How do you convince someone that thinks its legal to shoot someone who trespasses

[sonier]

I have a good friend but, his father, well his father claims he has a legal right to shoot and kill anyone who trespasses on his land, not in his house not breaking entry just walking through his land. Is this legal? im pretty sure its illegal as heck, but hey i may be wrong
This is in colorado, my issue is im 19 and he is in his 40s, so how do you get past the sterotype of kids dont know nothing. I already got chewed out from him for shooting medium powered handloads that are published in all my loadbooks that i worked up too and did not get any overpressure signs.

 

[Rail Driver]

Don't stop him from shooting a trespasser. (<--- joke) Easiest way to solve a problem with someone when you're 100% certain you're correct... let him prove himself wrong. This will have the side effect of stopping him from criticizing your handloads.

In all reality though, the best thing you can do is bring up the topic in the presence of an LEO in your area, or find and print out the relevant statutes so that he can see for himself.

 

[sonier]

Yea lots of people get mad when what they consider a kid tells them differently, i had a issue with a sheriffe deputy who got offended and took things REAL PERSONAL when i told her what the law stated, yes i called a lawyer and brand inspector and knew for sure i was right, to say the least it was a month of hell and getting threatned citations every other day. Its over now, had to complain and talk with the actual sheriffe.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

I have a friend who has the same problem. He's in his late 50s and he thinks he can shoot anybody trespassing on his land. This type is especially frustrating and dangerous.

Ask him why he thinks he can impose the death penalty on someone who may be mistakenly trespassing. Ask him if he thinks the courts should be able to impose the same penalty for trespassing.

The ignorance out there just boggles the mind...

 

[sonier]

Indeed it does, ill prolly just ease into the conversation maybe start with stating if he believes petty minor thieves deserve the death penalty and work my way into simple trespassing, then just slowly work into the conversation and hoping he dosnt get irrate, this guys has a pretty wicked temper lol

 

[The_Pretender]

Just get him one of those signs that read:

"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."



But seriously- I'd get some form of literature to show him the law. It's guys like that that give the rest of us a bad name. Can you see the headlines? "UPS MAN SHOT WHILE DELIVERING PACKAGE"

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

OT, Sonier, how's the trout fishing up Hermit Lake Road this year? I haven't been up that way for years. I miss it.

 

[sonier]

Maybe the NRA should make a common law flyer of top most laws that many dont know, such as its illegal to shoot someone trespassing on your land not causing any damage or life threatning ways. Heck you cant legally shoot someone with rubber buckshot on your lawn either.

 

[sonier]

I Dont have a working horse trailer atm, so its a little hard to get around, Im lazy I dont walk lol and those trails have been pretty rough lately. mainly I just fish grape creek or a private pond near me.

 

[SaxonPig]

Depends on state law. I believe in Texas a trespasser is considered a threat to life and limb and may be shot.

Indeed, trespassers should be considered a serious threat. How often are people attacked and even killed by trespassers and others committing "non-violent" crimes when they inadvertently encounter these criminals? I have seen videos of store security officers being stabbed, shot, and run down with cars while trying to detain misdemeanor level shoplifters.

Remember a couple years ago in Wisconsin or Minnesota when a man caught trespassing on hunting land gunned down several people who challenged his right to be there?

I think anyone who would knowingly break the law and violate someone's property should be considered very dangerous. It takes very little to push a minor criminal into committing a major act of violence. If someone enters my property ignoring the "Keep Out" signs I assume he is up to no good.

Does this mean I advocate shooting anyone who crosses my fence? No, of course not. But on the other hand, I would not assume such a person would not murder me if things went wrong.

Some folks take the sovereignty of their property seriously.

 

[sonier]

now in texas what is there deffination of trespassing? cause theres trespassing in a home then theres walking on land, i dont htink anyone has a right to shoot anyone on there property unless they are posing a threat like waving a gun around threatning but far as walking through they are not considered a threat and to want to shoot them would be consider bloodlust at the least.

 

[Cosmoline]

The key to deadly force is the concept that force must match force. So if the trespasser posses an imminent and unlawful threat, you must defend yourself with deadly force. Or die. In some circumstances, you may be permitted under code to presume that certain intruders into an occupied dwelling are posing that level of threat. But in no event do the self defense codes permit the use of deadly force as punishment for an infraction, or even for a serious crime. They have nothing at all to do with punishment. Whether trespassers, thieves, lawyers, ombudsmen or whoever "deserve" to get shot is not part of the equation in any state.

I believe in Texas a trespasser is considered a threat to life and limb and may be shot.

