Why don't you just shoot me?

[Sam1911]

Said mathematically:

(...began poking at this and that, messing with the canoe, etc.) =/= (Threat to Life)

When you say, "I would stop him...by whatever means necessary" you're literally suggesting that if you have to kill, or you end up dying, that's acceptable.

It's really not.

If your tale runs from "He was poking around at this and that..." then moves to "...so I went out and confronted him..." and ends up with "...and then I shot him and he died," that's a very bad day in court.

If your tale is more like, "He was poking around at this and that..." then moves to "...so I went out and confronted him..." and ends up with "...well he turned out to be a seriously bad guy and he wasn't alone and they disarmed me and killed me..." well, I guess it really doesn't matter anymore. At least you stopped them from touching your canoe. Oh, wait, I guess they could still touch your canoe after you were dead, so not really.

 

[shaggy430]

^^^^^^

What Sam1911 said.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by joeschmoe: You have repeatedly misrepresented my posts.

No, I have not. I have simply quoted you.

In the OP the thing that caused alarm was more than simple trespassing.

Trespass is in most jurisdictions and under most circumstances a misdemeanor, unless one is referring to nuclear or defense facilities or the like. Touching a canoe does not even rise to that level.

Yes, I would stop him from doing that.

The question is, how?

You would hide in the house.

I would not "hide." I would avoid a confrontation and I would avoid exposing myself to possible unseen assailants.

Fine, we disagree but stop claiming that I would assault someone just for trespassing. That is no longer simple trespassing.

I have not claimed that you would assault anyone. However, you have claimed that you would mace them and sit on them to prevent them from departing. That is more than assault.

For poking at things? Come now.

If someone is on my land handling my private property, I would stop them by what ever is necessary. That could be anything from a commanding voice, standing in there way, etc. If they resist and continue then I also will use more force. What ever is needed to stop them.

In most jurisdictions, one may use reasonable physical force to defend property--to prevent its removal, or to prevent actual damage. But should things escalate beyond that, you would be most likely to be able to mount a successful defense of justification.

If it escalates to the point force is needed then holding them for the police is an option.

One may not lawfully arrest anyone for poking a canoe, whether or not one has used physical force and whether or not the situation has escalated.

Stop claiming I would detain or assault them just for trespass.

If you really believe that touching your canoe justifies detention, you really need to consult an attorney.

Don't try to frighten me with lawyers fees or police action.

None oof us are trying to frighten you. We are trying to educate you.

Criminals on my land violating my property will be stopped.

You had better become much more knowledgeable about use of force law before you decide how to do that.

I strongly recommend three things:

1. Read Sam's Post #67 very slowly and carefully, and think about it.
2. Consult a criminal defense attorney in your jurisdiction and ask him about the criminal code in general; about defense of justification in the use of force; about citizen's arrest; about trespass; and about the legalities of the use of force to defend property. While you are at it, ask what it would likely cost to mount a defense in court.
3. Avoid any disputes over property until you have completed that consultation.

 

[Averageman]

Act 3, Scene 1 Julius Caesar
"Cry Havoc and let slip the Dogs of War !"
It's so hard to look cool in front of a girl when you have an angry Doberman attatched to your leg.

 

[Derry 1946]

Did the police ever talk to the canoe poker? Any further developments?

 

[Deanimator]

The police arrived almost an hour later.

Remember, you don't need a gun. The police will "protect" you...

 

[GBExpat]

I probably would have added one thing to this scenario ... I would have grabbed a digi-camera (still or video, latter preferably) with which to obtain some images of the actions and people.

 

[bubba in ca]

one related comment. I once worked for a Home owners association. One day a box of no tresspassing signs appeared at my door. I asked the manager what was up. He said in our county (in the Wild West) if somebody trespassed on our property and it was not posted CORRECTLY the county would not prosecute.

Not only did the signs have to be spaced correctly and the lettering of the correct minimum size, but the exact number of the law had to be on the sign, too.

This doesn't mean that the police would not come to investigate, just that there would be no arrest for simple trespassing. Your local laws may very, just one more case of know your local laws.

 

[easyg]

He walked a good 10 or 15 feet farther into my property from the creek bank and began poking at this and that, messing with the canoe, etc. So I opened the window and said, "Why don't you leave that alone and keep moving?"

Wow.

Whatever happened to friendliness and civility?

A guy and his girl volunteer to clean the local rivers and he's just checking out your canoe so you tell him to leave it alone and keep moving???

I probably would have just went out and said "Howdy. I appreciate you guys cleaning up the creeks and all, I wish folks wouldn't litter.

I notice you checking out my canoe....do you guys canoe?"....


Of course I would have had my revolver in my hand, concealed by a newspaper or jacket or such.


Who knows, maybe they were just good kids admiring your canoe.

 

[easyg]

Act 3, Scene 1 Julius Caesar
"Cry Havoc and let slip the Dogs of War !"
It's so hard to look cool in front of a girl when you have an angry Doberman attatched to your leg.

Know your local laws before taking this advice.

