Confronting Drunk Trespassers and Vandals

[Kleanbore]

Open carry is 100% legal ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Yep, it is lawful for a person at his home or place of business to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes, without a concealed carry permit.

But do you think this is likely to be considered "100% legal?":

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

Do you consider that "possession and or lawfully using the gun "for lawful purposes", or do think it would be considered "exhibiting the gun in a threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense"? Does shouting while pointing a weapon "skyward" constitute a threatening exhibition? Was the homeowner in imminent danger of death at that point? Had the trespassers demonstrated the ability and opportunity to harm him, and had they placed him in jeopardy by overt action?

Seems to me that would have to be decided by others after the fact--by investigators, the charging authority, the grand jury, and possibly a trial jury--based on evidence provided by the homeowner and by the other side. I think there would be plenty of conflicting testimony. And maybe a cell phone video or two...

And that's just a misdemeanor. There's also the very real risk of a serious assault charge. That would also be subject to the judgment of others, and potentially costly, win or lose.

All of that would far exceed my appetite for spending money, win or lose.

You guys keep ignoring the fact that the man was attacked on his porch.

Not I. At the point at which the man came onto the porch, the homeowner was protected by a presumption, albeit rebuttable, of imminent danger. But he had been shouting with a gun in his hands before that.

And suppose the gun had gone off, killing one of the homeowner's friends? Do you think he would be protected from civil action?

 

[tkopp]

Originally posted by hangovur:

TKopp, Ragnar and Gr8gift

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

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.

The homeowner was verbally harassed on his way into his home, but was fully secure in his home before the group started vandalizing his automobile. His gathering a firearm and leaving his place of safety to confront a large group of hostile people is a response to his car being scratched. The homeowner wouldn't have been attacked if he hadn't left his house to confront the group, which is largely my point.

The homeowner may have been largely legally in the right in what he did, but he exercised very poor decision making. Dare I say it, he used poor strategies and tactics. Which is the point of this forum. Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing. Especially when your tax dollars pay for a trained, armed, armored police force who can resolve the situation in a far safer and generally more constructive manner.

Had the group of vandals tried to prevent the homeowner from reaching his home and he was carrying a concealed firearm, I'd be singing a different tune. That would be a much better time to respond with deadly force -- there would be a direct and immediate threat to his life.

Before I owned a firearm I was in a similar situation. I've saved the story since I've written it out so many times.

