this part was taken from.

the person slain to commit a felony

Without a misquote of anykind tell me what can be done. NOT what you think can not be done.

Thankyou.

Even covers an attempt to commit a felony. A felony does not even need to have been commited.

 

[Kleanbore]

Even though I would be justified to use deadly force where I live to stop the felony,

Force, force. Deadly force is permitted only to resist a felony committe against you.

...I would only do it if a threat to me or my family were to come about.

Now we are starting to see eye to eye.

The law says felony. ...Anything defined as a felony.

Yep, but that's in a context that does not refer to the justification of deadly force.

I will not use deadly force on a felony where no one is in any harm what so ever.

Excellent! Then you would not have fired in the scenario scripted by the OP.

Things change when it is on my property.

Be very careful with that. A murder is a murder, and assault is assault, whether it occurs on our driveway or at the bus stop.

Of course, if you are in fact facing a burglary attempt or burglary in progress, then the following applies:

It is infered in the law that a burglar has the intentions to commit the most severe crimes. They can be legaly dealt with as such. If I feel the slightest bit at all myself or family member is in danger I will do what is right by me and mine. I will also be covered under the law.

Very true indeed, as long as the guy has not chosen to depart.

And in the OP's scenario, the guy is on the way out.

I have given the laws. If you think I am wrong then go re read them. It clearly states what I say will be legal.

One more time, it is a very bad idea for any layman to rely on the use of dictionary definitions in the piecemeal interpretation of criminal codes in the absence of knowledge of the relevant case law and without some founding in legal theory. I mean that constructively and kindly. I've known some pretty successful and educated people who persisted in making the same mistake--to their misfortune.

For example, you have taken something that says that one may use force to prevent a felony and assumed that that always means deadly force; you keep harping on burglary, but in the OP scenario, any burglary had already taken place and could no longer be prevented. You seem somewhat confused to me, but frankly, so am I: I now have little or no idea what you would do or not do in any of the scenarios.

Take a look at Post 122. The original perps had caused some considerable damage to a car and remove property of some value, most probably committing at least one felony.

The shooting was not justified.

And by the way, had it happened on his own property, the result would have been exactly the same.

 

[Boris bush]

kleanbore

Are you even semi serious?

quote in full, and read in full PLEASE!!

Quote:
Even though I would be justified to use deadly force where I live to stop the felony,
Force, force. Deadly force is permitted only to resist a felony committe against you.

Now here is the real version minus your interjection that is in violation of the rule the moderator put in place.

Here it is in full minus your interjection and violation of the rules for this thread.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

You left out this part in your partial quote.

or of any other person in his presence or company

I did not even read the rest of your post after that. there is no point. You continue to braeak the rule put in place for this thread.

Get a grip and try to understand what is the law and what is what you think. They are nowhere near the same. The only one I need to follow is the law, not what you think.

I am following the rule for this thread. COuld you please do the same and quote the laws in full without interjections?

Thankyou..

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

BB, I wish you luck, I really do.

And I hope you never have to test this theory of yours. That would be a shame for you and yours.

I'm out.

 

[Boris bush]

I almost spit my Kona all over my computer.

It aint a theory.

I have a quote from a couple guys I like to use from time to time, and I will be done.

"In the depths of a mind insane
Fantasy and reality are the same"

Hanneman/Araya

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Boris bush: You left out this part in your partial quote.
Quote:

or of any other person in his presence or company

Actually, I left out all of RCW 9A.16.050 (1), since you had been referring to burglary, which is not addressed in that section, and a few qualifying words at the end of RCW 9A.16.050 (2) which were not germane the discussion.

Earlier, I had included "[or someone else]" for economy of wording; sorry for the omission the second time.

Of course you are right in pointing out that "you" is too restrictive, since one may also defend third persons, and I did not mean it that way.

My point was simply that the statement at RCW 9A.16.020 that one may use force to prevent a felony does not mean that one may lawfully use deadly force to prevent any felony, and that one has to look elsewhere in the code for justification of deadly force.

In saying "A felony can be stopped with deadly force" you seemed to not understand the distinction. Is it now understood?

The only one I need to follow is the law, not what you think.

I made that point myself earlier. Understand, however, that what you think the law means won't help you a bit if you are incorrect, and it is clear to me that you could use some qualified local professional guidance in that regard.

 

[Boris bush]

........yawn........

9A.52.025
Residential burglary.

(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

(2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, the sentencing guidelines commission and the juvenile disposition standards commission shall consider residential burglary as a more serious offense than second degree burglary.

lets play spot the word. todays lesson in word finding is f e l o n y, felony. For todays lesson you will get a bananna sticker for finding the word felony.

 

[rbernie]

Is trespassing considered a felony? If not, then in order to obtain legal coverage under RCW 9A.16.050, you would need to rely upon the investigating officers and the DA to conclude that you shot a thief and not a trespasser. That may be easy, and (depending on the circumstance) it may not. It may be that the individual *was* a thief but that fact could not have been known to you at that time because the stolen loot was not visible. There are all sorts of permutations that the simplistic answers have been glossing over, but that's a point probably lost by now..

To move the discussion along - assuming that you have appropriate legal justification for shootin' down a miscreant on your yard because you determined him to be a thief, DO YOU?

The discussion is supposed to be about a) what is legal to do, and b) of the legal options, which do you choose and in what order. Since we have a legal baseline (albeit a disputed one) established, let's move along to the second half of the question.

 

[Boris bush]

rbernie

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

read (2). In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer (the slayer being me)

The felony does not even have to happen.

The burglary while tresspassing is a felony.

 

[rbernie]

But you didn't answer my questions. My first question was whether trespassing - not burglary - is a felony in your state? That is a simple yes or no answer, hopefully backed by some cite.

I then conceded the legal point to you, to try to get past that quarrel and into the meat of the matter, and asked you to outline the actual things you would do, within the context of the law, to very specifically address the OP:

Maybe you arrive home and find someone walking out of the house with your laptop or camera or jewelry. Or you go out to the car to get something, and find someone going through the glove box or console, or in the process of removing the stereo. Or you walk out into the yard and find someone walking off with some of your power tools from the shed.

Pick whatever scenario you'd like.

You're carrying a gun of some form, and the thief notices you at the same time you notice him.

Presumably, you will yell something like stop, get out, get off my lawn, etc etc, and maybe draw your gun.

The thief in so many words, tells you that he's not scared of you, and simply ignores you and continues what he was doing. He does not make any threats, he's not carrying a weapon that you can see, he just keeps walking or keeps looking for stuff - as if you didn't exist.

What do you do?

As the most vocal participant in this thread - are you willing to have that discussion?

 

[Kleanbore]

The burglary while tresspassing is a felony.

What's your point?

Once the burglary has occurred (as in the OP scenario) it is impossible to prevent it. It is impossible to resist it.

Capisce?

Do you still cling to the belief that it is lawful to employ deadly force to prevent any felony in your jurisdiction?

Castle doctrine cases aside, per the wishes of the OP, do you still believe that the justifcation of the use of deadly force depends on whether or not something happens "on your property"?

And as rbernie has asked, beating me to the punch, just what is it that you think you might do in each of the scenarios presented by the OP?

 

[Boris bush]

I got ya.

Criminal trespassing is a gross misdemeanor or a misdemeanor depending on the degree.

9A.52.070
Criminal trespass in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building.

(2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.

9A.52.080
Criminal trespass in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a misdemeanor.

The original question was about burglary. I also would also take proper legal actions if I discover someone trespassing. They will be informed they need to leave. IF they decide to become a threat and have an intent to commit a felony then the rules change. I understand an unwelcome person may be on my property by mistake. They have the chance to say "my bad" and leave. If they dont the intent of their visit will be reported to 911. If they plan on taking it further (someone on my property by mistake will leave when I ask, not demand they leave) and actualy gain enterance to my house the law says they infer to commit a felony.

From my experience it has never taken that course. I do however know what I can do if it ever does.

Trespass means I will ask you to leave. Inference and intent are defined by my states laws if they do not. They will decide their own fate at that point.

 

[Boris bush]

Maybe you arrive home and find someone walking out of the house with your laptop or camera or jewelryThis is burglary cited here 9A.52.025
Residential burglary.

(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

(2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, the sentencing guidelines commission and the juvenile disposition standards commission shall consider residential burglary as a more serious offense than second degree burglary. It is a felony Type force justified for defense of a felony here RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is. . Or you go out to the car to get something, and find someone going through the glove box or console, or in the process of removing the stereo. Or you walk out into the yard and find someone walking off with some of your power tools from the shed.

