Trespassing is not a capital crime. Even with warning he can be charged. Act of shooting is pre-meditated, and they posed no imminent threat, so unless they were armed, the best he can hope for is to plead out. Insanely stupid.

Better to turn the dogs loose.

 

Trespassing is not a Capitol crime. Even with warning he can be charged. Act of shooting is pre-meditated, and they posed no imminent threat, so unless they were armed, the best he can hope for is to plead out. Insanely stupid.

Better to turn the dogs loose.

In that spaghetti-western scenario, the outnumbered land owner never makes it to trail.
If he did, see above.

 

Hung by 1 here

 

REALLY…
Several men running toward You on Your Private Property after they have been warned to LEAVE… Pose No Threat…HMMM…

 

Day or night? Night = mischief in the night, a shootable offense in Texas. Fear for your life is just that. Any reasonable jury, seeing that 8 guys were rushing you on posted property, would understand. The flaw in the scenario is you said they'd be shot, so you gave them reason to fear for their lives. Leave that out, and good to go.

 

maybe not, Texas Self-defense Laws - When Is Use Of Force Permissible? not a crime in tx.

if it were me on jury, i'd nullify any charges against homeowner...

i actually got kicked off jury selection when i brought that up during voir dire, all the jurors heard my argument, attorney's **** themselves and judge blew a gasket, had deputies escort me out...

 

if it were me on jury, i'd nullify any charges against homeowner...

+1. Jury nullification was my first thought too.

 

I suppose award the homeowner a medal is not a choice? Break thru a fence, in my mind, means up to no good. Not like it was an oppsie stepping on somebody's lawn in a 'burb.

liebrecht

 

The first thing that enters my mind is "were there any witnesses". 😎

 

No charge against the defendant, no money awarded to the plaintiff.
They were warned and then they seemingly charged in.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

Not guilty. Even land mines and booby traps would be ok with me. Protecting our country from illegal invasion is ok with me.

 

 

Honestly I would hang the jury.

So in this scenario......let's unpack this......lets say the land owner shoots a kills a person...... I totally get private property rights.....so does that person being shot include a woman or a child?

Also even though the all the warnings are there......if that person we shot at more than "danger close" a jury can interpret that as pre-meditation and go for a murder conviction.....although Texas might not......the Biden administration would put you in court federally to justify their open border policy.

Also....a slip an fall attorney would take that land owner to the cleaners in a court of law if that property title was not properly structured.

Anyway you slice this scenario it's a loose, loose, loose scenario there is no good outcome.

HK

 

All efforts would be SSS, no trial.

 

You are on a jury. The defendant owns property on the US southern border. The land is posted in English and Spanish. The land is also fenced eight foot high with barbed wire at the top. A small group of men gain access and are well within the perimeter.

The defendant broadcast over speakers in English and Spanish warning the trespassers to leave the same way they came in or they will be shot.

They continue to come but at a run.

The defendant shoots and kills one or more and injure others, none in the back.

Good overview, but there are a lot of details in every criminal / civil matter that make the difference.

Do you find the defendant guilty of any criminal charge

What does the criminal statute and common law state where the trial is occuring? Trial by the feds? Trial by a state?

The Southern land border of the United States is composed of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

As a juror, I would follow the law, unless I perceived a serious miscarriage of justice that would convince me to nullify.

or do you award the plaintiffs any money?

Presuming the plaintiff(s) are the trespassers / family of the dead trespassers?

Were the trespassers armed? Is there a history of trespassers committing felonies upon your land? Were the trespassers fleeing Mexican cartels? Were they fleeing from corrupt Mexican military / police? etc.

 

Good overview, but there are a lot of details in every criminal / civil matter that make the difference.



What does the criminal statute and common law state where the trial is occuring? Trial by the feds? Trial by a state?

The Southern land border of the United States is composed of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

As a juror, I would follow the law, unless I perceived a serious miscarriage of justice that would convince me to nullify.



Presuming the plaintiff(s) are the trespassers / family of the dead trespassers?

Were the trespassers armed? Is there a history of trespassers committing felonies upon your land? Were the trespassers fleeing Mexican cartels? Were they fleeing from corrupt Mexican military / police? etc.

I DGAF! If you must come here use the front door. If you are in imminent danger; when confronted by the landowner stop running towards him and explain the situation. Otherwise GTFO my country.

 

We now live in upside down world. Where even defending your home from foreign invaders is illegal, and the government will take your home, send you to prison, destroy your family - AND pay massive retribution to the invaders.

 

Not guilty.
They cut the fense, tresspassed on my land, then responded to my command to leave by running at me (evidence of physical attack). Conclussion: I have every right to defend myself.
I do not live on the border, but any group trys that will be be met with deadly force.

 

I won't get selected for a jury. But, announcing your intention to use deadly force may nullify spur of the moment defense.

 

That's the problem (in my state). If you escalate then confront, it's an issue. Even if they are trespassing, and you announce shoot-to-kill, you have escalated. You have to wait for them to go beyond simple trespass. Rushing a homeowner, with a full squad, over a well-defined no-trespass barrier, is a no-brainer for a jury. Just don't escalate, they have to. Respect OP from other posts, guessing there's a motive behind his post... @PalmettoTree you don't post random what-if's...

 

You are on a jury. The defendant owns property on the US southern border. The land is posted in English and Spanish. The land is also fenced eight foot high with barbed wire at the top. A small group of men gain access and are well within the perimeter.

The defendant broadcast over speakers in English and Spanish warning the trespassers to leave the same way they came in or they will be shot.

They continue to come but at a run.

The defendant shoots and kills one or more and injure others, none in the back.

Do you find the defendant guilty of any criminal charge or do you award the plaintiffs any money?

If you meant they were coming AT the homeowner, then we may start entering Self-defense territory.

Distance would matter and are they armed?
Even a baseball bat is considered a deadly weapon, however, I'm thinking a jury, under a judges instructions, would need to determine if someone with a baseball bat is a threat at 100 yards, 50 yards, 25 yards...... a few feet away, is pretty easy to convince the homeowner's perception that his life-limb was in danger.
It's always asked, "What would a reasonable person think or do" in whatever the circumstance.
See: The Reasonable Man Test

I think, like the jury, we'd need more details and specifics.

 

I would argue that many people in the group constitutes a gang and that fearing for life/deadly force is reasonable

 

Nope,no reason to split hairs with legalese mumbo jumbo,NOT GUILTY,in fact any living person that shows up to court looking for a payday that was present on said trespassing lock them up while we're at it.

 

The OP said, they were running at the homeowner. Based on that, I vote not guilty. If it were nighttime even better.

Hell, you know with the way things are going I would vote NG no matter what the guy did, I don't care much about the law any more, I care about what is right.

 

Lex Talionis....

 

First of all, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. I’m in no way qualified to give ANYONE legal advice.

So to answer your question, If I’m on a jury, I’m given instructions to follow the letter of the law. I’m going to follow the letter of the law, whether I personally agree with it or not. Personally, I don’t believe we should tell an 18 year old he can vote or join the army, but he can’t buy a beer. That being said, I will find him guilty if he is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been in possession of alcohol.

The law WHERE I LIVE says a person can’t legally use deadly force, just for trespassing, with no other factors involved. Now if those trespassers are running at me with bloody machetes, in their hands, that’s different.

On a side note, I’m not Charles Bronson, Rambo or Clint Eastwood. I don’t want to walk a mile in the shoes of George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse. Yes, they were found not guilty, and rightfully so, but I don’t envy them a bit. I’m chicken. Give me a way out and I’ll take it.

 

I am sorry to say it, but you and people just like you are why we are here now. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything and cowards experience death a thousand times. Jury nullification is our right especially in times like these when the laws are evil.

 

Heh... Some of the above (and soon, below) reads like a collection of keyboard lawyers, sympathizers and would-be perpetrators of manslaughter. I see it as too few facts in evidence there Mr. Tree.

First off: What state? California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, or Florida? The outcome of your hypothetical case will depend greatly upon what state and county the trial is held. The jury will be instructed to weigh facts in evidence by a judge that is following the laws of that state. Second, while criminal trespass is a crime, it will be adjudicated in varying degrees, so there would have to be an abundance of evidence to show imminent threat of life and/or property.

So, help fill in the blanks for us ~

How did the defendant fully evaluate the alleged threat so as to make an informed decision?

How could he be absolutely sure it was the alleged trespassers who made the hole in the fence?

Was the defendant's life and/or property in fact, in mortal danger? If so, how could he be certain?

Did he have any interaction with any of the people before gunning them down? Suppose they were Pilipino, or Greek, or Portuguese and didn't speak English or Spanish?

They could have just escaped their captors, were panicked, delirious and they were seeking political asylum.

Were the victims armed? If so, with what? Did they have a history of violence? If not and no, then there's that too...

These are just some of the questions that require examination and cross before a jury panel can make a decision on your hypothetical case.

Back to you!


Disclosure: not a lawyer.

BTW, just so y'all know, I think the McCloskey's were well within their legal rights to defend their residence the way they did in St Louis. The charges against them should have never been brought - full-stop.

 

Your scenario says group of men, forced entry, running toward me, i assume, my life is in danger, how i see it. innocent .

