Confronting Drunk Trespassers and Vandals

[numaone]

OP here,
This has been an interesting discussion so far, and I've had some good (heated) debates with some of my friends on the correct action.

I'm not sure how this changes things, but the homeowner wasn't alone, it was him and about 5 guys against 7 or 8 drunks.

A couple of punches were thrown and the altercation ended when one of the Drunk kids were knocked to the ground with a nice right hook to the jaw. However, my personal feeling is I never want to be in a fist fight. Any fight I engage in, I don't want to be fair in any way, shape or form- I want the advantage the whole time.

While I disagree with the homeowner's action of bringing a gun to the table, I think I understand why he did this. He was hoping that an "overwhelming" show of force would deter any further damage to the property. However, drunken people don't make rational decisions.

there is not a court in Florida that is going to charge you. Our laws are very clear, and I have studied them

Hangovur, I would hope you are correct, but I fear you aren't. I fear that a court would throw this case to a jurry and let 12 people decide your fate. And when there are people out there who believe only the police should have guns, I am scared... Florida has done worse things to people who appeared to have been even more justified.

 

[gideon_70]

I am truly surprised at how many people here are smpathetic to the drunks that were terrorizing this person.

I would conter with, they are not innocent, they knew what they were doing.
They were not harmless, if one grabbed a gun and pointed it to his own chest and started screaming shoot me.

Being drunk is no excuse, it's not an excuse in drunk driving deaths, and it's not an excuse in trashing someone's car, and threatening them.

I woudl also contend that this is not about property value. It is not about who is right, or even what the law says. This is about some stupid people that engaged in illegal activity, threatened someone, followed them home, and they were fully capable of killing the homeowner.

This was also not one individual, but 9 of them. They knew what they were doing, and to be honest, the homeowner is lucky to be alive now.

 

[gideon_70]

Just to clarify. Previously I said that as soon as they started threatening them, the person could have drawn his weapon. That is true. But it takes more of an overt act to fire on them.

When they followed, that was an overt act, and I have heard that some classes here teach a 20 feet rule. If they approach after being told clearly to not, and are threatrening someone, then the classes claim that at 20' your life is in serious danger. While this is not legally valid, it was presented as a good rule of thumb.

 

[Oyeboten]

Depending on the aggressor...I'd say the "20 foot rule" makes good sense if the agressor really is a 'threat', and, of course, some are not.


Good judgement is hard to define.


Avoiding an undesirably escalating situation when dealing with destructively-behaving 'drunks', probably, is an 'Art'...

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I am truly surprised at how many people here are smpathetic to the drunks that were terrorizing this person.

I would conter with, they are not innocent, they knew what they were doing.
They were not harmless, if one grabbed a gun and pointed it to his own chest and started screaming shoot me.

Being drunk is no excuse, it's not an excuse in drunk driving deaths, and it's not an excuse in trashing someone's car, and threatening them.

I woudl also contend that this is not about property value. It is not about who is right, or even what the law says. This is about some stupid people that engaged in illegal activity, threatened someone, followed them home, and they were fully capable of killing the homeowner.

This was also not one individual, but 9 of them. They knew what they were doing, and to be honest, the homeowner is lucky to be alive now.

No one is being sympathetic to the drunks.

We are however putting a great deal of thought into the idea of taking the life of another person, and the emotional and legal consequences that WILL follow. Be aware, when you shoot someone, not matter how justified it is, you WILL be arrested. And it could cost you ever penny you'll lay your hands on for the next 10 years just to keep you out of jail permanently. Not to mention the possibility of having to pay out thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars if you lose the civil suit that the family of the deceased will absolutely try to file against you, even if there are laws that make a pathetic attempt at protecting you. And on top of that, you will be thinking about the person you killed pretty much forever.

So how about we put a little bit more consideration into whether or not coming out guns blazing in response to a keyed car is the best course of action?

 

[sonier]

Wow this is one heck of a thread, i had issues with teenagers and vandalism, id sugest doing wat i did. i talked to the local sheriff, what did he say? well i asked if i could use rubberbuckshot from a 12guage, he replied sure. now im also zoned agriculture and any one tampering with ag land in anyways is a auto felony. so i have more rights than joe next door who isnt zoned ag. talk to the local authorities ask what they will allow you to do.

-Sonier

 

[tkopp]

It's not a matter of sympathizing with drunks, it's a matter of walking away with all of one's arms, legs, and freedoms, and finances intact.

Let's say one stays inside and calls the police. The drunks were attacking a vehicle. Assuming they notice your 911 call and attempts to take pictures of them and escape unidentified, you're out a couple hundred dollars in repairs. Best case scenario the police arrest a couple of the drunks, they flip on those who weren't caught, there's judicial punishment and restitution ordered. You get a new paint job, drunks get some small amount of jail time, everyone moves on with their lives.

