Inspired by Can I do a citizen's arrest on a trespasser? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
The subject says it. An undesirable person enters inside my property to knock on my door. Can I flick a switch and bathe them without fear of repercussions?
Would I need some type of signage to make this legal?
The argument being, of course, that I have the right to water my lawn whenever I want.
Assholish, sure. Legal? that’s the question.
Not sure about your state, but in some states hosing someone down can be assault. Of course, they’d have to prove you did it intentionally and it wasn’t just coincidence. I guess.
Anytime you set out to intentionally harm someone, whether it’s devistating or merely annoying to the victim, the law is going to make a “:(” at you.
The only really way to find out is to do it and tell us the result 
Good Lord.
You don’t want them to GROW, do you?
I have a friend who lives across the street from a high school. Their rules prohibit smoking anywhere on the school grounds. So at lunchtime, and before & after school, kids congregate on his lawn to smoke, and leave cigarette butts & other litter on his property.
He tried negative things like signs, yelling at them, calling the cops, etc., without much result.
He tried positive things like putting out trash containers and large ashtray urns – only slightly better results.
Then he installed an automatic sprinkler system that goes on for a while at those times – lunchtime, before & after school. That seems to have mostly solved the problem. The kids go elsewhere. And the fact that it is on an automatic timer – he’s not there turning it on to spray them – seems to have prevented them from retaliating against his property.
And no one has ever told him it’s not legal for him to have a sprinkler system watering his lawn.
Is it legal to deliberately and knowingly assualt someone who is going about their lawful business?
Of course it isn’t. Did you even have to ask?
Can someone do such an arseholish thing and get away with it? Probably. People can and do get away with a lot of crimes, especially if they’re big enough dicks to hurt innocent people and barefaced lie about it to the police.
That doesn’t make it legal.
t-bonham, I think you’ll find the issue isn’t that the system is automatic. That seems totally irrlevant.
Two points in your example seem very different ot the OP.
Firtsly he doesn’t intend to assault anyone. He turns the sprinklers on to deter people enteirng his property in the first pace. He doesn’t wait until they enter and then turn them on in order to wet them. This is the difference between having a fence topped with barbed wire to deter burglars and whipping a burglar with a length of barbed wire. In the first instance you are clear even if someone foed cut themslves climbing the fence. In the second instance you’d better hope you can plead self defence.
The second difference is that the kids are trespassing and commiting various other crimes. They have no legal right to be there in the first place so he has no duty of care. That’s in stark contrast to door-to door-peddlars, who have every legal right to be there and to whom you do have a duty of care. If you construct your property in order to harm people going about their lawful business then you are open to both criminal and civil proesecution. People not going about lawful business, much less so.
Do people really think like this, or is this a joke? If so I think I can see why the police find it so easy to prosecute smartasses who think they’ve found a loophole that allows them to break the law.
Yes, I have the right to mow my lawn whenever I want, too. Do you really think that means I can run over you with my ride-on mower when I see you walking up to my front door?
In civilised nations you don’t have the right to do anything whenever you want. Period. You have a duty of care to other people. Only after you’ve duly excercised that duty do you have the right to do anything. If you fail to excercise that duty fully you’re commiting a crime or at best a civil infraction.
Jeeez, this really is like the thinking of an 8 year old. “I’m gong to walk across the room with my eyes closed swinging my fists. If you get hit it’s not my fault”. If your mother didn’t buy that one you can be damn sure the jury won’t buy it.
Very well, how about if you turn them on when you see them walking down the street before entering your property? Would that somehow inflict on their right to approach you?
What if you put a sign saying “Warning: Motion activated lawn watering system”?
I agree with what you say for the most part, but that? Really? I know there are bystander laws, but are there any federal laws that state exactly what you stated?
I’d say that both of these suggestions neatly solve the problem. Of course, you may attract small children who think your motion-sensing sprinkler is the greatest thing ever (especially in the summer).
The first one only works if you are aware of the visitors, unfortunately, which doesn’t work for 3rd shift workers trying to rest. I do not remember those days fondly.
IANAL but I can’t see how that would be a crime. No different to putting a “No Peddlars” sign on your gate really. The important distincion being that there’s a simple action they can take to avoid gettng wet. You aren’t forcing someone to get wet against their will.
Be aware though that many (most?) places have laws in place that state that you have to provide clear communication with your house from the closest public road. Unless you’ve got an intercom on your footpath then you’re skirting awfully close to commiting another offense.
As far as I can see all you’ve done is admitted liability and provided undeniable proof of premeditation. It makes things worse in evey respect, doesn’t it?
