arrested for chasing a burgler

[FordSVTFan]

All he has to do is get a [good] lawyer and he should be fine. The only assault there was the kid attacking the shop owner. If I were the shop owner I'd not only file counter charges of assault, I'd also sue for the lost property (that should have been found in the kids' possession) and file a grievance against the officer.

I don't believe they'd be able to charge the shopowner with anything revolving around the accident (successfully). If so, that means everytime I get into an accident I can blame it on the crazy road rager behind me that got me all flustered to where I couldn't concentrate properly.

You dont understand the legal definition of "Assault."

Ever think about the other side of the situation? Shop owner failed to alert the proper authorities. Then gave chase on public roads. I'd find it real hard to believe they were all going the speed limit due to the situation. Had the owner called the police and not chased them their chances of crashing would've been reduced. So with the current info given, yes I'd say he was partially at fault for their accident. Just be happy no one was killed or injured.

No I'm not a LEO, but it sounds like they did what they were suppose to. You dont't know what happen to those kids afterwards as well. If product is found they will be charged, however that doesn't dismiss the fact that the owner still wrecklessly chased them causing them to crash.

The police did what they are supposed to based on the limited facts provided here. The charge is likely appropriate based on the strict reading of the statute. The prosecutor will make the filing decision and the shop owner's defense will come into play and likely amount to "no action" being taken.

Yea, that sounds like a sure fire plan, sue everybody.:lol1: The police made the arrest based on the evidence at hand. If your friend's dad couldn't communicate with the police on scene he should've called someone that could, that's not the police's fault. He'll have to hire a lawyer and an interpreter and gather whatever evidence he has against these kids. He should've filed a previous report about the theft and reported any evidence against these kids in the first place, sounds like he knew who they were already. If he wanted to go get the tag off the truck, fine, but it sounds like it was a little more than that, and that's where he got jammed up.

I meant to say file a grievance, not necessarily sue. Just out of curiosity, what would he have been arrested for? Following too closely? Don't you think it would be important as an LEO to be able to fully assess a situation before making an arrest? Sounds like you're saying its better to arrest everyone and figure out what happened afterwards.

Oh...and what good are miranda rights if someone doesn't understand them? So the arrest wouldn't stick anyway would it?

What does miranda have to do with this? If the guy doesnt speak English than his post custodial arrest interrogation would be fruitless.

Again, you dont understand this area of the law either. Miranda is a warning, it is not a set of rights. The rights are established by the U.S. Constitution as enumerated in Miranda v. Arizona.

 

[vankuen]

edit

 

[carnut726]

That's why they're called miranda rights. They're not rights in and of themselves, but it is the name used to describe that set of rights and they are required to be recited to anyone when making an arrest so that they understand their rights from that point forward. Cases consistently are lost when police fail to do this very thing. The reason I brought it up...is because when the police arrest someone, that is an inherent and necessary piece of the process.

And yes...I do understand the definition of asssault. Do you think that people that aren't LEO's are ignorant of the law? Apparently so. Its true that the kids may have been experiencing apprehension thinking that the shopkeeper might have wanted to do them bodily harm when they were trying to get away, but there's good reason...they committed an assault and battery against the shopkeeper and as such he also suffered a tort--the kids had a duty owed, that duty was breached, a loss was incurred by the shopkeeper. Simply following someone to get their license plate is hardly an assault...especially when he was within his rights to do so in order to stop a crime from successfully taking place. At most it might have been wreckless driving.

Its just too bad this didn't happen in Texas...damn kids would have been shot dead. Luckily this state still gives its residents at least the right to protect their own property.

Actually I believe you are being ignorant of the law,,,,

The Miranda warning rights are not required unless questioning the individual. you can arrest with cause or detain without miranda as long as there is no questioning of the person. Before questioning begins (and those questions must be related to the crime, not just if the person has any injuries etc.) the Miranda rights are to be read (if they are unrelated to the crime then miranda is not triggered). Or they must be read if the individual begins to make spontanious statements related to his guilt.
Furthermore he was not trying to "stop a crime from successfully taking place", the crime was over.
And lastly deadly force is not authorised to protect property, only if the person reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to himself or others is deadly force an option. ie. cant shoot someone for stealing candy from isle 3 or for punching you and running away.

