Police interacting with armed citizens

Kleanbore said:

I cannot imagine holding anyone at gunpoint.

Click to expand...

I can.

It's not even hard to imagine.

Now what?

I would never attempt to deliberately detain someone at gunpoint, but I have considered the remote possibility that if I had to draw or present a weapon on a burglar or assailant that they may outright surrender. Is that likely? No, not really, and I suspect if they did do that, they would eventually get smart and just run before the police arrived, and I would not try to stop them.

But if you do find yourself in a position where you are detaining a criminal, I believe the best way to do it is to order them to lie prone with their arms straight out, palms turned up, and their legs straight out and crossed, head turned away from you.

A person in that position cannot get up without uncrossing their legs and turning their palms down, and if they are looking away from you and you stand out of reach on their off side, you can lower or holster your weapon and still have adequate reaction time to re-draw and present before the other person can physically attack you. That way you do not have to be holding a gun and pointing it at another person when the police arrive, if for some reason your attacker was too slow in realizing he could have just left at any time.

Jeff White said:

Can you say "unlawful restraint"? You are moving from self defense into making a citizens arrest. Illinois law gives you all of the powers of a peace officer if you witness a felony......but.......it gives you none of the legal protections. Pull your zip tie too tight and you are on your own in court. When the police arrive and start their investigation and decide that maybe your detention of the "suspect" wasn't legal or warranted the states attorney may decide to charge you with unlawful restraint. By the way, you could be charged with unlawful restraint for holding a "suspect" at gunpoint. Those are the possible legal ramifications.

Do you like to fight? How are your hand to hand skills? Do you have a lot of training and experience in ground fighting? I ask these questions because most of the times an arrest turned into a hand to hand encounter was at the moments the cuffs went on. I've had subjects who were calm and compliant throughout the process turn into a violent rage when the steel hit the wrist. If you ever tried to take a non-compliant subject into custody you would realize what a bad idea it is to try to do it yourself. While I made a lot of solo arrests, I always preferred to have another officer present when actually taking a person into custody. Have you thought about how to keep the subject form getting your gun while you put the zip ties on him? Do you carry in a retention holster?

Trying to restrain a subject is a terrible idea.

Click to expand...

This post is what I would have posted.

Only someone that has never actually done a hands on arrest would ask about restraints.

Try it,then you will know.

But please try it on a friend who understands that he is supposed to resist.

GEM said:

Also, holding someone at gun point when the law arrives is a bad thing. Next, you hold me at gunpoint and I say - Well, I'm walking away, cowboy.

What then would you do?

Click to expand...

Let you go, that's what.

I do not have the power and authority of the State behind my actions beyond that which is required for self-defense (or the defense of others). This is summed up in short as applicable only as long as the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm exists.

If you leave...you take the imminent threat of death or bodily harm away at that moment.

An argument may also be made that continued use of the threat of deadly force (such as holding a person "prisoner" at gunpoint) may also be exceeding the bounds of the law with respect to the use of deadly force.

As people not empowered by the State, our authority to do so is extremely limited...at the very least, the State affords little, if any, protections for us should we act in such a manner. We, or example, have no Qualified Immunity.

JTHunter said:

Thanks Gents.
It almost as if the law is slanted in favor of "suspects" and makes it harder for the public to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

Mmmm...no, I'd say the law is clear in that we may ONLY act to defend ourselves.

Consider the fact that many, if not most, people who carry a firearm as a private citizen have very little, if any, actual training and experience with it as a defensive weapon, much less anything even approaching force-on-force training. How many, then, do you suppose have any training on the physical detention and apprehension of a potentially violent person?

Let's say you and I meet up in a physical altercation, not involving firearms. How difficult do you think it would be for either of us to physically detain/restrain the other without assistance? We're both tossing a coin here by attempting to do so. Include deadly weapons of all kinds which may be present and the risks don't get smaller...they get radically larger.

And that's assuming that "the other person" doesn't have "friends" around waiting in the shadows.

There are all kinds of risks which are assumed by pursuing this course of action...and absolutely NO protections in one's favor by attempting them, either physically or legally.


Also...I saw in an earlier posting a comment which included "I vote for...".

Save "voting" for the polls, not self-defense or interpretation of what the laws allow or do not allow.

We carry firearms for self-defense (and the defense of others as allowed by law) and are therefore obligated to study and learn what the jurisdictional laws have to say on the matter. We don't "vote" on what they say, or which avenue to take...we take action in accordance with our understanding of WHAT THE LAWS ACTUALLY HAVE TO SAY on the matter.

This forum is one avenue where people may come to develop a more complete, and accurate, understanding of what the various laws say and mean. (Though, of course, it's not a legal forum giving out legal advice...hire an attorney for that.)

