NationStates Jolt Archive

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - A burglar in Montgomery chose the wrong family to mess with, literally. Adrian and Tiffany McKinnon returned home on Tuesday after a week away to find that thieves had emptied almost everything the family of five owned, Tiffany McKinnon said through tears.

"Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone and piles of trash all over my home," she said.

Adrian McKinnon sent his wife to see her sister while he inspected the piles left behind. As he walked back into the sunroom, a man walked through the back door straight into him, Tiffany McKinnon told the Montgomery Advertiser in a story Thursday.

"My husband Adrian caught the thief red-handed in our home," she said. "And what is even crazier, the man even had my husband's hat sitting right on his head."

Adrian McKinnon held the suspect, 33-year-old Tajuan Bullock, at gunpoint and told him to sit on the floor until he decided what to do.

"We made this man clean up all the mess he made, piles of stuff, he had thrown out of my drawers and cabinets onto the floor," Tiffany McKinnon said.

When police arrived, Bullock complained about being forced to clean the home at gunpoint.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_fe_st/odd_burglar_cleanup
Sources: Yahoo/AP/OccNEWS

He did mess with the wrong family :D

I think the Laws should give twice the sentence to thieves that -on top of stealing- vandalize your property for fun.

Punishment should fit the crime, so being forced to clean up was a good start.

Cop is right, he's damn lucky to be alive. I can't believe he had the nerve to complain about having to clean up after himself.

Cop is right, he's damn lucky to be alive. I can't believe he had the nerve to complain about having to clean up after himself.

I wasn't aware that victims were allowed to punish criminals.

I wasn't aware that victims were allowed to punish criminals. Cleaning up a mess you create is punishment? :confused:

Good for the couple to force him to clean up.

Cleaning up a mess you create is punishment? :confused:

Being forced to at gunpoint certainly is.

I think the Laws should give twice the sentence to thieves that -on top of stealing- vandalize your property for fun.

I doubt it was vandalism. It's just faster, when robbing a house, to toss shit all around so you can pick out the valuables than to carefully and neatly sift through crap in a methodical fashion.

Being forced to at gunpoint certainly is. That's called justice!

That's called justice!

In what civilised nation is justice meted out by the victims?

In what civilised nation is justice meted out by the victims? The nation of Alabama, obviously!

The nation of Alabama, obviously!

http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/lolani.gif

Being forced to at gunpoint certainly is.

As the cop pointed out they were within their rights to just shoot him. Cleaning up seems a rather small penalty.

As the cop pointed out they were within their rights to just shoot him. Cleaning up seems a rather small penalty.

Still, it's not for them to decide the penalty.

Incidentally, I wonder if what they did was even legal.

Still, it's not for them to decide the penalty.

Incidentally, I wonder if what they did was even legal.

Why not? They were holding him for the police, may as well make him clean up the mess he caused. They didn't decide the penalty they just made him undo some of the damage. I don't see that as being out of line, it wasn't punitive.

Just been thinking!

They probably should not have done that! I mean it is a crime scene.

Just been thinking!

They probably should not have done that! I mean it is a crime scene.

I think when you're holding a gun on the guy wearing stolen property the whole crime scene thing can be ignored.

As the cop pointed out they were within their rights to just shoot him. Cleaning up seems a rather small penalty.

Only on initial reaction though? Once they'd sat him down etc they couldn't have killed him in cold blood (though I'm sure they could have made it looked like he was shot on the spur of the moment).


Why not? They were holding him for the police, may as well make him clean up the mess he caused. They didn't decide the penalty they just made him undo some of the damage. I don't see that as being out of line, it wasn't punitive.
Legally I'm not sure what you can order someone you're holding for the police to do.

I think when you're holding a gun on the guy wearing stolen property the whole crime scene thing can be ignored.

Don't know if he was the only one involved.

Does anyone else find the circumstances here even strange than they appear on surface?

Couple arrive home, to find house burglarized but empty.
Instead of immediately calling the police and both waiting for them, wife leaves for her sisters and hubby inspects piles of rubbish left behind, presumably with a gun either in his hand or at least on his person.
Despite cars arriving and leaving a burglar returns to the house in broad daylight and, just to make sure he can't pass himself off as a passerby, conveniently wears a piece of the stolen property.
Then, to make the story even more newsworthy, the owner again delays calling the police, until the burglar has had time to tidy up some.

I know strange things do happen in life and people make strange decisions, but something about all this just doesn't add up to me.

Being forced to at gunpoint certainly is.

That still doesn't strike me as "punishment."

Still, it's not for them to decide the penalty.

Incidentally, I wonder if what they did was even legal.

Ifreann, would you rather they shot the burgler dead? After all, in some States, that would be legal since the intruder was still illegally on their property.

This brings to mind another homeowner who caught a burgler in their home.

The burgler couldn't help himself in cleaning the place up. the owners came home and found him scrubbing away at the bathtub, the bathroom was spotless, the carpet vaccumed, etc...

the Owners couldn't bring it upon themselves to press charges and gave the guy a small token of appreciation. I believe the story ended with the burgler considering opening up a legit cleaning service business...

The argument of "well the could have shot him!" doesn't really seem to work. Just because you're legally entitled to do one thing, doesn't mean you're legally entitled to do another. While you may have the right to defend yourself and your home, that right ends once the threat is eliminated and the intruder is subdued.

At which point, forcing him to do anything at gunpoint other than affectuating a citizens arrest is likely illegal kidnapping.

In most states private citizens have the right to detain someone if they witness that person committing a felony. Detain them, that is all. Ordering them at gunpoint to do things that do not further or directly relate to that detention is...kidnapping, pretty plain and simple really.

The argument of "well the could have shot him!" doesn't really seem to work. Just because you're legally entitled to do one thing, doesn't mean you're legally entitled to do another. While you may have the right to defend yourself and your home, that right ends once the threat is eliminated and the intruder is subdued.

