Vigilante

[Gallstones]

According to information released by the Missoula police, the other teen has said that the two were "garage hopping" stealing from garages, and had been for a couple weeks.

I am less confident that Kaarma will be charged with deliberate homicide now; however, the marijuana will get him charged with a felony that would stick. He could go to prison for that.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

According to information released by the Missoula police, the other teen has said that the two were "garage hopping" stealing from garages, and had been for a couple weeks.

Ah, the stupidity of youth. There's a lesson for life:- When dealing with the police, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I'm not fully informed, but from what I've gleaned, the dead teen wasn't actually committing any crime when he was shot.
The most Kaarma was entitled to do was challenge him and tell him to leave...Unless he was obviously causing or about to cause damage, harm or loss.

[Seth]

According to information released by the Missoula police, the other teen has said that the two were "garage hopping" stealing from garages, and had been for a couple weeks.

Ah, the stupidity of youth. There's a lesson for life:- When dealing with the police, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I'm not fully informed, but from what I've gleaned, the dead teen wasn't actually committing any crime when he was shot.

Trespassing is a crime. Burglary is a crime. Trespassing into an occupied structure in the middle of the night with the intent to steal is defined as burglary, a felony. Uninvited entry into an occupied dwelling combined with generating a "reasonable belief" of an attack by an occupant justifies the use of lethal force under Montana law.

The survivor knows this now and probably won't be "garage hopping" any more.

The most Kaarma was entitled to do was challenge him and tell him to leave...Unless he was obviously causing or about to cause damage, harm or loss.

Wrong.

[Seth]

According to information released by the Missoula police, the other teen has said that the two were "garage hopping" stealing from garages, and had been for a couple weeks.

I am less confident that Kaarma will be charged with deliberate homicide now; however, the marijuana will get him charged with a felony that would stick. He could go to prison for that.

I'm wondering on what basis the cops got a warrant to search his kitchen cupboard.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Trespass isn't a crime under UK common law except in certain circumstances. I had assumed the situation would be similar in the US?
If I wanted to sit on my neighbour's lawn and have a little tea party then there would be little they could do about it. Technically, they would be allowed to use reasonable force to evict me but would run the risk of being charged with assault themselves. They'd probably have more luck suing me for it.

Btw...Uk police have been known to check the front doors of houses and just walk straight in if it's unlocked - taking advantage of the implied right of access. They've even done it dressed as a wolf as part of a 'safety/security campaign' (I can't remember which actual constabulary this was).

I'd be interested to know your opinion if the person in the garage had been a copper having a little snoop around to check things out.

Edit -

I'm wondering on what basis the cops got a warrant to search his kitchen cupboard.

Would they actually require a warrant seeing as the premises were a crime scene?

[Seth]

Trespass isn't a crime under UK common law except in certain circumstances. I had assumed the situation would be similar in the US?

Not even a little. That's one of the fundamental differences between the UK and the US, in the US private property means PRIVATE, and it was set up that way quite deliberately because (for one thing) King George had a nasty habit of quartering his troops in private homes at the homeowner's expense (and often the chastity of his girl children...and perhaps boys).

In the US it is universally true that trespass in or upon the property of another is a criminal offense. In most cases it's a misdemeanor, but in some cases it's a felony, such as 1st Degree Criminal Trespass to a motor vehicle.

The property owner is empowered to arrest any person trespassing on his land (I've done it dozens of times in my lifetime on the ranch), and is allowed to use reasonable and appropriate physical force to effect that arrest (I've had to do that as well, when a pair of goose hunters mistook me for a rube and pointed their shotguns at me when I approached to tell them they were trespassing, at which point I covered them with my AR-15 and told them to drop their guns or die...never bring birdshot to a rifle fight...which they did), just exactly as a police officer is. On other than residences (occupied structures in Montana) such as my ranch, I could only use deadly force under the same strictures as the general authority to use deadly force in any situation, which means that I must have a reasonable belief that my life, or the life of another, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, and I believe that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate to prevent the harm.

But in the case of an occupied residence, Colorado's Castle Doctrine is quite liberal. It says that to be authorized to use deadly force and be immune from civil or criminal charges, the intruder must make an uninvited entry and have an intent to commit some crime other than the uninvited entry therein (this deals with the drunken neighbor who mistakenly kicks in the wrong door thinking he's locked out...unless....), and any occupant believes that ANY degree of physical force, "no matter how slight" (yes, that's the wording in the law) against any occupant of the residence is used or about to be used by the intruder.

