Author Topic: Justification -- Use of force for the protection of property.  (Read 2009 times)

fdegree

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
Justification -- Use of force for the protection of property.
« on: December 23, 2013, 04:54:46 PM »
In an attempt to simplify the code, and interpret the legal terminology into everyday language, I'm going to give my interpretation of the "Use Of Force" codes.  Now, I am not a lawyer, and my interpretation may not even be close to a lawyers interpretation, so don't take mine as "gospel".  Also, I'm hoping others will chime in if they think my interpretation is not quite right.
______________________________________

TITLE 11

Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Delaware Criminal Code

CHAPTER 4. DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY

ยง 466. Justification -- Use of force for the protection of property.

Quote
(a) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary:

(1) To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

(2) To prevent entry upon real property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts; or

(3) To prevent theft, criminal mischief or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the defendant's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the defendant acts.

(1) I can legally use physical force (not deadly force) to prevent someone from unlawfully trespassing on my property, or someone else's property.  I can also use physical force (not deadly force) to prevent someone from breaking into a building on my property, or someone else's property.

(2) What is the difference between "criminal trespass", as indicated in (1) above, and "entry upon real property" as indicated in (2) above?  To me, they sound like the same thing???

(3) I can legally use physical force (not deadly force) to prevent someone from stealing or damaging physical property that is owned by me or someone else.

Quote
(b) The defendant may in the circumstances named in subsection (a) of this section use such force as the defendant believes is necessary to protect the threatened property, provided that the defendant first requests the person against whom force is used to desist from interference with the property, unless the defendant believes that:

(1) Such a request would be useless; or

(2) It would be dangerous to the defendant or another person to make the request; or

(3) Substantial harm would be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request could effectively be made.

Before I can use physical force (not deadly force) as described above, I must first ask the person to stop what they are doing.  Although, I am not obligated to make this request if I believe the request would be useless...or if the request would place me, or someone else, in a position of danger...or physical harm could be done, to the property that I'm trying to protect, before I could make the request.

Quote
(c) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the defendant believes that:

(1) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the defendant of the defendant's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(2) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery or felonious theft or property destruction and either:

a. Had employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant; or

b. Under the circumstances existing at the time, the defendant believed the use of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the defendant's presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury.

I can use deadly force if I am being forcibly removed from my home...or if the person is trying to commit arson, breaking and entering, stealing or trying to destroy my property, or someone else's property, AND they threatened, or attempted, to use deadly force against me, or someone else in my presence, or deadly force was the only way to keep me, or someone else, from physical harm.

Quote
(d) Where a person has used force for the protection of property and has not been convicted for any crime or offense connected with that use of force, such person shall not be liable for damages or be otherwise civilly liable to the one against whom such force was used.

If I am not convicted of a crime, related to this use of force, I can not be found liable to the person I used force against.  In other words, I should be found not guilty in any subsequent civil suit.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 04:49:35 AM by fdegree »
Violence, when there is an alternative, is immoral.
Violence, when there is no alternative, is survival.
-Unknown-

A battle avoided cannot be lost.
-Sun Tzu-