View Full Version : How to Hold a Perp for the Cops Without Getting Shot Yourself?
Doc Safari
08-02-18, 10:39
When I was a kid my dad caught some guys stealing parts off of some old cars. He captured one of them and held him at gunpoint until the sheriff arrived.
Nowadays, it seems like that's a good way to get killed if the responding officers think you are the perp when they arrive.
It's impossible to rely on the dispatcher to relay the message to the officers that the good guy is the one with the gun. They may just assume that whoever is armed is the one they have come to confront.
So what do you do?
Let's say that some scumbag invades your home in the dark of the night, and as soon as confronted he surrenders. You have him lie face down on the floor with his hands behind his back. You dial 911 and explain the situation, including the fact that you, the homeowner, are the armed one, and that the perp is harmlessly kissing linoleum at your feet.
But then what?
What assurance do you have that the cops won't mistake you for the bad guy and you end up with a toe tag?
My thinking is:
1. Once you capture the perp, you escort him to as close to the front door as you can get before having him lie face down.
2. If you have zip ties in your house, have your spouse or an older child zip tie the perp's hands behind his back to secure him.
3. Once you call 911, leave the front door unlocked and open with the perp facing the front door.
4. REHOLSTER your weapon, but do so from a vantage point where the perp can't see you reholster it.
5. Wait for the police with your empty hands visible through the front door, and the perp obviously subdued and restrained for pick up.
I used to work in law enforcement, but frankly as far as capturing a burglar in my house I'm making this up as I go along.
What do you think of my setup?
Do you have a better sequence of things to do to hold the perp for the police?
I had often heard that "detaining" an intruder, particularly if you put restraints of some sort on them, could potentially get a non-LE homeowner/good guy in some legal hot water. I believe in some jurisdictions you could face kidnapping charges or some other charge related to unlawful detention. Presumably these charges would be brought by the perp, but I guess it could depend how friendly your area is to self defense.
As to how often this actually happens, I have no idea. I suspect not very often, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.
I seem to recall hearing that if you confront an intruder in your home and you can't articulate a justification to just shoot him then an there, you basically should just afford them the opportunity to flee instead of "holding" them for the police.
That doesn't mean I agree with this from an ethical standpoint, from an ethical standpoint I'm fine with shooting a fleeing intruder in the back from 50yds away, but I'm just giving an opinion on what is probably the safest bet legally.
Doc Safari
08-02-18, 11:13
I had often heard that "detaining" an intruder, particularly if you put restraints of some sort on them, could potentially get a non-LE homeowner/good guy in some legal hot water. I believe in some jurisdictions you could face kidnapping charges or some other charge related to unlawful detention. Presumably these charges would be brought by the perp, but I guess it could depend how friendly your area is to self defense.
As to how often this actually happens, I have no idea. I suspect not very often, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.
I seem to recall hearing that if you confront an intruder in your home and you can't articulate a justification to just shoot him then an there, you basically should just afford them the opportunity to flee instead of "holding" them for the police.
That doesn't mean I agree with this from an ethical standpoint, from an ethical standpoint I'm fine with shooting a fleeing intruder in the back from 50yds away, but I'm just giving an opinion on what is probably the safest bet legally.
I had thought of that...and in some cases where the guy gets spooked and decides to bail out through the window I'm assuming in 99.9% of cases that should be the end of it. The cops would just be showing up to do the paperwork.
In my scenario the guy decides to surrender. Then what do you do?
Do you tell him, "You go ahead and go." ?
Isn't that just an invitation for him and his buddies to rob your house anytime they want?
(A guy I know actually experiences this. They know when he's not home and he's been robbed numerous times. I suspect if he ever catches one it could stop, but that's an unlikely scenario given where he lives and the fact that he has to keep to a regular schedule. He's tried dogs, alarms, extra locks, fencing, etc., and none of it has helped.)
The scenario you present is all too plausible these days (the getting shot by cop part).
