TexasCHLforum.com

There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

WildBill wrote:There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

Sometimes there's a significant difference between a right and a good idea.

I think this is a good example.

Excaliber wrote:

WildBill wrote:There is a recent thread about a group of thugs sitting on a car so the owner felt he couldn't safely get in his car and drive home. Shouldn't a person have the right to physically remove them from their property without being arrested for assault? Do the police have this right?

Sometimes there's a significant difference between a right and a good idea.

I think this is a good example.

I am still interested in the discussion. For example, if you were in a remote area and you had no cell phone. Would you wait for hours until the thugs left before you could drive home? It may not be a good idea to be in a remote area without a cell phone, but it does happen.

I was once in the same position in Venice California. I was leaving work late at night and was the only one working late. There was an obvious gang hanging out around and on my truck. I called the police to see if they would drive by and kinda shoo them away so I could go home and was told that they would do no such thing. The dispatcher told me that until I went out there and told them to leave and got beat up they wouldn't do a thing, not even just drive by or hang out so I could leave. Hows that "protect and serve" working out.

In the thread you reference, the situation was that a man looked out his office window and saw a group of people lounging on his car, using it as a rest stop.

I would suspect that he would be required to give notice. If they did not escalate with any threats or shows of force or theft but simply remained and ignored him, I would not suspect that he could escalate with a threat or show of force. I would think he would be obligated to basically wait them out. If he wanted to pull a trump, he could call the police.

There are legal processes in place for this. For instance, if you allow someone to use your car but the person doesn't return it. Or if someone won't move out of your house after given proper notice. Once verifiable notice has been sent, you can file a court case and ask the judge to have the police forcibly return the property. I do not recall reading any justification for force or threat of force in situations like that.

If they escalated with a show/threat/use of force, the situation would change.

Hoi Polloi wrote:I do not recall reading any justification for force or threat of force in situations like that.

That is exactly my point. Why should a person have to call the police so that they can get what they already legally own?

olafpfj wrote:I was once in the same position in Venice California. I was leaving work late at night and was the only one working late. There was an obvious gang hanging out around and on my truck. I called the police to see if they would drive by and kinda shoo them away so I could go home and was told that they would do no such thing. The dispatcher told me that until I went out there and told them to leave and got beat up they wouldn't do a thing, not even just drive by or hang out so I could leave. Hows that "protect and serve" working out.

So you were told by the dispatcher to escalate the situation so the police would intervene.

WildBill wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:I do not recall reading any justification for force or threat of force in situations like that.

That is exactly my point. Why should a person have to call the police so that they can get what they already legally own?

He doesn't have to. He's welcome to file and wait on the courts.

The wheels of justice turn slowly. I'd expect a case like that to take about 10-14 days. They'd probably move on by then anyway.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:I do not recall reading any justification for force or threat of force in situations like that.

That is exactly my point. Why should a person have to call the police so that they can get what they already legally own?

He doesn't have to. He's welcome to file and wait on the courts.

The wheels of justice turn slowly. I'd expect a case like that to take about 10-14 days. They'd probably move on by then anyway.

So if you found a group of thugs in front of your house who were blocking the door, you would call a lawyer to file a lawsuit and wait two weeks to get into your home?

WildBill wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:I do not recall reading any justification for force or threat of force in situations like that.

That is exactly my point. Why should a person have to call the police so that they can get what they already legally own?

He doesn't have to. He's welcome to file and wait on the courts.

The wheels of justice turn slowly. I'd expect a case like that to take about 10-14 days. They'd probably move on by then anyway.

So if you found a group of thugs in front of your house who were blocking the door, you would call your lawyer to file a lawsuit and wait two weeks to get into your house?

Nope, I'd call the police.

So you were told by the dispatcher to escalate the situation so the police would intervene.

