2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on November 15, 2024, 07:51:30 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdU8crRcoPA
Kevin Ogrady is a lawyer who works with HIFICO and Alan Beck to fight for your 2a right. He is also a DUI attorney.
Chris Marvin "The Veteran" is part of the anti 2a org. For a stand your ground bill a few years ago, he testifed against it and used Kinosha, WA and Kyle Rittenhouse as that might happen here. He was unaware that open carry of a rifle is illegal.
Take aways:
The vet states he is a CCW holder. If he is a HI CCW holder, then his testimony to support the sensitive places makes no sense as he can only CCW on the sidewalk.
Alm used an example of a CCW holder stopping a person shooting multiple people at Fort Street Mall. I guess he doesn't know that Fort Street Mall is a park and thus subject to HI's sensitive places law and CCW is banned there.
Overall, Alm seemed fair and not anti 2A, which as the states prosecutor, he should be.
The Waianae self defense shooting where people where killed and a car with possible flamable liquid drove into the area of people was used.
Facts for stand your ground laws that 25 states have and The Vet stated even though its half the states, its less than half the population who would use it. He is wrong as 52% of the population all under the 25 states stand your ground laws. Are we surprised his stats are wrong?
They brought up ghost guns/homemade/no serial number etc...
Alm stated for the Waianae self defense that the good guy was arrested for about 12 hours before released. He isn't too certain on that, but pretty sure.
-
I've always liked Steve Alm. Last night my impression is that he seems "fair"
the "VET" is what he is... Anti 2 A.
Of course I liked Kevin O Grady
and the incoming West side Senator- I liked her too....
Aloha!
-
Thanks for the run down on the video!
I got my firearms after Katrina hit Florida…..
But with Hawaii’s laws, I can’t do anything with my firearms if looters want stuff from us.
I sort of feel like my firearms are basically for recreation use.
I’m better off using an airsoft or paintball gun or pepper gel.
On a side note:
I sort of have mixed feelings about them bringing up Rittenhouse as an example. Things are done for the LCD. Those dummies were stupid to mess with a kid that had an AR.
That kid may have had good intentions but was sort of young/naive to go to a protest with a rifle.
To bring a rifle with you, I’m thinking you feel/think that it might be a pretty nutso situation…or maybe you don’t think it is that crazy….but want to relish open carrying a rifle. Either way, he didn’t think thru the situation all the way….the outcome if he had to shoot/injure/kill.
Most of us on this forum are older and more mindful of risk and would not risk negative outcomes affecting what we have built up and impacting our lives and our families
I’m thinking that that kid must consider that someone might take revenge
Anywho, it sucks that situations like that affect the rest of us.
So I guess for me, I would have a firearm to protect myself …..and diaperse some of the pepper spray to encourage them to find lower hanging fruit somewhere else
It sucks that they can mosey along till they can find a victim.
-
Thanks for the run down on the video!
I got my firearms after Katrina hit Florida…..
But with Hawaii’s laws, I can’t do anything with my firearms if looters want stuff from us.
I sort of feel like my firearms are basically for recreation use.
I’m better off using an airsoft or paintball gun or pepper gel.
Anywho, it sucks that situations like that affect the rest of us.
So I guess for me, I would have a firearm to protect myself …..and diaperse some of the pepper spray to encourage them to find lower hanging fruit somewhere else
It sucks that they can mosey along till they can find a victim.
So you are concluding that we can only use a paintball gun or pepper gel to deter looters when it comes to property crime? Perhaps we can use those Less-lethal launchers like byrnas or similar CO2 or PCP powered carbines to deter looters? If said criminals are not threatening to use deadly force on ourselves or our persons, at the time they are actively committing the property crime in question; we can justify using a less lethal tool as a means of deterrence?
But should things escalate and they do decide to come after us or our persons directly with the threat of deadly force or serious bodily harm; we can use our firearms, knives, machete etc to defend ourselves or our persons and be justified under Hawaii's law?
