Confronting Drunk Trespassers and Vandals

[numaone]

Hello Guys,

One of my good friends related this story to me that happened today, and I wanted to see what your response would have been. I post this in Strategies and Tactics because I feel it is a legitimate question on how to AVOID shooting, while protecting your property. This occurred in the state of Florida, within city limits.

He and a group of five friends were walking home this evening after a college football game. They walked past a group of drunken college students (7 males and 2 females) hanging out in the woods nearby their house. The kids were belligerent, but to avoid confrontation, my friends ignored them and continued out their house. A few minutes later, the drunken kids came onto my friends’ property and started vandalizing my friends’ cars. The vandalism was minor; it started with some pieces of wood scratching the cars up. The homeowner grabbed his Mouser and confronted the kids on his own property, shouting at them to get off the property. They simultaneously called the police. The loaded firearm was pointed skyward. The drunken kids walked up to them onto the porch and one grabbed the barrel of the gun, pointed it towards himself and dared the homeowner to shoot. A couple of punches were thrown, no shots fired, and the kids retreated back into the woods. The police arrived a few minutes later, but couldn’t find any of the kids.

What would your response have been? I feel that while no shots were fired, this situation was handled extremely poorly and should have been much worse.

I probably wouldn’t have left the house and not confronted them and let the police arrive and deal with it. But at what point do you need to protect your property? Suppose they were breaking car windows, or causing significant damage to property, does your response change? There is no reason to believe they wouldn’t have entered the porch anyway.

It was a HUGE breach to allow the trespassers to get close enough to grab the firearm. Is there a way to deescalate the situation while still carrying a firearm and confront them to ask them to leave? Assuming you do confront them, would you have fired a warning shot into the ground as they approached?

Meanwhile the police suggested that my friends had taken a MORE aggressive approach. Not only do I think this is unsound advice, I am not quite sure of the legality of their advice.

Thanks for Your Input

 

[Cards81fan]

As much as I normally advise against the stuff in other circumstances, OC spray is a great way to handle drunks. They usually aren't much of a physical challenge due to their compromised motor skills, but they seem to be more confrontational than the "average bear." I think a blast of "bear spray" to the face of one who approached me would probably keep him at bay, and let the others know I mean business.

In all honesty, 7 or 9 assaulting 1 would certainly be odds enough to use deadly force if they did approach you. However, a good warning shot of OC may keep it from coming to that.

 

[hangovur]

If you are going to pull a gun you had better be darn ready to use it. If he felt in enough danger to bring the gun with him he should never allowed the guy to get close enough to grab it.

At the very minimum a warning shot into the grass to let him know you were not going to allow him to come any closer would have been a good idea IMO. Then again shooting an unarmed kid is a tough thing to live with. Is the car worth it? hard to say, not really a right or wrong answer.

Somebody comes onto my property in that situation I might have came out with a camera and a concealed weapon. Then again, I might have reacted like your friend. Hard to say. I can tell you he would not have grabbed my weapon. Drunk or not, you approach someone like that and attempt to grab a rifle and you are putting your life in serious jeopardy.

 

[numaone]

I hate drunk college kids, but that wont deter me from defending myself and property. I couldn't believe that when he grabbed it, he pointed the barrel towards himself! But that's what alcohol does, and why I avoid it 100%.

If you are going to pull a gun you had better be darn ready to use it.

I think this was one of the problems with the response, he wasn't ready to use it. By the time someone grabs it, it's too late. But there was there justification yet to use it?

I think the one of the difficulties here is measured response. Are you justified in confronting them with firearm in-hand without the current threat of deadly force against you? And when do you become justified in using it if they are unarmed. Certainly they could kill, but at what point? Do punches need to be thrown, or is simply grabing the gun enough?

At the very minimum a warning shot into the grass to let him know you were not going to allow him to come any closer would have been a good idea IMO.

I agree with you here. In city limits this is illegal over here. Or would this have been a justified use of such a tactic?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Never shoot a warning shot.

EVER.

Any lawyer or cop will tell you; a situation either warrants deadly force or it does not. If you fire your weapon, it means you thought it warranted deadly force BUT since you didn't use it against a threat, it means you really didn't think the situation warranted deadly force. That's a BAD place to be legally. And you can be damn sure the other side's lawyer will be grilling you for hours on why you thought it was reasonable to fire a weapon in a residential neighborhood when your life obviously wasn't threatened.

