Trespassing sign for a new generation


I going to make one soon as I get home from work tomorrow, would also work well for unwanted solicitors:laugh:
 

Yes, it is pretty slick although FedEx and UPS would stop with door-step deliveries once it’s posted.
 
In Texas you don't even need a sign. It is acceptable to simply paint your fence posts purple:

the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or
posts on the property, provided that the marks are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not
less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than
three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily visible to any person
approaching the property and no more than:
32 PC §30.0S. TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
(I) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(II) 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land

Step on land thus posted and you are subject to criminal trespass and may be shot.
 
potatoheadman said:
Here's a sign I designed that might get the attention of today's youth.

sign.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL LOLThat is great! I love it. I have to have one! How much to get one to MI? :biggrin:
 
While the purple paint statements are correct, I disagree that it is "justifiable" to shoot anyone crossing the purple paint line (for trespassing).


I think some people protecting their or a neighbor's property go to jail every few years because they confuse that force and deadly force are not the same.
FORCE may be used, police may arrest them for criminal trespass .... but DEADLY FORCE only under certain circumstances.

PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY



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.





Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



NOTICE, you may NOT shoot a person trespassing on your property who is fleeing AFTER committing arson or criminal mischief during the nighttime ... You may use FORCE, not deadly force. I'd probably detain the guy, if I caught him, for the police.... I hope he doesn't fall over anything running in the dark, I have some pretty large landscaping rocks scattered around which might bruise him a bit.
 
RPB said:
While the purple paint statements are correct, I disagree that it is "justifiable" to shoot anyone crossing the purple paint line (for trespassing).


I think some people protecting their or a neighbor's property go to jail every few years because they confuse that force and deadly force are not the same.
FORCE may be used, police may arrest them for criminal trespass .... but DEADLY FORCE only under certain circumstances.

PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY



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.





Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



NOTICE, you may NOT shoot a person trespassing on your property who is fleeing AFTER committing arson or criminal mischief during the nighttime ... You may use FORCE, not deadly force. I'd probably detain the guy, if I caught him, for the police.... I hope he doesn't fall over anything running in the dark, I have some pretty large landscaping rocks scattered around which might bruise him a bit.
Click to expand...

Disagree all you want I was taught in my state-sanctioned CCW class that it is justifiable. It is considered having notified the individual and asked them to leave. Their presence indicates their refusal to do so and it is a defense in court to shoot them.
 
To quote a friend of mine: "A NO TRESPASSING sign is only as good as the shotgun that enforces it." :haha:
 
Last edited:
AvidshooterTX said:
Disagree all you want I was taught in my state-sanctioned CCW class that it is justifiable. It is considered having notified the individual and asked them to leave. Their presence indicates their refusal to do so and it is a defense in court to shoot them.
Click to expand...

Please re-read my post, you must have mis-understood what I stated. ..
You are trying to talk about a "defense" I said it isn't "justified"
I did not comment, and am not commenting on whether or not there is a "defense," an "affirmative defense" nor anything about a defense.
There is a big difference in "JUSTIFIABLE" and a "defense", just as there is a big difference in "DEADLY FORCE" and "reasonable FORCE". (My ex-brother-in-law who was convicted of a felony had a "defense" but he was still convicted; he was not "justified" in his actions.)

After working over 25 years in a law firm, drafting pleadings and appellate briefs in both Texas and Federal Courts up to and including the Supreme Court, and reading the above, my lay opinion is "Not 'justified' according to the Penal code."

Some "state-sanctioned CCW class" instructors last year were also teaching that gunbuster signs are as effective as valid 30.06 signs, they were mistakently taught that by a DPS lawyer, prior to her learning that she was mistaken..

I'll clarify my meaning below:

PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Justifiable means justifiable. Charges shouldn't even be brought, if they are, Grand Jury should "no-bill" should never even be prosecuted.
You may want to get back with your instructor and ask him for clarification after he re-reads the Penal and you point out that "FORCE" and "DEADLY FORCE" are not the same, before he gets someone in trouble who relied upon his teaching, or how some may be mis-understanding what he said and get themselves in trouble.
FORCE may be used to terminate a trespass, DEADLY FORCE may be used only in the listed situations.
You can read the above Code to see which ones.


