G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: How to Hold a Perp for the Cops Without Getting Shot Yourself?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,204
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Circle_10 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by HeruMew; 08-03-18 at 10:31.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    515
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Circle_10 View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    21,766
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Circle_10 View Post
    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.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,493
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    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.
    GET IN YOUR BUBBLE!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    T E X A S
    Posts
    18,042
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Glockster View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Circle_10 View Post
    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".
    "You're living on a tax farm as free range humans . . ."

    "The Trump election will be the biggest **** YOU! ever recorded in human history and it will feel good." — Michael Moore

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,051
    Feedback Score
    0
    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:
    Maj. USAR (Ret) 160th SOAR, 2/17 CAV
    NRA Life Member
    Black Mesa Ranch. Raising Fine Cattle and Horses in San Miguel County since 1879

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Midwest Flyover Country
    Posts
    2,508
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by OH58D View Post
    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:


    I used to love riding horses carrying my lever action.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    6,409
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    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.
    "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

    “You are responsible for your actions, but the world doesn’t turn around you, so it’s important that you find something bigger than yourself to work for, a way for you to make a difference.” - Drew Dix, MOH VN '68

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    21,766
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    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.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,321
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    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.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •