Jump to content
I Forge Iron

What did you do in the shop today?


Recommended Posts

I read an article about warning signs about dogs can backfire on you. It shows that you knew the dogs were dangerous and if someone (even a trespasser) is attacked, can lead to legal problems. Can't find the article now as it was a couple of years ago. George N.M may have something on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 18.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ThomasPowers

    1511

  • Daswulf

    1293

  • JHCC

    2156

  • jlpservicesinc

    1052

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Sign shops warn customers not to buy "beware of dog" signs, it shows prior knowledge putting liability on the property owner. 

One of my favorites is a graphic of a large drooling dog that says. Do NOT feed the dogs! Another is "Don't pet the dog."

"Shot on sight." Is perfectly legal here and counts as a fair warning in court. 

Frosty The Lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The effect of warning signs will vary from state to state depending on the state law regarding liability to trespassers.   In some states a sign saying "Danger, Vicious Dogs" would be considered just fair warning and the trespasser put themselves  in harm's way.  In other states, it might be considered evidence that the property owner knew the dog was vicious and did not exercise due care to prevent injuries to anyone, including trespassers.

Defense of property and yourself has to be proportional.  For example, you cannot use lethal force to defend your property but you can to defend yourself or others from death or serious injury with lethal force.  Basically, stuff is not worth anyone, even a thief, dying over.  That is why booby traps and spring guns are illegal.  You might not agree but that is what society, through laws, has decided.

Because dogs can inflict lethal or serious injuries using them to defend property might be considered disproportionate force.

"By hammer and hand (and laws) all arts (and society) do stand."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that steel bulldozer story is a documentary on Netflix now. only thing that stopped that guy was dumb luck of a basement. tries to run over a building with basement and got stuck. took police forever to even get into that thing he built. and yes that is extreme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might check Alaska law on that George. It's been legal to defend your property with lethal force as long as I've lived here. I think you'd have to shoot someone for stealing something pretty minor to get prosecuted. Enter someone's home, shop or store illegally justifies lethal force for the most part. Criminals have been shot in the back and killed fleeing without charges filed. 

If I'm wrong link me please. I just get lost trying to search the legal / .gov/law sites. 

Frosty The Lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frosty, look at Alaska Statute 11.81.350 which says in pertinent part, "a) A person may use nondeadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other of an unlawful taking or damaging of property or services." (emphasis added).

The statue goes on to say that deadly force may be used to terminate a burglary or arson of an occupied building and to defend against a reasonable belief that a person or another is in danger of death or injury.  Alaska has adopted a stand your ground law which says that a person does not have a duty to retreat from any place they have a legal right to be.

Of course, a prosecutor may not charge someone who used deadly force in defense of property if the prosecutor does not believe that he or she could get a conviction.  No matter what the statute says a jury may refuse to convict if they thought that the thief had it coming.  The prosecutor will not waste his/her time and resources when they are sure that a jury would not convict.

I'm not aware of any state that allows deadly force solely for the defense of property.  This principle was pretty well established in the 19th century when spring guns were outlawed.

"By hammer and hand (and law) all arts (and society) do stand." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, George N. M. said:

Alaska has adopted a stand your ground law which says that a person does not have a duty to retreat from any place they have a legal right to be.

George, am I correct in thinking that this expands "castle doctrine", that you do not have a duty to retreat from your home or yard (or in some states, your place of work or your vehicle)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall NM has Castle Law; but it's only been proven in by cases when applied to your house and not your property.

Back in Ohio I had my shop broken into.  I was mainly worried that the perp might damage himself climbing over my indoor scrap pile---city wouldn't let me have an outdoor one and it was VERY messy as I had to move it all inside while off work with pneumonia! 

