Shooting Intoxicated Person Overkill?

[Bini]

Just finished watching Intoxication Nation on 20/20 and there was a brief story about an intoxicated 20-year old female college student that tried to find her way home after partying and entered into the wrong house. She was shot in the head by homeowners for trespassing. Would you consider this overkill?

And for sake of not turning this into a gun debate, we could replace the firearm with something else, like a knife. If someone walked into your home (did not forcibly make their way in) and was clearly under the influence of alcohol (you can smell booze on them), would you still proceed to use deadly force against that person - given - that he or she was not causing a life or death threat to your family but trespassing due to confusion?

20/20 did not focus much on this particular story but I did find it quite alarming. They did a quick interview of the wife, who explained that this girl wandered into their bedroom very confused and not verbally responding to their warnings to back-off, so her husband got his gun and shot her pointblank in the forehead. I admit that I would also be shook up but I would hope that a part of me would see that she was confused and out of her element, and that we'd call the cops before resorting to a lethal weapon.

Thoughts?

[Guest]

It's hard to say how I'd act at the shock of having a stranger in my home at night. But I can guess.

If they were armed or threatening I would do whatever needed to protect my family and myself. If they're just drunk and stupid I'd tell them to leave and call the police.

[jerome1232]

I'm trying to put myself in that mans shoes, I can't say I entirly blame him. Not being in the actual situation and not seeing exactly how it played out I can't pass judgment on him for doing what he did.

If he felt they were in danger of life or sexual assualt, then his actions were justified in my mind. I can't know how or if the situation was confusing, what was done etc... I sure would be scared if an intoxicated person wandered into my bedroom in the middle of the night.

[MorningStar]

There is no way I would use lethal force against a drunk person unless they had a weapon. I would call the police or just try to escort them out myself. It could be she was freaking out and thought they were in her house, so who knows how scary it got?

[Vort]

If I somehow knew that s/he was merely confused and unarmed, then no, I would never think of killing them. But how can you know such a thing? You clearly tell the person who has invaded your home to identify himself, he does not, and he won't stop or retreat. What are you supposed to think?

People have absolutely no business getting intoxicated and then wandering around. In many or most places, public intoxication itself is against the law. When a person willingly impairs himself for entertainment, he must accept the consequences of his impairment. In the girl's case, that consequence was a bullet in the forehead. Tragic, but certainly not the homeowner's fault. If blame must be placed, then it should be placed squarely on the girl herself.

[beefche]

It sounds like many assume that being drunk is a harmless buzz. There are many people who become violent when intoxicated. Especially if they are being commanded or "forced" to do something (like leave a place).

I would find it difficult to imagine what I would do confronted with a complete stranger in my home. Man or woman, once intoxicated can become strong and combative.

[MorningStar]

I would rather get slightly injured fighting an intoxicated person than wonder if shooting them was necessary. It would also be traumatic to deal with the aftermath.

[NeuroTypical]

It all depends on the situation. If I see some drunk girl stumbling around my living room crashing into bookcases, no, of course you don't shoot her. If I hear someone breaking and entering my home at night, then Castle/Stand-your-ground doctrine, as well as common sense, all dictate that I can assume the likelyhood that someone intends serious harm to me and mine, and I can react with the level of force I am certain will stop the threat.

[NeuroTypical]

Something to make clear: Drunk girls can kill people too.

The police chief of my local small town tells a story. Over his many decades of service, he had handcuffed hundreds, maybe thousands of suspects and taken them into custody. On one of these instances, he was injured by the handcuffed suspect. She was a 14 year old underweight girl who lifted herself up and almost kicked his kneecap off.

[Bini]

Since I was not there (in the given situation) I cannot agree or disagree with the end result but without question it is a tragedy.

Personally, I would have a difficult time shooting or stabbing someone to death that was unarmed, not posing a threat and was trespassing alone. I would evacuate the immediate area and dial 911. From my understanding of the 20/20 incident, this girl was unarmed and was not aggressive. However, she was so intoxicated that she did not heed the warnings of the homeowners, and unfortunately wound up dead. I want to make clear that I don't take being a drunk lightly. And I don't argue that drunks are harmless. Let's be honest about it though, some drunks are aggressive and some drunks aren't. This one wasn't but her confusion and disorientation was enough for the homeowners to pull the trigger.

