trespassers may/will be shot?

[MountainBear]

My signs . If you enter this property without premission I will assume you are armed and will protect myself IAW with Washington state law

You had better be able to clarify to a jury exactly how the trespasser threatened you, otherwise your going to spend some time in the clink. An assumption the person is armed will not hold up in court.


--------------------------------------------

Castle doctrine, as I understand it, simply means you are not required to retreat from somewhere you have a legal right to be (different in different states, some places anywhere you legally are, other states it refers to your house, car, etc.).

Again, if you can't very clearly define how a trespasser threatened serious physical injury or death to you or your's, then you are not justified in using deadly physical force, not threatening it...

 

[huntpotter]

Looks like the lawyers are chipping away at your right to defend your property. If someone is trespassing on your property, they are most likely trying to steal from you. If they have enough disrespect to steal from you, who here thinks they might also try to physically harm you, if you try to stop them from stealing? The "lawyers, and jury" don't scare me. If they are trying to steal from my property, I'll beat the crap out of them. If they try to get down my hallway at night, they are going to get shot. Maybe a sign might deter the trespasser. Maybe they might think twice about breaking in, and back away. I know for a fact that when I've seen a "No trespassing, Violators will be shot" sign, I stay off that property. Huh? Novel concept. The problem is not the sign. The problem is the pro-criminal lawyers, and the money they are chasing.

 

[Riot]

You had better be able to clarify to a jury exactly how the trespasser threatened you, otherwise your going to spend some time in the clink. An assumption the person is armed will not hold up in court.

+1

 

[eriknemily]

The problem is the pro-criminal lawyers, and the money they are chasing.

Couldn't agree more with that statement!!!

 

[8ball]

How about "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"?

Seriously though, I think anything beyond "No trespassing" signs is a very bad idea. It's not pro-criminal lawyers I worry about but an overzealous DA who spins the sign into his tale of a gun-happy owner that shot two innocent kids who wandered onto a property by mistake...

It's the same logic as not plastering your car with pro-gun stickers or wearing a Glock t-shirt.

On a related topic, I note that cars with lots of bumper stickers are more likely to be involved in a road rage incident. Does the same thing apply to property signs?

Territorial Markings as a Predictor of Driver Aggression and Road Rage

Aggressive driving has received substantial media coverage during the past decade. We report 3 studies testing a territorial explanation of aggressive driving. Altman (1975) described attachment to, personalization of, and defense of primary territories (e.g., home) as being greater than for public territories (e.g., sunbathing spot on a beach). Aggressive driving may occur when social norms for defending a primary territory (i.e., one's automobile) become confused with less aggressive norms for defending a public territory (i.e., the road). Both number of territory markers (e.g., bumper stickers, decals) and attachment to the vehicle were significant predictors of aggressive driving. Mere presence of a territory marker predicts increased use of the vehicle to express anger and decreased use of adaptive/constructive expressions.

 

[longwayfromhome]

People actually pay money for these studies?
Sigh

How about "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again"?

Seriously though, I think anything beyond "No trespassing" signs is a very bad idea. It's not pro-criminal lawyers I worry about but an overzealous DA who spins the sign into his tale of a gun-happy owner that shot two innocent kids who wandered onto a property by mistake...

It's the same logic as not plastering your car with pro-gun stickers or wearing a Glock t-shirt.

On a related topic, I note that cars with lots of bumper stickers are more likely to be involved in a road rage incident. Does the same thing apply to property signs?

 

[ZeroRing]

A less aggressive sign to warn people to keep out I've seen said something like "Caution, Active firing range in use, Do Not Enter!"

THAT is a great sign! If someone "trespasses", well I suppose they were just "accidentally" ventilated. I mean, they WERE warned not to enter... right??

 

[Riot]

People actually pay money for these studies?
Sigh

Millions have been spent to find out why yawning is contagous...so yeah, people spend money on this crap. Most of it is paid for with federal grants...so that's probably your tax dollars as work too.

 

[soberups]

Signs like that are not only obnoxious, but are a open invitation to burglars who are now aware of the fact that there are firearms on the property.

 

[pinecenega]

I once saw a sign in New Mexico that read:

TRESSPASERS WILL BE SHOT. SURVIVORS WILL BE HUNTED DOWN AND HUNG

 

[orygun]

I always liked the one that said, "Never mind the dog. Beware of owner"!

 

[netsecsys]

I like:

There is nothing on this property worth more than your life
or
Thieves treated to a dirt nap. Blanket of lime included... (made this one up ; ) <-note the smiley face as it is meant as a joke

 

[CharonPDX]

If I recall Texas law correctly, you are allowed to shoot trespassers there. Which makes me glad I don't live in Texas. For the ultra-religious out there, remember, "an eye for an eye" was a plea for leniency.

 

[Gunner3456]

I'd be afraid to post a sign like that. You can get into a LOT of trouble for threatening someone with a gun, and I don't trust cops or prosecutors.

I do like the one about "Active firing range in use," because I have one.

 

[Burt Gummer]

You can hear a noise, run outside with a gun, see a trespasser snooping around in your backyard - but cannot point a gun at him.

All of this is why I haven't gone CHL. The consequences of carrying outweigh the benefits in a legal climate that is entirely anti-gun under the surface.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

You can hear a noise, run outside with a gun, see a trespasser snooping around in your backyard - but cannot point a gun at him.

All of this is why I haven't gone CHL. The consequences of carrying outweigh the benefits in a legal climate that is entirely anti-gun under the surface.

To quote somebody else. 'it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6'.

Respectfully, not sure where carrying outweighs not carrying if you act properly according to the law. They arent that tough to understand/follow.

 

[Misterbill]

Signs that threaten to do an illegal act are stupid and can get you in a lot of hot water. Especially the stupid ones like "We don't call 911."

If you Do shoot someone and there is any question whatever about the justification, a sign like that can mean the difference between walking away and getting prosecuted. Or winning and losing a civil suit.

"No Trespassing," is more than sufficient.

 

[Misterbill]

You can hear a noise, run outside with a gun, see a trespasser snooping around in your backyard - but cannot point a gun at him.

All of this is why I haven't gone CHL. The consequences of carrying outweigh the benefits in a legal climate that is entirely anti-gun under the surface.

You most certainly CAN point a gun at him. -IF you can relate for the cops a reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily injury. Merely possessing a gun while investigating a trespassing incident is not a crime. No one says you have to point it at the guy unless you are afraid he's going to hurt you. If so, you are golden.

 

[Riot]

You most certainly CAN point a gun at him. -IF you can relate for the cops a reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily injury. Merely possessing a gun while investigating a trespassing incident is not a crime. No one says you have to point it at the guy unless you are afraid he's going to hurt you. If so, you are golden.

Depends on the cop. I went to investigate someone banging on my wife's car at 2am (some drunk waiting for his friend to drive the car around to pick him up thought he was locked out). I brought my Glock 27 with me. During a polygraph exam, they asked the question if I had "ever been involved in any incident involving a firearm" and I described the aforementioned incident and was basically scolded out of the interview. I guess everyone just wants you to huddle in the corner and call the police....even the police. I was told that I brought a firearm into a non-deadly situation and could have escalated to a deadly force encounter when one wasn't warranted.

I guess if you hear a bump in the night you are supposed to go look, see that it is a bad guy raping your child, then go get your gun because NOW you can shoot him.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

^ must be nice to be able to see into the future. I'm sure the cop didn't have a gun when he responded, as it was a non-deadly situation?