P.S. please dont deduct points for spelling as i suck at that

 

[vankuen]

Actually I believe you are being ignorant of the law,,,,

The Miranda warning rights are not required unless questioning the individual. you can arrest with cause or detain without miranda as long as there is no questioning of the person. Before questioning begins (and those questions must be related to the crime, not just if the person has any injuries etc.) the Miranda rights are to be read (if they are unrelated to the crime then miranda is not triggered). Or they must be read if the individual begins to make spontanious statements related to his guilt.
Furthermore he was not trying to "stop a crime from successfully taking place", the crime was over.
And lastly deadly force is not authorised to protect property, only if the person reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to himself or others is deadly force an option. ie. cant shoot someone for stealing candy from isle 3 or for punching you and running away.

P.S. please dont deduct points for spelling as i suck at that

Just to make sure we aren't misunderstanding each other...

Why wouldn't the LEO's in this case at least attempt to question the individual related to the "crime"? I understand he didn't know english, and as such, they wouldn't be able to ask him...but wouldn't he have to know why he was being arrested? And don't you think the perp would have at least tried to explain his side related to the incident? I doubt highly that there was no conversation between the leo and the arrestee.

To me, there were a number of crimes committed here, theft and assault and battery...or I suppose we could just say robbery since it was basically a forceful theft. In Texas...you absolutely can use deadly force to protect one's property.

I'll give you an excerpt of the Texas Penal Code 9.41 and 9.42:

9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Granted, the word reasonable leaves some interpretation as to what a reasonable person should do. As such, it wouldn't be prudent to shoot someone for stealing bubble gum. But I digress and apologize for getting off subject.

 

[exdeath]

Ever think about the other side of the situation? Shop owner failed to alert the proper authorities. Then gave chase on public roads. I'd find it real hard to believe they were all going the speed limit due to the situation. Had the owner called the police and not chased them their chances of crashing would've been reduced. So with the current info given, yes I'd say he was partially at fault for their accident. Just be happy no one was killed or injured.

No I'm not a LEO, but it sounds like they did what they were suppose to. You dont't know what happen to those kids afterwards as well. If product is found they will be charged, however that doesn't dismiss the fact that the owner still wrecklessly chased them causing them to crash.

By your logic, bad guys are in the right when they draw their weapons. After all, the police officer pulled his gun first and forced them to defend themselves. And it was the police officer giving chase that caused the accident that killed 15 people, not the person running.

:rollseyes

It is not unlawful or unreasonable to pursue escaping thieves for observation, or attempt to retrieve your stolen property while using equal and necessary force to defend yourself. It's when you trespass private property to do so or attempt to inflict punishment that it becomes questionable and crosses the line of taking the law into your own hands.

Just because police officers are more convenient and are REQUIRED by their job description to do certain things doesn't mean we as citizens give up absolutely any right to take care of ourselves in most cases. You are still liable for the consequences of your actions however, just like an officer is, and that is the critical part that people often don't understand.

 

[exdeath]

And lastly deadly force is not authorised to protect property, only if the person reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to himself or others is deadly force an option. ie. cant shoot someone for stealing candy from isle 3 or for punching you and running away.

But you can shoot them when they steal something from you, you use lawful non deadly physical force to retrieve your property or prevent it from leaving your property and detain a criminal caught in the act while waiting for authorities to arrive, and they escalate and present themselves as willing and able to cause bodily harm.

Of course you'll be told it's not recommended, and that they prefer you just hide under your bed and wait for officers, but it's known that you have a right to respond to an immediate situation within reason.

Of course it's your individual decision to risk being stabbed or shot and having to kill someone over a $50 stereo or waiting to get it back tomorrow. But you would at least be clear legally if you followed proper procedures and understand the concept of lawful vs unlawful escalation. That's really the only difference between a civilian and uniformed officer; the officer has spent years studying these things and understands what his limits are as far as legality and liability, whereas most citizens will not, and will break several laws themselves or cause additional harm if they don't know what they are doing.