Thus, if the drunk just wanders in while in a drunken stupor, goes and lays down on the couch and goes to sleep, he can't be shot, though he can be arrested by the homeowner. But if the drunk kicks in the door and starts attacking occupants, even if he thinks they are intruders in his home, the occupants are justified in using deadly force because: uninvited entry (kicking in the door), intent to commit another crime therein (assault on a resident), and a threat or use of any degree of physical force, no matter how slight.

If I wanted to sit on my neighbour's lawn and have a little tea party then there would be little they could do about it. Technically, they would be allowed to use reasonable force to evict me but would run the risk of being charged with assault themselves. They'd probably have more luck suing me for it.

That's why the UK is so completely fucked up. There is no such thing as private property. And that's why the US rejected that entire concept at the beginning.

Btw...Uk police have been known to check the front doors of houses and just walk straight in if it's unlocked - taking advantage of the implied right of access. They've even done it dressed as a wolf as part of a 'safety/security campaign' (I can't remember which actual constabulary this was).

That is unequivocally a violation of the 5th Amendment and 4th Amendment rights to privacy and security. Police can't enter your home without express permission of an authorized person residing there or a warrant unless there are exigent circumstances such as a crime in progress or a hot pursuit of a criminal who ran into the house or some other emergency that would justify such an intrusion.

Around here, if a copper walked in to someone's house dressed as a wolf and scared the shit out of the kids, he'd probably get shot by the parents, and good for them.

Stay the fuck out of other people's houses unless you're invited in.

I'd be interested to know your opinion if the person in the garage had been a copper having a little snoop around to check things out.

They aren't allowed to do that absent exigent circumstances, and they would (or should) knock and announce who they are if they feel they need to enter the premises. A cop sneaking around in the dark in someone's house without a warrant is looking to get shot.

The proper response for a police officer who sees an open garage is to go to the front door, ring the bell and knock, announce who he is and speak directly with the homeowner and advise him of the risks of leaving his garage open. If the homeowner tells him to take a hike, that's what he has to do because it's perfectly legal to leave your garage open and expect that others will stay out...and if they don't it's equally reasonable to assume they are there to steal something...unless it's a young child.



Edit -

I'm wondering on what basis the cops got a warrant to search his kitchen cupboard.

Would they actually require a warrant seeing as the premises were a crime scene?

It depends on what crime they are investigating. If they are investigating a shooting in the garage, they have to have probable cause to think that some evidence related to the shooting is inside the house, and even then they need to get a warrant. collecting evidence at the actual scene, in the garage, is a different matter. Just because a crime happened in one part of a house doesn't give the police free rein to search places that cannot logically be connected to the crime in some way, nor can they just toss the place on general principles looking for evidence of OTHER crimes.

The question here is whether the statements they took about past events from witnesses and neighbors gave them probable cause to search for pot in the house. It's likely that they did get a warrant on that basis, since pot is still illegal in Montana. Here in Colorado it would be problematic at best because pot is legal, having THC in your system is legal, and the law regarding possessing a firearm while intoxicated is very vague when it comes to pot and hasn't really been examined since pot became legal here. They haven't really settled on blood THC levels for drugged driving yet. But, under federal law, possessing illegal drugs (which still includes pot) and possessing a firearm at the same time is a federal felony with a minimum five year sentence.

This creates a very difficult situation for gun owners, including gun owners who might use medicinal pot. Although Colorado law now exempts them from the pot/gun possession charges, the feds can still charge anyone with a federal crime merely for having less than one ounce of pot (a single seed is enough) and a gun. It's still a very grey area.

So in Montana, where pot is still illegal, he could go down for a state pot/gun rap (if they have such a law, which I don't know), and he could go down for a felony federal rap just for owning a shotgun and having pot in the house.

[Svartalf]

Trespass isn't a crime under UK common law except in certain circumstances. I had assumed the situation would be similar in the US?
If I wanted to sit on my neighbour's lawn and have a little tea party then there would be little they could do about it. Technically, they would be allowed to use reasonable force to evict me but would run the risk of being charged with assault themselves. They'd probably have more luck suing me for it.

Btw...Uk police have been known to check the front doors of houses and just walk straight in if it's unlocked - taking advantage of the implied right of access. They've even done it dressed as a wolf as part of a 'safety/security campaign' (I can't remember which actual constabulary this was).