In my county all dogs must be either on a leash or inside a fenced in area.
And fenced in areas must have "Beware of dog" signs posted.

And if you purposefully allow your dog to attack another person you can be prosecuted for assault and battery.

And, worse yet, the county will take your dog and have it killed.



Easy

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by easyg: Wow.

Whatever happened to friendliness and civility?

A guy and his girl volunteer to clean the local rivers and he's just checking out your canoe so you tell him to leave it alone and keep moving???

I probably would have just went out and said "Howdy. I appreciate you guys cleaning up the creeks and all, I wish folks wouldn't litter.

I notice you checking out my canoe....do you guys canoe?"....

Obviously, this is the first thing that comes to mind. In any event, were I to choose to go out and speak, civility would have been paramount.

Of course I would have had my revolver in my hand, concealed by a newspaper or jacket or such.

I almost always carry concealed.

[In response to "Cry havoc...Doberman---etc."]: Know your local laws before taking this advice.

In my county all dogs must be either on a leash or inside a fenced in area.
And fenced in areas must have "Beware of dog" signs posted.

And if you purposefully allow your dog to attack another person you can be prosecuted for assault and battery.

And, worse yet, the county will take your dog and have it killed.

Sage advice.

Of course, the dog may never survive the attack.

 

[mgkdrgn]

For me, the dog would have taken care of him, and his trespass.

You did good, dealing with a confrontational jerk.

Agreed ... I'd let him play with my dog first.

 

[The-Reaver]

Good deescalation skills.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

You did right and get a big trained dog.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I don't know if this particular 'friend of mother earth' was a genuine thug or just had no boundaries as far as private property was concerned. Doesn't really matter in the face of a comment like "Why don't you just shoot me?"

A lot of folks, especially people new to gun ownership and/or concealed carry, expect a sidearm to work like some sort of magic talisman where criminals are concerned, as if all criminals flee like cockroaches when a light is turned on in the mere presence of a firearm.

That's not necessarily true, and if there is any lesson to be drawn here, IMHO the important thing is the insight it provides into CRIMINAL mindset. We talk a lot about OUR mindsets - not so often, perhaps not often enough, do we consider the mindset of potential adversaries.

For any unfamiliar with it, the 2006 FBI report covered at http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/comm_cop_killers.asp might be informative...

New Findings from the FBI about Cop Attackers & Their Weapons
(From the Force Science News provided by The Force Science Research Center.)

 

[aka108]

I know who they voted for.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I know who they voted for.

How is that relevant to ST&T?

 

[Al Thompson]

I know who they voted for.

No you don't. Two of the most "hippie" Vegan long haired types I've ever known are ardent conservatives.

Books and covers ya know.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Fred Fuller: I don't know if this particular 'friend of mother earth' was a genuine thug or just had no boundaries as far as private property was concerned. Doesn't really matter in the face of a comment like "Why don't you just shoot me?"

That, and the possibility that there may have been unseen accomplices, are among the reasons why staying inside was a prudent strategy.

Other reasons include the potential for ambiguity of testimony and other evidence in the event that violence had erupted; and the fact that there is little more that the landowner could have done outside than from the inside.

I, for one, would not put my dog at risk of injury, confiscation and confinement, and/or destruction for no potential benefit. And then there is the question of potential liability in the event of indictions of an intentional action resulting in injury.

A lot of folks, especially people new to gun ownership and/or concealed carry, expect a sidearm to work like some sort of magic talisman where criminals are concerned, as if all criminals flee like cockroaches when a light is turned on in the mere presence of a firearm.

And as if having a firearm will somehow protect against shots from seen or unseen sources....

 

[CoyoteSix]

Just my .02. A Tazer (NOT A STUN GUN!)wouldn't have been a bad tool in this situation.

Or a Paintball gun....

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by CoyoteSix: Just my .02. A Tazer (NOT A STUN GUN!)wouldn't have been a bad tool in this situation.

What would be the lawful justification for using one?

 

[easyg]

Environmental people ergh...
Did i say that out loud?

Some folks volunteering to pick up garbage from creeks and streams, and you say "ergh"?

What gives?

 

[Potatohead]

Please forgive me. I was generalizing. A lot of them are over the top.

 

[CoyoteSix]

Lawful justification? Not sure. But my logic behind a Tazer over a gun for a cocky, un-armed trespasser.

I think a young cocky type could confront a gun because he knows that the owner may be hesitant to shoot since he's not threatening the owners life.

However, I think if that same young cocky type was presented with a Tazer or even good OC spray he might back down because he knows that it may be used because of it's non lethal nature.

"DON'T TAZE ME BRO!"

 

[Sam1911]

However, I think if that same young cocky type was presented with a Tazer or even good OC spray he might back down because he knows that it may be used because of it's non lethal nature.

Or, be emboldened by the fact that those things are non-lethal, so their life isn't on the line, and you'd still be in real deep crap if you used one without a very serious direct threat of violence impending. Heck, there are plenty of folks who would see that as a potential cash cow.