Drew down on a Stranger in My Back Yard

[Biker]

To the level demonstrated by Capt Mike?
Biker

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Michael-

It would have raised the level of the encounter...if there was an encounter!

As far as we can tell, the poolman was simply standing in the customer's backyard when the homeowner approached him with a dog and drawn firearm. He was subsequently ordered to lay prone on the ground.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Herself]

Actually Herself, the 'plaid' reference was meant to be humor. I didn't know that you were Scottish.

I'm a mutt; but Dad's family name is Scots. (And it means "a sandbar in a lake:" possibly the local version of stick-in-the-mud!) I was bein' a bit humor-impaired in my snarky response and herewith offer apologies... Not that you didn't get your own licks in :

Sorry to hear that, but you seem to have done quite well in spite of your questionable ancestory.
Luckily, I'm Scandanavian.

...And we all know a light-eyed, fair-haired Scot and a Scandahoovian wouldn't have any DNA in common; why, the Celts and Vikings were barely even aware of one another!

I don't think that anyone has questioned the wisdom of approaching the situation armed, just the conduct.

...True. And I have questioned the wisdom of second-guessing by those who weren't there.
What we know is what we think we would do if we were in this situation as it has been described to us. Some of us also know what we have done in similar situations.
Right or wrong, what's done is done; we cannot have as much information as those who were there at the time. In any event, no shots were fired.

As far as the opinion of LEOs go, they can make a huge difference in determining whether or not a homeowner is in the right and you certainly don't want to get a rep with them as a nut. JMO.

And yet, since it depends in large part upon the attudes and prejudices of the LEO, there's no way to be entirely sure you haven't. I rate my own sfety and survival far ahead of influencing the opinion members of my local police force have of me.

[...]I've been through two [civil suits], and the cops were more than helpful. Fact of the matter is, most cops are just regular folks, at least around here, and they recognise and appreciate the application of common sense.

That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is, if you percieve a threat, will you second-guess your reaction based on maintaining a non-nutty reputation with the police? Should you?

And no, I don't have a problem as far as dealing with a complex world and the people inhabiting it

"A soft answer turneth away wrath;" I really do need to work on that snarkiness thing, alas. It was uncalled for, and I am sorry.

- I just use common sense and logic which usually means that my mailman and the various meter readers in my 'hood are able to leave my property without mud stains on the front of their uniforms and other stains around their 'crotchal' area.

See, here's where our analysis of the situation differs:
Mailman, he's in your front yard, maybe even on your porch. That's usually not considered "off-limits; it's around a usual point of interaction with strangers, the street-side door.
Meter-reader, he's got a marked truck and (usually) some kind of uniform. Around here, he's got an ID and will present it on demand. And around here, most folks try to have the meters located outside their fences. ...Power meters usually aren't, but they're all radio-linked now.
The pool guy in question had gotten inside a locked enclosure. He's the one who escalated the situation.

Those who fret over how this thread will make all us gun people look scary and bad to the antis have got a weak grasp of privacy and personal property. This isn't someone taking a shortcut across the far pasture; it's a guy inside the controlled perimeter. Putting him in your sights may or may not be a good idea, but he is behaving as if he were a threat, and must be evalauted and controlled.

Don't carry unless you are willing to kill: Don't carry if you won't draw. Don't draw unless you will aim. Don't aim unless you're willing to shoot. Don't shoot unless you've got to. When you do shoot, shoot to stop, and understand that you are likely to kill your attacker when you stop him. Most folks don't give a lot of thought to all the intervening steps.

