Neighbors trespassing

pancho · #**101** 07/15/12, 12:49 PM

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;

(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

This is part of the law Ms. now has.

salmonslayer · #**102** 07/15/12, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kasilofhome

Having a gun on you or having a person with a gun with you (I do not handle guns due to vision issues) does not mean you plan on shoot or killing anyone. Just has having insurance mean you plan on getting a payout/benefit--it simply mean you are prepared and responsible. This if someone is legal to have a gun on them and the environment warrants a gun it would be silly to not have it with you. Just as it is ill advised to drive without carrying you drivers lic as the act of driving is an environment for which a drivers lic. may be need at any time. Being on ones own property may be an environment for which having a gun may be needed at any time. Land owners are responsible for their land and the laws and regs of that land --I fail to see were any person here encouraged or entreated the killing of anyone. The assumption form some that they project is that those carrying a gun are out to kill is out of place and the constant injection of such Ideas show the mindset of those who think that a gun is for killing vs a gun is a tool to assist in protection. Just as homeowners are educated in having fire exstingisures in their homes even if they are in a fire station district is common sense for a homeowner to be the first line of fire protection --it is common sense that a landowner is also the first line of defense to insure property rights and tools that are legally used make sense.

Why is it assumed that carry a gun is a statement that anyone is out to kill or murder? Such accusations are tossed about to the point that some people have taken the idea that ALL guns are a threat. Is a gun less often used in mortal gunfire if it is concealed. Are there many violent criminals that OPEN CARRY the majoity of the time they are in public or do they conceal more often --What are the stats on that. Open carry is open honesty as to one preparedness to handle a siduation that few wish to to find themselves needing --JUST LIKE other types of insurance. It is there if you need it and only when it is needed.

You are yet again not tracking with the conversation. Missouri is an open carry state and almost everyone around where I live either open carries or has a CCW including little old ladies. In fact in Missouri you can carry a loaded pistol in the glove box of your car without a permit because a car is considered an extension of your home. No one is saying having weapons means your going to kill anyone, I carry all the time both open and concealed and I have enough weapons at the farm to equip a Platoon (including assault rifles). The discussion is whether its a bright idea to brandish a weapon when confronting a trespasser or going onto their property to confront them like the OP admits they did and if you go back and read some of the posts its clear some think deadly force is okay for trespassers or thieves.

My visceral reaction is one dead thief is one less scumbag I would have to worry about in the future; my common sense reaction is that if I use deadly force over trespassing or theft I will be paying huge amounts in legal representation even if I am totally legally correct in my actions and I would be opening myself up to civil litigation that has a much difference criteria for success, and my moral reaction is that my patch of dirt and my "stuff" is very important to me but I couldnt take a life over material things.

Everyone seems so cavalier about human life anymore that its depressing and still no one answers my biggest question....even if its totally legal to use deadly force on a trespasser or thief in your area again...why would you?

pancho · #**103** 07/15/12, 01:06 PM

3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person’s will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties

salmonslayer · #**104** 07/15/12, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pancho

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;

(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

This is part of the law Ms. now has.

Exactly Pancho; I appreciate you posting this as I looked it up also. No where in that does it state you can shoot anyone for thievery or trespassing...they are talking about self defense or defense of anothers physical person. Robbery could be considered under that and particularly strong armed robbery but I highly encourage you to take a CCW course for Mississippi regardless of your carry laws (it would also allow you to carry to other states if they have reciprocity).

salmonslayer · #**105** 07/15/12, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pancho

3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person’s will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties

Again, read it again as its very close to Missouri law. They are talking about fearing physical harm and the part about removing from the premesis is about kidnapping and was a result of anti domestic violence initiatives in your state...read it very carefully.

pancho · #**106** 07/15/12, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

Everyone seems so cavalier about human life anymore that its depressing and still no one answers my biggest question....even if its totally legal to use deadly force on a trespasser or thief in your area again...why would you?

I will try to explain.

