The past few days have really pissed me off. I was never someone to use IANAL, but I never noticed how many people will use it as a preface (or afterward) for rambling conclusions of law that have absolutely nothing to do with anything you could actually substantiate. I've actually been rather turned off by the process. I need to just start letting it go more.:\
I just did a lexis-nexis (and westlaw) search of all texas state-court reported opinions in the last two years dealing the use of deadly force. Shooting a gun at someone in texas is considered deadly force. The vast majority lose. If you'd like, I'll send you a representative sample of opinions. Elsewhere (check my post history) i did an analysis of the texas "make-my-day" laws (i.e. the laws that allow you to use force) -- there is a reasonableness standard. Just because he was not CHARGED (prosecutorial discretion) does not mean he would not have lost in a court of law once there. See e.g. Inmates of Attica (Proscutorial discretion does not fall within the scope of judicial review)
"The judiciary...will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. The judiciary may be truly said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment."
Most Americans do not understand the inner workings of the other two branches; have you heard of the recent conflicts between Bush and Congress over "signing statements?" I would not expect the "third branch" to differ. If laws are inherently wrong, that's your problem with your elected officials. If the laws are written in a language you cannot understand, ditto. To anyone with a legal education, many "controversial" or "ill-understood" opinions are rather easy to grasp; the fundamental problem is that our government works quite well. Unlike civil-code countries, our system is based on very little text...and is not "easy" to understand. In the first four weeks of law school, I gained a better understanding of our entire judicial system, and our entire governmental system, then I'd gained in the two decades prior. I fault the education system of this country for not requiring civics. The reason most americans don't understand the law is because no one ever taught it to them; you don't expect to just understand physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, or anything else without "working" -- and people expect to understand government, the structure that regulates millions and hypothetically enforces the bedrock principles of "our civilization" on gut instinct and hunch. That expectation is wrong.
The entire discussion was concerned with trespass. You took the statement entirely out of context. Number two: The reason that there were no prosecutions as a result of KSM was a result of the circuit court's holding that the firing was "reasonable given the circumstances." You say "it is utterly impossible to claim they (the guard) were at any risk whatsoever at that point in time." The question is not if they were *actually* at risk, but if there was a reasonable belief that they were at risk.
For the record, I refer to it as the Kent State Massacre -- not the Kent State Riot or the Kent State Disturbance. There should have been prosecutions and disciplinary actions against the officers responsible. The "sniper fire" they claimed was unsubstantiated. I hope it forever rests as a black mark on our armed forces.
FYI one of the reasons you're allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender in some circumstances is because if you were not, single-sex locker rooms in YMCAs, JCCs and public gyms would be unconstitutional. (i.e. sep but equal).
The Rockerfeller republicans are still just that (Repbulicans) -- despite having less and less to do with the rest of the party. Give them a few more years and they'll break away. Civil liberties, small government, social liberalism and fiscal responsibility.
Did you read the full article? She was found to be 20% liable. What if she had dropped the coffee on the way to the cupholder and it had hit her leg? McDonalds own business managers actually *knew* people would be burned.....I don't think you understand how against most types of tort liability I am, but I'm pretty sure Liebeck is a good example of where the corporation deserved to be punished for doing something wrong. Fyi: Since the McDonald's window attendant must HAND you the coffee, there is the chance that the McDonald's employee may spill the coffee on you. Under agency law, McDonalds is responsible. No jury (or judge) would hold that McDonald's should not "reasonably forsee that it would be impossible for a drive through attendant to spill coffee on a patron." As such, McDonald's was negligent in keeping the coffee that hot. The specific temperature of the coffee was not irrelevant; the case centered around it. Oh, and sorry, I don't have a "cube" -- I have a nice office with a view of the park. Then again, after I got my CS degree, I went to law school.....
Please see my other post about the Texas Penal Code. The no trespassing sign merely allows you to assume that the person cannot be there under color of title. You still need a reasonable belief that you NEED to use force. With deadly force, the warnings will serve little if any mitigation for you.
Now, you've started to mix Civil vs Criminal matters, in
Re: The shooting at a stray dog. If they can show that trespassers routinely cross your land and that you had or should have had a reasonable belief that it was a trespasser, you will lose in tort. (Not in a criminal court.) In some respects, California is actually *better* about the civil side than Texas. Under texas law, you're pretty screwed in the scenario I gave, where California is actually a little more forgiving. (it has a higher evidentiary standard) No Trespassing gives you a leg to stand on in a criminal context, albeit a shaky one. If you have a backyard or something that people routinely cut through, you can still be held negligent. (All make-my-day laws require you to have a reasonable belief that force is required, and not just "yelling")
If you'd like, I will pull the opinion off Lexis-Nexis and send it to you. Does this change your opinion at all?
