Teen Geocacher shot in leg for tresspassing?

[+sbell111]

In California, in order for it to be voluntary manslaughter, he would have had to be provoked.

 

Unreasonable self defense will also get you there. (People v. Blakeley.) Given the verdict in this case, it would seem likely to me.

Provocation could be anything at all. Whether that provocation would have caused him to act rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured his reasoning or judgment, AND if the provocation would have caused an average person to act rashly and without due deliberation is the question.

[+Team Firenze]

The sentence doled out by the old man was too harsh. Attempted murder of an unarmed kid who accidentally wandered onto your property?

Having a gun fired at you creates mental trauma, not to mention physical injury.

 

The other day I ran across the following sign, which appears to be on newly aquired public property.

 

 

There are some very special people out there..

 

"Attempted murder"?

Certainly, had he actually killed the teen, a charge of murder would have been appropiate. As such, I see no problem categorizing what he did do as attempted murder.

But from the story that we have been given, he did not attempt murder. He attempted to chase some people off his land. He most certainly was not found guilty of attempted murder, at the very least.

 

I don't know about all the different types of murder but saying he was trying to do anything less than attempted "killing" is BS. He shot at them 7 times with a deadly weapon. Again, these weren't warning shots in the air, he aimed the weapon and shot 7 times.

[+Team Firenze]

Is all this “what constitutes trespassing” really worth someone’s life? No matter how well someone may know the law if ya get shot and killed for going after a geocache on someone’s property without their permission, they may be in jail but you will be just as dead. Perhaps going the extra distance to be sure could go a long way to preventing tragedy. It is obvious this old man made a stupid decision to shoot but that does not make him a bad person, just scared and foolish. Going after a geocache on private land without permission is also rather foolish. And no they should get shot for it but being right does not always save ones life.

 

Not a bad person????????? What kind of people are you hanging out with???

[+sbell111]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

Edited November 3, 2011 by sbell111

[+brokenoaks]

Is all this “what constitutes trespassing” really worth someone’s life? No matter how well someone may know the law if ya get shot and killed for going after a geocache on someone’s property without their permission, they may be in jail but you will be just as dead. Perhaps going the extra distance to be sure could go a long way to preventing tragedy. It is obvious this old man made a stupid decision to shoot but that does not make him a bad person, just scared and foolish. Going after a geocache on private land without permission is also rather foolish. And no they should get shot for it but being right does not always save ones life.

 

Not a bad person????????? What kind of people are you hanging out with???

 

I will not be sucked in to trying to justify what this old man did. Nor will I condone trespassers regardless of how it’s defined. I may not shoot you for it but stepping on my land without permission is trespassing. As to your question, I have seen the face of true evil and have developed an opinion of what I consider a “bad person” as opposed to someone who makes poor decisions. I no longer hang out with the bad people.

[+Bamilbis]

I may not shoot you for it but stepping on my land without permission is trespassing.

 

Your neighbor coming to your door to see what you're doing this weekend is trespassing?

 

A kid going to your door to sell school fundraising stuff is trespassing?

 

A political voulenteer coming to your door to raise awareness is trespassing?

 

A cop going to your door to investigate a local crime is trespassing?

 

A kid going in your yard to retreive a ball is trespassing?

 

A meter reader taking a power / water reading is trespassing?

 

Airplane crash survivors on your land are trespassing?

 

A broken down motorist asking to use your phone is trespassing?

 

I'm sure ya get the point. I'm glad you don't shoot any of the above at least. Mr. Heim should have read this thread.

[GOF and Bacall]

I can't figure out why everyone is so hot to debate whether or not these people were trespassing. Even if what they were doing is legally definable as trespassing I don't think there is anyplace in the country where that makes it acceptable to shoot them.

[+Sky King 36]

...but stepping on my land without permission is trespassing.

