Question about an altercation

[rhettro]

3 friends and I recently went to Indiana on an archery hunt. We had permission from the landowner and he was excited to have us. He is very elderly. His land is farmland so he leases it to a guy who farms it. this guy is the epitamy of jerk. Well known by the locals. None of them can stand him. he has a terrible personality and acts like he owns the place totally himself. This guy is a retired police officer in a nearby town. he hurt his back on the job and sued the PD and now is a farmer. Imagine that!! farming not too bad on the back huh?
He couldn't mess with us, as we had permission, but he gave the landowner a time about how there where too many of us. This guy hunts the place as well. It's not like down here up there. Land is not posted anywhere really. People kind of touch base with landowners and no one abuses anything. ******* farmer saw someone on the property and held them at gunpoint and called the PD, which never showed up. they must know him as well!!!
Here is the question, is it legal for someone to hold you at gunpoint over tresspassing? What if you feared for your life?

 

[Yrdawg]

Old question of mine as well, what I finally came up with is that if I am in fear for my life or of great bodily harm I would respond with DF

In La , the way I read it you can tell some one to leave, you can even move them, if they react with DF you are legal to do same...but the way worse thing to remember is you may find yourself in front of a cranky old judge and 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty...none of who may know the law

 

[Guate_shooter]

YOu would have to check into the laws in Indiana to get an accurate answer to your question IMO, what aplies here might not apply there and vice versa.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

IN LOUISIANA:

SHORT ANSWER:

You cannot enforce tresspassing on land you do not own unless authorized to do so by the land owner.

I would have shot him in the nutsac and sued his family. Seriously, that is most likely a case of aggravated assualt and quite possibly false imprisonment depending on how the DA would want to play it.

If you had the permission of the land owner, or even if you didn't, this guy had no right to hold anyone at gunpoint and probably should have been shot and would have by some people.


It does not matter what the "general rule is" as far as going on other people's property. AT the end of the day, the law is the law. In other words, what was OK yesterday may not be OK today.

However, if the actual land owner gave permission you are not tresspassing.

I would call the local sheriff's office immediately and file a report. This guy ay just be retarded enough to actually shoot someone, even if by "accident" one day.

LONG ANSWER:

NOW: If you actually are trespassing, then force may be used to prevent you from entering or force you to leave. Of course, the level of force you use will be judged later on wether it was reasonable or not. Can you shoot someone for stepping in your yard, no. Can you push someone physically off of your property? Maybe maybe not, depending on the circumstances and the DA in your area.

14:63. Criminal trespass

A. No person shall enter any structure, watercraft, or movable owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.

B. No person shall enter upon immovable property owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.

C. No person shall remain in or upon property, movable or immovable, owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.

D. It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution for a violation of Subsection A, B, or C of this Section, that the accused had express, legal, or implied authority to be in the movable or on the immovable property.

...........reduced for space. The rest simply exempts certain people, none of which pertain in this case.

This is what would apply if you were to enter a posted area or told to leave by the owner or his agent and did not.

14:63.3. Entry on or remaining in places or on land after being forbidden

A. No person shall without authority go into or upon or remain in or upon or attempt to go into or upon or remain in or upon any structure, watercraft, or any other movable, or immovable property, which belongs to another, including public buildings and structures, ferries, and bridges, or any part, portion, or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, including by means of any sign hereinafter described, by any owner, lessee, or custodian of the property or by any other authorized person. For the purposes of this Section, the above mentioned sign means a sign or signs posted on or in the structure, watercraft, or any other movable, or immovable property, including public buildings and structures, ferries and bridges, or part, portion or area thereof, at a place or places where such sign or signs may be reasonably expected to be seen.

B. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the parish jail for not more than six months, or both.

Added by Acts 1960, No. 78, §1. Amended by Acts 1963, No. 91, §1; Acts 1968, No. 647, §1; Acts 1977, No. 445, §1; Acts 1978, No. 694, §1.

This is the statute that would govern if and how you could use force in a tresspassing situation. Keep in mind, this is the same statute used to determine force in a self-defense situation.

14:19. Use of force or violence in defense

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

As far as holding you at gunpoint, this is most likely the statute that would apply. This is a felony.

§14:46.1. False imprisonment; offender armed with dangerous weapon

A. False imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon is the unlawful intentional confinement or detention of another while the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon.

B. Whoever commits the crime of false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than ten years.

Added by Acts 1982, No. 752, §1.

It is basically this statute with the addition of a weapon. This is a misdemeanor.

14:46. False imprisonment

False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or detention of another, without his consent and without proper legal authority.

Whoever commits the crime of false imprisonment shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

 

[CEHollier]

3 friends and I recently went to Indiana on an archery hunt. We had permission from the landowner and he was excited to have us. He is very elderly. His land is farmland so he leases it to a guy who farms it. this guy is the epitamy of jerk. Well known by the locals. None of them can stand him. he has a terrible personality and acts like he owns the place totally himself. This guy is a retired police officer in a nearby town. he hurt his back on the job and sued the PD and now is a farmer. Imagine that!! farming not too bad on the back huh?
He couldn't mess with us, as we had permission, but he gave the landowner a time about how there where too many of us. This guy hunts the place as well. It's not like down here up there. Land is not posted anywhere really. People kind of touch base with landowners and no one abuses anything. ******* farmer saw someone on the property and held them at gunpoint and called the PD, which never showed up. they must know him as well!!!
Here is the question, is it legal for someone to hold you at gunpoint over tresspassing? What if you feared for your life?

