Trespassing v2

[Conn. Trooper]

I am very familiar with the Petit case, I still don't think you can use the
"But they were in my house" defense. If someone is not a threat to you, you will end up in prison if you shoot them. If they are a credible threat, all bets are off. But if there is someone just standing in your house and you decide to shoot them, you will probably end up in prison for a long time.

[jeepstrapped]

Don't Trespass and you won't have to worry about getting shot for trespassing.

I think the issue you may be having is that you are expecting everyone to act rationally all the time in full accordance to the law. Reality is far removed from this.

[Aguila Blanca]

Conn. Trooper, I lock my doors at night. If I wake up and there's a stranger in my house, he/she/they is/are a threat, I AM in fear for my life, and I will open fire. I live in a rural-ish 'burb, in a single family house set well back from the road (note: "road," not "street" -- no sidewalks or streetlights around here), and a fast police response if I had the luxury of dialing 9-1-1 might be 15 to 25 minutes. I'm a senior citizen with a chronic back problem that no longer responds to treatment, so I'm not in any shape to even think about going mano-a-mano with even one intruder.

The legal test is if a "reasonable man" would fear death or serious injury. In today's topsy-turvy world, where punks stomp people into vegetables just for laughs, and home invaders pour gasoline on teenage girls and then set fire to them as they depart the scene, how can you suggest that a "reasonable man" would NOT fear death or serious injury from an intruder in his home?

How can you even suggest that an intruder might not pose a threat? You say you are familiar with the case I referenced. According to what I read a day or two ago, the two home invaders weren't armed when they entered the house. Not armed = no threat, right? Except that they picked up the husband's softball bat and bludgeoned him almost to death with his own bat.

[therealdeal]

conntrooper, I must respectfully disagree w/you too. I know where you were going with what you said, so I'm not in any way bashing your side or picking it apart. bottom line though, a person knows when something is right or wrong for the most part(and I understand that might not match w/legalities). I wouldn't even be nervous after said incident happened and the perp was being taken out of the home deceased. worked up yes, scared of consequences no. what you said is a very gray area. example 1: if my wife and I wake up and theres a young man standing in our bedroom(by the way you probably know this sort of stuff has happned Many times before), he gets shot and he was a threat.end of discussion. same thing: its 1am and I'm watching tv in the den while my young children and wife sleep. man is standing in kitchen, den doorway, near backdoor after breaking in, whatever. he is carried out. again, he was a threat. end of discussion. I can think of some examples where you're coming from but not from the ones that are coming to my mind without thinking/searching for it. I have little children upstairs. if it came to light there was a very good reason deadman was in my house(one willnot arise) then that could cause some issue. example: accident by drunk guy, high on meth looking for rehab, etc. trust me, I am not "going to prison for a very long time" like you said. its a must lesser of a charge or a plea to something besides 1st degree murder which is a"very long time". I am innocent and a law abiding citizen(plus I am in VA and not CT or NY), and I understand this alone doesn't keep me out of hotwater all the time but Really. come on. ps-I grew up in new england so I do love the area

[NJgunowner]

I think this thread can be chalked up to "urban legend" ... or maybe it's "rural legend " in this case. Before 1960 you probably could shoot a trespasser, bury them in a field, and no one would know the difference. That's probably where these rumors came from, and just persisted on. And heck, back in the day it might have been legal in some places and people just kept reciting it long after the laws changed.

As for breaking and entering... I live on the second floor in a condo with only one door in or out. Someone breaks in, they are getting shot. I have no where to go and I'd rather be alive dealing with lawyers than take a chance and be dead and dealing with worms.

[MikeGads]

I have looked at the Castle Defense laws in my home state of Missouri. It was modeled after a number of other laws and these have begun to gain traction in many states just as concealed carry gained traction after Florida passed it's law and the sky didn't fall.

In Missouri, before Castle Defense, a homeowner was obligated to retreat from harm and could only use deadly force when an imminent threat existed and all avenues of retreat were exhausted--with the burden of proof on the homeowner. After Castle Defense it is presumed that an intruder is there to do harm and the burden of proof that the use of deadly force was unjustified lies primarily with the state. Also, an intruder or his family may not sue for damages. The state also extended the "castle" to a person's vehicle so it applies to car jacking as well.

The justification is for self defense not only against threat of death or serious injury but also against a forcible felony which can mean some biker dude attempting to beat your brains out (felony assault) or armed theft even if fleeing after committing the forceable felony.