Right on. There is a right to self defense, but forcing someone at gunpoint to do your bidding does not fall in that category. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Making them tapdance, or walk naked? Or have sex. I mean hey, forcing someone to have sex isn't so bad as shooting them... must be legal!

I think the couple made a mistake by doing that. Makes good news, but you never want to fuck around in situations like this. What if the guy gets off because of it? What if he can counter-sue or something? Who knows what the chances of either working are but they are certainly greater than if the couple had played it straight, instead of acting out their Righteous Victims Dominating Evil People game.

At which point, forcing him to do anything at gunpoint other than affectuating a citizens arrest is likely illegal kidnapping.

I'm no legal expert but I think it's a different crime from kidnapping.

I'm no legal expert but I think it's a different crime from kidnapping.

Depends on your jurisdiction. Some places a kidnapping charge requires you to actually take the person from one place to another, in the absence of that it's "false imprisonment", which is, literally, holding someone without the legal right to do so.

Proper restitution is certainly in order, though, isn't it?

If he didn't actually take anything, then the proper restitution would seem to be to clean up the mess he made after illegally entering the house.

Why in the world should the property owners have to put up with a mess?

Proper restitution is certainly in order, though, isn't it?

If he didn't actually take anything, then the proper restitution would seem to be to clean up the mess he made after illegally entering the house.

Why in the world should the property owners have to put up with a mess?

Nonetheless, that is a sentence the courts should impose. Or is it okay, in certain circumstances, for citizens to implement their own sentences with no judicial oversight? Is that really the kind of society we want to live in?

Right on. There is a right to self defense, but forcing someone at gunpoint to do your bidding does not fall in that category. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Making them tapdance, or walk naked? Or have sex. I mean hey, forcing someone to have sex isn't so bad as shooting them... must be legal!

I think the couple made a mistake by doing that. Makes good news, but you never want to fuck around in situations like this. What if the guy gets off because of it? What if he can counter-sue or something? Who knows what the chances of either working are but they are certainly greater than if the couple had played it straight, instead of acting out their Righteous Victims Dominating Evil People game.



I'm no legal expert but I think it's a different crime from kidnapping.

I agree with you if one was in a state as NY or California or another liberal state as such. However this was in the Deep South. Things are different there and so are the laws. They may have not broken any local or state laws. One thing I always have to explain to my foreign parts of the family is to think of the US as 50 different countries that follow the basic principle of Federal Law and then tweak it to their likings within their respective states.


As for other posters talking about rights to kill.

As far as killing someone in your home. Just because you have the right to does not mean that one should. I had a instance where I had an armed burglar in my home once when I came home. I also was armed however I did not confront the man but backed out the front door and let the police handle it. The police actually almost shot him because of his actions coming out of the back of the house. However if that would have been the case my mind would not have been bothered to the extent if I were to have killed the man.
Killing someone either in self defense in your home or on the battlefield ways heavily on a normal persons mind. One should not be cavalier about this act because of the consequences and finality of it.

Incidentally, I wonder if what they did was even legal.Of course not.
Legally speaking, What the Family did is criminal. kidnapping, "false imprisonment", etc etc..

But I dont care, If i am on the Jury.. they walk.
and to be honest 99% of juries would disregard the law in this situation.

This is something the DA has to consider, If there is less than 10% chance of convincing a Jury, he should let go, his salary is paid by my taxes.

The argument of "well the could have shot him!" doesn't really seem to work. Just because you're legally entitled to do one thing, doesn't mean you're legally entitled to do another. While you may have the right to defend yourself and your home, that right ends once the threat is eliminated and the intruder is subdued.

At which point, forcing him to do anything at gunpoint other than affectuating a citizens arrest is likely illegal kidnapping.

In most states private citizens have the right to detain someone if they witness that person committing a felony. Detain them, that is all. Ordering them at gunpoint to do things that do not further or directly relate to that detention is...kidnapping, pretty plain and simple really.

and he was detained. granted shooting him after he surrendered would be wrong, but forcing him to clean up? that's not kidnapping. the same thing can then be said in forcing him to sit and wait for the cops.

now if the burgler said "no, I will not." and the owner then threatened to shoot him unless he cleaned up... then I can see your point. (and whether or not that did happen will be revealed in trial.)

the only problem I have is that by cleaning up, the burgler erases any evidence of anyone else committing the crime.

and he was detained. granted shooting him after he surrendered would be wrong, but forcing him to clean up? that's not kidnapping. the same thing can then be said in forcing him to sit and wait for the cops. Forcing him to sit and wait for the cops, and forcing him to clean up are not the same thing. Yes, there is a legal right to detain someone for the police, but even this right has limits. There is nothing in the common law that would suggest that forced labour of any kind is in any way part of that right. To give another example...there are many cases where even security guards are not allowed to detain a suspected shop-lifter or vandal because doing so would be false imprisonment.

Proper restitution is certainly in order, though, isn't it?

If he didn't actually take anything, then the proper restitution would seem to be to clean up the mess he made after illegally entering the house.

Why in the world should the property owners have to put up with a mess?

Proper restitution is a matter for the courts to determine. That's why we have the rule of law. Vigilante justice is an anathma to civilized society.

For someone who so rails against illegal immigrants because they "are in the country illegally" you sure seem to only respect the rule of law when it agrees with your own particular ideology.

and he was detained.

No, forced at gunpoint to perform certain actions is not by any stretch "detained"

Proper restitution is a matter for the courts to determine. That's why we have the rule of law. Vigilante justice is an anathma to civilized society.

For someone who so rails against illegal immigrants because they "are in the country illegally" you sure seem to only respect the rule of law when it agrees with your own particular ideology.

Easy decision for me next time I find an intruder in the house....Shoot the bastard.


Although, it is interesting that the arresting officer only arrested the burglar... I'd think kidnapping, unlawful detention, or whatever would have been as interesting as the burglary.

Maybe our armchair lawyers need another crack at criminal law?