Pick whatever scenario you'd like.

You're carrying a gun of some form, and the thief notices you at the same time you notice him.

Presumably, you will yell something like stop, get out, get off my lawn, etc etc, and maybe draw your gun.

The thief in so many words, tells you that he's not scared of you, and simply ignores you and continues what he was doing The law infers a crime agains a person is expected here 9A.52.040
Inference of intent.

In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent. . He does not make any threats, he's not carrying a weapon that you can see, he just keeps walking or keeps looking for stuff This is burglary defined here 9A.52.025
Residential burglary.

(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

(2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, the sentencing guidelines commission and the juvenile disposition standards commission shall consider residential burglary as a more serious offense than second degree burglary. Type of force justifiable under the law is defined here RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is. - as if you didn't exist.

What do you do?

They can ignore me all they want. The law does not protect someone for ignoring you. They broke a law. Ignore ance is not an escuse.

 

[Grey_Mana]

Setting aside the pettifogging, and thinking about the OP and first page of the thread, why wouldn't you draw your weapon?

Somebody is robbing you, and you're on your own property, why wouldn't you be more ready rather than less ready to defend yourself? Is there any law or case law that would prohibit such an action?

 

[Kleanbore]

Setting aside the pettifogging, and thinking about the OP and first page of the thread, why wouldn't you draw your weapon?

Somebody is robbing you, and you're on your own property, why wouldn't you be more ready rather than less ready to defend yourself? Is there any law or case law that would prohibit such an action?

OK---

1. No one is robbing you; the crime at hand is theft.
2. Your being on your own property really doesn't enter into the question.
3. When you may lawfully draw varies somehat among jurisdictions, but in general, you may do so if and only if it is immediately necessary to do so to protect your self or others from immiment death or serious bodily harm.

 

[Kleanbore]

he just keeps walking or keeps looking for stuff This is burglary defined here 9A.52.025
Residential burglary.

Huh?

Get some legal advice, sir or madam, before it is too late.

 

[o Unforgiven o]

I live in Florida, and we have a pretty clear cut Castle law here. That being said...

I think the OP meant a situation where deadly force was not needed and the criminal just paid no mind to you. In a case like that honestly I don't what I do if he looked at me after warning him and did'nt care. Dumbfounded comes to mind but other than that I just don't know what I would do.

 

[Boris bush]

OK---

1. No one is robbing you; the crime at hand is theft.
2. Your being on your own property really doesn't enter into the question.
3. When you may lawfully draw varies somehat among jurisdictions, but in general, you may do so if and only if it is immediately necessary to do so to protect your self or others from immiment death or serious bodily harm.

please cite a law in my state or yours that defines this as not being burglary.

If you find a law then great. As it stands, the acts in the OP is burglary in my syate.

Once again please cite a law.

thankyou

 

[Vermonter]

Excellent subject. Although I didn't have time to read the whole thread, I did go looking through my state's statutes. Learned some interesting info. Seems I can point a gun at the burglar or robber, but can't actually use it unless the burglar or robber is using force. Which I guess they would be if they resisted my attempt to reclaim my property. Although then I would be jeopardizing my own safety by approaching them.

Seems like my best bet would be to yell at them to stop, release my GSD (not sic, any bites would be unintentional), and carefully evaluate the situation while moving myself and family to cover just in case. Theoretically the dog could cause legal issues, but it's worth the risk, and my town's statutes exempt dog bites on my own property.

Glad this scenario came up. My previous reflex would have been a confrontation.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Originally Posted by Kleanbore

1. No one is robbing you; the crime at hand is theft.

posted by Boris bush
please cite a law in my state or yours that defines this as not being burglary.

i don't see where he's saying it isn't a burglary, he's just saying that it is a theft and not a robbery

a burglary is simply a theft that follows entry into a structure...unless it's different in your state

a robbery is a theft , by force or fear, from a person

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 9mmepiphany: a burglary is simply a theft that follows entry into a structure...unless it's different in your state

Almost. Actually, a burglary is the unlawful entry into the structure*, or the unlawful act of remaining in the structure, for the purpose of commiting a felony or in some cases, a misdemeanor.

