How would you handle this?

[Them]

If you understood the meaning of the "breaking" requirement, you might not be confused.

I might not be confused. About that you are correct.

Speaking just of US law, there doesn't seem to be a breaking requirement. Trespass with intent to commit felony / crime seems to be covered whether or not entry was forced, a detail which doesn't really matter to my analogy but does speak to your attempt to claim it is not apt.

So how about an answer to my question? Would the person who went in and out five times face five charges?

Really. Each case you describe sounds like a legal wrong, but neither one would have a claim for intimidation under this hunter protection statute. If you mean to discuss the theoretical bounds of the legal definition of "intimidation", that's a separate and irrelevant conversation. Suffice to say there's a difference between an illegal threat in a language you don't understand and suffering damages from the specific wrong of intimidation.

So let's look at a definition: "Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened."

So injury or harm...a phrase which makes it clear that the harm need not be bodily injury. Monetary harm qualifies, as does social. It is not necessary to prove the victim was frightened...so intimidation can include completely abstract and cerebral causes of reasoned fear.

Can you show where that requires the sort of visceral immediacy you are claiming?

Since the rest of your post is hopelessly mangled by a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be intimidated and a refusal to grapple with the temporal requirement of the statute you cite, I see little point in responding further, except on one issue.

If it was so hopeless, you could refute it easily. You haven't, therefore you are bluffing. The argument isn't as one sided as you wish to imply.

I actually said your post was an example of why the phrase was often a contradiction in terms, not that they were always unreasonable.

Ok, so... Can you honestly say that you didn't intend it as a barb? Honestly. I don't really care except I am disappointed when the level of a conversation is lowered by irrelevant barbs and insults. My perception is that you lowered the tone in that way. If you believe I am wrong, explain why.

 

[Lopez116]

It's an interesting question and I won't claim to know the answer, but; while the act of entry makes it burglary, is it only burglary during the moment of entry? Or does it "latch" at the moment of entry and stay burglary until the entire crime has finished?

If, for example, the burglar re-entered the same house to get more loot would they be charged with two counts of burglary? Would they serve two consecutive sentences? I doubt it.

Two charges, yes. You are kind of referring to the doctrine of merger, but it wouldn't apply here. Two crimes will not merge if one of them was completed before the other crime.

 

[oldschoolto]

Can we drop this silly game... Bob did not do anything other than try and talk to a very troubled young man.... and then brought public pressure to make him think about what he had done and the way he behaved.... That is the way the world works. No hunter In his/her right mind would set up a duck blind at a local pond where people go to see and play with the ducks... Nor would they take a a$$hole stand saying it's their right and they killed the mother duck well taking care of her eggs.... I hope the young man takes the time to see the error of his ways and gets help with his anti-social behavior....

Jim....

 

[Reck Diver]

And I love to eat Hogsnapper...and have been planning on shooting a few for a dinner party we will be having soon. if I heard that the local dive community had agreed that no one would shoot hogs on the "Playground" (a patch reef area around 120 feet deep that was historically incredibly productive for Hogsnapper) because everyone wanted a good re-charge area for them to recover, I would respect that....

In fact it has already happened. Members of the local dive community have already decide the custom. As long as the hunt is in accordance with applicable state and local ordinances, Hog Snapper is fair game from Jupiter to the Keys and east to include Bahamas. We will be meeting shortly to decide local customs on other species/locations. I'll post them when the decision is finalized.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Them, the last piece of legal education I will provide you free of charge is to note that you can compare your definition of harassment with the State of Washington's here. Beyond that, find an online legal research service or law library of your chosing and dig into the treatises and cases. While you're at it, compare the common law definition of burglary with a 50 state survey of state statutory definitions of the same if it makes you feel better. Enjoy

 

[Lopez116]

Can we drop this silly game... Bob did not do anything other than try and talk to a very troubled young man.... and then brought public pressure to make him think about what he had done and the way he behaved.... That is the way the world works. No hunter In his/her right mind would set up a duck blind at a local pond where people go to see and play with the ducks... Nor would they take a a$$hole stand saying it's their right and they killed the mother duck well taking care of her eggs.... I hope the young man takes the time to see the error of his ways and gets help with his anti-social behavior....

Jim....

I agree. The GPO has even dead for a week now. Bob did what he did. What's done is now done. Lets move on.

 

[chillyinCanada]

It is quite easy to move on, Lopez and any others that are complaining. Just quit reading and replying to this thread. How simple is that?

At this point, I'm kinda gettin' a kick out of Dr. L and Them . . .Perhaps the thread should be moved to non-diving sub-forum.

 

[shoredivr]

Dr Lecter I commend you on making this bit of legalese quite clear.

 

[chrpai]

Lawyers don't seek to make the law clear, they seek to contrive arguments that advocate their clients positions and earn them lots of money. After all, who do you think wrote all this "legalese"?

 

[Them]

Them, the last piece of legal education I will provide you free of charge is to note that you can compare your definition of harassment with the State of Washington's here. Beyond that, find an online legal research service or law library of your chosing and dig into the treatises and cases. While you're at it, compare the common law definition of burglary with a 50 state survey of state statutory definitions of the same if it makes you feel better. Enjoy

Why would that be relevant if burglary is not an apt analogy?

My point, not to get bogged down in an analysis of an analogy, was that the end of an act is not necessary the point where the act is committed. Since hunting does not require actually taking game (a hunter need not be successful, and a game warden can cite hunters for infractions even if they have killed no game), and it doesn't terminate at the time of a kill (a hunter can kill a deer, then kill a rabbit, on the same hunt) the period of a hunt is not delineated by a kill. You say it was already over when the confrontation took place. I say that is still an open question.

It doesn't really matter. Bob probably isn't going to be charged with anything in connection with this event. However, if he was charged, it seems from this conversation that he could be convicted under that law.

It circles back to two (or more) people behaving badly, each in their own way. Nobody comes out looking good.