-
So you are concluding that we can only use a paintball gun or pepper gel to deter looters when it comes to property crime? Perhaps we can use those Less-lethal launchers like byrnas or similar CO2 or PCP powered carbines to deter looters? If said criminals are not threatening to use deadly force on ourselves or our persons, at the time they are actively committing the property crime in question; we can justify using a less lethal tool as a means of deterrence?
But should things escalate and they do decide to come after us or our persons directly with the threat of deadly force or serious bodily harm; we can use our firearms, knives, machete etc to defend ourselves or our persons and be justified under Hawaii's law?
Be careful if any less lethal type projectile leaves your property. Esp if it crosses the road. My neighbor used a byrna with a solid projectile and hit the guy 3 times. It didn't do anything. IDK what type of projectile he used, except that it wasn't the pepper powder ones. The guy ended up kicking his ass.
-
So you are concluding that we can only use a paintball gun or pepper gel to deter looters when it comes to property crime? Perhaps we can use those Less-lethal launchers like byrnas or similar CO2 or PCP powered carbines to deter looters? If said criminals are not threatening to use deadly force on ourselves or our persons, at the time they are actively committing the property crime in question; we can justify using a less lethal tool as a means of deterrence?
But should things escalate and they do decide to come after us or our persons directly with the threat of deadly force or serious bodily harm; we can use our firearms, knives, machete etc to defend ourselves or our persons and be justified under Hawaii's law?
Be careful when applying logic where our state's laws and ordinances are concerned.
Let's say someone is looting your business with no intention to cause physical harm, but to merely relieve you of your inventory.
By using force, be it lethal, less than lethal, or without any type of weapon, a lawyer could argue that YOU escalated the situation which might make you the aggressor -- especially if the person is fleeing the store with bags and boxes of your property. if you had any other option to remain safe, like just being calm and letting the looter leave or finding a safe place to wait them out, then use of force when force was not a threat can be seen as being the aggressor.
In our leaders' minds, property crimes are not worth enforcing unless a Cop is right there to witness it. Therefore, no civilian should take it upon themselves to stop a property crime. It just makes matters worse.
Liberals have the mindset, "Well don't you have insurance? So, you're really aren't losing money on looting." insurance will foot the bill, so don't make it worse by trying to protect your stuff.
It's easier to comply and not intervene if you're an employee -- i.e. the merchandise isn't yours. Sure, the store may go out of business putting you out of work, but the looter isn't threatening you with imminent harm.
In short, be careful when looking into HI laws. Put yourself in the criminal's shoes and see what kinds of defenses -- logical or ridiculous -- they could use against you. Relying on the law to protect you as you protect yourself ignores a famous comment by a former HPD Chief of Police: Is it worth putting yourself through our legal system to defend yourself or your property? (paraphrased)
-
Liberals have the mindset, "Well don't you have insurance? So, you're really aren't losing money on looting." insurance will foot the bill, so don't make it worse by trying to protect your stuff.
I've people bring things like this up on SSH FB page. What they forget about is the deducitble. WHy should I be out $500 or more just because of a criminal? Then add in what if they get non-renewed due to losses and now have to buy a more expensive policy. Then, if there's an insurance agent involved and they cannot find a replacement policy, they now lose business. Or worst, get blamed if there is no coverage and now their professional liability has to respond.
-
I've people bring things like this up on SSH FB page. What they forget about is the deducitble. WHy should I be out $500 or more just because of a criminal? Then add in what if they get non-renewed due to losses and now have to buy a more expensive policy. Then, if there's an insurance agent involved and they cannot find a replacement policy, they now lose business. Or worst, get blamed if there is no coverage and now their professional liability has to respond.
Yes, the people who want to tell everyone else how to live rarely understand the side effects of their advice -- usually because they've never had to experience the situation they are talking about -- it's just academic to them until they have to actually file a claim, produce receipts, pay deductibles, wait on an appraiser, wait for a settlement check, then have to pay higher premiums or find another insurer at higher premiums because the old insurer canceled you for costing them money.
In the meantime, you have no inventory to replace the stolen stuff, so you're missing out on sales which means your cashflow might not cover payroll and operating costs.