Not to veer way off topic again, but this may be an interesting aside for cachers to be aware of:

 

In most states, this is not true, entry onto private land is not trespassing. Unlike inside a home, in most states, criminal trespass only occurs when someone "enters onto, or remains on, your land after having been notified that such entry is forbidden." As was discussed in another thread, in California, you must actually enter onto the same land owner's land THREE times in order to constitute a criminal trespass. The first and second violations are ticketed as non-criminal infractions (like a parking ticket), and a third violation is a misdemeanor.

 

In most, but certainly not all states, the general rule is:

• It's usually not criminal trespassing unless someone enters, or remains on private property after being warned or notified.
• Force (any force, not just deadly) cannot be used if a person is freely attempting to leave your property, nor can it be used to detain them if they are trying to freely leave. If they refuse to leave, only the minimum force required to make them leave can be used.
• In most states trespassing on land and trespassing inside a building, especially a home, is entirely different. States assume that 99.9% of trespasses on land are accidental, and so give the trespasser a lot of leeway... And that 99.9% of trespasses in a home are with criminal intent, and thus, state laws give very different treatment to each.

[+geodarts]

As was discussed in another thread, in California, you must actually enter onto the same land owner's land THREE times in order to constitute a criminal trespass. The first and second violations are ticketed as non-criminal infractions (like a parking ticket), and a third violation is a misdemeanor.

 

An infraction is defined as a "crime and public offense" in California that is committed in violation of the law. (PC 15, 16.) Parking tickets are different because they are civil offenses, rather than being infractions within the criminal justice system.

 

The scenario described above occurs if you cross a fence or properly posted land or enter any land under cultivation without written permission. In this situation, you do not have to be told to leave -- you are guilty of a public offense that is punished as an infraction. After three times, people get tired of you and the act rises to a misdemeanor. (PC 602.8)

 

There are quicker ways to get to a misdemeanor trespass, such as refusing to leave land upon request. (PC 602.)

 

Although notice is generally an element of trespassing, jurisdictions have different ways of defining it. In Illinois, for instance, you have received sufficient notice if "a printed or written notice forbidding such entry has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the main entrance to such land or the forbidden part thereof."

 

So before you plan to trespass you probably should check the applicable law for your state.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

[+brokenoaks]

It is as simple as this: trespassing is the act of being on property without permission from the owner or lessee. Subject to state and local laws it is up to that owner or lessee what action may or may not be taken against the trespasser. Just because the law chooses to not prosecute trespass under most circumstances doesn’t give anyone the right to simply wander through anyone’s private property. How about a little respect for the property owner and simply ask before placing or searching a cache?

[4wheelin_fool]

The old man is lucky to be alive. If the kid was armed, he could have shot back, and with better aim.

Edited November 3, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[knowschad]

The sentence doled out by the old man was too harsh. Attempted murder of an unarmed kid who accidentally wandered onto your property?

Having a gun fired at you creates mental trauma, not to mention physical injury.

 

The other day I ran across the following sign, which appears to be on newly aquired public property.

 

 

There are some very special people out there..

 

"Attempted murder"?

Certainly, had he actually killed the teen, a charge of murder would have been appropiate. As such, I see no problem categorizing what he did do as attempted murder.

But from the story that we have been given, he did not attempt murder. He attempted to chase some people off his land. He most certainly was not found guilty of attempted murder, at the very least.

 

I don't know about all the different types of murder but saying he was trying to do anything less than attempted "killing" is BS. He shot at them 7 times with a deadly weapon. Again, these weren't warning shots in the air, he aimed the weapon and shot 7 times.

 

Where did you get that information? It sure wasn't in the article, nor in any other information I have been able to find online. Citations, please, if you insist on making that sort of claim.

[knowschad]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

That is far from true. There are many considerations besides the simple guilty or not guilty that go into sentencing, including character.

[+Bamilbis]

I believe this is his source. Post #198 of this thread.

