"If you can read this, your in range!"

[gregthehand]

That's what the land owners no tresspassing signs say, next to a friend of mines land. Normally I just chaulk it up to some guy being a little bit over-protective, and nothing more. That was until Monday. Just a little background here... My friend is actually the girlfriend of a guy I work with. I hang out with both though so I consider her a friend. Last weekend at about 2am the guy I work with, and 2 other co-workers were out driving around and just killing time on backroads. They in-advertently drove down a dirt road that belonged to this guy (no gate, and if there was a sign, it was not visible in the dark). They drove down to the river walked around and checked things out, and then started driving back to the house. Right before they got back to the main road someone spot lighted them before they turned. They just thought it was someone messing around and drove off. The next morning the neighbor came over to my friends house to ask if they knew who was driving down his road. My friend told him it was himself and two others, and that he did not know it was a private road, and that he was sorry, but there was no damage done so no big deal. He said he would make a not and not do it again. The man then became belligerent, and told him that NOBODY was to come on his land period. He then told my friend "If you had not driven off I was going to shoot the driver in the head first, then anyone else that got out of the truck after that." He then said that he packs all the time and pulled a pistol out of his pocket and showed it to them. My friend relayed this to me and asked my opionion since he knows I worked as a cop. I told them that they had commited a minor crime (Criminal Tresspass Class C), but the man had created a bigger one by saying that he was going to kill them (Terroristic Threat Class B). Anyway I was thinking about it and was wondering what I would do if I had been there. Would I have called the police? Would I have just corrected the man, told him no it's a "myth" that you can just shoot someone who is on your property. Or would I just walk away and decide that this guy is stupid and I probably can't help him. I fealt very angry that this man threatened my friend like this. I also feel that this guy has probably never actually shot at anyone, because those who have realize how serious taking a life is, and don't do it without just cause (unless they are crazy). Anyway what are your opinions? How would you handle it?

[casselthief]

more often than not, belligerent people can not be reasoned with.
A high-brow approach would be to just leave a HandGun law book in his mailbox, hilighting the infractions he made.
better yet, call the cops. even admitting the trespassing thing, I don't think the cops would be mind knowing that this guy literally is a nut with a gun.

[hi-power]

Your friend should have known better, but stuff happens. It's not an excuse to threaten to shoot him. No harm-no foul.

Sounds like this landowner was looking for trouble. What is he doing up spotlighting cars at 2am? If he has zero tolerance for people driving on his road, he should put up a darn gate with a lock on it like normal people.

Now, if someone cuts the lock and drives through the gate, they're not joyriding anymore in my book.

Edited to add: I guess I'd just leave it be. Yes, I'd be mad about getting threatened, but it'll be much more of a drain on time and temperament if he takes the coot to court.

[nitrogen]

I don't know if the law recognises the difference, but in my mind, there's a difference between my habitation, and my land.

Someone tracking through my front or back yard is a nuisance that I will probably stick my head out my front door and yell, "GET OFF MAH LAWN" like an old man. Not even worth brandishing my cane.

Much different if someone walks into my house uninvited.

If I owned a couple acres, and I caught someone trespassing, I'd probably treat them the same way assuming they left peaceably like you did. If they did not leave peaceably, I'd probably consider other options.

[Rex B]

I'd have a private chat with the local LEO first chance I get. Likely this guy is a known quanitiy with them. They need to add this incident to their "inventory" on the guy, in case something happens later on.
And could be a couple of them could drop by one afternoon and nicely discuss gun laws with the guy.

[kw5kw]

First, Greg, you need to break your story up with some returns, it was sure difficult to read.

Second: As Paul Harvey says, "[What's] the rest of the story?" There has to be a reason this land owner is so protective of his property.

My son-in-law has a ranch in which at least one of his animals has been shot (recently) at night, you bet he's-a-gonna investigate his property with a weapon to prevent such from happening in the future. The value of this animal would be > $3,000.00. Perp has not been caught yet. Sheriff's looking for him tho.

And, he's has his gates opened so that his animals can 'escape' and he has to get up and put them back in; gates that are LOCKED mind you, you bet he's going to investigate because nobody wishes to hit a LARGE buffalo on the highway.

We can't condemn on one side of the story, we need to know more as your story could be about my son-in-law just trying to protect his investment in his buffalo.

Russ

[Mithras61]

I thought that you are not trespassing unless you are informed not to enter (e.g. - a "No Trespassing" sign or a "Private Road" sign in plain view). That is, unless there is a sign, a gate or some other means of indicating that it was a private road you, you aren't trepassing.

Is my understanding of the situation incorrect? I mean, if it isn't posted or gated, how are you supposed to know it wasn't just another dirt road?

[Rex B]

Well, common sense would indicate it's on belongs to SOMEone, and you know it doesn't belong to you, and it isn't marked as a public thoroughfare.

Unless I knew it was public land, I'd have to assume it was private and therefore I'd be trespassing, with some legal exceptions that are outside this discussion.