My thinking likely roots back to my SU training. I worked with some truly aggressive and combative individuals BUT I had to remind myself that these people suffered mental impairments. So if you have the ability to vacate the immediate area and call for assistance, I would opt to do that, versus using lethal force against someone that is obviously impaired and vulnerable. While being a drunk is a choice - it doesn't change the fact that the individual is impaired and vulnerable - and if I have a chance to save a life instead of take one - I will. Note, I'm still referring to an unarmed situation. These are my thoughts on it.

[Mahone]

Are you sure she was 1. killed and 2. shot in the head?

I found a recent story online that has striking similarities to the scenario you mention.

Girl shot while drunkenly trespassing could serve time

[EarlJibbs]

I am thinking about me. If I were asleep in my bed with my wife. I then notice there is someone in my room. I yell at them to leave and they do not. If all I see is a shadow of a man/woman and they do not listen, I think I would shoot.

My reasons. 1. I dont know their intentions. 2. They are not responding to my demands in my home. 3. I dont know if they are armed. 4. What if I am wrong and they end up doing things to my family, even death. I would hate to know that I could have prevented something happening to my family, rather calling the cops and waiting for them to respond to someone in my home, less than 5 yards from me. Cops are not the end all.

That said, if I had a light on and I could physycally see the girl and noticed she was intoxicated and unarmed, then no I wouldnt shoot. Unfortunately we live in a time whereit is more common that this scenario turns out the other way around, a family murdered for whatever reason.

[NeuroTypical]

Personally, I would have a difficult time shooting or stabbing someone to death that was unarmed, not posing a threat and was trespassing alone.

Well, of course. The problem is, those three bits of knowledge can be very, very hard to come by in real life. How do you know someone is unarmed? They could have something hidden. How do you know someone is not posing a threat? Wandering around in your bedroom at night and refusing to back off doesn't exactly yell "I'm not a threat". How do you know someone is only trespassing alone? You are not a mind reader - you don't know their intentions.

Maybe someday someone will invent a way to get hindsight before the event. Until then, we make our decisions and live with the consequences.

Three decisions:

1. Take no action besides talking/shouting/calling cops.

- Intruder is nonviolent, everything is fine.

- Intruder is violent, and harms you or spouse or kids.

2. Take action which is not likely to seriously injure/incapacitate intruder

- Intruder is nonviolent and does not become violent, everything is fine.

- Intruder is nonviolent but becomes violent, but your action works, everything is fine.

- Intruder is nonviolent but becomes violent, but your action does not work , you/spouse/kids are harmed.

- Intruder is violent, but your action works, everything is fine.

- Intruder is violent, but your action does not work, you/spouse/kids are harmed.

3. Take decisive action which is likely to injure/incapacitate intruder.

- Intruder is nonviolent and does not become violent, action works, get judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20.

- Intruder is nonviolent but becomes violent, but your action works, get judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20, but you/spouse/kids are safe.

- Intruder is nonviolent but becomes violent, but your action does not work, you/spouse/kids are harmed, and you are judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20.

- Intruder is violent, but your action works, everyone is safe, you are judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20.

- Intruder is violent, but your action does not work, you/spouse/kids are harmed, you are judged and 2nd guessed on 20/20.

Ok - quickly - you woke up at 3am and have 2 seconds to make your decision. Quick! What is it! Do you have the faintest idea how to be effective with 2 or 3 in the first place?

[Bini]

Are you sure she was 1. killed and 2. shot in the head?

I found a recent story online that has striking similarities to the scenario you mention.

Girl shot while drunkenly trespassing could serve time

I am pretty sure she died. It was not covered in depth on 20/20.

[Bini]

If you feel your life is in jeopardy, by all means, protect yourself.

But IF you can, to the best of your knowledge, assess that the indivisible is unarmed - I believe there are better alternatives. So I am not arguing your points, LM.

[MorningStar]

An even better option is to lock youf door. It's hard for a drunk to stumble into your place by accident if your door is locked. Years ago a detective came by to take my DNA sample and forgot something, so I left the door unlocked. I called for her to come in when she came back and she asked in a very concerned tone, "Do you always leave your door unlocked?" She said you would be surprised how often people wander into the wrong place because they are drunk.

[jerome1232]

I forgot about this incident, prom night I accidentally went into the wrong house, I had left my keys in my friend of a friend's house and was in a big hurry to get my date home. I sprinted into the house, realized immediately it was the wrong house and sprinted out. I later learned from my friend the.owner of the house was getting his shotgun when heard his door slam and someone sprinting in his house. it was 2 am, I can't say I blame him.

[Anddenex]

Just finished watching Intoxication Nation on 20/20 and there was a brief story about an intoxicated 20-year old female college student that tried to find her way home after partying and entered into the wrong house. She was shot in the head by homeowners for trespassing. Would you consider this overkill?

