Legally Beating Up Someone

[Chazz 0]

Does anybody know If It Is legal to beat up someone who has refused to leave your property when asked to? A friend of mine just told me a story that happened to him a couple of weeks ago In which his sister's boyfriend came over their parent's house at 2:30a.m.-3:00a.m. uninvited and started screaming and yelling about his parent's not letting his sister be Independent of the family or some such shit. The mom and dad told him several times to leave, to which he apparently refused. Anyhow, they ended up calling the cops on the kid to finally get him off their front lawn. My friend told me that he regrets not beating the shit out of the kid when he legally had the chance. I told him that he and his parent's were better off calling the cops just to be safe, as I don't know for sure If he wouldn't be held liable for his beating. I have heard of the right to defend one's property, but am not sure If this falls In that category. Anybody know for sure?

[The Czech Republic 0]

This guy sure went to the Choken One school of capitalization.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I would doubt that story falls under the "right to defend one's self." If he would have gotten beat up, I'm sure there would be a line of lawyers begging to represent him in court.

 

Sadly, just because you own private property, don't think that it's yours...

[Carnival 0]

In Nebraska, private property owns you!

[Nighthawk 0]

Just beat somebody up. Only a pussy calls the law.

[Papacita 0]

From Findlaw.com...

Q : What should you do if there is an intruder in the house?

 

A : Everyone's afraid of finding someone in the house at night. If it happens, avoid a confrontation--your life is more important than your possessions. If possible, run away and call the police. If you can't get yourself and your family out of the house, lock yourselves in a room. If you're face to face with an intruder, stay calm and be cooperative.

 

What about self defense? You do have a legal right to protect yourself and your property, but recognize that you may end up in court if you shoot an intruder or whack him over the head with an iron pipe. You would have to argue that you really did act in self-defense or in defense of your property, and it would be up to the jury to decide whether or not to believe you.

 

Basically, the law says that you can use reasonable force to defend yourself if you're being attacked or if you have a reasonable belief that you will be attacked. That is, you don't have to wait until the intruder is actually coming at you with a knife. The key word here is "reasonable"; the jury would have to decide whether a reasonable person would have thought that a toy gun was real or that a hand going into the pocket was reaching for a weapon.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Aye. You would need to reasonably prove that you were possibly in danger, and be sure not to beat the intruder down TOO much. If you do...then, uhhh...stab yourself a few times and put the knife in the intruder's hand.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Just beat somebody up. Only a pussy calls the law.

 

My first instinct, and I'm a non-violence hippie.

[theintensifier 0]

You have the right to defend yourself, and your property against any and all who come in contact with you or your property. You could have claimed he was verbally threatening you or a family member, and you reacted instinctively and defended yourself, your family, and property. It should work.

[Slayer 0]

This is one of those things that really pisses me off about the law...

 

Guy in court: "This guy was on my property and was threatening my family and so I took it upon myself to protect my person and my family."

 

Some Fucking Lawyer: "Yeah, but..."

 

My belief: You willingly trespass on someone's property, you get what you deserve

[theintensifier 0]

Exactly.

 

Our legal system fucking sucks.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wait until some private developer get the local government to boot your friend off his land so a Wal-Mart or some "better" houses can be built...

[Chazz 0]

This topic reminds me of that Married...With Children ep where Al is sued by a burglar because Al beat him up when he caught him trying to steal stuff. The burglar ended up winning the suit. (Al than decked him and sued him for hurting his fist on his face.) I guess It wasn't that far fetched after all.

[Guest Vitamin X]

You know, Married.. With Children peaked around the same time as the Simpsons did, and they both offered the same great satire on current events and our society/culture in general. This nation's young leaders grew up on the principles and follies of Al Bundy and Homer Simpson.

 

I know that had nothing to do with the topic, but it's a stupid question that's already been answered. Just wanted to throw out my opinion on the last post.

[Slayer 0]

For some reason that brought up in my mind when Bush Sr. said "We want families that look more like the Waltons than the Simpsons"

[MillenniumMan831 0]

If your house is ever broken into, always remember . . .

 

Dead people can't talk.

[The Czech Republic 0]

You know, Married.. With Children peaked around the same time as the Simpsons did, and they both offered the same great satire on current events and our society/culture in general. This nation's young leaders grew up on the principles and follies of Al Bundy and Homer Simpson.

Technically, I think the Simpsons really hit its stride right around when Married With Children started sliding into Fonzie Entrance hell, but yeah, I get what you mean.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I think the Simpsons jumped the shark right around the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" cliffhanger. The next season and everything after just wasn't the same.

[The Czech Republic 0]

91-95 for the Simpsons, I'd say. 88-93 for MWC. Never was the same without Steve.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I didn't like Steve. Jefferson was a better character, and brought out the best parts of Marcie's.

[The Czech Republic 0]

But Steve was a better contrast to Al. He had to be forced to be one of the guys.

[Guest Vitamin X]

It wasn't just Steve, though.. The Steve Era also had "punk ridiculously bleached blonde" Kelly who was just an unfunny stereotype and a young Bud who didn't have much of a character. Towards the end of Steve/beginning of Jefferson, they concentrated more on dumb Kelly and wannabe cool guy Bud, not to mention they finally hit upon the perfect formula for just about every show: Al finds a way to get rich/famous, Al goes through hilarious antics trying to achieve it, then scheme backfires or is thwarted somehow, with Al still miserable at the end.

 

Besides, Marcie was really irritating with Steve, with Jefferson she actually had a pretty funny character. Steve was just too plain/generic, didn't add any flavor to the show whatsoever.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I liked the episodes where Steve would return. Like the one where he shows up to the car wash in a limo and Marcy thinks he's a millionaire, but it turns out he's broke and is working as a chauffeur. Good stuff.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

If you own a shotgun, racking the slide on it creates a noise that's psychologically effective.