--Herself

 

[Biker]

Took ya long enough, Highlander! No offense meant or taken .
The bottom line for me is, through the years and various encounters with LE, I've learned that it's much better to be percieved as the rational 'good guy' as opposed to the aggressive nut just looking for trouble. This especially becomes more important if, as and when any civil suits are filed.
Luckily for me, the suits I survived were as a result of actions that occured on my property so my HO's ins provided my lawyers, but I would have been in a big 'heap' had I not been paying attention to the big-picture while conducting the business I was forced to conduct.
Unfortunately, it's a big chess game that must be played even when you're in the right.
I've veered a bit so, rather than beat the maggots off'n this deceased equine, we'll just have to agree to disagree concerning Capt. Mike's actions.
May your hagus always be....warm?
Biker

 

[NineseveN]

Don't carry unless you are willing to kill: Don't carry if you won't draw. Don't draw unless you will aim. Don't aim unless you're willing to shoot. Don't shoot unless you've got to. When you do shoot, shoot to stop, and understand that you are likely to kill your attacker when you stop him. Most folks don't give a lot of thought to all the intervening steps.

--Herself

Ah, there's the difference, the way it was relayed to me throughout the years of education and training is:


Don't carry unless you are willing to kill: Don't draw unless you will shoot. Don't shoot unless you have no other option. When you do shoot, shoot to stop.

I have never heard anyting to the effct of "don't draw unless you intend to aim", so perhaps this is a divide in regards to education and training?

 

[Herself]

Took ya long enough, Highlander!

Oooooo! Sassenach!

May your hagus always be....warm?

Hah! Nope. While the patrilineal might be Scots (plus this, that and the other), his Mom was mostly Cherokee. Most persons not of such descent, after a fine just-like-grandma-made meal of the sort I learned to cook at home, say they would have preferred haggis! (It's actually quite Southern, I'm lucky to live not too far North of U. S. 40, the Mason-Dixon line of the midwest).
Besides, serving haggis requires a piper; that's a bagpipe player. They're officially classified as "weapons of war," (the pipes, that is, not the player,, though, y'know, most I have met could qualify...) and thus it would scare the weak-livered. Mustn't do that.

Hey! That's what Capt. Mike should have done! To heck with a .45 -- he should'a drawn and played the pipes! It's the perfect solution! Hey, Pool Guy: the jig is up! Or on. Whatever.

--H

 

[Herself]

I have never heard anyting to the effct of "don't draw unless you intend to aim", so perhaps this is a divide in regards to education and training?

Just a difference in the way trainers put it, I suspect. The notion is, do not take any step until you have considered the next step. You're supposed to be trying to think ahead of events. "Don't draw unless you will aim" I read as, "don't flash your gun counting on that being the last step you have to take." If it is, great; if it isn't, you're not jolted.

--Herself

 

[torpid]

Don't carry unless you are willing to kill: Don't carry if you won't draw. Don't draw unless you will aim. Don't aim unless you're willing to shoot. Don't shoot unless you've got to. When you do shoot, shoot to stop, and understand that you are likely to kill your attacker when you stop him. Most folks don't give a lot of thought to all the intervening steps.

What about don't rush to get within spitting distance of an unknown intruder when you don't have to?

What about examining other non-gun options before charging to the gunfight?

What about questioning the unknown person from a safe distance, and using the phone to verify their story, and/or call in support from the police?

I also wasn't aware that I apparently always had to draw and point the muzzle when someone was in my backyard unannounced.

I'm not advocating skipping out to give an intruder a hug, but I also am not in favor of venturing forth to point my loaded gun at the poolman because I think he's out to get me and mine.

Observe unknown person from safety.
Call police if you feel it's necessary.
Use your loud voice to question the person without leaving your locked house.
Call to verify with pool company.

If the person runs off, you have a good description (heck, if you have a digital camera, why not point that at him before you get rolling).

If person then begins breaking into your house, you are armed and well prepared.

If the person is simply the new pool guy, you just saved everyone a lot of grief, and he still gets the message about ringing the doorbell without putting anyone's life in harm's way.

.

 

[NineseveN]

Just a difference in the way trainers put it, I suspect. The notion is, do not take any step until you have considered the next step. You're supposed to be trying to think ahead of events. "Don't draw unless you will aim" I read as, "don't flash your gun counting on that being the last step you have to take." If it is, great; if it isn't, you're not jolted.

--Herself

I wouldn't rule out a difference of training or the opinion of trainers. All my knowledge on the subject rules out "flashing" a gun, period.