Once again, you might get away with it if you were a big enough arsehole to assault innocent people and lie to the cops, but it’s never gong to be legal. You simply can not assault people going about their lwaful busines. If door-to-door peddling is lawful business then you can’t assult people for doing so.
You can not do it directly. You can not pay someone else to do it. You can not do it by setting your dog on them. You can not do it by setting up tripwires connected to rotating knives. You can not do it by setting up a motion sensor connected to lasers or to a nuclear bomb or to a sprinkler system. You can not do it on a train. You can not do it in a plane.
You can not do it Sam I Am.
As soon as the intent of your action is to assault someone who is going about their lawful business you have commited a crime. Like said above, there are all sorts of methods that someone could use to disguise intent if they are a big enough prick to hurt innocent people and barefaced lie about it to the police. In most cases they’ll get away with it. But that still doesn’t make it legal. It just makes the person a lying, criminal arsehole rather than just a criminal arsheole.
AFAIK and (remember IANAL) Duty-of-Care is common law, not legislation. The principle has been in place in English law since forever and it was thus inherited by the US sytem. It’s a case of “since it has never been overturned, it still exists” rather than “it exists because of specific legislation X”.
“Duty of care” on Wikipedia seems to give a fair representation of it. I’m always surprised that in a society as litigious as the modern US so many people are ignorant of the principle of duty-of-care. Before you do anything you have to give at least basic thought to whether it could harm someone else and take steps to minimise that risk. You certainly dont’ have the right to do whatever you like, whenever you like.
Really? So what if he connects the motion sensors to something else, like say, shotguns? What of he fills the pipes with teargas rather than water?
Still think he’s in the clear because he can say “It’s automated officer, I didn’t directly push the button that blew the guy’s head off/suffocated the child?”.
It’s a wonder organised crime hasn’t twigged to this marvelous legal principal.
Fat Tony:“I didn’t kill him your honour. I just placed a motion sensor in his house connected to 30kg of C4”
Judge:“Oh, OK. case dismissed. Next case.”
If an act is assault then it’s assault. I have never heard of anyone succsefully arguing that they’re not guitly because they automated the process. I have heard of people being charged with setting mantraps in addition to the assault.
Are sprinklers really a form of assault, though?
He wants to know if it is legal, so trying it out on the JW may or may not give him the answer.
No, he needs to refine the test. He should call 911 and make up some sort of emergency so the cops show up. When they get to his front door, he sets on them with the hose.
Then he will know for sure the legality of it.
edited to add: I’ve always had good luck with simply asking the JW to leave.
Not in California, apparently.
You have to distinguish battery and assault as well as the crimes called by these names and the torts also called by these names.
At common law, the tort of battery is an intentional harmful or offensive contact with the person of another. The tort of assault is the intentional causation in another of a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
The Illinois Penal Code creates crimes (misdemeanors) with the same names and largely the same definition. Thus, a battery tortfeasor also commits the crime of battery. He is liable civilly for his victim’s damages and criminally to the public.
An assault that ripens into battery merges into battery, thus you cannot be guilty of assaulting and battering the same person in the same transaction, so to speak.
Finally, it should be clear that to turn your hose on someone or to set off the sprinkler above them is an offensive contact within the definition of battery.
IANAL, so I’d like to see cites to the effect that 1) lightly sprinkling someone with water constitutes assault or any other actionable cause of complaint, and 2) people have a legal right to enter private property uninvited for the purpose of soliciting, whether it’s for a religion or vacuum cleaners.
Not in this city. Unless they have obtained a paddlers’ license from the city clerk, and paid $180 for it.
So it is legal, and the people concerned do have a legal right to do so. Just like driving a car or owning a dog or a million other things that are both legal and require a licence and payment of a fee.
Good luck with a defence of “I beat the shit out the person who drove up my driveway, but I’m clear because I thought he might not be licenced your honour”.
The JW organisation is scrupulously law abiding. If they require licences to peddle door to door you can be absolutley sure that they have licences.
Let me stress what I think are some important points that you are overlooking:
While it is always illegal to assault someone for going about their lawful business it is sometimes a defence that you believe someone was in the commission of a crime. Similarly duty of care is often removed or lessened for people commiting a criminal act. That does not mean that is always defence. You can not knife someone because you believe they are driving without insurance, for example. Nor can you sell out of date hamburger to someone because they removed the tags from their matress. It doesn’t work that way.
And, finally, it is never going to be a defence if you have no reasonable grounds to believe a person was commiting a crime. “I beat the shit out the person who drove up my driveway, but I’m clear because I thought he looked like the type who might not be licenced” is never, ever going to fly.