Defending your Hat

[Carlisle Blues]

Apparently the court has convicted the victim.

Nope the hat touching youth was not convicted; poor boy. The actual perpetrator was...based on his own admission. :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[Feraud]

Technically you are right.

In reality I shudder to think anyone advocate he should have stood there and let two kids play monkey in the middle with his hat? Running off to find a policeman would have resulted in the loss of his hat.

 

[Viper Man]

They can have my hat when they pry it off my cold dead melon...

actually, if it's that 7 1/8 I have been trying to stretch, they'll need to pry it!

 

[Lefty]

There's law and there's justice. Don't confuse the two.

 

[Mahagonny Bill]

Next time I'll remember not to argue with an Internet lawyer

 

[carouselvic]

As long as I am sitting on your jury, you don't have a worry.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Technically you are right.

In reality I shudder to think anyone advocate he should have stood there and let two kids play monkey in the middle with his hat? Running off to find a policeman would have resulted in the loss of his hat.

It is such a difficult judgment call. How I would have reacted may have depended on which hat the kid took. My custom Major Moore or my Montecristi; a lot different than my Borsalinos or Akubras. Further, there are so many different factors and variables to take into account.

Bottom line what is it worth? My life or freedom?[huh] Glad it was not me.

 

[Mr. Scratch]

I'm not sure why you folks aren't seeing it, but it doesn't matter if Bill says he is "wrong", any more than it does if he says he is 'right". The law is the law. Here it is, in Bill's State of Washington:

---
RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

[...]
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

---

Grabbing the hat off a total stranger is no more legal than grabbing his wallet, and in any case, it is clearly an offense against his or her person and malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession.

If some punk off the street assaults you or grabs your property without provocation, you are entitled by law (at least in WA, and probably anywhere else in the US) to act exactly as Bill did to retrieve your property and prevent further offenses. You won't be thrown in "the pokey", because you haven't committed a crime. People don't have to put up with crap like that, and they shouldn't.

 

[avedwards]

Why would stealing a wallet be worse than stealing a hat anyway? If the hat is a good quality vintage fedora then it could possibly be worth more than is in your wallet anyway (at least I don't keep £100+ or the equivalent in $ in my wallet usually). So stealing a hat is not just equal to stealing a wallet but arguably worse.

That said I wouldn't use violence most of the time as it sounds like this person was just being funny in his eyes, not trying to steal the hat. What you did seems a good mid-way between violence and giving in.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Next time I'll remember not to argue with an Internet lawyer

I don't know if you were referring to me. I am not an internet lawyer.

You asked a question I answered. You did not like my answer that much is obvious. What is obvious as well is a measure of displaced anger directed at the "internet lawyer" you referred to.

If you just retrieved your hat no problem, but, you grabbed the kid. Maybe others here will applaud your behavior. I can understand that. We are in an internet setting it is easy to back slap and give kuddos when your butt is not on the line.

You will never a get a glad hand, "it's ok" answer from me. If you want to be taken seriously then try to accept answers even if they are not what you want to hear.

I am sure the next this occurs you will think twice before reacting.

That is why I answered the way I did. Get upset, but, please think before acting next time.

 

[KY Gentleman]

I don't think he's after your approval...

 

[Mahagonny Bill]

I don't know if you were referring to me. I am not an internet lawyer.

You asked a question I answered. You did not like my answer that much is obvious. What is obvious as well is a measure of displaced anger directed at the "internet lawyer" you referred to.

Carlisle, I am not upset. You offered your opinion and I accept that. My "Internet Lawyer" comment was in regards to the mock trial "case closed" jag you were on and not your previous comments. Don't take things so seriously. If I did, I would have been offended by you appointing yourself as judge and jury for the case. Instead I assumed that at that point you were joking and tried to play along.

I did not start this thread to brag or be an Internet tough guy. It was a weird incident that I wanted to share with the lounge to see if anyone else had similar experiences. I do thank you for your comments.

 

[Mr. Scratch]

If you just retrieved your hat no problem, but, you grabbed the kid.

As he was lawfully entitled to do.

The "kid" was stealing his hat (quoting Bill: "Before the punk could get away I grabbed a fistful of his shirt..." - that sounds like attempted theft to me). No one is required to allow people to steal from him, no matter what the age of the offender, nor does the thief's age forbid he be appehended when committing the crime.

People are entitled to defend themselves and their property.

You will never a get a glad hand, "it's ok" answer from me.

Perhaps so, but then you are also laboring under the false notion that his reaction was illegal, and have based your denunciation on this incorrect point.

Given that Bill was legally within his rights, I don't see why you object to his behavior.

If you want to be taken seriously then try to accept answers even if they are not what you want to hear.

Okay physician, heal thyself. Given your above statement, and the demonstration that your legal opinion on this matter was wrong, are you ready to accept the evidence and revise your previous opinions of Bill's actions?

I am sure the next this occurs you will think twice before reacting.

That is why I answered the way I did. Get upset, but, please think before acting next time. .

What is there to think about? Someone tried to steal from him, he prevented the theft with a minimum of physical force. Looks to me like everything worked out fine. Would have only been better if he'd grabbed the lad by the ear and frog marched him to the nearest police officer to have him charged with Theft.

 

[Lefty]

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;[/I][/B]

Unless you're going to quote the definition statute for the meaning of "malicious interference", this ain't gettin' anybody off.

 

[mayserwegener]

What is there to think about? Someone tried to steal from him, he prevented the theft with a minimum of physical force. Looks to me like everything worked out fine. Would have only been better if he'd grabbed the lad by the ear and frog marched him to the nearest police officer to have him charged with Theft.

+1 :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I do thank you for your comments.

You are welcome. Of course, I judged you, as did every single poster here. We were all self appointed judges and jurors read the posts.

The main thing is we are not the only ones who read the posts. We are mere contributors.

People who read these posts include: impressionable young people who will run with the ideas expressed herein. They may be members or lurkers or visitors. So there is a modicum of responsibility in posting. For me, that is where the fun and games begins and ends.

 

[Mr. Scratch]

Unless you're going to quote the definition statute for the meaning of "malicious interference", this ain't gettin' anybody off.

"Malicious interference" in this context is a general descriptor of a variety of crimes (theft, vandalism, arson, etc.), not a single specific crime in the Washington criminal code. The general definition is:

mal·ice (mls)
n.
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. Law The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

in·ter·fer·ence (ntr-fîrns)
n.
1.
a. The act or an instance of hindering, obstructing, or impeding.
b. Something that hinders, obstructs, or impedes.



More interestingly, how would you argue that stealing someone's rightful property would NOT be considered "malicious interference"?

 

[Orsini]

Apparently the court has convicted the victim.

As per usual.

 

[Tiller]

Well I also guess it depends where you live as well. Here in upstate NY in the heart of the Adirondacks, most of the judges would throw the "assault" case out, and most juries around here would be sympathetic to you. Unlike the city, self defense is a big thing up here (Probably why upstate has more guns as well. Looking beyond the cities gun laws of course lol). Someone steals something from you, your not going to find to many people sympathetic to said thief when you bust his front tooth. But that's a part of being in the "sticks". Combine the fact that you are an older gentleman who was simply peacefully on a walk, when you were vandalized, I'd be shocked if any action at all was even considered against you around here.

I've never been to Seattle though, so I have no idea what would happen there if someone punched out (or in your case grabbed their shirt) someone else for stealing property. But since you are an older gentleman being harassed by two youths, I'd have to think most juries would be sympathetic, but I'm not sure I don't know how most people from Seattle feel about such subjects.

 

[Mahagonny Bill]

I've never been to Seattle though, so I have no idea what would happen there if someone punched out (or in your case grabbed their shirt) someone else for stealing property. But since you are an older gentleman being harassed by two youths, I'd have to think most juries would be sympathetic, but I'm not sure I don't know how most people from Seattle feel about such subjects.

I couldn't say. Seattle leans pretty far to the left, but we are not a Nanny state (yet). Besides, as Lefty said earlier; "there's law and there's justice. Don't confuse the two". Law and Justice also depend on circumstances, including how the police officer who arrived on the scene was feeling that day, how belligerent or cooperative the participants were, what the case load of the courts are, who has the financial means to carry the case through court, etc. etc. Since the incident did not go that far, any discussion about the true legal issues of the incident are academic.