It doesn't green light shooting down random trespassers. The code is considerably more restrictive:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

As an aside--you can apparently use deadly force to stop a suicide in Texas! I wonder if they thought that one through.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

 

[Dazen]

Well I know If some one is trespassing and stealing something from my car or property at night it is legal to shoot them and I support this too. As far as day time I dont think it is.

 

[Cosmoline]

Nevermind, here it is. Note subsection (3)'s restrictions. That makes the provision, in essence, a presumption that a criminal at night under certain circumstances, engaged in sufficiently felonious behavior, would constitute an imminent deadly threat if confronted.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[torpedoman]

it used to be that a man could protect his property thats why some of the older guys have problems now that is is not legal.

 

[RoostRider]

hoping he dosnt get irrate, this guys has a pretty wicked temper lol

I would just let this one lie.... part of becoming a 'mature' adult is in knowing that some people never will, and that it is pointless to argue with them...

You have done what you can... you told him... DON'T TELL HIM THIS but, hopefully you will never have to testify against him because he acted on his irrational belief.

 

[Cosmoline]

it used to be that a man could protect his property thats why some of the older guys have problems now that is is not leg

The guy was forty, not a hundred and forty. I just turned forty, and I can deny any personal knowledge of the Lincoln County wars or open range feuds.

 

[RoostRider]

The guy was forty, not a hundred and forty.

LOL.... LOL..... LOL

(now that was a good one)

 

[Sav .250]

I can see it now. Somebody pulls into his drive way, just to turn around and this guy runs out and shoots the driver. There are some strange people on
this planet!

 

[Rexster]

Well, now that someone has brought up Texas, NO, trespassers may NOT be shot in Texas for mere trespassing!

Texas does give citizens broad powers to use deadly force to protect property, but mere trespassing is NOT cause to use deadly force.

 

[moxie]

Thank you Rexter (from Erath Co.), you beat me to the punch!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Around here, you can use lethal force under circumstances where a "reasonable person" (district attorney in his office, judge on his bench, jury in the grand or petit jury box) would feel that, if they were in your shoes, they would feel they were in fear of death or greivous bodily harm.

You haul off and shoot at some one simply trespassing, odds are the "reasonable person" would feel that the one in fear of death or greivous bodily harm would be the simple trespasser. (If the trespasser is attempting to perpetrate a felony, that's a different case altogether.)

As usually, this internet legal advice is worth every penny I charge for it, which is zilch as I am not a lawyer, games of Charades not counting. On the other hand, I not only have been accused of passing the bar, I have been accused of going in and having a drink on occasion.

 

[AirForceShooter]

All depends on State law.
If the state in question has the " Castle Doctrine" in effect it may be perfectly legal to shoot a trespasser.

AFS

 

[danprkr]

Just don't bother. A closed mind is the hardest thing in the world to open. Just agree to disagree, and do as you wish. In my experience in dealing with older people (fewer and fewer seem to be around as time goes on for some reason ) having the ability to ignore their stupidity SOMETIMES causes them to think, "Well that young punk doesn't seem to give a darn what I think. I'll just prove him wrong." Then when they can't they may change their mind.

This type of closed minded individual though will rarely be man enough to admit it. Just enjoy the victory if you get or see it, and move on with your life. Meanwhile he'll probably have an elevated level of respect for you either way. Either because you were right, or because you have the guts to do what you think is right regardless.

If you don't there's no reason to waste your time on him. Time is the only resource we have that's a finite commodity, and we have no idea how much we have. So use it on useful pursuits. Not :banghead: on the wall of willful stupidity. It's just not worth it.

Having said that before you go this route I'd look up the statutes and know for sure I was correct. I can't believe you're wrong, but not being in Colorado I don't know. But, if you're wrong admitting it will raise your stature in his eyes also.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

quoted earlier: it used to be that a man could protect his property

If someone is walking away with my land, rather than walking on it, I might have some justification in threatening to shoot if he does not drop it and go away.

Biblically an intruder in the home after dark is presumed to have murderous intent and may be killed; but a thief running away especially in daylight may not be killed (in Leviticus I believe) and I recall something about forgiving mere trespasses.

I recall decades ago an incident where I did arm myself in response to a trespasser; it turned out apparently he was just taking a shortcut across the property (appeared a little drunk too) and nothing came of it.

Added: Near my uncle's land, hikers and ATvers along the TVA trails don't always know whose land they are on. A lot of landowners don't care one way or the other about casual passersby as long as there is no vandalism. BUT, if the property is fenced and clearly posted, I stay off when hiking or ATVing. To hunt, I always ask permission of the owner.