Key Excerpts:
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
People in Texas are prosecuted all the time. You have to have a reasonable belief that you NEED to use deadly force. [Force and DEADLY FORCE are not the same under texas law.]
Bishop v. State, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3835 (Tex. App. Fort Worth May 19 2005). (Sufficient evidence supported a jury's rejection of a murder defendant's claim of defense of his property under Tex. Penal Code Ann. 9.41, 9.42(2) because there was conflicting testimony as to whether the victim had a weapon and defendant never attempted to retreat, even though there was no vehicle in front of him and it might have been possible for him to simply drive away.)
So, when can you use deadly force in texas?
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a
substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
So, ANY OTHER MEANS or SUBSTANTIAL RISK of DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. Oh, wait, you already have to be authorized to use force. What does it take to use force in texas?
9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when
he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or
fraud against the actor.
Guy is in your house in the middle of the day, stealing a TV. You point a gun at him. He drops the tv and runs. You shoot him in the back. You lose under Texas law. My entire point was that you do not have unmitigated power, even on your own land. I am sure you can give me half a dozen hypos where you win; my only point was that you do not always win.
I cited the Texas Penal code elsewhere in the thread. I have been to Texas. If you own an orchard, and someone comes in, picks a few apples, eats them and takes a nap under a tree in the middle of the day and you walk over and shoot him, you're going to jail. Even in texas.
You're confusing property law with public accomodations.
[ If you don't lock the front door to your home, and someone else walks in your house and lives there for (10 years or so) and gets his mail there and you do absolutely nothing, the house is his. -- that's adverse posession.] We're defining the difference between a private club (with PUBLIC ACCESS) and property law. The two areas of law are not one and the same. Yes, Snow could have sued for "misrepresentation/fraud" under a contract theory, but he still would have gotten bupkis.
When you grab a styrofoam cup or other insulated mug with a lid, you cannot feel the heat of the liquid inside. Holding the cup to your lips, and "tipping" the cup upwards will pour the liquid into your mouth. The very act of having 180 degree liquid on your tongue will cause immediate scarring.
Pick up a Contracts treatise. I'd like to try to explain the law to you, but you're being inflammatory and attempting to bait me. Licenses can only be revocable on their own terms. And attempts to do so may convert them into irrevocable licenses depending on jurisdiction. I cannot teach you the entirety of a first-year contracts class via slashdot -- especially not when you've already decided that you know the law. (when you don't.)
The Colorado legislature has made it abundantly clear that the jury screwed up. They misinterpreted the below statute. The lawmakers that *passed* the bill have made it clear that the jury was mistaken. Furthermore, an amendment will mostly likely be forthcoming. Note: the facts are still murky -- it appears he may not have *really* been driving away, see http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1313093&seci d=1. This is a few short months ago.
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
2.Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
3.Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
4.Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
The military/law enforcement are not governed by the same standards as civilians. (When they are acting in their official capacity. off-duty, they are just like the rest of us.) Is your question a facetious rhetorical troll, or, have you legitimately missed that the earlier discussion was about civilians? In any event...
2) When a law enforcement official says "Stop or I'll shoot" the "waiver" doctrine applies. There are restrictions on when law enforcement officials may use (potentially deadly) force. This is not at all relevant to the discussion as it is an entirely distinct body of law.
Because they'd have gotten nominal damages ($1?) or a permanent injunction forbidding access (at best). Snow wanted to cash in on the damages remedies of the SCA.
I have. And believe it or not, they aren't so terrible. Everyone screams "bloody murder" about the "Hot coffee" McDonalds case; the coffee was near 180 degrees F and caused burns within seconds of touching the woman's skin. Had she actually drank the coffee rather than spilled it, she'd have had permanent scarring on her esophagus and tongue and probably would have lost the ability to speak. She asked Mcdonalds to pay her medical bills ($47k) and they refused, at which point she sued. The Mcdonalds people *knew* their coffee was too hot, and the temperature was kept as a business decision because lower temperature coffee must be discarded more often (as it goes bad). People that don't know the law, combined with the media, make the case out to be this "tort tragedy" -- once in the courtroom, I have serious faith in jurors.
Both assertions are false. In Texas, you have only an affirmative defense; not a right. You shoot someone, and you have to convince a jury that you had a reasonable belief that person was going to use deadly force. If you invited the person into your house, you lose, every single time. If your first assertion were true, MORISSETTE [v. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 246 (1952)] would have just been shot.