"Good reason to have a throw down or two"- he says half in jest.
Doc Safari
08-02-18, 11:22
I'll add one thing: staging a crime scene is real bad juju. This ain't the 1970's.
When I worked in law enforcement, there was a guy who had shot someone in his home and "planted" a gun in the guy's hand. IIRC the forensics people had figured out the gun wasn't in the perp's hand at the time of the shoot (no blood residue on it, etc.), and charged the homeowner. (New Mexico is a state where you can't use deadly force unless you perceive that deadly force is about to be used against you. There's the whole "in fear of your life" thing but that's iffy if he other guy doesn't have a gun).
Besides, if you watch enough true-to-life CIS shows on TV, you know never to try to stage a crime scene.
Even if you “let him go”, the cops are coming and they’ll be coming with their guns drawn. There is a wide variety of exciteablitly and judgment under pressure among cops. Just because the perp isn’t there doesn’t mean you’re not going to get shot anyway. In the extraordinarily unlikely event that an armed home invasion were to happen to me and the invader “surrendered”, I’d walk over to the door, open it wide and when the cops arrived I’d put the gun on the ground where they could see it and get down on my knees with my hands high. And trust to luck.
Honestly, at this point, any encounter with law enforcement has the potential to end with you getting shot.
Best bet is to not be armed or have anything that looks like a weapon anywhere nearby when they show up to do the paperwork. On your knees with hands up like a good citizen!
When did our forum start spouting the concept that LEO is very likely to accidentally shoot you? (With HMACs reply, I am not stating that this is specifically worded. The concept, seems to me, that between two threads a newfound concern of being shot by LEO is making it's rounds in our community. I am stating that the "Very Likely" or "Increasing Risk" seems to be a common rhetoric between the two threads)
Media coverage, social media, and modern day instances make this appear as if this is an every day thing.
We should be able to look past the hype and see that the statistics just don't add up.
Can it happen? Sure.
The Wrong house gets no-knocked, the wrong guy gets pulled over, the wrong family gets investigated.
These things happen, and have happened. Forever.
Am I saying that it's an excuse for it to continue happening? No.
But, I am saying, that I (personally) don't feel like the risk of getting shot in my own home, or being misidentified as a threat, has increased in the last 10 years.
We have more people, more contact as population increases, and proportionally I could see the stats being very similar.
If I have someone at gunpoint, I call the police (or the family members will) and the moment the sirens and lights are obvious, I holster and keep eyes on threat. As the police arrive, clearly show your hands. And VERBALLY cue them that you are the victim: "THE ROBBER IS RIGHT HERE." And repeat it, repeat it, repeat it.
You probably will be cuffed as well. Until the police secure the scene, as an active participant, it wouldn't surprise me to be cuffed and disarmed.
Either way. While these things happen, and the shite hits the fan at times, I don't believe that we're seeing an epidemic or trending issue.
ETA: Doc, I don't mean any of my post to insult you, or be combative. Between the two threads on these types of issues, there is this building rhetoric within the community that, to me, is pure speculative feels.
To answer your main question:
What assurance do you have that the cops won't mistake you for the bad guy and you end up with a toe tag?
The same thing I tell all the feel based peoples when these discussions about knowing how to stay alive:
There is no assurance. There never is, and never will be. You do your part, the best you can, and you can still lose your life. This is applicable to every, and any, situation in life.
I
Do you tell him, "You go ahead and go." ?
Well I'd probably phrase it as "Get the **** out of my house or I'll kill you", but yeah that is essentially what you are telling the perp if you go that route. Which is kind of why I'm not crazy about it from an ethical standpoint, because you just let a known home invader go free, with no guarantee the police will catch him after the fact, a d he can either come back to your house again (maybe with more firepower and/or accomplices) or go victimize someone else. But ethics take a backseat to not getting smoked in my own home because the jittery 23yr old reserve cop was the one who happened to respond to the 911 call, or not getting sued into oblivion by the perp because I zip-tied his hands and made him lay on the kitchen floor at gunpoint.
When did our forum start spouting the concept that LEO is very likely to accidentally shoot you?
Media coverage, social media, and modern day instances make this appear as if this is an every day thing.
We should be able to look past the hype and see that the statistics just don't add up.
Can it happen? Sure.
...........
ETA: Doc, I don't mean any of my post to insult you, or be combative. Between the two threads on these types of issues, there is this building rhetoric within the community that, to me, is pure speculative feels.
I don’t see where anyone in this thread, me included, ever “spouted the concept that an LEO is very likely to accidentally shoot me”.
Can it happen? You bet it can, as you observed, and does. Yes, certainly it’s statistically rare, but I’d bet that I am far more likely to get shot by the cops in that unlikely home invasion circumstance than the risks I face in any other aspect of my life. Yeah...by comparison to the rest of my life, being armed and having cops come to my house to deal with an armed intruder is going to be one of the most dangerous things I’ve ever done. If it can happen, it’s worth worrying about, right?
I don’t see where anyone in this thread, me included, ever “spouted the concept that an LEO is very likely to accidentally shoot me”.
Can it happen? You bet it can, as you observed, and does. Yes, certainly it’s statistically rare, but I’d bet that I am far more likely to get shot by the cops in that unlikely home invasion circumstance than the risks I face in any other aspect of my life. Yeah...by comparison to the rest of my life, being armed and having cops come to my house to deal with an armed intruder is going to be one of the most dangerous things I’ve ever done. If it can happen, it’s worth worrying about, right?
It was far more prominent in the other thread.
However, I will state that some of the rhetoric, even in this thread, seems to be implying that it's an ever increasing risk.
And, worry? No. Be aware and conscious of with a healthy amount of caution? Absolutely.
I've done it.
BAD GUY: Where ever it happens, put them on the ground face down, arms out and palms up. If they don't comply be prepared to have to shoot them.
YOU: Holding at gunpoint, finger OFF the trigger and weapon low ready so you are not hiding it (scary for cops) and so you are not pointing it anywhere near responding officers (scary for cops).
Most important thing: CALM CONTACT. Try not to yell anything.
First business: Bad guy HIM, homeowner ME.
If the opportunity exists explain that bad guy MIGHT have a weapon, you don't know.
Either before or after you can pass that information along, they are probably going to want to disarm YOU. Do it calmly and in as much harmony with their directions as possible. State your intentions of compliance prior to doing so. For example.
"I'm putting it on the ground now"
"Backing away slowly now"
"I'm getting on the ground now"
Haven't done it in awhile, but cell phone where you continue to remain in contact with 911 the entire time is recommended. Make sure responding officers understand it is a cell phone in your other hand.
I have also found a brightly lit yard full of motion activated security cameras really, really helps. They can see nobody is hiding in the bushes waiting to ambush them and stuff like that.
And here is a strange one. If you LOOK like you know what you are doing, sometimes that puts you in the "one of us vs. one of them" classification that LEOs use when sorting out who is who upon arrival. Additionally a strong LED also helps. You can "flash" responding offices to your location and then keep the light on the BAD GUY as they pull up. Mentally it helps them make that "one of us vs. one of them" determination on first contact. They typically associate the guy on the ground with the bright light on him as "probably BAD GUY."
And if you are unclear of LEO instructions GET CONFIRMATION..."What do you want me to do exactly?" Repeat their request back to them. Then calmly do it.
If you have calm, control of things when they arrive, try and keep it that way as you transition control to responding officers.
A couple other things off the top of my head. Until they specifically ID you, your name is HOMEOWNER and that is how you refer to yourself. Don't reach for IDs, let them know it's in your back pocket or wherever it is. Don't freak out if you get cuffed, being cuffed is not the same as being arrested.
