No.
Please obtain some reading comprehension skills before replying again. I want them arrested and prosecuted because they deliberately trespassed after being explicity warned not to do so.
Hey! Had I known this would be your sunshiney disposition, I wouldn’t have bothered replying in the first place. I suppose I could have surmised, given how you want to treat door-knockers.
Anyway, I won’t make the same mistake twice. Enjoy defending your false imprisonment suit. You know so much about the law that it should be a cakewalk for you!
I don’t understand this at all. I have freedom of speech and religion, but I can’t stand in the middle of your bedroom and call you a fornicator who will perish in the lake of fire.
You have a right to the enjoyment of your property and my rights cannot intrude on that. I don’t see how a JW’s freedom of religion would be valid at all when it comes to someone else’s home…
But see Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
Nevertheless, Markxxx’s analysis is imperfect. But, he’s on to something. The JWs and the SCOTUS have a rich history together.
I think what people are trying to tell you is that a"No Trespassing" sign isn’t a legal enforcement, or grounds for an arrest. I believe that Kimmy Gibbler is a lawyer.
Correct. you need to, gasp, actually violate a criminal law to be arrested.
Come now, Dripper, just admit you were pissed off that someone knocked on your door at Middday after working the graveyard shift.
And if anyone should know about a homeowner’s powers & rights towards an unwanted visitor, it’s Kimmy_Gibbler.
And the difference between this and someone knocking on your door tells you the whole story.
No court will consider someone walking up to your front door and knocking on it to be an unreasonable interference with your right to enjoy your property. You live in a society. The law expects you to be able to put up with some minimal level of interacting with other people, even when you would prefer not to.
If you’re determined that someone should get arrested, I can think of one way to go about it, but it’ll only work on individuals who have already knocked on your door. Call the relevant law enforcement office (city PD if in a city, county sheriff if not in an incorporated area) and ask that a “criminal trespass warning” be issued to the persons who have been dropping by. They have a form for you to fill out that includes your address and your signature. You’ll need to know some information about the person you’re requesting to be banned from your property, as well.
The law enforcement agency will then take the warning to those persons, obtain a signature showing that the warning was received, and leave a copy for them. Now, they’ve been notified that they are not welcome at your residence, and any subsequent entry is a criminal trespass, prosecutable by your local district attorney’s office.
I don’t think that any law enforcement agency will serve a criminal trespass warning on a “group” as a whole, because of the difficulty of proving that any individual member received actual notice that entering the property was forbidden. However, if one or more particular persons are making nuisances of themselves, the criminal trespass warning will work, and surely if enough of them are served on Jehovah’s Witnesses or whoever, they’ll come to realize that they should pass on by your door.
FWIW, I don’t think the OP was being unreasonable, but it does all boil down to the No Trespassing sign being essentially worthless.
A similar thing comes to mind vis-a-vis the Texas CHL law. You know how you go to some places and they have that little “No Guns” sign at the door? The one that has a profile view of a gun with a Ghostbusters “No” slash through it?
Obviously the intent of that sign is to prevent anyone with a gun from coming into that place. I’m a reasonable person and I full-well understand the intent of such a sign. However, when I’m carrying, I ignore them because they’re not legally valid. Texas law has a very specific sign (codified, nicely, in the Penal Code 30.06) which must be displayed, in contrasting letters of appropriate height, in English and Spanish, with very specific verbiage. Unless THAT sign is present, I’m carrying my gun.
The point is that the sign can say basically anything, from “No Trespassing” to “No Guns” to “No Blonde-Haired, Blue-Eyed English Teachers” and it’s all pretty meaningless.
The sign will act as a deterrent to some, but that’s it.
If it weren’t that way, imagine those situations where you’re trying to find a friend or family member’s house based on their not-so-great directions. You pull into someone’s yard, thinking it’s your buddy’s house…only to be arrested. Even if that person had signs up, you thought you were welcome–you just were at the wrong house.
There is a certain amount of logic to it. Course, there’s a certain amount of logic to wanting to prevent JWs or scouts or whoever else from coming onto your property (which you bought, pay the taxes on, maintain, etc.) In my case, I have simply written the local kingdom hall a letter expressing in no uncertain terms that they are not welcome here, and they’ve never been back.
ROFLMAO
ty, that was excellent
Indeed. But how is knocking on someone’s door a right under religious freedom?
The rights under the First Amendment generally give you the right to approach someone and speak to them. They don’t have to listen to what you have to say, but the government would be skirting the line by prophylactically prohibiting people from even approaching you.
no, it doesn’t. it’s just that approaching someone and speaking to them is not illegal or tortious, thus it can be done.
seriously, the misinterpretation of the first amendment is frustrating - it only proscribes GOVERNMENT activity.
Thanks for the caps, Rumor. I thought I had forgotten something. GOVERNMENT activity is implicated here, because people are asking the GOVERNMENT to help them prevent people from approaching them and speaking to them. The GOVERNMENT’s stepping in and saying “Dripping is authorized to detain you against your will if you knock on his door” does implicate the First Amendment.
no, it doesn’t.
Fair enough. As a bit of a hijack. Imagine I am walking down the street and one of these street preachers is approaching me. What would satisfy their right to approach me? When we make eye contact and I turn away? When I shake my head? When I tell them “leave me alone” before I hear what they have to say? When I tell them “leave me alone” after I hear them?
And more to the point, in my house, what satisfies their right to approach me? Me signaling them away from the window before they enter and ring? Can they open an unlocked gate? Jump over a knee-high locked gate? Push open an ajar front door (common here, not trying to stretch this into the ridiculous)? Ring a door bell under a lid that says “Only for explicitly authorized use”? “Atheists only”? Yelling through an open window if I don’t answer the door? Opening the screen door so they can knock on the door?
Some of these people, and I don’t just mean JW, door-to-door salesmen are the same (we still have those here, too), are pretty persistent. Some will stand outside and yell “Hello” a imprudent number of times. Try to peer through windows if they get no answer. Open the screen to knock on the door (this really pisses me off). Talk to kids on the street asking if there is people there, etc.
At what point do they exceed their right to approach me and enter into harassment territory?
Only if the right to free speech, is not considered to include the right to knock on someones door (I’m not sure it does).
It certainly WOULD encroach on the first amendment if rather than “Dripping is authorized to detain you against your will if you knock on his door”, it was “Dripping is authorized to detain you against your will if you knock on his door and criticize the government”.
Either way the argument depends on what is covered by the first amendment, irregardless of whether the arrest is carried out by **Dripping **or a federal agent.
There is a line between normal interaction and harassment. I am not expert in this issue, so I couldn’t really say where it is. I have some WAGs, though. One is that there should be some proof of knowledge that the communication is unwelcome. Another is that the offensive approach must be repeated. Just one occasion of someone’s ringing your doorbell wouldn’t be enough, regardless of your gesturing.
I would think that a locked gate would be a different situation, though. It doesn’t seem to me.
Brilliant argument! You’ve convinced me now.
Umm, wait. No you didn’t. The granting by the government to a private individual of authority that is ordinarily only given to the police (such as arrest) is a government action. The person making the arrest is acting on behalf of the state.