Let me preface this by saying I live in a bad neighborhood in Lake City. Google Maps calls it Olympic Hills. The Seattle PD north precinct officers call it Little Beirut. I call it home. Two years ago I came home with my hands full -- a backpack and fast food, as I recall -- and forgot my keys in the door. It's easy to do. My deadbolt retracts when you turn the key back, so one must enter the apartment, pull the key out, *then* close the door. My keys dangled in the lock unnoticed that night.
Around ten thirty I was getting ready for bed, was on the john in my briefs and not a lot else, and I heard an odd noise. It sounded suspiciously like someone was in my living room. No, SOMEONE WAS IN MY LIVING ROOM. I dashed back into my bedroom, grabbed a souvenir samurai sword, tossed the sheath, and charged the door. Standing in the middle of my living room was one very confused-looking Japanese man with my keys dangling out of one hand, and he gave me a considering look before declaring in the loud voice only a drunk can possess, "Where are the women?!"
"What the Hell are you doing in my house?" I know. Not terribly poetic, but at bedtime I lose the ability to improv. I eyed the keys in his hand and it dawned on me where he might have found them, though that didn't excuse his presence in my living room! Slapping them from his grip, I calmly added, "Thank you for returning my keys, now get the Hell out."
He didn't understand. He was drunk! Very drunk. Thrusting the sword under his chin soon convinced him something was, indeed, wrong with his womanizing plans. I gave him a light shove back towards the door, he stumbled out, and I bolted it behind him, thinking that would be the end of it. Knock knock knock. A quiet tapping at the door. Polite, even. Knock knock SLAM SLAM SLAM! Our Japanese friend reached down and found something less timid deep inside, and he wanted in.
"I paid forty dollar sleep with woman here!" he cried, pounding at the door. "Give me my woman! Give me my woman or give me my forty dollar!" My neighbors, roused by the drunken pounding at my door, gathered above on the second-floor porch and heckled the drunk below. I found the encounter less amusing, and called 911. Three minutes later two Seattle PD officers and one very energetic German Shepherd bounded out of a blue and white on the lawn in front of my apartment building, fanning out to flank the now much mollified sex tourist. I cautiously opened the door, sword stashed away and in a robe, to watch them interrogate my new inebriated friend.
"Sir, do you live here?" they asked. "No," he replied, shaking his head and staring at the ground. "Do you know anyone inside? Is any of your property in this house? Are you visiting this house? Do you know this man?" They asked relentlessly, and to every question he replied simply 'no.' Finally, an officer asked of the Japanese man, "Sir, why are you here?" The now thoroughly humbled lech replied in a barely incoherent mumble, "I dunno."
I was grinning by now at the absurdity of it all, and spoke up in as straight a voice as I could manage, "He said something about paying forty dollars to sleep with a prostitute at my apartment." My eyes gave lie to my somber tone.
"I WANT MY FORTY DOLLAR BACK!" he yelled, "I payed man," he explained hastily, pointing back at the street, "forty dollar sleep with woman here, and I want my money back!" He'd been robbed! Surely the police could help?
The police couldn't help but laugh at that reply, and a quick glance into my home and one approached the drunken tourist, "Sir, I don't know what you've been lead to believe, but this is not a place of business. This is a residence. Someone stole your money." They asked if I intended to press charges, and at that point I'd had enough of the ordeal. I opined that since the man hadn't hurt me, nor stolen from me, nor threatened me, I really just wanted him off my front lawn. The police directed him back to Lake City Way, camping out on my front lawn and laughing amongst one another for fifteen minutes before rolling out themselves.

Now, when faced with an unknown threat inside my home, I confronted it with a deadly weapon. I gave the drunk clear instructions that he barely understood in his staggering stupor, and went hands-on to remove him from my home while threatening to kill him if he tried to hurt me. I would have, too. Lucky for both of us he didn't try to hurt me.

Once the drunk was outside my home, my tactics changed. Was he armed? I didn't know. He was pounding on my door and window. But that's a great time to call 911 and let a professional handle it. Could I have opened the door and confronted him on my porch? Sure. I'd have likely won a physical altercation. I'm a big hairy guy, at the time was only a couple of years out of shape from being a varsity heavyweight wrestler on a 1st in state high school team, and took karate classes a lifetime ago. Even better, I'd have been able to articulate a clear feeling of my life being threatened, so I'd have been in the clear. He was trying to invade my castle! Clear cut, right?

Staying safely inside my residence and calling for backup seemed then and now like a much better solution. The same is the case with the original poster's friend. Sure, he legally can leave safety and confront any number of drunks on his property, but that by no means makes it a good idea. Especially when they're attacking the cosmetic appearance of a vehicle and not someone's life.

 

[Water Garden]

I will use a firearm to protect life that is in immediate danger. I am not going to exit my home to confront a bad-guy.

 

[hangovur]

Do you consider that "possession and or lawfully using the gun "for lawful purposes", or do think it would be considered "exhibiting the gun in a threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense"? Does shouting while pointing a weapon "skyward" constitute a threatening exhibition? Was the homeowner in imminent danger of death at that point? Had the trespassers demonstrated the ability and opportunity to harm him, and had they placed him in jeopardy by overt action?

All of those qualifications go out the window when you are on your private property. Those questions you asked are meant for a person carrying concealed in public, not for your own property. By definition you have the right to open carry WHENEVER you would like on your own property. You have the right to remove, by force if necessary, any trespassers from your own private property. The law is clear.

A persons right to carry a weapon on their private property DOES NOT cease to exist when a criminal enters that persons property.

Pointing the rifle in the air was absolutely the correct thing to do until they presented themselves as an imminent threat. Where else was he supposed to point the weapon before they began assaulting him?