EULAs are not contracts. They are licenses. YANAL, and you should have stopped there. There are certain things that cannot be modified after purchases (i.e. warranty, see Gateway and progeny) I do not agree with "Box top" or "shrink wrap" licenses -- but comments like yours do not add to the debate because they are not at all grounded in any cognizable area of the American jurisprudential history of EULAs. Your equivalent is, unfortunately, flat out wrong. It's really frustrating for those of us with legal educations when non-lawyers make legal conclusions based on false analogy and wild speculation as to how the legal system works. We know you don't understand the system, but before we can explain it to you, you have to a) admit you dont understand it, b) stop making conclusions as if you did, and c) actually ask how a result came to be, rather than assuming (arguendo) that it's wrong.
You are incorrect. The "chase" as it applies to this topic is that he wanted massive damages under the SCA. He easily could have gotten a permanent injunction to keep them out had he relied on contract theory. There is no loophole. Snow tried to cash in by abusing the SCA. If this was just about access, he'd have won. Also, *you* are using an analogy to property law, and since you seem to not know the finer points of it, I'll share this with you. If you have property with no fence around it and you sue to get an injunction to keep someone else off, you will win. If you sue to get a ton of cash, you won't. As an aside, if you say "this group of people may not enter" and they do and you do nothing to stop them for long enough, they are granted by law a permanent *right* of access to your property. Property law is use it or lose it. (So to go back to your real property example: A sign that says "no trespassing" vs a fence. The sign alone will do very little. The fence will do a whole lot.]
It's only during the nighttime. This is the case because the assumption is that said nighttime criminals are inherently violent. This is the same justification used in allowing deadly force by police. (Police also have waiver...)
And again, all these statutes do is create a statutory affirmative defense. People on slashdot love to just horribly butcher the law. Someone with a legal education reading slashdot feels the way most slashdot readers do when we read things about CYBERTECHNOHACKERS in pop-culture magazines discussing the 14 year old kid who logged into a linksys router with the password set to "admin"...
It depends ENTIRELY on the AP statutes. In some places, the squatter wins BECAUSE of the "no trespassing" sign -- and in some places the squatter loses for the SAME REASON! [Some states require "intent to disposess" some use the "objective test" and some require "good-faith belief under color of title"]
Slashdot Mirror
The past few days have really pissed me off. I was never someone to use IANAL, but I never noticed how many people will use it as a preface (or afterward) for rambling conclusions of law that have absolutely nothing to do with anything you could actually substantiate. I've actually been rather turned off by the process. I need to just start letting it go more. :\
I just did a lexis-nexis (and westlaw) search of all texas state-court reported opinions in the last two years dealing the use of deadly force. Shooting a gun at someone in texas is considered deadly force. The vast majority lose. If you'd like, I'll send you a representative sample of opinions. Elsewhere (check my post history) i did an analysis of the texas "make-my-day" laws (i.e. the laws that allow you to use force) -- there is a reasonableness standard. Just because he was not CHARGED (prosecutorial discretion) does not mean he would not have lost in a court of law once there. See e.g. Inmates of Attica (Proscutorial discretion does not fall within the scope of judicial review)
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, no. 78:
...will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. The judiciary may be truly said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment."
"The judiciary
Most Americans do not understand the inner workings of the other two branches; have you heard of the recent conflicts between Bush and Congress over "signing statements?" I would not expect the "third branch" to differ. If laws are inherently wrong, that's your problem with your elected officials. If the laws are written in a language you cannot understand, ditto. To anyone with a legal education, many "controversial" or "ill-understood" opinions are rather easy to grasp; the fundamental problem is that our government works quite well. Unlike civil-code countries, our system is based on very little text...and is not "easy" to understand. In the first four weeks of law school, I gained a better understanding of our entire judicial system, and our entire governmental system, then I'd gained in the two decades prior. I fault the education system of this country for not requiring civics. The reason most americans don't understand the law is because no one ever taught it to them; you don't expect to just understand physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, or anything else without "working" -- and people expect to understand government, the structure that regulates millions and hypothetically enforces the bedrock principles of "our civilization" on gut instinct and hunch. That expectation is wrong.
The entire discussion was concerned with trespass. You took the statement entirely out of context. Number two: The reason that there were no prosecutions as a result of KSM was a result of the circuit court's holding that the firing was "reasonable given the circumstances." You say "it is utterly impossible to claim they (the guard) were at any risk whatsoever at that point in time." The question is not if they were *actually* at risk, but if there was a reasonable belief that they were at risk.
