Trespassers this weekend

[CHL/LEO]

Dallas PD takes obscene amounts of time to respond to most calls...

This probably happened in the daytime if they got there in one hour. If it would have been at night it could have taken two or three hours if it was dispatched as a C.T.

What part of town did this incident happen?

[srothstein]

You would be within your right to use force to remove them from your property. From the description deadly force was not warrented yet.

Can you find that for me in the Penal Code?

Yep, sure can.

Chapter 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.

[Renegade]

You would be within your right to use force to remove them from your property. From the description deadly force was not warrented yet.

Can you find that for me in the Penal Code?

Yep, sure can.

Chapter 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 w

ith the property.

Hmmm. I never thought about the trespass part, just the moveable property part....

Thanks.

[KRM45]

You would be within your right to use force to remove them from your property. From the description deadly force was not warrented yet.

Can you find that for me in the Penal Code?

Yep, sure can.

Chapter 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.

Sorry I was too slow!

[dihappy]

You would be within your right to use force to remove them from your property. From the description deadly force was not warrented yet.

Can you find that for me in the Penal Code?

Yep, sure can.

Chapter 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.

Great post SR! :)

[stroo]

However, if the neighbor has the easement that was discussed earlier and had authorized their entry on the easement, then it's not trespassing and force would not be allowed.

I don't see the problem with retrieving the gun and going in the house to wait for the police. If he had retrieved the gun in their sight and then gone over to continue the conversation, I would agree with TXI. As it was, retrieving the gun seems like a prudent move. Of course, carrying it concealed on you would have been more prudent.

[KRM45]

However, if the neighbor has the easement that was discussed earlier and had authorized their entry on the easement, then it's not trespassing and force would not be allowed.

You might want to check the language on that easement dedication instrument... Mine says nothing about private repair companies....

[stroo]

Assuming there was an easement for the neighbor, the neighbor could authorize the AC people to be in the easement. So you don't need an easement for private repair companies for them to legally be on the property. Again, that assumes that there really was an easement.

[stevie_d_64]

Off topic, but I am curious why they need access to your property if there is a wall between yours and hers?

There is a drain some empties on to my property, apparently it was backed up and flooding the house. I need to talk to her about that pipe because it shouldn't drain on my grass. It needs to drain into the sewer.

What's wrong with a little extra water on your lawn?

What??? With the kind of wet summer we are having this year???

[stevie_d_64]

Just a thought. You had words with the guys and told them to leave. They said make me, so you went and got a gun.

That could easily be taken as threatening.

Trespassers (outnumbering you 2-1) refusing to leave and displaying a hostile attitude is a potentially threatening situation. Retrieving a means of self defense is not threatening, it's prudent.

Making a display of retrieving the gun could be threatening, but the trespassers obviously didn't feel threatened, since they didn't leave until the police told them to (an hour later).

And I disagree. He KNEW they were AC repairmen, according to his post.

What are you disagreeing with? No one said he didn't know they were AC repairmen; he knew they were. He also KNEW they were trespassing, refusing to leave, and belligerent about it.

There is no shortage of people looking for a reason to get involved in a situation or grab that gun though.

You and I don't disagree on that point. The difference for me (and you, I suspect) is that we wouldn't have to retrieve a gun from the car -- we'd already be carrying one. That doesn't make us trigger-happy. It also doesn't make TexasJoe trigger-happy, it just makes him guilty of being slower to arm himself.

Yep, and Renegade just made a great point as well...

But what I'm seeing here is extremely "hearsay" as well...But TexasJoe was not the one who said "make me"...the A/C guys in this case appeared to have escalated the situation first...

"If" they )A/C guys) had just left, let things cool down, I am sure a reasonable discussion/resolution "may have been attained at that time...

There is also this little thing that keeps pinging me about this is that TexasJoe was facing a disparity...(in the number of people dissagreeing with him...)

And regardless, TexasJoe was in the absolute right to "ask" them to leave, pretty much regardless of tone or words used...

At least this is the way I see it...

Imagine the "non incident" this would have been, if the A/C guys had looked first, and saw that they'd have to access their "project" from someone elses property...To me that looks to be no big deal, if they had just gone to TexasJoe and informed him...

