More trespassers

[DirtDiggerDaveinMD]

In NY - yes. Unless you can prove you felt your life was in danger it would be a hard sell to a judge and jury. Unless he was inside your home at the time. Although there are "legal" definitions of what trespass is (as well as fine points like whether YOU own the property or your company/employer does).

Otherwise, if you shoot anyone for any reason it is murder or attempted murder. In the home we have the Castle Doctrine and you do not have to "retreat" if you are threatened. If they make it out the door and you shoot them (especially in the back) the "justifiable homicide" defense goes out the window . . . just like the crook did.

Only the police can shoot someone on suspicion.

Damn...New York is worse than Maryland.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Yes and no. NYS does not have Red Flag laws and outside the five boroughs it's pretty easy to get a concealed carry (unrestricted") pistol permit. Varies by county and issuing judge, however.

Cuomo keeps trying to squeeze out the Second Amendment but the judges so far are overturning his mandates.His "SAFE Act" would have limited police/civilians to seven round magazines and published the names of all gun owners in the local papers (so Mothers wouldn't accidentally let their children play at a house or associate with other children whose family allowed a "gasp" gun inside)

 

[A2coins]

I would be mad too but thinking of killing. the guy we've all done stupid stuff...

 

[DirtDiggerDaveinMD]

Yes and no. NYS does not have Red Flag laws and outside the five boroughs it's pretty easy to get a concealed carry (unrestricted") pistol permit. Varies by county and issuing judge, however.

Cuomo keeps trying to squeeze out the Second Amendment but the judges so far are overturning his mandates.His "SAFE Act" would have limited police/civilians to seven round magazines and published the names of all gun owners in the local papers (so Mothers wouldn't accidentally let their children play at a house or associate with other children whose family allowed a "gasp" gun inside)

Yeah Maryland and the damned red flag law is a joke. No recourse for the accused to take action against the accuser for false reporting, and it is nearly impossible for a citizen to obtain a CCW permit. I fully expect our state politicians to push for more restrictions on standard capacity magazines and AR-15 type rifles, removing the HBAR exemption and going after the sales of lowers and AR rifles chambered in calibers other than 5.56 / .223

 

[PirateLabs]

Nope. Criminal trespass in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor. Second degree is a class B misdemeanor and a third degree offense is very likely just a fine, if convicted. Threatening to kill you and actually acting to kill you are very different things requiring two different responses. You seem to try to qualify your defense of your argument by adding the possibility, the "what if" of escalation to violence in every instance. More times than not escalation requiring an extreme defense does not materialize, especially from a simple trespass. Also, do realize if you shot a trespasser and killed them you can still be held civilly liable in a court of law for the death of that person. You don't need to be arrested or convicted...you just need to squeeze that trigger. And in today's anti-gun political environment you stand a very good chance of a judgement against you and losing everything. Remember OJ was found not guilty of murder but found civilly liable for the death of Ron Goldman. It happens more than you think. I hope you never have to find out the hard way.

First degree.
511.060 Criminal trespass in the first degree.

(1)

A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when he knowingly enters

or remains unlawfully in a dwelling.

(2)

Criminal trespass in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

Effective:

January 1, 1975

History:

Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 40

6, sec. 101, effective January 1, 1975.



Second degree.
511.070 Criminal trespass in the second degree.

(1)

A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly

enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice

against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure.

(2)

Criminal trespass in the second degr

ee is a Class B misdemeanor.

Effective:

January 1, 1975

History:

Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 102, effective January 1, 1975


Third degree
511.080 Criminal trespass in the third degree.

(1)

A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters

or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.

(2)

Criminal trespass in the third degree is a violation.

Effective:
January 1, 1975

History:

Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, s
ec. 103, effective January 1, 1975.

http://lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19670

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle --
Exceptions.


Here you can read that the use of force, including deadly force, is authorized and legal under these conditions. Criminal Trespass is a Class A misdemeanor in Kentucky as you said, but it still carries a year of jail time. I was incorrect saying it was a felony but a class A misdemeanor is the step just below the felony threshold. As long as I comply with 503.055, there will be no arrest, no judge, no trial and no jury.

Thanks for the correction.

Bill

 

[Clay Diggins]

http://lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19670

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle --
Exceptions.


