Under the general rule for defense of property, force may be used when it is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or trespass, or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property. Which option best reflects this rule?

Under the general rule for defense of property, force may be used when it is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or trespass, or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property. Which option best reflects this rule?

• A. Force may be used if it is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or trespass; or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property.
• B. Force may be used only when law enforcement authorizes it.
• C. Force may be used to protect property even if it creates a substantial risk of death.
• D. Force may be used to intimidate someone.

Answer: (B)

Defense of property allows using force only when it is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or trespass, or the unlawful taking of tangible movable property. The best match is the choice that states force may be used when it is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or trespass, or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property. This reflects that a private person may defend property without waiting for law enforcement, provided the force used is reasonable and proportionate to the threat. The idea that force requires police authorization is not correct for this general rule, and options suggesting force to threaten, intimidate, or to protect property even at a substantial risk of death go beyond what is allowed when defending property.

Defense of property allows using force only when it is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or trespass, or the unlawful taking of tangible movable property. The best match is the choice that states force may be used when it is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or trespass, or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property. This reflects that a private person may defend property without waiting for law enforcement, provided the force used is reasonable and proportionate to the threat. The idea that force requires police authorization is not correct for this general rule, and options suggesting force to threaten, intimidate, or to protect property even at a substantial risk of death go beyond what is allowed when defending property.