Confronting Drunk Trespassers and Vandals

[hangovur]

Well, I am glad your friend had supernatural powers that somehow turns violent drunks into carebears...... but why wasn't he in this mans yard? Can you ask him what he is doing for the next 40-50 years? I'd rather not carry this pistol and it would be great if he was there to diffuse every situation for me(heh, the 1 physical altercation I have had in 10 years).




Now back to reality..... Ive been around quite a few drunks (I mean the violent type, like the guys in this situation) and quite a few times I have seen the most friendly rational people get their heads bashed in because they tried to reason with a drunk. You are correct, sometimes you can reason with them...... but sometimes they are just mad at the world.

To quote Hunter S. Thompson in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"

One of the things you learn from years of dealing with drug people, is that you can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug. Especially when it's waving a razor-sharp hunting knife in your eye.

Alcohol is a drug that affects some people in such a way that they are violent, plain and simple.

It is not the smartest thing to do tactically, now is it?

Not in all cases. However, for some people it may not be acceptable to simply wait for police. In my hometown that could be a 30 minute wait (yes, they suck sometimes), and for some situations it might be unacceptable to just allow criminals to destroy a persons livelihood. For some people, taking that chance to defend the things they have put their hard earned money into may be worth it.

We can post stories of people who have come out on the losing end of confronting and we can post stories of people who have come out on the "winning" (its never a win in this case really) end of this situation.

My point is that you have a right, a legally protected right in Florida, to protect your house and property IF YOU SO DESIRE.

 

[hangovur]

They haven't been charged with trespassing, but if they did so, it was a misdemeanor. It certainly would not justify a threat of deadly force.

One more time, that's why we have juries. A grand jury may not indict--now. But unless and until there has been either a jury rial and acquittal or an executive pardon, all parties remain subject to prosecution as long as they live.

Notice the law does not say "charged" before the crimes listed? It states clearly that the crimes are being "committed". They were comitting a crime by trespassing which is NOT a reason to use force. When they assaulted the homeowner (a much more serious crime) that escalated the situation and changed the level of reasonable force.
Read the laws. You DO have the right to remove trespassers with reasonable force. Reasonable force includes a firearm if they become violent.

 

[hangovur]

Maybe I can sympathise with these terrible vandals because I am from a bad part of town and I have been drunk alot and I have been a fool...and violent (did not start anything though). Those days are behind me now. Glad no one decided it was a good idea to shoot me, because I am really not such a bad guy.

I wonder, did you ever assault a man on his front porch? Alcohol is not a get out of following the rules and paying consequences card.

 

[Kleanbore]

If he's defending his property and person against trespassing miscreants, how could that [confronting them with a weapon] be unlawful?

A weapon may be brought into play--produced, as it were--by a civilian only for self defense, so property doesn't enter into it, so the question would seem to be, did the alleged trespassers pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm before he confronted them with a gun? I haven't gotten that impression, but it's not for me to say.

Their actions, as described, sure sound like a forcible felony to me. They followed him home and started attacking his property.

Not to me. They came onto his property, a misdemeanor. I see no reference to robbery, burglary, etc. Now, one of the persons may well have assaulted the homeowner when he "grabbed the barrel of the gun, pointed it towards himself and dared the homeowner to shoot" and a " couple of punches were thrown, " but that reportedly occurred after the homeowner had "confronted" them with a weapon and had shouted at them. What happened? Might a sufficient number of the witnesses recount that they, not having provoked a confrontation in any way, were in fact defending themselves after the man started threatening them with a gun? That kind of thing has happened.

I don't think they'd get very far with that argument if the entire event were confined to the porch (extension of the home, unlike where I live), but maybe they were not on it when it started. That could make a big difference in that the "trespassers" would retain the right to self defense themselves. I don't think they would in the house.

Furthermore, he did not point the firearm at them.

Good point. Question may hinge, however, on whether he, with a gun, created a well-founded fear in another person that violence to the other person was imminent, without being in imminent danger.

The fact that they were on his porch would probably establish a presumption of imminent danger, but that presumption is rebuttable, and there were lot of witnesses to discuss what actually happened.

Not having pointed the gun at them may or may not have worked to his advantage, should things have gotten sticky. There was a case in Florida in which it did not help (guy was found guilty of several things, including unlawful display of a weapon, when he did not point it), and a similar one in which it may have.

The more pertinent question I should think, is whether he was engaged in a justifiable act of self defense when he went out with the gun to "confront."

The "castle" law is relatively new, and he could have become the test case--a dubious distinction.

[Juries come into play] Only if an actual law is broken, which I'm still not seeing here.

No, we have trial juries to determine whether a law has been broken by an accused person, if a person is charged.

The duty of a grand jury is to investigate the facts and decide whether a person is to be accused ("indicted"). Indictment does not establish guilt, nor does a decision to not accuse constitute acquittal.

A person who has been acquitted in a trial court cannot be tried again for the same act. However, a person who is not indicted can be indicted later by the same or a later grand jury, up to the expiration of the statute of limitations. For murder, there is no expiration.

This might be worth reading:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

The guy is lucky he didn't shoot someone or get shot. As it is, this will probably all remain useless conjecture.

Want someone off your property in Florida? Ask them to leave. If they don't , the decision whether to use reasonable non deadly force to get them going is up to you. Not for me, at my age. And leave your gun out of it unless you want to draw lots on the most expensive an stressful time of your life. All downside, no upside.

 

[JMusic]

Why don't someone close this before I throw up. He should have shot the guy who grabbed the barrel then we would all know the answer.




