Welcome to Aftermath, a portion of our First Line email newsletter where Attorney Anthony L. DeWitt walks you through a real-life self-defense incident and shares his key takeaways.
A man renting a room in Madison, Wisconsin, was not always on good terms with his roommates. When one roommate forced his way into the man’s room and refused to leave, taking an aggressive stance, the defender shot and killed the intruder. Evidence from witnesses suggests the trespasser was drunk at the time. Concluding that his room was his castle and therefore covered under the Castle Doctrine, the District Attorney did not issue charges, releasing the man from jail.
The FBI’s Behavior Change Stairway Model (BCSM) consists of four stages: active listening, empathy, developing rapport and influence, which can ultimately effect someone’s behavior. Are you familiar with this model, or are there other models or tactics you would use or have used to de-escalate potentially violent confrontations?
Interesting BCSM. I try to see the good side of people that seem criminally violent. It is something I do subconsciously. It is in my minds muscle memory. It is very similar to BCSM.
Forced his way in, Let’s call that violence. Refused to leave. Shooting the guy may have been at the extreme end of the scale but still legal. As far as de-escalation, my experience has been, people that are sloppy drunk aren’t really very reasonable so de-escalation tactics that might work on a sober intruder may not work on the intoxicated guy.
Stay Calm. By staying calm, you prevent the buildup of anger that can quickly lead to an explosion and stop yourself from getting wrapped up in the intense emotions of the angry drunk.
Validate their frustrations. Do not ignore their concerns.
Do not try to rationalize with them.
Leave! Yes, it is your room and your space, and you should not have to leave but in the name of de-escalation why not?
Use the least amount of force to handle the situation (pepper spray or similar in this situation). Lethal force should be the last thing you use, home owner or room renter. I am responsible for my rounds from the time the firearm is loaded until they stop, whether in the intended target or a distant structure or another human being. Walls are thin and one slight jolt might cause you to miss (or go though the intruder into another person). Seems to me this goes back to the basic rules of using a firearm.
Lots of things to think about in this scenario, but also, too many things to assume because we don’t know the whole story. Not always on good terms with his roommates leads to a hostile living environment to begin with. Add in a couple other points and there is definite criminal activity worthy of local law enforcement response.
Forced his way in is breaking and entering.
Refused to leave is criminal trespass.
We know from witness testimony the invader was drunk, so he was unreasonable. What we DON’T know is why the scenario became violent to the point of needing a gun to settle the dispute. Did the invader have a weapon? Did the invader attack the renter? What was the height and weight difference between the two? Why was our renter not able to leave? Granted, it is HIS room, HIS Castle, and should not be required to leave. In the interest of not killing a roommate, that would have been an option, unless he was being prevented from leaving. Too many questions not answered in this brief excerpt.
Having been in situations where I was faced with drunken roommates in the Air Force, there are times when they are just not thinking straight and no amount of talk will de-escalate the situation. Fighting was strictly against regulations. The only recourse I had in those situations was to leave, file complaints with the barracks manager and hope it all worked out.
Family members of the dead criminal can file civil suits over “wrongful death” claiming their little Johnny was a model citizen and was only there stealing the shoes because he needed them to get to school.
Effective 5/1/2024 76-2-405.Force or deadly force in defense of habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment.
(1) Except as provided in Subsection (2), an actor is justified in using force against an individual when and to the extent that the actor reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the individual’s unlawful entry into the actor’s vehicle or unlawful entry or attack upon the actor’s habitation or place of business or employment.
(2) An actor is justified in using force against the individual described in Subsection (1) that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to the individual only if:
(a) (i) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth; and
(ii) the actor reasonably believes:
(A) that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or perpetrating personal violence against any individual who dwells in or is present in the habitation or is present in the vehicle, or place of business or employment; and
(B) that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or perpetration of personal violence;
Don’t have to wait to be attacked, in Utah the laws says “to prevent or terminate the individual’s unlawful entry”.
Of course , the above vignette does not tell the entire story.
With de-escalation, of course it is good practice, that also takes education and training to succeed. No way claiming to be an expert.
Though in some cases, there can also be a moment when de-escalation is far too late to apply if certain threat has become “too” close.
I value self defense, yet I could not help but think as one other person posted, if we had to actually shoot, if it’s a densely populated apartment building, if our round misses, it may hit an innocent.
Would the outcome have been different if law enforcement had become involved?