a man confronts you with a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
2,872
well this happened to my friends dad

he owns a piece of land, that is connected to another piece of land by a road that is public property the road cuts through a farmers land, well teh farmer put a gate up that is kept my friends dad off his land, so he went up to the mans house and asked him to unlock teh gate so he can get to his land the farmer said no its his property and now he is trespassing


well the next day my friends dad return with a torch and cut the lock off the gate

then he had to return the next day and a man was waiting for him with a shotgun he talked to man into putting the gun down and never even revealed his .357 under his coat



how would you handle this?\


edit:
the queston is how would you handle being confronted by someone with a gun i was using that story as an example
 
Last edited:
well the next day my friends dad return with a torch and cut the lock off the gate

This can get you shot in some states.

If the road is public property I'd call the Sheriff.
 
If the road is public property I'd call the Sheriff.
Yep ... Sheriff and lawyer. Even if the road isn't "public" property.

There is a legal concept (the name of which escapes me) that says that if your property is between the road and someone elses's property that you must allow the other person to access their property via yours (I worded that poorly, I'm sure one of the legal eagles on this site can clarify what I'm trying to say).


EDIT
I think the term I'm looking for is Easement by Necessity ... but again I'll wait for the legal experts to chime in here ... IANAL
 
Doesn't sound like a good reason for someone to loose their life. Suspect I'd be pretty pissed if someone locked a public road preventing me access to my property. Agree with M2, call the Sheriff/local law enforcement rather than escalating the issue by cutting open the gate. Sound like there could be ongoing issues, I'd get it on record.
 
There is a legal concept (the name of which escapes me) that says that if one's property is between the road and someone elses's property that you must allow the other person to access their property via yours

I don't know what it's called either. We just call it an easement.
My neighbor's place is beyound mine and he drives along the edge of my place for about 100 yards to get to his place.

I have to allow him to do this but if I wanted to use that ground, say for grazing, I could put a gate at each end, that he would be responsible to close each time he went out and in.
 
Call Sheriff of couse... However noone should have to worry about getting on to there own land with some guy waiting there with a shotgun. That is just wrong.
 
the queston is how would you handle being confronted by someone with a gun i was using that story as an example
 
well the next day my friends dad return with a torch and cut the lock off the gate

I wouldn't have done it. For one thing a shotgun in hand beats the bejesus out of a magnum under the coat. The question of who has a right to cross land should be addressed by a trip to the property records department and, if necessary, a trip to court. Civil courts have been dealing with these exact disputes for the past 400+ years. That's what they're there for.

confronted by someone with a gun i was using that story as an example

There is no single answer to that question. Your example controls the response. If the man with a firearm is a neighbor expressing a claim to the property, and he's simply carrying the firearm, then there is no justification for shooting. If the man is a wandering nutjob trying to kill you, then your reaction needs to change.

Being confronted by some neighbor who happens to be armed does not present you with imminent and unlawful threat of deadly force. I've had heated conversations with fool neighbors who were armed at the time, as was I. The firearms should never come into it. They're irrelevant.

if your property is between the road and someone elses's property that you must allow the other person to access their property via yours

It's called an easement of necessity for a "landlocked" parcel. But given that there was a road in place already my bet is there's an express easement on record from way back. Either way going around with guns and cutting torches is how a long, long, long, long list of really idiotic gunfights have started in this country.
 
how would you handle this?

By not trespassing in the first place :rolleyes:

If it is a public road, then call the appropriate local authority and they will inform the landowner that he must allow access.

I've never heard of this "necessity" argument. In MT, you either have an easement or you don't. There are parcels of public land that can't be accessed. There are also places where landowners allow access to public land by "grace" and they have the legal right to shut that off at any time.

Also, neighbors often allow neighbors to move machinery or drive cows across their land, when otherwise it might be many, many miles around by "legal" roads.


This really is an S&T topic: because trespassing is a good way to end up in a confrontation. :uhoh: Avoid, avoid, avoid!
 
I've never heard of this "necessity" argument.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's a very, very old principle of property law. It goes back to British common law. Modern regulatory systems that require some approval before a parcel is subdivided and developed have obviated the need for this type of easement in most cases, but they're still lurking around esp. in rural areas where the lines were drawn long ago.

