officer chases down a petty thief

[1032JBT]

1032JBT, my oversight. Conversion (shoplifting) gives an officer a chance to write a ticket to first time offenders allowing officers to remain on the streets instead of too much time in booking for that .98 candy bar.

Yes that is true, but it is the same amount of paperwork if I write the ticket or if I book them in jail. One way has a booking sheet and the other way has a ticket. If I gotta do the paper they might as well take the ride.

And BTW......FWIW, before I would do this for a .98 cent candy bar they would have to have a very lenthly history in which case I wouldn't care in the slighest. Normally for low amounts like that they more than enough chances to either pay or have someone get to the location with the $$ too pay so I don't have too do the paper at all.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

It was a serious question, I don't know. I would never use mace.

I agree but won't put much effort in tracking down .98 cents. How would the officer even know what had been stolen? The officer did what he should have done IMO. I just saying I doubt I will be the one chasing them down that what the cops are for. If I can stop them I will but chase? not me.

Pretty much agreed, the cop did not know what the guy took from his vehicle and so pursued him using what he had available to stop him.

Also I would much rather shoot someone but would also rather not get in trouble myself either. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic if that is how it sounded.

 

[lrahm]

1032JBT When one has the policy that all cases are prosecuted then that .98 candy bar is moot point. It just as soon be half the store that is being carried away. There are policies that are in place that keep us from making those phone calls. We live too close to two different states. for us, all out of state residents don't get charged with conversion they get charged with theft. That candy bar just got very expensive and time consuming.

 

[1032JBT]

1032JBT When one has the policy that all cases are prosecuted then that .98 candy bar is moot point. It just as soon be half the store that is being carried away. There are policies that are in place that keep us from making those phone calls. We live too close to two different states. for us, all out of state residents don't get charged with conversion they get charged with theft. That candy bar just got very expensive and time consuming.

Most of our stores don't call us for low dollar items, they handle it in house.......my last post was for when I do get involved.

 

[lrahm]

Most of our stores don't call us for low dollar items, they handle it in house.......my last post was for when I do get involved.

Wish we had it like that. It's tough when we have a busy night and several officers are busy taking theft/conversion reports. We have tried to work with several of our busier stores. No dice. Stay safe.

 

[ryknoll3]

Any theft is a felony? If I caught a 13 year old stealing a candy bar, I could draw down on him? I'm not trying to stir the pot, I'm just trying to clarify...

While the theft is a felony, you can't use deadly force unless it is a forcible felony, which is defined thus:

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.

So, since stealing a candy bar in and of itself does not qualify as a forcible felony, you can't respond with deadly force. Now, if the kid says, "Give me that candy bar or I will kick your @$$!", you would have justification in using reasonable force up to and including deadly force. In the case of a 13 year old, you'd probably have to prove that you really believed he had the means to carry out his threat.

IANAL

 

[lrahm]

While the theft is a felony, you can't use deadly force unless it is a forcible felony, which is defined thus:

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.

So, since stealing a candy bar in and of itself does not qualify as a forcible felony, you can't respond with deadly force. Now, if the kid says, "Give me that candy bar or I will kick your @$$!", you would have justification in using reasonable force up to and including deadly force. In the case of a 13 year old, you'd probably have to prove that you really believed he had the means to carry out his threat.

IANAL

Have you seen som of these 14 year olds? Policies stae that whn you come into contact with a person as such, they WILL get handcuffed in the back and serched. In that order and searched after.

 

[hoosierdoc]

You can't look at what was found on the subject later and claim the chase was invalid.

Medicare does the same crap to us in the hospital. 70 yr old comes in for severe abdominal pain and vomiting. We do labs, give meds, order a CT scan. Results come back with too much poop, labs normal, give an enema and she feels better. Medicare whines about meds, las, CT can for constipation.

Cops chase people because there is suspicion of a serious crime, why else would you flee? Like those high speed chases for running a stop sign. Maybe they have a body in the trunk.

 

[snowman46919]

While the theft is a felony, you can't use deadly force unless it is a forcible felony, which is defined thus:

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.

So, since stealing a candy bar in and of itself does not qualify as a forcible felony, you can't respond with deadly force. Now, if the kid says, "Give me that candy bar or I will kick your @$$!", you would have justification in using reasonable force up to and including deadly force. In the case of a 13 year old, you'd probably have to prove that you really believed he had the means to carry out his threat.

IANAL

I think you may have missed this

Why could a private citizen not? The threat of deadly force isn't deadly force. I'd pat a private citizen on the back, and ask if he need 2 cents to make it an even dollar.