Now let's say you grab a firearm and confront the crowd. Worst case scenario is that they ambush and kill you. Or you might discover that they are armed with some form of weapon and engage in combat. Bullets fly, you're injured, several of them are injured, one of them dies. The DA decides that since you left a position of safety armed with a rifle to confront the drunks you were engaging in mutual combat, charges you with various offenses. Or failing that, the survivors you wounded and the families of those you killed bring a civil suit against you for wrongful death. Guess what -- they may well win! And if they don't, you're still likely to have lost your job and be in debt by the time the trial's done years later. Your best case scenario ends with you scaring away the drunks. And your car's still beat up.

I'm not siding with the drunks here. Calling the cops just seems like a winning solution.

 

[Kleanbore]

talk to the local authorities ask what they will allow you to do.

Unfortunately, the "local authorities"cannot give you qualified legal advice.

Consult a qualified local attorney.

 

[sonier]

hahah no local attorney here, its small town, we have had a few of these cases here. the sheriffes drop it real quick. if self defense appeared to be used they lock the guys up after surgery. I think its time just to do what you feel is right. if you used good judgement and get arrested go public. im just the type that would have shot him on the porch. and if i get life in prison so be it im gona make a big deal about it.

 

[hangovur]

Lee, I understand the concept of mutual combat. I would argue however that would apply in a parking lot, or a sporting event or some public place. It would not apply, IMO, to telling someone to leave your property after witnessing them committing a crime.

I used confronting quite a bit, and in some cases that might be construed to be mutual combat. However, on your own private property, in the state of Florida, you have the right to confront and remove trespassers from your property. It may not always be the best course of action, but it is a LEGAL course of action.

I am a bit busy to spend the time looking for the cases, but this has been upheld time after time in Florida.

 

[hangovur]

To expand on my last post...

for definition...

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

this has been posted, but I will post it again...

(3) 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.

You are on your own property, you have the right to be there.

You tell said criminals to leave and they approach in a violent manner

You warn criminal to stop or you will shoot.


IF you follow those steps and you were in real danger of being harmed.....

The state of Florida protects you from criminal and civil penalties.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

 

[numaone]

Hangovur,
I want to agree with you 100%. From a common sense interpreting the law, it looks black and white.

Jimmy Hair spent the last 2 years in jail before a Florida appellate court found that he was immune from prosecution. Here's the article:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/articl...Title=Court-ruling-clarifies-self-defense-law

I know this isn't the same case, but for most of us here, it would look like a black and white self-defense case in your own car. I guess I'm just trying to say that I wish those enforcing the laws, the DA's, would be more consistent in applying these common sense self-defense laws.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Hangovur: if you're in the right, but it takes you months to year of court battles and tens of thousands of dollars to establish you're right, is it really worth it?

 

[Kleanbore]

Hangovur, if someone actually presents an imminent threat of death or serious injury (A, O, J--mere words do not meet the threshold) there is justification to use deadly force if necessary.

That's true whether you are on your own property or somewhere else, assuming that you are not trespassing--doesn't matter, according to the statute, but of course it could make some difference in the deliberations.

But unless and until they have done so, the display of a weapon is neither justified nor lawful. That's true whether you are on your property (but not indoors) or somewhere else. Doesn't matter.

And if you are in fact actually threatened and if you prevail in the subsequent proceedings, the cost to you for just making that journey could be substantial indeed.

That's in time, dollars, stress...

And if you lose, you lose those dollars, your clean record, your right to own a gun, future employment, and possibly, your personal freedom.

Want to risk it? Do you feel lucky? Here's what happened to one man who thought it wise to go outside with a gun:

Doctors had to amputate the arm of a Watauga, Texas homeowner Wednesday morning after he was injured in a fight with a crook. The man interrupted a robbery attempt in front of his house and ended up getting stabbed and then shot with his own gun, reports CBS station KTVT-TV in Dallas.
...

According to reports, the homeowner heard some noise near his portable trailer parked outside his house in the 6000 block of Sundown Drive and went outside. His wife called 911 and woke a friend who had stayed the night at the house.

The robber, who was armed with a knife, struggled with the homeowner and his guest in the driveway. During the scuffle the homeowner dropped his gun and as the men clamored for the weapon, it went off and hit the homeowner in the arm. The house guest was also stabbed during the altercation.

Officials later said doctors amputated the man's arm because his injuries were so severe. The injury is a detrimental loss for the victim, who works as a mechanic for American Airlines and was also a part-time contractor.

http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/texas.stabbing.burglary.2.852306.html

You will note that the legal protection against civil liability is entirely dependent upon a decision reached in court. Should you end up in a situation in which no criminal charges are filed, you are still at risk, with a "preponderance of the evidence" threshold.

