Ferguson Protesters Did Not "Loot" McDonalds Sunday Night

[bigtree]

64. personal emergency

. . . first aid.

read the statutes.

"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."


This same principle, it has been widely argued, applies as well
to a hiker who breaks into a cabin to save herself when trapped on a
mountain in an unexpected storm. The hiker saves her life by eating
some food and burning some wood she finds there. In such a case,
while the hiker is understood to have a privilege to do what she did, it
is generally asserted that she nonetheless owes a legal duty.

One interpretation of this position rests on these values.

from the document provided:

First, I believe that people should be under, and should feel themselves under, a moral obligation to help others in relatively easy rescue situations (which I consider these to be). In the society in which I would like to live, ordinary people would readily act upon that obligation without expecting to be paid for what they do (that is, assuming that the rescuer is not a professional rescuer). Indeed, when fate picks you out to be the one to rescue a fellow ordinary citizen, I believe that this provides you with what should be a welcome (but rare) opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to this important social norm. In situations covered by the defense of necessity, however, there typically is no would- be rescuer on the scene to make the rescue effort. Instead, the person in extreme need uses self-help to avail herself of something that, in my favored world, the other (had she been there) would have willingly provided with no expectation of payment. In effect, the cabin owner and dock owner are involuntarily forced to become the rescuers that they morally should have been had they only had the actual opportunity to have been.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/sugarman/C__TEMP_Mozilla_Cache_A08652B0d01.pdf


1. What do I have to show to assert the legal defense of necessity?

1.1. Preventing significant bodily harm or evil

The first thing you have to show to assert the necessity defense is that you committed a crime 1) in an emergency, and 2) in order to prevent "significant bodily harm or evil" to either yourself or someone else.

The dictionary definition of an "emergency" is an unforeseen set of circumstances requiring immediate action. So the necessity defense will only be effective if you committed a crime in a situation that was unexpected, where you needed to act fast.

(But, unlike with the legal defense of duress, which we discuss more below, you don't have to have acted so quickly that you didn't have time to consider your options.)

The "significant bodily harm or evil" requirement means that you need to have acted to prevent a fairly serious harm, usually death or injury to you or someone else. But someone's life doesn't actually have to be in danger.

http://www.shouselaw.com/necessity.html#1.1