|
Alchenar posted:If you see someone climbing out of one of your windows then you would not be entitled to make any of those assumptions despite him technically being on your property. If someone is climbing out of your window, how are they not committing a crime?
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
Loopyface posted:If someone is climbing out of your window, how are they not committing a crime? You can only use lethal force if your own life (or that of another) is in jeopardy, based on what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances. It's not based on a crime being committed. Generally, once the intruder is retreating, your abiilty to use lethal force is gone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 17:18
|
|
|
quepasa18 posted:You can only use lethal force if your own life (or that of another) is in jeopardy, based on what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances. It's not based on a crime being committed. Generally, once the intruder is retreating, your abiilty to use lethal force is gone. This is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction. In some states, it is entirely legal to use deadly force to prevent a property crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
Practically speaking, and setting aside all civil liability issues inherent in even the most seemingly-justified use of deadly force, what property can you possibly have in your house that is worth killing someone over?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Practically speaking, and setting aside all civil liability issues inherent in even the most seemingly-justified use of deadly force, what property can you possibly have in your house that is worth killing someone over? At the risk of this derailing into a morality debate, for me it's more about the person invading my house than the "value" of any property they're taking. If someone violated my sense of security at home, I'd shoot to kill over a stolen ketchup packet and I'd sleep like a baby. Edit: To quepasa18, read that link I posted for Castle Doctrine info. Some states specifically state that you do not need to fear for your life to use lethal force in your "castle" (defined as home and/or car and/or place of business, depending on state). Epic Doctor Fetus fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Aug 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:This is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction. In some states, it is entirely legal to use deadly force to prevent a property crime. From what I've seen, in most of these jurisdictions it isn't (Garner and all), they just loosely define what constitutes a threat to you and your family. The Texas Castle law for example just flat out says, if someone is in your house after they area automatically assumed to be a threat to your family. Most of the property laws are similarly worded (you can assume that someone messing with your stuff after dark is probably a threat to you). I'm pretty sure shooting someone in the back as they run away with your bike or whatever is universally illegal, but there are classic defenses such as "I thought I saw him turn around" or "he swerved towards me" that will get you off the hook in these states. e: Pretty sure that wiki article is terrible. From what I remember Wisconsin allows you to stand your ground in your home. Pretty sure it's called a 'siege' law or something silly like that. JudicialRestraints fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Aug 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
This is in a retainer agreement: DEPOSIT. Client agrees to pay Attorney an initial deposit of $xx,xxx.. The hourly charges will be charged against the deposit, but client acknowledges and agrees the initial deposit is fully earned retainer upon receipt by Attorney. Client authorizes that the initial deposit, as well as any future deposit, may be deposited in a general operating account. Client authorizes Attorney to use that fund to pay the fees at the hourly rate. Client acknowledges that the deposit is not an estimate of total fees and costs, but merely an advance fee fully earned. Client acknowledges that representation is not begun until the payment of the aforesaid deposit. Whenever the deposit is exhausted, Attorney reserves the right to demand further deposits, each up to an amount equal to the initial deposit. Client shall pay all sums then owing and deposit the attorneys’ fees estimated to be incurred in preparing for and completing the trial or arbitration, as well as the jury fees or arbitration fees, expert witness fees and other costs likely to be assessed. Client agrees to pay all deposits after the initial deposit within 10 days of Attorney’s demand. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, any unused deposit at the conclusion of Attorney’s services will be refunded. _________ What does "fully earned" mean? Does this lawyer keep all of the money if it is unused? The last line says that unused money will be refunded, but I am confused about the lines that say the money is fully earned. This is in California
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
catchers posted:What does "fully earned" mean? Does this lawyer keep all of the money if it is unused? The last line says that unused money will be refunded, but I am confused about the lines that say the money is fully earned. This is in California Think of it as a non-refundable deposit. You pay some money up front to retain the services of the lawyer at some later date. The "fully earned" language simply means that, in the event you don't ever use the lawyer's service, you do not get to demand the return of that money on the grounds that the lawyer never did any work for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
Wyatt posted:Think of it as a non-refundable deposit. You pay some money up front to retain the services of the lawyer at some later date. The "fully earned" language simply means that, in the event you don't ever use the lawyer's service, you do not get to demand the return of that money on the grounds that the lawyer never did any work for you. What if he does $5k worth of work and I paid $15k, will I be able to get $10k back? Edit: also does that contradict the last line? "Unless otherwise agreed in writing, any unused deposit at the conclusion of Attorney’s services will be refunded." catchers fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Aug 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