 

 

I asked the cacher, (that went back with the father of the kid that was hit in the leg, back to the cache site) how come they couldn't get attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon for the teenager. He told me they couldn't prove that the old man was actually aiming at the kid. I really believe this guy took a shot at them and hit the kid directly and not a ricochet. The kid was knocked down to the ground. The guy yelled at them, then went to his car to grab the gun(22 rifle with scope) and shot 7 rounds at them. I think this guys' sentence is deserved. I still question the private property issue too, as he was renting the place. I'm just glad he didn't kill the kid. The adults didn't even know the kid was shot until they got back to the car. The kid started to lose feeling in his leg. The bullet burned its way in because there wasn't any blood. Just a little black hole and a rip in his pants.

 

One scary encounter while geocaching. Hope we never hear of things like this happening again. Stay safe out there and be aware of your surroundings.

[knowschad]

Is all this "what constitutes trespassing" really worth someone's life? No matter how well someone may know the law if ya get shot and killed for going after a geocache on someone's property without their permission, they may be in jail but you will be just as dead. Perhaps going the extra distance to be sure could go a long way to preventing tragedy. It is obvious this old man made a stupid decision to shoot but that does not make him a bad person, just scared and foolish. Going after a geocache on private land without permission is also rather foolish. And no they should get shot for it but being right does not always save ones life.

 

Not a bad person????????? What kind of people are you hanging out with???

 

I daresay that if you were an old man that lived alone out in the desert, and had experiences with drug dealers hanging out, coming down onto your property and stealing stuff that you might have reacted similarly. What the old desert rat did was wrong (by today's standards and laws, although that hasn't always been true), but I can at least empathize a little for his side of things, just as I can empathize with those that were shot at (and shot). Life isn't as black & white as you seem to make it out to be.

[+Team Firenze]

The sentence doled out by the old man was too harsh. Attempted murder of an unarmed kid who accidentally wandered onto your property?

Having a gun fired at you creates mental trauma, not to mention physical injury.

 

The other day I ran across the following sign, which appears to be on newly aquired public property.

 

 

There are some very special people out there..

 

"Attempted murder"?

Certainly, had he actually killed the teen, a charge of murder would have been appropiate. As such, I see no problem categorizing what he did do as attempted murder.

But from the story that we have been given, he did not attempt murder. He attempted to chase some people off his land. He most certainly was not found guilty of attempted murder, at the very least.

 

I don't know about all the different types of murder but saying he was trying to do anything less than attempted "killing" is BS. He shot at them 7 times with a deadly weapon. Again, these weren't warning shots in the air, he aimed the weapon and shot 7 times.

 

Where did you get that information? It sure wasn't in the article, nor in any other information I have been able to find online. Citations, please, if you insist on making that sort of claim.

 

The 7 shots was based on a post by another member. The aiming part I take as a safe assumption since he actually hit one of the people. TBH he could have fired 6 warning shots AFAIK but regardless it only takes one shot to kill.

[+Team Firenze]

Is all this "what constitutes trespassing" really worth someone's life? No matter how well someone may know the law if ya get shot and killed for going after a geocache on someone's property without their permission, they may be in jail but you will be just as dead. Perhaps going the extra distance to be sure could go a long way to preventing tragedy. It is obvious this old man made a stupid decision to shoot but that does not make him a bad person, just scared and foolish. Going after a geocache on private land without permission is also rather foolish. And no they should get shot for it but being right does not always save ones life.

 

Not a bad person????????? What kind of people are you hanging out with???

 

I daresay that if you were an old man that lived alone out in the desert, and had experiences with drug dealers hanging out, coming down onto your property and stealing stuff that you might have reacted similarly. What the old desert rat did was wrong (by today's standards and laws, although that hasn't always been true), but I can at least empathize a little for his side of things, just as I can empathize with those that were shot at (and shot). Life isn't as black & white as you seem to make it out to be.

 

Can't disagree more, shooting a person is pretty black and white. There were a thousand things this guy could have done besides shooting a person. Unless there was some kind of threat this guy deserves no empathy.

[+tozainamboku]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

That is far from true. There are many considerations besides the simple guilty or not guilty that go into sentencing, including character.

