Defending your Hat

[Lefty]

"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"?

You don't go to plain meaning until you've examined case law. Interference & malicious interference might be two different things. All words in a statute are presumed to have meaning. By equating int. & mal. int., you give malicious no meaning. Cite a case.

 

[TopGumby]

I'm pretty sure our hat retrieving lounger was in the legal right.

I'm also pretty sure that I'd feel good about doing what he did.

I'm also equally sure that had the situation turned sour, I'd have felt pretty ridiculous bleeding out on sidewalk over a hat, or watching somebody else do the same.

I'm absolutely sure that people get hassled by the legal system in spite of the fact that they acted within the letter of the law.

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

 

[Mr. Scratch]

Interference & malicious interference might be two different things.

They are two different things, nobody said otherwise.

When I studied Crim. Justice the instructor made something clear right off the bat - in order for something to be a crime, you have to have intent and action. One without the other is not a crime, no matter what the results. The application of the word "malicious" in "malicious interference" is intended to specify a criminal intent on the part of the offender. It is entirely possible to interfere with someone's property rights without malice (and thus without criminal) intent, and thus the law does not permit the use of force under those circumstances.

If Bill's hat had blown off in a gust of wind, and then simply been picked up out of the gutter by the punk (who was totally ignorant of Bill's plight) a block away, Bill would have no right to forcibly apprehend him because there would be no criminal intent on the part of the punk; he hadn't stolen the hat, he'd merely found it laying on the ground and picked it up. The end results might be the same - the punk standing on the sidewalk with Bill's hat in his hand - but because of the lack of malice in his intent the punk would have not committed a crime.

However, I think it is clear that when the punk snatched off Bill's hat, he fully intended to deprive Bill of his property, fully knowing that he was acting to Bill's disadvantage merely to suit his own whims and desires. This is malice, thus, malicious interference.

All words in a statute are presumed to have meaning.

Again, nobody is arguing otherwise, but the statutes are also written with the assumption that those interpreting them are familiar with basic English vocabulary.

By equating int. & mal. int., you give malicious no meaning.

I did no such thing.

 

[Lefty]

The application of the word "malicious" in "malicious interference" is intended to specify a criminal intent on the part of the offender. It is entirely possible to interfere with someone's property rights without malice (and thus without criminal) intent, and thus the law does not permit the use of force under those circumstances.

This is more plain language analysis. The statue doesn't read "intentional interference" which would almost certainly use a plain language analysis, it reads "malicious interference". I've never seen a statue that referred to "malice" or "malicious" without defining the term in the statute, commentary, or later in case law.

Again, cite an applicable case to show that plain meaning should be used here. Otherwise, you're using the same "spirit of the law" analysis used by the general public and newscasters.

 

[Mr. Scratch]

This is more plain language analysis. The statue doesn't read "intentional interference" which would almost certainly use a plain language analysis, it reads "malicious interference". I've never seen a statue that referred to "malice" or "malicious" without defining the term in the statute, commentary, or later in case law.

Again, cite an applicable case to show that plain meaning should be used here. Otherwise, you're using the same "spirit of the law" analysis used by the general public and newscasters.

I'm not going to comb through another state's case law over this, especially when it is less a matter of legal statute, and more so a matter of simple English vocabulary. And if the statute doesn't define "malice", it is because malice itself is not itself a crime, and "malicious intent" is not a specific crime. Definitions for crimes (of which malice are assumed to be an integral part) are typically provided when addressing specific acts, such as Theft (I,II,III), Homicide/Murder, Homicide/Manslaughter, Homicide/Negligence, etc, where the specific qualifiers need to be drawn in precisely - but malicious intent in this statute only replies to a variety of crime in general, and is intended to dismiss actions which are NOT malicious.

The reason the statute doesn't refer to "intentional interference" is because (again!) it is possible to interfere with someone's property -even intentionally- without intending to do harm to another person (with the desire to do harm being a necessary component to "malice"), and that this kind of action does not justify the responding use of force by a property owner. Thus the "malicious" qualifier to set the two kinds of interference apart. One is legal, one is not. One can be lawfully countered by a use of force, the other cannot. It really isn't that difficult to understand, is it?

If you would like to argue that theft is NOT a malicious act, or shouldn't be regarded as malicious interference, please be my guest. But to continue arguing semantics like this in spite of the basic meaning of the words involved is pointless, stubborn and incorrect.

 

[Lefty]

More plain language analysis.

 

[JJWord]

How did this thread go from defending a gentleman's hat to "my legal vocabulary is better than yours"?

 

[Warbaby]

I was wondering the same thing...

Somebody snatches yer hat, smack 'em down. Fine points of the law got nothin' to do with it unless yer dumb enough to wait around for a cop.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

I'm sure the clown who grabbed the hat could TECHNICALLY be hauled away by the cops for either theft - he took the hat, and the value comes into play as to whether it's petty or felonious. It could also be assault & battery - there was a "touching" of the victim (the hat counts) along with the threat. I remember similar coming up in business law classes in college. Someone could be prosecuted for assault & battery for a bullet that never physically touched the intended, but did pierce an item of clothing or something usually very close to the body (hat, jacket, briefcase, purse) even if the victim doesn't realize it at the time. Agreed - any cop is going to try to blow it off as "it's just a case of kids screwing around - you got your hat back, there's no damage!" so that they don't have to deal with paperwork, but if you press them, they know they have to if you insist.

 

[Sargon]

This has been an interesting discussion from start to finish. In truth I'm not sure anyone knows how they would react in such a situation until it actually happened to them. I was once in a similar situation (non hat related) and like you my reaction was like I was on autopilot. I had no idea I would react in the manner I did and was surprised by my reaction in the aftermath. There is no right or wrong in the instant you reacted. You may very well have stopped the situation from escalating even more by your reflexive reaction.