INAL - However, to say you feared for you life while being held at gunpoint while trespassing seems like a flemsy defense. If the farmer is leasing the property technically it is for his use only.

 

[10shotgroup]

INAL - However, to say you feared for you life while being held at gunpoint while trespassing seems like a flemsy defense. If the farmer is leasing the property technically it is for his use only.

We lease land for the hunting rights only. 2900 acres. Some one else leases the same land for the cattle rights. Some one else leases the same land for trapping rights. And Im sure if it was farmable the would be a lease for that. And I'm sure at one time an oil company had a lease for the mineral rights.

So I would say most leases don't mean it's for your uses only.

 

[Hitman]

If the farmer is leasing the property technically it is for his use only.

That's the kicker!

I can give some examples of this;

My step dad leases farm land as well. However 'HE' is allowed to occupy the land, hunt/fish etc. ANYONE besides HE HIMSELF is considered 3rd Party. So yes if HE is threatened on HIS land, leased or not, his self-defense/private property rights apply normally.

If 'I' have permission from him to Dove hunt on the same land, and the person who leased it shows up to dove hunt, that person can tell me to take a hike, legally.

Now hold me at gun point is a different story with FAR TOO MANY VARIABLES!

However I have NEVER had anyone point a gun at me in a threatening manner in which I did not engage with my own firearm. So being in the states and in front of an old grumpy ass man with a gun might not cause me to engage him. However if he points it at me my logical(by any standard) understanding is that he intends to kill me and thus I would be forced to defend myself. Again this doesn't mean to kill him either, but to indeed HALT the current threat to my life that he is employing.


I could probably give another example about Land Lords and dwelling places from my father-n-law's experiences.

 

[Hitman]

We lease land for the hunting rights only. 2900 acres. Some one else leases the same land for the cattle rights. Some one else leases the same land for trapping rights. And Im sure if it was farmable the would be a lease for that. And I'm sure at one time an oil company had a lease for the mineral rights.

So I would say most leases don't mean it's for your uses only.

That's just it brother, you all have OFFICIAL Leases. Binding agreements.

If you have the hunting right lease agreement and you tell your neighbor Joe Moe he can go hunt on it without you. If another LEASE owner shows up and says Joe you have to leave, Joe Moe has to go.

Get it? Joe Moe is not a lease owner and has no official capacity to be on the land without an escort lease partner.

 

[10shotgroup]

That's just it brother, you all have OFFICIAL Leases. Binding agreements.

If you have the hunting right lease agreement and you tell your neighbor Joe Moe he can go hunt on it without you. If another LEASE owner shows up and says Joe you have to leave, Joe Moe has to go.

Get it? Joe Moe is not a lease owner and has no official capacity to be on the land without an escort lease partner.

I would say this depends on the wording of the contract. Ours has parameters such as some land is bow hunting only due to its location, and can only hunt turkeys in the spring if rainfall totals are up. But there are no restrictions on whitetails or the people we let harvest them.

 

[TomTerrific]

I knew a gal who fired a "warning shot" over the heads of some people she regarded as trespassers and couldn't understand why she had to go to anger management classes.

 

[oleheat]

Like 10shot sez- Some people rent land for farming purposes only. I know a few examples of that around my camp in Concordia Parish. If the person in question didn't have some type of across the board lease agreement with the landowner that covered everything- including exclusive hunting rights, I'm not certain he could legally tell others to leave- or tell the landowner he can't allow people to hunt there.

Holding people at gunpoint is a completely different issue. That just isn't smart, and one day he will do it to the wrong man.

 

[Leadslugga]

There is not enough information here. As has been mentioned by some previous posts, leases can differ.

You could have a situation where the lease only gives the farmer the right to farm, and reserves for the landowner the right to use the land for hunting purposes. That's a doable thing.

However, that isn't necessarily the case. That kind of thing would have to be specifically stated in the lease. A lot of times people use standard form leases if they aren't paying for an attorney, and in that case, it won't mention anything about hunting.

So it could be the case that the landowner is giving people permission to hunt on the land when he actually can't. At common law, a lease (without provisions to the contrary), puts the land in exclusive possession of the tenant. The landowner has no right to go on the land just because he "owns" it. If he leases the entire interest in the land, he would technically be a trespasser if he went on it.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

There is not enough information here. As has been mentioned by some previous posts, leases can differ.

You could have a situation where the lease only gives the farmer the right to farm, and reserves for the landowner the right to use the land for hunting purposes. That's a doable thing.

However, that isn't necessarily the case. That kind of thing would have to be specifically stated in the lease. A lot of times people use standard form leases if they aren't paying for an attorney, and in that case, it won't mention anything about hunting.