[txinvestigator]

Well, common sense would indicate it's on belongs to SOMEone, and you know it doesn't belong to you, and it isn't marked as a public thoroughfare.

Unless I knew it was public land, I'd have to assume it was private and therefore I'd be trespassing, with some legal exceptions that are outside this discussion.

Texas Penal Code

§30.05. Criminal trespass.

(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or
in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another
without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of
another without effective consent and he:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.

(2) "Notice" means:

(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone
with apparent authority to act for the owner;

(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude
intruders or to contain livestock;

(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance
to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of
intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

(D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees
or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:

(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length
and not less than one inch in width;

(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than
three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and

(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any
person approaching the property and no more than:

(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or

(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land; or

(E) the visible presence on the property of a crop grown for
human consumption that is under cultivation, in the process of being
harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time of entry.

besides, criminal trespass is NOT a justification for deadly force.

[kw5kw]

besides, criminal trespass is NOT a justification for deadly force.

No, but the wanton killing of my son-in-law's livestock at night time falls under:

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably be-lieves the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be pro-tected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or an-other to a substantial risk of death or se-rious bodily injury.

If the livestock was shot and killed at night, would that not fall in the above statute?

[txinvestigator]

besides, criminal trespass is NOT a justification for deadly force.

No, but the wanton killing of my son-in-law's livestock at night time falls under:

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably be-lieves the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be pro-tected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or an-other to a substantial risk of death or se-rious bodily injury.

If the livestock was shot and killed at night, would that not fall in the above statute?

You know, livestock IS specifically mentioned in the criminal mischief statute, so yeah, that makes sense. And if the livestock were being SHOT, that pretty much takes care of the "reasonably believed it is was immediately necessary to use deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of....."

[gregthehand]

Just to clear up a few statements from above...

-I was not the one he spoke to, or dealt with. I know better than to go tracking around at night down roads that don't look public.

- The man has no animals being shot, or stuff being broken into. He's old, and a retired doctor. I guess he has nothing better to do then to look for trouble.

I think I would have told him that you can't shoot someone for tresspassing on a dirt road, and if he threatened me again I would go down to the DA's office and fill out a complaint myself. My family does own land, and we do have livesock. We have incidents with people shooting at our cows (very high $ ones) and we just deal with it. I carry a gun on me at the ranch, but then again I carry a weapon with me everywhere I go. I have caught numerous people on our property over the years. Everytime I just tell them they need to leave, and that they are tresspassing. I think acting like the man did in this case, just invites more confrontation. People will get mad that he said what he said or threatened him. Therefore there is a good chance they will mess with him in order to extract some kind of justice for threatening their life.

[Mithras61]

Well, common sense would indicate it's on belongs to SOMEone, and you know it doesn't belong to you, and it isn't marked as a public thoroughfare.

Unless I knew it was public land, I'd have to assume it was private and therefore I'd be trespassing, with some legal exceptions that are outside this discussion.

Well, yes, but public roads belong to the state, correct? I'm coming at this from the viewpoint that not all public roads are marked (since they aren't!). Therefore private roads need to be marked as such or it's reasonable to suppose that they are public.

[wrt45]

Well, common sense would indicate it's on belongs to SOMEone, and you know it doesn't belong to you, and it isn't marked as a public thoroughfare.

If you come to my house from the north, you would be on an un-marked caliche road from the pavement to a point about 1/3 mile from my private road. From where the caliche runs out until you get to my road it is just a rough dirt road.......but its a public road, you'd just never think so by looking at it.

When you get to my place you can go right onto my private road....which looks just like the public road, or you can go left on the county road which is indistinguishable from my private road. No signs, no gates.

Maybe in suburbia or metropolis it is clear where public roads/land ends and private begins, but not out here. That said, there's no excuse for reckless conduct like that described. Gate it and post it, then confront the trespasser.

[kw5kw]

Just to clear up a few statements from above...

-I was not the one he spoke to, or dealt with. I know better than to go tracking around at night down roads that don't look public.

- The man has no animals being shot, or stuff being broken into. He's old, and a retired doctor. I guess he has nothing better to do then to look for trouble.

I think I would have told him that you can't shoot someone for tresspassing on a dirt road, and if he threatened me again I would go down to the DA's office and fill out a complaint myself. My family does own land, and we do have livesock. We have incidents with people shooting at our cows (very high $ ones) and we just deal with it. I carry a gun on me at the ranch, but then again I carry a weapon with me everywhere I go. I have caught numerous people on our property over the years. Everytime I just tell them they need to leave, and that they are tresspassing. I think acting like the man did in this case, just invites more confrontation. People will get mad that he said what he said or threatened him. Therefore there is a good chance they will mess with him in order to extract some kind of justice for threatening their life.

In your story you did not have livestock being shot, however, as my son-in-law has been in exactly the same condition as you described and he had livestock shot and killed then I introduced an argument from the other side of your argument.

One must remember that there is always a counter-argument.

Russ