Everything I own I have worked and saved to buy. While it may not seem like a lot to some people it is mine. If I didn't want it I would not have worked and saved to buy it.

I take a very dim view of a person who thinks so little about me as a person that they would take what I saved and worked to get.

I was raised to not take anything from another person and to protect what is mine. I can assure everyone I will not be taking their belongings and expect the same in return. If a person cannot agree with that it might be a very good idea to find someone else that will willingly give them their belongings.

I will do whatever it takes to protect me, my family, and my belongings. My course of action may not be the one chosen by others. Others have a right to choose their course of action just as I do.

pancho · #**107** 07/15/12, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

Again, read it again as its very close to Missouri law. They are talking about fearing physical harm and the part about removing from the premesis is about kidnapping and was a result of anti domestic violence initiatives in your state...read it very carefully.

You are only reading the part you are interested in.

or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment,

You seem not to notice this part.

pancho · #**108** 07/15/12, 01:25 PM

"Her life and or her property is in imminent danger, so she has the right to do whatever she has to do to take care of herself -- including shooting him, running over him with the car, dragging him behind, whatever she's got to do to make herself safe," said Assistant Chief Lee Vance of the Jackson Police Department

This is a statement made by Assistant Chief of the Jackson Police force.
Notice he said her life or her property was in imminent danger.

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

pancho · #**109** 07/15/12, 01:27 PM

The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated “not guilty” of any crime by reason of subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct

Something else in the law.

Common Tator · #**110** 07/15/12, 01:35 PM

Our ranch is completely surrounded by National Forest. There is a popular trail that was put in about 15 years ago that skirts around outside of our property. The shorter and much more beautiful path is through our property. But that is not public, it is fenced off and well posted. The trail on the National Forest is very popular with mountain bikers, and I've never seen a more arrogant bunch of trespassers than those in spandex and bike helmets! Seriously, they couldn't look sillier if they dressed like Bozo the clown!

Where they enter the property, we have fenced across the old and n longer servicible road with barbed wire and posted with numerous NO TRESPASSING signs. They tear down the ones they can reach. I've also backed our UTV up to trees and stood on it and put signs up as high as I can reach. I also hand painted a sign telling them that they are not on the trail, and they need to turn around go back one mile and turn right. So if they get onto the ranch, they have gone to a great deal of effort to get there, and ignored many signs. I always demand that they turn around and go back the way they came, even if they have made it to the opposite gate. And I follow them to make sure that they actually leave via the way they entered. They never like this, because they have to go back downhill for a mile, and ride another 5 or 6 miles uphill to get around us. That teaches the smart ones, not to come back.

I've had trespassers that stand their ground and refuse to leave. One man who was leading a group of mountain bikers was especially aggressive and was getting ready to assault me to get me out of his way. He didn't know hubby was a few feet away, listening to our conversation. Their view of him was obscured from their vantage point. So as the man reached for me, I said "Babe, do you want these people on our property?" When the trespasser heard Hubby say "NO!" from only a few feet away, he turned around and left. I wasn't armed that time, but Hubby was.

Other times when they refuse to turn around and leave, I have raced ahead of them in my car and blocked their exit. If they are allowed to take the shortcut across our land, even once, they will do it whenever they please. I figure that I have a right to park anywhere I want on my own property, and it would have no bearing on them at all if they weren't trespassing. They can still leave that way if they want, on foot. If they are on a bike or ATV or car, They can't get past my car. They will have to leave it behind and then come back later to retrieve it, and of course by then the sheriff would be here to discuss trespassing laws with them. I will not hesitate to have them arrested for criminal trespassing. The problem is that only one sheriff knows how to get to our place. If he is available, it will probably take an hour for him to get there. In Califunny, the penalty for trespassing on a farm or ranch is much harsher than for other types of trespassing.

Trespassers once entered our ranch and scoped out our possessions. They then came back prepared to steal what they wanted. They came back with a bolt cutter, which they used to cut the power company's lock off our gate. They had a look alike lock of their own which they put on our gate so they could come and go as they pleased. They brought a truck with a gooseneck hitch, which they used to steal our trailer. I figured out that they had replaced the Edison lock with their own, and wound up replacing the whole chain.