And for sake of not turning this into a gun debate, we could replace the firearm with something else, like a knife. If someone walked into your home (did not forcibly make their way in) and was clearly under the influence of alcohol (you can smell booze on them), would you still proceed to use deadly force against that person - given - that he or she was not causing a life or death threat to your family but trespassing due to confusion?

20/20 did not focus much on this particular story but I did find it quite alarming. They did a quick interview of the wife, who explained that this girl wandered into their bedroom very confused and not verbally responding to their warnings to back-off, so her husband got his gun and shot her pointblank in the forehead. I admit that I would also be shook up but I would hope that a part of me would see that she was confused and out of her element, and that we'd call the cops before resorting to a lethal weapon.

Thoughts?

In Utah, my ward actually, if people from Utah remember the shooting fatality of a burglar in Springville, that was a person in my ward.

We had ward and neighborhood meetings and invited police to visit us and teach us about rights, and when we are able to use deadly force.

This question was asked, and in Utah, if you gun down a drunk that accidentally opened your door, you would be prosecuted for murder. In Utah, you don't have a right to just gun down anybody that enters your home. Your life must actually be in danger, in other words, you ask them to leave, they don't, and then that person charges you. If you ask them to leave, and they remain where they are...and then you shoot, you may have a hard time convincing the judge that your life was threatened.

[mirkwood]

It sounds like many assume that being drunk is a harmless buzz. There are many people who become violent when intoxicated. Especially if they are being commanded or "forced" to do something (like leave a place).

I would find it difficult to imagine what I would do confronted with a complete stranger in my home. Man or woman, once intoxicated can become strong and combative.

Very true. Every single person who has assaulted me at work was either intoxicated or high. Every. Single. One.

[EarlJibbs]

In Utah, my ward actually, if people from Utah remember the shooting fatality of a burglar in Springville, that was a person in my ward.

We had ward and neighborhood meetings and invited police to visit us and teach us about rights, and when we are able to use deadly force.

This question was asked, and in Utah, if you gun down a drunk that accidentally opened your door, you would be prosecuted for murder. In Utah, you don't have a right to just gun down anybody that enters your home. Your life must actually be in danger, in other words, you ask them to leave, they don't, and then that person charges you. If you ask them to leave, and they remain where they are...and then you shoot, you may have a hard time convincing the judge that your life was threatened.

I think your police advice is flat wrong. I just looked up the law written on this. I found it on http://www.lds.net/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=704471

"76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation. (1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if: (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or (b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony. (2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony."

This is pretty clear. You do not have to ask them to leave.

Edited October 10, 2012 by EarlJibbs

[Anddenex]

I think your police advice is flat wrong. I just looked up the law written on this. I found it on http://www.lds.net/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=704471

"76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation. (1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if: (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or (b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony. (2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony."

This is pretty clear. You do not have to ask them to leave.

I can understand what you are saying, however, the information we received is dead on.

In all defense shooting cases, the person must be able to justify their decision in front of a judge. A person's perception matters very little if you can't convince and judge and jury that a shooting was justified.

Nothing here provided in this law negates anything the cop shared or what I shared, but actually confirms it.

EDIT: Our officer, actually two officers strongly persuaded us to understand, that our perception means nothing in a court of law. If a person perceives bodily harm, where none was intended, and the person is unable to convince the judge or jury that bodily harm was attempted or in accordance with the law, the person will be punished with man slaughter.

The officers actually provided us a case where a drunk man, a man of good standing in Utah, father of two kids, etc... walked into the wrong apartment door, actually if I remember correctly his door was either across the hall, or a couple doors down. This man was shot dead. The individual was prosecuted for man slaughter because he could not convince the jury or judge that this man who accidentally entered his home, entered with the attempt to hurt, harm, or to use any violence against the homeowner.

Thus, they emphasized, if you can't convince the judge, then you will be charged with man slaughter.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Anddenex

[EarlJibbs]

I can understand what you are saying, however, the information we received is dead on.

In all defense shooting cases, the person must be able to justify their decision in front of a judge. A person's perception matters very little if you can't convince and judge and jury that a shooting was justified.

Nothing here provided in this law negates anything the cop shared or what I shared, but actually confirms it.

EDIT: Our officer, actually two officers strongly persuaded us to understand, that our perception means nothing in a court of law. If a person perceives bodily harm, where none was intended, and the person is unable to convince the judge or jury that bodily harm was attempted or in accordance with the law, the person will be punished with man slaughter.