The law passed in 2007, the sky has not fallen. Most people who can pass muster to own a firearm or have a carry license are not trigger happy nor are they ready to take life without cause. Nonetheless, intruders beware. If you are told to leave you best leave. If you are armed and intrude then you may be shot until you leave or disarm.

[blume357]

I think in S.C. legally you can at night... on your property inside or out. Day time you are pretty limited to in the house unless you are threatened.

This was before any Castle Doctrine feel good politically motivated junk.

[markj]

I've heard from many (outside of these forums) that certain States consider trespassing within the bounds of their use of deadly force clause, I am questioning whether or not there is any truth to that.

Go ahead and shoot a tresspasser, then if you can, post what happens next.

It is against the law in every state. Sorry my answer dont match whats in your mind.

[Conn. Trooper]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1841845/posts

http://blog.timesunion.com/crime/rep...shot-him/5012/

Not every "intruder" is who you think they are. How would you like to shoot your daughter sneaking in from a late night out? Or a drunk that entered a wrong house and no criminal intentions? Both have happened. You shouldn't be shooting at what you can't identify. If you see a person thats a threat, by all means defend yourself. If you see a person, and you can't determine who they are or even if they are a threat to you, good luck to you when you shoot them. "He was in my house, so he is automatically a threat" will probably serve you well all the way to prison.

On a side note, the home invasion suspects in the Petit case actually displayed a weapon, turned out to be a BB gun that was very realistic.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

Not every "intruder" is who you think they are. How would you like to shoot your daughter sneaking in from a late night out? Or a drunk that entered a wrong house and no criminal intentions? Both have happened.

Criminal intentions have nothing to do with the legality of shooting an intruder in your house. Here's what your state's law says about murder:

Sec. 53a-54a. Murder. (a) A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person or causes a suicide by force, duress or deception; except that in any prosecution under this subsection, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant committed the proscribed act or acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, provided nothing contained in this subsection shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime.

I added the emphasis in the body of the citation. Note what it says: it is an affirmative defense if the person acted under extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation. And then it further clarifies that the determination of "reasonable" is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances "as the defendant believed them to be."

In short -- the "reasonable man" theory. The shootee's intentions or reasons for being in my (locked, darkened) house at 03:45 a.m. DO NOT MATTER. What matters is that I know there should not be a strange man in my (locked, darkened) house at 03:45 a.m. and therefore when I saw him standing at the foot of my bed I was afraid. So I shot him. I had just been reading the reports of how Dr. Petit was asleep on the sofa in his sun room when he awakened to find two men standing there ... two men who proceeded to beat him so severely that his neighbor didn't recognize him. I think any reasonable person would (and should) be afraid, and based on YOUR state's law, that's all that is required.

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

You shouldn't be shooting at what you can't identify. If you see a person thats a threat, by all means defend yourself. If you see a person, and you can't determine who they are or even if they are a threat to you, good luck to you when you shoot them. "He was in my house, so he is automatically a threat" will probably serve you well all the way to prison.

Actually, based on your state's law, it would probably serve very well to not put me in prison.

Bottom line: People who don't want to get shot should not break into other people's houses.

Serious question: How long have you been a State Trooper? They didn't explain any of this to you at your academy? Did they teach you that anybody who shoots anybody for any reason MUST be arrested for murder?

I met a couple of young officers from New Haven, Connecticut, awhile ago. I asked them about the legality of open carry in Connecticut. It was a sneaky, underhanded question, because I already knew the answer. The scary thing is ... they didn't. They said open carry is not legal in Connecticut (it is, if you have a permit), and they said that's what they were taught at the academy.

What the heck are they teaching at police academy in Connecticut?

[therealdeal]

conntrooper, what you state is vague @ best(your last post). If you had read my post I mentioned I had very young children(on two seperate occaisons) and that worrying about a teen sneaking in from a party isn't an issue for me. Also, an intoxicated man willnot come into my home "by accident", but I can again 'see where you are coming from' w/regards to that. If said individual did come into my home I willnot be "going to prison for a long time". It is a tragedy, but it is justified and the protection of my family is more important than waiting to get identify from the individual. I will know before the trigger is pulled if he should be there. If I was shot by the grandpa of the girl I liked to snuggle w/at 3 am on warm, summer nights as a teen(I snuck out all the time in the early 90's- I used to be out the door before the toilet stop making the flushing noise to drink, get laid, whatever), I can gurantee you he wouldn't be in prison now or even in the 90's for putting me six-feet under by accident. the key word is accident- he was defending his home&family and shot me to death. Also, what Aguilar stated about the laws in this case are very valid. I respect the yrs you put in as a trooper. I am assuming its in yesterday's past(I could easily be wrong); my grandma's(may she rest in peace) brother is retired NY state police and was on cold case files(the one w/wallet at bottom of hill from rape but I guess that might not help). Times have changed. I never was scared even as a teen, but I will trust my gut&intuition if a serious incident unfolds. If its a boy visiting my daughter in the late 2020's so be it(I will not shoot him), but I will not live in fear and second guess a deadly situation. I shouldn't own a gun if I willnot use it. I have thought about it many times: I don't want to pull my weapon on someone! If I do I will be able to use it under certain circumstances though!!