I agree with you if one was in a state as NY or California or another liberal state as such. However this was in the Deep South. Things are different there and so are the laws. They may have not broken any local or state laws. One thing I always have to explain to my foreign parts of the family is to think of the US as 50 different countries that follow the basic principle of Federal Law and then tweak it to their likings within their respective states.


I challenge you to find one statute from alabama or any other state in this country that says that it's legally permissible to have a home invader be forced to clean your house at gunpoint.

No, forced at gunpoint to perform certain actions is not by any stretch "detained"Legally speaking its Kidnapping,illegal detention,false imprisonment, whatever.

But they wont find a jury to apply the Law.
I know -as a jury- I wouldn't.

But they wont find a jury to apply the Law.
I know -as a jury- I wouldn't.

you would be very surprised what a good DA can convince a jury to do.

you would be very surprised what a good defense attorney can convince a jury not to do.
fixed.

I challenge you to find one statute from alabama or any other state in this country that says that it's legally permissible to have a home invader be forced to clean your house at gunpoint.

I challenge you to find a statute in Alabama that says you cannot make him/her clean up their mess while holding them until the cops show up.

I challenge you to find a statute in Alabama that says you cannot make him/her clean up their mess while holding them until the cops show up.

Disturbing a crime scene.

While I will agree with Neo art, I also agree with OD2.

it will come down to who's lawyer is better at spin.

I challenge you to find a statute in Alabama that says you cannot make him/her clean up their mess while holding them until the cops show up.

As I pointed out earlier, which seems to have been ignored, cleaning up the crime scene is illegal.

After perusing the Alabama Code, I can find no law the homeowner violated; but plenty of laws the robber did.

After perusing the Alabama Code, I can find no law the homeowner violated; but plenty of laws the robber did.

Read harder.

It's not that difficult.

I challenge you to find a statute in Alabama that says you cannot make him/her clean up their mess while holding them until the cops show up.

sure, here we go:

Alabama Criminal Code (http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13297.htm), we'll start with:

Chapter 6: Offenses Involving Danger To A Person,

Article 3: Kidnapping, Unlawful Imprisonment and Related Offenses,

Section 13A-6-42 Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

C. 6 Art 2. Sec 13A-6-42:

Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree
(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree if he restrains another person.

additionally,

Section 13A-6-41 Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree

C. 6 Art 2. Sec 13-A-6-41:

Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree if he restrains another person under circumstances which expose the latter to a risk of serious physical injury.


So here we see that restraining someone is unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, restraint that places the restrained person in a circumstance which exposes him to a risk of serious physical injury is unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (debateable which this is, I would argue first degree).

As for the definition of "restrains" we turn to Section 13A-6-40 of the aformentioned chapter and article:

C. 6 Art 2. Sec 13-A-6-40:

Definitions.
The following definitions apply in this article:

(1) RESTRAIN. To intentionally or knowingly restrict a person's movements unlawfully and without consent, so as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by:

a. Physical force, intimidation or deception

So he intentionally restricted the person's movements through intimidation (IE gun). That makes it restraint, which makes it unlawful imprisonment.

I would also argue that under Section 2: Assaults this classifies as menacing:


C. 6 Art 2 Sec 13A-6-23

Menacing.
(a) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by physical action, he intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

So that's two crimes. Those actions are illegal, absent any specifically innumerated defense. So let's take a look at defense shall we:

Chapter 3: Defenses

Article 2 Justification and Excuse.

Section 13A-3-27 Use of force in making an arrest or preventing an escape.

That pretty well fits into it. Of course, before we go ANY further, let's check the definition in the statute of "force". We find this in Section 13A-3-20 of the aformentioned chapter and article.

C. 3 Art. 2 Sec 13A-3-20

Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:

. . .

(4) FORCE. Physical action or threat against another, including confinement.

So threatening with a gun constitutes a use of force under Alabama law. Alright then, let's return to Section 13A-3-27 Use of force in making an arrest or preventing an escape.

Now this man was not a police officer, security guard, or anything else, so we can skip all those defenses and go right to:

C. 3, Art 2 Sec. 13A-3-27
Use of force in making an arrest or preventing an escape.

. . .

(g) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom he reasonably believes has committed a felony and who in fact has committed that felony

emphasis added. Alright then, here we go. Use of force or threat of force is a crime called menacing. Use of force or threat of force in order to prevent someone leaving is called unlawful imprisonment. It is a defense to these crimes that you you reasonably believed your actions to be necessary to prevent someone believed to have committed a felony from escaping, and only to the extent that they are necessary.

Making him clean up the house is not necessary to accomplish those goals. Ergo doing so is not a defense under C. 3, Art 2 Sec. 13A-3-27(g), and since there is no legal defense to those actions, it is illegal.

Any other questions?

After perusing the Alabama Code, I can find no law the homeowner violated; but plenty of laws the robber did.

I just cited at least 2.

While I will agree with Neo art, I also agree with OD2.And I agree with NeoArt.. and with me. :cool:

so you can say I agree with the 3 of us.

Read harder.

It's not that difficult.

Merely because you WANT them to have violated a law, doesn't mean they actually have...

Their acts do not violate the Alabama statute on kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment.

Alabama does not have a statute on "crime scene tampering" but does on tampering with evidence; which they also did not violate under the language of the code.

Upon further review...the ruling in the thread stands. Neo Art and Neesik are the thread winners.

Merely because you WANT them to have violated a law, doesn't mean they actually have...

Their acts do not violate the Alabama statute on kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment.

Alabama does not have a statute on "crime scene tampering" but does on tampering with evidence; which they also did not violate under the language of the code.

Based on what?

Merely because you WANT them to have violated a law, doesn't mean they actually have...

Their acts do not violate the Alabama statute on kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment.

I just cited the unlawful imprisonment statute with relevant definitions, how the fuck do you figure it doesn't?

I just cited at least 2.

Except the detainment wasn't "unlawful", it was quite legal under Alabama code 15-10-7 (http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/15-10-7.htm)

Except the detainment wasn't "unlawful", it was quite legal under Alabama code 15-10-7 (http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/15-10-7.htm)

Section 15-10-7
Arrests by private persons.


Would be a great point if ordering someone at gunpoint to clean a house constituted arrest. It doesn't, so it wasn't.

And what chapter and article is this from?

Ahhh, I see, you took that from Title 15: Alabama Criminal Procedure. I cited Title 13A: Criminal Code.

And, after all, when you are discussing what constitutes a crime, the criminal code is far more applicable, not the criminal procedure section. And since you are citing the criminal procedure section, when discussing arrests in a criminal procedure section, the context of that discussion is an arrest as defined by the criminal procedure of Alabama.

I'm pretty sure making an arrested person clean a house is not consistant with Alabama criminal procedure.

And again, I'd like to remind you, when discussing what is, and is not illegal in any given state, one should stick with the criminal code, not a criminal procedure chapter.

Would be a great point if ordering someone at gunpoint to clean a house constituted arrest. It doesn't, so it wasn't.

And what chapter and article is this from?

He LAWFULLY detained the individual while a proper officer under 15-10-1 arrived... He was under no obligation to INFORM the man of the arrest, since he was caught in the commission of a crime... Merely to turn him over to an officer under 15-10-1 without unnecessary delay... Since an officer was enroute, there was no unnecessary delay.


Title 15, Chapter 10, Section 7...

Upon further review:

Tekania was using the wrong Alabama Code in discussing criminality of the event in question!

Tekania is charged with a time out.

sure, here we go:

snip.....

Any other questions?


Was there any time stipulation on when it becomes unlawful inprisonment vs detaining a person until police arives? This is where it would be vague. I would assume it would be a definition of a "reasonable" amount of time. That to would be a large gray area. Also want to point out that the people holding the suspect did not cause him bodily harm and cleaning his own mess hardly would. If they raped him then we are talking a different story.

Also I want to point out that a jury if taken to court would not likely convict the homeowners of this particular case. Laws are only as good as the system behind them. The prosecutor will not bring charges and a judge hearing this case would probably throw it out. Again I go back to my main point of different areas have different laws. Just because a prosecutor or jury in NY or California would find them guilty of unlawful imprisonment doesn't mean a jury in Montana or Alabama would.

He LAWFULLY detained the individual while a proper officer under 15-10-1 arrived... He was under no obligation to INFORM the man of the arrest, since he was caught in the commission of a crime... Merely to turn him over to an officer under 15-10-1 without unnecessary delay... Since an officer was enroute, there was no unnecessary delay.


Title 15, Chapter 10, Section 7...

Again, that's nice, but Title 15, as I pointed out, is Alabama's Criminal Procedure title. 13A is Alabamas Criminal Code. The criminal code defines what is, and is not, a crime. Because Title 15, which is a procedure section, does not define what is, and is not, a crime, but merely details the arrest, trial, detention, appeal and incarceration procedure definitions from a procedure section are not applicable as to what is, and is not, criminal. All a section on citizen's arrest in a procedure title does, is defines when a citizen's arrest is valid to constitute an arrest as a procedural matter, not a criminal one.

The alabama criminal code governs what is and is not a crime, a procedure section does not. And I have quoted from the criminal code.

A procedure section has no validity on what is, and is not, a crime. It merely states whether the individual has been qualified as "arrested" as a matter of procedure.

Failed.

Was there any time stipulation on when it becomes unlawful inprisonment vs detaining a person until police arives?

No, it is pretty much what I said, authorizes a use of force to the extent that force is reasonably believed necessary to prevent the escape of the criminal. Obviously that pretty much means holding him until the police show up. You can't, however, lock him in your basement for a week and THEN call the cops.

Basically it means exactly what you said, you can use force to the extent you reasonably believe it necessary to prevent escape. Any use beyond that which is reasonably believed to be necessary is gratuitous, and illegal.

Ifreann, would you rather they shot the burgler dead?
Of course not. That doesn't mean it was ok for them to make him clean up.

Upon further review...the ruling in the thread stands. Neo Art and Neesik are the thread winners.Upon further review:

Tekania is charged with a time out.common mr referee.. Takania is doing better than expected..

Let them play..

GO AVs GO :D *does the wave*

Ahhh, I see, you took that from Title 15: Alabama Criminal Procedure. I cited Title 13A: Criminal Code.

And, after all, when you are discussing what constitutes a crime, the criminal code is far more applicable, not the criminal procedure section. And since you are citing the criminal procedure section, when discussing arrests in a criminal procedure section, the context of that discussion is an arrest as defined by the criminal procedure of Alabama.

I'm pretty sure making an arrested person clean a house is not consistant with Alabama criminal procedure.

And again, I'd like to remind you, when discussing what is, and is not illegal in any given state, one should stick with the criminal code, not a criminal procedure chapter.

One should stick with the LAW, ALL of it... Not merely the parts that suit you.

If one is actually attempting to argue that the person arresting another constitutes "unlawful detention" one should be making sure there is nothing in the code which actually authorizes said person to make the arrest in the first place...

common mr referee.. Takania is doing better than expected..

Let them play..

GO AVs GO :D *does the wave*

*blows whistle and stops clock*

Do not make me card you OD! Please stop dissenting to my calls :D

One should stick with the LAW, ALL of it... Not merely the parts that suit you.

If one is actually attempting to argue that the person arresting another constitutes "unlawful detention" one should be making sure there is nothing in the code which actually authorizes said person to make the arrest in the first place...

Criminal Procedures is different than the Criminal Code. We are arguing the Criminal Code here and not the Procedure.

One should stick with the LAW, ALL of it... Not merely the parts that suit you.

If one is actually attempting to argue that the person arresting another constitutes "unlawful detention" one should be making sure there is nothing in the code which actually authorizes said person to make the arrest in the first place...

you're funny. Completely in over your head, but funny. Since you're so keen on looking at ALL of the law, it's funny you ignore the little section that says use of force is only justified by a private person to the extent that it is necessary to detain him.