If you shoot someone for trespassing in TEXAS, I suggest you retain an attorney prior to making a statement to the police. I'm SURE he will advise you that you were protecting persons or preventing an arson, burglary, criminal mischief during the nighttime etc, and you did NOT shoot him for "trespassing"
Officer, I saw him with a BIC lighter and he was about to commit arson (or one of the other justifiable reasons if he has a can of spray paint at night ["tagging" criminal mischief] etc)
You may however use FORCE.
A threat of deadly force to create apprehension, is FORCE, and is NOT Deadly Force. ...

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.04. Threats As Justifiable Force
§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.


Texas law (Section 9.41 of the Texas Penal Code) allows you to use "reasonable force" to protect your property. Reasonable force includes any force that is not potentially lethal. This would probably include physically blocking the trespasser's entry onto the land and perhaps even showing the trespasser that you have a gun and are prepared to use it if warranted. However, as discussed below, an actual discharge of a firearm, unless clearly not aimed anywhere towards the trespasser, may expose the land owner to unwanted scrutiny by law enforcement.

When is a Texas landowner allowed to shoot at a trespasser?
According to Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code, a landowner can shoot at or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the landowner reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or that the landowner himself would be exposed to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury if the landowner does not use deadly force. A landowner can also shoot at or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the trespasser's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the trespasser who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property. (But, not for escaping from an arson nor criminal mischief at night, since the "damage is already done") "Criminal mischief" includes "knowingly or intentionally damaging or destroying, tampering with or marking, inscribing slogans, drawing or painting on tangible property " of the property owner.

Using potentially dangerous measures to protect your property is not recommended in all cases, as it can expose a property owner to possible physical harm and also criminal prosecution if too much force is used.

In a situation where a trespasser is shot, (hopefully never happen) you have a right to a defense attorney, but I'd rather it be "justified" and not even need one.


Instead of "Officer, see my purple paint, I know it's night time and no lighting in the yard, so the dead guy probably didn't see it, but it's there on the fenceposts, so I shot him because he was on my side of the line, so he was trespassing; THAT'S TRESPASSING, and an instructor said I could kill him for it!!!. I'm TIRED of him walking his dog and it crapping in my yard!!! And an instructor said I could kill him for it!!!. By the way, you know those missing "Trick or Treaters" .... want to see my garden? I had just planted some corn in it, yes a crop was planted when the "Trick or Treaters" came, and I had purple paint then too .... "...




Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code
TEX CP. CODE ANN. § 75.001
(1) "Agricultural land" means land that is located in this state and that is suitable for:
(A) use in production of plants and fruits grown for human or animal consumption, or plants grown for the production of fibers, floriculture, viticulture, horticulture, or planting seed;
Texas Penal Code

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

(b) For purposes of this section:
(5) "Agricultural land" has the meaning assigned by Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.(d) An offense under this section is:
(2) a Class C misdemeanor, except as provided by Subdivision (3), if the offense is committed:
(A) on agricultural land and within 100 feet of the boundary of the land



You really don't want to try to defend a case where you killled someone for committing a Class C misdemeanor.
Might be better to say ... That dead guy demanded my money(robbery), and said he was intending to set my house on fire(arson), the fire killing everyone in it(defense of persons).

No "defense" needed if it is "justified".
The use of DEADLY Force against a "TRESPASSER" is not "JUSTIFIED" according to the Texas Penal Code.
That's all I was saying. Whether you have a "defense" to killing someone committing a class C misdemeanor, I'll not comment, but let your lawyer decide after he takes the deposition of your CHL instructor, who after "lawyering up" will state what he teaches, because "my CHL instructor said" is not a defense, but inadmissible hearsay. If homocide was "justified" for class C misdemeanors, police would need more ammo and fewer ticketbooks.


