Another Use Of Force Question

[RossA]

This question came up in a recent discussion:
OK, we know that if a person unlawfully and with force enters your home you are legally justified in using force to defend yourself. Let's suppose someone enters your home lawfully (neighbor, salesman, etc.), but refuses to leave when told to do so? He is now trespassing, but he did not enter your home unlawfully and by force. Other than just calling police, what (lawful) options do you have?

[nightmare69]

This question came up in a recent discussion:
OK, we know that if a person unlawfully and with force enters your home you are legally justified in using force to defend yourself. Let's suppose someone enters your home lawfully (neighbor, salesman, etc.), but refuses to leave when told to do so? He is now trespassing, but he did not enter your home unlawfully and by force. Other than just calling police, what (lawful) options do you have?

IMO, since you already invited him into your home and later told him to leave and he refused you do not have the right to use deadly force based solely on his refusal to leave. You do, IMO, have the right to throw him out bouncer style and I don't see you getting into trouble by forcefully removing him out of your home.

[locke_n_load]

This question came up in a recent discussion:
OK, we know that if a person unlawfully and with force enters your home you are legally justified in using force to defend yourself. Let's suppose someone enters your home lawfully (neighbor, salesman, etc.), but refuses to leave when told to do so? He is now trespassing, but he did not enter your home unlawfully and by force. Other than just calling police, what (lawful) options do you have?

IMO, since you already invited him into your home and later told him to leave and he refused you do not have the right to use deadly force based solely on his refusal to leave. You do, IMO, have the right to throw him out bouncer style and I don't see you getting into trouble by forcefully removing him out of your home.

You are correct, after they refuse to leave, they are trespassing. You could use force like Nightmare said, but not deadly force. IANAL.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

[RossA]

That's what I was thinking. Of course, If I am a little old man, a small woman, etc. and he is young and big and strong, bouncer style probably won't work.

[thetexan]

Interesting question.

Here's my question...which force could you use and what is the legal authority for using force against a peaceful trespasser who refuses to leave?

Tex

[Sport Coach]

Currently reading The Law of Self Defense by Branca with forward by Ayoob. He explains it clearly how the law would look at these sorts of decisions. Even though you invited him in, after telling him to leave he is trespassing. Trespassing is not automatically a reason to ramp up to lethal force and actually "salesman" could call you on brandishing or worse. To answer the question, keep handgun close by concealed if things go wrong but use phone to call police if he doesn't leave.

[twomillenium]

If the invited guest stays after the invite has been rescinded. Calling the police would be the best action, but you can use the level of force needed that you can justify to remove the threat. Any type of force is to be used as a last resort.

[thetexan]

Yeah, there must be a reasonably perceived threat of force or deadly force to justify a necessary response.

If the guy just sits down on your sofa, asks you for some refreshment and smiles, you won't be able to justify anything other than calling the police. But, as was stated, I would have the tool ready.

If you could justify a reasonable perception of threat then you would have something to work with. Until that happened you would be entertaining the trespasser until the police arrived. Of course the next best thing is to evacuate your family from the home to protect them from possible bad things happening. Or send them next door to the neighbors. Or go with them in the evacuation to cover them from any compatriots outside.

Of course, if you feel it necessary to remove your family from the home as a safety measure you have pretty much defined a reasonable perception of a threat, at least for simple force if not deadly force. I would think that your decision to evacuate would be deemed by a jury as very reasonable based on the perceived threat which would also be deemed reasonably perceived and which is the element needed to use force, and when and to the degree necessary, deadly force.

tex

[twomillenium]

Yeah, there must be a reasonably perceived threat of force or deadly force to justify a necessary response.

If the guy just sits down on your sofa, asks you for some refreshment and smiles, you won't be able to justify anything other than calling the police. But, as was stated, I would have the tool ready.

If you could justify a reasonable perception of threat then you would have something to work with. Until that happened you would be entertaining the trespasser until the police arrived. Of course the next best thing is to evacuate your family from the home to protect them from possible bad things happening. Or send them next door to the neighbors. Or go with them in the evacuation to cover them from any compatriots outside.

Of course, if you feel it necessary to remove your family from the home as a safety measure you have pretty much defined a reasonable perception of a threat, at least for simple force if not deadly force. I would think that your decision to evacuate would be deemed by a jury as very reasonable based on the perceived threat which would also be deemed reasonably perceived and which is the element needed to use force, and when and to the degree necessary, deadly force.

tex

Or a decision to remove any witnesses.