A firearm is not a deterrent, it is a solution after all others have been rendered insufficient. You don't point, you shoot. If you are not legally or morally justified to shoot, you don't draw. If you won't shoot, then don't carry.

I think that is word for word in how it was originally brought to me...and that's how it stuck.


State laws, political climate and personal flavor can influence an instructor, so who knows really?

 

[Herself]

NineseveN, I think we're actually agreeing loudly. The point is to not draw one's weapon unless necessary -- and to not even carry a gun unless you are willing to use it when circumstances warrant and understand the risks.

However, up to and after drawing my gun, I was taught to take one step at a time, always looking to what my next step would be; this is a matter of controlling one's response to the situation and, as much as possible, the situation itself.

Most defensive gun use in the States does not involve shooting. At some point short of that in the process, the aggressing party has backed down. One step at a time.

--Herself

 

[NineseveN]

NineseveN, I think we're actually agreeing loudly. The point is to not draw one's weapon unless necessary -- and to not even carry a gun unless you are willing to use it when circumstances warrant and understand the risks.

However, up to and after drawing my gun, I was taught to take one step at a time, always looking to what my next step would be; this is a matter of controlling one's response to the situation and, as much as possible, the situation itself.

Most defensive gun use in the States does not involve shooting. At some point short of that in the process, the aggressing party has backed down. One step at a time.

--Herself

We are agreeing on many levels, I guess my point is I focus more on if you draw, draw to shoot, but if at some point during that draw the aggression has subsided, you don't have to shoot and should not in that case. I simply disagree with the old "draw and point and see if that gets the message across" because it tends to give people an excuse to point a gun to end a confrontation where words or better methods not involving the gun could have been used.

I'm not saying one has to draw and shoot, I am saying that you draw with the intent to shoot because all other options have failed, you do not draw with the intent to intimidate, coerce, command respect or just to see how the target responds (which is what I felt was done by the OP in this thread).

I'm not questioning your methodology or training, you seem to be very level-headed and I believe you did state you would confront like the OP did, but you would pursue other options before relying on your firearm...we completely agree there if that is the case.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

+1 to Torpid's accurate commentary in post# 283 above.

There seems to be a segment of THR forumites who immediately want to go for the guns regardless of the situation or context. It's funny how everything starts to look like a nail when all you're carrying is a hammer...

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Herself]

...And it's amazing, Blue Jays, just how fast a goblin can move while you are trying to reach across the counter to get the gun that should have already been in your hand. Well, it'll be an interesting time counting ceiling tiles and hoping he hasn't anything contagious if he gets to you before you get to your gun, won't it?

You're missing my point. I'm specifically not saying "draw and aim at earliest suspicion;" I'm syaing to go one step at a time, trying to give the suspected bad guy a chance to back down at each step without exposing yourself to undue risk.

I would not face a stranger at my front door -- let alone in my locked, gated and fenced back yard -- without my gun on my person and ready to my hand; and if I didn't like his looks, my hand would go to the grips in a natural move. Happens that in such a situation, my gun is not in a visible place; and it would not become visible unless the stranger gave me further reason for concern.

"Go for the guns?" I've already got a gun, in nearly every interaction with others. It's not on display but it is most certainly there. --And I make up my own mind about the threat level others present. You, Capt. Mike and Massad Ayoub do not get a vote. It's not your hide that's at risk.

--Herself

 

[Jeff White]

Well this little blurb seems to have some relevance to the discussion:
http://www.wjbdradio.com/news_view.asp?WEBID=4418

1/18/06 Rural Iuka Man Accused of Chasing Utility Workers with Hoe

Marion County Sheriff's Deputies have released more information on the arrest of 49-year-old Mark Holt of Banister Road in rural Iuka on aggravated assault charges.

Deputies say Holt became upset with two workers from the Raccoon Water Company when they began making preparations to dig up an unused water meter on his property.

Holt allegedly pulled up flags the workers had set and ran into his house and came out with a potato hoe. The workers said Holt began chasing them and swinging the hoe in the air. Deputies say Holt eventually broke the hoe when striking it on the ground. Neither of the workers were struck.