I am not debating whether or not it is smart or sound strategic advice to go and confront the criminals, that is for each individual to decide based on their own variables. I have a friend who is a 24/7 diesel mechanic. His entire livelihood sits in his work truck outside his window. Insurance would never cover all of his tools and the police take over 15 minutes to get to his house. For him, it just might be an acceptable risk to stop people from vandalizing his truck. Luckily for him, we have laws to protect his right to protect his property.

What disturbs me is how many people seem to be implying that the homeowner was in the legal wrong here. He was protected by state law (which would overrule ANY local law) in his actions. Protected so much that he would not even be allowed to be charged once it was determined he used his firearm in self defense. He did not need to feel threatened to bring the gun with him, IT WAS HIS PROPERTY.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

All of those qualifications go out the window when you are on your private property.

No, they don't. Misdemeanors and felonies are enforceable no matter where you are. Being on your private property absolutely does NOT give you any legal right to use a firearm against another person in a non-life-threatening situation. "He was on my land and needed shootin" stopped being an adequate legal defense about 100 years ago.

 

[M2 Carbine]

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

My state law is pretty clear about when I can use deadly force to protect (myself and or) my property.

There are many cases of justifiable shootings of stupid drunks in Texas.
Being drunk doesn't put a person above the law.

My actions would be within the law.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

How much money did those cases cost the shooters in question?

 

[JMusic]

You all are right about forgetting about the car. But let me say this, protecting my property is my right. I've always been one to set an example with wrong doers, makes the next bunch think twice...Path of least resistance. Just had to point out there is nothing in my answers that show pity for the perpetrator.




Jim

 

[M2 Carbine]

How much money did those cases cost the shooters in question?

The shooters were "No Billed" by the grand jury (most fatal shootings in TX go before the Grand Jury).

If there were civil laws suits I never heard about them. If there were civil law suits I suspect the shooter won.
We are big about property rights around here.

A while back someone spray painted some graffiti on my gun range.
The Sheriff Deputy said,
If you catch them, when you are through with them, give us a call and we'll come get what's left.

 

[Xyas]

Going back to the strategies and tactics portion of it, when confronting a person, or group in this case, what should be done to not let the person get a hold on the firearm? Is telling them that if they take one step closer you'll shoot, and if they do, you actually shoot them, a good rule to have for oneself? Especially in a case where you don't have a house to retreat back into?

To put a different perspective on my questions, say I'm walking in a parking lot to my car, notice a couple of guys following me, see that one has a knife in his hand. If I turn around and see that they're walking directly towards me with a knife and I pull my pistol and tell them not to step one step closer, and they do, should I shoot them?

Same questions apply for a situation without a knife, if several people are trying to surround you crossing over from different sides of the street back and forth.

tl;dr - if you have your weapon drawn on a person, and tell them not to take one step closer or you'll fire, if they start walking closer, should you fire?

 

[Kleanbore]

All of those qualifications go out the window when you are on your private property. Those questions you asked are meant for a person carrying concealed in public, not for your own property.

That's a legal opinion? You may lawfully exhibit a gun in a threatening manner on your own property when it is not necessary in self defense? What's the basis for that assertion?

The statute itself contains no such exception and makes no mention of concealed carry.. Unless there has been a definitive appellate ruling, I wouldn't rely on it. One person may be acquitted and the next, convicted.

By definition you have the right to open carry WHENEVER you would like on your own property.

Carry, yes. Confront someone with a gun in your hands??

What disturbs me is how many people seem to be implying that the homeowner was in the legal wrong here.

I'm stating that he may have committed an unlawful act. That's for the judicial system to decide. But he sure took that risk.

He was protected by state law (which would overrule ANY local law) in his actions.

He thought so and you think so, but that's why we have juries. In Oregon, a man was recently found guilty of manslaughter for shooting someone who was in his house unlawfully. They have a castle doctrine there. I imagine he was most unpleasantly surprised.

He did not need to feel threatened to bring the gun with him, IT WAS HIS PROPERTY.

