For what crime?
Under Tennessee law he was not trespassing...
39-14-405. Criminal trespass. — a) A person commits criminal trespass if the person enters or remains on property, or any portion of property, without the consent of the owner.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) A person entered or remained on property that the person reasonably believed to be property for which the owner's consent to enter had been granted;
(2) The person's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property; and
(3) The person immediately left the property upon request.
Interesting wording in the law...so what if I had had my gun, and instead of ordering him to leave, ordered him to the ground? Then could I be sued for wrongful imprisonment or something?
I believe your interpretation is incorrect. The clue is the word at the end of subsection (b)(2) - "and." The use of "and" instead of "or" means that, in the context of the wording of the law, ALL criteria (b1, b2 & b3) must be met to establish a defense - not just ANY of the b1, b2 or b3 criteria.
So, even though the guy left when he was ordered to leave (b)(3), he violated (b)(1) in being there in the first place without permission (it was not commercial and so did not need posting, per the rest of 39-14-405), and violated (b)(2) by "substantially interfering" with the "use" of the property by depriving it of it's safe status as a part of a private, secure residence.
So guilty on two counts - (b)(1) & (b)(2).
And it makes sense, otherwise anyone could stroll through any private property and merely leave when requested, and not have violated the law even though he, for example, might have sat next to your young daughter after hopping your fence.
The stroller NEVER had the homeowner’s consent to be on his property.