Trespassing v2

[ChrisWNY]

Ok, so my last thread was closed because I used a specific group as an example and trespassing was somehow misinterpreted and equated to "knocking on the door". Since trespassing directly relates to civil liberties issues, I'll post a more general trespassing thread and am hoping those with some past LEO or general law experience can chime in with some insightful comments.

Trespassing laws vary from State to State (how typical), and I'm having a rather unusually difficult time finding information identifying the specific States that treat trespassing as a matter where deadly force could be used. For example, I've often been told that farmers (in some States) can shoot a trespasser simply because that trespasser is assumed to have the intention of harming livestock or crops on that farmer's property. I'm not saying I agree in any way, shape, or form with such as policy, whether such a policy exists or not. However, one can certainly see how a connection could be made between trespassing and a situation where one feels that their life or the lives of others would be in jeopardy, justifying the use of deadly force. Some States have rather broad guidelines for the acceptable use of deadly force.

Is it true that some States have laws allowing a homeowner or farmland owner to shoot a trespasser?

[azredhawk44]

Yes, some states do.

The two important questions are:
1 - Does YOUR state have such a law?
2 - Does a trespasser, in your moral compass, truly deserve to get shot for a benign annoyance (versus a true threat)?

[sakeneko]

AZRedhawk44 -- I'd add a third question to that. When do the circumstances of a trespass justify the assumption that the trespasser poses a threat to your life or the lives of others? I certainly wouldn't shoot a trespasser if I knew them or could tell that they were not a threat.

I also wouldn't threaten to shoot anybody who was outside of my home for simple trespass either. If they had an unholstered gun in hand, or another weapon that they were credibly threatening to use, that would be a different matter. If they were threatening to beat me up/senseless and they were obviously bigger/stronger than me, that might also be a different matter.

But simple trespass alone? Heck, no. Even if a drunk lacks the wit to value his own life and climbs into my house through the window, I won't be operating under the same disability. A human life is worth more than any material object.

The issue is distinguishing between a simple trespass or burglar, and somebody who really is threatening your life. :/

[Charles Ellis]

In my opinion,benign annoyance ends when an uninvited and unwanted visitor enters my place of residence aginst my wishes.If a fence ,reguardless of it's condition is enough to establish that a landowner wants you to stay off his property,then a closed door,whether locked or unlocked,should be enough to establish that you presence is not wanted unless the owner invites you in.In my opinion if you are jiggling doorknoba and looking through windows,YOU ARE UP TO NO GOOD.If you suceed in entering a residence after such actions,your blood is on your own hands.

[spacemanspiff]

If you see someone on your porch holding a Bible or bookbag, and your first thought is "I think they are a threat to my life or to that of my loved ones", you need to rethink the justifications you have created for using deadly force.

I was raised as a JW up until I reached 18 and began living my adult life. I have knocked on thousands of doors, and about 95% of the time, encountered polite people, most who said they were 'Not Interested'. Few were rude, I don't recall ever having my safety or life threatened. Occasionally I made the mistake of assuming a home was an apartment or duplex and would open their front door thinking there was multiple doors inside to knock on. It was honest mistakes, and certainly would never be classified as 'trespassing'.

Never had any police called, never accused of suspicious behavior. I can't say that all JW's are alike, but what I do know is that those who do go door-to-door are not criminals. If the people on your porch that were trying the door and looking in your windows were JW's, if that happened as you described, and you werent exaggerating or embellishing, that would be very out of the ordinary for JW tactics.

Your post in the thread that was locked indicates something along the lines of hatred of JW's, at the very least deep animosity to them. I don't wish to discuss this, but take a look inside yourself, ask yourself if the energy you are spending on this negativity could be better spent elsewhere?

[ChrisWNY]

Never had any police called, never accused of suspicious behavior. I can't say that all JW's are alike, but what I do know is that those who do go door-to-door are not criminals. If the people on your porch that were trying the door and looking in your windows were JW's, if that happened as you described, and you werent exaggerating or embellishing, that would be very out of the ordinary for JW tactics.