I second the suggestion of OC spray. Have him look up exactly what is legal in your state, because certainly formulas and concentrations are illegal in certain areas. "Bear Spray" for instance, is illegal to use against humans for any reason in Michigan. But depending on what is legal in your state, a large canister of OC would be your best bet for a situation like that. Drawing the firearm was obviously a ploy since the friend in question wasn't really prepared to use it. It should not have been drawn in the first place. I personally would not have, and would have used the OC spray I already have. But, if a situation did arise where I felt the need to draw a firearm, no one is getting close enough to grab the barrel. Period.

 

[jester_s1]

I see two "nevers" that were done here.

1. Never leave the security of your house to confront a criminal outside.

Open a window if you must to run them off, but never go outside. This is the most common way home invasion robberies are done- create a disturbance outside to draw out the armed homeowner and then ambush him. In this situation, the police will be there soon enough and the damage to the cars can be fixed with insurance. Comprehensive coverage usually has a $100 deductible.

2. Never point or shoot a gun into the air or the ground.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. In pointing the gun upwards, you are telling the criminal that you are not willing to shoot him, therfore you are not a threat. Add some liquid courage to the mix and you get total disrespect. If you are going to pull out a gun, you aim it directly at the criminal and do what you can to help the criminal rethink his situation so he can avoid being shot. In this case, the homeowner would likely have watched the kid stop in his tracks, shout some obscenities, and leave. Perhaps he even could have held them there for the police.

The right thing to do was to stay inside, call the police, open a window, and tell the kids to leave one time. If the didn't, stay inside and wait for the police. No vandalism warrants lethal force, and no property is worth your physical safety.

 

[jester_s1]

I didn't notice this post until after I posted my first reply above, but I gotta respond.

Posted by Hangovur: "At the very minimum a warning shot into the grass to let him know you were not going to allow him to come any closer would have been a good idea IMO. Then again shooting an unarmed kid is a tough thing to live with. Is the car worth it? hard to say, not really a right or wrong answer."

Are you freaking kidding me? A kids life for some scratches on a car is a tough call for you? There most certainly is a right or a wrong answer. The right answer is that a car can be fixed or replaced. A man's life cannot. We are talking about a drunk kid who is being stupid. You seriously can't make a moral judgment as to whether it's ok or not to kill him over a car? Gimmie a break.

This is the kind of garbage that gives gun owners a bad name. Most of us are decent, moral people who value human life (I think moreso than the anti's) and would not kill someone over any amount of property. But it's the few who blurt out thoughtless words like this that get quoted and brand us all as violent rednecks who will kill at a moment's notice.
I sincerely hope you misrepresented yourself, Hangovur. I might suggest laying off the hooch for awhile and letting your head clear out before handling anything more deadly than a letter opener. Or a keyboard for that matter.

 

[Cards81fan]

Have him look up exactly what is legal in your state, because certainly formulas and concentrations are illegal in certain areas. "Bear Spray" for instance, is illegal to use against humans for any reason in Michigan.

+1. My "bear" comments were simply a play on words, but yes... good advice on using ones designed for two-legged predators.

 

[hangovur]

Are you freaking kidding me? A kids life for some scratches on a car is a tough call for you? There most certainly is a right or a wrong answer. The right answer is that a car can be fixed or replaced. A man's life cannot. We are talking about a drunk kid who is being stupid. You seriously can't make a moral judgment as to whether it's ok or not to kill him over a car? Gimmie a break.

This is the kind of garbage that gives gun owners a bad name. Most of us are decent, moral people who value human life (I think moreso than the anti's) and would not kill someone over any amount of property. But it's the few who blurt out thoughtless words like this that get quoted and brand us all as violent rednecks who will kill at a moment's notice.
I sincerely hope you misrepresented yourself, Hangovur. I might suggest laying off the hooch for awhile and letting your head clear out before handling anything more deadly than a letter opener. Or a keyboard for that matter.

Heh, a little mis-reading and a lot of assumptions on your part, a little clarity needed on my part. The fact that you assume that I am not a decent, moral person from that post says a lot about your own character.

Laying off the hooch? Redneck? none of those apply here pal, but whatever. My statement would require a bit more thought than you are able or willing to commit to the discussion.


Now I live in Florida, and assume Florida laws in everything I say.

The judgment call is not about a scratch in a car. Of course property is not worth taking someones life. If we were having a discussion about what to do after finding someone vandalizing a car I could see how you might take it that way. But we are not are we? We are discussing people on YOUR property, and apparently dangerous enough to approach you while holding a gun.. That last part is key.