IAR IANALDOIC
I am retired, I am not a Lawyer, Doctor, or Indian Chief

Edited to add:
Google "William Moore" "San Antonio" assault
Brief Background:
William Moore found his adult daughter doing a nasty with a man in his garage and told the man to leave and that he was trespassing. The man didn't leave fast enough, William Moore shot him in the hand. William Moore went to jail for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A judge set bail at $50,000. Spent his 72nd birthday in jail.
 
RPB said:
Please re-read my post, you must have mis-understood what I stated. ..
You are trying to talk about a "defense" I said it isn't "justified"
I did not comment, and am not commenting on whether or not there is a "defense," an "affirmative defense" nor anything about a defense.
There is a big difference in "JUSTIFIABLE" and a "defense", just as there is a big difference in "DEADLY FORCE" and "reasonable FORCE". (My ex-brother-in-law who was convicted of a felony had a "defense" but he was still convicted; he was not "justified" in his actions.)

After working over 25 years in a law firm, drafting pleadings and appellate briefs in both Texas and Federal Courts up to and including the Supreme Court, and reading the above, my lay opinion is "Not 'justified' according to the Penal code."

Some "state-sanctioned CCW class" instructors last year were also teaching that gunbuster signs are as effective as valid 30.06 signs, they were mistakently taught that by a DPS lawyer, prior to her learning that she was mistaken..

I'll clarify my meaning below:

PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
PENAL CODE**CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Justifiable means justifiable. Charges shouldn't even be brought, if they are, Grand Jury should "no-bill" should never even be prosecuted.
You may want to get back with your instructor and ask him for clarification after he re-reads the Penal and you point out that "FORCE" and "DEADLY FORCE" are not the same, before he gets someone in trouble who relied upon his teaching, or how some may be mis-understanding what he said and get themselves in trouble.
FORCE may be used to terminate a trespass, DEADLY FORCE may be used only in the listed situations.
You can read the above Code to see which ones.


If you shoot someone for trespassing in TEXAS, I suggest you retain an attorney prior to making a statement to the police. I'm SURE he will advise you that you were protecting persons or preventing an arson, burglary, criminal mischief during the nighttime etc, and you did NOT shoot him for "trespassing"
Officer, I saw him with a BIC lighter and he was about to commit arson (or one of the other justifiable reasons if he has a can of spray paint at night ["tagging" criminal mischief] etc)
You may however use FORCE.
A threat of deadly force to create apprehension, is FORCE, and is NOT Deadly Force. ...

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.04. Threats As Justifiable Force
§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.


Texas law (Section 9.41 of the Texas Penal Code) allows you to use "reasonable force" to protect your property. Reasonable force includes any force that is not potentially lethal. This would probably include physically blocking the trespasser's entry onto the land and perhaps even showing the trespasser that you have a gun and are prepared to use it if warranted. However, as discussed below, an actual discharge of a firearm, unless clearly not aimed anywhere towards the trespasser, may expose the land owner to unwanted scrutiny by law enforcement.

When is a Texas landowner allowed to shoot at a trespasser?
According to Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code, a landowner can shoot at or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the landowner reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or that the landowner himself would be exposed to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury if the landowner does not use deadly force. A landowner can also shoot at or use other deadly force against a trespasser if the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the trespasser's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the trespasser who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property. (But, not for escaping from an arson nor criminal mischief at night, since the "damage is already done") "Criminal mischief" includes "knowingly or intentionally damaging or destroying, tampering with or marking, inscribing slogans, drawing or painting on tangible property " of the property owner.

Using potentially dangerous measures to protect your property is not recommended in all cases, as it can expose a property owner to possible physical harm and also criminal prosecution if too much force is used.

In a situation where a trespasser is shot, (hopefully never happen) you have a right to a defense attorney, but I'd rather it be "justified" and not even need one.


