If A stops for lunch while detouring over B's field, what level of force may B use to compel A to move on?

In this scenario, the appropriate response from B is that he may use reasonable force to compel A to move on. This reflects the principle of property rights, which grants B the ability to take reasonable steps to protect his property. The law permits a property owner to remove trespassers, but any force used must be proportional to the situation.

Reasonable force is typically understood as the minimum force necessary to remove a trespasser without causing unnecessary harm or excessive destruction. It acknowledges the need to balance the rights of the property owner against the rights of the individual who may be trespassing. The idea is to prevent violent or overly aggressive actions while still allowing the property owner to maintain control over their land.

Other choices present less appropriate responses. B cannot simply allow A to stay indefinitely, as this undermines B's property rights. Additionally, B cannot use any force necessary, as that would contradict the requirement for reasonable force and could lead to legal ramifications for excessive force. Simply asking A to leave again would not be sufficient if A refuses to comply, as it does not empower B to enforce his property rights effectively.

Thus, the correct interpretation of B's rights concerning A's unauthorized presence on his property is that B may use reasonable force to compel A to