I know it was in fun but in case anyone was wondering about the etymology of the below please read on.

As a matter of law the self-help you used would get you an over night stay in the pokey. I am sure you know why they call it the pokey. [huh]

I'm not sure we all do know why it's called the "pokey" Word detective.com says "“Pokey” as slang for “jail” dates to early 20th century America and is actually a variant form of “pogey,” a 19th century English word for “poorhouse” or “welfare hotel.” The roots of “pogey” are largely a mystery, but the word may be related to the adjective “poky,” an interesting word in itself. The original sense of “poky,” in the 18th century, was, logically, “something that pokes,” i.e., projects or points out (as in a “poke bonnet,” a style of the day that featured a prominent brim). In the 19th century, the word came to mean “cramped or confined,” as a small room might make a resident feel “poked at” by the walls. Since jail cells are not known for their generous elbow room, this is probably the connection between “poky” (cramped) and “pokey” (jail).

“Poky” also acquired the meaning of “dull, narrow-minded and slow” here in the US, probably from that same sense of “cramped.” “Poky” today is a useful little word that can be applied to anything from horses (”Plop, plop, plopity plop… The feet of Father Ready’s poky old saddle horse slowly ate upon the weary miles,” 1932) to computer programs (”HyperCard is quite poky when running on a standard 1-megabyte Mac Plus, even from a hard disk,” 1989).

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Pokey

 

[Erik]

I'd say that you acted well and articulated poorly. After all, I'm certain that you meant to say something along these lines:

Subsequent to my battery and in an attempt to defend myself during the robbery, I resorted to what I perceived as the reasonable use of force given my fear of bodily harm being faced with the disparate force of three attackers.

Or something to that effect.

 

[Erik]

As to the question, unfortunately I have been involved in physical altercations over hats; berets and cowboy hats in particular. I no longer wear berets, period. Re cowboy hats: Maybe it's that I do not appear as safe a person to pick on, may be something else, but it has not been an issue for some time.

 

[Chuck Bobuck]

I'm pretty sure our hat retrieving lounger was in the legal right.

I'm also pretty sure that I'd feel good about doing what he did.

I'm also equally sure that had the situation turned sour, I'd have felt pretty ridiculous bleeding out on sidewalk over a hat, or watching somebody else do the same.

I'm absolutely sure that people get hassled by the legal system in spite of the fact that they acted within the letter of the law.

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

Well put TopGumby. Pretty much hammer meets nail for me.

I'd like to think I'm observant enough to see any attack happen mentally before it physically happens. In other words, I want to be watchful and ready to move ahead of the attack. But, it didn't happen to me, so it's just nothing more than my wish for myself and all the good people out there minding their own business. So, take it easy out there friends and be prepared.

 

[avedwards]

Humour works best

Today I was sitting in the park in town enjoying a little bit of sun as well as clouds but fortunately no rain. I was in a black pinstripe suit, grey tie and my avatar's hat. My trench coat was next to me just in case the weather deteriorated.

Some young (16-20) people came past me; about six or so, most of them tipsy and carrying beer bottles. They started asking me if I was in a costume and why the hat and so on. One of them asked if he could try the hat on and without waiting for an answer went to grab it. I quickly put my hand on my hat to stop him, and thinking on the spot so as not to seem mean to him I said that the mafia don't like their hats being touched. The group laughed and I then proceeded to tell them that I was planning a bank robbery later on. They then left and I was left alone to continue my conversation with my friend and they were happy.

So the best way to deal with hat thieves is humour I discovered today. They weren't annoyed or offended and I was able to keep my hat.

 

[Widebrim]

Today I was sitting in the park in town enjoying a little bit of sun as well as clouds but fortunately no rain. I was in a black pinstripe suit, grey tie and my avatar's hat. My trench coat was next to me just in case the weather deteriorated.

Some young (16-20) people came past me; about six or so, most of them tipsy and carrying beer bottles. They started asking me if I was in a costume and why the hat and so on. One of them asked if he could try the hat on and without waiting for an answer went to grab it. I quickly put my hand on my hat to stop him, and thinking on the spot so as not to seem mean to him I said that the mafia don't like their hats being touched. The group laughed and I then proceeded to tell them that I was planning a bank robbery later on. They then left and I was left alone to continue my conversation with my friend and they were happy.

So the best way to deal with hat thieves is humour I discovered today. They weren't annoyed or offended and I was able to keep my hat.

Good going, avedwards, especially since you were outnumbered! Humor often does difuse such a situation.

 

[Harp]

Has your hat ever got you into a fight?

I wore a U of Michigan cap today on Chicago's Irish southside
which is Notre Dame country, and had several friendly conversations...lol

 

[avedwards]

I was outnumbered but I had the advantage of being sober, as was my friend. She was also dressed in, too say the least, unusual and original clothes. So I wasn't completely alone. Either way humour seemed both sensible and friendlier.

 

[Goose.]

...I said that the mafia don't like their hats being touched. ...So the best way to deal with hat thieves is humour I discovered today. They weren't annoyed or offended and I was able to keep my hat.

Very cool
I use a similar line, delivered seriously and while touching the front of my brim in a kind way, when kids ask me to buy them beer outside of convenience stores; "Can't. If I'm thrown back in from parole for that, my president wouldn't be pleased". Works every single time with little, if any, follow up conversation.

 

[1OldGI]

What we have here is a basic lack of home training. I mean that's day one stuff. When a man extends his hand shake it, open doors for ladies, respect your elders, and above all else, KEEP YOUR FILTHY (*hands*) OFF ANOTHER MAN"S HAT!!!!

I must say my Panama is off to you for your restraint in what was surely a very heated moment. I think I would have been very hard pressed to keep from firing away.