What can property owner do to a trespasser besides calling the cops? (house, home)

[forsheamountain]

Here's a story from the 90's. A couple of local guys got their 4 wheeler stuck and as any country bumpkin would do, they went to the nearest house to seek assistance. Unfortunately, the owner of the house was not a good ole boy but a freaked out refugee from commiefornia. He shot both of them and killed one. He will die in prison. Some people should just stay in the city for the safety of us rednecks.

[ketchikanite]

It’s called a “citizens arrest”. You need to understand the laws in your state before making one.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizen%27s_arrest

[Threerun]

Originally Posted by RobertFisher

Yes my question is for if I encounter a trespasser on my property. In my case there is no "accidental" trespassing, because I have fences.

Sounds like there is not much a landowner can do?!

I send two out and hold two in reserve.




Works for me.

[ManApplet]

a fav....

[MechAndy]

That’s a nice place you have there threerun.
Do them dogs hunt bear?

[Threerun]

Originally Posted by MechAndy

That’s a nice place you have there threerun.
Do them dogs hunt bear?

Birds. Ducks, upland- if it flies it dies.

But I have 4 of them. 3 females and on old grumpy 95lb male. He gets very, very protective of his little harem. If you ain't a friend, UPS or FedX- he will let you know who's boss.

[Ehrmantraut]

Originally Posted by 1200RT

Say it with me.

"imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household" (or something similar in your state)

If you can prove that in court, you're set. Its very simple.

The prosecution has to prove you broke the law. You don’t have to prove that you didn’t. The law is on the property owner’s side from the get go.

[Threerun]

Originally Posted by Ehrmantraut

The prosecution has to prove you broke the law. You don’t have to prove that you didn’t. The law is on the property owner’s side from the get go.

Talk to my friend that racked up a backbreaking amount in legal bills when he shot an intruder in his house.

https://helenair.com/the-homicide-tr...f30f2f65a.html

He won, well a hung jury, but he still had to pay the legal bills.

Imagine if he shot a trespasser not a burglar?

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Ehrmantraut

The prosecution has to prove you broke the law. You don’t have to prove that you didn’t. The law is on the property owner’s side from the get go.

OMG, you’ve been wrong about virtually everything in this thread, and you are wrong again.

When the prosecution establishes that you killed the trespasser, that is a homicide, and they will have proven that you broke the law. Self Defense is an affirmative defense to a charge of homicide, and in California, to use that defense, you will need to establish the following:

1) You reasonably believed that you (or someone else) was in imminent danger of being harmed;
2) You reasonably believed that the imminent use of force was necessary to defend against that danger; and
3) You only used the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

You really need to study up on this stuff, because right now, your apparent knowledge of self defense law is at rock bottom levels.

[Ehrmantraut]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

OMG, you’ve been wrong about virtually everything in this thread, and you are wrong again.

I'm wrong? All I said was a US Citizen is innocent until proven guilty. That's not accurate?

It's not my fault if people live in states where you go to jail if the trespasser gets offended.

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

When the prosecution establishes that you killed the trespasser, that is a homicide, and they will have proven that you broke the law.

This doesn't even make sense yet you continue to tell me I'm wrong, lol. The prosecution can allege that you killed the trespasser in cold blood, and they'd have to prove it. You're not guilty of manslaughter or murder "once the prosecution establishes it".

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

Self Defense is an affirmative defense to a charge of homicide, and in California, to use that defense, you will need to establish the following:

1) You reasonably believed that you (or someone else) was in imminent danger of being harmed;
2) You reasonably believed that the imminent use of force was necessary to defend against that danger; and
3) You only used the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

You really need to study up on this stuff, because right now, your apparent knowledge of self defense law is at rock bottom levels.

I don't care about California BS. Funny you tell me I'm ignorant of the law yet you don't even understand the most basic of basics, innocent until proven guilty which does extend to all 50 states in this country.

Originally Posted by Threerun

Talk to my friend that racked up a backbreaking amount in legal bills when he shot an intruder in his house.

https://helenair.com/the-homicide-tr...f30f2f65a.html

He won, well a hung jury, but he still had to pay the legal bills.

Imagine if he shot a trespasser not a burglar?

Looks like he shot this person in the back. I've repeatedly said that is very unwise. It doesn't demonstrate that you are in imminent danger. In states that are more free, though, the law gives you the benefit of the doubt though I still wouldn't advise shooting someone in the back. However in a state like this, if you fired on an intruder that has breached your house you probably wouldn't face charges. This all isn't rocket science. Here in Tennessee you could tell the cops just that someone was in your house and you couldn't see and fired. You wouldn't face charges.