Since when is trespassing a capital offense

Aaron1124 said:

I agree with deadly forced being authorized for unauthorized entrance inside of a facility or an establishment (also known as burglary here in Washington). I am just arguing against it for criminal trespassing when it comes to the passing of a boundary line or being in the perimeter of someone else's property, whether it's government or privately owned. Even if I had $1,000,000,000 in my house, I wouldn't start firing at a man for walking on my driveway. I understand that you're saying it isn't necessarily justifying immediate deadly force, but having a sign that says "Deadly force authorized" seems more like an intimidation tactic to me.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't open fire either. Responsible folks take measured steps--as would the guards at military installations that display those signs.

Yes, it is an intimidation tactic! That is step 1 of the measured steps: Make folks think twice before even crossing the line. Make them fear for their safety when challenged by the armed guard. Good!!!

Step 27 is, "Shoot the m***********!"

This is a very interesting video. Not sure if you had a chance to see it or not, but it's two older women who passed the boundary at Area 51 while some teens and their dad filmed the incident. The "camo men" took immediate pursuit, and the county Sheriff's Department arrived within minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Nt0jgGNek

Aaron1124 said:

Since when is simple trespassing a capital offense, justifying deadly force.

Click to expand...

Trespassing on private property has always been akin to playing Russian Roulette!!
Much like J-walking and running redlights the offender knows (or should know) it can lead to death.


Many trespassing signs are enforced by four legged fast movers that don't care who you are or why you are there!!!
Many FLFM are backed up by armed personnel who will (almost) always side with the FLFM!!!

Aaron1124 said:

How in the world in this even legal? Getting shot for crossing an imaginary line? What is the world coming to? Why don't they have a secured fence with a guard post set up there?

Click to expand...

Although I agree with your sentiment when it comes to 'public' property which all government property is.

I would disagree and think that private property when well posted/fenced should be able to be defended even with fire power.

sudden valley gunner said:

Although I agree with your sentiment when it comes to 'public' property which all government property is.

I would disagree and think that private property when well posted/fenced should be able to be defended even with fire power.

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with you, especially when well fenced and posted. Because if you actively circumvented the fence and ignored the warning signs, then odds are you're not there for tea and crumpets.

Jack House said:

I'd have to agree with you, especially when well fenced and posted. Because if you actively circumvented the fence and ignored the warning signs, then odds are you're not there for tea and crumpets.

Click to expand...

I agree if there were proper fencing, however, without proper fencing, it becomes to weak to justify deadly force. What if some guy riding his dirt bike out in the desert happens to accidentally pass the boundaries of Area 51? Should he be shot on site? That's ridiculous.

Aaron1124 said:

I agree if there were proper fencing, however, without proper fencing, it becomes to weak to justify deadly force. What if some guy riding his dirt bike out in the desert happens to accidentally pass the boundaries of Area 51? Should he be shot on site? That's ridiculous.

Click to expand...

OK, let me put it this way: Who has been shot on sight?

The sign does not say "shot on sight." That deadly force is authorized does not mean it is the first step. You are making a logical leap and assigning meaning that is simply not there.

eye95 said:

OK, let me put it this way: Who has been shot on sight?

The sign does not say "shot on sight." That deadly force is authorized does not mean it is the first step. You are making a logical leap and assigning meaning that is simply not there.

Click to expand...

If you read what he is writing he isn't saying anyone has been, well that we know of.
But should they have the right too.

sudden valley gunner said:

If you read what he is writing he isn't saying anyone has been, well that we know of.
But should they have the right too.

Click to expand...

If it hasn't happened, then clearly the sign does not mean, "trespassers will (or can) be shot on sight," and the question is pointless.

1. The sign does not say folks will be shot on sight.

2. No one is being shot on sight.

What is the problem???

Aaron1124 said:

I agree if there were proper fencing, however, without proper fencing, it becomes to weak to justify deadly force. What if some guy riding his dirt bike out in the desert happens to accidentally pass the boundaries of Area 51? Should he be shot on site? That's ridiculous.

Click to expand...

As Eye95 said, no one is being shot on sight and there are plenty of warning signs and markers out there. Anybody that 'accidentally' crosses the boundary should be able to realize what they did and turn around before ever even seeing a guard, much less getting shot at.