Holt posted $100 bond and was released.

While it's not exactly the same situation, it's similar. In both CAPTAIN MIKE's situation and this one, the homeowner confronted someone who had a legal reason to be on the property and turned out not to be a trespasser.

You can't just take action against someone who's not a threat to you, not even in Texas, without opening yourself up to criminal charges.

This question is for everyone who thinks that proning the pool man out at gunpoint was the correct response:

Would you support your local police department proning out everyone they had contact with at gunpoint until they could be positively ID'd?

Jeff

 

[torpid]

You don't need to point the (wisely ready) gun at all toward the intruder in this situation (aka the pool guy) if you don't leave the safety of your secured house in order to put yourself within fighting distance of him before even using the phone to verify him/alert police.

I would rather have to raise my voice to ask what he is doing there from my kitchen window than to raise it just to yell "ON THE GROUND- NOW!!!" at spitting distance with my gun on him.

I like keeping my "tactical" advantages when I have them, and I dislike pointing guns at people who aren't trying to harm anyone- especially if I can safely check them out and end the "situation" from my kitchen with a telephone.

Color me paranoid, but I have actually taken digital pics of a suspicious person near my home once "just in case", and I do question people on my property from an unseen vantage point- and all has worked out just fine without any gun pointing involved. The guns are there ready to go if they are needed.


.

 

[Herself]

This question is for everyone who thinks that proning the pool man out at gunpoint was the correct response:

Would you support your local police department proning out everyone they had contact with at gunpoint until they could be positively ID'd?

There's your mistake. See, I'm not a cop. I don't have a LEO's level of training and experience and I don't expect I ever will. I can't count on the things a police officer counts on, like a two-way radio, backup, and the experience to tell a suspcious person's dangerous move from an itchy twitch.

If you are behaving suspiciously -- prowling around inside a locked enclosure, for instance -- the local police are at the very least going to have a hand on their sidearms when they yell at you from a distance to stop and take some action to make yourself harmless. They may take longer to observe first -- it's not their yard and home, after all.

I don't think his was the correct response; all I can tell is that Capt. Mike thought it was. I do not think it was a wrong response, because no shots were fired and everyone got home safe and sound. It's not a perfect world and in the moment, nobody has the gift of hindsight; getting out unscathed counts as a win. Pool man won, Capt. Mike won. Could it have been handled more smoothly and with less pointing of weaponry? You betcha, and if ever it happens to you, I'll be holding you to a very high standard.

Well this little blurb [...] it's not exactly the same situation, it's similar. In both CAPTAIN MIKE's situation and this one, the homeowner confronted someone who had a legal reason to be on the property and turned out not to be a trespasser.

Depending on the details of the agreement, Capt. Mike's pool man may not have had legal reason to be where he was without asking and being specifically invited. And he had to get around a locked gate to get there. Why isn't that registering with you? Can I just wander through your yard whenever I want? Cool! Can I bring my dog?

You can't just take action against someone who's not a threat to you, not even in Texas, without opening yourself up to criminal charges.

And you rate "chased with a hoe," a very heat of the moment thing, agricultural implement flailing away and everyone running, as equivalent to drawing a gun on a man and proning him out?

Both are threats. One's a lot more imminent than the other; the hoe-weilder is clearly not going to be listening -- the guy who has just proned you out is likely to want you to explain yourself! Which offers the best option for resolution without serious physical harm?

--Herself

 

[Geno]

What Torpid said +1 +1

Torpid stated it well. I have been in this very situation several times...I never drew on the person. I stayed in the house, sometimes took photos (digital, 35mm and sometimes video). You might be surprised how easy it is to make someone "jump out of their skin" from the safety of your house.

Only once did the presence of a firearm (a .30-30 bolt-action rifle noticed by the bad guys) make a difference...again, I did NOT draw it up. When they saw it directly at my side, I simply stated, "You don't need to worry about the gun--so long as you don't do anything stupid like try to enter my house (I was working in the garage), or try to attack me. It just serves to deter."