If they say "I'm handcuffing your for your protection and ours" say "I understand."
Save most of "Here is what happened" for after they have everyone under control.
And if things are just getting out of hand, keep your hands way above your head, even if one has a gun in it and keep asking for permission to put the gun down until you get specific directions to put the gun down then do it calmly.
If you can be reholstered when they arrive that would be great, but hard to do with a rifle. If you have a concealed holster just put the gun on the ground instead, ideally not in 2 foot grass where it's now hidden.
Doc Safari
08-02-18, 13:38
Okay, you win.
The Wrong house gets no-knocked, the wrong guy gets pulled over, the wrong family gets investigated.
These things happen, and have happened. Forever.
Am I saying that it's an excuse for it to continue happening? No.
But, I am saying, that I (personally) don't feel like the risk of getting shot in my own home, or being misidentified as a threat, has increased in the last 10 years.
I'm not afraid of leo now or decades ago. They are people, most trying to do a harder than average job.
What has changed is the number and use of no-knock and close variants that are still very hot and aggressive entries. And "knock" warrants which might as well be no-knock. (Some pretty bad examples in my state)
And I believe these have far higher probability of confusion, misidentification, etc.
Living on a rural property in a major metro area, home invasion is a real concern.
I don't lose sleep over it, but I sure hope I'm never the wrong house (or even right house) with the way most warrants seem to be served lately. Not that I'd ever do anything knowingly, but a home invasion and a 3am police entry are awfully close from the perspective of someone who is sound asleep.
Same for late night traffic stops. I go way out of my way to make it as easy for the officer. Lights, hands clearly visible on the wheel, window rolled down, etc.
Human error and normal distribution of skills/training are still (to me) the biggest factor, as they are in any job. I'm just glad I'm not in a job where people may die if I make the wrong call.
That said, it does seem to me that the use of aggressive entries on non-violent types is way more than it should be. Does not mean it should be banned, just require a higher threshold of diligence. Should not be used for CI based busts without other validation, etc. Again, some pretty notorious examples in my state.
Snagging a MI13 or known felon? Swat up. Grabbing grandpa with a clean record because a CI said he sold dope? Keep the new Dept MRAP in the barn and grab the guy when he goes for his daily trip to the diner.
That's just my candid opinion as a guy in my late 50s who grew up around cops.
Okay, you win.
Probably helps that I've spent more time in police academies than most cops I know. From 87 to about 95 I worked in various capacities as instructor / assistant instructor on a variety of subjects so since I was going to spend 8 hours a day there anyway, I sat in on a lot of classes / lectures and have the benefit of learning what cadets were being taught (or at least what was being taught 20 years ago).
Got to the point I knew most of the answers to most of the questions and more importantly I had an understanding of the mindset of a responding officer and what they would typically try and accomplish. If you help them do their job it goes a long way towards keeping them calm and helping them not make mistakes.
I think there was even one instance where I actually told a cop who seemed like he was getting skittish about the fact that I had a HK G3 (a real one) to "relax and remember your training...I'm being compliant...what do you want me to do next?"
Kinda broke the ice, but not sure if I'd recommend flippant remarks in every case. I got away with it and turned "skittish new cop" into "nervous laugh cop" and at that point we were talking to each other and he got some composure back.
Of course if you are going to use an actual HK G3 as a home defense rifle outside, you probably should be prepared to talk down a "Holy Crap I've never seen a machine gun that goddamn big in my life" responding officer. Again, I can't stress "calm contact" enough. If the homeowner freaks out, cops generally respond poorly to that stimulus and tend to focus on that one bit of trivia from the academy that "most cops die responding to domestic type calls."
DO NOT have an inexperienced person zip tie or otherwise attempt to restrain a not quite detained criminal. Even trained and experienced professionals can be easily tangled up or worse by a determined bad guy.
