When someone steals my bicycle, do they commit a higher offence if they need to break a lock? I know that stealing a bike is crime. My question is: can someone who steals a bike get additional charges if they have to break a lock as compared to picking up an unlocked bike?
We are talking about larceny and larceny &amp; destruction of property in the two cases. So at the minimum, there are more laws that apply. But what are the laws? Florida names its Larceny statute... Theft: 812.014 Theft.— (1) A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: (a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. Destroying someone's else property in Florida is in the statute on Criminal Mischief: 806.13 Criminal mischief; penalties; penalty for minor.— (1)(a) A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto. So, yes, you would additionally get the criminal mischief charge, but... that only grants monetary damages of 250 USD plus the damages done to the items for first timers, but it can become upgraded to a felony in the third degree - which has a maximum limit of 5 years. Note that damaging items in the course of theft is specifically an aggravating factor for the theft charge, if grand theft is combined with property damage of 1000 USD and more. A bicycle costing between 750 and 5000 USD is grand theft, felony in the third degree according to 812.014.(2)(c)1. This is also the 5 years limit. One could get both sentences... but still only sit 5 years, because often sentences are served concurrently, only rarely consecutively. So, no, you do not necessarily commit a higher offense just for breaking the lock - you'd need to have a 1000 USD damage for that - but you most certainly commit additional offenses that can result in a higher verdict in the end.
It might be illegal, depending on where you are. If it is known to the person who owns the vehicle occupying your space prior to doing so that wheelclamping may be the result, then the common law doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to a willing party, harm is not done") would lead to a conclusion that one who knowingly places themselves in a situation where harm may befall them is not entitled to bring a claim of tort against the other party (in the United States assumption of risk is a similar doctrine, but doesn't apply here because wheelclamping is an intentional act). In your situation, this means that the owner occupying your space cannot bring a case in tort against you. While it is generally applied to harm to people, there is precedent (albeit in British case law) for the doctrine to be applied to vehicles, and specifically, to the situation you describe - see Arthur v Anker and Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest. While cases from other jurisdictions are not binding, I have not been able to find any similar cases in the United States, and so it is possible that such cases will be persuasive. Note that this is highly jurisdiction-specific, and there may be laws in your state that make it unlawful - at least one high-profile case involving a McDonalds and its parking lot operator cites California law authorising only law enforcement to impound vehicles, and considering wheelclamping such an act. However, I have not been able to find the record of a judgement on this matter. It is also likely that if the payment you request is excessive, the owner would be able to seek relief, in the form of reducing the payment owed to a reasonable amount. However, if the parking space was not marked in some way to signal that it was reserved for use, then the owner of the vehicle may be entitled to seek injunctive relief and damages from a court. This would be on the basis of, if you only wheelclamped the car and declined to remove the wheelclamp upon the owner's request, the tort of detinue. But, if you attempted to request payment from them, then as Dale mentioned in his answer, you have committed extortion (wheelclamping is actually listed as a crime of extortion).
I'm confident that there has been no successful breach of contract lawsuit on that basis: that is not the right legal basis. Actions against a shoplifter would either be under tort law or, much more likely, criminal law. Put simply, theft is a crime, encoded in the laws of all nations, and the government will shoulder the burden of punishing a shoplifter. Since the goal of criminal law is to guarantee a well-ordered society (not to restore the victim of the crime), a victim of theft may have to pursue their own legal case against the criminal, if they want to be restored for their loss (let us say that the criminal also ate the evidence).
I think Dale M is essentially correct. Let me give more detail by quoting the Theft Act 1968: 1 Basic definition of theft (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. (2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit. 3 “Appropriates”. (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner. (2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property. You assume the rights of an owner by placing a notice offering it to other people. Therefore it is theft. I presume similar laws exist in other juristictions.
I have beaten all but one of my traffic tickets just by going to court. In one case, the judge threw out the charge because he couldn't read the officer's handwriting on the ticket. In another, the officer charged that I was parked in a "no parking" zone on a particular street (at night), but gave a cross street where parking was, in fact, allowed.
No, you could not have prevented them from collecting their belongings But you could have sued for trespass Unless those boxes were part of the contract for sale, they remain the vendor’s property and just like you can’t withhold your mate’s trombone that he accidentally left after that great party, you can’t withhold the vendor’s boxes - that’s called “stealing”. What you could (should?) have done is refuse to settle until the boxes were removed. As the vendor was in breach, if you suffered any unmitigated loss as a result of the delay, you would be entitled to recover it. This is one of the reasons why you should inspect on the day of settlement. Given that you accepted the breach, even though the vendor’s boxes were technically trespassing, they could reasonably raise the defense that they had implicit permission- at least for a reasonable time. “A few days” is a reasonable time.
