Defending your life

There’s no more powerful human instinct than self-defense — of yourself, your family and your home. But that’s not surprising, considering that the world presents a chilling profusion of threats to cherished loved ones and prized possessions.

So what happens when your instincts and the law intersect?

We’re a long way from the days of frontier justice, when dangerous situations were settled by fists and guns. Vigilantes and trials-by-Smith & Wesson are strictly forbidden under our legal system.

But that same system cannot fully protect us. There are not enough police to monitor every criminal, and there will always be someone willing to break a law, no matter how stiff the punishment.

What follows is a look at several self-defense situations you may face, one day, at times and in places where the law does not reach.

Defending yourself

We’ve all had one of those spine-stiffening moments in the wee hours of the morning when we’ve been jostled awake by a troubling sound: a thump, the clatter of items being swept off a surface, maybe even the murmur of an unfamiliar voice.

Most of the time it’s nothing — but not always.

Charles Chieppa knows this scenario. The New Bedford resident shot and killed a man who he believed had burglarized his home. Prosecutors said that Chieppa confronted the alleged burglar in his backyard, not inside his house, and that the slain man had been shot in the back. Those circumstances led to a murder charge against Chieppa.

On paper, Chieppa’s chances for a self-defense plea did not look good.

“I don’t think the public has any idea what the law is. The law of self-defense is much more limited than what they assume,” says Boston criminal defense attorney James L. Sultan.

In Massachusetts, the law treats self-defense in different ways depending on the situation. To use deadly force, a person has to be in fear for his life; if confronted, an individual must seek to escape if possible and avoid confrontation, according to the law.

There is more leeway in situations that occur within a home, under the state’s so-called Castle Law, which says the resident does not have to retreat.

But, Sultan stresses, “if someone is running away from the house and they’re shot in the back, that’s not self-defense.”

Chieppa’s jury saw it differently. He was acquitted last March.

Ultimately, self-defense is one area of the law that is largely dependent on human emotion. “The law is pretty strict, but juries are frequently pretty reluctant to convict people who are defending themselves or their family,” Sultan says.

In the name of revenge …

There’s a corollary to self-defense: revenge. An endless succession of righteous on-screen avengers — from Charles Bronson (a.k.a. Paul Kersey in “Death Wish”) to Jodie Foster (“The Brave One”) — has made it seem as if the legal system routinely condones acts of revenge or those committed by vigilantes.

But aspiring Paul Kerseys should not be fooled.

“Just about everything you see in the movies about revenge is not accurate in terms of the law,” says Professor Steven M. Eisenstat of Suffolk University Law School.

He says prosecutors might consider mitigating circumstances when charging a revenge killer, such as a mother who slays her child’s rapist.

But, as with self-defense, the outcome of revenge-driven cases rests with the jury, which may vote to acquit for the same underlying reasons it considers in self-defense cases.

“If that happens, there’s very little people can do about that,” Eisenstat notes.

Catching it on tape

How many times have you seen this scenario in a courtroom drama?

A smug defendant sits on the witness stand, spinning out an alibi he believes is ironclad. With a flourish, prosecutors direct the court’s attention to the speaker near the jury box. They’ve got the guy on tape, gloating about his big score. His grin dissolves as a burly bailiff slaps on the cuffs.

Law enforcement officials are allowed to record, or “intercept,” oral and wire-based communications under certain, highly regulated circumstances. But in Massachusetts and other states, private citizens are strictly forbidden from conversations without all parties’ knowledge and consent.

A person who commits, attempts to commit or convinces another party to illegally record a conversation faces up to a $10,000 fine and as much as five years in state prison, according to Massachusetts law.

Nanny cams present an interesting cross-section of surveillance and workplace privacy laws, if you are using one to capture footage of repair contractors, cleaning crews or the namesake nanny.

In the recent case of Gail Nelson v. Salem State College, a school employee alleged that the college had violated her rights after a hidden camera in her office caught her changing clothes and putting on sunburn medication. The employee assumed that the area she had used was private, but the state’s highest court disagreed and found no privacy violation had occurred.