I'd be interested to know your opinion if the person in the garage had been a copper having a little snoop around to check things out.

Edit -

I'm wondering on what basis the cops got a warrant to search his kitchen cupboard.

Would they actually require a warrant seeing as the premises were a crime scene?

The garage was a crime scene, looking at the kitchen demands a certain stretch of the imagination, and likely a warrant...

[piscator]

Trespass isn't a crime under UK common law except in certain circumstances. I had assumed the situation would be similar in the US?

Not even a little. That's one of the fundamental differences between the UK and the US, in the US private property means PRIVATE, and it was set up that way quite deliberately because (for one thing) King George had a nasty habit of quartering his troops in private homes at the homeowner's expense (and often the chastity of his girl children...and perhaps boys).

In the US it is universally true that trespass in or upon the property of another is a criminal offense.

Trespass that gets to a judge is almost invariably a civil tort. Criminal trespass occurs during the commission of another crime, like an assault, or when property is purposefully damaged.

Gun nuts like to think they can shoot whomever steps on their grass. They're assholes though, and should be publicly flayed when they try to project their legal and ballistic fantasies onto others. The only thing stopping some of them is the strong deterrent of competent law enforcement...

The property owner is empowered to arrest any person trespassing on his land (I've done it dozens of times in my lifetime on the ranch)

Such puffery...
For the last 30 years or so, I've make a large fraction of my living trespassing on the lands of others. I still haven't met a landowner man enough to "arrest" me.

A US citizen is "empowered" to arrest anyone he thinks is committing a felony, BTW. Understandably, few avail themselves of this civic privilege.

If I wanted to sit on my neighbour's lawn and have a little tea party then there would be little they could do about it. Technically, they would be allowed to use reasonable force to evict me but would run the risk of being charged with assault themselves. They'd probably have more luck suing me for it.

That's why the UK is so completely fucked up. There is no such thing as private property. And that's why the US rejected that entire concept at the beginning.

Btw...Uk police have been known to check the front doors of houses and just walk straight in if it's unlocked - taking advantage of the implied right of access. They've even done it dressed as a wolf as part of a 'safety/security campaign' (I can't remember which actual constabulary this was).

That is unequivocally a violation of the 5th Amendment and 4th Amendment rights to privacy and security. Police can't enter your home without express permission of an authorized person residing there or a warrant unless there are exigent circumstances such as a crime in progress or a hot pursuit of a criminal who ran into the house or some other emergency that would justify such an intrusion.

Around here, if a copper walked in to someone's house dressed as a wolf and scared the shit out of the kids, he'd probably get shot by the parents, and good for them.

Stay the fuck out of other people's houses unless you're invited in.

I'd be interested to know your opinion if the person in the garage had been a copper having a little snoop around to check things out.

They aren't allowed to do that absent exigent circumstances, and they would (or should) knock and announce who they are if they feel they need to enter the premises. A cop sneaking around in the dark in someone's house without a warrant is looking to get shot.

The proper response for a police officer who sees an open garage is to go to the front door, ring the bell and knock, announce who he is and speak directly with the homeowner and advise him of the risks of leaving his garage open. If the homeowner tells him to take a hike, that's what he has to do because it's perfectly legal to leave your garage open and expect that others will stay out...and if they don't it's equally reasonable to assume they are there to steal something...unless it's a young child.



Edit -

I'm wondering on what basis the cops got a warrant to search his kitchen cupboard.

Would they actually require a warrant seeing as the premises were a crime scene?

It depends on what crime they are investigating. If they are investigating a shooting in the garage, they have to have probable cause to think that some evidence related to the shooting is inside the house, and even then they need to get a warrant. collecting evidence at the actual scene, in the garage, is a different matter. Just because a crime happened in one part of a house doesn't give the police free rein to search places that cannot logically be connected to the crime in some way, nor can they just toss the place on general principles looking for evidence of OTHER crimes.

The question here is whether the statements they took about past events from witnesses and neighbors gave them probable cause to search for pot in the house. It's likely that they did get a warrant on that basis, since pot is still illegal in Montana. Here in Colorado it would be problematic at best because pot is legal, having THC in your system is legal, and the law regarding possessing a firearm while intoxicated is very vague when it comes to pot and hasn't really been examined since pot became legal here. They haven't really settled on blood THC levels for drugged driving yet. But, under federal law, possessing illegal drugs (which still includes pot) and possessing a firearm at the same time is a federal felony with a minimum five year sentence.

This creates a very difficult situation for gun owners, including gun owners who might use medicinal pot. Although Colorado law now exempts them from the pot/gun possession charges, the feds can still charge anyone with a federal crime merely for having less than one ounce of pot (a single seed is enough) and a gun. It's still a very grey area.

So in Montana, where pot is still illegal, he could go down for a state pot/gun rap (if they have such a law, which I don't know), and he could go down for a felony federal rap just for owning a shotgun and having pot in the house.

Don't forget RICO charges, because weed + shotguns=Cartelisto

[Gallstones]

While there responding to the shooting, the police might have been invited into the house, or allowed into the house and the jar of pot might have been in plain sight. It might especially have been readily seen if Kaarma kept it on the counter and the police were in the kitchen to be shown the door into the garage. Or if they entered the house via that door.

Also, if they had been smoking prior to the shooting the odor would still be in the air.

I'm curious to know when Kaarma bought the shotgun. If he bought it between robberies then he could be in trouble for lying on the 4473.

[Seth]

Trespass isn't a crime under UK common law except in certain circumstances. I had assumed the situation would be similar in the US?

Not even a little. That's one of the fundamental differences between the UK and the US, in the US private property means PRIVATE, and it was set up that way quite deliberately because (for one thing) King George had a nasty habit of quartering his troops in private homes at the homeowner's expense (and often the chastity of his girl children...and perhaps boys).

In the US it is universally true that trespass in or upon the property of another is a criminal offense.

Trespass that gets to a judge is almost invariably a civil tort. Criminal trespass occurs during the commission of another crime, like an assault, or when property is purposefully damaged.

I guess it depends on where you live. Out here in the west it's a criminal offense and it gets prosecuted that way, although usually it's plead-out to a petty offense for first offenders.

Gun nuts like to think they can shoot whomever steps on their grass.

Wow! You must know some real psychopaths. Did you meet them in the hospital during group session?

They're assholes though, and should be publicly flayed when they try to project their legal and ballistic fantasies onto others. The only thing stopping some of them is the strong deterrent of competent law enforcement...

I always went out armed with the Sheriff's deputy who came to arrest trespassers, and not one of them ever had a problem with my doing so. That's because they know what the fuck they are doing, and you don't.

The property owner is empowered to arrest any person trespassing on his land (I've done it dozens of times in my lifetime on the ranch)

Such puffery...
For the last 30 years or so, I've make a large fraction of my living trespassing on the lands of others. I still haven't met a landowner man enough to "arrest" me.

Well, being a surveyor, you generally have the protection of the law when making a survey, which makes it not a crime for you to trespass while doing your job. As for the other people you meet, they must be sheeple like you.

18-4-515. Entry to survey property - exception to criminal trespass

(1) Effective July 1, 1992, no person shall be in violation of the trespass laws of this part 5 if the requirements of this section are met. The provisions of this section provide an exception to the trespass laws only and do not affect or supersede the provisions and requirements of articles 1 to 7 of title 38, C.R.S., concerning condemnation proceedings, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary.

(2) Any person who is licensed as a professional land surveyor pursuant to section 12-25-214, C.R.S., or who is under the direct supervision of such a person as an employee, agent, or representative, may enter public or private land to investigate and utilize boundary evidence and to perform boundary surveys if the notice requirement in this subsection (2) is met. (continues...)

A US citizen is "empowered" to arrest anyone he thinks is committing a felony, BTW. Understandably, few avail themselves of this civic privilege.

Actually, that too depends on where you are. Citizen's arrest limited to felonies is common in the east, but out west here any "offense" (which is a synonym for "crime") gives a citizen the authority to arrest and turn the suspect over to the police or to a judge.

18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape



(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a peace officer is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary:

(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or

(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.

(2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:

(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes:

(I) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or

(II) Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or

(III) Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) (b) of this section shall be deemed to constitute justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

(4) For purposes of this section, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody. A peace officer who is effecting an arrest pursuant to a warrant is justified in using the physical force prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the warrant is invalid and is known by the officer to be invalid.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist him to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officer's direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not authorized.

(6) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (5) of this section may use deadly physical force to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:

(a) He reasonably believes that force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) He is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force and does not know, if that happens to be the case, that the peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances.

(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

(8) A guard or peace officer employed in a detention facility is justified:

(a) In using deadly physical force when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner convicted of, charged with, or held for a felony or confined under the maximum security rules of any detention facility as such facility is defined in subsection (9) of this section;

(b) In using reasonable and appropriate physical force, but not deadly physical force, in all other circumstances when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be the escape of a prisoner from a detention facility.

(9) "Detention facility" as used in subsection (8) of this section means any place maintained for the confinement, pursuant to law, of persons charged with or convicted of an offense, held pursuant to the "Colorado Children's Code", held for extradition, or otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court.

18-1-104. "Offense" defined - offenses classified - common-law crimes abolished



(1) The terms "offense" and "crime" are synonymous and mean a violation of, or conduct defined by, any state statute for which a fine or imprisonment may be imposed.

(2) Each offense falls into one of eleven classes. There are six classes of felonies as defined in section 18-1.3-401, three classes of misdemeanors as defined in section 18-1.3-501, and two classes of petty offenses as defined in section 18-1.3-503.

(3) Common-law crimes are abolished and no conduct shall constitute an offense unless it is described as an offense in this code or in another statute of this state, but this provision does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt, or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order lawfully entered, or a civil judgment or decree; nor does it affect the use of case law as an interpretive aid in the construction of the provisions of this code.

This means state laws, as distinguished from county or local ordinances, so I can't arrest you for throwing a lit cigarette butt on the sidewalk under the town ordinance against littering, but if you throw a butt out of your car I can arrest you on a misdemeanor offense and use reasonable and appropriate physical force to effect that arrest.

42-4-1406. Foreign matter on highway prohibited

(1) (a) No person shall throw or deposit upon or along any highway any glass bottle, glass, stones, nails, tacks, wire, cans, container of human waste, or other substance likely to injure any person, animal, or vehicle upon or along such highway.

(b) No person shall throw, drop, or otherwise expel a lighted cigarette, cigar, match, or other burning material from a motor vehicle upon any highway.

(2) Any person who drops, or permits to be dropped or thrown, upon any highway or structure any destructive or injurious material or lighted or burning substance shall immediately remove the same or cause it to be removed.

(3) Any person removing a wrecked or damaged vehicle from a highway shall remove any glass or other injurious substance dropped upon the highway from such vehicle.

(4) No person shall excavate a ditch or other aqueduct, or construct any flume or pipeline or any steam, electric, or other railway, or construct any approach to a public highway without written consent of the authority responsible for the maintenance of that highway.

(5) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (5), any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.

(b) (I) Any person who violates any provision of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section commits a class 2 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

(II) Any person who violates paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section by throwing or depositing a container of human waste upon or along any highway shall be punished by a fine of five hundred dollars in lieu of the penalty and surcharge prescribed in section 42-4-1701 (4) (a) (I) (N).

(6) As used in this section:

(a) "Container" includes, but is not limited to, a bottle, a can, a box, or a diaper.

(b) "Human waste" means urine or feces produced by a human.

[/quote]

You really should quit trying to teach your grandpa to suck eggs, boy. I don't make claims about the law that I can't support with citations from the statutes. You should know that by now.

[Seth]

While there responding to the shooting, the police might have been invited into the house, or allowed into the house and the jar of pot might have been in plain sight. It might especially have been readily seen if Kaarma kept it on the counter and the police were in the kitchen to be shown the door into the garage. Or if they entered the house via that door.

Also, if they had been smoking prior to the shooting the odor would still be in the air.

I'm curious to know when Kaarma bought the shotgun. If he bought it between robberies then he could be in trouble for lying on the 4473.

Yeah, that's a big one many people forget. Five years in Club Fed because the form specifically asks if you are a user of illegal drugs and it's a crime to lie on that form. Maybe he inherited it, although it's still illegal for him to be in possession of pot and a gun under federal law. That's still the case in Colorado, even though pot is legal under state law.

If you have to shoot someone, you need to make sure you're wearing clean underwear because everybody's going to be poking around in your business and it'll cost you at least 50K even if you did everything right.

Which is a strong inducement not to shoot people unnecessarily or frivolously.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Which is a strong inducement not to shoot people unnecessarily or frivolously.

One would hope that this is not the only motivation...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Which is a strong inducement not to shoot people unnecessarily or frivolously.

