The law with respect to this issue varies from state to state, and the state law is also subject to Federal Law.
In General the only time that you are permitted to use lethal force against another human being is if that person is threatening your life or the life of another person, or if you reasonably believe that person is threateniing your life or the life of another human being.
As annoying and as destructive as trespassers are, their trespassiing is not considered a threat to your life and you cannot reasonably believe that their trespassing is a threat to your life.
I realize that it has been argued that the stress of the destruction of property by trespassers can cause the property owner to die of a heart attack or stroke, however I do not know of any court that has accepted that as a threat to your life that will justify the use of lethal force.
Although I do know of my personal experience that the stress of repeated break ins can cause you to have a heart attack or a stroke.
Several years ago I was having repeated burglaries at least once per week at property that I own.
The stress did cause me to have a stroke which almost killed me. I can tell you from personal experience that is still not considered a sufficient threat to your life to use lethal force.
Unfortunately there are very few acceptable solutions to this problem.
One possibility is to set up video cameras for survellance so that you have a video record of the trespassers that can be used to identify them and prosecute them successfully.
Another possibility is to install alarm systems that are silent and monitored by a monitoring company that will send the police to the property when it is broken into so that the police can catch the trespasser inside the property and arrest him.
In my experience with vacant property that I have owned it is usually a very few people who are the trespassers. Once you identify them and prosecute them and send them to prison, that usually solves your problem.
Also make friends with the local police. See if you can get them to watch your property more carefully.
Several years ago one property that I had was being broken into repeatedly. Finally a rookie officer that investigated the break ins decided to stake out my property at night.
One night the rookie police officer caught the trespasser breaking into my property. The trespasser refused to surrender. Fortunately the rookie had a police dog with him and he sent the police dog in after the trespasser.
The police dog chewed up the trespasser pretty good and sent the trespasser to the hospital. Once the trespasser was well enough, he was prosecuted and convicted and sent to prison.
I made a point to send glowing letters of appreciation to the Police Chief, and insisted that the rookie be promoted, which he was.
I also let the other police officers in the department know how much I appreciated the rookie police officer's effort and about my letters to the Chief.
The other police officers saw how quickly the rookie police officer was promoted.
I no longer have any problems with trespassers on my property and I now get excellent service from the local Police Department.
2007-06-05 08:09:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. Even if you feel threatened you can't shoot them. North Carolina is a "must retreat" state. This means even when you feel there's a threat you have a legal "duty" to try to retreat from the threat. It's only when you cannot retreat that you can defend yourself. There are measures in the state legislature to make the "castle doctrine" a part of North Carolina law. That would give home and land owners more rights but it will never pass. The North Carolina legislature is very pro criminal.
2016-03-13 06:00:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can't speak for North Carolina. However, if the laws are similar to Texas you need to be more concerned with what happens after the fact, regardless of whether you had a legal right.
In my part of the country even if you were activly being gang raped by a dozen armed crack heads, the fact that you killed someone means there *will* be a grand jury investigation. Your minimum expense for defending yourself at that inquery will be around $5000.
Remember that the sleezebag you shot will be represented by a state hired attorney who's job it is to make you look like a murderous scumbag, and in general they are very good at this. I can see it now... "Mr. , I see that on Yahoo Answers you publically asked if it was OK for you to shoot somebody. It sounds to me very much like this was pre-meditated murder rather than self defense, especially given the fact that the person you gunned down in cold blood was unarmed and guilty of nothing more than trying to find a dry place to sleep...."
So... if the grand jury decides there is enough evidence to warrent a real trial, guess what, you are up for murder 1. Minimum cost for defending yourself against that charge is around $10000. And guess what, if you loose you wind up with the "big M" in your perminant record and spending the next several years with a psychopathic room mate who likes to call you sweethart.
You get the idea...
2007-06-05 07:32:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Shoot First; No, Please,You Shoot First Law," of North Carolina (passed Aug. 2006) forbids the prosecution of anyone involved in the use of deadly force as long as he or she gives the other person the unhindered opportunity to shoot him or her first.
I suggest you read the statute. I'm tired of the gun debate and intend spending a few hours going after sailfish.
2007-06-05 07:34:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by hexeliebe 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not sure, if you're in danger then certainly. I think simply brandishing a weapon and pointing it at a trespasser is enough to stop them. Get a tazer, zap the hell out of them and call the police. That'll teach them. There's no need to shoot someone.
2007-06-05 07:21:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
In general (the rules vary from one state to another) the only time you can use deadly force against someone is if
(1) They threaten you with deadly force
(2) They enter your dwelling (in stome states, you have to try to retreat; in others, you don't).
Thus, you cannot use deadly force against a mere trespasser of a vacant building. That's true in just about every jurisdiction. here's a good case from Iowa, but it summarizes the tort law pretty well:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/torts3y/readings/update-a-05.doc
(There may or may not be different criminal laws, but one thing's for sure, you can probably get sued if you use it.)
2007-06-05 07:30:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Perdendosi 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
its not the police job to "watch" your property. if you're so concerned, hire a security guard for your property. Otherwise, sell your property that you are unable to keep an eye on.
other than that, no you can't shoot people for tresspassing; the only time you're allowed to "shoot" anyone is if your life is in danger (self defense) defending your property isn't self defense.
2007-06-05 07:21:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by arus.geo 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
If you (the property owner) are on your property and someone "attacks" you you have the right to use deadly force to protect your life, your liberty and your posessions against force. If you want specific legal cases to cite to back up this position in case of legal action against you and you want a strategy to accomplish this to minimize any legal action that may occur against you you know where to find me.
2007-06-05 07:20:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Not easily. you need to be inside the structure, and in immediate danger of being attacked/injured/killed by the intruder. you also should avoid shooting someone in the back, since someone running or facing away from you can't usually attack you.
if you shoot at them outside, but on your property you could be liable and accused of violent crime/assault and battery or worse, depending on how badly they're wounded.
2007-06-05 07:23:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. You cannot legally shoot a trespasser anywhere. Actually, you owe the same duty to a trespasser as you do to your family when they visit.
Plus, sounds to me like your a petty bourgeoisie land owning slum lord. You should give your property away to the poor.
2007-06-05 07:20:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by nom de paix 4
·
3⤊
3⤋