By 11.5 Burglary "Any person who enters a property or any part of a property with the intention to commit theft, cause unlawful damage or to inflict unlawful serious injury."
Referenced in 11.11 "Any person who commits a burglary and at the time has with them any firearm or imitation firearm, any offensive weapon, or any explosive."
By Section 1 "Property is the area in or around the building itself as defined by the deed held by the banks of Paralake City"
I think the boundary of the properties is somewhat ambiguous (like the suburbs porch is obviously part of the property, but the slums stairwell isn't so obvious).
From this I conclude that somebody who failed to break into a property (i.e. crowbarring the door but got shot/detained) has not merely attempted a burglary but actually committed it (and the same for aggravated burglary) by both being on the property and having an intention to cause damage.
However I have noticed a difference of opinion in this among supervisors and officers, some would say that it comes as attempted burglary/attempted aggravated burglary and only liable to half the sentence, whereas I've heard other supervisors/command say it would qualify as a burglary.
I would suggest to make the intent clause explicit in the definition of 11.11 (or if it was not intended to be this way, don't make the definition dependent on 11.5).
If the spirit of the law is to only apply to actual break-ins, I'd consider specifying non-publicly accessible areas of the property as the requirements for entry.
Would appreciate some insight from more experienced police!
Referenced in 11.11 "Any person who commits a burglary and at the time has with them any firearm or imitation firearm, any offensive weapon, or any explosive."
By Section 1 "Property is the area in or around the building itself as defined by the deed held by the banks of Paralake City"
I think the boundary of the properties is somewhat ambiguous (like the suburbs porch is obviously part of the property, but the slums stairwell isn't so obvious).
From this I conclude that somebody who failed to break into a property (i.e. crowbarring the door but got shot/detained) has not merely attempted a burglary but actually committed it (and the same for aggravated burglary) by both being on the property and having an intention to cause damage.
However I have noticed a difference of opinion in this among supervisors and officers, some would say that it comes as attempted burglary/attempted aggravated burglary and only liable to half the sentence, whereas I've heard other supervisors/command say it would qualify as a burglary.
I would suggest to make the intent clause explicit in the definition of 11.11 (or if it was not intended to be this way, don't make the definition dependent on 11.5).
If the spirit of the law is to only apply to actual break-ins, I'd consider specifying non-publicly accessible areas of the property as the requirements for entry.
Would appreciate some insight from more experienced police!
