Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He may have a defense with Pasadena's neighborhood watch program.
Two very common writings for the neighborhood watch program are:
1) Neighborhood Watch – Program in Force – We report all suspicious persons & activities to our Law Enforcement Agency.
2) Warning – All suspicious persons and activities are immediately reported to our Sheriff’s department.
Notice how they say “report or reported”, not, “get your gun and confront any an all suspicious activity at a neighbors house and shoot them dead in the back”.
Thanks for humoring me though, I cant believe someone actually thought a neighborhood watch program could be a defense to shoot and kill two suspected burglars in the back. What’s next, using a “Caution – Slow Children” sign being a defense for throwing Molotov cocktails at speeding cars in a neighborhood?
I dont think rules for a neighborhood watch program have the authority to over rule a law against murder.
Well, what it might do is establish if the Castle law is effective as a defense. The theory is that the neighborhood watch program sort of creates an unspoken request to watch over your neighbor's home. If that can be proven, then wow, what precedents that will set for future issues like this.
Mr Horn might have a legal defense based upon a law called "3rd Party law", I cant find the actual legal description of it though online to read the validity of the defense.
A third party is someone who has a interest or involvement but not a legal right. In the case with mr horn, he may claim an “interest” on various factors, but it doesn’t give him a claim to the neighbors property. If the third party claim is used, it would only damage his defense because he would be admitting no legal claim, i.e. no claim to protect a neighbors house and property which he has no rights to. For example, it wasn’t his house, he doesn’t reside there, the property wasn’t his, he didn’t own any of the property stolen or in the neighbors house.
Well, what it might do is establish if the Castle law is effective as a defense. The theory is that the neighborhood watch program sort of creates an unspoken request to watch over your neighbor's home. If that can be proven, then wow, what precedents that will set for future issues like this.
Ok, now that one I might just buy.. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Well, what it might do is establish if the Castle law is effective as a defense. The theory is that the neighborhood watch program sort of creates an unspoken request to watch over your neighbor's home. If that can be proven, then wow, what precedents that will set for future issues like this.
When you use the term "watch" are you meaning "to observe" or "use deadly force to prevent crimes that may be occuring at the neighbors house"? Just so I understand your statement, I want to make sure I understand your meaning of terms you're using.
When you use the term "watch" are you meaning "to observe" or "use deadly force to prevent crimes that may be occuring at the neighbors house"? Just so I understand your statement, I want to make sure I understand your meaning of terms you're using.
The castle law does provide ones ability to use deadly force, so maybe.. a lawyer might just be able to tie the authorization to watch the neighborhood, into the castle law.. Not saying I totally buy it, but that one would be an interesting argument to see a lawyer try to make.
The castle law does provide ones ability to use deadly force, so maybe.. a lawyer might just be able to tie the authorization to watch the neighborhood, into the castle law.. Not saying I totally buy it, but that one would be an interesting argument to see a lawyer try to make.
Well anyone can try to “tie” it together, but it doesn’t make sense logically nor does if have any legal standing historically. The Castle Doctrine has always applied to the person’s home and at times places they legally occupy, such as their car. For the automatic-authorization what the defense would have to be asking is that where there is a neighborhood watch program in place, a legal right to the home that is not your own now exists in an unwritten form when a crime MAY be occurring.
Since this is all new and a drastic change from the history of the castle doctrine, what is to prevent another person, who has been the victim of a burglary, of claiming their neighbors have an obligation to protect their home and that they can sue their neighbor for negligence if their home was burglarized and the neighbor didn’t try to physically prevent the burglary from occurring? Since the neighbor has a legal right, due to the castle doctrine and a neighborhood watch program, to protect the property of another, what is preventing the neighbor who suffered a loss from claiming that the neighbors had a duty to protect their home, that they failed to protect their home, therefore the neighbor suffered a loss due to the neighbors breach of that obligation to protect their home.
Sounds illogical, which it is, which in my opinion for someone to claim that a neighborhood watch implies that every person within a neighborhood now has a legal right and is authorized to use deadly force to protect a neighbors property is just as illogical.
Last edited by madicarus2000; 12-17-2007 at 08:55 PM..
Reason: meaning
Well anyone can try to “tie” it together, but it doesn’t make sense logically nor does if have any legal standing historically. The Castle Doctrine has always applied to the person’s home and at times places they legally occupy, such as their car. For the automatic-authorization what the defense would have to be asking is that where there is a neighborhood watch program in place, a legal right to the home that is not your own now exists in an unwritten form when a crime MAY be occurring.
Since this is all new and a drastic change from the history of the castle doctrine, what is to prevent another person, who has been the victim of a burglary, of claiming their neighbors have an obligation to protect their home and that they can sue their neighbor for negligence if their home was burglarized and the neighbor didn’t try to physically prevent the burglary from occurring? Since the neighbor has a legal right, due to the castle doctrine and a neighborhood watch program, to protect the property of another, what is preventing the neighbor who suffered a loss from claiming that the neighbors had a duty to protect their home, that they failed to protect their home, therefore the neighbor suffered a loss due to the neighbors breach of that obligation to protect their home.
Sounds illogical, which it is, which in my opinion for someone to claim that a neighborhood watch implies that every person within a neighborhood is authorized to use deadly force to protect a neighbors property is just as illogical.
Yeah, it would be interesting to watch a defense like that move forward though. In todays day and age, you dont need to look any further then this poll to see that "legal letter of the law" doesnt rule a jury..
Well, what it might do is establish if the Castle law is effective as a defense. The theory is that the neighborhood watch program sort of creates an unspoken request to watch over your neighbor's home. If that can be proven, then wow, what precedents that will set for future issues like this.
Let’s play “what-if”.
A male and female reside together as boyfriend/girlfriend. Boyfriend helps pays bills, has mail delivered to address, has their name on the lease, therefore they have established the location as their legal residence. The couple has a bad break-up and the woman “kicks” the guy out and changes the locks. The guy returns with a friend to recover some of his stuff and has to break-in to the location because of the changed locks.
The person has not broken any law because it is not illegal for a person to break into their own home if they are locked out. Oh, and lets say the person was also an American citizen with no criminal record.
While breaking into their home and recovering some things, a neighbor, who does not even know the neighbors at all, decidse to confront the people they thought were “breaking in” to the house with a gun. The neighbor then shoots the two people as they “felt their safety threatened”. So in their moment of fear, they unwittingly shoot their neighbor in the back and kill them.
Do you feel the castle doctrine and unspoken “request” created by the neighborhood watch program makes the neighbor who fired the deadly shots totally immune from prosecution as they had a legal right to “protect” their neighbors property? Remember too that the neighbor also called the cops and decided not to wait for law enforcement to show up.
Two very common writings for the neighborhood watch program are:
1) Neighborhood Watch – Program in Force – We report all suspicious persons & activities to our Law Enforcement Agency.
2) Warning – All suspicious persons and activities are immediately reported to our Sheriff’s department.
Notice how they say “report or reported”, not, “get your gun and confront any an all suspicious activity at a neighbors house and shoot them dead in the back”.
Thanks for humoring me though, I cant believe someone actually thought a neighborhood watch program could be a defense to shoot and kill two suspected burglars in the back. What’s next, using a “Caution – Slow Children” sign being a defense for throwing Molotov cocktails at speeding cars in a neighborhood?
He did report first and it took the Pasadena police over seven minutes to show up and Pasadena isn't that large.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He had a right to personal safety.
