If they ran then he has no right to arrest them. He's not a peace officer.

The law is, you can keep people out, but you can't keep them in. Unless you are a peace officer and you are arresting them.

Upside down.

In high crime areas, castle doctrines,...recipe for....

And then there'w "who's that peekin in my window, POW, nobody now."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIEzwktirQk&feature=related

There are those that think THAT is good fun.

Just saying.

Peace.

>> ^chicchorea:

Upside down.
In high crime areas, castle doctrines,...recipe for....
And then there'w "who's that peekin in my window, POW, nobody now."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIEzwktirQk&feature=related
There are those that think THAT is good fun.
Just saying.
Peace.
Are you related to westy?

Are we not all related?

Wouldn't the teen's parents be responsible for their child harassing people, or do kids get a legal free pass on that kinda thing these days?

>> ^NordlichReiter:

If they ran then he has no right to arrest them. He's not a peace officer.
The law is, you can keep people out, but you can't keep them in. Unless you are a peace officer and you are arresting them.


Ya, last I checked ringing someones doorbell and not being there isn't a crime. He made a foolish mistake, in context though, I would hope the DA drops the charges.

No charges for the teen? They went to the back door. What about trespassing?

>> ^chilaxe:

No charges for the teen? They went to the back door. What about trespassing?


Typically, unless you have something posted, you can't get someone on trespassing until a warning is issued. "Get off my lawn", if not, then trespassing can be brought into the courts. Even if he has a sign, you can't kidnap someone who did trespass, you can only use violence to prevent it or to defend yourself. You couldn't chase them off your property then shoot them in other words, once they have left your property your authority over them vanishes.

QFT
>> ^NordlichReiter:

If they ran then he has no right to arrest them. He's not a peace officer.
The law is, you can keep people out, but you can't keep them in. Unless you are a peace officer and you are arresting them.



I actually just had a discussion about this with a law student. Depending on the state, castle doctrine can only be applied within reasonable means, and if the perpetrator is running away, you don't have a right to chase him(in this instance).
>> ^chicchorea:

Upside down.
In high crime areas, castle doctrines,...recipe for....
And then there'w "who's that peekin in my window, POW, nobody now."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIEzwktirQk&feature=related
There are those that think THAT is good fun.
Just saying.
Peace.


@GeeSussFreeK is right, the man tackling the kid made a foolish mistake, over-reacted, and now might face charges if the DA feels like pursuing the case. Odds are he won't, but worse things have happened, like being convicted of rape by deception in Israel.

Speaking to the Law, respectfully, there is no Law.

In the states with Castle Doctrine laws, it is indeed varied. In Texas, deadly force maybe used against one having forced entry into or using force to attempt to enter a dwelling or place of business. Refer to the video. Here, it could have been tragically different in outcome. In fact, my response was to the gentleman poster's representation of similar activities as great fun.

In Texas, one may use deadly force, at night, in instances of vandalism and theft as well.

Other jurisdictions have eschewed Castle Doctrine so as not to limit the scope of actions that one may take to protect themselves and their properties. Others, otherwise. I am not seeking to enter into a philosophical discussion about such, but merely to address the inherent dangers of certain perceived fun.

Personally speaking, I live in a nice neighborhood with largely retired professionals and upper middle class with young professionals moving in. That said, I can stand on my front porch and see the site of a home invasion that nearly cost the life of an ex-judge, a house broken into three times with the occupant home each time and assaulted(elderly female), a daylight armed robbery of an individual watering a lawn, I could continue.... I witnessed three teens kicking a door of and elderly neighbor, pursued and detained them three weeks ago. I managed to get their home address and escorted them there and confronted their parents without having to call the police. The neighbor was approaching the door when I scared them off and would have opened fire if they had been successful. Her neighbor's house was burgled Sunday afternoon the following week.

I apologize if too much.

No man, it's always good to point out the technicalities as well as the philosophy of the issue at hand. That is a good (or am I supposed to use bad) example you gave there. It is always good to run to the logical limits of the laws you do or don't lay out. In your example, it empowers citizens to police themselves. Problem with that is that we are seldom a good judge of things that directly concern us. We tend to favor our own judgments at the expense of others. Only few can be completely impartial when pressed with issues like these. As such, I think it is a better position, philosophically, to leave such matters that concern rights and due process with "outsiders", in this case, police. Holding someone in your house is essentially imprisonment. Catching someone in the act is one thing, catching up with someone and holding them to find out if they were part of the act is a completely different thing. What if one person was just ringing the doorbell and some other hostel person was knocking at the back, completely unrelated? It takes an impartial investigation to find that out, and a man running around in his underwear with a frying pan isn't that man (Not that he did this, I just like the visual).

Your points are appreciated.

I had wished to sidestep the philosophical, but I like the timbre of your response.

So...

With all due respect, I submit, and with all due respect to peace officers everywhere, they are, and this is well represented by rank and file as well as departments, regrettably unable to provide the immediate protection we and they would desire. Sans a well designed and executed safe room in one's castle, and there is no such accommodation in one's vehicle, the immediacy of a threat precludes the variable of police response time. One, in these circumstances either is armed and therefore at least has some semblance of a choice or otherwise has no choice about being a victim.

Therefore, the comfort one or others may find in letting those, SUPPOSEDLY, more qualified to act, react, adjudge, et cetera, becomes or rather is moot.

Speaking to people in general and their acumen, intelligence, skill, objectivity, experience, et cetera, YIKES! Given that on the Gaussian Bell the average IQ is 100 and the inescapable and concerning resultant conclusion is that 50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or below, I would rather not attempt or pursue this very far. However, training is helpful.

As to peace officers, for many years here in Houston, the average score on the Police Boards, after academy of course, was 74%.

For me and mine, we are responsible for our own safety and have been so for a few others as well. YMMV.

Good luck to all and peace.