But lets look at what I said (maybe not clearly enough) in reference to the OP, which is a very specific situation. The owner of the property decided to confront people committing a crime against him on his property. Now it is surely safer to stay inside, no argument there. But it is his right to confront people on his property committing a crime against him. That right is protected in the state of Florida as well as many others.

Now here is where I may need to clarify. When I said you have to decide whether a few scratches is worth someones life, its not that simple. there is a process, and it has nothing to do with the car. It has to do with the drunks actions towards the homeowner.

1) You notice trespassers vandalizing your car. You must now decide whether to confront them or just wait for police. I will not argue that it is safer to stay inside. But (in my state at least) a person has the right to confront a trespasser if they so desire.

2) Should you decide to confront, you must decide if you are going to be armed. The OP mentioned multiple drunks. I a big guy and have years of MMA training, but I don't like my chances vs a group of people should they decide to attack me. If you decide to confront, you should be armed. As for OC, my mother was a police officer for years and has a long list of times that stuff didn't work like the officers hoped it would. Its nasty stuff, but I wouldn't trust my life to it.

3) If you have decided to confront them (on your property) you have to assume the possibility of them attacking you. If you are confronting, and if you are armed, you have to be ready to pull the trigger if they do attack.

Now, if at any point of that process you find yourself uncomfortable, then the absolute answer is to stay inside. Even if you are completely comfortable with all of that, staying inside is for sure the safer/smarter answer. However, a person (depending on state) has the right to confront said drunks. So, you have to decide if your property is worth confronting the drunks knowing that there is a possibility of a violent confrontation and the consequences of that confrontation.

You have to assume the worst case scenario, them attacking and you defending yourself, is a possibility. Now if they do not attack, then of course you have no need for the weapon and it would be absolutely absurd to argue use of force. BUT.... if they do approach (like they did in this case) and if they do decide to CAUSE YOU HARM, as they did in this case, then absolutely defend yourself.

Then again shooting an unarmed kid is a tough thing to live with. Is the car worth it? hard to say, not really a right or wrong answer.

Yeah, I could see how a person might take that out of context if they hadn't put any thought into the context and deeper meaning. But I hope I cleared that up so that your opinion of me wont be so bad and that I may approach my beloved letter opener once again.

 

[Oyeboten]

Bad situation...


Something I have noticed about 'drunks'...or, about 'drunks' who are being unpleasant...


They want someone to resent them, and, they will usually escalate to achieve this, and, to achieve more of it, once begun.


The 'secret' then, when dealing with them, for defusing or dis-arming the situation, is to act 'positively', with palpable friendliness, provide an attractive change-of-subject for their attention/interest to distract them off the destructive jag...and to in no way try and dominate or challenge...being adroitly solid and not feeding their manipulation of trying to get you to BE resentful about their destructive demeanor or other strategies.


God Bless anyone possessing the emotional and sensible maturity to do this.


Sometimes I have had the operatively 'right' mode and mood or maturity...other times, "no"...


Probably, I would have met the occasion, saying nothing...silenly...and fast, with two-foot length of Hickory Pick-Handle, and, bruised or broken however many 'drunken-college-kid-Bones...but, who knows, it all depends...how many, how drunk, how big...on and on...


Oh well...


...sigh...



But, calling '9-11' is certainly a good idea, and, letting the cops handle it...if one can expect a reasonable response time, and, can be patient doing nothing in the meantime...and does not mind having the destructive behavior turn on yet new things or House Arson or other ideas as one sits passively, or stands, parting Curtains, peeping out.


Oye...

 

[jester_s1]

hangovur- 2nd post much better than the first. Thanks for the clarification.

I think everyone in the thread agrees with the OP that the situation was handled badly. A beligerent drunk got his hands on an homeowner's loaded gun and did physical harm to said homeowner, then left with no consequences. I kinda figure you don't show a gun at all until it's time to use it. Anything less than killing the criminal when legally allowed to do so is an act of mercy. Nobody is owed mercy, but it certainly is something to give whenever possible. Escalating the situation to an armed conflict without the willingness to use the gun is begging to stop a bullet yourself. The homeowner was very lucky that the drunks didn't have guns or the story might have turned out quite differently.

 

[peyton]

If your going to display a gun, you better be ready to use it. Hate to be shot by my own gun that got taken away from me!!

 

[tkopp]

I live in the city, so my response may be different from yours.