-
Be careful when applying logic where our state's laws and ordinances are concerned.
Let's say someone is looting your business with no intention to cause physical harm, but to merely relieve you of your inventory.
By using force, be it lethal, less than lethal, or without any type of weapon, a lawyer could argue that YOU escalated the situation which might make you the aggressor -- especially if the person is fleeing the store with bags and boxes of your property. if you had any other option to remain safe, like just being calm and letting the looter leave or finding a safe place to wait them out, then use of force when force was not a threat can be seen as being the aggressor.
In our leaders' minds, property crimes are not worth enforcing unless a Cop is right there to witness it. Therefore, no civilian should take it upon themselves to stop a property crime. It just makes matters worse.
Liberals have the mindset, "Well don't you have insurance? So, you're really aren't losing money on looting." insurance will foot the bill, so don't make it worse by trying to protect your stuff.
It's easier to comply and not intervene if you're an employee -- i.e. the merchandise isn't yours. Sure, the store may go out of business putting you out of work, but the looter isn't threatening you with imminent harm.
In short, be careful when looking into HI laws. Put yourself in the criminal's shoes and see what kinds of defenses -- logical or ridiculous -- they could use against you. Relying on the law to protect you as you protect yourself ignores a famous comment by a former HPD Chief of Police: Is it worth putting yourself through our legal system to defend yourself or your property? (paraphrased)
You are describing property crime as it applies to being a business owner. So basically, Hawaii law does not want you to intervene in any possible way unless the thief threatens to use a weapon against you or your employees as they are committing said crime.
I am talking about property crime as it applies to your place of residence!
Like, say you are a renter, and somebody early in the morning decides to raid your open-air carport and steal something out of it or your car that happened to be left unlocked that night.
What can you legally do outside of running outside and yelling at them? Can you legally chase them down the street (unarmed) if they are caught and are running away with a handful of stolen property from your carport?
As a local resident, I come seeking real answers.
-
Be careful if any less lethal type projectile leaves your property. Esp if it crosses the road. My neighbor used a byrna with a solid projectile and hit the guy 3 times. It didn't do anything. IDK what type of projectile he used, except that it wasn't the pepper powder ones. The guy ended up kicking his ass.
I used byrna as an example that folks in the chat would recognize. Anyone who's looked into less lethal launchers should know that the Byrna is considered the weakest launcher for kinetic (non pepper powderball) defense. Those launchers are putting out less than 15 or 9 joules (depending on which model he bought) worth of energy anyway.
Perhaps with the Grimberg Galve at 30 joules, or the new Pistel x68 from MCS firing at a whopping 40 joules out of the box, you are talking better kinetic power for at-home use than what your neighbor used. I'm sorry he had to find out the hard way that byrnas suck for kinetic defense, they were made for pepperball getaways anyway.
-
For the protection laws, read all of the following thoroughly and be an expert at it: https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-37/chapter-703/
Use of pepper spray ordinances for Honolulu: https://www.honolulu.gov/rep/site/csd/csd_docs/Pepper_Spray_packet.pdf
For protection of property and looters for things outside of your home, usually cameras, lights, and just your presence is enough to deter theives where they'll go somewhere else. If you catch them trying to steal something, you can give them a warning and use pepper spray if needed. Pepper spray is very effective, cheap, and prevents criminal and civil liability.
Having a firearm as a backup to pepper spray incase the perp turns violent towards you or your family.
-
I used byrna as an example that folks in the chat would recognize. Anyone who's looked into less lethal launchers should know that the Byrna is considered the weakest launcher for kinetic (non pepper powderball) defense. Those launchers are putting out less than 15 or 9 joules (depending on which model he bought) worth of energy anyway.
Perhaps with the Grimberg Galve at 30 joules, or the new Pistel x68 from MCS firing at a whopping 40 joules out of the box, you are talking better kinetic power for at-home use than what your neighbor used. I'm sorry he had to find out the hard way that byrnas suck for kinetic defense, they were made for pepperball getaways anyway.