For the record, I refer to it as the Kent State Massacre -- not the Kent State Riot or the Kent State Disturbance. There should have been prosecutions and disciplinary actions against the officers responsible. The "sniper fire" they claimed was unsubstantiated. I hope it forever rests as a black mark on our armed forces.
FYI one of the reasons you're allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender in some circumstances is because if you were not, single-sex locker rooms in YMCAs, JCCs and public gyms would be unconstitutional. (i.e. sep but equal).
The Rockerfeller republicans are still just that (Repbulicans) -- despite having less and less to do with the rest of the party. Give them a few more years and they'll break away. Civil liberties, small government, social liberalism and fiscal responsibility.
Did you read the full article? She was found to be 20% liable. What if she had dropped the coffee on the way to the cupholder and it had hit her leg? McDonalds own business managers actually *knew* people would be burned.....I don't think you understand how against most types of tort liability I am, but I'm pretty sure Liebeck is a good example of where the corporation deserved to be punished for doing something wrong. Fyi: Since the McDonald's window attendant must HAND you the coffee, there is the chance that the McDonald's employee may spill the coffee on you. Under agency law, McDonalds is responsible. No jury (or judge) would hold that McDonald's should not "reasonably forsee that it would be impossible for a drive through attendant to spill coffee on a patron." As such, McDonald's was negligent in keeping the coffee that hot. The specific temperature of the coffee was not irrelevant; the case centered around it. Oh, and sorry, I don't have a "cube" -- I have a nice office with a view of the park. Then again, after I got my CS degree, I went to law school.....
Please see my other post about the Texas Penal Code. The no trespassing sign merely allows you to assume that the person cannot be there under color of title. You still need a reasonable belief that you NEED to use force. With deadly force, the warnings will serve little if any mitigation for you.
Now, you've started to mix Civil vs Criminal matters, in Re: The shooting at a stray dog.
If they can show that trespassers routinely cross your land and that you had or should have had a reasonable belief that it was a trespasser, you will lose in tort. (Not in a criminal court.) In some respects, California is actually *better* about the civil side than Texas. Under texas law, you're pretty screwed in the scenario I gave, where California is actually a little more forgiving. (it has a higher evidentiary standard) No Trespassing gives you a leg to stand on in a criminal context, albeit a shaky one. If you have a backyard or something that people routinely cut through, you can still be held negligent. (All make-my-day laws require you to have a reasonable belief that force is required, and not just "yelling")
If you'd like, I will pull the opinion off Lexis-Nexis and send it to you. Does this change your opinion at all?
Key Excerpts:
People in Texas are prosecuted all the time. You have to have a reasonable belief that you NEED to use deadly force. [Force and DEADLY FORCE are not the same under texas law.]
Bishop v. State, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3835 (Tex. App. Fort Worth May 19 2005). (Sufficient evidence supported a jury's rejection of a murder defendant's claim of defense of his property under Tex. Penal Code Ann. 9.41, 9.42(2) because there was conflicting testimony as to whether the victim had a weapon and defendant never attempted to retreat, even though there was no vehicle in front of him and it might have been possible for him to simply drive away.)
So, when can you use deadly force in texas? So, ANY OTHER MEANS or SUBSTANTIAL RISK of DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. Oh, wait, you already have to be authorized to use force. What does it take to use force in texas?
Guy is in your house in the middle of the day, stealing a TV. You point a gun at him. He drops the tv and runs. You shoot him in the back. You lose under Texas law. My entire point was that you do not have unmitigated power, even on your own land. I am sure you can give me half a dozen hypos where you win; my only point was that you do not always win.
I cited the Texas Penal code elsewhere in the thread. I have been to Texas. If you own an orchard, and someone comes in, picks a few apples, eats them and takes a nap under a tree in the middle of the day and you walk over and shoot him, you're going to jail. Even in texas.
You're confusing property law with public accomodations. [ If you don't lock the front door to your home, and someone else walks in your house and lives there for (10 years or so) and gets his mail there and you do absolutely nothing, the house is his. -- that's adverse posession.] We're defining the difference between a private club (with PUBLIC ACCESS) and property law. The two areas of law are not one and the same. Yes, Snow could have sued for "misrepresentation/fraud" under a contract theory, but he still would have gotten bupkis.
When you grab a styrofoam cup or other insulated mug with a lid, you cannot feel the heat of the liquid inside. Holding the cup to your lips, and "tipping" the cup upwards will pour the liquid into your mouth. The very act of having 180 degree liquid on your tongue will cause immediate scarring.
