Defending Property

[TallPine]

In the Old West, stealing a horse was capital offense punishable by death.

Well, I'd consider somebody stealing my horse as about equivalent to somebody kidnapping a member of my family.

 

[Jeff White]

ArfinGreebly asked,

At what point does theft actually become assault?

I've got an idea, lets look at the law and see .

Theft:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=30400000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 16 heading)
ARTICLE 16. THEFT AND RELATED OFFENSES

(720 ILCS 5/16‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 16‑1)
Sec. 16‑1. Theft.
(a) A person commits theft when he knowingly:
(1) Obtains or exerts unauthorized control over

property of the owner; or
(2) Obtains by deception control over property of

the owner; or
(3) Obtains by threat control over property of the

owner; or
(4) Obtains control over stolen property knowing the

property to have been stolen or under such circumstances as would reasonably induce him to believe that the property was stolen; or
(5) Obtains or exerts control over property in the

custody of any law enforcement agency which is explicitly represented to him by any law enforcement officer or any individual acting in behalf of a law enforcement agency as being stolen, and
(A) Intends to deprive the owner permanently of

the use or benefit of the property; or
(B) Knowingly uses, conceals or abandons the

property in such manner as to deprive the owner permanently of such use or benefit; or
(C) Uses, conceals, or abandons the property

knowing such use, concealment or abandonment probably will deprive the owner permanently of such use or benefit.
(b) Sentence.
(1) Theft of property not from the person and not

exceeding $300 in value is a Class A misdemeanor.
(1.1) Theft of property not from the person and not

exceeding $300 in value is a Class 4 felony if the theft was committed in a school or place of worship or if the theft was of governmental property.
(2) A person who has been convicted of theft of

property not from the person and not exceeding $300 in value who has been previously convicted of any type of theft, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, residential burglary, possession of burglary tools, home invasion, forgery, a violation of Section 4‑103, 4‑103.1, 4‑103.2, or 4‑103.3 of the Illinois Vehicle Code relating to the possession of a stolen or converted motor vehicle, or a violation of Section 8 of the Illinois Credit Card and Debit Card Act is guilty of a Class 4 felony. When a person has any such prior conviction, the information or indictment charging that person shall state such prior conviction so as to give notice of the State's intention to treat the charge as a felony. The fact of such prior conviction is not an element of the offense and may not be disclosed to the jury during trial unless otherwise permitted by issues properly raised during such trial.
(3) (Blank).
(4) Theft of property from the person not exceeding

$300 in value, or theft of property exceeding $300 and not exceeding $10,000 in value, is a Class 3 felony.
(4.1) Theft of property from the person not

exceeding $300 in value, or theft of property exceeding $300 and not exceeding $10,000 in value, is a Class 2 felony if the theft was committed in a school or place of worship or if the theft was of governmental property.
(5) Theft of property exceeding $10,000 and not

exceeding $100,000 in value is a Class 2 felony.
(5.1) Theft of property exceeding $10,000 and not

exceeding $100,000 in value is a Class 1 felony if the theft was committed in a school or place of worship or if the theft was of governmental property.
(6) Theft of property exceeding $100,000 and not

exceeding $500,000 in value is a Class 1 felony.
(6.1) Theft of property exceeding $100,000 in value

is a Class X felony if the theft was committed in a school or place of worship or if the theft was of governmental property.
(6.2) Theft of property exceeding $500,000 in value

is a Class 1 non‑probationable felony.
(7) Theft by deception, as described by paragraph

(2) of subsection (a) of this Section, in which the offender obtained money or property valued at $5,000 or more from a victim 60 years of age or older is a Class 2 felony.
(c) When a charge of theft of property exceeding a specified value is brought, the value of the property involved is an element of the offense to be resolved by the trier of fact as either exceeding or not exceeding the specified value.
(Source: P.A. 93‑520, eff. 8‑6‑03; 94‑134, eff. 1‑1‑06.)

Now let's look at assault:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=23700000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 12 heading)
ARTICLE 12. BODILY HARM

(720 ILCS 5/12‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 12‑1)
Sec. 12‑1. Assault.
(a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.
(b) Sentence. Assault is a Class C misdemeanor.
(c) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of assault to perform community service for not less than 30 and not more than 120 hours, if community service is available in the jurisdiction and is funded and approved by the county board of the county where the offense was committed. In addition, whenever any person is placed on supervision for an alleged offense under this Section, the supervision shall be conditioned upon the performance of the community service.
This subsection does not apply when the court imposes a sentence of incarceration.
(Source: P.A. 88‑558, eff. 1‑1‑95; 89‑8, eff. 3‑21‑95.)