I agree, it was out of the ordinary, no exaggeration whatsoever. I've had plenty of JW's (as well as Mormons, etc.) step on my front porch and I have never been rude, just politely tell them "No Thanks" in hopes that they go away, not bothering me any further. I have a low-budget wireless surveillance camera above my front porch and have the whole incident on video, I'm considering submitting it to the police. I have 0 hatred toward JW's, I don't agree with any religions or cults, and certainly disagree when people involved with these religions/cults go door to door bothering others, but also would not consider shooting them simply because they were on my porch -- if that's how you interpreted that post, you misinterpreted it. I was merely suggesting the behavior was unusual, and that if they had entered my home, whether through a window or unlocked door, at that point they are no longer JW's spreading a message, they are burglars intruding into my home with a possible intent of causing harm to those inside, I would have been well within my right to use deadly force at that point. Who's to say that a criminal hasn't concocted a scheme to pose as a JW and rob a house of their choosing? Going that route facilitates the crime, the homeowner trustingly opens the door, and the burglar now has easy entry into that home.

That gets me to why I posted this trespassing thread - if certain States *truly* have "make my day" laws in regards to allowing homeowners or farmers to use deadly force for trespassing alone, then I would be very surprised to see JW's or any door-to-door solicitors operate in those States. I'm not saying I agree with shooting someone for simply trespassing, I respect life and my own opinion is that no one has the right to end anyone else's life unless it is a case of self defense; I'm noting that in some States it appears to be quite legal to simply shoot someone for trespassing alone.

[aarondhgraham]

Man, as a SP in the Air Force we couldn't just shoot someone,,,
Even for entering a hangar with a nuke armed airplane.

Despite whatever rumor or story you may have heard,,,
There is no "shoot on trespass" provision in the laws of any state.

Cops do not have the right to just shoot without justification,,,
There has to be a justifiable (sic) threat to their (or another persons) life.

This would be equivalent to the old concept of a "Mad Dog Warrant",,,
Those haven't been legal anywhere since the late 1800's,,,
The use of deadly force is strictly regulated,,,
Everywhere.

Look, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on the television,,,
But I was married to a legal researcher for 17 years,,,
Both of us were very concerned with gun laws,,,
What you heard simply does not exist.

And as an aside,,,
She was a practicing Witness all of those 17 years.

.

[Tombstonejim]

Well here is the Arizona statute on use of force for criminal trespass. The catcher is that criminal trespass is not the same as simple trespass. Someone walking, riding driving what ever on your land is not necessarily or automatically criminal trespass. There are three kinds of criminal trespass. The very minimum to be any type of criminal trespass would have to be refusal to leave after being ask to do so. Criminal trespass in itself is a misdemeanor. Shooting someone for committing a misdemeanor is probably going to get you put in jail a long time.

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

[spacemanspiff]

in some States it appears to be quite legal to simply shoot someone for trespassing alone.

Wrong. Re-read the laws for those states. Consult the assistance of an attorney for help interpreting the laws. Deadly force is lawful in defense of life. Trespassing does not equate to a 'deadly threat'. Shooting someone that is reaching in their bag for a Watchtower magazine to offer to you will not be seen as 'justified' by law enforcement, prosecutors, judge, nor jury.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by spacemanspiff

Occasionally I made the mistake of assuming a home was an apartment or duplex and would open their front door thinking there was multiple doors inside to knock on. It was honest mistakes, and certainly would never be classified as 'trespassing'.

It may have been an honest mistake, but it was nonetheless trespass, and very likely would also be considered unlawful entry in most jurisdictions.

[knight0334]

In PA, you are commonlaw trespassing(not a crime) if you have no lawful reason to be there or lack invitation. Now under Title 18, Chapter 35, Subsection 3503 it becomes criminal("Defiant Trespassing") trespassing if you stay after being asked to leave, or if you fail to acknowledge a posting, or traverse over/thru a fence/wall/shrubbery placed to obstruct ingress/egress.

Under Title 18, Chapter 5, Subsection 507 you may use "force" to remove a person who is trespassing. But not "deadly force" unless faced with death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or rape.

PA's laws on the matter:

18 Pa.C.S. § 3503: Criminal trespass
(a) Buildings and occupied structures.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof; or
(ii) breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.
(2) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the third degree, and an offense under subparagraph (1)(ii) is a felony of the second degree.
(3) As used in this subsection:
"Breaks into." To gain entry by force, breaking, intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through an opening not designed for human access.
(b) Defiant trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;
(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders;
(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official; or
(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it is a summary offense.
(b.1) Simple trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place for the purpose of:
(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;
(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or
(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.
(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a summary offense.
(b.2) Agricultural trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so he:
(i) enters or remains on any agricultural or other open lands when such lands are posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention or are fenced or enclosed in a manner manifestly designed to exclude trespassers or to confine domestic animals; or
(ii) enters or remains on any agricultural or other open lands and defies an order not to enter or to leave that has been personally communicated to him by the owner of the lands or other authorized person.
(2) An offense under this subsection shall be graded as follows:
(i) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year and a fine of not less than $250.
(ii) An offense under paragraph (1)(ii) constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than two years and a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase "agricultural or other open lands" shall mean any land on which agricultural activity or farming as defined in section 3309 (relating to agricultural vandalism) is conducted or any land populated by forest trees of any size and capable of producing timber or other wood products or any other land in an agricultural security area as defined in the act of June 30, 1981 (P.L. 128, No. 43), [FN1] known as the Agricultural Area Security Law, or any area zoned for agricultural use.
(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;
(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.
(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "school grounds" means any building of or grounds of any elementary or secondary publicly funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education, any elementary or secondary parochial school, any certified day-care center or any licensed preschool program.

===========


18 Pa.C.S. § 507: Use of force for the protection of property
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:
(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and
(ii) (A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or
(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.
(b) Meaning of possession.--For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:
(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.
(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.
(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.
(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--
(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:
(i) such request would be useless;
(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or
(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:
(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and
(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).
(4) (i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.
(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:
(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(d) Use of confinement as protective force.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.
(e) Use of device to protect property.--The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury;
(2) the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be; and
(3) the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.
(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor.--The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or knowingly and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully go is justifiable, if:
(1) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to obstruct the actor;
(2) the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to be in the possession or custody of the person obstructing him, or in the possession or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts, unless the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable to postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and
(3) the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing the actor were using force against him to prevent his passage.

[Doyle]

Is it true that some States have laws allowing a homeowner or farmland owner to shoot a trespasser?

I challenge you to find ANY state that authorizes deadly force for simple trespass.

[markj]

use deadly force for trespassing alone

Where???

We can shoot animals that threaten our livestock, but not humans. Heck you can even steal a horse these days.. and avoid the rope..

Someone tresspass on your place? Set the dogs loose works for me anyways.

Is it me or are there a bunch of guys that want to kill another and is looking for the legal way to do so? I sure hope not....

[ChrisWNY]

Where???

I'm wondering that myself, some have responded that certain States allow it, I know for a fact that NY has really strict guidelines on use of deadly force, trespassing doesn't even come close to justifying that.

Is it me or are there a bunch of guys that want to kill another and is looking for the legal way to do so? I sure hope not....

Nowhere in this thread did anyone imply or even hint at something like that, and absolutely has nothing to do with why I started this thread. 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.

[RETG]

azredhawk44…
Yes, some states do.

Curious, what states? No need for posting the laws, just name the states, I'll pull up Nexis LexisNexis or just call around. I honestly do not think there is any state that allows someone to shoot someone else for trespass, where there was no threat to the property owner.

[44 AMP]

A couple of decades back (give or take) the press made a big deal of a southern state's new law. I think it was Louisana, but no longer remember clearly. I do recall the press called it the "shoot a tresspasser" or "shoot a burgular" or some such. I'm also sure that, as usual, the press got the details wrong. That may be the law you have heard about third or fourth hand.

A human life is worth more than any material object.

That is what we believe today. And our laws reflect this. As little as a hundred years ago, we still had laws that did not. And before that, back through the founding of the nation, and back through our English law (from which we derive the basis for our US law), that was not the case.

In those olden days, if you caught a thief, you were often within your legal rights to shoot them, or run them through. Theft of material posessions, particularly livestock and crops were important enough to use deadly force to prevent. Shooting bank robbers and highwaymen was thought proper, even if they did no physical harm to people while committing the crime. Because, in those days, when someone took your money or other things, they were gone, for good.

Because there was no insurance agency to replace those things. Stealing the horse or livestock from a small farm could very well mean ruin, perhaps even starvation for the farmer and family. That's why it was a hanging offense. Shooting the thief in the act simply saved time and the use of a rope. It was considered morally justified, and for good cause.

Our society has evolved beyond that, so today we deem mere material things no cause to shoot someone. We are much more civilised than we used to be, right?

[BlkHawk73]

Seems someone is a bit itchy on the trigger with the "can i shoot..." stuff.

You want legal advice dealing with lethal force and you go to an internet forum? Just guessing there's never been any GOOD and SERIOUS firearms training in such an area.
Take one or more, which should be mandatory for any CCW I believe, and you should learn about threat escalation. You use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat presented to you. Unless you honestly fear for your life, you don't use lethal force. Gotta convince a grand jury of your fear under the circumstances and the "what if's" won't do that.