Really amusing how you chose to ignore that one. I never said he didn't have the right to DETAIN him. He certainly did. However, when affectuating a citizens arrest and remember, we're talking about arrests, as per your own admission, for it to be considered an arrest, it must be consistant with the law governing the use of force to affectuate a detention.

Which, as pointed out, force may only be utilized to the extent it is necessary to detain. Use of force beyond that which is necessary to detain, like, say, forcing him to clean your house after he has already been detained, it gratuitous, and illegal.

The procedure section says he has the right to arrest, but the criminal code says that the use of force to bring about such an arrest must be only to the extent necessary, and not beyond. Yes, he can do a citizens arrest, but again, the code clearly states that such arrest must utilize only the force necessary, if he goes beyond such force, it is no longer legal.

As you said, must look at the WHOLE law, not just one tiny section. yes it says a private arrest is legal. Very good, you found that one, I award you a gold star. But you made an itsy bitsy little problem. Do you know what it is? Do you want a hint? Alright...what you screwed up was...you forgot to look up what constitutes an arrest.

Oh well, D for effort.

you're funny. Completely in over your head, but funny. Since you're so keen on looking at ALL of the law, it's funny you ignore the little section that says use of force is only justified by a private person to the extent that it is necessary to detain him.

Really amusing how you chose to ignore that one. I never said he didn't have the right to DETAIN him. He certainly did. However, when affectuating a citizens arrest and remember, we're talking about arrests, as per your own admission, for it to be considered an arrest, it must be consistant with the law governing the use of force to affectuate a detention.

Which, as pointed out, force may only be utilized to the extent it is necessary to detain. Use of force beyond that which is necessary to detain, like, say, forcing him to clean your house after he has already been detained, it gratuitous, and illegal.

The procedure section says he has the right to arrest, but the criminal code says that the use of force to bring about such an arrest must be only to the extent necessary, and not beyond. Yes, he can do a citizens arrest, but again, the code clearly states that such arrest must utilize only the force necessary, if he goes beyond such force, it is no longer legal.

As you said, must look at the WHOLE law, not just one tiny section. yes it says a private arrest is legal. Very good, you found that one, I award you a gold star. But you made an itsy bitsy little problem. Do you know what it is? Do you want a hint? Alright...what you screwed up was...you forgot to look up what constitutes an arrest.

Oh well, D for effort.

I have only one thing to say... Alabama is not charging the homeowner with a crime. So apparently Alabama does not consider his action a crime, despite what you advocates of criminals rights seem to think... So regardless of what you say, the state apparently agrees with my interpretation of things... It seem that they consider forcing the criminal to clean up constitutes necessary force to "prevent or terminate... the commission of a crime"...

You may win in the presence of fellow ambulance chasers with itchy ears; you however FAIL miserably in REAL LIFE...

The homeowner is not charged with a crime, while your precious little robber-victim is sitting in jail...

I have only one thing to say... Alabama is not charging the homeowner with a crime. So apparently Alabama does not consider his action a crime, despite what you advocates of criminals rights seem to think... So regardless of what you say, the state apparently agrees with my interpretation of things... It seem that they consider forcing the criminal to clean up constitutes necessary force to "prevent or terminate... the commission of a crime"...

You may win in the presence of fellow ambulance chasers with itchy ears; you however FAIL miserably in REAL LIFE...

The homeowner is not charged with a crime, while your precious little robber-victim is sitting in jail...
or... Alabama's DA knows that they won't find a jury in the world to convict the homeowner for an action that didn't end up badly... thus pushing forward would be a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

However, I would be interested to see if they can convice Bullock for B&E and Robbery/Theift.

or... Alabama's DA knows that they won't find a jury in the world to convict the homeowner for an action that didn't end up badly... thus pushing forward would be a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

However, I would be interested to see if they can convice Bullock for B&E and Robbery/Theift.
It certainly should be easy to get an indictment for burglary.

Depending on how interested you are, the county in question may well post the status of Mr. Bullock's case on the internet.

Keep us posted.

or... Alabama's DA knows that they won't find a jury in the world to convict the homeowner for an action that didn't end up badly... thus pushing forward would be a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

However, I would be interested to see if they can convice Bullock for B&E and Robbery/Theift.

Robbery/Theft, extremely likely; he was found with property other than his own on his person... We don't know what other pieces of property were recovered since neither the AP reference nor the original story says so... B&E is unknown, since we do not know if the police found evidence of such... I'd imagine that his lawyer (assuming such isn't merely a public defender) might try to argue duress; but under the statute such an argument would fail miserably, since he was already in commission of a crime BEFORE he was placed in duress, which nullifies that claim under Alabama law... If he does have a public defender (which is likely, given he probably does not have the resources to hire a lawyer himself), the he most likely be convicted, since most PD's don't do much past attempting to try for a plea with the DA, or would merely attempt to convince the robber to plea guilty... Not to mention the fact that Alabama has no state PD office; rather local lawyers are assigned to their cases from list that they register with (which also happens in parts of my state of Virginia)... They are paid on a "per case" basis, and such encourages them to move the case along as fast as possible, so they can get back to their personal clients.

