Justified vigilantism?

[Irishman]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Charges have been downgraded to misdemeanor trespassing.And there’s much more to the story than the initial reporting included:In light of this new information, I think the charge of misdemeanor trespassing is appropriate.

Interesting. Misdemeanor trespassing is reasonable and a fair assessment of what she did. The state attorney also said

While Courtney Irby’s entry into her estranged husband’s home is something that can’t be ignored, the dispute over the property she took is “a matter best handled by a divorce judge,” Haas said.
Divorce “brings out the absolute worse in people,” the prosecutor said. “If my office gets into the business of husbands and wives disputing over property, I’m going to have to hire 10 more lawyers.”

I also looked up Florida’s statute on aggravated battery. Here’s what I found:

The crime of Aggravated Battery is defined under Section 784.045, Florida Statutes. Under the law, Aggravated Battery occurs where a defendant intentionally touches or strikes another person and, in doing so:
Intentionally or knowingly caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the alleged victim; or
Used a deadly weapon; or
Battered a person whom the defendant knew or should have known was pregnant.

The charge seems to be based on using the car as a “deadly weapon”. I’m a little curious how the “touches or strikes another person” element will be interpreted. Also, grounds for defense include
[ul]
[li]Lack of intent to touch or strike;[/li][li]No intent to cause great bodily harm, disfigurement, etc.;[/li][/ul]

It’s conceivable he will not be convicted. It is unclear how “hitting his wife’s vehicle with his car at low speed” will translate into a battery charge.

This site* discussing aggravated assault as well.

Aggravated assault is an assault with a deadly weapon or with the intent to commit a felony. Assault does not require an intent to injure, only the intent to cause the victim fear of an immediate attack.

Whereas battery includes touching the person and causing “great bodily harm” or using a deadly weapon, which by statute a car would fit the bill. Maybe the prosecutor should include assault charges as well.

Aggravated assault is a third degree felony.
[ul]
A person convicted of a third degree felony faces the following penalties:
[li]up to five years in prison[/li][li]a fine up to $5000[/li][li]probation up to five years, and[/li][li]restitution.[/li](Fla. Stat. § § 775.082, 775.083).
[/ul]

Aggravated battery is a second degree felony, punishable by
[ul]
[li]up to fifteen years in prison, minimum of three years if assault is against a law enforcement officer[/li][li]a fine up to $10,000[/li][li]probation up to fifteen years, and[/li][li]restitution.[/li](Fla. Stat. § § 775.082, 775.083).
[/ul]

---

• Watch out for annoying popovers about chatting live with an attorney. That page obscures it’s own text.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

This is a Russian case; what do y’all think of this sitch?

One evening last summer, Mikhail Khachaturyan decided that his living room wasn’t tidy enough, so he summoned his three teenage daughters one by one and doused each with pepper spray.

There was little unusual about this evening in the Khachaturyan household, according to court records, except for one thing: The sisters decided they couldn’t take the violence and abuse anymore. They waited until their father fell asleep in his rocking chair and attacked him with a kitchen knife and a hammer. He put up a fight, but died within minutes.

The Khachaturyan sisters, now aged 18, 19 and 20, were charged last month with premeditated murder, in a case that has drawn outrage and shone a light on the way the Russian justice system handles domestic violence and sexual abuse cases.

More than 200,000 people have signed an online petition urging the prosecutors to drop the murder charges, which could land the sisters in prison for up to 20 years.

Court filings showed that the Khachaturyan sisters were repeatedly beaten by their father, a war veteran, and sexually abused. He had kept a stockpile of knifes, guns and rifles at home despite having been diagnosed with a neurological disorder, and was known to shoot indoors. He repeatedly threatened neighbors and family with violence.

The Khacharutyan sisters’ lawyers say the girls were driven to the edge.

“The first day we met,” Krestina’s lawyer Alexei Liptser said, “she said she’s better off here, in jail, than living at home the way she had been.”

Going to the police was not an option for Khachaturyan’s victims, who feared that life for them would only get worse. The girls had shared some of the horrors they had gone through with school friends but pleaded them not to go to the police. In the year before the attack, the girls attended less than two months of classes in total, but the school administration did not interfere.

Prosecutors acknowledge the extraordinarily violent circumstances that pushed the teenagers to attack and eventually kill their own father, but they insist that Maria, Angelina and Krestina should be tried for murder. The sisters’ lawyers argue that they were acting in justified self-defense in circumstances of lasting abuse and life-threatening violence.

Should these 3 young women be charged and face trial, or was their act justified vigilantism?

[Isamu]

That was self defense.

[Ravenman]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Charges have been downgraded to misdemeanor trespassing.And there’s much more to the story than the initial reporting included:In light of this new information, I think the charge of misdemeanor trespassing is appropriate.