Though I find the proposal absurd. People just happen to be riding dirt bikes out next to A51 and just happen to 'accidentally' trespass onto the installation, and just happen to have not seen the no trespassing signs? Riiiight. Besides, if you watch the beginning of the video, they say that all the land surrounding the base is private property and that you shouldn't be out there on it anyway.

Here's another option no one has mentioned: sometimes, believe it or not, the government lies.

I work at a government facility. They have signs posted at the driveways, parking lots, and entrances, and all visitors must sign an acknowledgement form, all of which contain dire warnings of legal consequences for possessing certain items anywhere on the property.

Guess what? It's pure Bovine Scat. Total fabrication. Anyone who reads the law cited on these notices will see the law does not say what the warnings claim it says. Despite the warnings about 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the truth is that the law does not ban those objects from the grounds, and the agency policy has not been codified in the CFRs.

Sometimes, government just likes to scare people into "behaving", even without any lawful authority.

KBCraig said:

Despite the warnings about 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the truth is that the law does not ban those objects from the grounds, and the agency policy has not been codified in the CFRs.

Click to expand...

'May not be in the CFR... might be under 18 USC.

Sonora Rebel said:

'May not be in the CFR... might be under 18 USC.

Click to expand...

No, that was my point: the USC does not say what they claim it does. Their policy bans a long list of objects and activities, but they have never codified that policy via the CFR. They're blowing smoke.

(For those not following closely, I'm talking about my workplace, not Area 51.)

The bigger question is, why are people so arrogant that they think they have the right to trespass and the property owner should have no rights to say otherwise.
You mean to say that signs are not enough for you? This is the United States and not the U.S.S.R. and we have property rights still, even if the commies are doing their best to remove those rights. Yes they have a right to protect that property and if one is stupid enough to trespass then they alone are responsible what whatever happens, good or bad. Frankly I need signs like that on my property, I am tired of jerks who think my property belongs to them also, the hunters and snowmobile riders are the worst and I hunt and snowmobile and still can't comprehend the utter arrogance people have and entitlement attitude that somehow their invasion of my property is less an intrusion than that of others. If the sign says keep out then keep out and let's not whine about the fact that people are tired of idiots who trample on the rights of others. Whether it is private property or Government property KEEP OUT if it is not yours. It's pretty simple.

Aaron1124 said:

Since when is simple trespassing a capital offense, justifying deadly force by simply crossing a "boundary"?

There are several government facilities with signs of "No Trespassing", and some even say that deadly force is authorized beyond a "point".

Then these vehicle suddenly show up if one gets "too close" to the boundary.

Click to expand...

Aaron1124 said:

You should get arrested and charged with trespassing, unless they can prove you had other intentions of being there. Being shot on sight? Come on. That's ridiculous. What happens if some guys are out riding a dirt bike in the desert and fail to see the signs, and happened to speed through the little orange posts? Are their cowboy security going to start firing down on them?

Click to expand...

The gentleman may wish to read the sign again; it does not say "We'll pop a cap in ya ass as soon as we see you" it says "deadly force is authorized." First step is deterrence with signs and stakes, maybe even a fence. Then comes the pickups on the ridge line, and then the ride-by. Then there's the stop and detainment if the intrusion continues. It will continue to escalate if the intrusion continues.

To say "shot on sight" is a gross mischaracterization of the reality of the situation.
Why wasn't This Guy 'shot on sight'?

Fallschirmjäger said:

The gentleman may wish to read the sign again; it does not say "We'll pop a cap in ya ass as soon as we see you" it says "deadly force is authorized." First step is deterrence with signs and stakes, maybe even a fence. Then comes the pickups on the ridge line, and then the ride-by. Then there's the stop and detainment if the intrusion continues. It will continue to escalate if the intrusion continues.

To say "shot on sight" is a gross mischaracterization of the reality of the situation.
Why wasn't This Guy 'shot on sight'?

Click to expand...

Folks have been "detained" on public land, a state road to be specific, that run along the restricted area. Saw this on one of those UFO shows that is on Discovery or History. The "cop" had a real bad attitude and told the camera crew to stop recording. Obviously those nitwits, the folks on the show, are unfamiliar with their 4A right. They gave up freely their papers. If they were OCers the cop would have had to make a very dangerous decision.....seeing as he was by alone during the contact.

Aaron1124 said:

Since when is simple trespassing a capital offense,.

Click to expand...

When someone trespasses on my land? lol

We as taxpayers paid for it, we should be able to know what is there.