Talk:Trespasser

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Untitled[edit]

I propose that this article should be renamed to reflect its relevance to trespass to property (as opposed to trespass to person-assault, battery, false imprisonment) HJ Mitchell (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to such a renaming. bd2412 T 15:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duties to trespassers?[edit]

In the US, at least, trespassers may (and, often, do) sue landowners when injured while trespassing. Without a "posted" sign; many get away with frivolous lawsuits about hazards not aware of by the landowner,and, often created, by the "trespasser".

No where in the US is deadly force legal, authorized, or encouraged for simple trespass onto private property--only breaking into the home where the "Castle Doctrine" applies.68.231.189.108 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 68.231.189.108 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vague[edit]

Is this US-centric? UK-centric? Not clear to casual reader and this anbiguity should be cleared up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.119.9 (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading[edit]

This section is misleading:

"Many jurisdictions within the United States have passed statutes to modify or clarify the common law duties owed by a property owner to a trespasser (for example, by explicitly permitting the property owner to use deadly force to expel trespassers)."

The example combines truth with fiction. It is true that "many jurisdictions have passed statutes to modify or clarify" trespassing. But then the author of this statement combines such a truth with a Texas-centric approach to defense of property, and assign such to the use of deadly force to "expel trespassers". Even Texas, which allows the most liberal usage of deadly force in defense of self and property does not allow one to use deadly force against simple trespassers. Some other circumstance revolving around property or defense of life must exist in tandem with the trespassing. And while there may be other states that have the same liberalized use of deadly force in defense of property, Texas is the only state that immediately comes to mind. Most states require you to be acting in defense of life before resorting to deadly force. Simple trespassing therefore obviously does not justify the use of such.

Basically, this sentence takes a truth and ends with an untruth, painting an incorrect picture for both uninformed US readers as well as international ones. But since I don't know how to edit, I'll just leave this diatribe here and let one of you figure it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.137.211 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]