Catching a burglar

[micky]

If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

[Rick]

"micky" wrote in message news:qt7trit0vg3lu6k1d...@4ax.com...

>
>If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
>masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
>other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
>about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
>

Only if you have a legitimate imminent fear that the person will commit
deadly force to harm you or someone else - otherwise I don't think even a
police officer can just shoot someone who isn't an immediate threat to
commit deadly force against someone.

--

[Barry Gold]

On 2/3/2024 1:06 PM, micky wrote:
> If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
> masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
> other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
> about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.

IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent threat
to someone's life or bodily integrity.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 3 Feb 2024 21:21:10 -0800 (PST), "Rick"

Darn. The scenario included a fear that he'd be back, twice as angry
because I shot his friend, but it wouldn't be imminent.

(In fact, I don't even have a gun, but I could spray him with seltzer.)
>
>--

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 4 Feb 2024 11:29:28 -0800 (PST), Barry

Gold <barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

>On 2/3/2024 1:06 PM, micky wrote:
>> If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
>> masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
>> other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
>> about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
>
>IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
>illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent threat
>to someone's life or bodily integrity.

I really had in mind people like Fani Willis and Jordan Fuchs, who need
to not just repel current attackers but scare others from trying.

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 11:29:28 -0800 (PST), Barry Gold wrote:
> On 2/3/2024 1:06 PM, micky wrote:
> > If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
> > masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
> > other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
> > about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
>
> IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
> illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent threat
> to someone's life or bodily integrity.

Not only that, even if a sympathetic jury acquits you, there's still
the possibility of a ruinous civil suit by the burglar you shot
without justification.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

[RichD]

On February 3, micky wrote:
> you shoot one of them, and the other runs, can you shoot him to
> stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
> about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.

oh boy, someone has watched too many Clint Eastwood movies -

--
Rich

[RichD]

On February 4, Barry Gold wrote:
>> If two men kick the front door in to your house and come in, wearing
>> masks maybe, holding guns maybe, and you shoot one of them, and the
>> other runs, can you shoot him to stop him from leaving? I'm not talking
>> about killing him. Maybe aiming for his butt/legs.
>
> IANAL, but my take is that a gun is "deadly force", and it's probably
> illegal for you to actually shoot somebody who isn't an imminent threat
> to someone's life or bodily integrity.

The gummit pursues cases they believe they can win.

Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.

So there ya go, senility can be a mixed blessing -

--
Rich

[Rick]

"RichD" wrote in message
news:49b7086b-c851-475f...@googlegroups.com...

Too senile to go to trial but not to run the country. Sounds about right...

--

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:49b7086b-c851-475f...@googlegroups.com:

Actually that was in the commentary. The actual finding that there was
evidence that he intentionally retained classified material, but no
evidence that he did it illegally. There was no evidence of intent (a
necessary element of most crimes), and he fully cooperated with the
investigation.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 10 Feb 2024 21:38:31 -0800 (PST), RichD

I don't think that's a fair summary.

In addition to what Stuart said, the report said there were innocent
explanations for what he had done and they were unrebutted. That alone
seems enough to end the investigation.

>
>So there ya go, senility can be a mixed blessing -

I'd want to see video before I accepted Hur's description. Esp. when
he expected a prompt answer after asking him about the death of his son.
Hur has a lot of nerve. Hur expects a quick answer while Biden is
thinking, "Why did Beau have to die? I really miss him. He should have
lived to see his children grow up. Have I done enough to get rid of the
burn pits that probably killed him? And who does this jackass think he
is asking me about Beau?"

[Roy]

Change the subject if you want to continue this thread

[Stan Brown]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:02:53 -0800 (PST), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote
(in the then-active thread titled "Catching a burglar):

> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:49b7086b-c851-475f...@googlegroups.com:
>

> > [quoted text muted]

> > Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
> > The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
> > But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
> > for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
>
> Actually that was in the commentary. The actual finding that there was
> evidence that he intentionally retained classified material, but no
> evidence that he did it illegally. There was no evidence of intent (a
> necessary element of most crimes), and he fully cooperated with the
> investigation.

