Can You Push Somebody Who is On Your Property Without Permission

Especially for a low grade battery ... the state's attorney may not want to, either.

Quote:

---

Quoting asa_jim

---

In Florida you can use reasonable non-deadly force to defend your property if you are ejecting a trespasser. People standing in your driveway are not initially trespassers, but when you told them to leave and they refused they then became trespassers. Read 776.031 of the Florida statutes.

---

One must temper the use of force with common sense. Otherwise your tombstone might read: "He was right. Dead right."

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

OP, did you fear for your wife's safety?

---

I have to rescind my original statement. There is not even a requirement of fear to to be able to physically remove a trespasser.

Quote:

---

c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-77.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

to me the law itself is very clear. The op has a full defense in his actions. Unless there is case law, as mr k alluded to, that muddies this clear and simply worded law, the op was wronged by the failure of the police to refuse to charge the assailant. Trespassing, assault and battery, and there’s probably a disturbing the peace statute out there as well that is applicable, would all be viable charges.

Unless, of course, the explanation to the police was somewhat different than what was related here.

Not to mention, two competing tales would still make for possible reasonable doubt,and competing arrests would mean more than a few court appearances for the OP - both as a victim/witness,and potentially as a defendant. But, if he's willing to take that chance, he can always call the local PD and speak to a supervisor and demand something be done ... and then hope the state's attorney files.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Unless, of course, the explanation to the police was somewhat different than what was related here.

Not to mention, two competing tales would still make for possible reasonable doubt,and competing arrests would mean more than a few court appearances for the OP - both as a victim/witness,and potentially as a defendant. But, if he's willing to take that chance, he can always call the local PD and speak to a supervisor and demand something be done ... and then hope the state's attorney files.

---

As long as it took place on the op’s property the facts would have to be extremely different to make a difference. As long as op warned the trespassers to leave prior to his actions he is righteous in his actions. After that, any action against him on his property is unlawful and could rightfully be charged against the offending party.

If it took place on the op’s property, there is no basis to arrest op as they have the full support of the law in defending and ejecting a trespasser. Unless there is a question of whether this took place on the op’s curtilage, I’m just not seeing any possibility of any valid action against the op.

You assume that the story told here is the same one that was presented to the cops. But,it's a moot point. Unless the OP wants to go the extra mile to roll the dice, it's done.

I have no reason to not believe the op. It is quite plausible. Nothing seemed over the top or deceptive. Even if it’s nkt 100% true and accurate, unless it wasn’t on op’s property and op attacked the bicyclists without warning, I can’t see how the op isn’t vindicated and the bicyclists guilty of assault and battery.

I just feel he was given poor direction based on his question. Based on his statement he is correct in his arguments and was treated unfairly by the justice system.

The OP isn't being charged with anything. His objection is that the police won't charge the other person, because he was the first to escalate a war of words into physical conduct.

And it looks like the OP had a reason to object.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

The OP isn't being charged with anything. His objection is that the police won't charge the other person, because he was the first to escalate a war of words into physical conduct.

---

Yes. I’m aware of that. It’s that op asked why the person that assaulted him wasn’t charged and we got into the possibility of op being charged. After reviewing it I don’t see any reason he would be charged, based on the facts as stated