One would hope that this is not the only motivation...

Not even the primary one, but still an important one. An FBI study showed that armed citizens are 11 times less likely to shoot someone even when faced with a situation where it's clearly both legal and necessary to do so than police officers. In other words, police officers are 11 times MORE likely to shoot you than your average armed citizen.

Now THAT should scare you.

It certainly scares people in Albequerque, where the cops have been shooting people right and left.

I myself am very, very careful when interacting with the police (which is infrequently at best) for precisely that reason. The key is that if they can shoot someone legally in a give set of circumstances, so can anyone else. Their authority differs very little from that of an armed citizen. The two areas where they can use deadly force where I cannot are to prevent the escape of a prisoner (prison guards) or if they reasonably believe it's necessary to do so to prevent the criminal from causing imminent deadly harm to the public if allowed to escape and the criminal can't be taken into custody (that's how police snipers work).

But for any situation where there is an immediate threat that would justify a police officer in shooting, a civilian is likewise justified in shooting, and the cop is 11 times more likely to do so than the civilian and a good part of that is that police officers are immune from civil suits while acting within their powers, and the agency/city has to defend them in any civil suit, whereas a civilian has no such legal protection except in the case of a Castle Doctrine shooting in one's home.

[piscator]

Trespass isn't a crime under UK common law except in certain circumstances. I had assumed the situation would be similar in the US?

Not even a little. That's one of the fundamental differences between the UK and the US, in the US private property means PRIVATE, and it was set up that way quite deliberately because (for one thing) King George had a nasty habit of quartering his troops in private homes at the homeowner's expense (and often the chastity of his girl children...and perhaps boys).

In the US it is universally true that trespass in or upon the property of another is a criminal offense.

Trespass that gets to a judge is almost invariably a civil tort. Criminal trespass occurs during the commission of another crime, like an assault, or when property is purposefully damaged.

I guess it depends on where you live. Out here in the west it's a criminal offense and it gets prosecuted that way, although usually it's plead-out to a petty offense for first offenders.

Gun nuts like to think they can shoot whomever steps on their grass.

Wow! You must know some real psychopaths. Did you meet them in the hospital during group session?

They're assholes though, and should be publicly flayed when they try to project their legal and ballistic fantasies onto others. The only thing stopping some of them is the strong deterrent of competent law enforcement...

I always went out armed with the Sheriff's deputy who came to arrest trespassers, and not one of them ever had a problem with my doing so. That's because they know what the fuck they are doing, and you don't.

The property owner is empowered to arrest any person trespassing on his land (I've done it dozens of times in my lifetime on the ranch)

Such puffery...
For the last 30 years or so, I've make a large fraction of my living trespassing on the lands of others. I still haven't met a landowner man enough to "arrest" me.

Well, being a surveyor, you generally have the protection of the law when making a survey, which makes it not a crime for you to trespass while doing your job. As for the other people you meet, they must be sheeple like you.

18-4-515. Entry to survey property - exception to criminal trespass

(1) Effective July 1, 1992, no person shall be in violation of the trespass laws of this part 5 if the requirements of this section are met. The provisions of this section provide an exception to the trespass laws only and do not affect or supersede the provisions and requirements of articles 1 to 7 of title 38, C.R.S., concerning condemnation proceedings, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary.

(2) Any person who is licensed as a professional land surveyor pursuant to section 12-25-214, C.R.S., or who is under the direct supervision of such a person as an employee, agent, or representative, may enter public or private land to investigate and utilize boundary evidence and to perform boundary surveys if the notice requirement in this subsection (2) is met. (continues...)

A US citizen is "empowered" to arrest anyone he thinks is committing a felony, BTW. Understandably, few avail themselves of this civic privilege.

Actually, that too depends on where you are. Citizen's arrest limited to felonies is common in the east, but out west here any "offense" (which is a synonym for "crime") gives a citizen the authority to arrest and turn the suspect over to the police or to a judge.

18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape



(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a peace officer is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary:

(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or

(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.

(2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:

(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes:

(I) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or

(II) Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or

(III) Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) (b) of this section shall be deemed to constitute justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

(4) For purposes of this section, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody. A peace officer who is effecting an arrest pursuant to a warrant is justified in using the physical force prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the warrant is invalid and is known by the officer to be invalid.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist him to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officer's direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not authorized.

