OK I will.
Why would I think that’s snippy?
He, and I the first time I read it, assumed you meant a slightly different thing:
-
First you call the police, then
-
You have the police do the towing.
This fits in with the way the issue had come up on previous posts. You might try being a bit less ambiguous if you wish to avoid misunderstandings.
Very interesting…
Suppose Svetlana is at home napping at the time of the offense and she wakes up at 4pm to go collect little Natalia from daycare (an upscale facility that charges $500 for every fifteen minutes a parent is late). She opens her garage door, only to find Jeb’s car in her driveway, blocking her exit. He is nowhere to be found. What would happen if she called the police?
Are the cops going to say “Sorry, not much we can do. Have you considered a taxi?”
There are only two posts prior to mine where having the uninvited parker’s car towed was either mentioned or alluded to. The first was in post #3, which said, “she could have his car towed.” There’s no mention of it being done by the police. Then post #6 (The same post in which Thalion acknowledged his location, which I also missed – my apologies for the oversight. Clearly I could do a better job of reading for comprehension at times, myself!) says, “She could have had it impounded.” Again, nothing about the police doing so.
The only person who mentioned the police doing the towing, was Northern Piper, who was incredulous that the police wouldn’t do anything (including towing) to someone who is uninvited on someone else’s property. It was then cleared up that they’d mixed up the relationships in the OP’s hypothetical.
Therefore, your contention that your misunderstanding of my first post was due to the alleged fact that it fit in with the way it had come up in previous posts doesn’t hold up to the evidence.
I guess I could have said, “I can call the police and then I can have you towed,” but the insertion of the additional ‘I can’ seemed redundant, first of all because it’s grammatically unnecessary, but especially seeing as how I was trying to simplify the very thing I had just quoted, which quite clearly spells out in more detail that the property owner must first notify local law enforcement and then they can have the vehicle removed.
If I said that next time I’ll try to be more loquacious so as to be more likely to avoid misunderstandings, would you consider this post evidence of my intent? 
Though I’d like to bring this unfortunate hijack to an end, there is one more issue I should clear up. . .
Thalion also correctly pointed out that although the statute I quoted allows for me to have the offending party towed from my property, it doesn’t define their actions as trespass. So here’s the relevant statute that does: [
](California Penal Code Section 602 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws) I think it’s pretty clear that the driveways to private residences are “known not to be open to the general public,” but I’m open to being corrected on that interpretation if I’m wrong.