Your friend's life was never in danger until he forced the confrontation. He took a matter of vandalism and made it a potential life or death conflict. What he ought to have done was contact the police and be a good witness. If he needs to point something at those kids and pull the trigger, let it be a camera. The moment he reached for a rifle and left his sanctuary, he made himself and everyone around him less safe.

I live in a sketchy neighborhood, which means I have a police response time of a couple minutes at the worst. I'd much rather have a police officer apprehend those kids and have a court be able to force restitution for damages than, say, run off anonymous vandals or God forbid shoot one of them. When facing civil litigation afterwards, you'd really wish you'd just written off that $30 in paint and wax as a loss.

 

[JMusic]

This does not justify firearm use. Call the cops let them beat the hell out of them orrr..... Buy you a good hickory ash handle and hit collar bones and joints. Anyone watch the Rodney King beating that's exactly how not to use a weapon. No head just joints, shins, collarbone, forearms, elbowsand my favorite knees. And then call the cops. Some here advise not to confront a group, good advise. Learn to use a stick hit where I said and whats not on the ground is gone. Police can't protect you all the time. Sometimes it comes down to how much you want to take. If a group decides to tear my car up it means they have already waded through a 130 German Shepherd and then the real test comes. I'll be happy to sign their casts for them. Have a bright light with you that and a hickory stick used propery is devistating. I don't give advise here that I haven't tried. Besides this would piss me off!



Jim

 

[gideon_70]

As a redneck, I do not appriciate the slur. Thank you very much.

 

[SpotlightRanger]

What I would have done.

Go inside.

Call police, tell them you have a violent mob on your property (they should come quick enough).

Get gun, spray and camera.

Record the vandalism from window.

Have police arrest them.

Press charges.

Sue them for damages.

So easy a caveman can do it

 

[Kleanbore]

Buy you a good hickory ash handle and hit collar bones and joints.

You just might want to become informed on what constitutes deadly force before embarking on that strategy.

 

[Fred Fuller]

At least it didn't turn out worse than it was. And it could have been very bad indeed. IMHO it's better to learn these lessons in a place like S&T than to have to do it the hard way- which is in court.

There are so very many misapprehensions running loose out there about what a person can and cannot do legally in defense of self, family, friends and property. Part of the reason for that can be laid at the feet of Hollywood. Part of it is a problem with excess testosterone and a shortage of common sense. Part of it is because there is such a giant patchwork of state and local laws governing the topic.

And part of it is that enforcement of said laws can vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction even in the same state. It sort of takes me back to the days when I spent lots of time helping Special Forces soldiers work on area studies as part of Operations and Intelligence class, or in real world mission prep- the saying was, "There's no substitute for local knowledge."

It's each individual's responsibility to learn what black-letter law says in his or her jurisdiction, and even more importantly, to learn case law as well. The law establishes certain expectations of conduct we have to meet, even in times of extreme stress and pressure. The law often expresses itself through standards of expected conduct- here in NC, the expectations are two-fold, that of behavior expected of a "reasonable person" of "ordinary firmness" (courage).

The best general training I have ever had on the subject came from Skip Gochenour a few years ago. The lecture notes from that lecture are posted at http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm . I recommend them so often, it's hard to believe there's anyone here who hasn't read them yet 8^). If a glossary is needed to interpret Skip's ATSA-speak, there's one buried in the Training Links thread up top in the stickies on the main S&T page.

Another of my frequently suggested pieces of study material is John Farnam's bit at http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2003/19Mar03.html . I've heard him say much the same thing in person, and it's good advice IMHO.

But- there's still no substitute for local knowledge. Talk to a good criminal defense attorney in your jurisdiction, at least long enough to find out what he or she bills per hour (hint- a few weeks of billing at that rate would likely buy you a new car... or a couple of them). Go spend a couple of days at a 'serious' trial in superior court or the equivalent in your jurisdiction. It's free, and should prove quite educational.

As another old saying goes- if you think education is expensive, just try ignorance.

Stay Safe,

lpl

 

[JMusic]

That strategy is taught in LEO and martial arts every day. Not once did I say use lethal force. IN fact I said stay away from the head. I also stated not to use a firearm. I don't know your experience but you can protect your property. Best choice is stay in the house and call the cops. I for one would have trouble waiting. I have a law degree and many years of plain clothes experience. Not once was lethal force recommended NO place I recommended hitting would cause lethal force. I've been there many times take it as a recommendation or not its up to you. One more thing when the cops start pounding on you they are lucky to have 12 weeks training and they are hitting with a stick far denser than a hickory stick.