catchers posted:What if he does $5k worth of work and I paid $15k, will I be able to get $10k back? 1. You pay a one-time, non-refundable fee. This is the retainer and you will never see this again. 2. You then make deposits to the general account. The lawyer's hourly rate is billed against this account. So supposing you paid him $15k as part of Step #2, but he only billed $5k, then you get the other $10k back. It's really very simple. You are paying in advance for work that the lawyer may do, but are entitled to a refund of the amount you overpaid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 19:07
|
|
|
catchers posted:This is in a retainer agreement: Wyatt, I don't read the language as requiring the attorney to issue a refund of the "fully earned" portion of the retainer, just future deposits. These types of retainer agreements are prohibited by the ethical rules of my state, for what it is worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Wyatt, I don't read the language as requiring the attorney to issue a refund of the "fully earned" portion of the retainer, just future deposits. These types of retainer agreements are prohibited by the ethical rules of my state, for what it is worth. Yep. As I said above, the retainer is being treated as fully earned and cannot be recovered. Only deposits unaccounted for are refundable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:So when you're confronted with the reality that you can't even do basic procedural stuff properly does it make you rethink your windmill tilting or is part of your pathology the ability to double down regardless Well technically no one has alleged I didn't do it properly, I was just curious if stating to the judge that they didn't receive papers when you know for a fact that the prosecutor took them straight from your hand in front of his secretary was common practice or if they would even get a slap on the wrist for it. After all, both times I've needed to serve papers, two different clerks informed me all I had to do was walk across the street and give them to him. And my windmill tilted and fell down after the first couple months right before I entered a plea deal. Then when I found out how coercive certain people were in order to avoid going to trial and the facts that were glossed over that would have dismissed the charges, I guess you could say I decided to double down. Whatever I don't win here would be reversed on appeal, as long as I pay for help to properly prepare an appeal. So that reassures me quite a bit. I'm also annoyed with the lack of legal justice and fairness in my area and I have already been held in limbo for nearly a year of my life while being for the most part unemployed(did some freelance when needed). For something that I didn't know would stay on my record until I die, especially now when I was about to travel the states scouting job/living markets, I'm ok with putting in more time when I know justice "should" prevail. I'm basically trying to salvage any sliver of faith I still have in the American/Illinois legal system before just trying living in the mountains somewhere. MalConstant posted:Well as I was turning I clipped the crosswalk sign and took out the traffic lights.... I swear when I was living there an old person took out a traffic signal or sign nearly every month. I always wondered what they usually got charged with... And does FL have traffic/street cams like other states? Your story should be quickly validated by them if that is the case. Unless you're lying of course. (Your attorney would probably be looking into any video or other ways to validate your story but if you don't find a lawyer quickly it could be beneficial for you to call around to find out how long they keep that footage.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:Well technically no one has alleged I didn't do it properly, I was just curious if stating to the judge that they didn't receive papers when you know for a fact that the prosecutor took them straight from your hand in front of his secretary was common practice or if they would even get a slap on the wrist for it. Um, bad service is no service- by making this argument he's saying you didn't do it properly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 00:29
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Um, bad service is no service- by making this argument he's saying you didn't do it properly. Yup. "Handing it to someone" is not the same as proper service of process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:Well technically no one has alleged I didn't do it properly, I was just curious if stating to the judge that they didn't receive papers when you know for a fact that the prosecutor took them straight from your hand in front of his secretary was common practice or if they would even get a slap on the wrist for it. After all, both times I've needed to serve papers, two different clerks informed me all I had to do was walk across the street and give them to him. Yes, they have traffic cams, but I thought they only took pictures not video? Also when I went through the red light the white suv probably was too far out of view to see it. I went through the light to avoid him catching up to me at the red light. Although you can see him following me at another intersection, clearly going off the road like I did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
Do I have to disclose to my Navy recruiter something that happened as a minor and was dismissed under deferred adjudication or can the military just see everything?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Spiderfailure posted:Do I have to disclose to my Navy recruiter something that happened as a minor and was dismissed under deferred adjudication or can the military just see everything? Probably not, but (and you will want to wait for other answers) in terms of what we do in the real world might not hurt to say to him "look, I was accused of something a while back while I was a minor, it was dismissed under adjudication and didn't go any further, do you need to know the details?" Best case scenario he says 'no that's fine', worst case scenario you avoided failing to disclose something that the navy could turn round later and discharge you for. They'll likely do a check on you anyway so anything that would keep you out will keep you out regardless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
About to go through a divorce. I bought a car BEFORE the marriage that is in my name, not hers. She has been driving it for the duration of the marriage but I was making payments. Now we have separated but she is not giving up the car. She refuses to tell me where it is or when she will give it back. Again, it is registered in my name and the bank owns it. What can I do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 02:25