Another time we showed up to find the gate open, and the chain was missing completely. We never did find the chain, but it was locked when we left. I could see a vehicle down by the pond, so I called the sheriff. He went down to talk to them There were actually three vehicles full of hunters. No one should ever have to confront carloads of armed people on their own property. Their excuse? They thought our place was still a Boy Scout camp. Seriously? It is OK to cut a padlock off and trespass with the intention of shooting, as long as you think there will be kids there?

There have been times when our trespassers are simply lost in the woods. I've driven a few of them home or back to their cars.

So If I catch them on my property, I'm not content to just tell the to leave. I turn them around. They aren't happy about it, but then again, I'm not happy when I have to take time out of whatever I am doing to have to deal with them.

salmonslayer · #**111** 07/15/12, 01:40 PM

Pancho, I appreciate you, explaining your position, no one else has. But I am getting confused since you say you are from Mississippi. I understand that Mississippi has very friendly and lax gun laws but they do require a concealed carry permit to carry concealed and your attorney general has ruled that a gun laying on its side in open view in a car is "concealed" because the bottom of it is not visible. Thats his bizarre interpretation (and the NRA is up in arms about it) and its why I suggested you do some research on your own state.

To me these laws leave way too much chance even if I were inclined to kill someone over "stuff" but again, you come to my place and I feel my family is threatened you are going to not like the outcome and I will do whats necessary..I am also highly trained to do whats necessary.

It seems some folks just have different views on whats valuable and it kind of surprises me sometimes but even though I personally dont own anything worth killing over even if I felt otherwise I would be reluctant to kill over the theft of my car (or whatever) when I could end up losing everything through overzealous prosecution or civil suit. Just doesnt make sense to me.

DGFALL · #**112** 07/15/12, 01:46 PM

Tator, that seems reasonable. Even as obnoxious as they can be you still cannot shoot them though. Apparently you have some beautiful property which I'm sure makes it desirable for people to trespass. Perhaps that is the price you pay for living in paradise.

pancho · #**113** 07/15/12, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

Pancho, I appreciate you, explaining your position, no one else has. But I am getting confused since you say you are from Mississippi. I understand that Mississippi has very friendly and lax gun laws but they do require a concealed carry permit to carry concealed and your attorney general has ruled that a gun laying on its side in open view in a car is "concealed" because the bottom of it is not visible. Thats his bizarre interpretation (and the NRA is up in arms about it) and its why I suggested you do some research on your own state.

To me these laws leave way too much chance even if I were inclined to kill someone over "stuff" but again, you come to my place and I feel my family is threatened you are going to not like the outcome and I will do whats necessary..I am also highly trained to do whats necessary.

It seems some folks just have different views on whats valuable and it kind of surprises me sometimes but even though I personally dont own anything worth killing over even if I felt otherwise I would be reluctant to kill over the theft of my car (or whatever) when I could end up losing everything through overzealous prosecution or civil suit. Just doesnt make sense to me.

It shall not be a violation for any person over 18 to carry a concealed firearm within his home, place of business, or real property associated with his home or place of business, or within his motor vehicle

That is one part of the gun law in Ms.

pamda · #**114** 07/15/12, 01:50 PM

Wow,this might take to award for the worst thread drift ever...back on track friends...this is not helping the op at all.

julieq · #**115** 07/15/12, 01:51 PM

1) Run one strand of hot wire fence across their paths. I'm astounded how afraid some people are of hot wire. We had a friend here helping us move irrigation pipe recently and he made me grab the fence and actually show him it wasn't hot! (He's an ex Marine by the way!?!)

2) We have a shooting range set up out behind the shop with targets and a constant supply of lead going down range. We moved here in October and haven't had a trespasser yet!

