Helpless To Stop Thieves Removing Property From Stranded Yacht

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I deleted a post that was inflammatory and had no value.
I'm sorry but I had to delete two other posts that quoted the inflammatory post, as it is still in the public view if I didn't.

Thank you A64Pilot, and to everyone else for a sensible discussion.

I would ask that everyone please avoid the gun drift thingy and stick with the thread topic of theft, salvage etc.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

this on is New Zealand, which is the same as Australia, you can't go shooting thieves in either place.

Nor can you go shooting thieves in the U.S. It's murder if you do.

[barnakiel]

Not sure what keeps the owner from keeping a watch or paying someone to watch over the boat.

I would keep watch.

b.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Nor can you go shooting thieves in the U.S. It's murder if you do.

The 'Castle Doctrine' Dockhead - which quite a few states in the USA has adopted, with Texus being the most liberal. . . But is it that important to you to turn this thread into another gun thread?

[darylat8750]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Not sure what keeps the owner from keeping a watch or paying someone to watch over the boat.

I would keep watch.

b.

it sounded to mw like his wife may have had health issues. if so taking care of her would come first for me. After that I think I would camp on the beach also.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

The 'Castle Doctrine' Dockhead - which quite a few states in the USA has adopted, with Texus being the most liberal. . . But is it that important to you to turn this thread into another gun thread?

I'm just setting the record straight. You are not allowed to shoot someone in the U.S. for thieving, period. An intruder in your home, when you are in reasonable fear of your life or grievous bodily harm -- that's a different story. Just shooting someone who is stripping something off your boat is not allowed, and you will go to prison if you do so. Someone in this thread suggested doing that, and I think it's important to be clear about what is permitted. It's a popular, but false myth about U.S. law.

[crabcake]

To be clear - the Castle Doctrine is nothing new and is NOT something unique to the USA nor was the concept originated in the USA...

The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic. The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle". This concept was established as English law by the 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:

For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge].[3]

The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, where it has become known as the castle doctrine. The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by crabcake

To be clear - the Castle Doctrine is nothing new and is NOT something unique to the USA nor was the concept originated in the USA...

The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic. The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle". This concept was established as English law by the 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:

For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge].[3]

The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, where it has become known as the castle doctrine. The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.

Indeed, and has nothing whatsoever to do with shooting wreckers.

[Rustic Charm]

No one suggested the castle doctrine has anything to do with shooting wreckers,

Can we get back to the thread purpose PLEASE

[Jason Flare]

I guess, per the thread title, they're helpless. Not much more to say after that.

[crabcake]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

No one suggested the castle doctrine has anything to do with shooting wreckers,

Can we get back to the thread purpose PLEASE

Then why, pray tell, did you even mention it in your post #34?

[StuM]

You used to have to report it to the Receiver of Wrecks if you removed anything. I believe that office is now defunct and you have to hand anything recovered to the police. Failure to do so is theft.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by crabcake

Then why, pray tell, did you even mention it in your post #34?

That's rhetorical isn't it?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

You used to have to report it to the Receiver of Wrecks if you removed anything. I believe that office is now defunct and you have to hand anything recovered to the police. Failure to do so is theft.

I'm pretty sure police here would not be interested in that sort of property unless there are items of significant value or the owner is known. The police here would need a court order to dispose of it.

[captlloyd]

That is an expensive boat. I would be damned if I would leave it abandoned for anyone to plunder it. Even if I had to guard it myself. Don't understand why it is not being towed off.