Before You Quote the Statute...

[Jeff White]

I'll guess burglary.

He was charged with Criminal Trespass when he was arrested.

Salem man held at gunpoint by homeowner after allegedly breaking into residence near Lake Centralia
February 9, 2020 | by Bruce Kropp

A 20-year-old Salem man has been arrested after allegedly breaking into a home early Sunday morning near Lake Centralia and being held at gunpoint by one of the occupants until a Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy arrived.

Jordan Rinehart of Brubaker Road is being held for felony criminal trespass to property, criminal damage to property and illegal consumption of alcohol or liquor.

The home was located on Levy Road near the Branch Road intersection.

Sheriff’s officials say Rinehart had broken out the glass in the front door to gain access to the home. One of the residents then took control of the situation by holding Rinehart at gunpoint while another called the sheriff’s department to report the incident.

There were no injuries reported.

The incident was reported at 2:54 Sunday morning.

Burglary would have required the state to prove he committed a theft or intended to commit a theft. I don't know what charges the states attorney filed in court this morning. They might be different then the charges he was arrested on.

 

[1911 guy]

We can look into it, but there will rarely be complete agreement.
(snip)
Do we really know what the authors intended and what they didn't?

The issue is one of hermeneutics. Why would one insist on attempting to discern that intent from sources far removed from the original source and supporting material? Why would one dismiss original supporting documents because they aren't in complete unison, yet place equal or greater weight on opinions separated by up to two centuries?

The same principle applies to any document, whether written a thousand years ago or yesterday. The further you distance yourself from original sources and original context, the more error you introduce.

 

[Kleanbore]

The issue is one of hermeneutics. Why would one insist on attempting to discern that intent from sources far removed from the original source and supporting material? Why would one dismiss original supporting documents because they aren't in complete unison, yet place equal or greater weight on opinions separated by up to two centuries?

The same principle applies to any document, whether written a thousand years ago or yesterday. The further you distance yourself from original sources and original context, the more error you introduce.

Did you read boom boom's post?

 

[1911 guy]

I took the time to re-read them. I'm impressed, actually. No sarcasm meant at all. That is the very first time, over the internet or in person, I have ever heard a lawyer mention textual criticism rather than complete reliance on the opinions of more lawyers. And I'm related to two of them.
There's a thought rolling around in my head that I can't quite express clearly. I'll be back when the words come to me.