Confronting Drunk Trespassers and Vandals

[JMusic]

Kleenbore where are you from??? Deadly force is not serious physical force and I doubt breaking a collar bone is no more deadly force than yelling at a person and they drop dead from a heart attack.

Since your so savvy in these issues just what would you do????

Jim

 

[TimboKhan]

Here is what I get from the situation.

1. I think the guy knew the situation didn't require deadly force, so he walked out with his "Mouser" hoping to scare the crap out of the kids, which resulted in an epic fail.

The lesson to be learned from this is that whole thing about guns scaring people off doesn't always work, and in fact in this case escalated the situation. I don't get the sense that deadly force was a requirement in this situation, and so that option should never have even been presented in my opinion. Call the cops, keep an eye out from the safety of your house, move on with life.

2. This situation gathered strength as it went along on account of a number of poor decisions on both sides. From my point of view, the cops should have been called on the kids the second he got home. Drunk kids being a-holes is exactly the sort of thing I DO call the cops over. I used to be a major partier and I can understand getting hammered and hooting and hollering, but being drunk doesn't give anyone a license to be a threatening jerk.

 

[Geno]

Alcohol and lack of common sense. Call the LEOs and report the damage. Introducing a firearm into this mess was the proverbial match to the puddle of gasoline.

 

[Kleanbore]

Kleenbore where are you from???

Missouri

...I doubt breaking a collar bone is no more deadly force than yelling at a person and they drop dead from a heart attack.

Not sure what you are trying to say, but deadly force is defined as force that can be expected to cause death or serious physical injury. Doesn't require a firearm--a baseball bat will do. Serious physical injury is defined as disfigurement or protracted impairment. Always subject to judgment, but nerve damage or reduced strength or mobility will usually qualify.

Since your so savvy in these issues just what would you do????

Retired.

I often associate with active and retired law enforcement officers and criminologists. They do not strike people with hickory axe handles, nor are they permitted to do so. They will arrest anyone who does so except in self defense.

They do use tasers--but I cannot "tase" a trespasser or someone who shouts at me unpleasantly. My lawful remedy is to call the police. As you have said, that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 

[dbarile]

I hate drunks who tear up stuff and run away. I like it better when they confront the cops when they get there. It's fun to watch. The added bonus is that if he swings at the cops he generally does some time.

That said, I don't think I would have brought out the guns.

I'll have to think up a plan for this scenario myself. How much property damage do you let the unidentified drunk get away with?

Turn the garden hose on him?

 

[JVoutilainen]

I agree with JMusic when he says:

It seems to be more of not what to do but when can I shoot

I must admit that I am a bit shocked to read what many here are proposing. I come from a country where heavy drinking (when I say heavy I mean HEAVY), and the problems it creates, is the norm. If we had a law that would allow us to shoot and kill in the given situation...well, this would be a war zone in no time.

I have a lot of experience dealing with drunks, because I used to be a bouncer. I do not claim that things I am about to say would have solved the situation. However, you should at least consider them;

1) if you are confronted by a angry individual who is shouting it is useless to shout back at him (if you want to defuse the situation, that is). Try speaking softly - so softly, in fact, that he/she has to stop shouting to hear what you say.

2) Watch your body language; Any tenseness or especially visible preparedness for aggressive action will be "communicated" to your opponent. Try to act calm and relaxed, and yet, confident - this will also be "communicated".

3) If someone targets you for no reason it is usually a sign that the person is deeply distressed (in need of help) for some reason. Kindness can defuse a dangerous situation in a surprising way.

Then again, I must say that I come from a altogether different culture, so, I have no clue how people would react to them in the US.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

drunks are dangerous in their unpredictability. grave yards and prisons full of drunks and folks who interacted with them

 

[JMusic]

Kleanbore we will have to agree to disagree. If you are what you claim, you know the colar bone is a target. I said ax handle because they are common. I could have said cane, pool stick what have you. Calling the cops is the best thing to do. I will not watch some puncks tear up my property and they will know there are better ways to make a living. I would suggest I'm more aggressive than you are but hitting people with sticks on your property while they are destroying your property is not against the law in any state. . You know that at one time night sticks were made out of hickory. This is the last comment I will make on this thread so if you want to continue PM.