[Conn. Trooper]

Actually, based on your state's law, it would probably serve very well to not put me in prison.

Bottom line: People who don't want to get shot should not break into other people's houses.

Serious question: How long have you been a State Trooper? They didn't explain any of this to you at your academy? Did they teach you that anybody who shoots anybody for any reason MUST be arrested for murder?

I met a couple of young officers from New Haven, Connecticut, awhile ago. I asked them about the legality of open carry in Connecticut. It was a sneaky, underhanded question, because I already knew the answer. The scary thing is ... they didn't. They said open carry is not legal in Connecticut (it is, if you have a permit), and they said that's what they were taught at the academy.

What the heck are they teaching at police academy in Connecticut?

Open carry is not specifically a crime. However, you can be arrested for Breach of the Peace. Depends on your GA court, and I would believe on the circumstances in which it happened. It almost never happens here, so I am not suprised they didn't know the specific laws. There are literally hundreds of laws in every state, nobody knows them all. I ask a prosecutor a questions and the first thing they do is pull the book out and look it up. Why? Because nobody can memorize every statute.

Deciding if an action was "reasonable" is not decided by you. It will be decided by a jury. You and your attorney can present your side of the story and explain that you saw someone, don't know who, couldn't tell if he was armed, didn't know his intentions, and so you shot him. Maybe you will convince a jury that the most reasonable course of action was to immediately shoot this person, hopefully he was a criminal and may have been armed. If he wasn't, and if you shot someone with no criminal intentions, you will probably end up in prison. It only takes a jury to decide that you were not reasonably in fear for your safety to put you in the clink.

I am not talking about waking up and having someone right on top of you, I am talking about the tone of some of these posts is that "If he's in my house I am shooting him, no questions asked". And I am telling you maybe based on your states laws you may get away with that. Here, you will probably end up in prison for shooting someone that isn't a threat. Especially if you could have retreated and called 911.

And I have been doing the job for 14 years. Six more years in NY State. I am not new at this.

[Rifleman1776]

Trespass laws can be very complex.
I was once annoyed by some folks on my property. I believed they were doing vandalism, some one was, but couldn't prove it.
I called the prosecutor and went through many different scenarios with him. None were prosecutable offenses in his opinion. In his opinion, under Arkansas laws, a property owner has little to no recourse when it comes to trespassers. You can call the Sheriff and a deputy might be able to bluff the offenders into not coming back but that is about it.

[therealdeal]

I know in Hawaii(probably more strict than NJ or MD w/regards to firearms), you are automatically arrested for any homicide even if it looks like an open&shut case of self-defense+justifiable homicide. Its a requirement of the police officer to make the arrest; the Districr Attorney decides whether to push forward at that point. I know virginia does not have a retreat law. I do not agree with shooting trespassers of your land under most circumstances. Every once in a while I read about some idiots just reaching out their door and shooting trespassers. the last one was in TX and the man&woman were both charged w/murder(there usually not the most stand-up citizens also like in this case). They took shots at a man, his 14yr old son, and the 3rd person was either the mom or uncle. they were on their ATV's and just happened to stop to drink some water out of their canteen. The 14yr old died on scene

[markj]

Also, an intoxicated man willnot come into my home "by accident",

You sure of that? My brother was brought home one night he was 15, seems he was confused (drunk) and went into the wrong house, he broke down the door (Thought I locked it and was funning him as he did to me the week before) cops show up he is in the kitchen eating a bowl of cereal glad the homeowner locked himself in the bedroom and called 911 instead of killing my brother.

Some folks need to think about the situation before blazing away just cause the law says I can. You will feel real bad if you shoot someone and find out later it was all a mistake and you were never in any kind of threat.

[therealdeal]

Also, an intoxicated man willnot come into my home "by accident",

-end my quote-


-start your quote-

You sure of that? My brother was brought home one night he was 15, seems he was confused (drunk) and went into the wrong house, he broke down the door (Thought I locked it and was funning him as he did to me the week before) cops show up he is in the kitchen eating a bowl of cereal glad the homeowner locked himself in the bedroom and called 911 instead of killing my brother.