In MT, you either have an easement or you don't

That's an EXPRESS easement. An easement of necessity is implied by law. There are a variety of implied easements, and Montana recognizes these. The details can get complicated, but the bottom line is it's no time to go storming out with bolt cutters and a mean temper. It's also a good example of why the good lord invented lawyers. Before assuming you do or do not have a right of access, consulting counsel is a very good idea.
 
The laws regarding easements and access to private property vary from state to state just like the self defense laws do. And just like the laws on self defense, there is enough rumor, innuendo, wrong information and bad advice floating around out there to get you into serious criminal and civil problems if you listen to it.

There is only one proper response to this. Call the county road commissioner (or the equivalent in your area) and find out if it is in fact a public road. If it is in fact a public road, call the sheriff, state police or other law enforcement agency and let them, probably in concert with the road commissioner handle the problem.

If it's not a public road, have the landowner, not you if you don't own the land, contact an attorney and find out what kind of action you have to take to get access to the land.

This confrontation should never have occurred. If your friends father had used that magnum under his coat, he'd probably be cooling his heels in jail now, waiting for trial. You don't arm yourself and go onto someone else's property and confront them.

Even if you are 100% in the right, this isn't the kind of problem you handle yourself with a firearm under your coat. This is the kind of problem that you handle with lawyers, depositions, pens, paper and the law. Ultimately that legal action will be cheaper then defending yourself against a murder or manslaughter charge.

Jeff
 
“This is an example of criminal trespass and nothing else! “

Not necessarily. In some states, if a right of way has been in use for a specified length of time, the land owner cannot close it. There have been cases of people buying railroad right-of-ways that crossed streets and then putting a fence across the road. In every case I know of, they had to take the fence down.

As far as avoiding a shooing confrontation, one should do that whenever possible.
 
I would be very polite to the guy with the shotgun

how would you handle this?

were you expecting us to tell you how we would drop and roll while simultaneously drawing from concealment and dropping the shotgun toting guy with a head shot?

Or would our super kung fu powers extricate the shotty from the farmers hand?

You know, this isn't even a gun related question, its an easement related question.
 
Here is a description of NC law pertaining to easements. I selected NC because the OP is from NC and I assumed the issue was within that state.

In North Carolina, an implied easement exists where a person grants lands to which there is no accessible right-of-way except over her or his land or retains land that is inaccessible except over the land which the person conveys. In such instances a right-of-way is presumed to have been granted or reserved. Such an implied grant or easement in lands or estates exists where there is no other reasonable and practicable way of egress or ingress and it is reasonably necessary for the beneficial use or enjoyment of the part granted or reserved.

It seems like there might be an implied easement present if the road isn't actually public. However, the easement might not be valid if the road in question isn't the only access to the property or possibly if it isn't the shortest access to the property. There doesn't seem to be any time-use stipulation.

If the road in question only leads from the main road to the friend's property, then I would be surprised if it is actually a public road.

If it is a public road, then I would assume that the road has an actual name or number designation and hence should show up on a local map. For example, is it called something like Rural Route 6, County Road 6, Farm to Market 6, etc.?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, well it seems like an "implied easement" only exists when someone sells off a piece of property that otherwise would not have any legal access. So if the farmer never owned the "public land" then he would have no obligation to allow access unless there was some other agreement.

(I have several easements across my own land so I know a little something about this)

Still - as pointed out previously - this is mostly a legal question, which means your friend's dad should have resolved it with lawyers and/or county commissioners and sheriff, rather than with torches and guns :(
 
the question is how would you handle being confronted by someone with a gun i was using that story as an example

Well, if a man was standing in front of a gate with a shotgun, the smart thing to do would be not to drive up to him.

If he pulls out a shotgun after you pull up, then there are too many variables to say what a person would do.
 
In some states (I can't speak for all) there was definitely an easement.

One of my grandfathers ran afoul of that. He bought 40 acres of land somewhere, all proud of the fact that he was smart and bought land with road frontage. Later someone else bought the 40 acres behind his that didn't have road access. The second guy just started driving across my grandfather's land to get to his. This wasn't a big deal at first but when things got muddy the other landowner's jeep started really tearing things up and making it hard for my grandfather to use his driveway so my grandfather tried to block access.

