Incident with land owner - WWYD?

Here is my view on trespassing. If I don't own it, I don't play with or on it. It's that simple. But in England the lines are blurry as you have certain rights on certain properties to be there even if you don't own it. That's always been confusing to me. But look it that's the way it is. But in my mind I do not feel I have a right to be anywhere I do not own, rent, or have permission. So I can't say I would ever be in that position.

But this guy was over the top. Way over the top. He had every right to give a severe tongue lashing. He crossed the line by grabbing the horse. If said horse was anyway light in the mouth he could have gone over. I've seen stupid supposed horse people nearly flip horses over when giving someone a leg up because they're hanging on their mouths.

We have an awful lot of people that would have done this and that because they THINK they know how to get themselves out any situation. Trust me unless it's happening to you, you will never know how you will react. The poster who said they'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6 is on the mark.

When I first came to Ireland I was quite surprised that the law stated that if someone broke into my house I had to flee. Could not defend myself or I could face criminal charges. And of course be sued if the burglar was harmed. WTF is that all about? How backwards. Give the criminal all the rights. The law has been changed. And how you can get a court judgement being a freaking low life is beyond me. You get injured in a home invasion seems like to me it's a job hazard.

Anyway, just glad OP wasn't in Texas. And it's why my rules of if I don't own I don't play in it apply. She probably would have been shot for trespassing and landowner would have been within his rights. Not saying that's right either. Just saying why I just don't trespass.

Terri
 
RunToEarth said:
If I walked into your home uninvited, or came into your place of work and trampled your hard work would you feel the same?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone here is advocating that.

When will people realise that people derive their living from land, and it is unacceptable to ride over it with no permission or due respect.
Click to expand...
I agree it it totally unacceptable to cause any kind of damage, or inconvenience to the land owner, or anything else that leads to loss of income.

owners of land and property have a duty of care for anyone on their land, whether they are trespassing or not, we were in a legal battle a few years ago with a rider who was injured on our land without permission to be there, put yourself in that position and realise why many land owners will not tollerate trespassing.
Click to expand...
Then the law is deficient and needs to be changed. If people come on to your property and injure themselves, it's unreasonable to expect the land owner to pay. By all means require land owners to warn the public of specific hazards such as bulls, quicksand or electric lines, but to make them (the owner) responsible for any eventuality is just crazy.
 
Shivvy said:
RTE No one is saying she didn't trepass or that it was ok to do so simply that once the criminal assault was triggered then the civil trespass matter pretty much becomes a secondary issue. The landowner had a point to begin with and then overstepped the mark and totally changed the situation into a criminal matter.

For what it's worth I own land and wouldn't dream of being so physical or nasty.
Click to expand...

the land owner grabbed the horse's rein, I don't believe that is assault, and the rider reacted by hitting the land owner with a whip to the extent he has visible whelps, is this a reasonable way to react. I too have come across violence with Sans out hunting and had little difficulty walking my horse free on their grasp. Threatening behaviour does not beget physically striking someone numerous times with a whip, does it?
 
Shivvy said:
I would also like to understand from the police why they are not progressing your assault claim. Go to your MP or Police complaints authority and local police authority if you have to but please don't just roll over for this. Sorry if this has already been said. Take care.
Click to expand...

That would be because the landowner never touched her - he held the horse which cannot be classed as an assault. The rider then hit the landowner multiple times with her whip. Hardly surprising that the police are following his complaint up, when the rider who was apparently so scared did not bother to call them and report the incident herself but had to be tracked down by officers.
 
littlelegs said:
I disagree lula, on a horse I don't feel vulnerable. I have been in fear for my life due to a man intent on harming me, but not while mounted, the fright cannot be compared. I see what you mean re not all horses being at a level you can use quarters/shoulders to push someone precisely. But under normal circumstances I would have had other options, even on a 4yr old. When it happened to me, I knew anything more strenuous than walk would have been the end of my ponies hind ligaments. So I did the only thing available. I also think your, or my, situation was different to ops, in that in ops case it wasn't obvious he was intent on harm. If he had have made an attempt to grab her then of course I'd agree to do whatever it took. But at that point, holding the rein & demanding details I wouldn't see it as a physical threat. Maybe because I have been in a dire situation minus a horse, having a horse as a weapon I don't feel vulnerable. And whatever we think, I think the non horsey would agree, most people know infantry are vulnerable to cavalry, & I suspect that's the view non horsey police or magistrates would take, person on horseback vs person on foot.
Click to expand...

absolutely, the OP's case is different where we have no facts on to LO/shouty man's intentions we need to assume for the sake of this thread that no actual physical harm was intended - just a very angry man grabbing at her horse detaining her - i should have made that clearer.