This ruling has left the parameters of workplace privacy uncertain, according to John Reinstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s local chapter, which was involved in the case.

The Nelson case “was not particularly helpful,” Reinstein says. “I wouldn’t say there’s a presumption against privacy, but there certainly is an issue of what’s going to be private.”

Spaces, such as dressing or locker rooms, may be the only clear-cut examples of areas with an expectation of full privacy, he says.

In general, there is a simple way to judge whether a camera is installed appropriately, according to David B. Wilson, a Boston lawyer.

“Say to yourself, if you’re in that place, do you expect it to be private? In your own home, yeah, you probably do,” he says. “But if you’re going to be in someone else’s home, you probably don’t expect it to be private.”

Caught in the wireless ’Net

The wireless Internet “wi-fi” router has emerged as a quiet, convenient friend, a virtually indispensable tool in an age when lives are lived partially — and, in some cases, fully — online.

But failing to securely encrypt one’s personal wi-fi router against unauthorized use could result in some painful legal headaches.

What would happen, for example, if somebody used a connection to view child pornography or plot a terrorist act and managed to do so because the router was not securely locked down?

Karl Kronenberger, an attorney specializing in Internet-related law, answers by saying there is good and bad news.

On the one hand, consumers should not necessarily worry they’ll be directly punished due to criminal acts committed by other people.

“Legally, I think it’s doubtful that you’re going to have liability on some sort of negligence theory by not locking down your wireless network. I think that’s going to be a stretch,” he says.

But even a glancing brush with the long arm of the law can inflict a painful sting, notes San Francisco-based Kronenberger. “The bigger issue, practically speaking, is getting pulled into something you don’t want to be pulled into,” he says.

Nefarious deeds committed by a wi-fi thief through a network might result in contact with law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, which could lead to some embarrassment and serious explaining for the neighbors until everything gets sorted out.

“You’re a person of interest, if for a very short period of time,” Kronenberger says.

And then there is the now-common practice of sharing copyrighted music over the Internet.

“The [Recording Industry Association of America] is sort of suing people and asking questions later,” Kronenberger says. “You can explain your way out of some litigation, but you’ll have to hire an attorney.”

Share and share alike, cautiously

Another legal concern involves an action far more benign: sharing.

Some may be tempted to purposely share their wireless bandwidth with others, such as their neighbors in an apartment building. But this gesture could violate a contract with the wireless service provider, Internet lawyer Karl Kronenberger cautions.

“If you tell people about your network, then there’s an argument that it’s theft of bandwidth, and it’s a crime,” he says.

Verizon’s Boston-based spokesman, Phil Santoro, echoes such warnings. “When [customers] sign the terms and conditions, one of them is that they’re responsible for the security of their own network,” he says. “We don’t encourage people to share their networks. It says quite specifically in the terms and conditions.”

However, Santoro adds, “If you use Verizon’s broadband service, your router is automatically encrypted. If you buy your own router, you should follow the manufacturer’s instructions.”

Beyond the urging of manufacturers and providers, government agencies are beginning to create legislation dealing with wi-fi encryption. For example, businesses in Westchester County, N.Y., are now compelled to secure their wi-fi networks or face fines.

Given all these concerns, one could ask why routers are not simply locked down by default at the factory. As it turns out, that question has already been broached. 

Eric Deming, a senior product marketing manager for router manufacturer Linksys, says the company has tussled with the political establishment in its home state of California over wi-fi security. 

California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez in 2006 filed a bill that would have mandated that all wireless devices have encryption turned on by default out of the box.

“That’s pretty difficult from a manufacturing standpoint,” Deming notes.

Router manufacturers balked, and eventually the dispute resulted in a compromise: Manufacturers must now take measures, such as including product stickers, to warn consumers to secure their networks.

Overall, Deming takes a measured view of network encryption.

“Wireless security is kind of like a car alarm,” he says. “If you have one installed in your vehicle, a thief is going to go to the next car instead of breaking into yours. He’s not going to bother unless there’s something there that he wants.” {EXA}

Chris Kanaracus is a freelance writer. He can be contacted at chriskanaracus@yahoo.com.