I don't recommend byrna or galves and other like stuff except for people that don't want to own a gun but still want protection against violent crime. On a scale of "less lethal" devices being lethal, these are on the higher end. Pepper spray would be at the bottom of the list. You can legally use pepper spray against the widest range of things from property damage to deadly force. Stuff like the Gimberg Galve and Pistel x68 are closer to firearm replacements to protect against serious bodily injury and death.
-
You are describing property crime as it applies to being a business owner. So basically, Hawaii law does not want you to intervene in any possible way unless the thief threatens to use a weapon against you or your employees as they are committing said crime.
I am talking about property crime as it applies to your place of residence!
Like, say you are a renter, and somebody early in the morning decides to raid your open-air carport and steal something out of it or your car that happened to be left unlocked that night.
What can you legally do outside of running outside and yelling at them? Can you legally chase them down the street (unarmed) if they are caught and are running away with a handful of stolen property from your carport?
As a local resident, I come seeking real answers.
2024 Hawaii Revised Statutes
Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code
703. General Principles of Justification
703-306 Use of force for the protection of property. §703-306 Commentary:
https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-37/chapter-703/section-703-306/
You can use a proportional level of force to protect property according to the law.
However, you're going to be second-guessed by people who believe a person's life and physical safety are worth more than any property they could steal from you.
If someone steals $40 worth of shoes and slippers by your entrance, does that warrant going after the thief with a baseball bat? Does it warrant 3 large young men rushing out and kicking the thieve's ass?
Most times, you're going to be told to call the police and file a report. For such a small value, they are going to tell you they can't do much about it.
Nowadays, the safest (for you) and best form of theft recovery/apprehension is installing lots of video cameras and also using your phone if you witness something. Immediately call the Cops. If you are able, maybe follow them at a distance until the Cops locate you.
There's always a risk when trying to stop someone else from wrongdoing. Are they playing with a full deck? Are they high? Are they armed? Are they not alone? A vagrant with a box cutter can do some damage before you know what's happening as you retrieve your slippers or tools.
Legally, the law says as long as the other party has no claim to the property (i.e. doesn't say it was theirs to start with), you can demand the property back and even use a reasonable amount of force. What's reasonable? Hopefully your jury agrees with your definition. if, on the other hand, the thief claims that is their property, law enforcement is probably going to tell you it's a civil matter. Now you have to file a lawsuit to get the property returned, assuming you can prove the property is yours -- again .... cameras are great. The property may not be worth it if you wind up having to go this route.
Conflict resolution seems to side with whichever way causes the least disruption despite who's in the right. I wonder how many lawyers make money off all the "take it to court" laws on the books?
-
surprised no one mentioned getting a "big dog"
-
Let them have it.
Notice the sentence could have 2 meanings........ :wave:
-
Legally, the law says as long as the other party has no claim to the property (i.e. doesn't say it was theirs to start with), you can demand the property back and even use a reasonable amount of force. What's reasonable? Hopefully your jury agrees with your definition. if, on the other hand, the thief claims that is their property, law enforcement is probably going to tell you it's a civil matter. Now you have to file a lawsuit to get the property returned, assuming you can prove the property is yours -- again .... cameras are great. The property may not be worth it if you wind up having to go this route.
Conflict resolution seems to side with whichever way causes the least disruption despite who's in the right. I wonder how many lawyers make money off all the "take it to court" laws on the books?
Makes one wonder, how many of these degenerate vagrants go with the route of claiming "the property was theirs" knowing that the cops won't do anything to them if they make a false claim. I recall in my county, a woman reported to the police about vagrants causing vandalism at a cemetery, but the cops told her unless they had "video" they can't do anything about it. It's like our policemen in this state are trained to not be policemen and instead give tickets to soft targets like h@0/3 tourists driving rental cars!
I don't recommend byrna or galves and other like stuff except for people that don't want to own a gun but still want protection against violent crime. On a scale of "less lethal" devices being lethal, these are on the higher end. Pepper spray would be at the bottom of the list. You can legally use pepper spray against the widest range of things from property damage to deadly force. Stuff like the Gimberg Galve and Pistel x68 are closer to firearm replacements to protect against serious bodily injury and death.
