Burglary hours wouldn’t qualify, but breaking into

Burglary is an unlawful entry into any structure with the intention to commit any type of crime; it doesn’t have to involve breaking something, even trespassing is a burglary. To convict someone with burglary they must have done one of the following: the unauthorized breaking and entry into a building or occupied structure with the intent to commit a crime inside. Breaking and entering is made up of two ways: actual and constructive. Actual breaking and entering is when an individual uses physical force to gain entry. For example, breaking a door down or picking a lock. However, constructive breaking and entering is when no physical force is used but verbal. For example, blackmail, threats, or fraud. Even the slightest movement without consent into someone else’s structure counts as burglary. Breaking in and entering a building or occupied structure; the structure must either house people, animal, or property to qualify. For example, breaking into a park after hours wouldn’t qualify, but breaking into a building on park grounds would. The break in must take place during closed hours or it doesn’t count as burglary. So if it’s during daytime hours and an item is stolen, it’s convicted as shoplifting not burglary. Intent to commit a crime, when a burglary is committed, the person must have the intention to commit a crime. The crime has to be separate from the breaking in itself. For example, if someone uses fraud to gain entrance there is no burglary taken place. The timing of the burglary is an important factor when deciding what degree the burglary is in. For example, if someone already had the intention to commit crime before entering, it is classified as first degree. If the intention to commit a crime was after the break in, it is second degree. Alongside with burglary comes property crimes. Property crimes can range from lower level crimes: shoplifting or vandalism to higher level felonies: armed robbery and arson. Types of property crimes: theft: intentionally taking someone else’s property without consent. Shoplifting; threat to take merchandise from an establishment without paying. Larceny; taking something of value without consent with the intention to deprive someone of it. Arson; action of burning property, buildings, lands, forest, etc. the severeness of the degree depends on whether a bodily injury was involved. Burglary: an unlawful entry into any structure with the intention to commit a crime. Vandalism: when an individual destroys or defaces someone else’s property without consent. Robbery; when one uses force or threats to take money or property without consent. Robbery: when one uses force or threats to take money or property without consent. Many states define robbery as larceny or theft. Unlike burglary, robbery almost always requires a victim present with injury or threat of harm. Robbery is made up the following: The taking, with the intent to steal personal property of another from his or her person or in their presence against his or her will by violence, intimidation or the threat of force. Robbery is normally theft involving or accomplished by violence. For example, if the violence was when an individual was escaping, the charge may be charged as larceny or resisting arrest and not robbery. The force involved also defines whether it is a theft or a robbery depending on victims and situation. If the tiniest amount of intimidation or threat causes a victim to give up property, it is charged as a robbery. However, there are still requirements for it to be a robbery. For example, if a thief snatches a purse without harming the person, then it is not risen to the level of robbery. May 15th, 1970 Don Cebollas was paranoid someone would steal his property while he wasn’t present because of a past burglary at his house; he believes someone stole some of his tools from his garage. So in reaction, he set up a trap on his door garage; he tied a loaded .22 caliber pistol to the door connecting it to the trigger. So if it is opened just a few inches the gun would fire to the center. On May 15th two teenage boys, one sixteen and one fifteen went by his garage. They checked the windows to make sure no one was home. Once they were sure no one was present, the sixteen year old, Stephen, broke in causing the gun to fire and hit him in the face. Cebollas was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. It would’ve been murder, but Stephen lived assuming since he testified. Cebollas appealed to his conviction; since if he was present and was the one to shoot Stephen he would’ve been justified in court. The law does allow homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves or their property. However, Castle Law states; “A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person’s abode or any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or home – as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.” Therefore, if you are not present in your home, vehicle, or establishment, you may not use deadly force or set traps. So in this case Cebollas was justified in being charged. The boys were let free. Now I agree with the court that Cebollas should and was charged, but I don’t agree with the boys being let free. I think there should’ve been some type of punishment. No jail time of course because though they broke the law, they are kids and the crime wasn’t violent and didn’t injury who they were robbing. I think they should’ve had to do community service or paid a fee for this action. Maybe even 24 hours of juve to scare them into not breaking the law. Homeowners should not be allowed to create deadly traps to protect their home. It is way too dangerous and not worth killing or severe injuries. There is irony in this just like Cebollas argued, but castle laws protects the court’s decision. I think deadly weapons or even force of action should only be used if one’s life is being threaten. What if it was a family member or Cebollas himself trying to get into his own house because he forgot his key? I’m sure then he would rethink putting a trap up. There are too many risk with putting deadly traps up in a home to make it legal. I mean really, shot in the face for breaking in? I don’t think it’s worth it. The boys shouldn’t have broken in, but what crime they committed wasn’t a armed one or even violent one. Going over the types of crimes regarding property, burglary, and robbery, the boys didn’t commit a harsh one. In my opinion all they did was broke in and attempted entry but were shot at with a pistol. However, their intentions on committing theft or not, we aren’t aware of. Yet, there are still requirements as listed above for it to be serious enough to convict them with first degree which is more serious than second. So both were wrong is this situation and both should’ve been in trouble. If you don’t want to do time or deal with court, don’t commit a crime.


I'm Dana!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out