Those details actually make me less sympathetic, in a way. If she’s just scooping it things of value, that undermines my assumption that she was acting to save herself from violence.

[UltraVires]

[quote=“Max_S, post:148, topic:835978”]

One of the aspects in proving theft in our state is that prosecution must prove either intent to deprive the victim of their right to property, or intent to appropriate the property for the use of any person not entitled to the property[SUP][1][/SUP]. It could be argued that the victim had temporarily lost his right to keep firearms, pursuant to court order. The defendant argues her intention was to hand the firearms over to the police. This should make the prosecutor think twice about charging defendant with theft. If theft is charged, “*t is grand theft of the third degree and a felony of the third degree… if the property stolen is… [a] firearm”[SUP][2][/SUP].

There is a good faith defense for theft if she believed she had the right to the victim’s property[SUP][3][/SUP], but I don’t think that applies here. It is my understanding that defendant had an outstanding restraining order against victim. Therefore it cannot be reasonably argued that she had a bona fide right to take the victim’s property, or at least not via trespass. Regardless, her public comments contradict a good faith defense.

Without theft it is impossible to press charges for burglary, because burglary requires both trespass and intent to commit another crime[SUP][4][/SUP]; however, proof of entering a structure “stealthily and without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of entering with intent to commit an offense”[SUP][5][/SUP]. Given her station confession and related evidence proving her trespass, this again puts the burden on the defendant to prove she did not commit or intend to commit theft.

If burglary is charged, it is a first degree felony because if the defendant “*s or becomes armed within the dwelling… with a dangerous weapon”[SUP][6][/SUP]. Theft of a firearm, even without intent to use it, constitutes becoming “armed”[SUP][7][/SUP]. Consider also the minimum 3 year sentence for burglary while “possessing” a firearm[SUP][8][/SUP], or 15 years if it involved a semiautomatic firearm and high-capacity detachable box magazine[SUP][9][/SUP].

Next we consider the charge of trespass. All that is required for the crime of trespass is to willfully enter without being authorized, licensed, or invited by the owner or lessee of the premises[SUP][10][/SUP]. Trespass of an immediately uninhabited dwelling is normally a misdemeanor of the third degree, but if the offender arms herself it becomes a felony of the third degree[SUP][11][/SUP]. The sentence for a third degree felony is not to exceed 5 years imprisonment[SUP][12][/SUP] and a $5,000 fine[SUP][13][/SUP].

So all in all, I would expect either a plea bargain on the trespass charge or no charge at all. Probably (hopefully) the latter. If she sues for false imprisonment however, I wouldn’t expect any mercy from the prosecutor’s office…

~Max

[ol][li]F.L. Stat. 812.014(1) (2018)[/li]
[li]F.L. Stat. 812.014(2)(c) (2018)[/li]
[li]See for example Rodriguez v. State, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).[/li]
[li]Fla. Stat. 810.02(1)(b) (2018)[/li]
[li]Fla. Stat. 810.07 (2018)[/li]
[li]Fla. Stat. 810.02(2)(b) (2018)[/li]
[li]“We reject Hardee’s contention that the statutory requirement that the burglar be “armed or arms himself” means the gun must be ready to fire. A person having possession of a gun during a burglary is subject to a minimum mandatory sentence under section 775.087 regardless of whether the gun was loaded. We do not believe that the legislature intended a different construction of section 810.02(2)(b) which enhances the crime of burglary when the defendant “is armed or arms himself” with a gun.” Hardee v. State, 534 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1988) (internal citations omitted)[/li]
[li]Fla. Stat. 775.087(2)(a)(1.) (2018)[/li]
[li]Fla. Stat. 775.087(3)(a)(1.) (2018)[/li]
[li]Fla. Stat. 810.08(1) (2018)[/li]
[li]Fla. Stat. 810.08(2)(c) (2018)[/li]
[li]Fla. Stat. 775.082(3)(e) (2018)[/li]
[li]Fla. Stat. 775.083(1)(c) (2018)[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]

I know the charges have already been reduced, but this is an excellent analysis and one I would have argued as her defense counsel. Florida law is ridiculous as far as this “armed” burglary and trespass goes.

I think the clear intent of these laws is the idea of carrying arms to possibly employ against someone while trespassing or committing burglary, not simply the theft of firearms while committing the crimes.

Simple trespass is the right charge here for the reasons you said: there was no intent to commit a crime inside the dwelling. She had no intention to commit a larceny. She turned the guns over to the police knowing that he would get them back in accordance with the law.

Unless Florida has a “temporarily depriving a person of his or her property” law (outside of joyriding) then there is no crime here, just a civil tort.

[kaylasdad99]

@Isosleepy

That exact sequence of events seems unlikely. No one in Florida has exceptional kids.

Maybe not these days, but back in 1938 Jane Wallace and Henry Olaf Reno produced a daughter who rates pretty favorably.