Again, that's why we have juries. I doubt there would have been a question, had the gun been holstered. But what will reasonable men, instructed in the law by a judge knowledgeable of the case law, decide about a man who went outside with a gun in his hands and started shouting? Was he simply "carrying openly," or was he displaying the gun in a threatening manner absent lawful justification? Was he provoking a confrontation? Committing assault?

What would the trespassers have concluded? Would they have a basis for a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger?

There are any number of possible judicial outcomes, all under the same law. At one end of the scale, and not unlikely, the homeowner is not charged, not indicted, or acquitted. Moving up the scale, there's the possibility of a finding of unlawful use of a firearm. Then there's the potential for an aggravated assault charge, with a serious mandatory penalty. And no, you cannot assault someone just because he is on your property, anywhere in the country. A man's home may be his castle, but his yard is not his kingdom.

And how about this for a revoltin' development? The homeowner steps off his porch, one or more of the people at whom he is yelling claims to have a reasonable fear of imminent danger (ability is present, opportunity is present, jeopardy exists, and the trespassers have not initiated the action) and kills the homeowner, one way or another. Depending on the testimony of the witnesses and the forensic evidence, it's just possible that the killer could be acquitted on grounds of justifiability! Perhaps not likely, but possible.

No, you cannot take the law into your own hands because you are on your property.

You can defend yourself--easier to justify if you do it on the porch, but it doesn't have to happen there--and you can use reasonable force to evict a trespasser after having made a request, but you cannot attack someone, nor can you provoke an attack and claim self defense. And I would not assume that you can ever lawfully threaten anyone with a gun, absent a clear reason for apprehension of imminent danger, which you may later have to be able to articulate to others.

Did he do that? I don't know and neither does anyone else. Absent a governing appellate ruling, one court may say no, and another, yes.

 

[JMusic]

I reread the question. You realy don't want to excalate a minor mistormenor into a self defense or manssloter case. There are other options and those trained in them can have at it. Call the cops and wait.

XYAS I don't know how you got your permit. All your questions are dependant on distance, intent, and actions. You must be in fear of your life. The group walking toward you, you may simply have turned around and walked to another street. If they continue to follow then a stern warning might be in order. Don't ever pull your handgun to bluff or to thing you are intimidating the BG's I've pulled my many times and stopped for some reason. But know one doubted it was about to be used.


Jim

 

[Kleanbore]

To put a different perspective on my questions, say I'm walking in a parking lot to my car, notice a couple of guys following me, see that one has a knife in his hand. If I turn around and see that they're walking directly towards me with a knife and I pull my pistol and tell them not to step one step closer, and they do, should I shoot them?

Same questions apply for a situation without a knife, if several people are trying to surround you crossing over from different sides of the street back and forth.

Get some training, and become knowledgeable about the relevant laws in your jurisdiction.

Is shooting immediately necessary to protect yourself? Do you have a duty to retreat where you live? Is safe retreat possible?

 

[ChaoSS]

Depending on the state, (I know you are in Florida, but I'm not familiar with Florida law) shooting the guy may very well have been legally defensible. That being said, few people want to live with killing someone because of vandalism on their conscience, and I think the point was how to handle this without shooting someone.


When you walk out the door with a gun, you are raising the bar. You are saying "I'm going to shoot you or I'm going to do nothing". If they think that you won't shoot them (and with booze involved, who knows what they think) then they can be pretty sure that you will do nothing to them.

A better option would have been to leave the gun holstered and concealed. I don't know about Florida, but even here in CA I can legally conceal my gun on my own property without a permit. Have the gun in case things go horribly wrong, but don't let it be visible. If things are at a point where you must confront them, (and I probably would over vandalism to my truck) do it with a baseball bat, or a club, or as one person said, some form of pepper spray. A tazer would work well too. However, if the spray and tazer are not available, the club would be a good option. It can be used to defend yourself in a pinch if someone gets out of hand, and it can be used in a very non lethal way to get people motivated. Hitting someone in a stabbing motion, instead of a swinging motion, can cause pain but no real damage, or hitting someone in a non critical area can do the same.