Now, assuming you are going to use these higher-end launchers for a response to a deadly threat that occurs at your home, and the usage was successful that it stopped the threat without "killing" said intruder, would the laws concerning using firearms to defend yourself or your loved ones from death or serious bodily injury apply here? If that is the case, then we can have these launchers that are rated for high power right out of the box without modification; with that in mind, the lib prosecutors would have significantly less wiggle room to make a case against your choice of "home defense weapon.". All this without the headaches that come from getting a gun permit and getting your weapon logged into the police's system; with, of course, a big knife, spear gun, or another more lethal weapon as a backup.
I carry pepper gel spray with me everywhere (for indoors or outdoors), I just wish those commies at Hawaiian and Southwest did not prohibit me from traveling with them via checked luggage when I go to the mainland or Oahu.
-
You are describing property crime as it applies to being a business owner. So basically, Hawaii law does not want you to intervene in any possible way unless the thief threatens to use a weapon against you or your employees as they are committing said crime.
I am talking about property crime as it applies to your place of residence!
Like, say you are a renter, and somebody early in the morning decides to raid your open-air carport and steal something out of it or your car that happened to be left unlocked that night.
What can you legally do outside of running outside and yelling at them? Can you legally chase them down the street (unarmed) if they are caught and are running away with a handful of stolen property from your carport?
As a local resident, I come seeking real answers.
You can use reasonable force to get ur stuff back or stop the theft. But no deadly force.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Now, assuming you are going to use these higher-end launchers for a response to a deadly threat that occurs at your home, and the usage was successful that it stopped the threat without "killing" said intruder, would the laws concerning using firearms to defend yourself or your loved ones from death or serious bodily injury apply here? If that is the case, then we can have these launchers that are rated for high power right out of the box without modification; with that in mind, the lib prosecutors would have significantly less wiggle room to make a case against your choice of "home defense weapon.". All this without the headaches that come from getting a gun permit and getting your weapon logged into the police's system; with, of course, a big knife, spear gun, or another more lethal weapon as a backup.
I carry pepper gel spray with me everywhere (for indoors or outdoors), I just wish those commies at Hawaiian and Southwest did not prohibit me from traveling with them via checked luggage when I go to the mainland or Oahu.
There's no self-protection law specifically on firearms. It applies to all types of deadly force...knives, baseball bats, cars, etc.
You could carry pepper spray in your check in luggage and I've done it many times with no ill effects. The most the airlines would do is tell you to get rid of it and maybe delay your trip.
-
Makes one wonder, how many of these degenerate vagrants go with the route of claiming "the property was theirs" knowing that the cops won't do anything to them if they make a false claim.
As best I understand it, the part about someone claiming the property as theirs is when legal ownership is being asserted. So if for example if I have some of claim of title to your property. If a tow truck driver is repossessing your car you cannot harm him because he is acting upon the bank which has an interest in your car. If a burglar breaks into your house he doesn't just get to say your TV is actually his and then gets released with no charges.
-
As best I understand it, the part about someone claiming the property as theirs is when legal ownership is being asserted. So if for example if I have some of claim of title to your property. If a tow truck driver is repossessing your car you cannot harm him because he is acting upon the bank which has an interest in your car. If a burglar breaks into your house he doesn't just get to say your TV is actually his and then gets released with no charges.
If you call the Cops because someone at a bus stop grabbed your phone and tried to run with it, and nobody who witnessed it is willing to stick around to give a statement, the thief can claim the phone is theirs.
The Cop isn't going to try and determine whose phone it is at the scene. He's going to take down both party's info and tell you to file a lawsuit to get it back. It's a case of your word against the thief's.
Cops are not considered peace officers. They are law enforcement. Unless they saw the crime happen, they just write a report and leave the resolution up to the courts.