Jim

 

[Kleanbore]

From the OP:

The homeowner grabbed his Mouser and confronted the kids on his own property, shouting at them to get off the property.

Much of the discussion has had to do with the legality of the homeowner's actions.

OK, suppose he acted lawfully. Does anyone remember the case of the airline mechanic in Texas who went outside with a shotgun to confront someone around his trailer at night? He was ambushed, stabbed, and shot with his own gun, had his arm amputated, and lost his livelihood. A gun does not make one invincible.

From JVoutilainen:

I agree with JMusic when he says: "It seems to be more of not what to do but when can I shoot"

So do I.

I have a friend who is a former police officer who once told me "the only time my gun will ever come out is when I am about to die." I would add in "or my wife or loved ones", but I think that's very good advice indeed.

 

[Grey_Mana]

This type of topic has me puzzled.
As a RKBA issue, I can carry a loaded Mauser to my mailbox, or while mowing the lawn and patching the roof. My property, my loaded gun, the state says it is ok and preempts local laws.

Why does this inherent right to bear arms disappear because I willingly enter into a situation on my own property when I might need the weapon?

The fact that I'm carrying a loaded rifle should have no bearing on the rights of others to tresspass, vandalize, steal, or threaten. My responsibilities shouldn't change either - it is no more or less legal to order someone off my property, or to order them to stop vandalizing my property, when I'm armed on my own property. Being unarmed doesn't make a person more saintly.

Anything else like this, the jury would be forbidden to hear about it, because it would be prejudicial. If kids are vandalizing my property, and they attack me and get shot, the jury shouldn't be told that I walked outside with my rifle. They shouldn't even be told I walked outside - that in itself is prejudicial. My right to walk outside of my house onto my porch shouldn't hinge on what trespassers are doing.

The advice to stay inside, don't escalate, wait for police is good practical advice. But it shouldn't have to be sound legal advice.

 

[JMusic]

I wrote a thread on intent the other day. Carrying a loaded gun even if do every day may look like your intentions were not the every day thing.



Jim

 

[alligator94]

Thats a difficult situation. I know that the police should be called, but it would be hard for me to sit there and watch people destroy my property. Especially since even if the police catch them, the odds of the people being able to make restitution is not good at best. However, what I would do would be dependent on the state and local laws of the area. One thing that I cannot stress enough is never ever have/present a firearm if you are not prepared to use it!!! The fact that they were close enough to grab it shows that they could have taken it and put your friend completely at their mercy. (Something similar happened to a former friend of mine. He confronted two drunk people on his lawn with an unloaded shotgun! They took it from him, beat him with it and tried to shoot him with his own thankfully unloaded shotgun!)

 

[HankB]

So one evening a bunch of drunks tresspassed and began vandalizing cars? These drunken miscreants would be well advised not to try their nonsense in Texas - they might encounter someone who knows the law.

Directly from the Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Tresspassing at night, vandalism (criminal mischief) at night, threats, multiple aggressors, and assault ("a couple of punches were thrown" and an attempt to seize the homeowner's rifle) . . . sounds like all the makings of a very bad outcome for the drunks, with little or no post-incident legal recourse, should they survive.

I love Texas.

 

[Quoheleth]

I think this was one instance where the rifleman would have been better armed with a cellphone and a digital camera. Call the police and then start snapping pics or video the activity.

I can see how the man could say he felt threatened: a half-dozen beligerant drunks invading his home (yard) and vandalizing his auto. Yeah, I bet his heart was running up.

But I can also see how a DA would prosecute this. Young, college aged men and women, while enjoying an evening celebration, felt threatened by these men who were walking home. When approaching the individual to discuss the situation, he suddenly appeared, brandishing a weapon. Joe Sixpak closed with the rifleman to put himself between the weapon and his friends, grabbing the weapon in defense. Blah blah blah

Q

 

[content]

City limits = 911

Hello friends and neighbors// City limits = 911 police response .

