Are shopkeepers legally allowed to stop us when we steal?
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
DEFINITELY all get into trouble.
ya la....but they can't just sentence all to hang till death for killing the shoplifter what...can't be all of them delivered the lethal blow what.
-
Originally posted by cactusjack23:
Say I steal sth from this shop
The shopkeeper see me put the thing in my bag
Is he legally allowed to chase me down and take the things back by force?
nothing wrong with getting your stuff back, using neccesary force. You have the right to do that to protect your life and property. -
Originally posted by kengkia:
ya la....but they can't just sentence all to hang till death for killing the shoplifter what...can't be all of them delivered the lethal blow what.
Penal Code Chapter 224
Each of several persons liable for an act done by all, in like manner as if done by him alone
34. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the
common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone.For a robbery, there is usually a getaway driver. If all get caught, the getaway driver will get same punishment as the people robbing the bank, even though he is not physically in the bank during the robbery. Same for the mastermind who is not even there.
So it is possible all will get charge for murder for the scenario you said.
-
'Reasonable force' to be used to detain subject until officer arrives.
Meaning if you try to run, the shopkeeper can tie you up. :D
-
:)
-
Originally posted by Sagara:
'Reasonable force' to be used to detain subject until officer arrives.
Meaning if you try to run, the shopkeeper can tie you up. :D
But not dislocate your limbs. -
take out the bible and preach?
OFCOS TAKE BY FORCE LA
-
Originally posted by iceFatboy:
just to hijack...
is it the same as per some workers coming on to the road and asking the cars to stop cause they want to allow one big lorry to unload? technically, what authority they have?
Just go start another thread lah.This is along the same line as 'Should vehicles stop at zebra crossing for cyclist to ride across the zebra crossing.'
Or
"Can cyclist ride across the zebra crossing."
These are related to traffic rules then authority issues.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
Penal Code Chapter 224
Each of several persons liable for an act done by all, in like manner as if done by him alone
34. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of thecommon intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone.For a robbery, there is usually a getaway driver. If all get caught, the getaway driver will get same punishment as the people robbing the bank, even though he is not physically in the bank during the robbery. Same for the mastermind who is not even there.
So it is possible all will get charge for murder for the scenario you said.
I disagree.
For the first robbery example, you are right in saying all will be charged for robbery, but not necessarily same punishment. Depends on the role played. (Reason why in a murder case, all will be hanged is because of mandatory death sentence for murder)
For the scenario provided of a group of ppl including the shopkeeper beating the shoplifter to death, they will never be charged with murder. Prima facie, it is a murder case. But, there are defences available to all of those involved in the killing.
s300 Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law, and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence, without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
They will not be charged with murder unless one or more in the group is using the opportunity to exact revenge. Even then, only that particular person or few persons wil lbe charged with murder cos the yshare a common intention to kill. It is unlikely that in the absence of evidence to show that those involved was exacting revenge for personal grudge, the courts will impute an intention to kill as their common intention.
And definitely the shopkeeper and the member of the public does have a right to private defence.
Right of private defence of the body and of property
97. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend —
(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;
(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.Acts against which there is no right of private defence
99.(3) There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
Do note that if the Police is around, the shopkeeper is not allowed to beat the shoplifter.
Definitely the shopkeeper is legally entitled to detain a shoplifter in the course of defending his property. As to the use of force to restrain the shoplifter, it all depends on whether the use of force was reasonable and whether more force was used than necessary. If reasonable force, not an offence at all.
Nothing done in private defence is an offence
96. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defenceBut if shopkeper killed the shoplifter, he will be deemed as exceeding the right of private defence, charge may be culpable homicide not amounting to murder but not murder. But sometimes due to policy reasons and in the absence of protests from the shoplifter's family, the AG chambers may not even prosecute the shoplifter. (This is especially so if the shoplifter persistently resist attempts to restrain him and even hurt the shopkeeper in the process)
-
Originally posted by student 17:
I disagree.