Here you can read that the use of force, including deadly force, is authorized and legal under these conditions. Criminal Trespass is a Class A misdemeanor in Kentucky as you said, but it still carries a year of jail time. I was incorrect saying it was a felony but a class A misdemeanor is the step just below the felony threshold. As long as I comply with 503.055, there will be no arrest, no judge, no trial and no jury.

Thanks for the correction.

Bill

Yeah I already read that PirateLabs. Nowhere in that law does it state that you can shoot someone for theft. That law doesn't even mention theft.

 

[against the wind]

The information given to me by the Potter County Sheriff at a Firearms Safety Seminar was; "If you shoot someone inside your home because you were in fear of your life, you will be taken in and there will be an investigation."
If you are not charged with anything, your gun(s), will be taken and kept in police custody until an investigation is completed. Even with a completed investigation, and your gun(s) returned, there will be, in all likelihood, a civil suit filed by the tresspasser's family.
The message I got from what the Sherrif was saying is, even if it is a justifiable shooting and you are cleared, you're still in for a world of aggravation and frustration.

 

[FlSHHOOK]

I used to have the trespassing problem as well. My wife and I own 58 acre wooded area. We put up many no trespassing signs all around the perimeter of the property soon after purchasing the property.

We lease it to a hunter, and we have had trespassers hunting and mushroom hunting. That we rectified relatively easy with the sheriff and DNR.

A worse problem to solve was a large horse camp about 10 miles away which the riders would ride out of the camp, along the river to the old RR, up the RR and then cut though my property back to the old road where they would take back to the horse camp. A single loop would take many hours. These rides resulted in a large 10 foot path in our property winding around the hills and bluffs. Tearing up the ground creating mud bogs in a few places. The ignored the no trespassing signs and tore down our barb wire fence.

We visited the horse camp many times, talking to the manager. But because the riders often would be there all hours of the day, and with no oversight - he did not have any control where they actually rode.

Finally after many weeks of trying to find someone with any control, I got in touch with a lady whose number was posted on the board at the horse camp. She was the person who often put these rides together. But when we tried to get her to convey to the riders to stop trespassing we got the same old whine that she had no control over where the riders actually rode. We went back and forth in emails on trying to get her riding teams to stop trespassing on our property.

Well what finally put this issue to bed was me figuring out were she lived and sending her an email stating that the next time a rider team trespassed and tore up our woods, I was coming to her house, set up a tent and campfire in her front hard and taking a s%$t in her front yard.

Have not had a single rider since.

Great solution! However if she was a hard azz, she could just have you arrested for trespassing as they could catch you there. You could prevent them from trespassing with a battery operated motion detector and a sound canon. Place the motion detector about twenty feet past your No Trespassing sign so it doesn't go off before they are on your property. After a couple riders are thrown, and the horses no longer want to go there...a very quick learned response from the horses. Your problem really will vanish

 

[Grizz12]

The information given to me by the Potter County Sheriff at a Firearms Safety Seminar was; "If you shoot someone inside your home because you were in fear of your life, you will be taken in and there will be an investigation."
If you are not charged with anything, your gun(s), will be taken and kept in police custody until an investigation is completed. Even with a completed investigation, and your gun(s) returned, there will be, in all likelihood, a civil suit filed by the tresspasser's family.
The message I got from what the Sherrif was saying is, even if it is a justifiable shooting and you are cleared, you're still in for a world of aggravation and frustration.

Whats your point? Let bad people get away with doing bad things??

Criminals NEED to be taught to ask themselves if whatever bad thing they are planing is worth loosing their life over.

Good people should never be afraid to defend their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness

 

[Clay Diggins]

Whats your point? Let bad people get away with doing bad things??

Criminals NEED to be taught to ask themselves if whatever bad thing they are planing is worth loosing their life over.

Good people should never be afraid to defend their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness

He was just sharing the facts with you.

If you don't like the legal system we have in this country or you just wish to kill people you find offensive you have the choice, like everyone else, to either get the laws changed or move to another country where the rule of law is not respected.

I'm not sure how the facts lead you to think anyone is afraid? If you want to bring up the subject of fear maybe you could describe what you are afraid of?

 

[against the wind]

Whats your point? Let bad people get away with doing bad things??

Criminals NEED to be taught to ask themselves if whatever bad thing they are planing is worth loosing their life over.

