Criminal trespass vs. criminal threatening

[Little Rickie]

Great point. I know the law in CT states that you can not expose a concealed weapon as it will be seen as a threat. .

I don't know if that is true in New York. I was hiking a local trail, a public access trail on privated property, and an older (70s?) man and women were walking towards me, not the land owners. He had no problem brushing back his jacket so I could see the revolver tucked in his belt. I smiled as we passed with a respectfull amount of space between us. I got his message, didn't feel threatened but didn't stop to chit chat either. I could have called the cops but they were an old couple and I do look like a bad guy.

Another time I started to cross private land because I got disorientated in heavy rain and came out of the trees in the wrong place. I was scooting along the edge of his field (should have stayed in the trees) far from the house but I guess not far enough. He let his dog out to greet me. I wasn't to happy about that but I was wrong.

The owner started chewing me out while I explained how I got to where I was. He told me to walk to the nearest road in the opposite direction from where my car was parked. Once he heard my story and how I only had to walk a few hundred feet in the driection needed to get to my car vs a longer walk across his property to get to the road, he called in the dog and told me not to do it again. He was a decent guy tired of people crossing his land to get to the lake.

 

[spider solo]

Interesting thread nice to see it hasn't been locked .

 

[Bobby]

I think it comes to reasonableness. Is it reasonable for a landowner to point a firearm at a person on his property who appears to be unarmed and is not making threats to cause bodily injury to the landowner?

Trespassing is on thing. If another crime is being committed along with trespassing, again reasonableness counts. Would you shoot someone for taking apples out of your apple tree? I hope not. If that person charged at you with a hiking pole or an ice axe, the by all means, fire away! Both have the potential to cause a lethal injury and the responding force would be appropriate.

You have the right to use force to protect yourself, but pointing firearms at someone who is lost seems a bit much. If it's a chronic problem, then the police should be involved.

 

[Peakbagr]

"Interesting thread nice to see it hasn't been locked."

With a couple of exception, folks have kept this related to hiking. No one wants to see threads locked, but lots of examples of where gun threads head.

 

[Chip]

I don't know if that is true in New York. I was hiking a local trail, a public access trail on privated property, and an older (70s?) man and women were walking towards me, not the land owners. He had no problem brushing back his jacket so I could see the revolver tucked in his belt. I smiled as we passed with a respectfull amount of space between us. I got his message, didn't feel threatened but didn't stop to chit chat either. I could have called the cops but they were an old couple and I do look like a bad guy.

Typically "Brandishing" is illegal and considered a threat. NY, however, has various laws by county, which may allow it, or aren't being enforced that wouldn't allow it. I'm licensed and legal in CT, but don't carry due to the risk of being caught "over the border" in NY or MA, where their laws may apply...or not...

Ironically, a lawmaker in NH has filed a bill to allow brandishing, "to explicitly permit residents to ward off trespassers by exhibiting a firearm.
“We want to make it very clear to the courts that protecting our property is an absolute right,” said state Rep. Betsey Patten, R-Moultonborough."

So the "trespassers" need to stay tuned there.

 

[MichaelJ]

"to explicitly permit residents to ward off trespassers"

Interesting choice of words by the Representative from Moultonborough.
:8

 

[peakbagger]

To close part of the loop on this thread. Ward Bird's sentence was commuted today by the NH executive council. The governor was adament that he didnt want to set a precedent by allowing a pardon but would support the sentence being commuted. There was public testimony before the executive council that brought up a lot of other information that was not brought up at the trial that reinforces that the area in Moultonboro where the incident occured is probably not a good place to be going off trail.

 

[bobandgeri]

Union Leader Article

 

[pedxing]

Commuting the sentence to time served seems reasonable, it might have been good to do it a little sooner.

It's also a great relief. In bouts of post-hike hypoglycemia, I've had nearly irresistible impulses to go knocking on certain doors to inquire about the free Ward Birds they are advertising. Are they egg layers? What's the catch?

 

[Bob]

whether Ward Bird did/did not threaten this person is unclear...waht is clear is the tresspasser has been CONVICTED of animal cruelty, which is inexcusable.

 

[griffin]

whether Ward Bird did/did not threaten this person is unclear...waht is clear is the tresspasser has been CONVICTED of animal cruelty, which is inexcusable.

Bird was CONVICTED too, no? Is that not also clear?

I agree animal cruelty is inexcusable, but unless she was in the process of going after one of his pets or his livestock, I don't think that's really relevant. The fact that I don't like you doesn't give me the right to threaten you.

 

[Bob]

Bird was CONVICTED too, no? Is that not also clear?

I agree animal cruelty is inexcusable, but unless she was in the process of going after one of his pets or his livestock, I don't think that's really relevant. The fact that I don't like you doesn't give me the right to threaten you.

what makes it relevant is the credability(sp?) of the main witness. This is a 'he said-she said issue', there were only 2 witnesses, so if one of them has mental health issues that casts a different light on their testimony. The case was not cut and dry- the animal cruelty case certainly was. Unfortunately the animals could not testify on their behalf...