Here’s the scenario (I’ll skip most of the details so this isn’t too long.): Joe goes to visit his empty cabin in a remote area (30 miles from the main road and 40 miles from town), he’s single, no one knows where he’s going, and he won’t be missed for more than a week. The cabin is on a lake and fairly secluded but there are neighbor’s every quarter mile or so along the shore. It’s a seasonal area, so apart from a few infrequent snowmobilers no one is around and all of the cabins have been closed for the winter. Joe was planning on spending one night and packed accordingly. Over night there was a huge winter storm, high winds down trees, temperatures plummet, and four feet of drifting snow. Joe’s compact car is buried, and even if it weren’t there are several trees down on the road leading out. Joe rations his food and has a fire for warmth and to melt snow in an old garden pail. Food and cut firewood run out. Joe hikes to the nearest neighbor cabin and sparingly “barrows” some firewood. The weather doesn’t improve and he gets colder and hungrier. He decides to break a window and enter the neighbors cabin to look for food, blankets and maybe a working phone. No phone but he does find a little food and warmer cloths and blankets. He only takes what he needs.
Now the point…
Obviously, the answer is not to get into the situation in the first place and be prepared for any predictable dangers…but…What if?
What’s the protocol for notifying the owners of the cabin or cabins he breaks into? Of course, he’ll replace anything he took and have the windows fixed, but technically, he’s breaking and entering.
Does this change if someone stays behind in an area that’s being evacuated for flood, fire or hurricane? Where is the line between looting and taking for necessity?


In the real version, Joe broke into the neighbor’s cabin the day after the storm looking for a working telephone. Opening the window set off the security system and the security company called the cabin, then called police when he explained his situation. He was rescued later that day.

Michael:

Those situations are one of the reasons for trials and Judges.

Sometimes the owner, the "locals", or the areas Police may not be understanding or totally accepting of the scenario.

If Joe has a criminal record for "breaking and entering", then it is going to be an extremely different matter. Even if Joe was snowed in, it could be argued that he used the situation as an excuse to plunder nearby cabins and the only reason he was caught was because of the security system in the first cabin he broke into. The fact that he broke in because "he was looking for a working telephone" would not be very pursuasive if there were no telephone lines going to the cabin which anyone could see was the case from outside the cabin. If there were no telephone lines going to the cabin, I would charge Joe and let the Judge and jury figure it out.

One more good reason to stay "clean" of criminal activity.

Bountyhunter

"What’s the protocol for notifying the owners of the cabin or cabins he breaks into? Of course, he’ll replace anything he took and have the windows fixed, but technically, he’s breaking and entering."

Where I live, the county prosecutor has considerable latitude when it comes to filing charges. I can't imagine a jury convicting Joe as long as he has made restitution.

"Does this change if someone stays behind in an area that’s being evacuated for flood, fire or hurricane? Where is the line between looting and taking for necessity?"

This could be an entirely different animal. In the case of large-scale disaster you could be under martial law, and subject to being shot on sight. I'm sure that being shot for looting is a rarity, but I wouldn't chance it. Obviously if there are police or Guardsmen in the area you'd have a way out. If I was going to stay behind I'd make darn sure I had what I needed and not go "borrowing" from my neighbors.

Regards, Vince

Norad45:

Your martial law and shot on sight remarks remind me of a rumor that was going around back when the Russians occupied Poland during the early strikes which I believe were in the 60's.

A Russian soldier and his superior were patroling the streets of Warsaw about a half hour before the evening curfew started when they noticed a man walking down the street. The soldier picked up his binoculars to better see the man, put the binoculars down, shouldered his rifle and shot the man dead. He and his superior ran to check the man and his superior demanded to know why he shot the man when there was still a half hour left before curfew started. The soldier exclaimed: "It's all right, I know the man, this is Stash and he lives over an hour away from here." <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

You can't be too careful with those trigger happy types doing the patroling. <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

In the real story, the first cabin he checked didn't have phone lines leading to it, so he went on to the next one. He called the owners from there and explained. They were fine with the situation and happy that he was okay, even though they didn't know him. They even told him where their hidden key was in case it ever happened again.
Personally, I've spoken to my neighbors about this and we all agree, in a survival situation "you can take whatever you want/need". In this case, Joe was considering the purchase of the empty cabin and hadn’t met the neighbors yet. I was just trying to get different perspectives on the matter.

Historically, people in America have left their cabins & homes unlocked just in case someone needed emergency shelter. That has changed today (for the most part), but I suspect a lot of people would see what was taken, & if it was wood, blankets & some food, they wouldn't have a problem with it. I wouldn't, anyway.

I don't know much about alarms, but if they had an alarm, they probably had electricity & a phone. A jury would probably have a tough time coming up with a conviction.

OTOH, if someone had been home at the entered cabin and held him off at gunpoint and he died, would that be considered manslaughter?

America has reached a stupidity saturation point when it comes to law, IMHO. Intent used to have something to do with it, now the only thing looked at is the letter of it. A good reason for fully informed juries.

Sue

The security company screwed up by calling the cabin immediately. I would have waited as an accomplished thief would know that it was a security check, answered the phone with a ready made story, and argued in court that he would never have answered the phone if he was really a thief. That defense would have allowed for reasonable doubt and most prosecuters know that and probably would not have charged him in the first place.

The more pieces you add to this post, the less I trust Joe.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

"OTOH, if someone had been home at the entered cabin and held him off at gunpoint and he died, would that be considered manslaughter?"

Where I live, the standard has always been: what would a reasonable person do? In other words, would a reasonable person be in fear for their lives/property? If "Joe" knocked on my door asking for help and I remained silent, and then shot him when he broke in, I might be charged since a prosecutor could logically argue that I acted unreasonably. But if "Joe" broke a window and crawled through without warning then the shooting could be ruled justifiable and I would probably not be charged.

Lots of "mights" and "probablys" and "coulds". Like I said, the prosecutor has a great deal of latitude--and you just never know what a jury will do.

Vince

Y'all can what if this one to death.

Simple fact of the matter is that the prosecutor / police have to determine the actor's state of mind when the act occurred to determine mental culpability for the act. There are very few crimes where there is strict liability (just having done the act constitutes the crime.) Burglary isn't one of them... burg requires an act or ommission & a mental state (ie. intentionally entering and remaining unlawfully therein with the intent to commit a crime).

M

There was a case study in Backpacker magazine a while ago of several cases where people got into survival situations and managed to get back out again. One case was of a guy in Alaska (I would consider him a bit of a hermit) who got trapped when the winter came early and the river froze, approximately a month earlier than usual. He had lots of supplies in his canoe, he just could no longer use it. Temperatures were in the minus 40's and he was north of the tree line. He managed to hike out (over 100 kilometres, IIRC) collecting arctic willows (extremely stunted willow trees that are the only form of wood that grows that far north) until he reached the tree line, found a cabin and broke in, found a satellite phone and called the owner of the cabin, explained his predicament and identified himself. The cabin owner told him to make use of anything he needed and alerted the SAR authorities.

So it does happen even to those who are extremely well-prepared. I guess most prosecutors would look at the intent. I guess any legal system that is based on the assumption that the average Joe (no pun intended) is prepared to die rather than break the law is fundamentally flawed.

If it were me, I would immediately make every effort to alert the owner and/or the authorities. Secondly (well, thirdly, after ensuring my own survival), I would try to make it clear that I was not trying to steal anything - writing your name and address on a piece of paper and pinning it to the wall, for example. True, a thief could do that and then take down the note when he was ready to leave; but the more effort you make to be noticed, the more difficult it will be for a prosecutor to show malicious intent.