-
As someone who has been falsely accused of theft a time or two, the problem with Hawaii's "proportional force" laws as they pertain to property rights is that they allow somebody to initiate force after making a snap judgment on a situation. (At least that is my understanding.)
Imagine you're walking along a trail and somebody who is certain you just stole their avocadoes runs behind you, pepper sprays you, and starts beating you and rummaging through your stuff looking for avocadoes.
You think what the hell is this, and are concerned over your life because some whacko is attacking and robbing you, so you stab them.
Now who is at fault for this situation?
I don't know the best system but everybody should be extremely wary of initiating ANY force. If "nonlethal force" or "proportional force" or whatever can reasonably be responded to with lethal force, is it really nonlethal force to begin with? I'm philosophically inclined to put all force into the lethal force category, because initiating force is intrinsically escalatory.
-
As someone who has been falsely accused of theft a time or two, the problem with Hawaii's "proportional force" laws as they pertain to property rights is that they allow somebody to initiate force after making a snap judgment on a situation. (At least that is my understanding.)
Imagine you're walking along a trail and somebody who is certain you just stole their avocadoes runs behind you, pepper sprays you, and starts beating you and rummaging through your stuff looking for avocadoes.
You think what the hell is this, and are concerned over your life because some whacko is attacking and robbing you, so you stab them.
Now who is at fault for this situation?
I don't know the best system but everybody should be extremely wary of initiating ANY force. If "nonlethal force" or "proportional force" or whatever can reasonably be responded to with lethal force, is it really nonlethal force to begin with? I'm philosophically inclined to put all force into the lethal force category, because initiating force is intrinsically escalatory.
Unless the avocados are visible, I can see this being assault. So if you use your knife, you better be able to articulate why you used deadly force.
No law is perfect as shit happens.
-
As someone who has been falsely accused of theft a time or two, the problem with Hawaii's "proportional force" laws as they pertain to property rights is that they allow somebody to initiate force after making a snap judgment on a situation. (At least that is my understanding.)
Imagine you're walking along a trail and somebody who is certain you just stole their avocadoes runs behind you, pepper sprays you, and starts beating you and rummaging through your stuff looking for avocadoes.
You think what the hell is this, and are concerned over your life because some whacko is attacking and robbing you, so you stab them.
Now who is at fault for this situation?
I don't know the best system but everybody should be extremely wary of initiating ANY force. If "nonlethal force" or "proportional force" or whatever can reasonably be responded to with lethal force, is it really nonlethal force to begin with? I'm philosophically inclined to put all force into the lethal force category, because initiating force is intrinsically escalatory.
LE and jury can only go off what you knew at the time of the incident. Someone sprayed you and beat you while incapacitated is all that you knew.
-
If you call the Cops because someone at a bus stop grabbed your phone and tried to run with it, and nobody who witnessed it is willing to stick around to give a statement, the thief can claim the phone is theirs.
The Cop isn't going to try and determine whose phone it is at the scene. He's going to take down both party's info and tell you to file a lawsuit to get it back. It's a case of your word against the thief's.
Cops are not considered peace officers. They are law enforcement. Unless they saw the crime happen, they just write a report and leave the resolution up to the courts.
Your bus stop scenario is not uncommon but there are ways that the cops can establish who the phone belongs to. One of the two people claiming the phone knows the phone number, they know the passcode, they know the contents of the phone, etc. Criminals stopped with stolen property will often claim it is actually theirs if they think that will not get them arrested. If the cop has both parties and the item being disputed then the item generally gets taking into evidence if ownership cannot be immediately determined.
Witnesses are not required to make an arrest for theft. Sometimes there may be a question of whether it was theft or not and those types of cases can be referred to the prosecutor. A good example could be if a cashier didn't give you enough change. Did he steal your change or was it a mistake?
The claim over property has to be legitimate is the point, merely claiming ownership of property doesn't mean the other person cannot use force against you if you take it. If a tow truck driver tried to repo my car I could physically stop him because my car is paid off and no one has legal claim to it. But if I wasn't paying my loan and the bank sent the repo guy then I cannot use force because there was a legitimate claim on the car.
