Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ferguson Protesters Did Not "Loot" McDonalds Sunday Night [View all]bigtree
(94,332 posts)58. there might be a reasonable and legally valid defense, in this case
Necessity
A defense asserted by a criminal or civil defendant that he or she had no choice but to break the law.
Private necessity
Public Necessity
Private Necessity
A defense asserted by a criminal or civil defendant that he or she had no choice but to break the law.
Private necessity
In tort law, a defense that can be used against charges of trespass where a defendant interferes with a plaintiff's property in an emergency to protect an interest of his own. Private necessity does not serve as an absolute defense to liability for trespass. A defendant who commits trespass and invokes the defense of private necessity must still pay for any harm done to the property caused by his trespass, however, the defendant is not liable for nominal or punitive damages. Furthermore, as long as the emergency continues which caused the defendant to commit trespass on the plaintiff's land, the defendant is entitled to remain on the plaintiff's land and cannot be ejected as long as the emergency situation continues. Contrast with public necessity.
Public Necessity
A defense to trespass can exist when you (or, more likely, government actors like law-enforcement agents) trespass out of necessity to protect the community or society as a whole during an emergency -- for example, burning down a row of homes to stop the spread of a fast-moving fire.
For this defense to work, there must be an immediate necessity for the trespass and you must have trespassed in genuine good faith that it was to protect public safety. It's meant to protect the public from a greater harm that would have occurred if you had not committed trespass.
Public necessity functions as a complete defense, meaning it shields you from liability for any damages caused by your trespass. But you lose the protection of this complete defense when your trespass becomes unreasonable under the circumstances.
Private Necessity
Although not a complete defense, private necessity lets you trespass if it's to protect yourself from death or serious bodily injury in an emergency -- for example, if you're being chased by a dangerous animal and are seeking shelter in someone else's toolshed.
Under the private necessity defense, you are entitled to stay on the land for as long as the emergency continues, even if the owner wants to eject you. However, just like public necessity, you lose the defense's protection as soon as your trespass becomes unreasonable.
Unlike public necessity, private necessity is not an absolute defense to liability for trespass. You may still be civilly liable for any damages that result from your trespass -- for example, if you drove onto someone else's property to avoid an imminent crash and caused $500 in damage to the property owner's fence, you'll probably have to pay for it. But you won't be liable for any nominal or punitive damages.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
sorry for the lateness of this to the post, but this may be important to the story
bigtree
Aug 2014
#42
Are the alleged protestors members of the military? Do they not have the right
Vincardog
Aug 2014
#94
What has that got to do with breaking a window go get milk to ease the suffering
Vincardog
Aug 2014
#96
Your assumptions are not facts. No one is guilty until tried and convicted. Shooting
Vincardog
Aug 2014
#98
Remember the parallel pics from Katrina? According to the captions, a white couple
tblue37
Aug 2014
#63
Oh, yes, if they're black, it's looting. If they're white, it's quick thinking.
valerief
Aug 2014
#7
As I've said twice, I remember those photos, and they both seemed like "looting" to me
Recursion
Aug 2014
#21
And you're missing the point that while you may be oh-so-colorblind.... few actually are.
moriah
Aug 2014
#52
The actions also fit well within the first three parameters of the word 'requisition'
LanternWaste
Aug 2014
#69
And another generation gets added to 2 centuries worth of this repertoire. nt
BumRushDaShow
Aug 2014
#10
Odd, I was under the impression that its still burglary regardless if they left money for
cstanleytech
Aug 2014
#14
Nope I'm just trying to make sure we are all on the same page since its not "looting".
cstanleytech
Aug 2014
#26
Did they have a key? No. Thus they broke in. Did they take something? Yes. Thus it is burglary
cstanleytech
Aug 2014
#30
So whether or not it is a crime depends on whether the company decides to press charges?
Ms. Toad
Aug 2014
#74
So they broke in to a locked business to take something they did not pay for
Iamthetruth
Aug 2014
#67