Lots of good points here and a bit of media driven current events hyperbole as well. All I have to say is pay attention to what's going on around you and don't look like a bad guy doing something bad or worse a crazy person being crazy.
Dennis.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
DO NOT have an inexperienced person zip tie or otherwise attempt to restrain a not quite detained criminal. Even trained and experienced professionals can be easily tangled up or worse by a determined bad guy.
Lots of good points here and a bit of media driven current events hyperbole as well. All I have to say is pay attention to what's going on around you and don't look like a bad guy doing something bad or worse a crazy person being crazy.
Dennis.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Yeah, I probably should have touched on that.
If you honestly believe this person to be so damn dangerous you might have to actually shoot them at any moments then do not send ANYBODY near them for any reason.
Provide two options: 1. On the ground, arms out and palms up or Be shot.
Nobody should go near them for any reason at all, don't put your fingerprints on their weapons and don't stray into "kidnapping" territory with handcuffs and zip ties. If you believe yourself capable of wrassling a home invader down and hog tying him, a skillful attorney will have little trouble convincing twelve people that you clearly didn't need a gun.
Points to ponder
property vs. immediate and unavoidable threat to life
castle doctrine, yes or no?
good communication and descriptions-be clear
comply 100% with LE orders, including dispatchers
when in doubt-let the bad guy go and secure weapon--what I mean here is you know in your heart and mind whether you are right or wrong-it's actually easy at that point in time
look before you move the gun to sight or sound
Bottom line is to use your god given common sense.
In my 30 years, never was a person prosecuted for holding at gunpoint, "securing" a bad guy, etc. Of course nobody ever had a bad shooting-or at least lucky they shot like shit. Where for discharging(see below)
A policy was in place for off duty and even plain clothes to comply which even meant being placed in prone when in doubt by uniformed personnel.
Funniest one which involved a peeping tom was a family just moved from Kansas, 5 teenage daughters mom and dad. Well he was caught and promptly had an ass whipping of his life on that lawn by all of them. Maybe a different time and place but nothing but the guy going to jail-might have been a stop at the ER
One shooting was funny in a sense but not in regards to the damage or even potential charges. He had to be charged with discharging in the city though, no way around that one.
Apartment area, guy hears car alarm, see bad guy running, 27 rounds later from a G21 and nothing but shot cars and apartments, bad civil day for him.
Doc Safari
08-03-18, 09:29
If you help them do their job it goes a long way towards keeping them calm and helping them not make mistakes.
Agreed. You have to remember that when they arrive on the scene they have no idea who's who until they start assessing the situation.
My worry is incompetence or poor training more than anything else. When I worked for a law enforcement agency "range day" could be a dangerous endeavor. I remember one case where the order to advance was interpreted as an order to fire by literally every officer on the firing line except me. I was the only one that began to advance, and when the others started firing I stood down and waited for the range officer to blow a gasket over their mistake--which he did.
From that day forward I've had to assume that not every officer is a sterling example of the city's finest.
Provide two options: 1. On the ground, arms out and palms up or Be shot.
So from a practical standpoint, how do you back that command up?Presumably you can't just shoot an unarmed man for failure to follow your instructions..
What I mean is, what if the guy calls your bluff so to speak? Say he's dropped his weapon, but refuses to comply with the order to lay down. Or say he does comply, initially, but during the wait for the police to arrive (which will probably seem like an eternity), he starts to suspect you won't shoot or don't have justification to shoot him and starts to get belligerent, and begins to get to his feet. You can only threaten so many times before that threat begins to perceived as being empty. A hardened criminal for instance, who has been on the muzzle side of a gun before and for whom this is not his first rodeo may begin to push back if he senses you may not be able to to follow through with your threat. Maybe he knows the law, maybe he thinks you're soft, but either way when you give someone the order "Do _____ or I'll shoot you" you can't just keep not shooting him when he keeps not doing the thing you told him he'd be shot for not doing. Eventually the jig is going to be up and you're either going to have to let him run off into the night or get ready to explain why you had to put an anchor shot in the guy laying on your kitchen floor.