Nothing stolen as all the "tools" were kept in the house basement and carried to the shop in 5 gallon buckets as needed and returned at the end of the session.  (Including the 91# anvil that was carried up and down the basement stairs in my arms.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, yes, the stand your ground laws which a number of states have adopted negates the common law duty to retreat.  They apply even outside your home, e.g. you get assaulted in the grocery store parking lot.  Where it get problematic is when you have a young guy with a concealed carry permit who is confronted by some crazy old homeless guy in a parking lot.  Should the young guy be required to defuse the situation by walking away or is it OK for him to say he felt threatened and gun the old guy down?  That is a harder scenario than being assaulted by a thug or crack head.  I, as usual, see both sides of the argument.

"By hammer and hand all arts do stand."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To much legalize for me. Reading laws makes my head spin. Why cant they use simple English? 

14 hours ago, George N. M. said:

A person may use nondeadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other of an unlawful taking or damaging of property or services."

All that to say "if some one is trying to rob you or damage your property dont kill them"

Anyway finished these today. My mom calls them clapper boards. She uses it when making quilts. Something about steaming the fabric and laying one on top to flatten it out or something. Started with 9" of 1/2" square for the handles. The boards are a wood from Africa called Wenge. Very hard dense wood. They just have a light coat of Teak oil the wood is naturally that dark. Will definatly tell her to try on a scrap piece of fabric to make sure no color bleeds out. 1 for my mom and 1 for my aunt.

IMG_20210923_124404.thumb.jpg.70598e3aa5eb318fe456249b384e6a0d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wenge is a lovely wood; my dad and I made a couple of pieces with it way back when, including the base for a processional cross at the monastery where he is buried.

As for "legalese" (not "legalize", which means "to make legal"), it may seem dense to non-lawyers, but it does actually have a real function. "Deadly force" is force that is likely to cause death or serious injury, while "nondeadly force" is unlikely to cause death or serious injury. The point of the law George cites isn't that you shouldn't kill someone trying to kill or rob you, but (a) that you shouldn't use deadly force to stop them and (b) that you can use nondeadly force to stop them. If you use deadly force, that could still be illegal even if no-one gets killed, and if you use nondeadly force, you may still escape criminal responsibility even if someone dies. If the criterion is solely the outcome of the action and not the type of action, then shooting at someone with a high-powered rifle with the intention to kill them but only succeeding in blowing their leg off wouldn't carry the same level of culpability as pushing an intruder out of your door and having them fall and fracture their skull.

George, is that about right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, that's about right but sometimes the outcome counts too.  If you are trying to rob someone and they keel over from a heart attack and die you can be guilty of homicide (probably not 1st degree murder but one of the lesser degrees of homicide) even if you didn't intend for them to die.  In Frosty's example of a couple of days ago where an elderly woman shot and killed several home invaders the surviving thug would be guilty of some degree of homicide because someone died in the commission of a felony even though that was not the original intent of the crime.

And sometimes your intent counts too.  If you shoot someone with the intention to kill them but you are a bad shot and only wound them (or miss) you are guilty of 1st degree assault which usually carries penalties equivalent to one of the degrees of murder.

The basic rule is don't kill or hurt anyone.  There are exceptions and defenses to this such as self defense, defense of others, etc..  The Alaska statute sets out what the exceptions to the rule are in what situations.

I find it interesting how often we use outside knowledge (legal, in my case) on a blacksmithing forum.  We all bring our various life experiences to the table.  This is one of the things that makes IFI so cool.

"By hammer and hand all arts do stand."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, George N. M. said:

the outcome counts too

Oh, absolutely. I'm just talking about why the "nondeadly force" language is important.

8 minutes ago, George N. M. said:

I find it interesting how often we use outside knowledge (legal, in my case) on a blacksmithing forum. 

Agreed. This forum has been a gateway to all manner of disciplines for me, some that previously I didn't even know existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's enlightening to forge a hammer by hand. It's making other forging projects seem much easier. Tried out some tools I made for converting a piece of hyster fork into a straight peen.  Taper on the drift was to short.hammertools.thumb.jpg.79b98194861815ba7602f7809cdef5aa.jpg

jlp if I was a judge on that panel you would get a winning vote from me. The pictures are great at explaining  the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...