Unfortunately most people just own a gun they never use and think that's all they need to stop anything.

 

[FordSVTFan]

That's why they're called miranda rights.

Sorry, wrong again. The are called Miranda Warnings.

They're not rights in and of themselves, but it is the name used to describe that set of rights and they are required to be recited to anyone when making an arrest so that they understand their rights from that point forward. Cases consistently are lost when police fail to do this very thing. The reason I brought it up...is because when the police arrest someone, that is an inherent and necessary piece of the process.

Miranda is not required to be recited to anyone when making an arrest. Most of the times Miranda is not read during an arrest. Miranda is only necessary when the person is under "Custodial Arrest" and they are going to be interrogated about that crime. Cases are really lost on Miranda, you watch too much TV. The lack of Miranda for post custodial interrogation only invokes the exclusionary rule and that established in Wong Sun. The case isnt dismissed because of lack of Miranda.

And yes...I do understand the definition of asssault. Do you think that people that aren't LEO's are ignorant of the law? Apparently so. Its true that the kids may have been experiencing apprehension thinking that the shopkeeper might have wanted to do them bodily harm when they were trying to get away, but there's good reason...they committed an assault and battery against the shopkeeper and as such he also suffered a tort--the kids had a duty owed, that duty was breached, a loss was incurred by the shopkeeper. Simply following someone to get their license plate is hardly an assault...especially when he was within his rights to do so in order to stop a crime from successfully taking place. At most it might have been wreckless driving.

The kids committed a battery. There is likely no assault as a completed assault is a battery. An assault is not a lesser of Battery. In an assault the apprehension must be reasonable, there must be an apparent ability to carry out the act causing apprehension and there must be an overt act in furtherance. All three elements are there for assault. In fact it is likely aggravated assault. As to the tort, their act, is one of intent. It is a tortious battery. The standard you suggest, of a duty owed, is purely for negligence and has nothing to do with their intentional act.

What is wreckless driving? Is that when you dont have a wreck? Or do you mean Reckless?

I stand by my evaluation, you dont understand the law or the legal terms you are using.

 

[vankuen]

edit

 

[carnut726]

vankuen: re read your own quote: make note of the word "AND"

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[vankuen]

edit

 

[exdeath]

Ok....and your point is what? Are you trying to say that doesn't occur when you try and stop a criminal?

Lets say someone is stealing something of mine from inside my home. If I attempt to stop them simply by using physical force, that is escalating the seriousness of of the situation. Not only that but the criminal now has to worry about getting caught and/or being identified. Now the criminal will do anything in his power to keep from getting caught and has decided that the only way to not get caught or killed himself is to kill or maim the person trying to stop him. I guarantee you that if you tried to stop a criminal that if given the chance they will try to hurt you or kill you to get away.

However the point is that subset b that you highlighted inherently happens pretty much automatically. That's why when you shoot, you shoot to kill. Keep in mind that's exactly what police are taught to do as well. You don't pull your gun unless you're going to use it and you don't shoot to injure because doing so exposes you to risk of death or serious bodily injury (simply due to the fact that the other person is now trying anything to not be caught or killed themselves); at least that's how they taught me when I was training for the police.

Point is even under castle doctrine type laws, you can't just shoot somebody simply because they are in your house or stealing from you. You have a right to use reasonable physical force to detain them or use physical force to retrieve your property and you have a right to respond with deadly force if and only if the bad guy unlawfully escalates such that now in addition to theft he is endangering someones life (eg: there is no "you provoked him to defend himself", it doesn't work that way, see my example about a robber "defending himself" from police).

Almost every similar law specifies a co-condition that "a reasonable person would believe such force is imminently necessary".

The trick is are you as billy bad ass as you think you are to approach the person with non deadly physical force, then immediately react with deadly force in a split second if necessary. Most people are not. They either walk into a hidden gun or knife, or shoot the person wrongfully before there is a verified threat; they don't have the tiered escalation and response hierarchy in their head like a trained officer would. That's all fine and well, just know where you stand legally when you make those decisions.