According to the _New_York_Times_, the report included a statement
that there was no reason to bring any kind of charges, and wouldn't
be even if Biden were not President. This makes it clear that even
the former Trump official who ran the investigation wasn't giving
Biden any kind of pass because he's President. The Justice
Department's policy of not indicting an incumbent president
(seriously misguided, in my opinion) didn't come into play.

BTW, According to Charles Rembar in his fascinating
_The_Law_of_the_Land_ (1980), that policy, which has not a shred of
Constitutional backing, is a legacy of Nixon(*) and Watergate:

"... the [special prosecutor's] office functioned poorly on a
patently strong case. Consider Jaworski's ex cathedra pronouncement
that a President cannot be indicted, and his reduction of the charge
against Kleindienst, an Attorney General who, under oath, lied on a
question of the gravest import, and then received a minimal sentence,
and even that suspended."

(I don't know why the _Times_ didn't report the "no charges
appropriate, President or not" bit with their initial coverage of
"old man", but maybe they did and I failed to see it.)

(*) And we thought _that_ Republican was a threat to democracy.
Looking back, by comparison he was a textbook case for democracy
working in a crisis, albeit painfully slowly. But 50 years ago, of
course, both parties believed in it. Elected officials and numerous
citizens, from both parties, called for him to go, and a delegation
of leaders of his own party told him he had to resign or be impeached
for certain and probably convicted.

[Roy]

On 2/12/2024 10:01 AM, Roy wrote:
> Change the subject if you want to continue this thread
>

This thread is closed. I have rejected several postings for it.

I found them interesting but please post it on a different subject

[Rick]

> RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:49b7086b-c851-475f...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > [quoted text muted]
> > Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
> > The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
> > But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
> > for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.
>
> Actually that was in the commentary. The actual finding that there was
> evidence that he intentionally retained classified material, but no
> evidence that he did it illegally. There was no evidence of intent (a
> necessary element of most crimes), and he fully cooperated with the
> investigation.

But doesn't that beg the question of how could someone in his position and
with his extensive experience not know that you can't take classified
documents with you when you leave a government position and just leave them
in your garage? This isn’t someone in his first government job but a person
with several decades of experience in the federal government who should know
perhaps better than anyone what a classified document is and what the proper
way to store that document is. The logical inference is he either did it
knowing fully well it was illegal or his mind had deteriorated to the point
where he literally no longer saw any illegality in what he'd done.

[Barry Gold]

On 2/10/2024 9:38 PM, RichD wrote:
> Speaking of which, the Biden investigation is apposite.
> The report states that the evidence is the Prez broke the law.
> But he's a drooling old man, and a jury would likely sympathize
> for his condition, hence the chance of a conviction is slight.

Actually the report said that he didn't have the requisite intent ("mens
rea" in law). He took some classified documents home with him. When he
discovered them, he returned them to the government.

Some other Presidents and VPs have done the same. And they either
returned the docs unasked, or cooperated when the government asked for them.

By contrast, Trump intentionally hid some of the documents. He even
conspired with someone else to hide them. He didn't turn over everything
he had until the government agents showed up with a search warrant and
searched Mar-a-Lago.

The comment about Biden's senility was completely irrelevant to the
purpose of the investigation (whether or not he committed a crime) and
was gratuitously added by a Trump appointee who was given the job of
investigating Biden's handling of classified documents to make sure that
nobody could legitimately claim it was a cover-up.

[Barry Gold]

On 2/13/2024 9:46 PM, Rick wrote:
> But doesn't that beg the question of how could someone in his position and
> with his extensive experience not know that you can't take classified
> documents with you when you leave a government position and just leave them
> in your garage?  This isn’t someone in his first government job but a
> person
> with several decades of experience in the federal government who should
> know
> perhaps better than anyone what a classified document is and what the
> proper
> way to store that document is.   The logical inference is he either did it
> knowing fully well it was illegal or his mind had deteriorated to the point
> where he literally no longer saw any illegality in what he'd done.

Except that he's not the only ex-Vice-President(or ex-President ) to
bring classified documents home at the end of his term. People tend to
pack in a hurry. The crime of mishandling docs requires intent, not mistake.