What are the legal limits of defending ones property? CSI: Mailbox baseball (page 3)

JWdaughter

Shoot, I have read that recommendation in magazines like the "Mother Earth News" and "Countryside" for those who live in the country and have their mailboxes destroyed regularly(that gets pricey!). No warnings that it could result in criminal prosecution!

And another "Shoot", I can't believe I have actually missed a CSI. Which one?

OnTheWayOut

I know that the police would have to arrest the person in the CSI incident.
I know that the prosecutor would have to seriously consider criminal charges.
I don't know that he should be convicted. It would matter who the jury are.
12 individuals can vary from 12 other individuals.
The homeowner definitely knew that his mailbox would hurt the guy who
swung at it, so I could convict on a lesser charge than negligent homicide.

The obvious thing to do would be to build a fortress of a mailbox so the
box is surrounded by bricks or concrete on all sides except the opening.
That way, they would know to leave it alone.

AGuest

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Didn't learn that one in law school. Gonna have to call my Tort professor and give him the heads-up.

Ah, well... peace!

SA, a slave of Christ, who should'a checked first...

WTWizard

This is like getting charged with murder for getting out of the way of someone that's attacking you, that person ramming his head on a tree, splitting his head open, and dying. The act of murder was not committed by putting cement in the mailbox (which the kids were not supposed to be damaging in the first place).

In fact, supposing the post was very sturdy. They attempt to hit the mailbox, miss, hit the post instead, and the bat shatters and results in death. Would the law now claim the post (which replaced one that was damaged in a storm) needs to be wimpy so another person attempting to destroy it will not bust the bat (and another thunderstorm could destroy it)? Or, we should have doors that are easy to burgle so people will not shatter a crowbar (or have one bounce off the door) in an unsuccessful attempt to invade the home, and cause an accident?

Why don't our lawmakers just give up? It is going to get to that point--it's only a matter of time before it happens. Instead, they need to strike every single law and start on a clean slate with only the law "No person or agency shall initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. Force, including deadly force, is only morally and legally justified in defense against those who break the above law." That would have solved all these potential legal issues that could readily become "No one shall defend themselves or their property against initiatory force, threat of force, or fraud; and no one shall create value without express permission from all applicable regulators."

Brother Apostate

I want to make it clear that I am responding to the title of this thread, not (neccesarily) the intent of it.

I support defending one's "property" to the REAL meaning of such.

BA- May you learn THAT meaning.

jaguarbass

I work in law enforcement.

You can get away with murder if you can write a good report.

Starting with the sentance, I was in fear for my life.

part 2 :

If you have deep pockets, somebody will try to get in them.

Mandette

Creative report writing is always a good talent to have....

"I was in fear for my life and I'm just a little girl!!!" "A helpless woman"... NOT!! But it sure sounds good!!!

M

DaCheech

I usually love CSI, but I give it thumbs down for glorifying idiots. I don't condone killing people for stupid crime..... but if there is accidental death, why should the homeowner be responsible/homicide?

StAnn

I used to be a Rural Carrier for the USPS, meaning I was a country mailman.

The law is Federal. Ever noticed that "US Postmaster Approved" stuff stamped on many mailboxes? A mailbox and it's support must be built so as to breakaway if hit by a vehicle. For instance, people who build pretty brick columns and place mailboxes inside of them would be liable if a drunk hit their brick tower and the bricks hit him in the head and killed him.

Notice those stop signs and other road signs are installed on break-away metal poles? Because people who hit the poles were killed when the poles went through the windshields instead of breaking off. Thus, we now have break-away roadside poles. With mailboxes, your mailbox should be lightweight enough to bounce off the hood, not go straight through the windshield, and the pole should break.

Lots of people do lots of things to protect their mailboxes and I'd say a good half of the mailboxes on my very rural route weren't legal. The big thing is, if someone really does get hurt, the homeowner is liable under Federal law.

Many people had a wooden pole with a wood platform on top and put their mailbox out in the morning on the way to work (strapped it to the platform with a bungee cord) and then took in the whole mailbox when they got home.

StAnn

What are the legal limits of defending ones property? CSI: Mailbox baseball

Share this