 

[Kcustom45]

So what's the difference between theft and conversion in layman's terms.

I don't know if there is an easy answer to that question. I had an FTO that even struggled to explain the difference to me...and I'm still not so sure I completely understand it. Like others have said Conversion is for the prosecutors.

 

[lrahm]

I don't know if there is an easy answer to that question. I had an FTO that even struggled to explain the difference to me...and I'm still not so sure I completely understand it. Like others have said Conversion is for the prosecutors.

Theft is a felony in the state of Indiana. Punishable by a year or more in jail. Conversion is basically shoplifting, a misdemeanor. If you are charged with conversion, officers in most jurisdictions have the ability to issues a ticket and set that person a court date. Usually officers have the ability to see if that person has been charged with the conversion and then make the determination if the person should be charged with theft. Usually if the person gets charged with conversion (and convicted) it gets bumped up to theft. In Evansville we have two states that we have equal opportunity shoplifters come from. They always get charged with theft. States will not extradite on a misdemeanor.

Conversion (if I am not correct, someone will tell me) is depriving the store over control of that property.

 

[finity]

The threat of deadly force isn't deadly force.

Um, yes it is.

If someone pulls a gun on you they have THREATENED you with deadly force. They haven't USED deadly force but your response would be exactly the same as if they had.

There was an appeals court decision that I posted on here recently in a nother thread in which they determined that someone convicted of pointing a firearm at someone to stop them from stealong from them had USED deadly force which justified by the situation. The "thieves" hadn't threatened them, so...

While the theft is a felony, you can't use deadly force unless it is a forcible felony, which is defined thus:

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.

So, since stealing a candy bar in and of itself does not qualify as a forcible felony, you can't respond with deadly force. Now, if the kid says, "Give me that candy bar or I will kick your @$$!", you would have justification in using reasonable force up to and including deadly force. In the case of a 13 year old, you'd probably have to prove that you really believed he had the means to carry out his threat.

IANAL

...what ryknoll said above is an extremely important detail.

You can't use deadly force (or threaten to use deadly force, which to the court of appeals is EXACTLY THE SAME THING) for a non-violent felony, in this case "theft".

You can't use deadly force to stop someone from just stealing your stuff.

While you & others may use officer discretion & "pat them on the back", other cops probably won't & neither will the prosecutor in taking them to trial nor will the appeals court after they're convicted.

If I was in that position I wouldn't "draw down" on a 13 year old for stealing a candy bar. That would be a real good way to spend some significant time behind bars. Well, unless you're really into that kind of thing.

 

[E5RANGER375]

all thieves should be able to be legally shot period.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

all thieves should be able to be legally shot period.

I'm out of rep, hit you when I recharge.

My last reading of Indiana's Castle Doctrine was that I could use deadly force to protect my property as well. I will re-read that asap.

 

[finity]

all thieves should be able to be legally shot period.

"Should be" & "are" are two COMPLETELY different things, though.

And for the record, I don't agree with you.

I'm out of rep, hit you when I recharge.

My last reading of Indiana's Castle Doctrine was that I could use deadly force to protect my property as well. I will re-read that asap.

Here let me help you (& anybody else who hasn't read it yet):

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

Notice the bolded section.

It says you can use reasonable force to stop someone from stealing your stuff but you can only use deadly force if you are reasonably threatened with IMMINENT serious bodily injury or a "forcible felony".

For the definition of "forcible felony" see ryknolls post above which DOESN'T include simple theft.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Notice the bolded section.

It says you can use reasonable force to stop someone from stealing your stuff but you can only use deadly force if you are reasonably threatened with IMMINENT serious bodily injury or a "forcible felony".

For the definition of "forcible felony" see ryknolls post above which DOESN'T include simple theft.

Guess that's why it pays to read through laws like this SEVERAL times. I swear I have read it at least 5 times and I never did catch that little part at the bottom. Thanks Finity, it doesn't often happen on internet forums but you have definately changed my mind about something.





I still think we SHOULD be able to shoot them though...

 

[finity]

Thanks Finity, it doesn't often happen on internet forums but you have definately changed my mind about something.

I still think we SHOULD be able to shoot them though...

Eh. You can't win 'em all.

Baby steps...

 

[snowman46919]

Now finity, if the car is considered to be on the curtilage doesn't that then make use of deadly force justifiable? As to what was taken, we have no way of knowing until after apprehension of what was taken. Many of us, and I would be willing to guess our local friendly officers, have a vehicle weapon and that thief could have gotten hold of the safe it was stored in. If the law were written better I wouldn't question it but I believe that given the situation I stated above and the castle doctrine seem to agree that deadly force is justified.