I was commenting on the statement generally, that you did not see consider a female rider vulnerable on horseback and when you've experienced a man tried to drag you off a horse by your leg as i have, you will know it is perfectly possible if caught unawares but the OP's situation does show how easy it is for a man on foot to approach, reach out and gain control of a horse.

However, i certainly agree that you are much safer and would much rather be on a horse in that situation that on foot as you have many more options to defend yourself and to get away.
 
I'd rather be on the horse than on foot, as I'm sitting on a 1200lbs weapon when I'm on the horse. That doesn't mean I wouldn't get scared in a dodgy situation.
 
JFTD said:
I've been avoiding this thread, mostly because a lot of the opinions on here frankly terrify me. I find it astounding that people actually believe the LO has no right to demand details from a trespasser, nor to attempt to prevent the trespasser from crossing his land at speed and potentially doing considerable damage in an attempt to avoid providing those details.

All the LO did was tell the OP off, ask for her details and take hold of her horse's rein when she attempted to leave without giving them? That is not assault, by any definition. It is not unreasonable force and it is NOT disproportionately threatening, given the circumstances. If the OP was scared, it was because she had been caught doing something wrong, not because the LO threatened to do anything untoward. All she had to do was give her details and leave - she chose not to. She then chose to assault the LO with her whip on his own land. There is no question that she is in the wrong.

And, fwiw, this is also a very valid point. The OP's comments clearly suggest she was seeking only validatory answers on this forum, she will not even contemplate that she was wrong. If she is giving an unbiased account, I will be utterly astounded.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this.

Joining JRP as Devil's Advocate. To all those who think the OP is in the right. If a lone female had been riding her motorbike or quadbike on land that you own and where you keep your horses and your husband had confronted her and been hit multiple times for his trouble would you still feel the rider was in the right??
 
combat_claire said:
Totally agree with this.

Joining JRP as Devil's Advocate. To all those who think the OP is in the right. If a lone female had been riding her motorbike or quadbike on land that you own and where you keep your horses and your husband had confronted her and been hit multiple times for his trouble would you still feel the rider was in the right??
Click to expand...

If he'd grabbed her or her motorbike, screamed at her, and refused to let go, yeah, I'd feel she had done what was necessary in a scary, threatening situation, and also I'd realise that I was married to a complete douchebag. But it's worse than a motorbike, because I have yet to see a motorbike freak out, rear up, and flip over backwards.
 
RunToEarth said:
the land owner grabbed the horse's rein, I don't believe that is assault, and the rider reacted by hitting the land owner with a whip to the extent he has visible whelps, is this a reasonable way to react. I too have come across violence with Sans out hunting and had little difficulty walking my horse free on their grasp. Threatening behaviour does not beget physically striking someone numerous times with a whip, does it?
Click to expand...

I hate it when threads bring out the self righteous and contemptuous people when all the facts aren't known. It was always going to be a contentious issue and was quite interesting to start with ... I hope OP seeks proper legal advice on this as was suggested by many people in response to her WWYD? Title.
 
Yes. The OP committed a wrong by going onto this guy's land, but he committed a bigger wrong by grabbing her rein and behaving in a scary, threatening manner when a good verbal telling-off would have done the job and been a more appropriate response. There have been cases where riders have been pulled off their horses and assaulted. As I said earlier, I wouldn't wait around to see whether or not he intended to haul me off the horse.
 
