If you caught a burglar in the act...

[marcusb]

I'd stand with my foot on their neck, gun drawn and wait for the po-po to arrive.

 

[Tenebrae]

I'd really like to dig further into this matter. For the sake of the argument, I am gonna say that the following, purely fictional scenario takes place in the USA, in an urban area.

So here it is: you caught the burglar in the act. You have your gun pointed at her, she is under your control. Is it legal to tie her up? I mean you could justify this by saying that you are afraid that she might escape your vigilance before the police arrive. After all, it may take over 1/2hr, and no one can be sure to hold up an untied person for that long.

Next, if you have a girl like this at your mercy, the next thing you could do could be to bare her feet, in order to make a possible escape attempt that much more difficult. It was/is a standard procedure in some prisons. And if you find out that she is ticklish... it's not like it leaves any traces, is it?

All I am saying is, hypothetically, while the breaking & entry will be very easy to prove, I do not see how could one possibly charge you of sexual assault: there would be no proof and the "tying up" thing could be easy to justify by the necessity to deliver the thief to the police. Am I completely wrong here?

 

[motorcycling951]

I have surprised a burglar once. He was inside of my den snooping through stuff, I heard him and my family was away visiting relatives so I knew it could NOT have been them. I came into the den with my shotgun in my hands I saw his shape in the dark, I racked the pump action just as loud and hard as I possibly could well that sound is the very LAST sound that any burglar ever wants to hear. He spotted me and he ran for the open back door I chased after him when he got outside he jumped the back wall and was gone. He's lucky I didn't just blast him the minute I first spotted him.

 

[motorcycling951]

Forgot to add one thing, whole the laws change state to state. In California a person catching a burglar inside thier home is PERFECTLY LEGAL TO OPEN FIRE ON HIM. You are allowed to assume that he's there with the worst of intentions. The benefit of the doubt is given to the property owner.

 

[SoleMates]

So here it is: you caught the burglar in the act. You have your gun pointed at her, she is under your control. Is it legal to tie her up?

Based on the self-defense cases I've looked at, no. It's not. It's not your responsibility to "hold" someone until police arrive. Yes, citizen's arrest is kinda-sorta a thing, but there's all sorts of restrictions on it to prevent people with no training from getting hurt/killed or hurting/killing someone else while playing vigilante hero.

I mean you could justify this by saying that you are afraid that she might escape your vigilance before the police arrive.

Again, that's not your responsibility, and if you tried, or say you had a 911 operator on your cell phone (via headset, for example), they would most likely advise you to take no action. Recall the Zimmerman case: he was armed and following Treyvon Martin and the dispatch officer told him to stay back and let the cops handle it. Regardless of who was right or wrong, only one of them walked away alive.

Secondly, no one in their right mind is going to attempt to tie up a potentially violent suspect at gunpoint without backup. You can't keep a gun trained on someone while doing that; you'll have to put the weapon down and at that point you risk becoming part of the "homeowner shot with own gun" statistics. And if they weren't inclined to resist before, they certainly are now... because one of the primary tenets of self-defense is that you do NOT let someone with a gun tie you up. Ever.

It was/is a standard procedure in some prisons.

Your den is not a prison. No judge/jury in their right mind would accept that "defense".

Generally speaking, your actions in a self-defense case are only justifiable up until the threat has been removed. If you have someone at gunpoint, they are no longer a threat. You are not, at that point, justified in tying them up, shooting them, or anything of the sort. And if they are still a threat, because they're the kind of psycho who wouldn't try to escape once they encountered an armed homeowner, then you'll be more concerned with actually shooting them because they'd be attacking you.

At this point you're basically arguing over whether or not it would be "okay" to sexually assault someone (at gunpoint, no less) because you could, in theory, get away with it, and this is about the point where someone reminds you that no, it's not okay and then some troll starts screaming "MORALITY POLICE!! AAAAGH!!" and we argue futilely in circles until the thread gets locked. I'm concerned about how interested you are in finding a potential loophole that would allow you to do this, but it's none of my business. I'm walking away now.

