Obviously this depends heavily on jurisdiction according to state law, but can anyone give examples? The problem today is that the pat answer “call the police” isn’t always workable. Removing homeless persons, public drunks or protesters is often a low-priority nuisance complaint as far as the police are concerned; and these days the police seem to be shy about confrontations that have the potential to escalate to being charged with civil rights violations if things go seriously south.
The thing is, bars and other establishments that serve alcohol frequently have “bouncers”, usually large strong men who as their name implies are prepared to deal quite summarily with belligerent drunks who won’t obey an order to leave the premises. Yet a private citizen who did the same to someone who refused to stop camping on their lawn would probably be charged with assault. So what’s the deal?
Railroads used to hire “bulls” to forcibly remove (ie. ‘rough up’) hobos that jumped onto the railroad’s freight cars hoping to catch a ride to the next city.
Whatever the actual law says bouncers get away with a lot as they considered “on the same side” as the cops, in the UK. E.g. my brother was blatantly beaten up by bouncers outside a club, after leaving slightly slower than they thought was reasonable. The cops were literally right next to them while he was being beaten up. When they stopped and went back inside, and brother was like “WTF!” They proceeded to arrest him.
As other posters have said this isn’t the best example, as there are different laws that apply to someone residing on your property (e.g. squatters rights)
A better one would be: I’m having a party, someone is being a drunken arse hole, so I ask them to leave. They refuse. How much force am I allowed to use to make them leave?
This is a tough question to answer because it really depends, not just on jurisdiction, but on the specific details. Speaking very generally:
You cannot use deadly force against a simple trespasser. This is (or should be, one hopes) true in all jurisdictions.
Some jurisdictions allow you to use non-deadly force to prevent entry to, or remove a trespasser from, your dwelling but not the curtilage or other areas outside your dwelling.
As @griffin1977 noted, bar and club bouncers are not technically supposed to initiate physical interactions. However, they can respond to them with commensurate force, like anyone else acting in self defense, defense of others, or defense of property. Meaning a bouncer legally should only use force to remove someone after that person has either used or threatened force against the bouncer, another employee, or a patron. But, yes, authorities may look the other way even in instances where the bouncer acted first.
Depends on what “being a drunken arse hole constitutes.” If it includes using or threatening force against someone, there’s an argument in favor of use of (ETA: non-deadly) force in self defense or defense of others. If they’re just running their mouth, not so much.
IANAL but I think the castle doctrine only removes the requirement that you have to retreat from a violent encounter before you use deadly force. It doesn’t change the fact you can only use deadly force in self defense when you believe your life is danger. You can’t randomly shoot a house guest and claim self defense because of the castle doctrine (i’d add mandatory Simpsons clip, but can’t find it)
The castle doctrine may vary but generally it overcomes the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their own home. You might be thinking of a “stand your ground” or “make my day” law, which extends a similar standard outside the home and may also effectively lower the threshold for use of deadly force by imposing solely a subjective fear standard (as opposed to an objective standard that requires the belief to be reasonable).
Based on a quick Google search, many resources (including so law firm websites) use the foregoing terms interchangeably.
ETA: IAAL but not in a “stand your ground/make my day” jurisdiction.
Should also add the “castle doctrine” comes from English common law. It’s name comes from the expression “an Englishman’s home is his castle”. The Americans (or some of them) only had the bright idea of applying outside the home
In Florida, one has the right to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser. The relevant statute is ss.776.031:
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Florida Section 776.013 further provides one can use deadly force against a trespasser within your home. It states that you can use deadly force if you reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily harm and further provides that your are presumed to have such reasonable fear if, among other things, the victim/trespasser unlawfully and forcefully entered your home.
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
ETA: To be clear, I am not comfortable with the Florida standard.
No matter what you do you will be downtown answering questions. For a long time.
I have no problem protecting myself. I hope I have the good judgment to perceive if the intruder/trespasser is really a danger.
I don’t need that crap raining down on my head from LE.
Since this involves a lot of speculation and legal opinion instead of just facts about the law, let’s move this to IMHO.
Factual cites regarding what the various laws actually say are of course still welcome. However, since this is now in IMHO, opinions regarding the interpretation of those laws as well as speculation about how those laws would apply to real-world situations is also welcome.
To have rights as a resident it takes more than just occupying a space. Otherwise why have trespassing laws? Anyone can just go anywhere and claim it for their own.
)