-
As someone who has been falsely accused of theft a time or two, the problem with Hawaii's "proportional force" laws as they pertain to property rights is that they allow somebody to initiate force after making a snap judgment on a situation. (At least that is my understanding.)
Imagine you're walking along a trail and somebody who is certain you just stole their avocadoes runs behind you, pepper sprays you, and starts beating you and rummaging through your stuff looking for avocadoes.
You think what the hell is this, and are concerned over your life because some whacko is attacking and robbing you, so you stab them.
Now who is at fault for this situation?
I don't know the best system but everybody should be extremely wary of initiating ANY force. If "nonlethal force" or "proportional force" or whatever can reasonably be responded to with lethal force, is it really nonlethal force to begin with? I'm philosophically inclined to put all force into the lethal force category, because initiating force is intrinsically escalatory.
This is a good example of why a person needs to be certain that they are using force against the right person. The avocado owner opens himself up to criminal and civil charges if he uses force on the wrong person. There is no simple answer because in court there are lots of little factors that are going to be looked at to determine if the avocado owners response was reasonable to what he knew at the time. Generally though I would say the avocado owner would be expected to use other mechanisms to get his avocados back before resorting to violence such as telling you to give the avocados back which would give you the chance to show you don't have any avocados.
A better example might be found property. Imagine I leave my phone on the bench at a park and you find it. You pick it up with the intention of taking it to the police station to turn in but I see you taking my phone. I can't just start hitting you because I know you have my phone. Now even if you are suspicious that it is my phone so you refuse to hand it back but say you want to call 911 to turn it into cops then the reasonable thing would be for me to wait for the cops.
You as a hiker in this scenario would be entirely justified in using force for self defense as long as it is appropriate to the amount of force used on you. This is why someone with a CCW must make sure they are drawing their firearm on the right individual and communicating effectively.
-
Possession is nine-tenths of the law
In the context of property law it can be restated as:
"In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence
of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary,
the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is
presumed to be the rightful owner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
So, unless your name is displayed on the lock screen (mine is), and the phone is turned on, a cop at the scene isn't going to start dialing numbers or viewing photos to guess whether it's your phone.
Any identifying info you rely on to prove ownership needs to be visible and in plain view. The person in possession is within their rights to refuse to assist the cops in the investigation, and it's not impossible for someone to know the number to that phone if they saw it on the lock screen (also on mine) or overheard the person recite the number on a call.
I put my name and number on the lock screen in case it's lost to make returning it very easy.
-
Possession is nine-tenths of the lawhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
So, unless your name is displayed on the lock screen (mine is), and the phone is turned on, a cop at the scene isn't going to start dialing numbers or viewing photos to guess whether it's your phone.
Any identifying info you rely on to prove ownership needs to be visible and in plain view. The person in possession is within their rights to refuse to assist the cops in the investigation, and it's not impossible for someone to know the number to that phone if they saw it on the lock screen (also on mine) or overheard the person recite the number on a call.
I put my name and number on the lock screen in case it's lost to make returning it very easy.
I've seen multiple post on SSH that the stolen phone was located via GPS and the owner called 911 to have a cop get it for them and make an arrest. Their common reply was that it's not HPD's duty. Then sometimes followed by, "it's a civil matter". And "We can't help you get your phone back".
-
I've seen multiple post on SSH that the stolen phone was located via GPS and the owner called 911 to have a cop get it for them and make an arrest. Their common reply was that it's not HPD's duty. Then sometimes followed by, "it's a civil matter". And "We can't help you get your phone back".
Exactly. They write a report and tell you to take it to civil court.
Maybe there are some cops that will go the extra mile to settle the matter at the scene, but that's not the official procedure.
-
Possession is nine-tenths of the lawhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
So, unless your name is displayed on the lock screen (mine is), and the phone is turned on, a cop at the scene isn't going to start dialing numbers or viewing photos to guess whether it's your phone.
Any identifying info you rely on to prove ownership needs to be visible and in plain view. The person in possession is within their rights to refuse to assist the cops in the investigation, and it's not impossible for someone to know the number to that phone if they saw it on the lock screen (also on mine) or overheard the person recite the number on a call.