[locke_n_load]

Yeah, there must be a reasonably perceived threat of force or deadly force to justify a necessary response.

If the guy just sits down on your sofa, asks you for some refreshment and smiles, you won't be able to justify anything other than calling the police. But, as was stated, I would have the tool ready.

If you could justify a reasonable perception of threat then you would have something to work with. Until that happened you would be entertaining the trespasser until the police arrived. Of course the next best thing is to evacuate your family from the home to protect them from possible bad things happening. Or send them next door to the neighbors. Or go with them in the evacuation to cover them from any compatriots outside.

Of course, if you feel it necessary to remove your family from the home as a safety measure you have pretty much defined a reasonable perception of a threat, at least for simple force if not deadly force. I would think that your decision to evacuate would be deemed by a jury as very reasonable based on the perceived threat which would also be deemed reasonably perceived and which is the element needed to use force, and when and to the degree necessary, deadly force.

tex

While I see the requirement for a perceived threat of force for the use of force in 9.31 and 9.32, I do not see that same requirement in 9.41 for using force for trespassing.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

[TreyHouston]

Look guys, you can't shoot someone for refusing to leave your house unless they are a threat to your safety. Call the police, thats what we pay them to help with. Sure, you can add "this and that" to the situation. But that is now what the OP asked...

Call the leo.

[Flightmare]

Look guys, you can't shoot someone for refusing to leave your house unless they are a threat to your safety. Call the police, thats what we pay them to help with. Sure, you can add "this and that" to the situation. But that is now what the OP asked...

Call the leo.

And that's been my stance on it. If I have someone who I invited over that now refuses to leave my home....I will call police and leave them to deal with them. I don't plan to leave said person out of my sight though. Since they have already been asked to leave, they may decide to retaliate (violently or not). It's the job of the LEO to remove criminals. It's my job to keep me and mine safe.

[Keith B]

Yeah, there must be a reasonably perceived threat of force or deadly force to justify a necessary response.

If the guy just sits down on your sofa, asks you for some refreshment and smiles, you won't be able to justify anything other than calling the police. But, as was stated, I would have the tool ready.

Texas Penal Code provides justification in using force to remove a trespasser if you believe the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the trespass. You are justified in using deadly force if: (1) you reasonably believe that it is necessary to use force to prevent or terminate the trespass; and (2) you reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to prevent the trespasser from committing certain crimes, such as arson, burglary, or robbery.

[locke_n_load]

Look guys, you can't shoot someone for refusing to leave your house unless they are a threat to your safety. Call the police, thats what we pay them to help with. Sure, you can add "this and that" to the situation. But that is now what the OP asked...

Call the leo.

The only person who mentioned anything about deadly force was thetexan, whose opinion on the matter is that you cannot use any force against a trespasser unless they are a threat to you. People citing code have not said that using deadly force was justified in most circumstances.

[thetexan]

Yeah, there must be a reasonably perceived threat of force or deadly force to justify a necessary response.

If the guy just sits down on your sofa, asks you for some refreshment and smiles, you won't be able to justify anything other than calling the police. But, as was stated, I would have the tool ready.

Texas Penal Code provides justification in using force to remove a trespasser if you believe the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the trespass. You are justified in using deadly force if: (1) you reasonably believe that it is necessary to use force to prevent or terminate the trespass; and (2) you reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to prevent the trespasser from committing certain crimes, such as arson, burglary, or robbery.

I read it again (9.41a) and I agree. Force is available to prevent or terminate a trespass. Deadly force is not if the offense is simply trespass.

So when the guy decides to have a seat on your sofa and start a conversation despite you telling him to leave because he no longer has your consent to be there, when and to the degree necessary you may use force to remove him. That process may escalate to a scenario where you reasonably perceive a serious harm or deadly threat at which time deadly force is now available. But the deadly force is in response to the new threat of harm not the trespass.

So here's the next question...under 9.04 can you threaten him with your gun since you are authorized to use force which is a requirement for 9.04?

But what would you be threatening? He knows you are prohibited from using deadly force to stop a trespass unless he threatens you in the process. As long as he just sits there and smiles your threat with a gun seems empty.

Tex