They got back into the car that "...won't start..." and darned if they didn't drive off quickly. Then, noting the plates, I turned it over to the police. I never saw them again. The police congratulated me for how I handled it. That was at 17 years old. Now, at 45, I can look back and say, I did it right. I still say, this whole scenario was just wrong on so many levels! Good feedback Torpid!

Doc2005

 

[torpid]

It's not a perfect world and in the moment, nobody has the gift of hindsight; getting out unscathed counts as a win. Pool man won, Capt. Mike won.

Sorry, but I do not hold this as an example of a win/win situation.

I view it as a lose/lose situation where fortunately the foolish fence-hopping poolman wasn't killed by a confrontational and adrenaline-filled CAPTAIN MIKE defending his territory, for want of a phone call.


.

 

[RavenVT100]

You guys are forgetting one important part of this whole scenario. Sure, it could've been an ordinary pool guy but was it? Remember: The cylons look like us now...

Actually I am gonna go with what Jeff White had posted and say nothing, absolutely nothing, more about what I feel about this thread.

 

[torpid]

You might be surprised how easy it is to make someone "jump out of their skin" from the safety of your house.

Thanks Doc2005- yeah, I know exactly what you mean there. I used greet folks unseen from a balcony where I could still see them, and man do they get befuddled and overly polite from not knowing where the "mysterious greeting" was coming from!


.

 

[Herself]

Sorry, but I do not hold this as an example of a win/win situation.

I view it as a lose/lose situation where fortunately the foolish fence-hopping poolman wasn't killed by a confrontational and adrenaline-filled CAPTAIN MIKE defending his territory, for want of a phone call.

Who "lost?" Where's the injured party? What is the injury? Not some baloney-imagined "mental state" or "bad PR" bushwah; point to the actual harm. You can't. Well, maybe a dry-cleaning bill. Maybe.

It wasn't ideal. This is the real world. You don't always get ideal. Hop the fence into somebody's backyard, I'd say "possibly muddy and damp but intact" is plenty good enough.

What part of "fenced and locked" isn't getting though to you guys? Pool Man was clearly in the wrong.

--H

 

[torpid]

If you can successfully clear up a situation without having to resort to pointing your gun at them, I consider that a win.

Yes, the pool guy shouldn't have done that.

Did this need to get beyond a simple "can I help you" and a phone call?
Was it necessary to put the pool guy in the line of a bullet?

It wasn't ideal. This is the real world. You don't always get ideal.

But you can try from your end to keep it as ideal as possible.

Ideal in this case would have been the pool guy waiting where he stood while CAPTAIN MIKE verified his story on the phone from the safety of his kitchen, with a complaint to the pool company about their new employees judgment, and a personal warning to the poolman that hopping fences is not an option.

Then happily enjoying a nice swim in the clean pool after the pool guy leaves to get his butt chewing from his boss.

.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Herself-

And to add onto what Torpid just said, Captain Mike could have been doing all that with a gun in his hand with nobody being the wiser...

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[NineseveN]

What part of "fenced and locked" isn't getting though to you guys? Pool Man was clearly in the wrong.--H

We get it, but even being in the wrong does not excuse Capt. Mike for what he did.

1. a Canine is a deadly weapon. If one sends their dog after a person and it wounds or kills him or her, doggie gets put to sleep, owner is charged. Even if it was negligence and not intent, owner gets charged.

2. A firearm is a deadly weapon, you make a firm commitment when you unleash your hand cannon, and it is a poor and irresponsible act to use a firearm as a deterrent when other options are viable and readily available.

We make a lot of noise about not escalating a situation here and being responsible firearms owners, Mike escalated what was possibly trespassing into a confrontation with 2 deadly weapons, skipping every legitimate step in the process and rushing off into Dirty Harry and Turner and Hooch phase. No one is saying the pool guy was completely in the right, but as minor of a thing as the PG did in terms of threat, it doesn't give one free reign to whip out the iron and start a confrontation before any credible threat had been observed.