So from a practical standpoint, how do you back that command up?Presumably you can't just shoot an unarmed man for failure to follow your instructions..
What I mean is, what if the guy calls your bluff so to speak? Say he's dropped his weapon, but refuses to comply with the order to lay down. Or say he does comply, initially, but during the wait for the police to arrive (which will probably seem like an eternity), he starts to suspect you won't shoot or don't have justification to shoot him and starts to get belligerent, and begins to get to his feet. You can only threaten so many times before that threat begins to perceived as being empty. A hardened criminal for instance, who has been on the muzzle side of a gun before and for whom this is not his first rodeo may begin to push back if he senses you may not be able to to follow through with your threat. Maybe he knows the law, maybe he thinks you're soft, but either way when you give someone the order "Do _____ or I'll shoot you" you can't just keep not shooting him when he keeps not doing the thing you told him he'd be shot for not doing. Eventually the jig is going to be up and you're either going to have to let him run off into the night or get ready to explain why you had to put an anchor shot in the guy laying on your kitchen floor.
Great point. Here would be my basis:
This is MN Castle Doctrine Law; YMMV.
Castle Doctrine:
Definition (Wikipedia)
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person’s abode or any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or home, as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
A person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines negate the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted in a place where that individual has a right to be, such as within one’s own home. Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases “when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another”.[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in the law of many jurisdictions.
If I have some planed out, and they've willingly given up, versus fleeing to which limits my response to letting them go, and they make sudden jerky, explosive movements; weapon position is unknown; I have just presented a firearm to this individual.
I would be willing to bet that it could be justified as feeling like your life is in danger. Especially, since, to get up, most people have to place their hands near their abdomen or body.
Overall, I would hope to not have to ever do this, but I feel like it could be justified with the fear of their reaction and desperation of not wanting to be caught causing great bodily harm.
sundance435
08-03-18, 13:26
So from a practical standpoint, how do you back that command up?Presumably you can't just shoot an unarmed man for failure to follow your instructions..
What I mean is, what if the guy calls your bluff so to speak? Say he's dropped his weapon, but refuses to comply with the order to lay down. Or say he does comply, initially, but during the wait for the police to arrive (which will probably seem like an eternity), he starts to suspect you won't shoot or don't have justification to shoot him and starts to get belligerent, and begins to get to his feet. You can only threaten so many times before that threat begins to perceived as being empty. A hardened criminal for instance, who has been on the muzzle side of a gun before and for whom this is not his first rodeo may begin to push back if he senses you may not be able to to follow through with your threat. Maybe he knows the law, maybe he thinks you're soft, but either way when you give someone the order "Do _____ or I'll shoot you" you can't just keep not shooting him when he keeps not doing the thing you told him he'd be shot for not doing. Eventually the jig is going to be up and you're either going to have to let him run off into the night or get ready to explain why you had to put an anchor shot in the guy laying on your kitchen floor.
Well, if he doesn't comply, 99.9 % chance he's either coming at you or getting away - shoot/don't shoot should be easy to apply in either case from a "theoretical" standpoint. Also, as others have said, trying to restrain someone with zip ties or handcuffs is not nearly as easy as it might look. It's one of the most dangerous moments for most officers, when they're most exposed and distracted, so I certainly wouldn't recommend a homeowner attempt to.
So from a practical standpoint, how do you back that command up?Presumably you can't just shoot an unarmed man for failure to follow your instructions..
