A thought on trespassing

imported post

So, if we are carrying in a place that is posted "no firearms" are we trespassing at that point or only after we are asked to leave. I know this has been asked before but I bring it up because of this, emphasis added:

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

if we areconsidered to be trespassing just byignoring the "no firearms" posting then we would be in commision of a crime. Andwewould not be protected by the self-defense act and we could be sued in a civil case if a self-defense shooting occured.

If we are not considered to be trespassing until we are asked to leave, then we would not be in commision of a crime and would still fall under the protections of the self-defense act.

Am I reading that correctly, or am I just up waaaay to late? :shock:

Bronson

imported post

Bronson wrote:

So, if we are carrying in a place that is posted "no firearms" are we trespassing at that point or only after we are asked to leave. I know this has been asked before but I bring it up because of this, emphasis added:

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

if we areconsidered to be trespassing just byignoring the "no firearms" posting then we would be in commision of a crime. Andwewould not be protected by the self-defense act and we could be sued in a civil case if a self-defense shooting occured.

If we are not considered to be trespassing until we are asked to leave, then we would not be in commision of a crime and would still fall under the protections of the self-defense act.

Am I reading that correctly, or am I just up waaaay to late? :shock:

Bronson

Click to expand...

This is for the courts to decide. I think technically, based onthe language of the trespassing statute it mentions signs, fencing, etc. So just the presence of a sign MAY BE enough notice to be in violation for trespass. In most cases, you would not be charged with trespassing just because of the sign, the police would want a better case, so they would have the owner ask you to leave, then the officer would ask you to leave, if you didn't you had three chances to obey the law and didn't...a strong case.

Having said that, one issue is the recent stand your ground law. Again it could be argued that if a sign was there and you were involved with a shooting you were technically a trespasser and were there unlawfully. Since you were there unlawfully you lose your right to stand your ground and would have to meet the requirements for the use of deadly force before the law was in effect, that is you would have a duty to retreat, etc.

I know of no case law thatI can draw upon to make a more definitive assessment of your question.

Each person has to make up their own mind in regards to their personal safety and conduct their behavior accordingly.

imported post

Michigan trespassing laws are expected to cover such varied situations as hunters crossing rural property lines (where you see those obnoxious signs posted every 50 ft or so by frustrated property owners) to panhandlers in boutique shops (for a single "no soliciting" sign usually suffices). The terms are fairly clear, but they require a bit of interpretation to meet a specific application.

Most of the threads on this forum addressing trespass address the aspect ofrisking a misdemeanor charge. Bronson, you are on the mark with your concerns about risking our protections under MCL 780.972, which youcited above.

I expect most prosecuting attorneys would be reluctant to pursue charges related to a case of self defense, but they might choose otherwise. I would not want to be placed in that situation.

More likely, the civil suit protections provided by P.A. 314 of 2006 would be declared null and void in the courts, leaving the final results open to decision by the vagaries of a jury. I know I definitely want to avoid that situation.




[align=center]Act No. 314,P.A. 2006
Sec. 2922b. An individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another individual in compliance with section 2 of the self-defense act is immune from civil liability for damages caused to either of the following by the use of that deadly force or force other than deadly force:
(a) The individual against whom the use of deadly force or force other than deadly force is authorized.
(b) Any individual claiming damages arising out of injury to or the death of the individual described in subdivision (a), based upon his or her relationship to that individual. [/align]

imported post

I went to see a movie on Christmas Day at the Celebration Cinema at Rivertown Crossings in Grandville (sort of a tradition). Since the mall was not too busy, I stopped and read the placard at the entrance which states that firearms are prohibited. I have mentioned this issue before and thought I needed to update it since I actually stood there and read it this time . Well, I noticed that the sign states that if someone does any of the activities listed (possession of firearms being one of the prohibited activities) they will be asked to leave the premises, and, if they don't, THEN they are subject to arrest and prosecution for trespassing. It appears, then, that I can carry openly, but I need to be prepared to be asked to leave.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

... and, if they don't, THEN they are subject to arrest and prosecution for trespassing. It appears, then, that I can carry openly, but I need to be prepared to be asked to leave.

Click to expand...

I still think this places us in uncertain territory regarding our protections under MCL 780.972. These protections reduce our personal liability under civil lawsuits. Since a plaintiff's attorney would be arguing the case, the first thing any savvy lawyer would investigate is the legality of our presence in an area which prohibits firearms.

We would not be automatically liable, but the question of our liability would definitely be up for discussion in a court setting.

imported post

I agree with you BUT since the prohibitions listed included disturbing patrons, noise violations, etc., an argument COULD be made. You are correct, though, that it is possible if not likely the issue could come up.