 

Based up on lack of detail, I will finish telling the OP's scenario in 2 different ways.
We will pick it up where there is a supposed loud-speaker, and they are told to stop, turnaround and leave.

1- The men, as they run toward the house, hear a loudspeaker, but, because they are running as fast as they can, and the wind is blowing,
they can't quite make out what they hear from the loud speaker. They keep running toward the house.
As they approach closer, they get within distance to be lit better by the outside lights, and they see the homeowner with a rifle pointed at them,
and hear him yelling, "Stop or I'll shoot!".
The men, stop in their tracks, put their hands up in the air, and say,
"Mister Mister!! There is a big fire just over the hill, it's burning fast and heading this way, please, please call the fire department!!!"

-----------

2-The men, as they run toward the house, hear a loudspeaker, but, because they are running as fast as they can, and the wind is blowing,
they can't quite make out what they hear from the loud speaker. They keep running toward the house.
As they approach closer, they get within distance to be lit better by the outside lights, they see the homeowner with a rifle pointed at them,
and hear him yelling, "Stop or I'll shoot!". The homeowner can see they are armed with a machete, baseball bat, and a piece of steel pipe.
They keep coming at him, he has no choice, they get within 10 yards of him and he takes aim and fires!
Kills one of them, injures another, and two more stop, and put their hands up, "saying, don't shoot, don't shoot!".


The point here, is, that you need to determine what is going on, before you defend yourself, or shoot an innocent person.

Then, the case has to be presented, with facts and details, outlining that you were in the right, and abiding by the law.

 

You have to maybe make a decision in seconds maybe 30 seconds of them and innocent or not ... You breach a 8 foot fence and not comply with verbal commands ... Game on IMHO

 

In many states if you blatantly threaten trespassers with deadly force you are the aggressor and not the victim. That's why I say turn the dogs loose so they can do their job.

You then post your property GUARD DOG ON PREMISES and rely on flood lights, alarms and motion detectors. Stay inside and lock your doors. State Police on speed dial. Much cheaper than a criminal trial and wrongful death lawsuit.

I have served on a trial jury where a victim of push-in robbery responded with deadly force and was acquitted. I also testified as a witness in two trials where homeowners exited their dwellings to confront intruders, escalating the situation and were convicted of being stupid. One woman was recently paroled after serving 8 years for second degree homicide in Virginia. The other male ninja warrior wannabe with big mouth and bad attitude is serving life without parole in WV for first degree murder. He is lucky because WV doesn't have the death penalty. He gets unlimited tomato soup with saltines, apples, pb&j sandwiches and free tats for life.

 

In many states if you blatantly threaten trespassers with deadly force you are the aggressor and not the victim. That's why I say turn the dogs loose so they can do their job.

And in many states, you not only THREATENED deadly force….you USED it, and thus committed assault, possibly attempted homicide, and probably 12 other felonies.

Dogs, guns….all the same once people get hurt, whether you opened a door or pulled a trigger.

 

Guilty. There are so many less than lethal methods available. First lights, then dogs, concertina wire, three stack. They dont want on your property, they want in the country. Let them go around your place.

 

Where one lives is really important here. We live in Georgia.

The Georgia Stand Your Ground Law
Official Code of Georgia 16-3-23.1 is known as the “use of force in defense of habitation, property, self, or others—no duty to retreat.” This is what it says. A person who uses threats or force in accordance with code section 16-3-21, which is the use of force in defense of self or others, 16-3-23, which is the use of force in defense of habitation, or 16-3-24, which is the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in those code sections, including deadly force.

What that means is if you are justified in using threats of force, force, or deadly force to protect yourself or others, to protect your habitation, your home, your car, your place of business, or to protect your property other than your habitation, the law in Georgia says you have no duty to retreat and you can stand your ground and exercise that level of force, including deadly force, so long as you are justified in the use of that force. Whether you’re justified in the use of that force or not depends on the statute that you rely upon in using it. For instance, if you use deadly force against another person to protect yourself, you can only stand your ground if you’re justified in using that level of force.

The above is the law here and it is quite clear.

So as they cut an opening through a fence and when warned they didn't stop; IMO, they crossed a line.


Doing harm to my Pitts would not be wise and adds to making the use of force justifiable.
Going around my property was good advice and would be wise. As they cut through a fence demonstrated they wanted more than just to be in this country.
As you said going around your place would have been common sense. IF all they wanted was to be in this country.

 

Just to nitpick Capitol capital

 

Yes, it is murder.
You just shot trespassers.
Trespassing is a misdemeanor.
You cannot use deadly force to stop someone from committing a misdemeanor.

 

Big point being missed by you.....You CAN shoot anyone if you believe your life is in danger. 4 strangers running towards you at night on your property would be more than enough for any sane person to open fire. And rightfully so.