Robbery/Theft, extremely likely; he was found with property other than his own on his person... We don't know what other pieces of property were recovered since neither the AP reference nor the original story says so... B&E is unknown, since we do not know if the police found evidence of such... I'd imagine that his lawyer (assuming such isn't merely a public defender) might try to argue duress; but under the statute such an argument would fail miserably, since he was already in commission of a crime BEFORE he was placed in duress, which nullifies that claim under Alabama law... If he does have a public defender (which is likely, given he probably does not have the resources to hire a lawyer himself), the he most likely be convicted, since most PD's don't do much past attempting to try for a plea with the DA, or would merely attempt to convince the robber to plea guilty... Not to mention the fact that Alabama has no state PD office; rather local lawyers are assigned to their cases from list that they register with (which also happens in parts of my state of Virginia)... They are paid on a "per case" basis, and such encourages them to move the case along as fast as possible, so they can get back to their personal clients.
except, if going only by the AP article, he only had the HAT which he can say he bought off a street vendor or even that he found it. and thanks to the forced cleaning, chances are any prints there would be invalidated because he touched alot of stuff cleaning up. so it would be hard to prove without reasonable doubt that he was the one that stole stuff from the house, or that someone else could've done it (since the owers were away for a Week.) thus creating the reasonable doubt.

except, if going only by the AP article, he only had the HAT which he can say he bought off a street vendor or even that he found it. and thanks to the forced cleaning, chances are any prints there would be invalidated because he touched alot of stuff cleaning up. so it would be hard to prove without reasonable doubt that he was the one that stole stuff from the house, or that someone else could've done it (since the owers were away for a Week.) thus creating the reasonable doubt.
That's why I'd prosecute for burglary... Look it up.


[hint findlaw.com is very useful]

except, if going only by the AP article, he only had the HAT which he can say he bought off a street vendor or even that he found it. and thanks to the forced cleaning, chances are any prints there would be invalidated because he touched alot of stuff cleaning up. so it would be hard to prove without reasonable doubt that he was the one that stole stuff from the house, or that someone else could've done it (since the owers were away for a Week.) thus creating the reasonable doubt.

Well, he had the hat on... We don't really know he had anything else...

Of course, he can argue he bought it from a street vendor; But I bet all 12 members of the jury will fill in mentally "... and now you're in the house that such happened to be stolen from.... r----i----g----h----t".... There is a point in time where simple claims like that leave the realm of reasonable doubt.... One of those times is when you're actually CAUGHT on the premises WHERE that item was stolen from....

That's why I'd prosecute for burglary... Look it up.


[hint findlaw.com is very useful] looked up burglery... now prove he broke into the house for the purpose of committing a crime. He can honestly say the door was open and how would you contradict him? if no other article other than the hat was on him, then how can you prove he was there with the INTENT to commit a crime.

from the article, he can be charged with tresspassing, but the rest depends on all the evidence they can find. and any evidence pointing to him would be suspect because he was forced to clean up by the owners.


Well, he had the hat on... We don't really know he had anything else...

Of course, he can argue he bought it from a street vendor; But I bet all 12 members of the jury will fill in mentally "... and now you're in the house that such happened to be stolen from.... r----i----g----h----t".... There is a point in time where simple claims like that leave the realm of reasonable doubt.... One of those times is when you're actually CAUGHT on the premises WHERE that item was stolen from.... so you're basing his conviction on circumstantial evidence?

Except it can be presented that he found the hat on the ground somewhere else. that would provide reasonable doubt.

again tho. this is only going by what is presented in the article, and not what would be presented at trial.

Still, it's not for them to decide the penalty.

Incidentally, I wonder if what they did was even legal.

WHAT???

Will you quit with the pro-criminal bleeding-hearting? "Oooohhhh, I robbed someone's house and got caught and had to fix it! My rights done been violated! Feel sorry for meeee!"
:upyours:

What part of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" do you not understand? Having to clean up his mess is the LEAST he owes them.

WHAT???

Will you quit with the pro-criminal bleeding-hearting? "Oooohhhh, I robbed someone's house and got caught and had to fix it! My rights done been violated! Feel sorry for meeee!"
:upyours:

What part of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" do you not understand? Having to clean up his mess is the LEAST he owes them.

Except that the homeowners violated some laws in the process.

While we're splitting hairs on the law, how about looking up something pertinent, that of Domicile?

I don't have the time right now to look up Alabama's laws on Domicile but in general, I believe that the home-owner or renter is allowed to do whatever they feel necessary, in order to make and keep their primary place of residence safe, secure and livable.

A trashed house is not safe or livable. Having to clean up after the burglar would constitute hardship in that they'll need to take time off from work, with commensurate reduction of wages, in order to fix the situation.

What the homeowners did *might* have been illegal. Breaking and entering and burglary is *definitely* illegal.

While we're splitting hairs on the law, how about looking up something pertinent, that of Domicile?

I don't have the time right now to look up Alabama's laws on Domicile but in general, I believe that the home-owner or renter is allowed to do whatever they feel necessary, in order to make and keep their primary place of residence safe, secure and livable.

A trashed house is not safe or livable. Having to clean up after the burglar would constitute hardship in that they'll need to take time off from work, with commensurate reduction of wages, in order to fix the situation.

What the homeowners did *might* have been illegal. Breaking and entering and burglary is *definitely* illegal.

um...civilians are only allowed to use reasonable force to detain an individual. Once that individual is detained....Neo Art has good explaination on this. I take it you failed to read it.

"Upon further review, it is apparent that Sonnveld has failed to read the whole thread. Corneliu 2 is not charged with a Time Out*

While we're splitting hairs on the law, how about looking up something pertinent, that of Domicile?

I don't have the time right now to look up Alabama's laws on Domicile but in general, I believe that the home-owner or renter is allowed to do whatever they feel necessary, in order to make and keep their primary place of residence safe, secure and livable.

Do whatever they feel necessary? So I can kidnap a woman off the street at gunpoint and force her to clean my apartment if I feel it necessary?

riiiiiight

um...civilians are only allowed to use reasonable force to detain an individual. Once that individual is detained....Neo Art has good explaination on this. I take it you failed to read it.

"Upon further review, it is apparent that Sonnveld has failed to read the whole thread. Corneliu 2 is not charged with a Time Out*

*Corneliu 2 is flagged however, for ruling on his own actions.* :p

Do whatever they feel necessary? So I can kidnap a woman off the street at gunpoint and force her to clean my apartment if I feel it necessary?

riiiiiight

wrong, after all the woman was not a threat to your apartment. now if you had a party and some gatecrashers came in, then YES, you can hold them at gunpoint and make them wash the party dishes... but only untill the police arrive. ;) :p

oh and Sonnveld, it's not whatever is necessary, but whatever is allowed within the law. some areas allow for the use of lethal force, and some don't.