For the first robbery example, you are right in saying all will be charged for robbery, but not necessarily same punishment. Depends on the role played. (Reason why in a murder case, all will be hanged is because of mandatory death sentence for murder)
For the scenario provided of a group of ppl including the shopkeeper beating the shoplifter to death, they will never be charged with murder. Prima facie, it is a murder case. But, there are defences available to all of those involved in the killing.
s300 Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law, and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence, without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
They will not be charged with murder unless one or more in the group is using the opportunity to exact revenge. Even then, only that particular person or few persons wil lbe charged with murder cos the yshare a common intention to kill. It is unlikely that in the absence of evidence to show that those involved was exacting revenge for personal grudge, the courts will impute an intention to kill as their common intention.
And definitely the shopkeeper and the member of the public does have a right to private defence.
Right of private defence of the body and of property
97. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend —(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;
(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
Acts against which there is no right of private defence
99.(3) There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
Do note that if the Police is around, the shopkeeper is not allowed to beat the shoplifter.
Definitely the shopkeeper is legally entitled to detain a shoplifter in the course of defending his property. As to the use of force to restrain the shoplifter, it all depends on whether the use of force was reasonable and whether more force was used than necessary. If reasonable force, not an offence at all.
Nothing done in private defence is an offence
96. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defenceBut if shopkeper killed the shoplifter, he will be deemed as exceeding the right of private defence, charge may be culpable homicide not amounting to murder but not murder. But sometimes due to policy reasons and in the absence of protests from the shoplifter's family, the AG chambers may not even prosecute the shoplifter. (This is especially so if the shoplifter persistently resist attempts to restrain him and even hurt the shopkeeper in the process)
the contents of your post are exactly why our courts exist. this hypothetical case, should it materialize, will definitely go to court. these are among the arguments that will be used by both sets of lawyers.
the charge? the prosecution will decide, based on the facts and merits of the case.
PS: if the shoplifter is already dead, how to charge him?
-
Dead man tells no lies......
I remember that as the first opening statement by our law lecturer at our first lesson.
-
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
Dead man tells no lies......
I remember that as the first opening statement by our law lecturer at our first lesson.
that's because dead men can't speak. not litrerally, anyway. Besides, his body will tell all there is to be learnt: this [hypothetical] death will definitely be the subject of a coroner's inquiry anyway.
-
Originally posted by student 17:
I disagree.
For the first robbery example, you are right in saying all will be charged for robbery, but not necessarily same punishment. Depends on the role played. (Reason why in a murder case, all will be hanged is because of mandatory death sentence for murder)
For the scenario provided of a group of ppl including the shopkeeper beating the shoplifter to death, they will never be charged with murder. Prima facie, it is a murder case. But, there are defences available to all of those involved in the killing.
s300 Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law, and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence, without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
They will not be charged with murder unless one or more in the group is using the opportunity to exact revenge. Even then, only that particular person or few persons wil lbe charged with murder cos the yshare a common intention to kill. It is unlikely that in the absence of evidence to show that those involved was exacting revenge for personal grudge, the courts will impute an intention to kill as their common intention.
And definitely the shopkeeper and the member of the public does have a right to private defence.
Right of private defence of the body and of property
97. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend —(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;
(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
Acts against which there is no right of private defence
99.(3) There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
Do note that if the Police is around, the shopkeeper is not allowed to beat the shoplifter.
Definitely the shopkeeper is legally entitled to detain a shoplifter in the course of defending his property. As to the use of force to restrain the shoplifter, it all depends on whether the use of force was reasonable and whether more force was used than necessary. If reasonable force, not an offence at all.
Nothing done in private defence is an offence
96. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defenceBut if shopkeper killed the shoplifter, he will be deemed as exceeding the right of private defence, charge may be culpable homicide not amounting to murder but not murder. But sometimes due to policy reasons and in the absence of protests from the shoplifter's family, the AG chambers may not even prosecute the shoplifter. (This is especially so if the shoplifter persistently resist attempts to restrain him and even hurt the shopkeeper in the process)
You disagree what?