I put my name and number on the lock screen in case it's lost to make returning it very easy.
You aren't wrong but there are also ways of dealing this to where it isn't going to just be "sorry, he has possession so it is his". So imagine a scenario where ownership of a bag is in dispute and one party is in possession of the bag. The person who doesn't have possession of the bag says the cop has permission to search the bag but the person who does have the bag says no permission to search the bag. The officer can take custody of the bag as evidence and both parties information. The officer can then seek a search warrant to open the bag in which case the contents will tell you who was telling the truth. There will certainly be some instances where it will be impossible to establish ownership but then you can leave it in evidence for the two parties to fight it over in court.
The other more quick and dirty way of going about it is just opening the bag at the scene to identify ownership. The reason an officer can do this is that a thief has no expectation of privacy to a stolen bag. So if you call cops saying your bag was stolen and they detain the alleged suspect, the cops can open the bag because you are giving permission and the alleged thief cannot claim illegal search. Now if it turned out you were lying and it was their bag then this may taint anything else the cop would find in the bag but that's a separate issue.
Your suggestion of having the number on the screen is a good one though.
-
I've seen multiple post on SSH that the stolen phone was located via GPS and the owner called 911 to have a cop get it for them and make an arrest. Their common reply was that it's not HPD's duty. Then sometimes followed by, "it's a civil matter". And "We can't help you get your phone back".
That is the excuse of a lazy cop or one who doesn't know what they are doing. Anyone who gets this response should request a supervisor. There are situations where it will be difficult or impossible to recover the phone but it is not a civil matter and they should be at least attempting to get the phone back.
-
You aren't wrong but there are also ways of dealing this to where it isn't going to just be "sorry, he has possession so it is his". So imagine a scenario where ownership of a bag is in dispute and one party is in possession of the bag. The person who doesn't have possession of the bag says the cop has permission to search the bag but the person who does have the bag says no permission to search the bag. The officer can take custody of the bag as evidence and both parties information. The officer can then seek a search warrant to open the bag in which case the contents will tell you who was telling the truth. There will certainly be some instances where it will be impossible to establish ownership but then you can leave it in evidence for the two parties to fight it over in court.
The other more quick and dirty way of going about it is just opening the bag at the scene to identify ownership. The reason an officer can do this is that a thief has no expectation of privacy to a stolen bag. So if you call cops saying your bag was stolen and they detain the alleged suspect, the cops can open the bag because you are giving permission and the alleged thief cannot claim illegal search. Now if it turned out you were lying and it was their bag then this may taint anything else the cop would find in the bag but that's a separate issue.
Your suggestion of having the number on the screen is a good one though.
Or, the cop puts the bag down has something in their eye and is blinded for a few seconds. Comes back and if contents are on the ground and open, he can determine who's bag it is.
-
That is the excuse of a lazy cop or one who doesn't know what they are doing. Anyone who gets this response should request a supervisor. There are situations where it will be difficult or impossible to recover the phone but it is not a civil matter and they should be at least attempting to get the phone back.
They never asked for a supervisor, but I would add a "s" to cop(s) as this has happened enough times to not be isolated to 1 cop.
-
They never asked for a supervisor, but I would add a "s" to cop(s) as this has happened enough times to not be isolated to 1 cop.
Very true, I have met more lazy cops than I care to admit.
-
Or, the cop puts the bag down has something in their eye and is blinded for a few seconds. Comes back and if contents are on the ground and open, he can determine who's bag it is.
Security guards frequently search shoplifter's bags and this is perfectly legal as long as the cop wasn't there watching it or telling the guard to do it. :thumbsup:
-
Security guards frequently search shoplifter's bags and this is perfectly legal as long as the cop wasn't there watching it or telling the guard to do it. :thumbsup:
Security guards aren't the government. So they don't fall under the 4th amendment. So a cop being there to witness it isn't relevant. I guess that proxy searches though would violate someone's 4th.