*Wasn't there the foreign student that was shot by a homeowner when he didn't stop and drop like the owner said? something about him and his friend going to the wrong address for a party...*

Except that the homeowners violated some laws in the process.lets assume -for a minute- that the family violated the laws..

-as the DA- would you try to charge them?

*Corneliu 2 is flagged however, for ruling on his own actions.* :p

:(

:(

That's 15 yards and repeating the down. :eek:

looked up burglery... now prove he broke into the house for the purpose of committing a crime. He can honestly say the door was open and how would you contradict him? if no other article other than the hat was on him, then how can you prove he was there with the INTENT to commit a crime.

from the article, he can be charged with tresspassing, but the rest depends on all the evidence they can find. and any evidence pointing to him would be suspect because he was forced to clean up by the owners.


so you're basing his conviction on circumstantial evidence?

Except it can be presented that he found the hat on the ground somewhere else. that would provide reasonable doubt.

again tho. this is only going by what is presented in the article, and not what would be presented at trial.
You're arguing for the sake of arguing now, aren't you. Reminds me of when my kids were 12...

You're arguing for the sake of arguing now, aren't you. Reminds me of when my kids were 12...
Translation: "no I won't be able to prove burglary."

Any DA that tried to file charges against the family in a case like that, could just about kiss his career goodby... and rightfully so.

Translation: "no I won't be able to prove burglary."

Give it a rest, huh?

This is why I told you to use findlaw.com (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/burglary.html)...

Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door. Unlike robbery, which involves use of force or fear to obtain another person's property, there is usually no victim present during a burglary.

For example, Dan enters Victor's boathouse through an open window, intending to steal Victor's boat. Finding the boat is gone, Dan returns home. Though he took nothing, Dan has committed burglary.

For my purposes, this definition is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Bullock has committed burglary and should be so charged. Let the jury decide on intent.

In fact, the intent isn't needed either. Mr Bullock committed vandalism in the house, thus completing the requirements for burglary.

So are you 12, or 13?

Cop is right, he's damn lucky to be alive. I can't believe he had the nerve to complain about having to clean up after himself.

What would you expect? He'll probably sue too. They should have just shot him.

What would you expect? He'll probably sue too. They should have just shot him.

which again would have been illegal, as you can't just shoot anyone who is in your home in alabama

Give it a rest, huh?

This is why I told you to use findlaw.com (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/burglary.html)...

Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender may simply trespass through an open door. Unlike robbery, which involves use of force or fear to obtain another person's property, there is usually no victim present during a burglary.

For example, Dan enters Victor's boathouse through an open window, intending to steal Victor's boat. Finding the boat is gone, Dan returns home. Though he took nothing, Dan has committed burglary.

For my purposes, this definition is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Bullock has committed burglary and should be so charged. Let the jury decide on intent.

In fact, the intent isn't needed either. Mr Bullock committed vandalism in the house, thus completing the requirements for burglary.

So are you 12, or 13?

Legal Dictionary (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burglary)

burglary n. the crime of breaking and entering into a structure for the purpose of committing a crime. No great force is needed (pushing open a door or slipping through an open window is sufficient) if the entry is unauthorized. Contrary to common belief, a burglary is not necessarily for theft. It can apply to any crime, such as assault or sexual harassment, whether the intended criminal act is committed or not. Originally under English Common Law burglary was limited to entry in residences at night, but it has been expanded to all criminal entries into any building, or even into a vehicle. (See: breaking and entering)


Nolo. (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/26873B9C-5F27-4467-B5C99747D14B0DF2/alpha/B/)
burglary


The crime of breaking into and entering a building with the intention to commit a felony. The breaking and entering need not be by force, and the felony need not be theft. For instance, someone would be guilty of burglary if he entered a house through an unlocked door in order to commit a murder.

Criminal Law (http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/violent_crimes/burglary.htm)
What is burglary?

Burglary is defined to be the "breaking and entry of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the intent of committing a felony therein".

"Breaking" must involve some sort of force; however, depending on the state, this can be defined loosely, as in the force required to open an unlocked door, or entering by means of fraud, as in telling the person in a locked hotel room that it is "room service" at the door, when indeed it is not.

Some states allow the intent of committing misdemeanor theft as sufficient to have committed burglary. Many states, too, have abandoned the requirement of the acts occurring during the nighttime. However, although in some states the definition may have expanded, in most states burglary must be committed in a "dwelling"; that is, a building that is used for sleeping purposes.


and Alabama's court system (http://www.criminaldefenseattorneyalabama.com/criminal-defense-definitions.cfm)...

Burglary
The unlawful breaking into or entering of a building or dwelling with the intent to commit a serious crime or theft.

now do you see the common thread in all those definitions including your findlaw? the intent to commit a crime.

now let's look at what was given in the article. shall we?

Adrian McKinnon sent his wife to see her sister while he inspected the piles left behind. As he walked back into the sunroom, a man walked through the back door straight into him, Tiffany McKinnon told the Montgomery Advertiser in a story Thursday

so according to accounts, Bullock "walked through the back door" and encountered McKinnon.

"My husband Adrian caught the thief red-handed in our home," she said. "And what is even crazier, the man even had my husband's hat sitting right on his head."

so Bullock walked into the home wearing the hat. It was not stated that Bullock picked up the hat after he entered (which would be theft and by consequence, burglary) but he had the hat on when he entered.

so other than the fact that Bullock entered the home, I ask again, can you prove intent to commit a crime?

now again, this is only going by what the article presented (as I said in earlier posts). So it's entirely possible that Bullock did confess or some other piece of evidence did surface (which will be questioned because he was forced to clean up... I never said it will be discarded, but will be questioned and COULD be discarded.)

However, we cannot say Bullocks is guilty until after the trial. Remember the saying "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Now please show me in the article where Bullocks committed the acts of vandalism as you so confidently claim?

and since your own findlaw states "Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny)."