I say it is possible. Are you trying to tell me it is not possible?
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
You disagree what?
I say it is possible. Are you trying to tell me it is not possible?
actually, both scenarios are different. for one simple reason:
in the robbery example, all of them are in it together, hence they will also be charged with common intention on top of whatever it is they are charged with. for incidents involving more than one person, and collaboration, the charge will almost always be read with the section pertaining to common intention.
for the group of people beating the shoplifter to death, their intentions are not quite the same as the perps in the robbery example. hence, they will each be charged differently.
-
A thief asking his right? LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
-
Originally posted by Tiggerific:
actually, both scenarios are different. for one simple reason:
in the robbery example, all of them are in it together, hence they will also be charged with common intention on top of whatever it is they are charged with. for incidents involving more than one person, and collaboration, the charge will almost always be read with the section pertaining to common intention.
for the group of people beating the shoplifter to death, their intentions are not quite the same as the perps in the robbery example. hence, they will each be charged differently.
The specifics of the case can be fought out by the lawyers...
Just trying to point out it is possible.
-
Originally posted by seyKai:
A thief asking his right? LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
haha. actually, they do have rights lah. just that not many people seem to know.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
You disagree what?
I say it is possible. Are you trying to tell me it is not possible?
It is highly unlikely (in fact almost impossible) for the shopkeeper and the members of public who beat the shoplifter to death to be charged with murder. As i said, so long as none of them took the opportunity to pursue a personal grudge, and it was done in the exercise of private defence, a murder charge can be ruled out. -
Originally posted by student 17:
It is highly unlikely (in fact almost impossible) for the shopkeeper and the members of public who beat the shoplifter to death to be charged with murder. As i said, so long as none of them took the opportunity to pursue a personal grudge, and it was done in the exercise of private defence, a murder charge can be ruled out.........................
Private defence. Result in the death of a shoplifter. Yah right.
Nevermind, you go debate with the lawyers...
-
if its not my shop, i will pretend never see..
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
........................
Private defence. Result in the death of a shoplifter. Yah right.
Nevermind, you go debate with the lawyers...
Shoplifter steals thing. Shopkeeper stops him. Shoplifter attacks shopkeeper with a knife. Shopkeeper fights back with a wooden pole. In the ensuing struggle, shoplifter dies. Shopkeeper charged with murder, convicted and hanged.Ask yourself, is this consonant with justice and fairness and common sense?
The shopkeeper in the above scenario is availed by at least two defences. Exceeding private defence and the defence of sudden fight.
-
Originally posted by student 17:
Shoplifter steals thing. Shopkeeper stops him. Shoplifter attacks shopkeeper with a knife. Shopkeeper fights back with a wooden pole. In the ensuing struggle, shoplifter dies. Shopkeeper charged with murder, convicted and hanged.Ask yourself, is this consonant with justice and fairness and common sense?
The shopkeeper in the above scenario is availed by at least two defences. Exceeding private defence and the defence of sudden fight.
Shoplifter attack with knife is called armed robbery.
The law is not stupid, and is based on scenarios. You twist the story until like that, of course won't convict of murder. You want twist, i also can.
Shoplifter got caught, surrounded by people. They start beating him, breaking every bone in his body, using metal rods and fire extinguisher, and dies. Police come, they all get charged for murder. The people argue that they just want to hurt him a bit. The judge sees the thief's multilated body, and convict them all.
-
Blood thirsty lot..........we all are.
-
Originally posted by cactusjack23:
Say I steal sth from this shop
The shopkeeper see me put the thing in my bag
Is he legally allowed to chase me down and take the things back by force?
If you invited me to ur home, and tried to take something out of it without your consent, would you stop me?
Or let me go, then call the authorities? -
if atk wif our own gun is called wad crime...