With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". from both Mr. Ward and him supports the use of force employed by him to prevent the conversion and trespass of his property — the maroon Jeep. Under these circumstances, as in Brewer, appellant submits that he was justified in using non deadly force to stop the attempted repossession. The circuit court specifically found that, because appellant’s version of the events was unbelievable, appellant did not have a justification defense. The State submits that because any reasonable person would, and the circuit judge indicated that appellant did in fact, realize that Mr. Ward was acting on behalf of a repossession agency, he could not have been acting on a reasonable belief that he was preventing a criminal trespass. See, e.g., Oaklawn Bank v. Baldwin, 289 Ark. 79, 709 S.W.2d 91 (1986) (<HOLDING>). We agree. Regarding appellant’s reliance on

A: holding that criminal trespass can constitute a breach of the peace justifying a citizens arrest of the trespasser
B: holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant
C: holding that it is not
D: holding that generally it is not a violation of arkansas law to repossess a vehicle from the driveway of an owner as long as it can be accomplished without a breach of the peace
D.