What I mean is, what if the guy calls your bluff so to speak? Say he's dropped his weapon, but refuses to comply with the order to lay down. Or say he does comply, initially, but during the wait for the police to arrive (which will probably seem like an eternity), he starts to suspect you won't shoot or don't have justification to shoot him and starts to get belligerent, and begins to get to his feet. You can only threaten so many times before that threat begins to perceived as being empty. A hardened criminal for instance, who has been on the muzzle side of a gun before and for whom this is not his first rodeo may begin to push back if he senses you may not be able to to follow through with your threat. Maybe he knows the law, maybe he thinks you're soft, but either way when you give someone the order "Do _____ or I'll shoot you" you can't just keep not shooting him when he keeps not doing the thing you told him he'd be shot for not doing. Eventually the jig is going to be up and you're either going to have to let him run off into the night or get ready to explain why you had to put an anchor shot in the guy laying on your kitchen floor.
Well it better not be a bluff. I'm assuming that all the scenarios being discussed are "genuine threat" where the HOMEOWNER honestly believes he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual who is capable of "imminent threat to life and limb, etc." and you aren't running out with a rifle to finally catch the guy nabbing your Sunday morning paper.
You will of course have to factor in state laws and such, but honestly inside my house an "unknown" is probably getting zero warning.
Outside the house, even if he's dropped his weapon, failure to comply means "he still wants to fight" and probably has another weapon and is just waiting for "his chance" when he's not accepting the one I'm providing.
You guys also remember that a burglar in the night time is a different person than the one in day hours. While either one can be a cornered animal, the one entering during the night time is already expecting contact with a resident and may be more likely to be armed and actually follow through with an assault.
Moose-Knuckle
08-03-18, 15:42
2. If you have zip ties in your house, have your spouse or an older child zip tie the perp's hands behind his back to secure him.
Never would I have any of my loved ones get any where near a bad guy as the possibilities are innumerable and the risk to high.
It's not like in the movies.
I had often heard that "detaining" an intruder, particularly if you put restraints of some sort on them, could potentially get a non-LE homeowner/good guy in some legal hot water. I believe in some jurisdictions you could face kidnapping charges or some other charge related to unlawful detention. Presumably these charges would be brought by the perp, but I guess it could depend how friendly your area is to self defense.
This.
Unlawful restraint is thing and depending on your area I wouldn't want to be charged with it by a bleeding heart DA or be judged by some low hanging fruit jury of "my peers".
Zip Ties, Tape? No. This is how I control 4 legged or bi-pedal critters out here in the rural west. The same can be done during an ANTIFA demonstration:
https://i.imgur.com/PUGs8G6h.jpg
RetroRevolver77
08-03-18, 22:52
Zip Ties, Tape? No. This is how I control 4 legged or bi-pedal critters out here in the rural west. The same can be done during an ANTIFA demonstration:
https://i.imgur.com/PUGs8G6h.jpg
I used to love riding horses carrying my lever action.
Outside the house, even if he's dropped his weapon, failure to comply means "he still wants to fight" and probably has another weapon and is just waiting for "his chance" when he's not accepting the one I'm providing.
I think it is important that we:
1) we know the law of the state we live in regarding home defense;
2) make sure we are talking on the same sheet of music when we use terms such as 'failure to comply.'
3) understand that there is no law that says 'even if he's dropped his weapon, failure to comply means "he still wants to fight" and probably has another weapon' that each force situation is based on it's own facts and circumstances.
In general, the laws regarding a homeowner's use of force in defense of their residence and occupants are less stringent than the laws regarding police use of force. Neither the police nor the homeowner are unduly hampered in my opinion.
Having said that, if you act to use lethal force to protect your life or your family, it is better for you if your actions are seen as 'center court', versus at the 'edge of the court' near the out of bounds line.
If you were assessing the use of force, which do you think sounds better to you:
Situation 1: 'I told him to get on the ground, he refused so I shot him because I was fearful he would attack me.' In this case the bad guy lives and says ' I was fearful the homeowner was going to shoot me so I was attempting to leave the area, when he shot me.'
or
Situation 2: 'I told him to get on the ground, he started to, and then he stood up. I told him I had a weapon and was covering him, and he needed to get on the ground. At that point he began walking towards me. I had accosted this man inside my home, he knew I was armed, as he began advancing towards me I believed his intent was to gain control of my weapon and kill me. I fired to protect myself.' In this case the bad guy also lives and says ' I was just trying to reason with the guy, I wanted to leave and he shot me.'