So it could be the case that the landowner is giving people permission to hunt on the land when he actually can't. At common law, a lease (without provisions to the contrary), puts the land in exclusive possession of the tenant. The landowner has no right to go on the land just because he "owns" it. If he leases the entire interest in the land, he would technically be a trespasser if he went on it.

Obviously it would depend on the terms of the lease, but the lessor still retains certain rights and with the exception of specific situations involving actual dwellings, it would be hard to find him a tresspasser on land he actually owns.

 

[Hitman]

it would be hard to find him a tresspasser on land he actually owns.

True but back to the OP, these guys had a Hand Shake agreement to hunt on the land. That's a far cry from a hunting lease and possibly the Farmer knew the details of his lease better than the old man.

 

[Leadslugga]

IN LOUISIANA:

SHORT ANSWER:

You cannot enforce tresspassing on land you do not own unless authorized to do so by the land owner.

This is worded wrong. You don't have to own the land, you just have to be in lawful possession of the land. There are some finer points to our Louisiana civil law of possession.

§19. Use of force or violence in defense
A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

Basically, if you have a lease, you are in lawful possession of the land, so you would not need to get permission of the landowner. Also, if you go on to land you do not own, and start doing possessory-type actions for a year (for example, if I go on your land, build a house with a little fence around it), you gain a lawful possessory interest. You could enforce against trespassers there, too.

If you go on land you do not own and start possessing it and the landowner doesn't stop you, you eventually become the owner. If you possess in good faith, that is, if you actually think you are the true owner, in 10 years you actually become the owner. EVEN IF YOU KNOW YOU ARE STEALING THE LAND, if you possess the land uninterrupted for 30 years, you actually become the owner! This is called acquisitive prescription.

This is getting off topic, but the point of all this is to provide valuable advice: POLICE YOUR LAND. Don't let people start using it without your permission. If someone goes on your land for 1 year and is possessing it uninterrupted, you CAN'T boot them off without bringing a lawsuit! And even then, you could LOSE! It is surprising how many titles aren't as sound as you would think! In lots of cases the true owner brings and action to boot off a possessor and finds out that his title to the land isn't actually any good!

 

[Leadslugga]

Obviously it would depend on the terms of the lease, but the lessor still retains certain rights and with the exception of specific situations involving actual dwellings, it would be hard to find him a tresspasser on land he actually owns.

No. Remember this is not in Louisiana, so it is a common law jurisdiction. At common law, If the lessor leases the land in the usual sense, he CAN'T interfere with the tenant's quiet possession of the land (unless maybe there is some specific statute in that state saying otherwise). A normal lease conveys the ENTIRE interest. The ONLY rights the lessor retains in a normal lease without any special provisions are:
1. A reversionary interest when the lease expires
2. a power of termination/right of entry if the tenant quits paying rent, abandons the property, etc.

Even then, you have to be sure the power of termination is actually in the lease. If you make a lease that says, for example, "Leadslugga conveys the land to Nolacop for 1 year," and we agree that you pay rent, I actually can't go back on the land for 1 year, even if you don't pay rent. I would just have to sue you for the rent. I would have no right of entry because I didn't put it in the lease.

That being said, a standard form lease will have these provisions, but it WON'T have provision that just allow the landowner to go on the land for no reason.

 

[Leonidas]

True but back to the OP, these guys had a Hand Shake agreement to hunt on the land.

Around here the actual text of the OP is quite often irrelevant. Folks have the freedom to misconstrue, ignore or edit it to their own purpose. Imagination, fantasy and assumption are perfectly valid premises to wander off point.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

No. Remember this is not in Louisiana, so it is a common law jurisdiction. At common law, If the lessor leases the land in the usual sense, he CAN'T interfere with the tenant's quiet possession of the land (unless maybe there is some specific statute in that state saying otherwise). A normal lease conveys the ENTIRE interest. The ONLY rights the lessor retains in a normal lease without any special provisions are:
1. A reversionary interest when the lease expires
2. a power of termination/right of entry if the tenant quits paying rent, abandons the property, etc.

Even then, you have to be sure the power of termination is actually in the lease. If you make a lease that says, for example, "Leadslugga conveys the land to Nolacop for 1 year," and we agree that you pay rent, I actually can't go back on the land for 1 year, even if you don't pay rent. I would just have to sue you for the rent. I would have no right of entry because I didn't put it in the lease.

That being said, a standard form lease will have these provisions, but it WON'T have provision that just allow the landowner to go on the land for no reason.

Then why can lessors go onto property for inspections and such? I s that a specific clause written into a lease?

Could you provide some citation that says if I lease you my land i cannot go on it. While that sounds completely ridiculous, stranger things have happened.

Thanks

 

[oleheat]

I don't know what landowner would be stupid enough to lease open land to someone with the agreement that he can't set foot on it with the leasee's permission, anyway.

This isn't exactly the same thing as an apartment rental.

I'd sure like to know if someone was leasing my acreage to operate several meth labs.....

 

[LongGoneDays]

Edited due to e-stalking by Vanilla Gorilla