In Germany, there is no statutory offense of “breaking in”. Instead, break-ins are (depending on the nature of the crime) prosecuted as trespassing (Hausfriedensbruch, § 123 StGB), criminal damage (Sachbeschädigung, § 303 StGB) and/or theft (Diebstahl, § 242 StGB). (Some cases may fit additonal statutory offenses, e. g. tampering with an electronic lock can be computer fraud (Computerbetrug, § 263a StGB) and hurting someone can be robbery (Raub, § 249 StGB) and/or personal injury (Körperverletzung, § 223 StGB).) This means: If your brother breaks the lock, then that's vandalism. If your brother walks in (without authorization), it's trespassing and if your brother steals your stuff, it's stealing. On top of that, since your brother is living in the same household as you, breaking into your room may also be considered domestic violence. The violence protection act (Gewaltschutzgesetz) is very harsh when it comes to domestic violence: The offender can be ordered by court to hand over their home to the victim and to stay away from the home. This means that if your brother breaks into your room, your brother may be removed from the house by court order. Non-compliance with a court order issued under the Gewaltschutzgesetz (e. g. your brother tries to show up at your house after he was ordered to stay away), can be prosecuted under civil and(!) penal law. You can read the English translation of the German penal code (STrafgesetzbuch, StGB) here (although I prefer to use German because all translations at gesetze-im-internet.de tend to be low quality): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html And the Violence protection act is here (unfortunately untranslated): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gewschg/BJNR351310001.html
Is a robbery that includes smashing a car window with the driver inside considered a non-violent property crime? Robbery is classified as a violent crime. Whether or not this fact pattern would count as robbery as opposed to burglary or theft and vandalism would depends upon California's penal statutes. Burglary is sometimes considered a violent crime (e.g. an armed home invasion burglary) and sometimes not considered a violent crime (e.g. an unarmed theft from an unoccupied residence). Theft is generally not considered a violent crime and if small in amount may not even be a felony. So is vandalism (i.e. the malicious destruction of property, rather than the taking of it). Robbery is defined in California Penal Code § 211 as &quot;the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.&quot; There is a very solid argument that this fact pattern constitutes robbery, a violent crime, under California law, but it could be argued either way. The close issues would be &quot;immediate presence&quot; and &quot;by means of force or fear&quot; (which by implication mean force or fear directed at persons rather than things). The OP fact pattern is probably not burglary under California Penal Code § 459 because while theft from a car can be burglary when someone is living in the car, this does not appear to be the case here. So, if a jury did not find that this constituted robbery, it would probably be the crime of theft (for the things taken) and vandalism (for the damage to the car windows), both of which are property crime misdemeanors. If the cars were unoccupied, this would clearly be merely theft. If the police witnesses such a robbery does it have the duty to intervene? No. The leading case for U.S. Constitutional law is Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). I am not aware of any California law to the contrary. Failure to intervene might be grounds for the chief of police to fire them, but it is not a crime and not a basis for a lawsuit against anyone. The police have effectively absolute discretion to refrain from enforcing the law. Is it true that if the victim fights back in such situation and injures the assailant the robbery victim may be prosecuted for using violence against the robber? No. A victim may use reasonably necessary force in self-defense, so long as the situation continues to be a self-defense situation. Usually, deadly force would be justified in self-defense or defense of others from a violent robbery, although a jury would have to determine that the use of force was actually necessary or that the threatened crime was actually a genuine threat, according to the statutory standard for self-defense and defense of others. The relevant statutes include California Penal Code § 197 which provides in pertinent part that: (1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person. (2) When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein. (3) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he or she was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed. But, the circumstances under which force can be used to arrest or stop a fleeing criminal are much more narrow, particularly in the case of a citizen's arrest as opposed to an arrest made by law enforcement. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) narrows the scope of the lawful use of force in these circumstances beyond what California's statutes authorize on their face. For example, suppose the robber threatens you with a knife unless you give him his wallet. You or a bystander could probably lawfully shoot him at that point to prevent the robbery. But, suppose that at that point, the robber tosses the knife on the sidewalk and runs away. If someone shot the robber in the back to stop him from fleeing (unaware of any other crimes that the robber may have committed and unaware of any other weapons that the robber may have), the person shooting the robber would be guilty of aggravated assault if the robber lived, and of manslaughter or murder, if the robber died. The facts in this case are a bit muddy on whether self-defense should have been available or not, and different hypothetical uses of force could come out different ways within this fact pattern.