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

[HeruMew]

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.