Pick up a Contracts treatise. I'd like to try to explain the law to you, but you're being inflammatory and attempting to bait me. Licenses can only be revocable on their own terms. And attempts to do so may convert them into irrevocable licenses depending on jurisdiction. I cannot teach you the entirety of a first-year contracts class via slashdot -- especially not when you've already decided that you know the law. (when you don't.)
The military/law enforcement are not governed by the same standards as civilians. (When they are acting in their official capacity. off-duty, they are just like the rest of us.) Is your question a facetious rhetorical troll, or, have you legitimately missed that the earlier discussion was about civilians? In any event...
1) I will point you to the wikipedia entry on KSM, which is fairly informative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Massacre
Notice the circuit court's ruling.
2) When a law enforcement official says "Stop or I'll shoot" the "waiver" doctrine applies. There are restrictions on when law enforcement officials may use (potentially deadly) force. This is not at all relevant to the discussion as it is an entirely distinct body of law.
Trespassing != Burglary. The "make my day laws" generally do not extend pass your house.
Because they'd have gotten nominal damages ($1?) or a permanent injunction forbidding access (at best). Snow wanted to cash in on the damages remedies of the SCA.
I have. And believe it or not, they aren't so terrible. Everyone screams "bloody murder" about the "Hot coffee" McDonalds case; the coffee was near 180 degrees F and caused burns within seconds of touching the woman's skin. Had she actually drank the coffee rather than spilled it, she'd have had permanent scarring on her esophagus and tongue and probably would have lost the ability to speak. She asked Mcdonalds to pay her medical bills ($47k) and they refused, at which point she sued. The Mcdonalds people *knew* their coffee was too hot, and the temperature was kept as a business decision because lower temperature coffee must be discarded more often (as it goes bad). People that don't know the law, combined with the media, make the case out to be this "tort tragedy" -- once in the courtroom, I have serious faith in jurors.
Both assertions are false. In Texas, you have only an affirmative defense; not a right. You shoot someone, and you have to convince a jury that you had a reasonable belief that person was going to use deadly force. If you invited the person into your house, you lose, every single time. If your first assertion were true, MORISSETTE [v. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 246 (1952)] would have just been shot.
EULAs are not contracts. They are licenses. YANAL, and you should have stopped there. There are certain things that cannot be modified after purchases (i.e. warranty, see Gateway and progeny) I do not agree with "Box top" or "shrink wrap" licenses -- but comments like yours do not add to the debate because they are not at all grounded in any cognizable area of the American jurisprudential history of EULAs. Your equivalent is, unfortunately, flat out wrong. It's really frustrating for those of us with legal educations when non-lawyers make legal conclusions based on false analogy and wild speculation as to how the legal system works. We know you don't understand the system, but before we can explain it to you, you have to a) admit you dont understand it, b) stop making conclusions as if you did, and c) actually ask how a result came to be, rather than assuming (arguendo) that it's wrong.
You are incorrect. The "chase" as it applies to this topic is that he wanted massive damages under the SCA. He easily could have gotten a permanent injunction to keep them out had he relied on contract theory. There is no loophole. Snow tried to cash in by abusing the SCA. If this was just about access, he'd have won. Also, *you* are using an analogy to property law, and since you seem to not know the finer points of it, I'll share this with you. If you have property with no fence around it and you sue to get an injunction to keep someone else off, you will win. If you sue to get a ton of cash, you won't. As an aside, if you say "this group of people may not enter" and they do and you do nothing to stop them for long enough, they are granted by law a permanent *right* of access to your property. Property law is use it or lose it. (So to go back to your real property example: A sign that says "no trespassing" vs a fence. The sign alone will do very little. The fence will do a whole lot.]
It's only during the nighttime. This is the case because the assumption is that said nighttime criminals are inherently violent. This is the same justification used in allowing deadly force by police. (Police also have waiver...)
And again, all these statutes do is create a statutory affirmative defense. People on slashdot love to just horribly butcher the law. Someone with a legal education reading slashdot feels the way most slashdot readers do when we read things about CYBERTECHNOHACKERS in pop-culture magazines discussing the 14 year old kid who logged into a linksys router with the password set to "admin"...
It depends ENTIRELY on the AP statutes. In some places, the squatter wins BECAUSE of the "no trespassing" sign -- and in some places the squatter loses for the SAME REASON! [Some states require "intent to disposess" some use the "objective test" and some require "good-faith belief under color of title"]