#1) No confrontation : City limits =Call 911,,,Wait it out.(normally just a few minutes) ,,,.Stay inside and video/// +1 to post 16
#2) No confrontation: Drunken people and above all drunken college people are irrational.
#3) No controntation: Young drunken people need patience and sympathy not warning shots.
#4) No confrontation : Why risk prison, fines and mental anguish to you and loved ones for shooting drunken car scratchers.
#5) No confrontaton: I could not keep my eyes on two people let alone nine. Suppose one or more of them drew weapon/s in response to your comming out armed. Now you have escalated the situation far beyond your control.
#6) If they enter house you are threatened.

 

[hangovur]

Gray Mana and Hank B...... you said it perfectly.

It is very important to put the situation in perspective. The OPs friend was not in a public place, he was not approaching these drunks at their house or outside of a bar. This goes beyond dealing with drunks or belligerent people.

The single most important fact here is that THEY CAME ONTO HIS PROPERTY AND THREATENED HIS LIFE. He could have stayed inside (safest thing), or he could of went outside without a weapon (dumbest thing he could have done). But it was his right to order them off of his property.

This is not a "when can I shoot issue", as there would be no reason to shoot if these drunks had not attacked him. If they would have ...

A) not trespassed on his property
B) not vandalized his car
c) not approached and assaulted the homeowner (this is the key point) after being told to leave

this whole thing would be a non-issue. We all are entitled to our own opinions, but I thank god that I live in a state that specifically says that I have the right to remove trespassers from my property AND that I have the right to stand my ground in that situation should they choose to attack. My state even prohibits those people or their families from filing a civil suit if I am forced to defend myself.

Is it safer to just stay inside? yes, no doubt.

But where is the line drawn as to how much a person must endure while in their own home/property? It is one thing to say that the smarter thing to do is stay inside...... as others have posted, it is entirely another to tell a person they do not have the right to defend their property and in many cases livelihood because the criminal might attack and force him to defend himself.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

post #6 in Fort Worth TX
You know in Texas you can be shot for vandalizing property.

 

[mustang_steve]

belligerant drunks can usually be distracted towards other avenues of annoyance fairly easily. I suspect this person was not familiar with how to talk to drunks. This is something everyone should know.

Drunks are easily distracted...so distract them.

As for the vandalism, record it all, in as good of video as you can, while the police are on their way....don't lie, but embellish the story....tell them these drunks tried to accost you, followed you home and are now acting in violent manners upon your property...you feel very and increasingly unsafe at the moment and desire an immediate response. This should get some police to your house shortly.

It's better than letting one grab your rifle....that could have ended badly, especially with a group of them. NEVER underestimate a person, nor a drunk.

 

[nitetrane98]

One word, BUTT STROKE.

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.

Right then, right there.

Considering the disparity of force the guy was facing, the instant the drunk reached for the gun he was in fact going for a weapon, yours. Unless it was a prettied up Mauser, I can't think of a better weapon to have in hand for such a purpose, maybe an M1 Garand. OH WAIT, I misread it, he had a Mouser in his hand. Why bring a cat outside for such a situation!!!
It certainly, however, would not have been my first choice to show up on the porch with against 9 BGs.

Now since the the guy showed that he was willing to talk the talk but not walk the walk, he's lucky that he didn't have the gun taken from him altogether. The drunks were the actors in the trespass and criminal mischief. A court would not hear them to complain that they were the victim and only trying to defend themselves while they damaged the man's property.

You cannot reason nor argue with a drunk. I fear that the guy had the idea that he was a holding a magic talisman that would turn drunks into polite rational people.

Final thought, you left out the part about what bumper sticker the guy had on his car, huh?

 

[Kleanbore]

The single most important fact here is that THEY CAME ONTO HIS PROPERTY AND THREATENED HIS LIFE.

At least according to the letter of the law, it makes little difference in most places whether someone threatens another's life on private property or on the beach. Yeah, there is a different evidentiary burden (rebuttable presumption of a reasonable belief, etc.) if the assailant enters, or attempts to enter, certain occupied enclosures unlawfully, but the issue is one of reasonable belief of imminent danger, and while a jury might be influenced by a number of factors, it really has virtually nothing to do with where the confrontation occurs.