3) We have a large Rottie cross male who is a rescue dog. He absolutely hates strangers and will chase down anything that moves (we keep him kenneled unless he's on a leash for training). A dirt bike might provide a means of getting away, but a golf cart wouldn't...

badlander · #**116** 07/15/12, 01:52 PM

Another non violent, non threatening, but effective way of deterring unwanted guests from snooping around your property. Go on Ebay and buy a few ADT security signs and post them. I subscribed to the service once and the technician told me that many times posting the signs was enough to ward off trespassers as they were uncertain as to what kind of security system was present.

I can remember an old timer telling me once that if you wanted to give folks second thoughts about snooping around your property, make it a habit of once a week sitting on your front porch and cleaning your hunting rifle or handgun so all could see. It would make them 'wonder' about you and stay away.

I can really sympathize with the original poster. You are caught between a rock and a hard place and truly, there is no simple solution nor is there a solution that will not result in hard feelings.

BUT.

First and foremost, you must protect yourself and your property. If the neighbors do not like it, tough. Their name neither signs the check that pays your taxes or your utilities. And if it takes a lawyer, a sheriff, an electric fence, gate and dog with an attitude to do it, that is what you are going to have to do.

As to Missouri and the gun rights there. I remember early on being in several homes and asking why there was always a rifle or shottie sitting near the front and back door. The home owner shrugged and said, you never know when you are going to have to shoot a varmint and not all of em are four legged.

Alice In TX/MO · #**117** 07/15/12, 02:04 PM

The original poster is from Michigan.

Thread drift: Don't disparage bikers in their spandex and helmets, please. That "funny looking" guy might be my son training for his fundraiser rides for cancer research, muscular dystrophy, and organ donation awareness.

Common Tator · #**118** 07/15/12, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGFALL

Tator, that seems reasonable. Even as obnoxious as they can be you still cannot shoot them though. Apparently you have some beautiful property which I'm sure makes it desirable for people to trespass. Perhaps that is the price you pay for living in paradise.

In the 12+ years hat we've owned this place, I've confronted hundreds of trespassers, and never shot a one. No exaggeration! The neighboring camp used to have a director that used to tell their visitors to hike over to our place and pick apples from our orchard! Once, I heard voices in the orchard and found at least 50 people there at once! I called him every time I found hikers who told me that he had sent them, and repeatedly asked him to stop doing that!

I also carried a gun in the line of duty for 9 years too, and never shot anyone then either.

Common Tator · #**119** 07/15/12, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alice In TX/MO

The original poster is from Michigan.

Thread drift: Don't disparage bikers in their spandex and helmets, please. That "funny looking" guy might be my son training for his fundraiser rides for cancer research, muscular dystrophy, and organ donation awareness.

I bet you taught your son not to trespass!

As for looking silly, tell him not to try to stand in his silly spandex and try to argue the law on why it is OK to trespass, like the goofy looking fools I've encountered. They really should wear big red rubber noses that honk when you squeeze them!

kasilofhome · #**120** 07/15/12, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

MissoYou are yet again not tracking with the conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

The discussion is whether its a bright idea to brandish a weapon when confronting a trespasser or going onto their property to confront them like the OP admits they did and if you go back and read some of the posts its clear some think deadly force is okay for trespassers or thieves.

To get to the adjoining prop they traveled via their land thus I am willing to accept that THEY know the if that environment is best to carry gun. Period.
Adjoining prop rarely have gun safes on a prop line. Thus I see nothing wrong with they the op having a gun with them.

Everyone seems so cavalier about human life anymore that its depressing and still no one answers my biggest question....even if its totally legal to use deadly force on a trespasser or thief in your area again...why would you?

It is your view that people willing to care are cavalier about human life--to me they seem to care greatly about human life even their own. As I have stated the gun is for protection. If there was a NEED to proctect then it would NEED to be used. Being aware that thieves often do more than steal and trespasser often do more than pick asparagus a gun might be the tool of the moment best to have one's tools handy.

I firmly believe I am tracking the conversation I just can not bow to you beliefs