(6) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (5) of this section may use deadly physical force to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:

(a) He reasonably believes that force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) He is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force and does not know, if that happens to be the case, that the peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances.

(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

(8) A guard or peace officer employed in a detention facility is justified:

(a) In using deadly physical force when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner convicted of, charged with, or held for a felony or confined under the maximum security rules of any detention facility as such facility is defined in subsection (9) of this section;

(b) In using reasonable and appropriate physical force, but not deadly physical force, in all other circumstances when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be the escape of a prisoner from a detention facility.

(9) "Detention facility" as used in subsection (8) of this section means any place maintained for the confinement, pursuant to law, of persons charged with or convicted of an offense, held pursuant to the "Colorado Children's Code", held for extradition, or otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court.

18-1-104. "Offense" defined - offenses classified - common-law crimes abolished



(1) The terms "offense" and "crime" are synonymous and mean a violation of, or conduct defined by, any state statute for which a fine or imprisonment may be imposed.

(2) Each offense falls into one of eleven classes. There are six classes of felonies as defined in section 18-1.3-401, three classes of misdemeanors as defined in section 18-1.3-501, and two classes of petty offenses as defined in section 18-1.3-503.

(3) Common-law crimes are abolished and no conduct shall constitute an offense unless it is described as an offense in this code or in another statute of this state, but this provision does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt, or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order lawfully entered, or a civil judgment or decree; nor does it affect the use of case law as an interpretive aid in the construction of the provisions of this code.

This means state laws, as distinguished from county or local ordinances, so I can't arrest you for throwing a lit cigarette butt on the sidewalk under the town ordinance against littering, but if you throw a butt out of your car I can arrest you on a misdemeanor offense and use reasonable and appropriate physical force to effect that arrest.

42-4-1406. Foreign matter on highway prohibited

(1) (a) No person shall throw or deposit upon or along any highway any glass bottle, glass, stones, nails, tacks, wire, cans, container of human waste, or other substance likely to injure any person, animal, or vehicle upon or along such highway.

(b) No person shall throw, drop, or otherwise expel a lighted cigarette, cigar, match, or other burning material from a motor vehicle upon any highway.

(2) Any person who drops, or permits to be dropped or thrown, upon any highway or structure any destructive or injurious material or lighted or burning substance shall immediately remove the same or cause it to be removed.

(3) Any person removing a wrecked or damaged vehicle from a highway shall remove any glass or other injurious substance dropped upon the highway from such vehicle.

(4) No person shall excavate a ditch or other aqueduct, or construct any flume or pipeline or any steam, electric, or other railway, or construct any approach to a public highway without written consent of the authority responsible for the maintenance of that highway.

(5) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (5), any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.

(b) (I) Any person who violates any provision of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section commits a class 2 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

(II) Any person who violates paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section by throwing or depositing a container of human waste upon or along any highway shall be punished by a fine of five hundred dollars in lieu of the penalty and surcharge prescribed in section 42-4-1701 (4) (a) (I) (N).

(6) As used in this section:

(a) "Container" includes, but is not limited to, a bottle, a can, a box, or a diaper.

(b) "Human waste" means urine or feces produced by a human.

You really should quit trying to teach your grandpa to suck eggs, boy. I don't make claims about the law that I can't support with citations from the statutes. You should know that by now.

And "Chicken waste" is the substance which builds up on the corners of Grandpa Seth's mouth during a night of raiding his neighbors' hen houses....


Moving on, I behave and operate no differently in a state which has surveyor access laws, than the many which do not, like the one in which I learned the profession. I had an employer who lost a case and had to pay triple stumpage for some damaged scrub sweetgums growing up a fence line, and since then I've held to some simple rules in my practice which have served me well. I've also noted that criminal trespass charges are almost always associated with other criminal charges. The number of stand-alone misdemeanor or felony trespass charges will be vanishingly small in just about any US prosecutorial district. It's just not something that gets brought before a judge very often, sans a domestic or property damage or criminal space.

That being said, trespass to property is quite common in civil courts. Your dog kills your neighbor's chickens, or you build an ill-conceived drainage structure which diverts stormwater into your neighbor's living room - that sort of thing.



Lastly, you ain't ever going to arrest me for any reason, so stop pretending like you could.

[Seth]

Lastly, you ain't ever going to arrest me for any reason, so stop pretending like you could.

Give me a reason to bother to do so and we'll see about that.