How can you say intent isn't needed either?

So...

In Alabama it's okay to capture tresspassers in to slavery?

Nice. :cool:

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - A burglar in Montgomery chose the wrong family to mess with, literally. Adrian and Tiffany McKinnon returned home on Tuesday after a week away to find that thieves had emptied almost everything the family of five owned, Tiffany McKinnon said through tears.

"Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone and piles of trash all over my home," she said.

Adrian McKinnon sent his wife to see her sister while he inspected the piles left behind. As he walked back into the sunroom, a man walked through the back door straight into him, Tiffany McKinnon told the Montgomery Advertiser in a story Thursday.

"My husband Adrian caught the thief red-handed in our home," she said. "And what is even crazier, the man even had my husband's hat sitting right on his head."

Adrian McKinnon held the suspect, 33-year-old Tajuan Bullock, at gunpoint and told him to sit on the floor until he decided what to do.

"We made this man clean up all the mess he made, piles of stuff, he had thrown out of my drawers and cabinets onto the floor," Tiffany McKinnon said.

When police arrived, Bullock complained about being forced to clean the home at gunpoint.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_fe_st/odd_burglar_cleanup
Sources: Yahoo/AP/OccNEWS

He did mess with the wrong family :D

I think the Laws should give twice the sentence to thieves that -on top of stealing- vandalize your property for fun.

Yay!
:D

Legal Dictionary (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burglary)

now do you see the common thread in all those definitions including your findlaw? the intent to commit a crime.

now let's look at what was given in the article. shall we?



so according to accounts, Bullock "walked through the back door" and encountered McKinnon.



so Bullock walked into the home wearing the hat. It was not stated that Bullock picked up the hat after he entered (which would be theft and by consequence, burglary) but he had the hat on when he entered.

so other than the fact that Bullock entered the home, I ask again, can you prove intent to commit a crime?

now again, this is only going by what the article presented (as I said in earlier posts). So it's entirely possible that Bullock did confess or some other piece of evidence did surface (which will be questioned because he was forced to clean up... I never said it will be discarded, but will be questioned and COULD be discarded.)

However, we cannot say Bullocks is guilty until after the trial. Remember the saying "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Now please show me in the article where Bullocks committed the acts of vandalism as you so confidently claim?

and since your own findlaw states "Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny)."

How can you say intent isn't needed either?
All the paper tells us is what the reporter wants us to read. It's an incomplete record. If you want to continue with hypothetical situations, fine. What we've read shows that there is more than enough evidence to bring Mr. Bullock to trial, where, as I said earlier, a jury can decide his fate.

The police department seems to share my opinion..

Capt. Huey Thornton, a police spokesman, said police arrested Bullock at 2 p.m. Tuesday on burglary and theft charges. He was being held in the Montgomery County Detention Facility on a $30,000 bond.

Not to mention the "missing" things...

"Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone ...

Now you've made enough of a fool of yourself, just give it a rest. I'm guessing it's 12...right?

which again would have been illegal, as you can't just shoot anyone who is in your home in alabama
And what is it about Alabama law that makes it illegal to shoot a burglar, thief, and vandal? I believe the Governor signed a "Castle Doctrine" law last year.

:p I wonder if I could try the same thing with anyone who comes into my house? Might not go down too well but it would be good for a laugh.

Still, it's not for them to decide the penalty.

Incidentally, I wonder if what they did was even legal.

Legal like breaking in, stealing all their stuff, and wearing their clothes in their house and trashing the house?

so Bullock walked into the home wearing the hat. It was not stated that Bullock picked up the hat after he entered (which would be theft and by consequence, burglary) but he had the hat on when he entered.

so other than the fact that Bullock entered the home, I ask again, can you prove intent to commit a crime?


Junii i think its time for you to take a nap, your ability to logically analize a simple situation seems to be temorarily impaired. How do you expain the possession of stolen goods ON THE PERSON? Do you think the hat teleported onto his head? Maybe fell from the ceiling and accidentally landed on his head? Guy in your house with your possessions ON HIS PERSON what POSSIBLE more evidence do you need? A presigned confession in his pocket? It doesnt matter if he stole the stuff on the first or 5th time he wandered in and out of that house that day. His intent is clear,its clear he stole property and its clear he broke in. Guilty. Case Closed. <Gavel bangs>

Will you quit with the pro-criminal bleeding-hearting? "Oooohhhh, I robbed someone's house and got caught and had to fix it! My rights done been violated! Feel sorry for meeee!"
Maybe you haven't heard, but criminals have rights. Breaking into someone's house and getting caught doesn't make you their slave until the police show up.

What part of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" do you not understand?
I understand it, I just don't care what the bible says on the matter.
Having to clean up his mess is the LEAST he owes them.
That's for the courts to decide, not the victims.

While we're splitting hairs on the law, how about looking up something pertinent, that of Domicile?

I don't have the time right now to look up Alabama's laws on Domicile but in general, I believe that the home-owner or renter is allowed to do whatever they feel necessary, in order to make and keep their primary place of residence safe, secure and livable.
Including breaking the law?
What the homeowners did *might* have been illegal. Breaking and entering and burglary is *definitely* illegal.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
Legal like breaking in, stealing all their stuff, and wearing their clothes in their house and trashing the house?

What does that have to do with anything? Like I said, breaking into someone's house and getting caught doesn't make you their slave until the police show up.

so you're basing his conviction on circumstantial evidence?

Except it can be presented that he found the hat on the ground somewhere else. that would provide reasonable doubt.

again tho. this is only going by what is presented in the article, and not what would be presented at trial.

Well, the clencher isn't the possession of the hat, but possession of the stollen item AT the robbery scene...

I'm sure the police have more than what is presented in the article; since information has been alluded that they know where he (the robber) lived; and that he made multiple trips to the house... But I guess we'll have to wait and see what the police actually have on the guy beyond what was reported in the news articles.