 

[hangovur]

Both of you guys are right. I will do anything in my power to avoid pulling that trigger. That is a whole lot of hassle I don't want to deal with. Numaone, that case is quite different i think. He did not need to shoot, that guy was trying (or being pulled) to get out of the car. That case is quite a bit more complicated than that story leads on.

The point I am making is that in the homeowners state (Florida) he is completely within his rights to confront the criminals and to order them to leave. He is also within his rights to take a gun with him for protection. And if they attack him, the law is on his side if he is forced to defend himself.

It may not be the best course of action, but it is a legally supported course of action.

 

[sonier]

IT is absolutely worth it in my opinion, a right not exercised is a right lost. If every person says its not worth it, then its gona be harder for the person who has to defend himself

 

[hangovur]

Kleanbore-

But unless and until they have done so, the display of a weapon is neither justified nor lawful. That's true whether you are on your property (but not indoors) or somewhere else. Doesn't matter.

WRONG.

In the state of Florida I may sit on my porch, mow my lawn, swim in the pool and order trespassers off my property with a gun in my hands if I so desire. Open carry is 100% legal ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

 

[hangovur]

You will note that the legal protection against civil liability is entirely dependent upon a decision reached in court. Should you end up in a situation in which no criminal charges are filed, you are still at risk, with a "preponderance of the evidence" threshold.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14),

Now again, I'm not saying it is necessarily what you SHOULD do, but it is a legally supported action in this state.

 

[numaone]

Hangovur,
We are on the same wavelength over here. But the point of that article I posted was to show that it took the courts 2 years, while he was sitting in jail, for them to find that he was indeed immune from prosecution under the castle doctrine.

 

[hangovur]

Yup, I am familiar with the case.

This was not a normal case by any means. There was fight in a bar beforehand. The defendant then went to a car, got a gun out and attempted to hit the victim/assailant with the gun and accidentally shot him. He is very lucky to have gotten off completely. That is a very complex case with a LOT of mistakes obn both parts.

But in any action where you defend your life or property there is the chance you will have to defend yourself. It is a risk you have to think about before acting.


For a little perspective, how much money will you lose if you rear end someone causing great bodily damage? They can really take you to the cleaners, even if you have insurance. Its a chance you live with when you leave your house every day.

Now of course those are completely different things, but my point is that there is some risk in any action you take. Confronting criminals with a gun is a significantly higher risk action for sure.


For most people it isn't worth it, but for some it just might be (what if the vehicle or its contents represent your livelihood). For those who decide to confront the law will protect them completely in nearly every scenario.

 

[tkopp]

Something tells me that if law shielding righteous shooters from civil litigation is invoked on a consistent basis to avenge damage to car paint the law will find a way to be reinterpreted or changed.

 

[GR8GIFT]

I think calling 911 and a video camera or digital camera from inside the house would have been appropriate. Especially since you obviously had no intension of shooting them over the vehicular damage or trespass on your property. I wouldn't go out side to confront a bunch of drunks in my yard for any reason they are to erratic in thier behavior and responses to trust in my opinion. No way I'm able to defend myself against 9 drunks. If they broke my door down and entered the house then all bets would be off they would be shot.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

IT is absolutely worth it in my opinion, a right not exercised is a right lost. If every person says its not worth it, then its gona be harder for the person who has to defend himself

And if every gun owner thought a keyed car is worth firing rounds, then the public would hate us even more than they do now.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Well, everyone gets to make decisions- but everyone has to face the consequences of those decisions as well. Repairing some vandalism on a car will cost a lot less than hiring an attorney for a criminal trial and perhaps a civil trial as well, even if your insurance won't pay for it. Do what you think you have to do, but THINK before you do it.

One more time for good measure-

"The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don't be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don't go to stupid places. Don't associate with stupid people. Don't do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the "penalty" for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable." -- John Farnam, http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2003/19Mar03.html

lpl

 

[hangovur]

TKopp, Ragnar and Gr8gift

You guys are seriously missing the point here. FORGET ABOUT THE CAR!

The discussion on use of force has nothing to do with the car.

In the state of Florida you have the right to remove trespassers from your property (notice I did not say shoot). You also have the right to carry a weapon ON PRIVATE PROPERTY whenever you feel the need, or want for that matter.

If after you have ordered the trespassers off of your land they decide to attack you (as in this case) your right to protect yourself is protected by law. I don't think anyone here is advocating shooting someone because they keyed a car, that is ludicrous. You guys keep ignoring the fact that the man was attacked on his porch.

This is not about vandalizing a car. This is about people coming onto private property, being told to leave and attacking the owner. That last part is key. If they simply leave after vandalizing the car and being told to get out then this is a non-issue.