Can You Push Somebody Who is On Your Property Without Permission

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Florida

I was in my home office and heard yelling outside in my driveway. I went out and found two people, apparently neighbors, male/and female, in my driveway, coming toward my lanai door and yelling at my wife who was standing near the door. I told them I had no idea what was going on, but that they need to stop yelling at my wife and leave my property. They refused. At that point, having little idea of their intentions, I pushed them toward the road, off of my property. They were riding bikes, and I also moved them from my driveway into the road. I told the guy he had no right being on my property, and disrespecting my wife the way he was. He came at me and punched the left side of my head twice. My first instinct was to respond accordingly, but I caught myself and told him that I intend to press charges against him. He laughed and as they rode away on their bikes he yelled out his address. I called the police, and was told since I made physical contact with them first, I can't press charges? This seems a little disjointed to me. I did not attack them. I told them to leave my property, they refused and I took necessary action to get them off my property and protect my wife. I had no intention of inflicting bodily harm. But he did. There were witnesses. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

I did not attack them.

---

Yes, you did.

Your own words:

Quote:

---

I pushed them

I also moved them

---

Moving toward them in a threatening manner was the assault. Laying hands on them which is the very definition of battery.

Quote:

---

I took necessary action to get them off my property and protect my wife.

---

No, you didn't.

As long as they were just talking, you had no justifiable reason to move toward them.

What you should have done was gotten your wife inside the house, locked the door and called the police from inside the house.

Read the Florida Justifiable Use of Force statutes:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...entsIndex.html

I suspect the officers were protecting you from yourself. Sure, you could have requested charges against the other guy for hitting you, but he could have also sought to have charges filed against YOU for battery as well. And, since you had just attacked him, he might have a case for self defense.

As adjusterjack stated, the better move would probably have been to have gotten your wife inside the house and called the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I suspect the officers were protecting you from yourself. Sure, you could have requested charges against the other guy for hitting you, but he could have also sought to have charges filed against YOU for battery as well. And, since you had just attacked him, he might have a case for self defense.

As adjusterjack stated, the better move would probably have been to have gotten your wife inside the house and called the police.

---

Thank you for your responses. I guess I was one law degree short of understanding my rights. Thanks again, I appreciate your comments and advice.

I think that the problem is that the "Castle Doctrine" has gotten so much press that people just accept the concept in the abstract without checking the nuances of the applicable statutes.

Quote:

---

776.013 

---

Quote:

---

Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or

History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-77.

---

the castle doctrine law is a defense to using force as a defense when there is a reasonable belief one will be subject to unlawful force (attack). Your action was intending to cause the other party to leave. It was not a defensive action but an offensive act.

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

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.

Still, confronting unknown idiots can have deadly consequences. It would still have been advisable to have gone inside and called the police rather than confronting individuals he did not know. It is also a rebuttable presumption that force was necessary in the given situation, especially given that there is likely to be two version of events.

With Florida's multiple, poorly drafted laws addressing self-defense, and adding case law to the mix, I can see why the police would not want to get into a battle of various self-defense theories.

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

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

With Florida's multiple, poorly drafted laws addressing self-defense, and adding case law to the mix, I can see why the police would not want to get into a battle of various self-defense theories.

---

Yes, it's a mess.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

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

---

Yeah, the word "reasonable" is supposed to cover that, but what two people agree on what is "reasonable".