 

[Xyas]

XYAS I don't know how you got your permit. All your questions are dependant on distance, intent, and actions. You must be in fear of your life. The group walking toward you, you may simply have turned around and walked to another street. If they continue to follow then a stern warning might be in order. Don't ever pull your handgun to bluff or to thing you are intimidating the BG's I've pulled my many times and stopped for some reason. But know one doubted it was about to be used.

*sigh* I mostly asked the questions just to prevent the mods from closing the thread down for the arguments going back and forth that seemed to be going nowhere. Thought I'd throw some strategies and tactics questions in to try to keep the thread going and see if I could bring in any other questions from people about this type of situation.

 

[numaone]

ChaoSS,
By the time things go horribly wrong, isn't too late? Why in the world would you ever want the opportunity to lose a fight? By the time anyone gets within arm’s length of me and I have a firearm, I've done something wrong? Right? What do the strategies and tactics guys say?

 

[hangovur]

No, they don't. Misdemeanors and felonies are enforceable no matter where you are. Being on your private property absolutely does NOT give you any legal right to use a firearm against another person in a non-life-threatening situation. "He was on my land and needed shootin" stopped being an adequate legal defense about 100 years ago.

I hate to break it to ya Ragnar, but you are just plain WRONG, read the laws. I have not said anything about shooting them because they were on his land. BUT, as soon as they become aggressive you are not required to retreat. I have posted the statutes regarding holding your ground.

Reading comprehension is key here, THIS WAS A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION. When the drunk came onto the porch and grabbed the homeowners rifle that was threatening bodily harm.

WHERE is the misdemeanor or felony here by the homeowner? A person may carry a rifle ANYTIME on his own property in Florida. To check the mail, mow the lawn, do cartwheels around the house and yes..... to order trespassers off his property. Just because there is a criminal in your yard you DO NOT lose the right to open carry on your property.

There is only ONE group committing a crime here Ragnar and that is the people trespassing. And in Florida, like in Texas, a grand jury reviews each case of a shooting death. If your shoot is covered by the statutes I have posted above (as this one clearly would) your case is barred by law from going to criminal or civil court. That means no lawyers for the homeowner.

Of course there is a chance that it may go to court if there are some weird circumstances (like the Tallahassee shooting where lots of strange things happened) but the state also is forced to pay for "reasonable legal fees" if you are found not guilty.

Now to be clear, you cant go out and draw on a salesman or someone who wondered onto your property. You are required to ask them to leave and give them an opportunity. If at this point they become resistant or aggressive the use of reasonable force IS PROTECTED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Different situations dictate what reasonable force is, but there is no doubt that approaching the homeowner after being warned would leave reasonable wide open.

 

[JVoutilainen]

Some people seem to be surprised that anyone could actually sympathise with the drunks. Well, I find it astonishing that you would not sympathise with them. I mean, they are just drunk, which does not mean that they have suddenly lost all their value as human beings. They are drunk, not bloodthirsty zombies.

Alcohol spikes the testosterone levels in the body, especially if you are young, male and there are women around. Anyone with alcohol and testosterone in their blood will typically react very badly if confronted in a "robocop"-manner. So, why choose this tactic?

You can "confront" people in many ways. Why is something a bit more reasonable not an option in this case? For example; if you have friends in your house, tell one of them to take the rifle and watch your back and someone else to call the police. Then go out and say something like: "Hey, dude, would you mind not wrecking my car? I am not a rich guy and I still need it tomorrow...".

Rounded. I looove being around people who are well rounded.

 

[hangovur]

Kleanbore-

That's a legal opinion? You may lawfully exhibit a gun in a threatening manner on your own property when it is not necessary in self defense? What's the basis for that assertion?

No, you may NOT exhibit the gun IN A THREATENING MANNER when asking the trespassers to leave. You CAN have it with you, in your hands. Again, this is not a public street, this is private property. State law protects your right to open carry on public property. It is not an opinion, it is black and white fact.