 

[Tenebrae]

Haha I understand where you are coming from. I did hesitate a bit before sending my previous post. No worries: I was just curious. I do not live in the US and I have no intention of sexually assaulting someone EVER. I hope this is clear. But it is interesting to try to find "loopholes" as you call it, from a purely intellectual perspective. I was just exploring the "burglar caught in the act" scenario of the OP from a more "realistic" perspective. See I am an author of fiction (and academia), so my imagination tends to run wild with a lot of "what if" scenarios~

Either way I read your post with the utmost interest. Thank you kindly for it 🙂

 

[Tenebrae]

Forgot to add one thing, whole the laws change state to state. In California a person catching a burglar inside thier home is PERFECTLY LEGAL TO OPEN FIRE ON HIM. You are allowed to assume that he's there with the worst of intentions. The benefit of the doubt is given to the property owner.

I SO wish we had that kind of laws in Europe...

 

[Wolf]

Forgot to add one thing, whole the laws change state to state. In California a person catching a burglar inside thier home is PERFECTLY LEGAL TO OPEN FIRE ON HIM. You are allowed to assume that he's there with the worst of intentions. The benefit of the doubt is given to the property owner.

Yeah...not quite.
Neither California’s constitution nor its statutes contains a stand-your-ground law. They have what’s known as a “castle doctrine” (California Penal Code Section 198.5), granting a justification for deadly force inside one’s residence. If someone forces his or her way into your home, and you have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury," then you would be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.

The reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury would be an affirmative defense, but it doesn't make it perfectly legal to shoot a burglar.

 

[Sensualswitch10]

Yeah...not quite.
Neither California’s constitution nor its statutes contains a stand-your-ground law. They have what’s known as a “castle doctrine” (California Penal Code Section 198.5), granting a justification for deadly force inside one’s residence. If someone forces his or her way into your home, and you have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury," then you would be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.

The reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury would be an affirmative defense, but it doesn't make it perfectly legal to shoot a burglar.

I don't think you need a Castle Doctrine law to be legally justified using deadly force in the situation you described. My understanding of Castle Doctrine is that it instructs the court to assume that a homeowner or resident was justified when using deadly force if someone forcibly enters their residence during the commission of a crime. Without the Castle Doctrine, the courts assume that the resident was not justified and the resident needs to demonstrate that they were. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I think Castle Doctrine is more about where the burden of proof lies in the event that a resident uses deadly force.

 

[Wolf]

I don't think you need a Castle Doctrine law to be legally justified using deadly force in the situation you described. My understanding of Castle Doctrine is that it instructs the court to assume that a homeowner or resident was justified when using deadly force if someone forcibly enters their residence during the commission of a crime. Without the Castle Doctrine, the courts assume that the resident was not justified and the resident needs to demonstrate that they were. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I think Castle Doctrine is more about where the burden of proof lies in the event that a resident uses deadly force.

Oh, I think you're right on the application of the Castle Doctrine; I was just taking issue with the blanket "it's perfectly legal to open fire on him" statement, as it's too broad. Lots of "for instances" where it could be wrong. But that's a case by case thing.

 

[motorcycling951]

Wrong about there not being a stand your ground law. There is exactly that beginning in 2013. Check it out if you want. Castle doctrine has been there too you are correct. But the rules of stand your ground changed in 2013 it didn't get much media attention of course the media doesn't want people to be able to defend themselves. They want everyone to be victims damn bastards.

 

[motorcycling951]

You can legally assume that any burglar inside of your home has the worst possible intentions for entering your home. You DO NOT have to wait for him to prove that, you can act accordingly to what I said the other day.

 

[motorcycling951]

No you can shoot him in CA anyway. California does have fucked up gun laws yes, but with regards to home owners the law sides mostly with the property owner, and that is the way it should be too.

 

[motorcycling951]

That much is true regarding the fact that no you cannot set up booby traps in your home at least not if they are lethal booby traps. You could for example set up a tear gas dispenser to spray someone in the face with it. Tear gas is legal to use for defensive purposes. You could not set up a shotgun to go off connected to a trip wire. No that will get you locked up if it kills anybody.