I know that I'm not good at writing these scenarios, but I do know that the homeowner in #2 is in much better shape because he was able to articulate an overt move to do harm, in this case closing the distance on an armed homeowner. It is very easy for a jury or your peers to see the reasonableness or your actions when there is some overt move to use of facilitate the use of force.
I am not saying that the homeowner in #1 behaved illegally. I'm just saying his actions put him on the edge of the 'court' where a jury might be more easily swayed that he wasn't reasonably in fear when he used force.
I think it is important that we:
1) we know the law of the state we live in regarding home defense;
2) make sure we are talking on the same sheet of music when we use terms such as 'failure to comply.'
3) understand that there is no law that says 'even if he's dropped his weapon, failure to comply means "he still wants to fight" and probably has another weapon' that each force situation is based on it's own facts and circumstances.
In general, the laws regarding a homeowner's use of force in defense of their residence and occupants are less stringent than the laws regarding police use of force. Neither the police nor the homeowner are unduly hampered in my opinion.
Having said that, if you act to use lethal force to protect your life or your family, it is better for you if your actions are seen as 'center court', versus at the 'edge of the court' near the out of bounds line.
If you were assessing the use of force, which do you think sounds better to you:
Situation 1: 'I told him to get on the ground, he refused so I shot him because I was fearful he would attack me.' In this case the bad guy lives and says ' I was fearful the homeowner was going to shoot me so I was attempting to leave the area, when he shot me.'
or
Situation 2: 'I told him to get on the ground, he started to, and then he stood up. I told him I had a weapon and was covering him, and he needed to get on the ground. At that point he began walking towards me. I had accosted this man inside my home, he knew I was armed, as he began advancing towards me I believed his intent was to gain control of my weapon and kill me. I fired to protect myself.' In this case the bad guy also lives and says ' I was just trying to reason with the guy, I wanted to leave and he shot me.'
I know that I'm not good at writing these scenarios, but I do know that the homeowner in #2 is in much better shape because he was able to articulate an overt move to do harm, in this case closing the distance on an armed homeowner. It is very easy for a jury or your peers to see the reasonableness or your actions when there is some overt move to use of facilitate the use of force.
I am not saying that the homeowner in #1 behaved illegally. I'm just saying his actions put him on the edge of the 'court' where a jury might be more easily swayed that he wasn't reasonably in fear when he used force.
Not to be dismissive of your points, but when I was doing it, "court presentation" was last thing on my mind.
In each case the first thing I cared about was my own safety, the safety of family and property, etc. If I didn't strongly suspect that one or all of the people I was dealing with were violent and probably armed people and I really believed a "get the F out of here" would have actually solved things, I'd have simply waved them off.
The second thing I cared about was if/when the shooting started, I wanted to win hard and not get shot if possible. And I will say, do, imply just about anything to move any advantage to my side of the court. I'll gladly put my background on trial against the background of anyone who might go so far as to force themselves into an armed conflict with me.
So while it is happening, I'm thinking about 2 or maybe 3 things and that's it. What happens the next day and if I need a lawyer or not is a "next day" consideration. But you have to be alive still to worry about those things.
I held a person at gunpoint with a Remington 870 and Surefire light about 20 years ago. I had him proned outside with his legs crossed, palms down looking away. My spouse called LE and gave them a description of myself and explained I was armed. When they arrived I placed the weapon on the ground away from dirtbag and waited for them to approach me.
They immediately handcuffed him and secured him. I was then questioned as to what happened. Dirtbag was arrested and charged.
As for making a plan or predicting what will happen should there be another encounter, I am not going to lose sleep over it. I will deal with the situation as it comes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.