If at that point the trespassers become aggressive and you feel threatened (as the homeowner did in this case) then and only then may you present the weapon in threatening manner. This is key. Nobody has advocated shooting them for vandalism or trespassing.

Carry, yes. Confront someone with a gun in your hands??

YES. On your hip, in your pocket, duct taped to your forehead and/or in your hands.

I'm stating that he may have committed an unlawful act. That's for the judicial system to decide. But he sure took that risk.

That is for a grand jury to decide, which does not require lawyers. If they decide that a reasonable person would feel in danger (which is clear here) than no criminal or civil trial can possibly happen. If it does go to trial and you are found not guilty, the state is required to pick up your reasonable legal fees.

He thought so and you think so, but that's why we have juries. In Oregon, a man was recently found guilty of manslaughter for shooting someone who was in his house unlawfully. They have a castle doctrine there. I imagine he was most unpleasantly surprised.

See the above answer. Please post the link to the trial as I am sure that there was a lot more to the case if their castle doctrine is like ours.

Again, that's why we have juries. I doubt there would have been a question, had the gun been holstered. But what will reasonable men, instructed in the law by a judge knowledgeable of the case law, decide about a man who went outside with a gun in his hands and started shouting? Was he simply "carrying openly," or was he displaying the gun in a threatening manner absent lawful justification? Was he provoking a confrontation? Committing assault?

No jury in a justifiable shoot as defined by state law. No reasonable man would consider ordering criminals off of ones private property "provoking confrontation" or "committing assault". He did not force any of the criminals to come onto his property. He did not force them to come onto his porch. The criminals made that decision after the homeowner ordered them to leave and gave them an opportunity to leave.

No, you cannot take the law into your own hands because you are on your property.

You can defend yourself--easier to justify if you do it on the porch, but it doesn't have to happen there--and you can use reasonable force to evict a trespasser after having made a request, but you cannot attack someone, nor can you provoke an attack and claim self defense. And I would not assume that you can ever lawfully threaten anyone with a gun, absent a clear reason for apprehension of imminent danger, which you may later have to be able to articulate to others.

Correct, you may not take the law into your own hands. YOU MAY PROTECT YOURSELF. You DO NOT have to retreat. The drunks in this case ATTACKED a homeowner on his own front porch.

 

[Cosmoline]

A Mauser, left in military configuration, is an extremely effective weapon even if you never fire it. A jab at the chin and a buttstroke would have dealt with the problem. If you sporterize it, you lose some of that capability.

Brandishing the firearm on the street or road is one thing. But this was HIS PROPERTY, and displaying a firearm to ward off threatening intruders is certainly justified. If the drunks draw no weapon but still approach, use non-deadly force. If they draw, shoot them.

 

[hangovur]

Some people seem to be surprised that anyone could actually sympathise with the drunks. Well, I find it astonishing that you would not sympathise with them. I mean, they are just drunk, which does not mean that they have suddenly lost all their value as human beings. They are drunk, not bloodthirsty zombies.

Alcohol spikes the testosterone levels in the body, especially if you are young, male and there are women around. Anyone with alcohol and testosterone in their blood will typically react very badly if confronted in a "robocop"-manner. So, why choose this tactic?

You can "confront" people in many ways. Why is something a bit more reasonable not an option in this case? For example; if you have friends in your house, tell one of them to take the rifle and watch your back and someone else to call the police. Then go out and say something like: "Hey, dude, would you mind not wrecking my car? I am not a rich guy and I still need it tomorrow...".

Rounded. I looove being around people who are well rounded.

So that I am clear...

you are suggesting that the people who allowed themselves to get so drunk that they have threatened random people in the street, decided to trespass on someones land and destroy property that they need (most people need their vehicles to get to work) and that that person must then spend his valuable time and money to repair......

If presented with the statemnet...

"Hey, dude, would you mind not wrecking my car? I am not a rich guy and I still need it tomorrow..."


are just going to say "gee, I never thought that you might not have much money. I am really sorry about all this. Let me leave you my info and we will get this taken care of in the morning"


These are the same people who upon seeing an armed homeowner grabbed the gun and then attacked the homeowner. Yup, there's a good strategy.