I would almost bet a dollar that he'd have not had one problem with it if that had occured...

So hindsight being 20/20...There were probably a lot of things that could have been handled better on both sides of the equation...

But thats just my opinion...

[KRM45]

Assuming there was an easement for the neighbor, the neighbor could authorize the AC people to be in the easement. So you don't need an easement for private repair companies for them to legally be on the property. Again, that assumes that there really was an easement.

I was just thinking about a "utility easement"...

[stroo]

BTW, even if there was an easement for the neighbor, TexasJoe had every right to ask them to leave since it appears that he didn't know whether or not the neighbor had actually authorized them to be there. And they responded entirely wrong. They should have explained that the neighbor had asked them to look at whatever it was there were looking at at, explain about the easement assuming they even knew about it or leave. Saying "Make me" is pretty provocative. Again I don't see an issue with TexasJoes' actions.

[HankB]

If utility workers were on my property (outside of the lawful easement) and refused to leave, my first inclination would be to turn on the sprinkler.

Second inclination would be to call 911 - in my small city, just west of Austin, I believe they'd respond within a few minutes.

Things could be worse - what if they'd entered your yard with a TRUCK? This has happened - a friend one day returned home to find a big utility truck in his back yard. They'd crossed his driveway in the process, and left BIG ruts in his lawn. They also mouthed off to him, told him he couldn't do a g-- d----- thing about it.

So he parked his car on his driveway, so as to block it.

Utility guys, once they finished, pounded on his door and TOLD him to move. He refused, THEY called the cops.

Cops asked him to move - he refused. HIS private car was on HIS private driveway, and nobody had authority to make him move it. Cop conceded the point, told the workers it was up to them to work things out with the homeowner.

Things went back and forth for a while, but ultimately he got 1) Written apology from the utility; 2) Entire back and front yard were resodded by the utility. 3) A nominal amount of cash for his trouble.

Truck stayed in his back yard until the settlement was signed and sealed, IIRC about 2 days.

The utility workers? They were ex-utility workers before the end of the first day.

[LSUTiger]

In any situation, I think you did the right thing to retreive your weapon if you felt threatened and had the opportunity to do so. Better safe than sorry. Its not like you waved it around, pointed it a the guys and pistol whipped them.

I am not a lawyer, dont play one on TV and didnt sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night but I think as far as law enforcement, if you call 911 explain the situation, explain you felt threatened and in fear for your life.

But call first, if the other guys see your gun and call first they (LEO) are less likely to believe you. If your gun comes out a call to 911 should follow as soon as possible. Remember, regardless of what happened staying out of trouble will depend on what story you tell and how well you tell it. Your story must be consistent and whatever you do, you were in fear for your life, you retrieved your weapon in a non threatening way and tried to avoid the situation. If possible try to retreat from the trouble, but explain mitigation circumstances such as "I was surrounded by traffic and could not leave the scene" or "I could not leave my small children behind" etc.

When considering any legal action against you LE should consider the aggravating circumstances (you had a gun or retrieved one and what exactly did you do with it, if you pointed it at them then your in the wrong unless they had a weapon visible, if you kept it pointed in a safe direction not making threats then you might be OK) and the mitigating circumstances (justification for your actions, 2 individuals on your property not leaving when asked to and any reasonable fear that may have caused). They will ask did you see a weapon? ( not a reason not to make your self ready when suspicious) Also, if you had any kids or other family to protect etc. tell them. What is said verbally back and forth is as important as any action. Frame the scenario in such a way that you are clearly the victim in reasonable fear and your actions were justified.

Remember, I am not a lawyer, this is just my opinion.

I would have not had to go to my car though. I would have gotten my 12 gauge or any one of my other pistols or AR or AK or .......have more than one weapon handy especially at home.

I keep my pistol in a Maxpedition Jumbo Versipak when forced (damn .30-06 and prohibited places) to leave it in my car. If you need to retreive it from your car you could grab the bag with the zipper open, hand on weapon ready to draw but still have it concealed.

I carry the Versipak in the front seat of my carry with gun at the ready, but still concealed. Works well especially if I am making a short trip to a prohibited place. Then I can go from inside car to trunk and vice versa with no concealment issues.

[Cobra Medic]

A most excellent and timely comment, sir. I salute you!