I am 100% positive no intoxicated man, woman, or child will come into my home "by accident". I was speaking of our specific home on our land(not anyone elses). Its really not possible for this to occur. I know drunks make that mistake. When we were 17, my buddy came back to our other friend's house drunk where he was staying for the night. Only problem, he went into the wrong home; he was one house short. The owner woke up and found Timmy eating a ham sandwich and drinking his red wine!! He had a history of blackouts all starting at about that time. He is still 'fighting'+doing things his own way, and I haven't seen him in yrs.

Some folks need to think about the situation before blazing away just cause the law says I can. You will feel real bad if you shoot someone and find out later it was all a mistake and you were never in any kind of threat.

This is a judgemental statement; you are stereotyping every person who has said they'd be willing to take a life during a home invasion who mentions the law. I never said and I never had any intention on shooting someone because I can or the law says I can. I am speaking about saving and protecting my family without leaving serious, dangerous mitigating factors to chance. I have no desire to take a life, and I take the subject with the utmost seriousness. Maybe you guys 'see the scenario' that I saw when I was younger w/my dumb friends- its not a threat(or we're not a threat). I 'see' the real threat, the craxy scary s&*^ that I see on tv and hear about in the news. My dad taught me when I was very young that there are a lot of crazy, messed up people in this world. He was right. I haven't given up hope- its nothing like that. I am a realist. I fear the worst when something we speak of happens, and I am ready for the stuff in between+the stuff on the opposite end of the spectrum if its not that serious afterall. Hopefully you won't get caught with your pants down if by some crazy, rare chance your 'lottery' numbers hit & you have someone coming in your house "by accident"(while his friend is lookout outside waiting to ambush you plus your family).

[blume357]

keep that in mind... from two points....

#1: If you use deadly force on a trespasser or intruder then the burden may very well be on you to prove you feared for your life or someone else's... but at least you will be alive to defend yourself (again).

#2: If the intruder or trespasser is left and you aren't.. I'll bet they will claim they meant you no harm and only killed you to defend themselves.... or even if you are still alive and they are injured... I'll bet they will still claim they really weren't going to use the gun they had and were pointing at you..

I still remember an article in a sailing magazine that explained why one should never have a gun on a boat... seems the owners of a boat were killed by some guys who broke on the boat not knowing any one was on board... when the crooks were later caught they claimed they would not have killed the folks if they had not had guns.... that was the whole logic behind the writer saying one should not have or use a gun... because the murdering crooks claimed they would have not hurt anyone other wise....

[therealdeal]

Hear are some examples of the law. This isn't federal, its designated by your state. Be safe

a castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is an american legal doctrine claimed by advocates to arise from english common law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the castle doctrine.

Castle doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the us have a castle doctrine. The term "make my day law" comes from the landmark 1985 colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] the law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by clint eastwood's character harry callahan in the 1983 film sudden impact, "go ahead, make my day."

conditions of use


in general, one of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the castle doctrine:

-an intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
-the intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. The castle doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
-the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
-the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
-the occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

in all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the castle doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

duty-to-retreat
"castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home.

stand-your-ground
other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "stand your ground", "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" clauses, and state exactly that the defender has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant.

[Uncle Buck]

Some very interesting opinions in this thread. I think I am in the minority, because I agree with the State Trooper.

I have rental houses and a big barn (garage) and a small farm, all located on the same piece of land that I live on.

If I have a vacant rental unit and I find out someone is inside of it with-out my permission, according to a lot of these opinions (and maybe even the law, the way some people are interpreting it) I have the right to shoot the person.

In my barn (garage) I have close to $50,000.00 worth of tools. If I catch someone inside of it...

On my farm I have cattle and other livestock. Rustling is still a problem here in Missouri. These cattle are part of my lively hood, so if I catch someone on the farm at night, or even the daytime...

It is very easy to say I would do this or that, but I know for a fact that using deadly force would be the very last resort and only if I felt threatened.

I have taken a life before and it is not a comfortable thing. I was justified, I was in danger and there was a very good chance I could have lost my life if I did not react the way I did.

My rental units could be repaired if they were damaged. My tools could be replaced if they were stolen and my cattle can be replaced if rustled. My family can not be replaced (although that crazy uncle, I wish I could find a replacement for him!) and if I thought their lives were in danger, I would do my utmost to protect them.

I would hope that everyone who post here understands that any situation in which you have to shoot someone is not a matter to be taken lightly.