Answer me this, if the situation justified a friend to have a gun, how could it POSSIBLY not justify the actual homeowner from having a gun?



*EDIT*
I have been drunk quite a few times in my day (not so much recently, but a LOT when I was a little younger), but I have NEVER attacked a person while drunk. Drunk is NOT an excuse for assault.

 

[Cosmoline]

There are drunks, and there are drunks. There are almost no situations where it would be acceptable for a sober man to shoot and kill one of our local "chronic inebriates." These fellas are half dead already, and anyone over the age of ten could beat them up. One of them tried to steal my bike while I was getting a slice of pie last winter. I just watched him get on and promptly fall over, then went out to help him up. How can I be mad at some guy who hasn't been sober in ten years and is going to be dead soon anyway? His brain is like sponge tissue and his liver is black as coal. I doubt he even understands the concept of theft anymore.

...and then there are DRUNKS. The guys who become screaming, enraged barbarians as soon as they get some liquor in their gut. These guys are extremely dangerous and feel no pain. These are the guys I worry about. If one of them is tossing my property around, it's likely he's coming to kill me next.

 

[Kleanbore]

WHERE is the misdemeanor or felony here by the homeowner?

That's the question, isn't it? Could he be suspected of improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms (Title XLVI, 790.10), a misdemeanor? Did he make an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent (784.011, Assault), a misdemeanor? How about aggravated assault (784.021), a felony? I don't know. Until a charging decision has been made, neither does he.

A person may carry a rifle ANYTIME on his own property in Florida.

No one argues with that, but according to the OP, he was doing more than "carrying". He confronted, and he shouted. And the gun was in his hands, not a holster. Did that constitute unlawful "exhibition"? Did it constitute an unlawful threat?

There is only ONE group committing a crime here Ragnar and that is the people trespassing.

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.

There seem to have been plenty of witnesses, and no one can tell in advance how convincing their testimony would be, how easy it would be to successfully impugn their credibility, or for that matter, how any of them would recount the events at hand. A little more inconsistency on one side than the other could be determinative.

It's never a good idea to judge guilt or innocence without being presented with evidence and testimony and without hearing the jury instructions.

 

[Cosmoline]

Did it constitute an unlawful threat?

If he's defending his property and person against trespassing miscreants, how could that be unlawful? Their actions, as described, sure sound like a forcible felony to me. They followed him home and started attacking his property. Furthermore, he did not point the firearm at them.

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.

They follow him home, they start destroying his property and when he comes out one of them assaults him. I think the bases are well covered.

And no, you cannot assault someone just because he is on your property, anywhere in the country. A man's home may be his castle, but his yard is not his kingdom.

If you're defending yourself and your property, the use of non-deadly force is by definition justified. It is therefore not assault. Nor any crime at all. That's what justification is all about.

One more time, that's why we have juries.

Only if an actual law is broken, which I'm still not seeing here. It's also a matter for prosecutorial and police discretion.

all parties remain subject to prosecution as long as they live.

Not by a long shot.

 

[JVoutilainen]

hangovur,

...are just going to say "gee, I never thought that you might not have much money. I am really sorry about all this. Let me leave you my info and we will get this taken care of in the morning"

That is exactly what I am saying. I have been there about a thousand times, believe me.

I once had the pleasure working with a man (also a bouncer) who could make a roid-raging body builder eat from his hand in about two minutes. He was like Obi Wan . I learned a thing of two watching him at work.

These are the same people who upon seeing an armed homeowner grabbed the gun and then attacked the homeowner. Yup, there's a good strategy.

Exactly. As I said; age, booze, testosterone, women. So, knowing all this (or do you?) why would you make the situation worse by brandishing a firearm? It is not the smartest thing to do tactically, now is it? You can go on repeating the same legal arguments until you wear down your "opponents" here, but it will not change the fact that it was a foolish tactic this particular home owner chose.

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.