We do this for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that any use of deadly force carries with it some potentially serious consequences. Consequences which may end up depriving us of our lives, or liberty for decades, in extreme cases.

JTHunter said:

Thanks Gents.
It almost as if the law is slanted in favor of "suspects" and makes it harder for the public to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

Nothing "almost as if" the laws make a criminal have "rights".

The victim [ you ] have NO RIGHTS.

That is not the way our nation was founded,nor how tye Constitution was penned.

Kleanbore said:

I cannot imagine holding anyone at gunpoint.

Click to expand...

I knew a lady years ago that worked in a convenience station and was once kidnapped by robbers. They put her in the back seat and held her at gunpoint, with a shotgun. About 15+\- miles down the road (in a different county) she jumped out they stopped and they chased her through the woods.

She hid behind a tree and basically close-lined one of them when he ran by, at which point he dropped the shotgun and she picked it up. She actually rounded the 2 guys up and sat them one the hood of the car and held them at gun point until the cops came nearly an hour later.

She used to say when telling the story “I told them if you move a @$;!ing muscle I’ll blow your head off!” I can tell you she meant it, When she said it she would almost relapse, her tone would get angry, she’d start holding an air shotgun, it was intense just to hear her tell the story.

I can also tell you she was scared to death and at no point did she feel safe removing the barrel from they’re direction. She even got the police to handcuff them before she lowered the gun.

I’m not saying everything she did was right, but their is no doubt to anyone she ever told the story to that the only thing she was trying to do was stay alive, and she was doing the only things she thought would work to that end.

Kleanbore said:

That is not lawful self defense.

Click to expand...

I didn’t say it was. I will say she was not charged, convicted, or even criticized by one person for it, not one lawyer, DA, sheriff, no one. Most just thought of her a very brave granny, she was probably late 50’s.

Not that it couldn’t have happened, just that it didn’t.
To your point, I’d never advise anyone to do what she did, but I wasn’t there so I don’t know her other options. She thought her only other option was a grave…. Theirs a saying that comes to my mind here but I want poke the bear.

Kleanbore said:

Really?

Click to expand...

Yep, at least thats what one of the county deputies told me.

Jeff White said:

The problem with posting anecdotal stories like that on a forum like this is that there is a lot of leeway granted to the police and prosecutors when it comes to who to charge and what to charge them with (if anything). Everyone nods and says "granny done good". But that leaves the impression that somehow a legal precedent was established. It wasn't and just because granny used force or the threat of force and wasn't charged doesn't mean that anyone else in similar circumstances wouldn't be charged. There are all kinds of factors that go into the decision to prosecute. I've posted before about the local business owner who shot and wounded 3 people stealing anhydrous ammonia from his fenced truck yard. They were running away and the use of deadly force was not justified at all under Illinois law. Yet he wasn't prosecuted. Why? First off the thieves were from Kentucky and had no ties to the area, no family here to be upset at election time. (states attorneys are elected here in Illinois) Secondly, no one was killed. Thirdly, this was at the height of the home lab meth epidemic and we had a huge problem with people stealing anhydrous ammonia to cook meth. We had incidents where areas had to be evacuated after the thieves broke fittings off of tanks and caused a leak, we had citizens and officers injured when mobile labs were encountered. The states attorney wanted to send a message to the local meth cooks that they might be shot stealing anhydrous. If any of those factors wouldn't have existed the business owner would have had rough time with the legal system.

Click to expand...

I completely agree and understand, I didn’t mean to imply what she did was necessarily the best course of action, nor do I imagine it was legal. I’m simply saying it didn’t matter, at least not to her. There are times like that, rare birds that they are, they do exist.


When someone can’t even imagine there’s another side to a coin I just like to try to broaden their horizons, kind of a pendulum effect I guess.

Great article! I can't see many if any situations where I would try to hold a suspect for police. As a private citizen it's outside my wheelhouse. I actually do spend a lot of time thinking about how to interact with police arriving in the aftermath of an incident so more information is good to have.

What I found most interesting about the article is that it reflects what the county sheriff said in the "training class" I was required to take to get a carry permit. That was some years ago. I'll have to have another class before I am able to renew. With that in mind, most of the interactions I've had with law enforcement has been at the range or trap club. Usually our conversation revolves around the guns we are shooting. This article/thread has me thinking about asking about this potential situation.

Opening line in the story: "Armed citizens and police officers are natural allies, and teammates in the fight against crime. "

Am I the only one that takes some issue with this? While we may generally speaking, be on the same side, and possible allies, I, having absolutley NO law enforement training, skills nor legal backing consider myself far from wanting to be or be considered a "teammate".