Nope. Lawyers became involved. Judge says that, because he had allowed (by not stopping it the first time) unrestricted passage, and he hadn't first (before the second landowner started driving across) put up a gate or made sure he could block the road at will, and he hadn't charged rent/tolls or made any other arrangement for access, there was an easement.

Good way to make enemies of your neighbors.

So, to answer your question... in this case I'd start by, before coming anywhere near the man with the gun, calling a lawyer to find out what my rights were in that state.
 
Actualy I know some people who have dealt with this situation. A smart property owner would have done exactly as that man did, only much sooner. Likely there is another route, though less enjoyable or less direct to his house.
By allowing your friend's dad to cut across his property he is inviting an easement or the loss of freedom and control over his property.

If he decides to not allow use that is his right as a property owner. If your friend's dad believes he needs to use his land to get to his own then he needs to get a court order. If the guy fights it then it can cost them both tens of thousands of dollars. The last person I knew that dealt with this same thing speant near $100,000 to resolve this situation. They were the property owner, and the easement was denied. Insurance paid for some of the cost for them, they paid most. The person challenging them couldn't afford it and was forced to sell thier home after the case.

Judge says that, because he had allowed (by not stopping it the first time) unrestricted passage, and he hadn't first (before the second landowner started driving across) put up a gate or made sure he could block the road at will, and he hadn't charged rent/tolls or made any other arrangement for access, there was an easement.

One thing it has taught me is NEVER EVER let other people use your property, come onto your property, or tresspass without telling them to get lost at the start. They will start to feel entitled, and there is laws that after a certain amount of time has elapsed someone can actualy lose the right to some of the property they paid for.

If you don't let anyone do anything, then nobody else has a case. Don't ever let people drive across your property, use your property to get to something, or in any other use of your property on a regular basis. Fence your property, even if all you can afford is some barbed wire. Use your property, put things on your property, while natural may be beautiful it does not prove to a court of law you actively use your property. Always use your land, and don't let anyone else use it PERIOD.


So does he really need to go through the other man's property or is it just a more convenient route?
If he really absolutely needs to go through then he better start setting aside a large sum of money and and look for a good lawyer in that field. It is a long process, and can take over a year if he challenges it and it goes trhough several motions and eventualy sees a jury.
In that year the lawyers of both sides will try to encourage actions that show need and a claim to the property. That will usualy result in a lot of law enforcement calls and very hostile parties on both sides. Once the legal bills start to come in things might get worse. If one of them may lose all they have worked for in life to pay for what they feel is nonsense, it is very possible one may go postal at any time.
Both sides will also likely get restraining orders on the other. That tends to be standard practice.

Someone cutting fences with a torch is a big offense in some states. In CA for example use of a torch in a crime often makes it a felony. If your friend's dad had to use force, or been shot I think the benefit of the doubt would have been with the home owner who has someone armed, and tresspassing, on his property, with a torch. If he has a case he needs a court order. Otherwise he is taking the law into his own hands. He must pay a lawyer, go broke, and follow the law.

I am not saying I do not understand his situation, and I hope it works out for them. It sounds like he was level headed in dealing with it. However had there been a use of force he would likely be in prison.
 
In some states (I can't speak for all) there was definitely an easement
.
Easements are defined in writing. They don't exist automaticly based on a need, they come to exist once they are formaly created. They are either known to the property owner when they purchase the land, or are created at a later date. They don't come into existance spontaneously when someone else thinks one is needed.

So one can be created if needed, but the need for one does not mean one exists. If a property owner does not want a new one it is a lengthy legal process to forcefuly impose one.
 
Zoog, I agree for the most part but at least in some states de facto easements are defined by use and require NO documentation. They aren't defined in writing and they do come into existence spontaneously. I think the term is "prescriptive easement". They are implied easements, which is another general type of unwritten easement.

My house has a loop driveway that is outside the fence line. Unfortunately, when the road in front of my house is blocked people can use my driveway as a detour. Fortunately I have a set of wire fences that can and periodically do close the driveway off. Closing the loop driveway off periodically (once a year or so) is intended as a means of ensuring that a public easement doesn't magically appear to make my driveway into a street anyone can use when it is in better condition than the road. Such things happen all the time.
 