(720 ILCS 5/12‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 12‑2)
(Text of Section from P.A. 94‑243)
Sec. 12‑2. Aggravated assault.
(a) A person commits an aggravated assault, when, in committing an assault, he:
(1) Uses a deadly weapon or any device manufactured

and designed to be substantially similar in appearance to a firearm, other than by discharging a firearm in the direction of another person, a peace officer, a person summoned or directed by a peace officer, a correctional officer or a fireman or in the direction of a vehicle occupied by another person, a peace officer, a person summoned or directed by a peace officer, a correctional officer or a fireman while the officer or fireman is engaged in the execution of any of his official duties, or to prevent the officer or fireman from performing his official duties, or in retaliation for the officer or fireman performing his official duties;
(2) Is hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to

conceal his identity or any device manufactured and designed to be substantially similar in appearance to a firearm;
(3) Knows the individual assaulted to be a teacher

or other person employed in any school and such teacher or other employee is upon the grounds of a school or grounds adjacent thereto, or is in any part of a building used for school purposes;
(4) Knows the individual assaulted to be a

supervisor, director, instructor or other person employed in any park district and such supervisor, director, instructor or other employee is upon the grounds of the park or grounds adjacent thereto, or is in any part of a building used for park purposes;
(5) Knows the individual assaulted to be a

caseworker, investigator, or other person employed by the State Department of Public Aid, a County Department of Public Aid, or the Department of Human Services (acting as successor to the Illinois Department of Public Aid under the Department of Human Services Act) and such caseworker, investigator, or other person is upon the grounds of a public aid office or grounds adjacent thereto, or is in any part of a building used for public aid purposes, or upon the grounds of a home of a public aid applicant, recipient or any other person being interviewed or investigated in the employees' discharge of his duties, or on grounds adjacent thereto, or is in any part of a building in which the applicant, recipient, or other such person resides or is located;
(6) Knows the individual assaulted to be a peace

officer, or a community policing volunteer, or a fireman while the officer or fireman is engaged in the execution of any of his official duties, or to prevent the officer, community policing volunteer, or fireman from performing his official duties, or in retaliation for the officer, community policing volunteer, or fireman performing his official duties, and the assault is committed other than by the discharge of a firearm in the direction of the officer or fireman or in the direction of a vehicle occupied by the officer or fireman;
(7) Knows the individual assaulted to be an

emergency medical technician ‑ ambulance, emergency medical technician ‑ intermediate, emergency medical technician ‑ paramedic, ambulance driver or other medical assistance or first aid personnel engaged in the execution of any of his official duties, or to prevent the emergency medical technician ‑ ambulance, emergency medical technician ‑ intermediate, emergency medical technician ‑ paramedic, ambulance driver, or other medical assistance or first aid personnel from performing his official duties, or in retaliation for the emergency medical technician ‑ ambulance, emergency medical technician ‑ intermediate, emergency medical technician ‑ paramedic, ambulance driver, or other medical assistance or first aid personnel performing his official duties;
(8) Knows the individual assaulted to be the driver,

operator, employee or passenger of any transportation facility or system engaged in the business of transportation of the public for hire and the individual assaulted is then performing in such capacity or then using such public transportation as a passenger or using any area of any description designated by the transportation facility or system as a vehicle boarding, departure, or transfer location;
(9) Or the individual assaulted is on or about a

public way, public property, or public place of accommodation or amusement;
(10) Knows the individual assaulted to be an

employee of the State of Illinois, a municipal corporation therein or a political subdivision thereof, engaged in the performance of his authorized duties as such employee;
(11) Knowingly and without legal justification,

commits an assault on a physically handicapped person;
(12) Knowingly and without legal justification,

commits an assault on a person 60 years of age or older;
(13) Discharges a firearm;
(14) Knows the individual assaulted to be a

correctional officer, while the officer is engaged in the execution of any of his or her official duties, or to prevent the officer from performing his or her official duties, or in retaliation for the officer performing his or her official duties;
(15) Knows the individual assaulted to be a