I wasn't told TO escalate. I was told that unless an escalation occurred by them or myself that the police would not respond. Legally I understand the police departments stance since technically no crime had yet occurred. I just really found it troubling to have the police advise me in that manner when there was clearly trouble brewing. It was definitely as situation of just because I could doesn't mean I should. These types of situations highlight a really sticky area of the law for civilians. A police officer can stop and arrest someone on suspicion and effectively prevent a crime (ie. someone skulking around a store at night with a bag of tools). As a civilian it seems that I have to wait until the crime is actually in progress and even then I would be afraid that I could be painted as the one who escalated the situation by confronting the perpetrator. I chose to leave well enough alone and the gang got bored and wandered off eventually but that really irritates me that the police wouldn't help, they would only pick up the pieces.

olafpfj wrote:It was definitely as situation of just because I could doesn't mean I should. These types of situations highlight a really sticky area of the law for civilians.

I believe this is what Excaliber meant when he said, "Sometimes there's a significant difference between a right and a good idea".

olafpfr wrote:I chose to leave well enough alone and the gang got bored and wandered off eventually but that really irritates me that the police wouldn't help, they would only pick up the pieces.

It irritates me also.

Well, as a SoCal transplant myself, I know exactly what you're talking about. OTH, it kind of depends which department you're talking about. If you're in an unincorporated area that is served by the LASO, you may get a stronger police response than you had counted on. Those boys don't mess around. On the other hand, the Pasadena California PD is much like the police departments of smaller cities like what we have here in Grapevine. I've personally found the Grapevine PD to be very responsive and helpful.

olafpfj wrote:

So you were told by the dispatcher to escalate the situation so the police would intervene.

I wasn't told TO escalate. I was told that unless an escalation occurred by them or myself that the police would not respond. Legally I understand the police departments stance since technically no crime had yet occurred. I just really found it troubling to have the police advise me in that manner when there was clearly trouble brewing. It was definitely as situation of just because I could doesn't mean I should. These types of situations highlight a really sticky area of the law for civilians. A police officer can stop and arrest someone on suspicion and effectively prevent a crime (ie. someone skulking around a store at night with a bag of tools). As a civilian it seems that I have to wait until the crime is actually in progress and even then I would be afraid that I could be painted as the one who escalated the situation by confronting the perpetrator. I chose to leave well enough alone and the gang got bored and wandered off eventually but that really irritates me that the police wouldn't help, they would only pick up the pieces.

What you were told may well not have been department policy. It may have been just a civilian dispatcher making it up as he went along or wanting to reduce his / her workload. This happens.

If I were told that, I would politely ask to speak with the shift commander. I'd be willing to bet I'd get a much more satisfactory response and the dispatcher would receive some "counseling" after the dispatch recordings were reviewed.

Excaliber wrote:

olafpfj wrote:

So you were told by the dispatcher to escalate the situation so the police would intervene.

I wasn't told TO escalate. I was told that unless an escalation occurred by them or myself that the police would not respond. Legally I understand the police departments stance since technically no crime had yet occurred. I just really found it troubling to have the police advise me in that manner when there was clearly trouble brewing. It was definitely as situation of just because I could doesn't mean I should. These types of situations highlight a really sticky area of the law for civilians. A police officer can stop and arrest someone on suspicion and effectively prevent a crime (ie. someone skulking around a store at night with a bag of tools). As a civilian it seems that I have to wait until the crime is actually in progress and even then I would be afraid that I could be painted as the one who escalated the situation by confronting the perpetrator. I chose to leave well enough alone and the gang got bored and wandered off eventually but that really irritates me that the police wouldn't help, they would only pick up the pieces.

What you were told may well not have been department policy. It may have been just a civilian dispatcher making it up as he went along or wanting to reduce his / her workload. This happens.

If I were told that, I would politely ask to speak with the shift commander. I'd be willing to bet I'd get a much more satisfactory response and the dispatcher would receive some "counseling" after the dispatch recordings were reviewed.

There it is. I think that I would ask the dispatcher to repeat his/herself and for the dispatcher's name and then, as Excaliber suggests, kick it up the ladder.