Instead of "Officer, see my purple paint, I know it's night time and no lighting in the yard, so the dead guy probably didn't see it, but it's there on the fenceposts, so I shot him because he was on my side of the line, so he was trespassing; THAT'S TRESPASSING, and an instructor said I could kill him for it!!!. I'm TIRED of him walking his dog and it crapping in my yard!!! And an instructor said I could kill him for it!!!. By the way, you know those missing "Trick or Treaters" .... want to see my garden? I had just planted some corn in it, yes a crop was planted when the "Trick or Treaters" came, and I had purple paint then too .... "...




Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code
TEX CP. CODE ANN. § 75.001
(1) "Agricultural land" means land that is located in this state and that is suitable for:
(A) use in production of plants and fruits grown for human or animal consumption, or plants grown for the production of fibers, floriculture, viticulture, horticulture, or planting seed;
Texas Penal Code

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

(b) For purposes of this section:
(5) "Agricultural land" has the meaning assigned by Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.(d) An offense under this section is:
(2) a Class C misdemeanor, except as provided by Subdivision (3), if the offense is committed:
(A) on agricultural land and within 100 feet of the boundary of the land



You really don't want to try to defend a case where you killled someone for committing a Class C misdemeanor.
Might be better to say ... That dead guy demanded my money(robbery), and said he was intending to set my house on fire(arson), the fire killing everyone in it(defense of persons).

No "defense" needed if it is "justified".
The use of DEADLY Force against a "TRESPASSER" is not "JUSTIFIED" according to the Texas Penal Code.
That's all I was saying. Whether you have a "defense" to killing someone committing a class C misdemeanor, I'll not comment, but let your lawyer decide after he takes the deposition of your CHL instructor, who after "lawyering up" will state what he teaches, because "my CHL instructor said" is not a defense, but inadmissible hearsay. If homocide was "justified" for class C misdemeanors, police would need more ammo and fewer ticketbooks.


IAR IANALDOIC
I am retired, I am not a Lawyer, Doctor, or Indian Chief
Click to expand...

OK, I changed my mind - just shoot the lawyers.
 
Two signs in my yard - first is in my garden in front, second is on both of my gates, sides of my place.

Link Removed

P28331_500.jpg
 
I am reluctant to advertise that there are firearms on the premises. I think that just makes you a target for a "professional" career burglar to put more stolen weapons in the hands of baddies.

I think it's better that they not know they're about to die. :hang3:
 
milkmood said:
I am reluctant to advertise that there are firearms on the premises. I think that just makes you a target for a "professional" career burglar to put more stolen weapons in the hands of baddies.

I think it's better that they not know they're about to die. :hang3:
Click to expand...

Stealth is good. I have a US flag sticker and an NRA sticker on the front door side windows. That ought to be a good enough warning. The bright light in their eyes and the red dot on their chest will be the last warning prior to the loud bangs...

Peace... (for all those who don't try and enter my home without permission:biggrin:)
 
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: thought it was great
 
Looks to me that if you live in Texas you better have a lawyer on a retainer or in your back pocket. Why does it have to be so confusing? :hang3:
 
It reallly isn't that confusing in Texas.

Texas makes a distinction between FORCE and DEADLY FORCE
Texas makes a distinction of preventing damage with persons and property versus "no harm, no foul" offenses.

FORCE includes displaying a firearm to create an apprehension it will be used.
DEADLY FORCE is when the bang switch is pulled on that firearm.

You can use FORCE (Section 9.41) to terminate a tespass (Section 30.05) or prevent escape from criminal mischief and arson, etc.

You can use DEADLY FORCE (Section 9.42) to protect people and property.
(Including escaping with property/robbery, or PREVENTING property damage by arson or criminal mischief at night ...kidnapping or about to harm people etc, but after property is already damaged in arson/criminal mischief and the guy tries to escape, you are no longer protecting property, so in those situations only use FORCE to prevent escape .... however, if he is STEALING your garden hose so you can't put out the fire, you can use DEADLY force to prevent his escape with the property IF
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.)

I'm no lawyer, but it would be good to know a couple before talking to police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 127 (members: 0, guests: 127)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top