I took a Real Estate class in college and the teacher told us about a Realtor friend who had been pheasant hunting every year for several years at a certain place. He would cross somebody's property to reach his hunting area without any problem. When that property changed hands he continued to cross the property, but the new owner tried to stop him. My teacher's friend told the new property owner that he had established an easement across that property and he would take the property owner to court if he got in his way. He got his way. I guess the rule was if the access was used openly and regularly for 7 years it became an easement.

Back to your question though... that is scary. I think ideally you're going to try to de-escalate when someone else has a gun on you. I just read Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme." He says you shouldn't draw on someone who has a gun on you. Or at least wait until they are distracted to draw or something like that.

My brother's friends went pheasant hunting to their favorite spot and found another hunter there who had been drinking. He had his son with him too (young boy), but he got pretty belligerant when he saw them. He actually threatened one of them with his shotgun - pointing it at him. So the other two in the party pointed their shotguns at the drunk hunter and apparently were able to talk him out of doing anything stupid. ZOIKS! My brother asked me what I would have done. I told him it would have been very hard to find a reason not to blast anybody that was pointing a shotgun threateningly at someone I loved if I had my own shotgun there in hand.
 
Zoog, I agree for the most part but at least in some states de facto easements are defined by use and require NO documentation. They aren't defined in writing and they do come into existence spontaneously. I think the term is "prescriptive easement". They are implied easements, which is another general type of unwritten easement.

Like I said I know different people who have dealt with various property disputes, read through much of thier legal paperwork and seen the process for various easements as well as adverse possession in several seperate cases.

In general consent, specific or implied by not stopping tresspassing is given. Once that consent is given for a length of time an easement can be established.
If they use that land openly, hostile and notoriously (not sneaky or secretive) for a length of time without being stopped they can actualy pay the taxes and claim ownership of someone else's land. An easement is obviously much easier. However they are related in that an owner in disproving one can actualy be a witness against themselves in proving the other if they are not careful.

The one who believes they have an easement, or need an easement needs to prove prior use in court. Many people simply fold in court, and don't stand up for themselves due to cost. This is often where you here about hunters getting easements etc. In all honesty it would be difficult for a hunter to legaly prove use of a random spot in the wilderness without documentation, pictures with landmarks, and etc. It would be a very lengthy and expensive process.

My house has a loop driveway that is outside the fence line. Unfortunately, when the road in front of my house is blocked people can use my driveway as a detour. Fortunately I have a set of wire fences that can and periodically do close the driveway off. Closing the loop driveway off periodically (once a year or so) is intended as a means of ensuring that a public easement doesn't magically appear to make my driveway into a street anyone can use when it is in better condition than the road. Such things happen all the time.
Then you are consenting to the use of your driveway by knowing about it and not putting a stop to it. That consent leaves you open to an easement.
Stopping it once a year just protects you from adverse possession because nobody will use it for the necessary number of years uninterupted, not an easement.
Adverse possession is possible when use of land is done for a length of time openly and hostile without permission. When permission is granted the clock for adverse possession is reset. States tend to have times ranging from 5-20 years of uninterupted use required for adverse possession.
While granting permission would reset the clock for adverse possession, it would also grant a defacto easement (that would still have to be proven in court if challenged) in many situations. So you must prevent and stop physical use of your land.
Failure to do anything is a choice in itself.

The only real solution is to have a survey done at the purchase of any land and install a fence on the borders and let nobody tresspass, ever, for any reason. It is your responsiblity as a property owner to control your land, failure to do so will result in others gaining some control or complete ownership of it or parts of it.

Tresspassing is an offense, but if people break the law for a length of time it becomes not just legal, but they can claim the land or be entitled to some use of the land. :eek:

Good way to make enemies of your neighbors.
It is not about "getting along" it is about keeping legal ownership of the land you have paid for. If someone is too passive to stand up for thier property then thier property will no longer be thiers. Remember the old saying "A fool and his money are soon parted"? The same goes for property. If someone is too timid to enforce no tresspassing then they will deal with the consequences.
The only people on your land should be your agents, people visiting you or in a contract of some sort (like renting to them), or licensees.
The law does not have an exemption for "nice guys."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top