real-estate ownership adverse-possession
Can you use force to make your way when someone is trying to stop you without legal right to do so?
<p>Suppose you are walking on a public land and there are no legal restrictions to you doing it.</p>
<p>Suddenly someone appears on your way and says you can't walk here. They are not a law enforcement officer but simply a person who (falsely) believes they have the right to stop you (like they believe they own the land and, on top of that, that they can physically remove you).</p>
<p>You try to make your way anyway, but they physically do not allow it (like obstruct the way and make it impossible for you to pass unless you push them out of the way).</p>
<p>Would you be allowed to use some minimally necessary force to make your way? Like push them out of the way, and if they start to fight, fight back to keep them away? Let's assume force is used carefully e.g. you won't push them down a cliff, won't specifically aim to hurt them etc.</p>
<p>This question is inspired by <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300385746/squatter-cites-archaic-law-in-claiming-ownership-of-1-million-historic-homestead" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> (where a squatter has occupied &quot;abandoned&quot; council-owned land with public walking tracks and claims ownership), but is not tied to that specific case.</p>
<p>Bonus question: what offense does the bully commit?</p>
<p>In case this question seems easy, here is an enhancement: let's assume that you <em>need</em> to go where the bully doesn't let you to, or someone will die (e.g. you are going to render first aid to someone seriously injured).</p>
<p>Answers re any jurisdictions are welcome.</p>

<h2>No</h2>
<p>New Zealand law on use of force is <a href="https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/personal-community/keeping-safe/out-about" rel="nofollow noreferrer">clear</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.” (Section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This does not allow you to use force to pass by someone who is blocking your passage. The correct response is to call the police and ask them to deal with the obstructor.</p>

<p>The bully is guilty of <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.040" rel="nofollow noreferrer">unlawful imprisonment</a> in Washington state:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly
restrains another person</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Use of force is lawful</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully
aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense
against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious
interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her
possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We would benefit from a video of the events, but the verbal description indicates that the walker was about to be injured by some blow (delivered by the bully to prevent the victim's lawful passage and escape from unlawful imprisonment). By pushing the bully to the side, the victim was able to escape, using only slight force as was reasonably necessary. There is no duty to retreat, see <a href="http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/081wnapp/081wnapp0738.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">State v. Williams</a>, 81 Wn.App. at 744, <a href="http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/101wn2d/101wn2d0591.htm#101wn2d0591" rel="nofollow noreferrer">State v. Allery</a>, 101 Wn.2d 591 &quot;No duty to retreat exists when one is feloniously assaulted in a place where she has a right to be&quot;. Of course, that assumes that it is reasonable to think that the bully might injure the victim, which might not be the case if the bully were trussed up and was merely bloviating (which is not how the scenario is set forth). The apprehension of a battery is entirely reasonable, though up to the jury to decide.</p>

<p>You are missing the concept that two wrongs do not make a right. In your scenario you, essentially, throw the first punch. If you were being restrained by force it would be different.</p>