Jim

 

[gideon_70]

Learn the laws

Florida statutes are very clear on this issue. Please read to the bottom for my personal opinion.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

So:
As soon as they started yelling threats, you had the right to draw your weapon. If you reasonable felt that you would suffer great bodily injury or harm were they to get close enough to hurt you, you could have shot them then.

I'm unsure about a legal response while they were damaging your property. According to FS 790.10, if you use a gun to threaten someone when you do not intend to use it for self defense, then that is a misdemeanor.

So, as soon as the kids walked on the porch, they were considered to be threats and could have been killed at that point.

Those are the laws.

Now, my opinion. Letting ANYONE get close enough to take your gun away from you was stupid. You should have told them to stop, and if they didn't, dealt with it within the law. You do not have a duty to retreat, and you have the right to use deadly force whenever someone is threatening you or your home. But you have made a couple of deadly assumptions.

Your first assumption was, "They mean me no harm." How did you come to this conclusion?

Your second assumption was, "They are just drunk college kids." How did you come to that conclusion?

My point is this.
They threatened you from the woods.
The followed you.
They trespassed on your property.
They damaged your property.
They threatened your life.
They entered your dwelling. (porch is considered a part of the house)
They attempted to take your weapon from you.
They attempted to force you to hurt one of them with your own weapon.

You ignored their threats.
You allowed them to enter your property.
You allowed them to threaten your life.
You allowed them close enough to try to take your weapon away from you.
You were in a deadly situation where your gun was not fully in your control, and allowed it.
You failed to shoot to regain your weapon.

My advice to you is to take a handgun safety course with a certified trainer. If you fail to do that, sell the gun, you are not qualified to own it. You are a danger to yourself and everyone else. Let me explain why.

Those kids were not intimidated by the gun, nor by you. They may or may not be back, but chances are, the next person will not be so forgiving or understanding as you have been and one of the kids will get killed.

So you have allowed the threat to pass to another person, possibly guaranteed that you will be robbed when they need money, and added to their arrogance in assuming that the sheep will not fight back. The stories of your submission to them will be legendary with their friends, and that will embolden others to try the same stunt.

This is one of the toughest decisions that you will ever make in your life. It is not an easy decision to make. You have the right to defend yourself, and the responsibilty to defend others in the house if you are armed. That you had no idea what to do was telling, and saddening in a way. If you want the firearm, and the responsibility to use it properly, then go take some classes, learn to use it properly, and learn what the law says in how/when/why you can use it.

Lastly, I agree with the previous poster. If you felt threatrened enough to pull it, you should have felt threatened enough to use it.

 

[pittspilot]

From the Farnam article

"To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category."

I think the Farnam advice is very sound, but confess that I do not understand why he equates bars with airports. Bars, I get, but airports tend to be non-violent environments.

 

[Kleanbore]

Not once did I say use lethal force.

Deadly force--which is defined as force that can cause death or serious bodily injury. Break a collar bone and try arguing that the injury is not serious.

 

[JMusic]

Laws vary from state to state. Destroying property is different in some states than a break in. In a state I once lived vandals went up to a porch and destroyed all of this guys flower pots. They took off with him in pursuit. He shot at the car killing a girl in the back seat. The grand jury let him off. The civil court (which usually happens) ruled in the plaintiff's favor in the vicinity of $750,000.

Lets take is issue and simply change the defendant in civil court. This man was 40 years old military training. Though his actions were ruled justified his actions in civil court were ruled excessive. We are a gun happy culture and I have noticed a disturbing trend. It seems to be more of not what to do but when can I shoot. There are other ways of defending your property outside your house. The castle doctron is far from being decided yet.


Jim

 

[Kleanbore]

As soon as they started yelling threats, you had the right to draw your weapon. If you reasonable felt that you would suffer great bodily injury or harm were they to get close enough to hurt you, you could have shot them then.

Not exactly. Here's something from a Florida state website on the subject:

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?

A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

I strongly suggest that everyone read the link contained in Lee Lapin's post.

Here's another worth bookmarking and studying:

http://www.useofforce.us/

 

[conw]

One word, BUTTSTROKE.

Personally know that the law around here lets me use reasonable force to remove vandals and trespassers whom I have told to leave. I would have come outside with a stick and a concealed handgun and started whacking if there was any attitude.