Yeah. This is unfair. Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation. Even when they throw her in jail for violating her probation, she gets out after only a few days. And they want Heim to serve 7 years. UNFAIR.

[+SwineFlew]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

That is far from true. There are many considerations besides the simple guilty or not guilty that go into sentencing, including character.

Yeah. This is unfair. Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation. Even when they throw her in jail for violating her probation, she gets out after only a few days. And they want Heim to serve 7 years. UNFAIR.

 

Life is unfair of what a older person told me years ago.

[4wheelin_fool]

In civilized society, it's generally considered unfair to discharge a deadly weapon at an unarmed person. Good people don't do such things, and are a danger to others. The tragedy is that if he had actually killed someone with a motor vehicle instead, he would be serving much less time, if any at all.

[knowschad]

The sentence doled out by the old man was too harsh. Attempted murder of an unarmed kid who accidentally wandered onto your property?

Having a gun fired at you creates mental trauma, not to mention physical injury.

 

The other day I ran across the following sign, which appears to be on newly aquired public property.

 

 

There are some very special people out there..

 

"Attempted murder"?

Certainly, had he actually killed the teen, a charge of murder would have been appropiate. As such, I see no problem categorizing what he did do as attempted murder.

But from the story that we have been given, he did not attempt murder. He attempted to chase some people off his land. He most certainly was not found guilty of attempted murder, at the very least.

 

I don't know about all the different types of murder but saying he was trying to do anything less than attempted "killing" is BS. He shot at them 7 times with a deadly weapon. Again, these weren't warning shots in the air, he aimed the weapon and shot 7 times.

 

Where did you get that information? It sure wasn't in the article, nor in any other information I have been able to find online. Citations, please, if you insist on making that sort of claim.

 

The 7 shots was based on a post by another member. The aiming part I take as a safe assumption since he actually hit one of the people. TBH he could have fired 6 warning shots AFAIK but regardless it only takes one shot to kill.

 

Did you even read the article? Nobody but you seems to be disputing the ricochet argument. Have you looked at the satellite views of the area? The hill that the cachers were on is made up of large boulders. From the little bit of evidence that we are privvy to, he was NOT shooting to kill with his .22. He was trying to chase what he thought was thieving drug dealers off of his land. He was wrong. They were not a threat. Nobody is denying that. But I have a hard time believing that he knowingly shot at somebody that he was not afraid of.

[knowschad]

Is all this "what constitutes trespassing" really worth someone's life? No matter how well someone may know the law if ya get shot and killed for going after a geocache on someone's property without their permission, they may be in jail but you will be just as dead. Perhaps going the extra distance to be sure could go a long way to preventing tragedy. It is obvious this old man made a stupid decision to shoot but that does not make him a bad person, just scared and foolish. Going after a geocache on private land without permission is also rather foolish. And no they should get shot for it but being right does not always save ones life.

 

Not a bad person????????? What kind of people are you hanging out with???

 

I daresay that if you were an old man that lived alone out in the desert, and had experiences with drug dealers hanging out, coming down onto your property and stealing stuff that you might have reacted similarly. What the old desert rat did was wrong (by today's standards and laws, although that hasn't always been true), but I can at least empathize a little for his side of things, just as I can empathize with those that were shot at (and shot). Life isn't as black & white as you seem to make it out to be.

 

Can't disagree more, shooting a person is pretty black and white. There were a thousand things this guy could have done besides shooting a person. Unless there was some kind of threat this guy deserves no empathy.

 

Let's just agree to disagree, then. We are neither judge nor jury. Your opinion obviously differs from mine, and we are not going to change each other's opinions. I can accept that. But you are wrong and I am right.

[knowschad]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

That is far from true. There are many considerations besides the simple guilty or not guilty that go into sentencing, including character.

Yeah. This is unfair. Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation. Even when they throw her in jail for violating her probation, she gets out after only a few days. And they want Heim to serve 7 years. UNFAIR.

 

TOZ!! What is up with you in this thread? That is probably the lamest argument I've seen in the entire thread, and it came from the Kind of Arguments! Lindsay Lohan? Come on!!!