Jim

 

[Templar223]

Vandalism is vandalism. Let the cops come. Witness/video the crimes.

Confronting them with a rifle was bad mojo.

Could have gone very badly. Glad it didn't.

John

 

[Glamdring]

For all the people that are quoting statues. You might want to look at case law in your States and counties.

Neat thing about that, even if you don't know the law you will often find out what really happens in an actual case involving lethal force.

Also while I like to argue, I doubt that Lee, Skip, & Farnam would be wrong about this type of topic when they all agree!

Suggested reading:
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it".[1] They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than relatively more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Which connects to:

The Four Stages

1. Unconscious incompetence
The individual neither understands nor knows how to do something, nor recognizes the deficit, nor has a desire to address it.
See also : Dunning-Kruger effect

2. Conscious incompetence
Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, he or she does recognize the deficit, without yet addressing it.

3. Conscious competence
The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires a great deal of consciousness or concentration.

4. Unconscious competence
The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it becomes "second nature" and can be performed easily (often without concentrating too deeply). He or she may or may not be able teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.

Natural language is an example of unconscious competence. Not every native speaker who can understand and be understood in a language is competent to teach it. Distinguishing between unconscious competence for performance-only, versus unconscious competence with the ability to teach, the term "kinesthetic competence" is sometimes used for the ability to perform but not to teach, while "theoretic competence" refers to the ability to do both.

Certain brain personality types favor certain skills (see the Benziger theory), and each individual possesses different natural strengths and preferences. Therefore, advancing from, say, stage 3 to 4 in one skill might be easier for one person than for another. Certain individuals will even resist progression to stage 2, because they refuse to acknowledge or accept the relevance and benefit of a particular skill or ability. Individuals develop competence only after they recognize the relevance of their own incompetence in the skill concerned."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence

 

[Glamdring]

In case you don't get the connection Lee, Skip, & Farnam all teach on items bearing on this topic. They likely know what they are talking about.

 

[hangovur]

So many of you keep forgetting that the homeowner was attacked on his porch, that is a forced felony. Drunks could have left at any time.

These took me all of 5 minutes to find. If I were interested in spending any more time (I think I am done with this thread) I could fill a page with case law backing up the statutes I have posted.

Man shoots intruder in home. No criminal or civil trial

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2009/02/16/0216invader.html



Tampa man confronts a speeder. Speeder attacks man, man shoots speeder in self defense. Case thrown out.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...notosassa-bicyclist-in-fatal-shooting/1032920



Three cases of homeowners shooting/beating intruders.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/sfl-homeowners-fight-back-b091109,0,7326423.story



Former Marine shoots and kills two armed robbers in a subway

http://www.justnews.com/news/13585335/detail.html



Glam- I guess you are implying that my ability to understand and comprehend simple statutes written for this specific situation and backed up by case law is really my ignorant incompetence making me feel superior????? If it makes you feel better, or even superior, so be it.

 

[Cosmoline]

, the drunken kids came onto my friends’ property and started vandalizing my friends’ cars

As reported, particularly in light of the earlier confrontation and subsequent stalking behavior, this is a heck of a lot more than mere trespassing. If you trespass onto occupied property and proceed to commit felony criminal mischief as part of an effort to assault a home owner, he's more than justified in coming out with a rifle.

Question may hinge, however, on whether he, with a gun, created a well-founded fear in another person that violence to the other person was imminent, without being in imminent danger.

No, it wouldn't. You're not passing the laugh test here. Nobody is going to prosecute a homeowner who SHOWED CONSIDERABLE RESTRAINT in dealing with a bunch of utterly worthless miscreants. If you really stretch a few laws in isolation you could conceivably fault him for brandishing, but you'd have to be ignoring the laws which make possession of a firearm in the homestead specifically legal, and which even authorize deadly force against a forcible felony.

No, we have trial juries to determine whether a law has been broken by an accused person, if a person is charged.

You're skipping several key steps. Some fool of a cop would first have to arrest the homeowner, then some even bigger fool of a DA would have to try to prosecute the homeowner. Then he'd have to convince a grand jury composed of many homeowners that this fellow was in the wrong because he drove out a bunch of hoods with a Mauser pointed skywards, THEN he'd have to take the matter to a jury of 12 and get a conviction. It's absurd.

Now maybe the facts were not as reported to us, but apparently the cops who responded felt the homeowner was very restrained--perhaps too restrained.

The guy is lucky he didn't shoot someone or get shot. As it is, this will probably all remain useless conjecture.

What are you talking about? He specifically avoided shooting these idiots even when they dared him to! You would have him cower in his home while his car is destroyed and for all he knows the set his place on fire. Obviously he took some chances setting foot out and telling them to take a hike, but I can hardly fault him for it. The only thing I would have done differently is rearrange the jaw and teeth of the idiot who grabbed the rifle.

Want someone off your property in Florida? Ask them to leave.

This isn't the neighbor's kids play frisbee we're talking about! To challenge a bunch of hoods who are vandalizing your property when you DO NOT have a rifle or shotgun at the ready is VASTLY MORE DANGEROUS than challenging those hoods with said rifle a the ready. If they use deadly force you're up creek real, real fast. You either challenge them with gun in hand or you leave them be. There is no middle way with goblins.

 

[Fred Fuller]

OK, all you keyboard barristers- come back when you can show me a JD and ten years on the other side of the bar (I know, Cosmo, but let it go). Then we'll continue this sort of argument. But right now, as it is, it is not productive. Courtrooms are not soap operas, even though sometimes it seems they are. In court, there are consequences, and not always logical or even deserved.

You don't want to go there if you can help it...

lpl