|
|
|
visuvius posted:About to go through a divorce. I bought a car BEFORE the marriage that is in my name, not hers. She has been driving it for the duration of the marriage but I was making payments. Now we have separated but she is not giving up the car. She refuses to tell me where it is or when she will give it back. Again, it is registered in my name and the bank owns it. What can I do? This will depend on what state you are in. Not being a US goon the answer won't actually mean anything to me but when one of the Americans shows up they'll want to know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
Spiderfailure posted:Do I have to disclose to my Navy recruiter something that happened as a minor and was dismissed under deferred adjudication or can the military just see everything? It has been my experience that the military can see everything. What is it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 02:34
|
|
|
visuvius posted:About to go through a divorce. I bought a car BEFORE the marriage that is in my name, not hers. She has been driving it for the duration of the marriage but I was making payments. Now we have separated but she is not giving up the car. She refuses to tell me where it is or when she will give it back. Again, it is registered in my name and the bank owns it. What can I do? The idea that springs to mind is call the police and report your car stolen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
Spiderfailure posted:Do I have to disclose to my Navy recruiter something that happened as a minor and was dismissed under deferred adjudication or can the military just see everything? I'm not a milgoon, but I've heard of the nasty things that happen to people who don't disclose past criminal behavior and whose military jobs require them to get any level of security clearance. You should probably disclose it, but ask in Goons in Platoons if you want another opinion on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 03:26
|
|
|
Spiderfailure posted:Do I have to disclose to my Navy recruiter something that happened as a minor and was dismissed under deferred adjudication or can the military just see everything? I can't give you a legal opinion, I know nothing about military recruitment policies or whatnot, but I do know that military recruiters are under incredibly intense pressure to fill their quota, so the chances are very high that the recruiter will shrug it off or tell you to outright lie on your application. In other words, you should probably just disclose it (especially since it was dismissed) and don't worry about it. You may want to try the Goons in Platoons subforum, though, I'll bet you that there are a few recruiters in there who can give you the skinny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
mboger posted:At the risk of this derailing into a morality debate, for me it's more about the person invading my house than the "value" of any property they're taking. If someone violated my sense of security at home, I'd shoot to kill over a stolen ketchup packet and I'd sleep like a baby. No offense dude, but speaking as someone who has actually shot people (in the military) you wouldn't just "sleep like a baby" because you shot some retarded meth-head who broke in your house. Your post reads like you are basically the poster child for "people who should not have guns because they are not responsible gun-owners" and I would not be surprised if you are the kind of person who concealed-carries and intentionally places themselves in situations where they can brandish their weapon just to get a hardon. Just sayin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 03:34
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:I would not be surprised if you are the kind of person who concealed-carries and intentionally places themselves in situations where they can brandish their weapon just to get a hardon. Speaking of pseudo-justifiable homicide and hard ons, did anyone else's Crim professor really, really like the movie Death Wish?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
mboger reminds me of that old John Candy movie, Armed and Dangerous. "Let's say someone lyin', right? And you know they lyin'. Can you shoot 'em?" "Use your own judgment."
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
Hey, thanks. I'm not going to discuss in detail anything for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
Javid posted:The idea that springs to mind is call the police and report your car stolen. Well, I did call the police and the officer asked if she was allowed to drive the car. The answer to this is yes, as my wife she was obviously allowed to drive the car. We just separated last Friday. He said it is a civil matter and that they can't do anything about it. What I'm worried about is her vandalizing it. She already took all the poo poo in the apartment and vandalized some stuff in there. CA by the way. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 07:48
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Um, bad service is no service- by making this argument he's saying you didn't do it properly. Yeah, that's basically what my hunch was and why I figured I'd ask. If I wouldn't feel so guilty about lying to the judge, it seems I could pull the same trick next week about getting their response by regular mail... MalConstant posted:Yes, they have traffic cams, but I thought they only took pictures not video? Also when I went through the red light the white suv probably was too far out of view to see it. I went through the light to avoid him catching up to me at the red light. Although you can see him following me at another intersection, clearly going off the road like I did. Well I meant the cams that show traffic flow and busy intersections that you see on the news sometimes, but you bring up a good point. Did you say the light was red when you went through the intersection? At least in IL, when you get a red light ticket and go online to see it after getting a notice in the mail, you can see a video clip of your violation. These were the sorts of cameras I was thinking of though. Obviously you/your lawyer would have to do some footwork to get ahold of any recordings, etc, but who knows, maybe you'll get lucky. http://www.trafficland.com/city/MCO/index.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 09:20
|
|
|
PoOKiE! posted:
Yeah, it was red when I went through it. I think I'm hosed anyways because when I first passed the guy it was a one lane road, which is illegal on it's own. So even if I do find the guy that chased me, I'm still screwed one way or another. What a disaster this poo poo is..