correctional employee or an employee of the Department of Human Services supervising or controlling sexually dangerous persons or sexually violent persons, while the employee is engaged in the execution of any of his or her official duties, or to prevent the employee from performing his or her official duties, or in retaliation for the employee performing his or her official duties, and the assault is committed other than by the discharge of a firearm in the direction of the employee or in the direction of a vehicle occupied by the employee;
(16) Knows the individual assaulted to be an

employee of a police or sheriff's department engaged in the performance of his or her official duties as such employee; or
(17) Knows the individual assaulted to be a sports

official or coach at any level of competition and the act causing the assault to the sports official or coach occurred within an athletic facility or an indoor or outdoor playing field or within the immediate vicinity of the athletic facility or an indoor or outdoor playing field at which the sports official or coach was an active participant in the athletic contest held at the athletic facility. For the purposes of this paragraph (17), "sports official" means a person at an athletic contest who enforces the rules of the contest, such as an umpire or referee; and "coach" means a person recognized as a coach by the sanctioning authority that conducted the athletic contest.
(18) Knows the individual assaulted to be an

emergency management worker, while the emergency management worker is engaged in the execution of any of his or her official duties, or to prevent the emergency management worker from performing his or her official duties, or in retaliation for the emergency management worker performing his or her official duties, and the assault is committed other than by the discharge of a firearm in the direction of the emergency management worker or in the direction of a vehicle occupied by the emergency management worker.
(a‑5) A person commits an aggravated assault when he or she knowingly and without lawful justification shines or flashes a laser gunsight or other laser device that is attached or affixed to a firearm, or used in concert with a firearm, so that the laser beam strikes near or in the immediate vicinity of any person.
(b) Sentence.
Aggravated assault as defined in paragraphs (1) through (5) and (8) through (12) and (17) of subsection (a) of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor. Aggravated assault as defined in paragraphs (13), (14), and (15) of subsection (a) of this Section and as defined in subsection (a‑5) of this Section is a Class 4 felony. Aggravated assault as defined in paragraphs (6), (7), (16), and (18) of subsection (a) of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor if a firearm is not used in the commission of the assault. Aggravated assault as defined in paragraphs (6), (7), (16), and (18) of subsection (a) of this Section is a Class 4 felony if a firearm is used in the commission of the assault.
(Source: P.A. 93‑692, eff. 1‑1‑05; 94‑243, eff. 1‑1‑06.)

From my layman's understanding I don't see where theft ever becomes and assault. Perhaps we should look at the laws on use of force:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

Illinois law allows you to use force in defense of property, however you are only allowed to use force which is intended to or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if you reasonablely believe such force is necessary to stop the commission of a forcible felony. Which leads us to the question of whats a forcible felony?

Anyone know? Should you know before you decide to shoot the guy running away with your stereo under his arm?

The legal answer is available to you in the statutes of your state. Look it up. Ask a lawyer who specializes in criminal law to explain it to you. Don't take the unsolicited advice of anyone on the internet.

Had something stolen? Piss you off? Make up want to shoot the next thief you encounter?

I can answer yes to all of those questions. But then I think of the consequences of shooting the thief and I cool down. We can make all kinds of circular arguments where the final outcome is that you were justfied in shooting the thief. However if those arguments aren't consistant with what the law says, guess what?

Think that if you aren't charged criminally that you are free and clear civilly because your state has a no retreat law that says you can't be sued? Think again. All the thief's attorney has to do is convince the judge that you're actions were so reckless and negligent that he may permit the suit to go forward. Every gunowner needs to remember that after a huge fight in Congress we passed a law protecting firearm manufacturers from lawsuits. Fat lot of good it did, a federal judge promptly ruled that New York City's suit could continue.

Just because there is a law that says you can't be sued for defending yourself. It doesn't mean that you can't be sued. The Clerk will still accept the filing fee of the action against you, the case will still be put on the docket and you will still be served with a subpeona. Then you will have to hire a lawyer who will answer the suit with "This law says my client can't be held civilly liable for his actions." to which the thief's lawyer will promptly reply; "The defendants actions were so outrageous, so negligent, shooting my client in the back over a boombox, an item of so little value that petty theft was the only charge the police could bring against him, that it is in the overriding interest of the state that this case be allowed to procede. The legislature clearly never intended to excuse outlandish conduct like this and allow the people absolutley no recourse." Then the judge will rule and if he buys the plaintiff's argument, you're being sued in spite of the law that says you can't be.