Had the PG wandered into the home, different story. Had Mike's children been in the pool, different story. Had the PG started hitting the pool with a hammer, different story. Had the PG had a firearm or other obvious weapon on him, different story. Had the PG tried breaking into the back door, different story. None of this happened, no credilbe threat was observed.

I submit that if you feel your life is in grave and imminent danger because someone hopped a fence and walked into your yard, you probably shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm. Small animals (little dogs) do this too; they escalate to a confrontation because they are scared and hope that they can monopolize the situation through aggression. It's a bad way for a responsible adult to act, especially with 2 deadly weapons involved.

 

[Jeff White]

Herself said;

There's your mistake. See, I'm not a cop. I don't have a LEO's level of training and experience and I don't expect I ever will. I can't count on the things a police officer counts on, like a two-way radio, backup, and the experience to tell a suspcious person's dangerous move from an itchy twitch.

I didn't say you had to be a cop. But I think CAPTAIN MIKE had backup available, they are called his local police. Even if he didn't have a portable radio on his belt, I bet there was a phone in his house, perhaps even a portable one or a cell he could have carried with him. And anyone who can't tell a dangerous move from a nervous twitch probably shouldn't be pointing guns at anyone anyway. It doesn't take years of experience to learn that.

If you are behaving suspiciously -- prowling around inside a locked enclosure, for instance -- the local police are at the very least going to have a hand on their sidearms when they yell at you from a distance to stop and take some action to make yourself harmless. They may take longer to observe first -- it's not their yard and home, after all.

I am the local police here and I said in my first post in this thread that I would be prepared to draw my weapon when making contact. But the first thing I said wouldn't have been "Put your nose in the dirt, scumbag!" like you hear on TV, it would have been, "Hey man, what are you doing back here?" What happened next would have been totally dependent on what the trespasser said or did.

It's not a perfect world and in the moment, nobody has the gift of hindsight; getting out unscathed counts as a win. Pool man won, Capt. Mike won.

Well the jury isn't in yet on if CAPTAIN MIKE won or not. In most jurisdictions an injured party has two years in which to file a civil claim. CAPTAIN MIKE and the pool man may both have gotten out physically unscathed, but we don't know yet if there will be a civil action and exactly what the limits of his liability are on his homeowners insurance.

You're right, we're not in a perfect world and the pool man could have a claim.

You betcha, and it ever it happens to you, I'll be holding you to a very high standard.

I'm held to a very high standard every day. A lot higher standard then most armed citizens are because of what I do for a living. So I'm not really too worried.

Depending on the details of the agreement, Capt. Mike's pool man may not have had legal reason to be where he was without asking and being specifically invited.

If the argeement was that the pool wouldn't be serviced when no one was at home, then CAPTAIN MIKE might have basis for a civil action against the pool man and his employer. Nothing that he posted here justifies the threat of deadly force.

And he had to get around a locked gate to get there.

Trespass isn't a forcible felony. It's a simple misdemeanor. It wasn't at night and according to CAPTAIN MIKES post, the pool man did nothing threatening besides his presence.

Can I just wander through your yard whenever I want? Cool! Can I bring my dog?

Sure, and I promise you that unless your actions tell me that you're up to no good, beyond the simple fact that you're there, I promise not to prone you out at gunpoint.

And you rate "chased with a hoe," a very heat of the moment thing, agricultural implement flailing away and everyone running, as equivalent to drawing a gun on a man and proning him out?

Yes, two instances of a trespasser, who really wasn't threatened by the landowner with deadly force. I think proning out the pool guy was a heat of the moment thing too. I bet the water crew would have proned out instead of ran if Holt had threatened them with a gun.

Both are threats. One's a lot more imminent than the other; the hoe-weilder is clearly not going to be listening -- the guy who has just proned you out is likely to want you to explain yourself! Which offers the best option for resolution without serious physical harm?

What is less iminent about having a gun held on you? I don't know what the trigger is on CAPTAIN MIKE's pistol but a mere 3-12 pound of pressure and you'r just as dead as if Holt put his hoe into your skull.

Jeff