 

[motorcycling951]

Furthermore the law also understands that the burglar put himself in thar situation. If he hadn't busted into your house none of this world be happening in the first place. He brought it all upon himself.

 

[Wolf]

Furthermore the law also understands that the burglar put himself in thar situation. If he hadn't busted into your house none of this world be happening in the first place. He brought it all upon himself.

Wrong. Again.

The law gives you the right to defend yourself if “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury". SS pointed out that the interpretation is greatly (and rightly) skewed in favor of the homeowner, but it doesn't mean you won't be arrested, your weapon taken into evidence, and a GSR test done. You'll very likely be released on your own recognizance, while the DA decides whether the situation falls within the law. The police can arrest you, but if it's a felony (in most states) the DA (or a Grand Jury) decides if you'll be charged with a crime. The cops don't just pat you on the head and give you a cookie, unless there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that exonerates you on the spot. (Guy had a weapon, you've got video footage, witnesses, etc.)

The law is there to protect people who are defending themselves and their home against a threat. It's not simply black and white. Lots of things are taken into consideration.
You have the right to defend against a threat. They don't have to be armed. If you could reasonably assume they're a threat, that counts.
You can't kill someone for stealing from you. You can kill someone for being a threat to you and your home.
You can't put the burglar on his knees, recite a few badass lines from Sons of Anarchy, and blow his head off.
You might not get away with shooting them in the back, if they're running away.
If your neighbor's kid comes home drunk, thinking your house is his, and climbs in a window, you might not be charged if you shoot him.
The law is to protect your right to be safe in your own home. It's not a blank check. Most situations would be decided by the DA, the Grand Jury, or in court.

And no, a burglar can't be tied up and "tortured".

 

[motorcycling951]

No shit. Of course it's not a shoot everyone you see law no its not that braud. And in that situation you are going to be taken into custody at least temporarily whole the police and district attorney conduct their investigation. Now assuming that everything happened the way you say it did, and if they determine that you were fully within your rights then no charges would be filed and you'll be free to go and they will also tell you when you can have your gun back. If no charges get filed that means that you did NOT misuse your gun so there's no reason why you would not get it returned. Self Defense using a firearm is perfectly LEGAL in every state anyway of course. The police are required by law to return your property to you when the investigation is complete.

 

[motorcycling951]

Wolf one thing you are failing to realize is that a person has more rights and other things when and whole they are inside the home, more so than they have out in public on the street.

 

[motorcycling951]

One last thing I know you cannot tie up a intruder and torture him. I never mentioned any of that stuff somebody else said thst.

 

[Wolf]

Wolf one thing you are failing to realize is that a person has more rights and other things when and whole they are inside the home, more so than they have out in public on the street.

More rights and other things? What other things?

 

[Wolf]

No shit. Of course it's not a shoot everyone you see law no its not that braud. And in that situation you are going to be taken into custody at least temporarily whole the police and district attorney conduct their investigation. Now assuming that everything happened the way you say it did, and if they determine that you were fully within your rights then no charges would be filed and you'll be free to go and they will also tell you when you can have your gun back. If no charges get filed that means that you did NOT misuse your gun so there's no reason why you would not get it returned. Self Defense using a firearm is perfectly LEGAL in every state anyway of course. The police are required by law to return your property to you when the investigation is complete.

It's unlcear...are you arguing with anything I wrote, or just restating it?

 

[motorcycling951]

I'm not sure about the "other things". I'm not sure why I included that. But anyway, a person does have more rights than on the street. For example it is illegal to carry guns concealed in public UNLESS you have a CCW LICENSE. However that law doesn't apply to you while you're in your own home, or business, or any private property you own. See what I mean?

 

[motorcycling951]

Restating it. I guess

 

[motorcycling951]

And why are we arguing about this for? I mean this is website dedicated to tickling. It's not a gun site, or lawyer site.

 

[Wolf]

And why are we arguing about this for? I mean this is website dedicated to tickling. It's not a gun site, or lawyer site.

People were making assumptions based on a fantasy scenario. You shared a real-life situation and made a statement about shooting an intruder in your home. I pointed out that it wasn't as cut-and-dried as you were implying.