[TorgtheViking]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

That is far from true. There are many considerations besides the simple guilty or not guilty that go into sentencing, including character.

Yeah. This is unfair. Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation. Even when they throw her in jail for violating her probation, she gets out after only a few days. And they want Heim to serve 7 years. UNFAIR.

 

TOZ!! What is up with you in this thread? That is probably the lamest argument I've seen in the entire thread, and it came from the Kind of Arguments! Lindsay Lohan? Come on!!!

 

Guess what happens when threads run too long?

[+sbell111]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

That is far from true. There are many considerations besides the simple guilty or not guilty that go into sentencing, including character.

Yeah. This is unfair. Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation. Even when they throw her in jail for violating her probation, she gets out after only a few days. And they want Heim to serve 7 years. UNFAIR.

Who did Lindsay Lohan shoot?

[+tozainamboku]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

That is far from true. There are many considerations besides the simple guilty or not guilty that go into sentencing, including character.

Yeah. This is unfair. Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation. Even when they throw her in jail for violating her probation, she gets out after only a few days. And they want Heim to serve 7 years. UNFAIR.

 

TOZ!! What is up with you in this thread? That is probably the lamest argument I've seen in the entire thread, and it came from the Kind of Arguments! Lindsay Lohan? Come on!!!

Just finding it hard to accept your argument that being a old guy who may have been robbed by drug addicts in the past and now is frighten when he sees someone on his property means you should get probation instead of serving time for shooting at them. Gun owners would have a much easier time if they used their guns as they are meant to be used. If you are going to use a gun for self-defense it had better be because you were really in danger. Not to chase someone off your property.

 

I don't understand why Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation either.

 

Who did Lindsay Lohan shoot?

One of her convictions was for driving under the influence. I'm one of those who sees someone getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated similar to firing a gun in the direction of someone. You may not intend to cause any harm to anyone, but you ought to know that you could easily do so. However the courts tend to take into consideration whether you have any prior DUIs and just how much alcohol is in your blood when doling out punishment. So probation is more likely in these case.

[knowschad]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

That is far from true. There are many considerations besides the simple guilty or not guilty that go into sentencing, including character.

Yeah. This is unfair. Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation. Even when they throw her in jail for violating her probation, she gets out after only a few days. And they want Heim to serve 7 years. UNFAIR.

 

TOZ!! What is up with you in this thread? That is probably the lamest argument I've seen in the entire thread, and it came from the Kind of Arguments! Lindsay Lohan? Come on!!!

Just finding it hard to accept your argument that being a old guy who may have been robbed by drug addicts in the past and now is frighten when he sees someone on his property means you should get probation instead of serving time for shooting at them. Gun owners would have a much easier time if they used their guns as they are meant to be used. If you are going to use a gun for self-defense it had better be because you were really in danger. Not to chase someone off your property.

 

I don't understand why Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation either.

 

Who did Lindsay Lohan shoot?

One of her convictions was for driving under the influence. I'm one of those who sees someone getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated similar to firing a gun in the direction of someone. You may not intend to cause any harm to anyone, but you ought to know that you could easily do so. However the courts tend to take into consideration whether you have any prior DUIs and just how much alcohol is in your blood when doling out punishment. So probation is more likely in these case.

 

Where did I ever say I thought he should get probation?

 

Linday Lohan keeps getting probation because she has money. Lots of money. As I said before, character counts, and apparently money = character in this world.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Luckily, we don't punish people based on whether they are inherently 'good' or 'bad' people. We punish them for doing bad acts. Shooting at people who are simply trying to comply with your demand for them to leave is a 'bad' act.

That is far from true. There are many considerations besides the simple guilty or not guilty that go into sentencing, including character.

Yeah. This is unfair. Lindsay Lohan keeps getting probation. Even when they throw her in jail for violating her probation, she gets out after only a few days. And they want Heim to serve 7 years. UNFAIR.

Who did Lindsay Lohan shoot?