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 13:54
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:No offense dude, but speaking as someone who has actually shot people (in the military) you wouldn't just "sleep like a baby" because you shot some retarded meth-head who broke in your house. None taken. First off, I don't own a gun, let alone multiple guns and a concealed carry permit (although I will admit I've been considering purchasing a gun and taking safety classes). Secondly, if I could choose between "never having my house broken into" or "mowing down meth heads left and right in my living room with impunity," I would choose the former (and hope everyone would). That said, I get a strong visceral reaction when I think about someone invading my home and still stand by everything I've said. Maybe I would regret it after the fact, but it doesn't currently feel that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
mboger posted:None taken. First off, I don't own a gun, let alone multiple guns and a concealed carry permit (although I will admit I've been considering purchasing a gun and taking safety classes). Secondly, if I could choose between "never having my house broken into" or "mowing down meth heads left and right in my living room with impunity," I would choose the former (and hope everyone would). Speaking as someone with a nightstand gun, I would much rather let someone escape with my TV or Xbox than pull a trigger in anger. I've been stolen from before, and I get the sense of violation and anger that it engenders. That said you're talking about ending another human being's life over a couple hundred dollars worth of STUFF. Stuff that your homeowner's/renter's insurance should cover. The way the law is written in most states seems pretty accurate to me. If you are on the street and there is a confrontation you have a duty to retreat if you can safely do so. If you instigate the fight (looking at your Dirty Harry attitude mboger), your duty to retreat becomes borderline absolute (you can't pick a fight and then draw on a guy). If there's someone in your home after dark, you probably have a reasonable belief that you are in serious danger in which case you can point a loaded weapon at someone. At this point I would suggest telling the person to 'get the gently caress out of there.' Any threatening motions at that point would probably mean you should pull the trigger (if he lunges towards you, he has a chance at getting your gun. if he draws his own he obviously has a gun). NOTE: in most states you have to be at risk of deadly force yourself to use deadly force. This means you can't shoot an unarmed person unless they appear to be attempting to arm themselves. I mean, obviously if you're going to point a gun at someone you should be ready/able to pull the trigger, but that doesn't mean you should.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 16:17
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Speaking as someone with a nightstand gun, I would much rather let someone escape with my TV or Xbox than pull a trigger in anger. I've been stolen from before, and I get the sense of violation and anger that it engenders. That said you're talking about ending another human being's life over a couple hundred dollars worth of STUFF. Stuff that your homeowner's/renter's insurance should cover. I should have known this was going to derail and I should have kept my mouth shut, The only reason I even brought the whole thing up is because someone said that the only time you're legally allowed to shoot someone is in self-defense if your life is threatened and I wanted to point out that in at least in Colorado (and probably a few other states, like Texas) there are situations where that's not entirely true. Anyways, end of derail. I'm going to go back to polishing my imaginary guns and rehearsing my "are you looking at me?" speech in the mirror. Epic Doctor Fetus fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Aug 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 16:40
|
|
|
mboger posted:I should have known this was going to derail and I should have kept my mouth shut, so this is the last I'm going to say on the topic. In just about every one of my posts, I specifically said "in my home" and I completely agree that the rules should and do change once you're out of your house. This has spiraled from me saying "I would legally be entitled to shoot someone in my house in the state of Colorado" to you guys thinking "mboger is going to go all Dirty Harry and start shooting jaywalkers downtown." Yes, I completely realize that if I punch a guy on the street and he punches back and I shoot him, then I'm going to jail for a long time. I don't know why you even bothered to mentioned that, since, like a broken record, I keep saying "if someone invades my home." You suck at this legal advice thing. "Stuff a friend told you" is not legally binding and is often wrong if your friends are idiots. Also, Wikipedia is not legally binding. Case in point: Colorado Criminal Code 18.1.706 posted:A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704 Colorado Criminal Code 18.1.705 posted:A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson. Colorado Criminal Code 18.1.704.5 posted:(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. Parsed the Colorado castle law has three parts: 1. Someone must enter your dwelling uninvited (note this probably has to be the place you generally sleep but I'm not gonna hunt down the Colorado definition of dwelling). 2. You must have a reasonable belief that the person has committed or intends to commit a crime separate from trespassing. (a) This element also has two parts. Namely, a reasonable person would have to share your belief AND you had to actually believe it. 3. You must also reasonably believe that the other person may use physical force against an occupant of the house. (a) Again two parts - a reasonable person would share your belief AND that you actually have to believe it. In short, the Colorado Criminal Code does NOT allow you to use a gun to defend property unless the other person is a physical threat to you. In fact, what I said in my previous post is actually pretty much spot on accurate for Colorado. So, PLEASE read your own statutes before you try to interpret them in here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
