The power's out; there's no water. It is unsafe to travel (due to debris in the streets or other reasons). The authorities are few and far between. You and your family are basically on your own.
And there are looters in the neighborhood.
Hikingware.com asks: What legally can you do to protect your family and property?
Culled from several different legal sources, here is a brief synopsis of what you legally can and cannot do until Martial Law is declared in your area if you feel threatened by looters or trespassers. (Martial Law changes the parameters quite a bit, and differs from state to state.)
(1) Is it legal to display signs such as "Trespassers will be Shot" on your property?
(2) Do "Trespassers will be Shot" signs have any legal effect?
and
(3) Is it legal for people to shoot trespassers on their property?
In the United States, the answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the second question is no (at least not regarding the use of deadly force), and the answer to the third question is more complicated.
First off, with respect to your own property, so long as you haven't agreed to any limitations on the appearance of your home (such as through a Homeowners Association or deed restriction), you're free to put up any signs you want, regardless of how violent/offensive/profane they may be to others. That's the First Amendment at work--it limits the government's ability to regulate speech--so yes, a sign threatening to shoot trespassers is perfectly legal. You may not be viewed as the most neighborly person in your community, but the government should not be able to punish you for such a sign, or force you to take it down. And it just might be enough to deter any would-be looters.
Now, to the second question. Most people who put up "Trespassers will be Shot" signs are using them as a scare tactic, to make sure that would-be criminals get the message that (1) they're armed and (2) they're not afraid to shoot. There's obviously the hope that a criminal sees the sign and decides that the home with the trigger-happy owners isn't the one he wants to burgle. And again, that's perfectly legal. However, installing a sign doesn't give a property owner any special rights; a property owner isn't allowed to draw his/her weapon on a trespasser and shoot with impunity on the basis that the trespasser was somehow "warned" as to the consequences of trespassing. Conversely, an outsider who knowingly ignores the "Trespassers will be Shot" sign may be guilty of trespassing, but the trespasser does not assume the risk of being shot and thereby lose the right to take legal action if he/she takes a bullet for walking on someone else's grass. Especially during an emergency. The bottom line here is that if a trespasser is shot by a property owner, the legality of the shooting will depend entirely on the facts of the shooting itself, and not on the existence or lack thereof of a "warning" sign.
Finally, the third question. The law regarding self-defense is going to vary from state to state, but generally speaking, deadly force may not be used in defense of property (property can be replaced, lives cannot), and the use of deadly force must be in response to reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm to oneself or others.
Further, there is also a distinction between "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat" jurisdictions; in the former category (nearly half of all states), an individual does not have to attempt to retreat before responding with deadly force where self-defense is justifiable. In a minority of states, the use of deadly force in self-defense is only permitted if an individual cannot safely avoid the risk of harm or death, such as by running away. And finally, there are a handful of states that are in between, imposing a duty of retreat in only certain circumstances.
But as a general matter, the key terms regarding self-defense are proportionality and reasonableness: the force you employ to defend yourself must be proportional to the threat presented, and the threat presented must reasonably be viewed as serious. For example, if a trespasser enters your property and is brandishing a shotgun, then yes, responding with deadly force may be justified depending on jurisdiction: the criminal has a gun, and a reasonable person would assume that he is likely to use it. If someone walks onto your driveway and attempts to take your car at knife point or kidnap your child, the use of deadly force may also be justified; again, there are serious weapons and serious risks presented. But there would be no serious risk presented by a group of Girl Scouts who walk onto your property and ring your doorbell, or even an intoxicated individual shouting angry nonsense while on your yard (while the latter is perhaps frightening, there's no immediate risk of harm to you), and therefore, responding with deadly force would be highly illegal in both cases, regardless of the sign(s) you've posted.
To put it another way; if you only think someone is on your property to harm you or steal from you (and stealing precious water and food when they are in short supply could be construed as a deadly threat) you have no legal standing in most states for using deadly force against them. On the other hand, if they display a knife or gun you may be justified in responding with deadly force -- but it differs from state to state.
So be sure you know where your state stands on this hot-button issue before there are any emergencies or disasters where this unfortunate scenario may actually play out.
No comments:
Post a Comment