Can I tackle a thief and rip the stolen item out of his hands legally in Massachusetts?

[adam13]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts.

Can I tackle a thief and rip the stolen item out of his hands legally in Massachusetts? Can I hit him or shove him legally if I am afraid he's going to hit me?

 

[not2cleverRed]

That would be ill advised in MA.

Move to Colorado.

 

[adjusterjack]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts.

Can I tackle a thief and rip the stolen item out of his hands legally in Massachusetts? Can I hit him or shove him legally if I am afraid he's going to hit me?

That depends. What did he steal? Where did he steal if from? Whar are the circumstances? How are you involved?

Details count.

 

[Taxing Matters]

That would be ill advised in MA.

Move to Colorado.

As a Colorado lawyer, I disagree with the advice given above to move to Colorado to tackle the thief merely for taking your property. The problem is that you run a risk of prosecution for assault if you do that. Colorado law does specifically say that one is entitled to use reasonable (but not deadly) force to prevent theft of his/her property. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-706. There is little case law in Colorado that lays out how to determine what is reasonable in any given circumstance, so you'd have to hope that a jury would agree with you that the particular actions you took were reasonable under the circumstances. And if you lose at trial, you'd need to pin your hope on the state Court of Appeals or state Supreme Court agreeing with you and overturn the conviction.

Even if you ultimately win on that, it could cost you many thousands of dollars in legal fees which may end up exceeding the value of the item in question. And if you lose, not only do you have the legal fees to pay and whatever sentence is imposed for the assault, you also may face a lawsuit if the alleged thief was injured by your attack.

So I'd caution anyone in Colorado thinking of defending his property with violence to understand the risks and at the very least make sure you are using the least force needed to stop the theft — and that assumes the item is worth enough to risk the cost and other expenses should the DA not agree you fall within the protection of the statute.

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts.

Can I tackle a thief and rip the stolen item out of his hands legally in Massachusetts? Can I hit him or shove him legally if I am afraid he's going to hit me?

Depend. Perhaps. Maybe. Is the stolen item yours? Describe the situation more and perhaps you can get a more definitive answer. Or is just a random hypothetical question?

 

[not2cleverRed]

As a Colorado lawyer, I disagree with the advice given above to move to Colorado to tackle the thief merely for taking your property. The problem is that you run a risk of prosecution for assault if you do that. Colorado law does specifically say that one is entitled to use reasonable (but not deadly) force to prevent theft of his/her property. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-706. There is little case law in Colorado that lays out how to determine what is reasonable in any given circumstance, so you'd have to hope that a jury would agree with you that the particular actions you took were reasonable under the circumstances. And if you lose at trial, you'd need to pin your hope on the state Court of Appeals or state Supreme Court agreeing with you and overturn the conviction.

Even if you ultimately win on that, it could cost you many thousands of dollars in legal fees which may end up exceeding the value of the item in question. And if you lose, not only do you have the legal fees to pay and whatever sentence is imposed for the assault, you also may face a lawsuit if the alleged thief was injured by your attack.

So I'd caution anyone in Colorado thinking of defending his property with violence to understand the risks and at the very least make sure you are using the least force needed to stop the theft — and that assumes the item is worth enough to risk the cost and other expenses should the DA not agree you fall within the protection of the statute.

A relative in CO shot a home invader in the chest. His actions were permissible under the Make My Day law. No charges.

In MA my relative's actions would not have been legal.

MA has greater limitations than CO as to what might be deemed "self defense".

Of course, since OP is asking a hypothetical, and in real life details matter, all I can say is that if you are worried about the legality of defending yourself against a violent criminal, MA is not the place to be. Don't even throw a french fry at the thief or assailant, or you yourself might be charged with assault.

 

[adjusterjack]

Can I tackle a thief and rip the stolen item out of his hands legally in Massachusetts?

The following document contains MA jury instructions (2009 edition) regarding the use of force.

9260 Self-Defense (mass.gov)

Page 18 addresses the use of force in defense of property.

In part:

"A person may use reasonable force, but not deadly force, to defend his lawful property against someone who has no right to it. A person may also use reasonable force, but not deadly force, to regain lawful possession of ... his property where his (her) possession has been momentarily interrupted by someone with no right to the property.

If there is evidence in this case that the defendant used force in any of those situations), you must find the defendant not guilty unless the Commonwealth has proved one of two things beyond a reasonable doubt:

either that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would not have believed that force was necessary in order to (defend) (regain possession of) his ( her) property;

or that the defendant used force that was deadly or unreasonable.

Deadly force is force that is intended to, or likely to, kill or seriously injure someone. It refers to the level of force the defendant used, not to the degree of injury, if any, to [alleged victim] .

How much force is reasonable may vary with the situation. Exactness is not always possible and you may take into account whether the defendant had to decide how to respond quickly under pressure. A person who uses what is clearly excessive and unreasonable force becomes an aggressor and loses the right to act in defense of his (her) property"

The answer to your first question is still, it depends. There are many variables involved and it's up to a jury to decide if what you did was what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances, not what you think is reasonable.

Can I hit him or shove him legally if I am afraid he's going to hit me?

The answer to that question is addressed by the other 17 pages of that document and, again, it depends on the circumstances. That one, however, seems to be stacked against you. Just being afraid he is going to hit you doesn't quite seem to measure up.

 

[cbg]

We like to think we're reasonably civilized here in Massachusetts.

 

[Taxing Matters]

A relative in CO shot a home invader in the chest. His actions were permissible under the Make My Day law. No charges.

Right, because it was a crime occurring in the home the state's "make my day" law would provide a huge help. In that case, though, the theft is not the only crime he committed. But of course we don't know whether the attempted theft the OP is talking about occurred in the home. If it did not, then he's got to rely upon the statute I cited earlier to justify attacking the thief, with all the various problems that I noted. That's why I limited my response to situations in which theft of property is the only crime being committed (and thus not a situation with an intruder in the home stealing stuff).

MA has greater limitations than CO as to what might be deemed "self defense".

I've never practiced law in MA but just from my cursory understanding of that state's law, I'd agree with that. It is more restrictive on gun rights generally, too, for that matter, than is Colorado. But Colorado is a purple state and currently the legislature is heavily dominated by Democrats and we have a Democrat governor and each legislative session sees the introduction of laws to curtail the gun rights of Colorado citizens. I've met people in the Northeastern states who truly have no idea what the vast swath of country between them and the West Coast is really like and this it's like the wild west out here. But those wild west days are long gone, particularly in this state as it moves ever more liberal.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Right, because it was a crime occurring in the home the state's "make my day" law would provide a huge help. In that case, though, the theft is not the only crime he committed. But of course we don't know whether the attempted theft the OP is talking about occurred in the home. If it did not, then he's got to rely upon the statute I cited earlier to justify attacking the thief, with all the various problems that I noted. That's why I limited my response to situations in which theft of property is the only crime being committed (and thus not a situation with an intruder in the home stealing stuff).



I've never practiced law in MA but just from my cursory understanding of that state's law, I'd agree with that. It is more restrictive on gun rights generally, too, for that matter, than is Colorado. But Colorado is a purple state and currently the legislature is heavily dominated by Democrats and we have a Democrat governor and each legislative session sees the introduction of laws to curtail the gun rights of Colorado citizens. I've met people in the Northeastern states who truly have no idea what the vast swath of country between them and the West Coast is really like and this it's like the wild west out here. But those wild west days are long gone, particularly in this state as it moves ever more liberal.

True.