Freedom of speech or more trouble than its worth?

[JLLee]

What is the name of your state? Indiana

Ok I have been having trouble with the neighbors for over a year. This past Jan we put up a no tresspassing sign, only its not a normal one. Its says No trespassing Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again. Its part tongue in cheek, part what we feel is the only way to stop the trouble.

The police have seen the sign as we have an ongoing case and the police came out to talk with me, I saw him smerk when he saw it as he had been to the house so many times and knows what we have been through. And the homeowners association president saw the sign and nothing was said.

Now the neighbor has made a complaint to the police about the sign and wants to start something. Even though the sign has been up for almost 3 full months and they saw the sign back in Jan they want to do something about it now. Which I do not see why as they are being foreclosed and won't be around long anyway (to us this is a gift from above).

Can anything be done about this as a case against us to take it down? I will not take it down. I am not picking anyone in paticular out just making a statement. Its not like I have a picture of the neighbor on the sign and saying this means you!

 

[xylene]

Can anything be done about this as a case against us to take it down?

Probably.

Your sign is an implied threat.

It is also in poor taste.

If they are leaving, keep the peace until they are history, then do a victory dance.

 

[quincy]

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1994, struck down a Missouri city law prohibiting signs displayed at private residences, and this case, City of Ladue v. Gilleo, has been used in court cases across the country when there have been sign-posting disputes. The Court said, in their decision, that residential yard signs are "a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important."

The overwhelming majority of state courts that have reviewed sign ordinances have found that prohibiting yard signs is unconstitutional (although the size, shape and location of such signs, and signs that are hazardous to health and safety, can be regulated, as long as the ordinances remain "content-neutral" in the prohibitions).

Depriving property owners their fundamental right to free speech on their own property, in other words, is not only an intrusion into their property rights but an intrusion into their civil liberties, and therefore unconstitutional.

So, you would not need to remove your sign (barring any above mentioned restrictions in your area that may apply in your situation), but it may preserve the peace in your neighborhood, with your soon-to-be-gone neighbors, if it is removed.

(your sign, by the way, should be considered "parody" and not "threat")

 

[racer72]

(your sign, by the way, should be considered "parody" and not "threat")

Please explain your definition of "parody". The closest I could find as it would apply to the OP is:

a poor or feeble imitation or semblance.

Also, one's Constitutional right to security and safety trumps one's right to free speech, especially when the speech contains a physical threat.

 

[JLLee]

I just spoke with the assistant chief of police and he has no problem with it. He laughed and said not to worry about the ones who complained as they are hot air anyway.

 

[quincy]

Racer -
The sign is a parody in the sense that it imitates the characteristics of another "work" in a satirical or humorous way. I could have said, perhaps, that the sign was a form of "satire", which is the use of ridicule or sarcasm to expose, attack or deride follies. Or I could have even said that the sign was a form of "sarcasm", which is a taunting, sneering, cutting or caustic remark. Any of these are forms of free and legal speech generally, even when used on a yard sign.

Parody, however, seems to fit best. Threat seems to fit least.

And, JLLee, I am not surprised by the comments of your Assistant Chief of Police. Here's hoping your new neighbors are great - they will be, no doubt, an improvement over your current ones!

 

[Pete Moss]

What is the name of your state? Indiana

No trespassing Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again. Its part tongue in cheek, part what we feel is the only way to stop the trouble.

Can anything be done about this as a case against us to take it down?

It is illegal to shoot people for tresspassing on residential property, regardless of whether anyone is given fair warning with signs.

Thereby, it is threatening to commit first degree murder, or so it seems to people other than the psychiatrist, perhaps.

Try a different sign - BEWARE OF DOG; PROTECTED BY ADA ALARMS SYSTEMS, INC.


- Pete Moss​

 

[quincy]

Pete -

This is a protected form of free speech. This is parody.

The sign is not a "threat" that a reasonable person would in any way expect to be carried out. Although it seems apparent from these postings that a few on this forum would seriously believe that, in reading the sign, JLLee was armed, dangerous, and ready to shoot all trespassers, the police don't appear worried by the sign, and I certainly wouldn't be worried if I ran across such a sign. Humor takes several forms and this is merely one form.

Now if this sign were posted in Texas, the words may carry more of a threat, as shooting people on your property seems to be fashionable, and occasionally legal, as long as you are cradling a TV or other personal property belonging to a homeowner.

 

[justalayman]

you folks might want to read Indiana's version of the castle doctrine law that is now in place and effective.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

sounds like even if it is a threat, it is a legally allowed action therefore, no actionable grievance by the neighbor.

No need to have private property in his hands. The action of tresspassing itself can rise to being able to invoke this statute.

 

[las365]

It is illegal to shoot people for tresspassing on residential property, regardless of whether anyone is given fair warning with signs.

Thereby, it is threatening to commit first degree murder, or so it seems to people other than the psychiatrist, perhaps.

Try a different sign - BEWARE OF DOG

Isn't it illegal to sic your vicious dog on someone with the intent to cause bodily harm? This OP's sign is clearly tongue-in-cheek, though it does express his frustration.

 

[quincy]

You've got to love a country where it is illegal to sic your dog on someone who trespasses on your property, but not illegal to shoot them.

Wasn't this whole topic covered somewhere else on the forum - where in Indiana and other states there must be a recognized threat against a person, as opposed to just a defense of property, in order to use deadly force? In Texas, I believe, you can defend your property, or that of a neighbor's, with deadly force, even if there is no threat of bodily harm or indication of a forcible felony.

Whatever the case, at least sanity still prevails in Michigan.

 

[justalayman]

I posted the germane section of the statute. I even highlighted the section that discusses the trespass.

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage,[/QUOTE]

 

[justalayman]

.

Whatever the case, at least sanity still prevails in Michigan.

Huh? we do have a castle doctrine law in place now.

Did anybody ever hear about that case recently where the neighbor shot the people trespassing ro breaking into the neighbors house? I do believe that was in Texas.

 

[quincy]

The case in Texas was the one I was talking about. But in Michigan, you can use deadly force only if there is a threat of bodily harm or a threat of sexual assault - you cannot use deadly force to merely protect property. The Michigan legislature has considered this - however, as I said, sanity prevails.

And, justalayman, I did see the portions of the text you highlighted - but I didn't read them.

 

[justalayman]

The case in Texas was the one I was talking about. But in Michigan, you can use deadly force only if there is a threat of bodily harm or a threat of sexual assault - you cannot use deadly force to merely protect property. The Michigan legislature has considered this - however, as I said, sanity prevails.

And, justalayman, I did see the portions of the text you highlighted - but I didn't read them.

we have already had a test for the need for deadly force. In a city not too far from me, a guy shot through a window or door and killed a kid that was banging on the house.

no charges filed; justification; guy had reasonable cause to believe kid intended to cause harm.