Also note that some places make a distinction between THREATENING deadly force vs USING deadly force. You have much more leeway with pointing a gun at an intruder and threatening to shoot him if he doesn't drop your stuff, than actually shooting him without a verifiable deadly threat.

PS: yeah I know I use "they" with singulars like "person" and "somebody" often, it's just easier to type that way than lawyering up a forum post with proper "he or she" fifteen times :bash:

 

[RDJ]

Point is even under castle doctrine type laws, you can't just shoot somebody simply because they are in your house or stealing from you.

In SOME states (most actually) this is true. It is NOT true in Texas. Deadly force can be used to prevent theft inside your home or on your property. It can also be used to recover your stolen property.

You have a right to use reasonable physical force to detain them or use physical force to retrieve your property and you have a right to respond with deadly force if and only if the bad guy unlawfully escalates such that now in addition to theft he is endangering someones life (eg: there is no "you provoked him to defend himself", it doesn't work that way, see my example about a robber "defending himself" from police).

again this is not universally true. you speak in absolutes but in these circumstances there are no absolutes because Texas, for example carries no such requirement.

Point is even under castle doctrine type laws, you can't just shoot somebody simply because they are in your house or stealing from you.

In SOME states (most actually) this is true. It is NOT true in Texas. Deadly force can be used to prevent theft inside your home or on your property. It can also be used to recover your stolen property.

Almost every similar law specifies a co-condition that "a reasonable person would believe such force is imminently necessary".

Almost being the operative word here.

The trick is are you as billy bad ass as you think you are to approach the person with non deadly physical force, then immediately react with deadly force in a split second if necessary. Most people are not. They either walk into a hidden gun or knife, or shoot the person wrongfully before there is a verified threat; they don't have the tiered escalation and response hierarchy in their head like a trained officer would. That's all fine and well, just know where you stand legally when you make those decisions.

absolutely 100% correct. I don't even think about so called "escalation" if they come into my house I will shoot and shoot to kill. I hope I have prepared myself mentally to do exactly that when confronted in my home. But like a lot of things one is never quite sure what one will do untill actually put in the position to have to make a decision. All you can to is think about it and work out a plan so that it becomes almost automatic.

Also note that some places make a distinction between THREATENING deadly force vs USING deadly force. You have much more leeway with pointing a gun at an intruder and threatening to shoot him if he doesn't drop your stuff, than actually shooting him without a verifiable deadly threat.

true, it is a shame that more states aren't like Texas.

 

[exdeath]

The statute under discussion IS supposedly Texas, and as pointed out by carnut, there are co-requisites to simply being in the house and stealing.

Note that 9.41 discusses force as opposed to 9.42 which discusses DEADLY force, and the co-requisites; that is 9.42 1), 2) and 3) must occur simultaneously, with 3) specifying that there must be a threat of serious bodily harm or death.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;

and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;

and

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


3) is necessary to ensure the legitimacy of a shooting so that such lenient defense laws are not abused by a trigger happy maniac just itching for an excuse to shoot without warning the first person who steps on his lawn or a kid knocking on the wrong door in the middle of the night (eg: the valid "what if" scenarios played out by the left in opposition to this kind of lenience in justified use of force).


Basically 9.41 says you can beat his ass and get your stuff back. If he pulls a knife or gun or sharp or blunt stick or tries to run you over in a car or otherwise fight back while you try to get your stuff back, 9.42 clears you to shoot.

That's the process of escalation. It's a concept that anyone who is prepared to use deadly force to protect him/herself or property should understand thoroughly if the potential for legal consequences is undesirable.

It's not that I don't support shooting thieves. I'm just saying know the legal code regarding such action so as to CYA and not leave the tiniest thing that a frivolous prosecutor with an opposing political ideology could charge you with.
.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Dude, you're so full of yourself its not even funny.

Not really. I am simply correcting your inaccuracies and you dont like it.

As far as tort is concerned....wtf do you think are the elements of tort? Duty owed, duty breached, loss incurred.