Amusing, or sad, really, all those ''believing'' OP and berating others for picking her story apart are perfectly happy to do the same to the other party in this conflict, who as of now has no opportunity to defend himself or even put his side of the story forward... His proof is not good enough, fabricated, his beating was deserved; but the OP? Oh no, she just rode her horse, she was scared, she defended herself...
She BELTED the man so hard with her whip that she caused welts on his back! How can you say that is not assault? :eek:
 
I see what you're saying lula, I just think in ops situation I wouldn't have felt vulnerable at that point, I would have waited for a sign of intent. With a man holding the rein intent on harming me, eg in your situation I don't mean I wouldn't be scared, just wouldn't feel overly vulnerable in the way I would on foot, which I should have made clearer. Just because there are more options open. I suppose it depends on personal definitions of vulnerable though. I've only ever felt vulnerable when I have, or I think, I have no options left, but I suppose every one thinks differently.
 
Was the gate open and the OP went through it or was the access onto the land brought another way.

Although it is wrong to be on someone else's property and to go over board in defending yourself. The OP did say sorry and said they would not do it again.

If my horse was grabbed by the reins so much so that the bit came through his mouth then I would not be happy. Unfortunately my horses would retaliate themselves.

I would have reported the incident to the police myself. This can end up as a 50/50 situation. Each should apologise. Injuries (wheels on his back) to the landowner could have been there before.

As a landowner if this kind of thing happened on my land I would ask the OP why they were there and ask them to leave. If I saw them again then I would take things further.

A few years ago I had a neighbour that was always complaining about what went on in my yard. I was just coming out of the gate when she called me over and grabbed my pony's bridle. The pony flung his head in the air catching her in the face. A week later I had a letter from her solicitor saying I had hit her, untrue, but I had to go further to clear my name.

Horses are unpredictable and are flight animals. If that had happened to me (as it had to the OP) I do not know what I would do. Care for my own safety and that of my horse.

I hope this is sorted out fairly.
 
How can it be seen as a citizens arrest when someone pointed out that trepass is not a crime? Surely you can only arrest someone when a crime has been committed. Up until this point no crime had been committed surely?
 
Lets turn this on its head:

"My dad who has a small farm, found a lady on a horse wandering through the land, which he was upset about as he had just undersown the fields and we've had a crap year due to the rain

This woman had been cantering through the stubble, thinking it wasn't undersown and was causing damage

He knows all the local people, so asked for her details to find out whether she was local or not

The lady muttered that she would leave now, but Dad wanted to know so held on to her horses rein. Then the woman got really rude and hit my father multiple times so hard she left welts and galloped off"

Obviously this not my dad, but had you seen THIS post what would you think?

When we find people off our footpath, we always ask their name and where they live - mainly to find out if they are locals, tourists or ******
People who won't tell us, generally have something to hide.

The ones who are local we befriend, tell them where the footpath is, and in one case I told him where the kids could play so they did no harm

I find this poster extremely arrogant and PLAYING the defense of it was "a man"
Could have been a grey haired farmer, someones father or grandfather that she was attempting to flay and there are definitely some scaryarse fighting horsey women around.

Why not tell him, oh I'm based just down the road at "wherever" and ASK where the best place was to ride

NOTHING pisses a landowner off more than people storming on thinking they have a right to ride where they like, and being downright rude.

I sometimes go offpiste, but I know all the farmers and exactly whos land I am on, if I was in the wrong place, I would apologize profusely, find out who the person asking was and drop round a bottle to apologize. I have no issue telling them who I am and where I'm from, but then I prefer to make friends not enemies.
 
As a child and a teenager I was asulted twice riding. The first time I was on a bridle path, my saddle was grabbed and the man tried to pull me off my pony so I whipped her, she kicked him and we cantered off - I was 9; 9 year olds rode on their own in the 1970s. The second time was in the 80's and off road bikes were circling me on the common and I managed to whip one of them to get them to stop. My horse was going crazing, he was difficult to catch and the previous owner used to get brother and his mates to round him up on their trials bikes. I think I caught the biker on the face but did hang around to find out.
 