For some reason, a lot of people seem to believe otherwise. Too much television, perhaps?

But where is the line drawn as to how much a person must endure while in their own home/property? It is one thing to say that the smarter thing to do is stay inside...... as others have posted, it is entirely another to tell a person they do not have the right to defend their property and in many cases livelihood because the criminal might attack and force him to defend himself.

In all states, a person may defend himself or his family or third parties from imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. In some states, he or she may do so by using deadly force to prevent unlawful entry, or perhaps upon unlawful entry, forcible in some places, into an occupied domicile,and in some places into an occupied automobile or place of business.

One may use deadly force to protect property only in two states and only in very limited circumstances in those.

And one may not use deadly force because someone "might" attack him.

Go to useofforce.us and study the whole thing. Link is contained in another post above.

And study your state laws.

 

[JVoutilainen]

I have noticed that many people these days suffer from what you might call a "too many rats in too small a cage syndrome".

You can scratch my car, steal my car, burn my car and threaten me with whatever you wish...and I would NOT shoot - no matter how legal it would be.

 

[wrs840]

...the instant the drunk reached for the gun he was in fact going for a weapon, yours...

This brings up an interesting point. Disregarding the rest of the circumstances, and that it seems that most agree that the homeowner created a very dangerous situation for himself, this is a fine point for exploration:

My understanding is that in NC the law holds that the instant an aggressor attempts to take control of your gun, you are then engaged in a gun fight even though there's only ONE gun... and deadly force against the aggressor becomes justified at that time. Exactly who is the "Aggressor" is a big deal in how the State of NC assesses the use of deadly force, and I don't think walking outside brandishing arms on your own property, while possibly strategically stupid in many circumstances, makes the homeowner the "aggressor" in this case.

Am I wrong here?

(good thread)

Les

 

[hangovur]

Kleanbore

At least according to the letter of the law, it makes little difference in most places whether someone threatens another's life on private property or on the beach. Yeah, there is a different evidentiary burden (rebuttable presumption of a reasonable belief, etc.) if the assailant enters, or attempts to enter, certain occupied enclosures unlawfully, but the issue is one of reasonable belief of imminent danger, and while a jury might be influenced by a number of factors, it really has virtually nothing to do with where the confrontation occurs.

Not entirely true. If this incident happens in a parking lot then there are going to be a LOT more questions and you will be under a LOT more scrutiny. You have a lot more expectations to get out of the situation in a place like that.

However when the threat comes to you, at your house, it makes things a bit more simple. It absolutely does have to do with where it happens. If the drunk comes onto your porch (as he did in this case) to take control of the weapon (as he did in this case) and to attack you on your own property (as he did in this case) there is not a court in Florida that is going to charge you. Our laws are very clear, and I have studied them.

And JV, I am not and have not been talking about shooting someone while/because they are damaging a car, that is absurd. There is a distinct change in the situation when the drunk went from damaging the car to approaching the homeowner. We are not talking about vandalizing a car any longer.

 

[JVoutilainen]

hangovur,

You might not be talking about it any more, but others clearly are. And hey, I agree with the people who say "if you pull it, you better be ready to use it". Presenting a gun would not have been my choice of action in this situation.

 

[Fred Fuller]

First of all. I am not a lawyer. And I would STRONGLY caution anyone on this forum against accepting legal advice from anyone who is not only not an attorney, but not an attorney actively familiar with applicable blackletter and case law within your own local jurisdiction.

That said, everyone here should be familiar with a legal term that has applicability in any case where self-defense is at issue. That term is mutual combat. You can rest assured that any DA/prosecutor/state's attorney who has to review a case where self defense is claimed is going to be looking for any indication that mutual combat was part of what transpired. Mutual combat happens when BOTH PARTIES involved escalate the interaction.

Is stepping outside with a gun escalation? Ask your DA.

I cringe when I see the word confronting in a post here. It is a pretty clear indication that someone is about to embark on what might well be defined as mutual combat should events transpire that result in serious injury or death.

ADEE as a course of action is much less likely to result in expensive legal wrangles- or worse...

lpl