The officers actually provided us a case where a drunk man, a man of good standing in Utah, father of two kids, etc... walked into the wrong apartment door, actually if I remember correctly his door was either across the hall, or a couple doors down. This man was shot dead. The individual was prosecuted for man slaughter because he could not convince the jury or judge that this man who accidentally entered his home, entered with the attempt to hurt, harm, or to use any violence against the homeowner.

Thus, they emphasized, if you can't convince the judge, then you will be charged with man slaughter.

I would like to see that case. Because it would seem there is more to it other than the fact that a drunk guy walked into a home and was shot. Nowhere in the law does it state that you must have hard facts proving someone intended harm... the word "beleive" added leaves the debate wide open. I think on that word and the word "stealth" alone would give good justified cause (in the eye of the law) to shoot someone that showed up in your bedroom in the dark.

But I see your point. You are working with a judge and jury, and they will be influenced by more than just the written law.

I do beleive however that a lot of police would have you NEVER protect yourself and to call them instead. They are, thankfully, not the resolution to all.

[Anddenex]

I would like to see that case. Because it would seem there is more to it other than the fact that a drunk guy walked into a home and was shot. Nowhere in the law does it state that you must have hard facts proving someone intended harm... the word "beleive" added leaves the debate wide open. I think on that word and the word "stealth" alone would give good justified cause (in the eye of the law) to shoot someone that showed up in your bedroom in the dark.

But I see your point. You are working with a judge and jury, and they will be influenced by more than just the written law.

I do beleive however that a lot of police would have you NEVER protect yourself and to call them instead. They are, thankfully, not the resolution to all.

That was there whole point, if you believe but are unable to convince the judge and jury, you will be prosecuted with man slaughter.

The emphasis from the cop was, "Whether or not you think you are justified by law, if you can't convince the judge, then you will be prosecuted."

He provided two scenarios:

1st - Man comes into your home, and is standing over your daughter.

2nd - Man comes into your home drunk, stands there, but makes no attempt in your direction, even after you have told him to leave. He remains in his position.

The first, they shared would be easily defended. The second, however, would be very difficult. How is someone to convince a jury and a judge regarding a drunk man/woman who never made any attempt to assault you?

Now add a third scenario to the second. Drunk man enters, he is repeatedly asked to leave. When asked to leave gets irate and then takes to steps posturing for assault. This is more easily defended. The two steps in anger toward the homeowner could be easily seen as an attempt for violence.

The officer, I feel, was trying to say, we know what the laws states, however the law isn't there for the freedom to end life, but to protect life, we the people via this law still value life.

[NeuroTypical]

Anddenex and Earl, let's walk through the process. My wife and I have taken three different classes in two states (CO and UT), and the instructors tell similar stories.

If you use deadly force and figure it was justified, you should expect the police to show up not happy with you. You should expect to be handcuffed and booked into jail. You should expect to spend around $10,000 or more in out of pocket legal fees, and you will lose somewhere between a few weeks and a few years of your life as you are pushed through the legal system. Not only the criminal legal system, but also the civil legal system, because the person's next of kin will be filing civil rights violations against you as well. You will also be tried in the court of public opinion. Your relationships and friendships will all change, as everyone you know (or thought you knew) will develop new opinions about you, many of which you will disagree with.

You can expect most of this to happen to you, regardless of whether your case actually makes it to trial or not. If it makes it to trial, you'll then proceed to either be found guilty of something or not. The stuff you guys are arguing impact this last phase of the experience.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Anddenex]

If you use deadly force and figure it was justified, you should expect the police to show up not happy with you. You should expect to be handcuffed and booked into jail. You should expect to spend around $10,000 or more in out of pocket legal fees, and you will lose somewhere between a few weeks and a few years of your life as you are pushed through the legal system. Not only the criminal legal system, but also the civil legal system, because the person's next of kin will be filing civil rights violations against you as well. You will also be tried in the court of public opinion. Your relationships and friendships will all change, as everyone you know (or thought you knew) will develop new opinions about you, many of which you will disagree with.

This is interesting, however maybe I am reading your statement incorrectly. I understand, from my friends experience, that the cops weren't unhappy, and the cops didn't cuff him and take him to jail.

They assessed the situation there, the 911 call, and then they themselves, the police, said the action was justified and that this would be in their report.

I am more inclined to believe, if the police feel the action was unjustified and could have been avoided, then the person will be cuffed and taken to jail.

I definitely agree with you, people will come to their own conclusions about the situation and this can be more damaging then a justified or unjustified killing.