Jen_Cots said:
Lets turn this on its head:

"My dad who has a small farm, found a lady on a horse wandering through the land, which he was upset about as he had just undersown the fields and we've had a crap year due to the rain

This woman had been cantering through the stubble, thinking it wasn't undersown and was causing damage

He knows all the local people, so asked for her details to find out whether she was local or not

The lady muttered that she would leave now, but Dad wanted to know so held on to her horses rein. Then the woman got really rude and hit my father multiple times so hard she left welts and galloped off"

Obviously this not my dad, but had you seen THIS post what would you think?

When we find people off our footpath, we always ask their name and where they live - mainly to find out if they are locals, tourists or ******
People who won't tell us, generally have something to hide.

The ones who are local we befriend, tell them where the footpath is, and in one case I told him where the kids could play so they did no harm

I find this poster extremely arrogant and PLAYING the defense of it was "a man"
Could have been a grey haired farmer, someones father or grandfather that she was attempting to flay and there are definitely some scaryarse fighting horsey women around.

Why not tell him, oh I'm based just down the road at "wherever" and ASK where the best place was to ride

NOTHING pisses a landowner off more than people storming on thinking they have a right to ride where they like, and being downright rude.

I sometimes go offpiste, but I know all the farmers and exactly whos land I am on, if I was in the wrong place, I would apologize profusely, find out who the person asking was and drop round a bottle to apologize. I have no issue telling them who I am and where I'm from, but then I prefer to make friends not enemies.
Click to expand...

id have felt sorry for your father but would have said his actions in grabbing her rein were ill advised and something he had no right to do!! If she had refused to give her details then your father should have phoned the police there and then to report the damage. Similarly however the rider should have phoned the police asap. Look at it this way, in the case of a car accident you have to provide your details but the first hint of any trouble youd be ringing the police, not taking matters into to your own hands by seizing keys or whatever, that would just be downright stupid and asking for conflict.
 
What happened is awful, If you are trespassing or not.
I live in Scotland and we have the right to roam. However before that act came in we always phone or contacted the landowners to see if it is alright to ride on the land. and actually some places still phone now, You have to remember alot of landowners are gun toting so always good to keep on their good side.

I think that maybe you should have asked to go on his land but his behaviour was out of order and you should press charges. just to give him a fright so he won't do it again if nothing else.
 
yannialice said:
What happened is awful, If you are trespassing or not.
I live in Scotland and we have the right to roam. However before that act came in we always phone or contacted the landowners to see if it is alright to ride on the land. and actually some places still phone now, You have to remember alot of landowners are gun toting so always good to keep on their good side.

I think that maybe you should have asked to go on his land but his behaviour was out of order and you should press charges. just to give him a fright so he won't do it again if nothing else.
Click to expand...

Charges for what?
 
kateo said:
where was the damage?
Click to expand...

Depends what she was riding through.

The whole lot will come down to who has the better lawyer, who's in the jury and who comes across better on the day if OP doesn't bother showing to the meeting.

Personally I'd rather go to a meeting, show remorse and explain the situation. Be sickly sweet and go home knowing it was over. I wouldn't do it without legal advice so I didn't drop myself in for further charges though.
 
Shivvy said:
Cptrayes - Sadly this is incorrect to as whilst RJ seeks to avoid criminalisation it can if required support a reduced penalty when action is still justified. That was my point in advising OP to talk to a lawyer first.
Click to expand...

In the context of what the OP wrote

Police have arranged me to meet the man at a "restorative justice" session this week. I have to apologise and listen to the man.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that the Police are suggesting a Conditional Caution or any other outcome than that if she apologises this will go no further.

If she has been told this, then my advice would remain, swallow your pride and apologise.

The very fact that she is being offered a Restorative Justice meeting for a serious assault carrying a maximum penalty of 6 months custody shows, in my view, that they have already taken into account her fear in the situation, and so had the landowner who has accepted that outcome. Because let's not forget that he has to agree to this as well.

Would you seriously support, on the evidence available, her trying to fight out her innocence in court? And if not, there is zero point on spending any money on seeing a lawyer.


OP I'm not much interested in whether you were justified in what you did, to be honest, as I wasn't there and can't judge. But I am trying to save you from further upset and expense. Man up. Apologise. It's free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top