Jose Cuervo

[+Team Firenze]

Is all this "what constitutes trespassing" really worth someone's life? No matter how well someone may know the law if ya get shot and killed for going after a geocache on someone's property without their permission, they may be in jail but you will be just as dead. Perhaps going the extra distance to be sure could go a long way to preventing tragedy. It is obvious this old man made a stupid decision to shoot but that does not make him a bad person, just scared and foolish. Going after a geocache on private land without permission is also rather foolish. And no they should get shot for it but being right does not always save ones life.

 

Not a bad person????????? What kind of people are you hanging out with???

 

I daresay that if you were an old man that lived alone out in the desert, and had experiences with drug dealers hanging out, coming down onto your property and stealing stuff that you might have reacted similarly. What the old desert rat did was wrong (by today's standards and laws, although that hasn't always been true), but I can at least empathize a little for his side of things, just as I can empathize with those that were shot at (and shot). Life isn't as black & white as you seem to make it out to be.

 

Can't disagree more, shooting a person is pretty black and white. There were a thousand things this guy could have done besides shooting a person. Unless there was some kind of threat this guy deserves no empathy.

 

Let's just agree to disagree, then. We are neither judge nor jury. Your opinion obviously differs from mine, and we are not going to change each other's opinions. I can accept that. But you are wrong and I am right.

 

Not sure where you grew up or how you were raised but there in something in my personal makeup which says I should never point a gun at another person or shoot anywhere in their general direction unless they are a direct threat to me. Call me nutty. (ricochet or not he was shooting toward them.)

[+Sky King 36]

An infraction is defined as a "crime and public offense" in California that is committed in violation of the law. (PC 15, 16.) Parking tickets are different because they are civil offenses, rather than being infractions within the criminal justice system.

 

In California, infractions are not a criminal offense. This law was challenged several times, including a 1987 case that went to the California Supreme Court. While the law may not have been removed from the books (many overturned laws are not), the Appellate and Supreme Court rulings state that it is important that an infraction never be called a criminal violation. A person charged with an infraction's only recourse is appeal to a bench judge. Infractions cannot be heard by a jury, do not have Miranda protections, and generally have very limited, if any appeal rights. Evidentiary requirements, and probable cause requirements, are relaxed. Infractions must not be recorded on a person's criminal record.

 

The very definition of an infraction is a transgression whose punishment to the defendant is of such minor consequence, that he need not be granted the same protections someone accused of a crime would be. That was the reasoning of the overturning... If a state calls an infraction a crime, the defendant has rights, and thus it isn't an infraction any more.

[+geodarts]

In California, infractions are not a criminal offense.

 

I don't think we need to debate this here. My only point is that trespass under PC 602.8 is defined as a public offense. It is also under the Penal Code (rather than being classified as a civil infraction like parking tickets). And since an action is either civil or criminal (CCP 24), I would call it "criminal trespass."

 

But you are right in that an infraction does not rise to the level of a crime for constitutional purposes - you are not subject to jail, prison or probation, you do not have a right to counsel or a jury trial. Accordingly, courts describe it as "the lowest classification of criminal offenses." (People v Anderson, also Mitchell v Superior Court). Witkin does the same. The 1987 Court of Appeal case did not hold to the contrary, but it would take far too long to explain that here. Call it what you will.

 

An infraction can be part of your record. However, under a law that went into effect this year (PC 1203.4a), infractions other than vehicle offenses can be expunged from your record after a year.

 

A violation of PC 602.8 is relatively cheap ($70), but I would still be careful and avoid placing a cache behind a fence, or on posted property, or in a cultivated field.

Edited November 5, 2011 by geodarts

[+Sky King 36]

And just to be clear... I am not trying to clarify the legal definition of trespass to encourage people to do it... I am trying to point out just the opposite... That is, hopefully a a reader might see this forum and reflect on the fact that outdoor trespassing is a far more common, far more accidental transgression than you may think... And thus, you as a land owner, better think really long and really hard about taking any forceful action against a trespasser... As it is a far, far less serious offense than you may be thinking it was when you grabbed your gun off the gun rack. As the guy in this case found out the hard way, he shot someone for something that wasn't even illegal.