That is the reality of life.

Jeff

 

[Caimlas]

I personally don't think it matters when it equates to assault.

If someone steals from you, they are essentially stealing your time and effort - the time required to pay for that item. Time is the only real luxury a person has, and if they have to spend it in an unenjoyable persuit (most work these days, unfortunately) to get money, you are essentially trading your time and effort straight-up for money, with little other side-benefit.

So, in short, I see theft as equating to forceful and unwilling imprisionment of the victim for the period of time it takes to either purchase initially, or replace the item. As this is a situation in wihch lethal force would be acceptable... I think it should be for stopping theft, as well.

And, failing that, a person should - at the least - get prison time equal to the amount of time it would take to purchase the item stolen, for the individual who had it stolen from them. If I make minimum wage and you steal my 1991 Dodge Neon, that means your minimum time sentenced is at least the maximum price of that item at the time it was stolen (what might that be, $1500 = 7 weeks of imprisionment?). Granted, that's only if the merch is recoverable...

 

[Kevlarman]

True, but I have it figured out to some degree already...just incase. See, I will sue them before they can sue me. The body wouldn't have time to get cold before I would be on the phone with a lawyer for the criminal defense part, but I will then be placing a second call to another lawyer to file suit against whoever is related to the perp so they don't get the stupid idea their family member was a "victim" or that I owe them a new father/son/brother/husband/cashcow. They owe me a new carpet and drapes.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

 

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me there is some confusion between what's moral and what's legal. What's moral is not necessarily pertinent where established law is concerned.

Jeff's comment is pertinent:

"The legal answer is available to you in the statutes of your state. Look it up. Ask a lawyer who specializes in criminal law to explain it to you. Don't take the unsolicited advice of anyone on the internet."

If anybody wishes to further continue with the moral and/or the macho part of this deal, take it to APS. If you know the sstatutes of your state, feel free to comment...

Art

 

[thexrayboy]

If in doubt about when you can and cannot use lethal force in your locale you had better be doing the research now while it is theoretical. Don't wait till it's an ex post facto event to determine that keeping that beady eyed miscreant from stealing that priceless 57 vette you've been restoring by ventilating him is actually a crime for which you will have to sell that baby to hire a lawyer.

Each state has specific laws justifying when deadly force is needed. In my
jurisdiction it was taught as part of the class for CCW and my local sheriff hands out a copy of the pertinent statutes with every application for a CCW.

Talk to a lawyer, perhaps even better see if you can talk to a prosecutor in your DA's office. Ask them what they define as justified or not. They will be the ones deciding if you go to trial. Not the police. Just know before you need. After the fact is a bad time to learn you substituted what you wanted to be legal for what actually is legal.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

And, failing that, a person should - at the least - get prison time equal to the amount of time it would take to purchase the item stolen, for the individual who had it stolen from them.

So you are suggesting the people steal from the rich, so they will serve less time?

What if someone made minimum wage then they bought their Dodge Neon, but now made $50,000 a year. Does the thief pay the current value of the time or the time the person spent originally? What if someone went down in pay?

Some ideas are neat until you think them through.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Needs Research

I'd say we've gotten all the mileage out of this that we're likely to see until some actual research is done into the legal tort issues. Thank you, Jeff.

BullFrogKen, as previously discussed, you may throw the switch at your convenience.

Thank you for your indulgence.

 

[Prince Yamato]

The problem is you have a bunch of antis/ bleeding hearts, who think that if you allow a person to defend their property with lethal force, that we're going to have a blood bath (See 'America the Shootiful' on the Brady website).

I believe the reality is, most people KNOW when force is excessive. Most people WON'T shoot out of anger. There's been no bloodbath now that CCW is pretty much standard nation-wide. The fear is the same with lethal force meeting lethal force: How do you know the person is trying to steal your stuff? Well, if you draw your gun, say, "stop" and the person drops to their knees, begging, "don't shoot don't shoot, I'm just trying to find Bob Smith at 123 Friendship Lane" with the honest look of fear of death in their eyes, you're probably not going to shoot them. All hypotheticals aside, most of us KNOW when force is excessive, and most of us should have no desire to kill someone unnecessesarily.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Closed by request.