[therealdeal]

I know I am late on this thread, and I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade. That being said, if someone climbs thru a window@my home I am fearing the worst&said intruder will be leaving thru the door in a bodybag. I donot mind posting this, I am not triggerhappy, I don't forsee it happening, and you can pick it apart anywhich way you please. Our children are not old enough to have friends coming by&commonsense tells me its not a family member or old friend from across the country or whatever stopping in to say hi. Of course I reserve the right to change my mind at the time of said incident depending on the circumstances, what my gut tells me, and/or what factors appear to me(or my wife) at the time. It only takes a flash to get shot and wonder what happened, and I also feel that chances are its worst case scenario or closer to it than not if someone is in our home. I have no patience for and donot play when it comes to home invasion or burglary.

[MLeake]

... appears to be the threshold of the door to the residence.

If I interpret the OP's question, when he says, "trespass," he's referring to an intrusion into the actual home.

Pretty sure that in both Florida and Georgia, that would be "burglary," not trespass, and in both those states, burglary of an occupied dwelling allows use of deadly force.

Not advocating just blasting at folks who come into the house, but I am saying that there ARE states where it would be lawful.

I've known a few too many people who've managed to go to the wrong house, either via bad directions / getting lost, or by getting drunk and being dropped off at home by a driver who wasn't exactly sure which house was the right one, for me to automatically assume anybody coming in the door is such a threat that they need to be shot out of hand.

OTOH, somebody unexpectedly coming through my door probably will become aware rather quickly that the homeowner is acutely curious, and armed. Then again, with all the noise three dogs would be making, the homeowner would be very, very suspicious about how such a mistake could be made...

[Glenn Dee]

Chris...

I can answer your question as far as the State of New York. First off... simple trespass is NOT a crime. Trespass is a violation. Punishable by a fine or imprisonment for not more than 90 days. In the state of New York one can NOT use deadly physical force to prevent, terminate, or apprehend the offender of a violation.

There is a thin line between trespass, and burglary. A trespass in a bulding could easily be a burglary. One CAN use deadly physical force to terminate a burglary under specific conditions.

Look up NYS PL 140.05, and 140.10. Simple Trespass, and criminal trespass.
I'd also suggest you read 140.15, and 140.17. All different degree's of trespass in NYS. Under 140.17 you may find the answer to your question.

Also PL. 140.20, 140.25, and 140.30 may help clarify the situation you have in mind.

Glenn D

[Conn. Trooper]

I would bet that if you used deadly force against someone, inside your home or not, that was not a credible threat, you will be going to prison. I don't think there is a judge or jury in this state at least that will buy the "He was in my house, I had to shoot him" defense, when that person was not posing a threat to you.

Now, if they break in and are a threat, game on.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ChrisWNY

I'm wondering that myself, some have responded that certain States allow it, I know for a fact that NY has really strict guidelines on use of deadly force, trespassing doesn't even come close to justifying that.

Nobody has responded in this thread that ANY state allows it. Where are you getting this stuff from?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

I would bet that if you used deadly force against someone, inside your home or not, that was not a credible threat, you will be going to prison. I don't think there is a judge or jury in this state at least that will buy the "He was in my house, I had to shoot him" defense, when that person was not posing a threat to you.

A few months, or even weeks, ago that would have been the case in your state. And in a few months it will be the case again. However ...

...Have you looked at a major Connecticut newspaper recently? There's a trial taking place in New Haven. Something about a couple of losers who walked into an unlocked house, beat the husband severely, raped the wife and one of two daughters, then strangled the wife and killed the daughters by tying them to their beds and torching the house. (The husband survived because he had been left for dead in the basement, woke up, freed himself and was able to crawl to a neighbor's house.)

Right about now, I don't think it would be possible to empanel a jury in Connecticut that would convict anyone for shooting a stranger they found in their house. Certainly not at night.

[teeroux]

Here if someone enters your house, vehicle, or business unlawfully while you are within the fore mentioned deadly force is justified no questions asked on if he is a threat the law spells it out clear they will be assumed a deadly threat. Outside on your dwellings use of force is permitted to remove a tresspaser. However if your trying to remove somene and it escalates to where you believe your life is in danger or will suffer great bodily harm you can always up the anty to deadly force.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338

[thallub]

Twice in my lifetime I've defended my family against armed home invaders. Perps got shot both times. I would not shoot a person who just walked into my house and who poses no threat to me and/or mine.