 

As a long time sniper and soldier, there are "rules of thumb" that apply to both civilian defense and law enforcement deadly force... And one of those is that if the entry wound is in the target's back you have a lot of explaining to do. It is so hard to make a self-defense claim, that suddenly you will find the burden of proof on you that the person's escape posed a great threat to public safety. The farther the person is form you and the more obviously they are moving away from you, the harder your defense becomes that your shot was a last resort to prevent harm to yourself.

 

i also think the warning-shot-gone-bad defense is a mistake. It waters down your chance of winning a scared-to-death defense. "I was so afraid that I decided deadly force was my best option, and yet, not so scared that I didn't have time for a little plinking with my .22 just to scare em off"... It sends the kind of mixed message that jurys often sieze on to convince that one last "I'm just not sure" jury hold-out to cave in and vote guilty.

[TorgtheViking]

And just to be clear... I am not trying to clarify the legal definition of trespass to encourage people to do it... I am trying to point out just the opposite... That is, hopefully a a reader might see this forum and reflect on the fact that outdoor trespassing is a far more common, far more accidental transgression than you may think... And thus, you as a land owner, better think really long and really hard about taking any forceful action against a trespasser... As it is a far, far less serious offense than you may be thinking it was when you grabbed your gun off the gun rack. As the guy in this case found out the hard way, he shot someone for something that wasn't even illegal.

 

As a long time sniper and soldier, there are "rules of thumb" that apply to both civilian defense and law enforcement deadly force... And one of those is that if the entry wound is in the target's back you have a lot of explaining to do. It is so hard to make a self-defense claim, that suddenly you will find the burden of proof on you that the person's escape posed a great threat to public safety. The farther the person is form you and the more obviously they are moving away from you, the harder your defense becomes that your shot was a last resort to prevent harm to yourself.

 

i also think the warning-shot-gone-bad defense is a mistake. It waters down your chance of winning a scared-to-death defense. "I was so afraid that I decided deadly force was my best option, and yet, not so scared that I didn't have time for a little plinking with my .22 just to scare em off"... It sends the kind of mixed message that jurys often sieze on to convince that one last "I'm just not sure" jury hold-out to cave in and vote guilty.

 

There is a lot of explaining to be done...regardless of where any entry wound is.

 

The story of the boy getting shot geocaching is tragic. As this outdoor activity increases in popularity these incidents are sure to increase. One can not totally avoid random senseless dangers such as this story. However there are ways to keep these incidents low. One, know your surroundings; and Two, watch for dangers when you are in unknown areas...to name a few.

Edited November 6, 2011 by TorgtheViking

[+RhinoInAToga]

I've been following this story..

 

He got seven years in prison because they were not on his property, but along the edge of it. It appears that they had wandered a little far, but weren't on his property yet. Also, he told them to leave, and they were in the process with complying .. and he shot at them as they were leaving.

 

He says that he shot into the air, but we all know that a kid's not going to get a bullet lodged in his leg if you shoot into the air. *unless the person was a mile or so away* Maybe to the side, with richochet..maybe at their backs. That, we'll never know. We weren't there.

 

Yes, we have to be careful out there. Just as careful as we'd have to be doing anything else outdoors.

I was once kayaking with my husband and a couple of friends down a river in North Carolina. A man yelled at us from the shore, telling us not to mess with his trotlines. We just smiled and waved, and continued talking amongst ourselves. He yelled out, "THEY CALL ME 'THE GHOST!'" We nervously looked at each other, and then kept talking amongst ourselves as we floated by. He then yelled out, "YA'LL MAKIN' FUN OF ME?? I'M GOIN' TO GET MY GUN!" ..and runs to his house. We booked it out of there.

You can run into cRaZy anywhere, doing anything.

 

If somebody even mentions a gun, or is holding a gun or a weapon of any kind.. Get Out Fast.