Good people should never be afraid to defend their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness

Hey Grizz ,
Don't ASSume that I am going to allow someone to get away with making me fear for my life. I will cross that bridge when I come to it. I'm just repeating what the Sherriff mentioned to all the people who attended the Seminar. Everything I worked for, all my life is on the line. My house, land, vehicles, and pension. All because some lowlife thought he could violate my rights and threaten me with violence. Then the victim, which is me, gets sued in a civil case by the family of a scumbag and they want a jury to believe that their kin was an angel. That's what you're up against if you pull the trigger. Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.

 

[Grizz12]

He was just sharing the facts with you.

If you don't like the legal system we have in this country or you just wish to kill people you find offensive you have the choice, like everyone else, to either get the laws changed or move to another country where the rule of law is not respected.

I'm not sure how the facts lead you to think anyone is afraid? If you want to bring up the subject of fear maybe you could describe what you are afraid of?

Maybe you should read what I wrote, I never mentioned I wanted to kill anyone for any reason. But good try to deflect

I dont know where you're from but here in the United States we have a Constitution and Bill Of Rights which limit the actions of the govt. and protect The People. My biggest fear is loosing those Rights to an out of control govt., which we see getting chipped away at every day..

 

[PirateLabs]

Yeah I already read that PirateLabs. Nowhere in that law does it state that you can shoot someone for theft. That law doesn't even mention theft.

You should probably read it again, carefully this time. It is all in there.

Bill

 

[DirtDiggerDaveinMD]

http://lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19670

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle --
Exceptions.

Here you can read that the use of force, including deadly force, is authorized and legal under these conditions. Criminal Trespass is a Class A misdemeanor in Kentucky as you said, but it still carries a year of jail time. I was incorrect saying it was a felony but a class A misdemeanor is the step just below the felony threshold. As long as I comply with 503.055, there will be no arrest, no judge, no trial and no jury.

Thanks for the correction.

Bill

Inside the home, sure no argument from me. Outside the home can be a bit trickier. For instance...Legal expert weighs in on KY self defense rights

 

[DirtDiggerDaveinMD]

Hey Grizz ,
Don't ASSume that I am going to allow someone to get away with making me fear for my life. I will cross that bridge when I come to it. I'm just repeating what the Sherriff mentioned to all the people who attended the Seminar. Everything I worked for, all my life is on the line. My house, land, vehicles, and pension. All because some lowlife thought he could violate my rights and threaten me with violence. Then the victim, which is me, gets sued in a civil case by the family of a scumbag and they want a jury to believe that their kin was an angel. That's what you're up against if you pull the trigger. Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.

I wish I could like this 1000 times. This statement is reality.

 

[boogeyman]

Side effects of ambien may include.....

Pointing rock salt at someone is just a good way to get yourself killed.

Remember - even if they don't return fire, there's the lawsuit(s) you disable them and you end up supporting them for the rest of their stinking lives the way courts are ruling these days! Like one of my old sgts. said, Head shots! = less paperwork.

 

[Clay Diggins]

You should probably read it again, carefully this time. It is all in there.

Bill

No sir. There is no reference to theft, stealing or protecting property anywhere in that law. It is virtually the same as every other State's self defense laws with the somewhat less common addition of a "stand your ground" right. Perhaps if I missed something about property, theft or stealing you could point it out since all my careful reading can't find it there.

Here - I'll help you to show how I am wrong. Here is the entire law you linked too:

503.0
55 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle -- Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

• (a)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, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
• (b)The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2)The presumption set forth in subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:

• (a)The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
• (b)The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;
• (c)The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
• (d)The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a peace officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

I see no right to use deadly force to prevent theft of anything in that law. I'll wait for you to point out to me which portion I missed that says you can shoot someone for theft.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Maybe you should read what I wrote, I never mentioned I wanted to kill anyone for any reason. But good try to deflect

No deflecting. As I quoted you in my previous post:

Criminals NEED to be taught to ask themselves if whatever bad thing they are planing is worth loosing their life over.

Your words - not mine.

Since the law doesn't allow shooting criminals (or anyone else) to teach them a lesson I have to assume you were writing about your own desire to ignore the law and kill criminals. If that's not the case then maybe you were hoping someone else would do the teaching/killing for you?