In most jurisdictions, burglary constitutes a forcible felony (a crime against persons), because of the assumption of grave danger to occupants; in many places deadly force is justified to prevent or to stop a burglary.

So--what about the OP scenarios under discussion here?

Well, in the case in which one "find someone walking out of the house with [his] laptop or camera or jewelry", the perp most evidently has committed burglary.

In the case where one "find someone walking off with some of your power tools from the shed", it's the same thing in some jurisdictions; in others the shed must have been occupied at the time.

If one "goes out to the car to get something, and find someone going through the glove box or console, or in the process of removing the stereo", the perp may be committing burglary in some states; in others no, and in some it depends on whether the vehicle had been locked.

The important thing here is that, in the first two scenarios, that all only matters for the perp; it determines what crime he can be charged with and what penalties he may face.

Except in a few states where a person's having unlawfully entered an automobile (which may have to have been locked) with the intent of committing a crime constitutes burglary and he is still inside, and except in Texas at night where one may take extraordinary measures to stop theft at night, deadly force would not be permitted. It is too late to stop or prevent the burglary. It has already occurred.

Except in the possible case of the man who is still in the act of removing the stereo from the car (depending upon the jurisdiction), the crime at hand is theft--as indicated in the title of the thread.

a robbery is a theft , by force or fear, from a person

Bingo!

________
*In some states, the crime of burglary extends to unlawful entry into occupied structures, structures, automobiles, locked automobiles, aircraft, ships, ship's containers, or possibly other things, all for purposes of committing another crime inside.

 

[Six]

(OP here - kind mods, please don't delete)

To clarify my intent with using the term thief rather than burglar or robber so we don't get stuck on semantics based on the definition of various jurisdictions:

In the scenario I posted, the breaking and entering/burglary/home invasion/destruction of property part is over.

The theft however is in progress. He's actively stealing, or is walking away with the items. A crime is being committed against you, it's just not a violent one at the time you arrive.

If your jurisdiction calls the crime in progress a burglary, that's fine. If it's a felony in your area, that's fine.

Having the law back your actions is a good thing, but as I'm trying to focus on what you actually do rather than what the law allows, I don't think that what the law allows necessarily dictates your actions one way or the other.

For example:
The law may not allow you to draw a firearm - do you do it anyway?
The law may allow you to shoot them - do you?

What do you actually do?

That's the question at hand.

 

[rbernie]

Having the law back your actions is a good thing, but as I'm trying to focus on what you actually do rather than what the law allows, I don't think that what the law allows necessarily dictates your actions one way or the other.

It better form an outer boundary of your actions, i.e. define the limits of what you can do, or we'll not talk about it here.

But I suspect that the notion you're trying to convey is this: "Of the available and legal options, which do you choose and in what order?".

 

[Six]

Pretty much yes.

I don't think we need to discuss summary executions, but I think that some actions that people may take may technically break a law.

I.E. you draw your gun even if it would constitute brandishing or menacing of some form.
You shout "show me your hands and get on the ground" when there is no legal allowance for detaining someone.

(Added: It makes sense to provide legal backing for whatever action you take for educational purposes. I.E if you say that you would drawn and yell something like above, it would be useful to quote the applicable section of law that authorizes that action.

However, that would very quickly expand the thread to consist more of large amounts of legal quotations rather than discussions. And again turn the focus more to what the law allows than the actual action taken.

Within reasonableness, I don't know that it's necessary to provide support for every action. I would expect however that those that choose an action where force or explicit threat of force is used would support that by law.)

Hope that makes sense and falls within the acceptable parameters.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I don't think that what the law allows necessarily dictates your actions one way or the other.

It better. The idea is to preserve your life, your property, and your freedom.

If it costs you 10 years to recover a television your strategy and tactics have failed.

In the case you mention, you draw your gun and hold the person with no legal allowance for "citizens arrest" or whatever. What if 10 minutes in that person decides he doesn't want to be arrested anymore, and the cops are not there yet. If he says "screw you" and walks away and you shoot you are guilty of murder.

So, was it wise to illegally detain in the first place since that limits your options and exposes you to more danger than just letting him go? Maybe maybe not but the legal ramifications should come into the decision making.

Playing the part of the good guy means following the law. Technically breaking the law is still breaking the law and if you are completely in the right there should not be any need.

If you have to technically break a law to make your strategy work, are you still the good guy? Something to think about anyway.