First, I swear on my imaginary stack of guns and militia propaganda that I will never dispense anything even remotely considered legal advice in this thread ever again, because holy poo poo can of worms. The remainder of this post is to clear up any misconceptions I have about the Colorado Castle Doctrine and should not be viewed by anyone as advice. Good enough? Now that we have that settled, didn't you just prove what I said about there being situations in Colorado where you could use deadly force even if your own life isn't at stake? I may have had specific details wrong (don't listen to me anyone!), but the overall statement is still true. The part you bolded where it says "and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant" suggests that if a home invader looked like he was going to flick me on the forehead, I'd have this covered, meaning my life wasn't threatened. In this purely hypothetical situation, how would this most likely play out legally (in Colorado): My wife screams and I awake in the middle of the night to find an intruder standing at the foot of my bed. In the heat of the moment, I grab the gun on the nightstand and shoot. Now, I realize that me being a reasonable person is already called into question in this thread, so I'd like your input. Would a reasonable person believe that someone in their house in the middle of the night is there to commit another crime? I can't imagine he's there because he got lost on his way to soccer practice and it only makes sense that's he's going to *at least* steal some of my poo poo and at the worse murder me or rape my wife. The wording of 18.1.704.5(2) suggests that a reasonable person needs to think that's it's possible the intruder *might* harm them, not that the intruder has to be in the process of hurting them. Is it not reasonable to think that a person who broke into my home in the middle of the night might be intending to physically harm me? I realize that there are a ton of factors potentially in play that could change the outcome (for example, if he's making a dash for the front door and I pop him between the shoulder blades, I'm going to need to hire a more expensive lawyer), so for the sake of argument, this whole scenario lasts 2 seconds because I'm dumb and keep a loaded gun under my pillow and the intruder is at the the foot of the bed when I shoot him. I just want to state that I do realize that I can't take shots from my window while the perp is running down my driveway or anything like that and that comments like "grab him by the ankle, drag him back in and shoot him" that I made earlier were said in jest. I'm really not a gun wielding psycho, guys. honest. I also realize that I should have said something more along the lines of "What about Castle Doctrine?" in my first post instead of making it a definitive statement. You guys argue for a living, and I should have known better. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
mboger posted:First, I swear on my imaginary stack of guns and militia propaganda that I will never dispense anything even remotely considered legal advice in this thread ever again, because holy poo poo can of worms. The remainder of this post is to clear up any misconceptions I have about the Colorado Castle Doctrine and should not be viewed by anyone as advice. Good enough? You advised someone to shoot a home invader who is fleeing with your property. I mean your later posts were right, and common law largely operates the same way (regardless of what many gun owners think). If you have a gun out and someone moves towards you in any way shape or form that you consider a threat, he could disarm you and shoot you with your own gun. Pull the trigger. If he's running away with your poo poo, don't pull the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
The entire point behind the Colorado code, like most other state self defence codes, IS threats to one life. A homeowner should, under this view, not be required to make a snap judgment, perhaps while just being woken up and under great stress, as to the intentions of a burglar. It generally carries a presumption with it that a crime committed in someone else's home is highly likely to be a violent one, and so the difference between an attacker intending to rough you up a bit, versus killing you, is not one that a homeowner ought to be forced to guess at. Especially when the consequences of guessing wrong are either committing a homicide or being victim of a homicide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
Wyatt posted:Yep. As I said above, the retainer is being treated as fully earned and cannot be recovered. Only deposits unaccounted for are refundable. I'm no ethics master, but I seem to recall from the MPRE that that's not kosher. I'd imagine it's state by state, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:You advised someone to shoot a home invader who is fleeing with your property. I updated my original post to reflect my retardation. Sorry about my arm chair lawyerin'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2010 18:53
|
|