You obviously dont understand that there are different types of torts. There are three possible bases for tort liability:
A. Intentional Conduct
B. Negligent conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of causing harm.
C. Conduct that is the neither intentional nor negligent but that subjects the actor to strict liability because of public policy.
Battery is an intentional tort. Therefore there is no duty owed. A duty owed is an element of negligence not an intentional tort. The elements for the tort of Battery are: Act, Intent, Contact, and Causation. NO DUTY!!

The kids had a duty to pay for the items, they stole the item, and a financial loss was incurred by the shopowner. You must be a lawyer because you're only good at highlighting what you think will make everyone think you're right.

You obviously are not a lawyer or in L.E. because you are confusing very basic legal concept and whine when it is pointed out that you are wrong.

Here's the long and short of it: The kids were in the wrong. The shopowner was in the right--proven in the fact that the shopowner is no longer in custody. Done.

The shop owner no longer being in custody does not prove the kids wrong. It simply means he is no longer in custody. If you are suggesting the charges were "no actioned" and he is no longer subject to prosecution that goes to the decision of the State not to prosecute. That decision is a complex one and usually is made because the State believes that they cant prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the crime didnt happen.

 

[carnut726]

Vankuen,,,,, you are again mistaken,,, Police do not shoot to kill, we shoot to stop by aiming at center mass. Any other states want to chime in other than NJ. I dont know what police acadamy you went to but mine never said shoot to kill. It shows an intent on killing the person that when the cival suit comes later from the family they have an arguement. Shoot to stop does not infer that your sole goal was to cause death. We shoot to stop a threat.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Vankuen,,,,, you are again mistaken,,, Police do not shoot to kill, we shoot to stop by aiming at center mass. Any other states want to chime in other than NJ. I dont know what police acadamy you went to but mine never said shoot to kill. It shows an intent on killing the person that when the cival suit comes later from the family they have an arguement. Shoot to stop does not infer that your sole goal was to cause death. We shoot to stop a threat.

You are 100% correct. When appropriate you shoot to stop the threat. Center mass shots are most reliable for that especially under excitement and the influence of an adrenalin burst. If the suspect is not stopping after 2 center mass shots, then you run a body armor scenario and two more to the body followed by one to the head.

There is no Govt run academy I have ever heard of that teaches recruits to shot to kill. I have been a Fed. Firearms Instructor for a while.

 

[vankuen]

My my are you guys psychic too? Sorry...when I was in my law enforcement classes they told me you do not shoot unless you absolutely have to...and you don't have to unless deadly force is required, e.g. shoot to kill. I specifically remember this conversation because I made a joke about shooting them in the knees so that they couldn't run. (I know thats in bad taste)

You guys sure are quick to correct me even though you know nothing of Texas law or the courses and conversations that take place here...as seen by shutting you up regarding your attempt at corrected me on the use of deadly force in this state. Of course you won't acknowledge that because being police officers you double as lawyers and judges.

 

[musclemustang65]

You shoot to neutralize the threat. Just because you are using "deadly force" doesnt mean you are TRYING to kill them.

 

[NewKid]

My my are you guys psychic too? Sorry...when I was in my law enforcement classes they told me you do not shoot unless you absolutely have to...and you don't have to unless deadly force is required, e.g. shoot to kill. I specifically remember this conversation because I made a joke about shooting them in the knees so that they couldn't run. (I know thats in bad taste)

You guys sure are quick to correct me even though you know nothing of Texas law or the courses and conversations that take place here...as seen by shutting you up regarding your attempt at corrected me on the use of deadly force in this state. Of course you won't acknowledge that because being police officers you double as lawyers and judges.

Sorry man, but these guys have you beat on everything I've read (about 70% of the thread, I'm tired as can be right now). I've taken "law enforcement" classes too (I'm a CJ major), and they're dead on; it's almost like they've been in law enforcement for awhile.:dw:

Shoot to kill thing is ridiculous, by the way. Police training holds far fewer hours in gun training than you think, and they legitimately teach to shoot at body mass for the EXACT reason Adam stated; when you're in a situation where your gun has to be drawn and fired your heart is more than likely going berserk making it VERY easy to miss, if you're not aiming for dead center. So even if the LEO wanted to kill a target, he's not going to instantly go for the head.

 

[vankuen]

edit