Attacker gives up?

[kingcheese]

i was thinking about a self deffense situation.

i know we dont want to get to hypothetical here, but i think this needs to be answered. at least for me

If someone where to break into my house, and i where to go after with them with my gun and they surrenderd, i know i would want to keep the gun pointing close enough to them in case they decided they changed there mind, but how would i describe the situation to police? basically all i want to do is avoid getting my self in a lot of trouble if the police decide i look to be more like an intruder, then the robber does

how would i describe that particular situation to the police to avoid my self getting arrested on the spot, i know that it wouldnt be the worst thing in the world if i got arrested on a mistake because obviously it would be made right in a day or so, but id like to avoid it entirely if possible

its something i have never heard people talking about because most people dont think to offer a chance to surrender, im not sure that i would either, im not obligated to do so, but i believe that in my area it is entirely possible that someone would break in my house and then surrender at the sight of a 280 pound man with a 12ga side by side ready to go in my hands

 

[WardenWolf]

You tell the dispatcher that you are armed an are holding the person, and to pass this on to police. Then you stay on the line. The dispatcher will usually tell you when the police have arrived so you can lower your gun. I personally recommend you order the person to get on the ground face down with their hands on their head. This severely limits their movement options and gives you time to lower the weapon without them reacting.

 

[Dulvarian]

Stay on the phone, and make sure to give a good description of your clothes and appearance. Pretty sure that is the standard advice, and with good reason. You know you are the 'good-guy', but police arriving on the scene only see a guy with a gun and have to figure it out from there. Probably part of the reason that police bystander shootings are more common than civilian encounters.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's another good reason not to try to detain anyone. Whatever happens you do not want to be holding a firearm on someone when Mr. Law arrives.

 

[Lord Teapot]

do you still have a clear shot at the front part of his/her body? by surrender, he/she better have lied down and spread themselves into an unthreatening position, or to me they're still a threat. as for the police, as others have said, the dispatcher should walk you through it.

 

[Averageman]

Kneeling, cross your ankles, keep your fingers interwoven and on top of your head.
It is much harder to move quickly from this position or hide/grab a weapon -vs- prone.
Tell 911 operator your location, name and address. Tell them you have a burglar at gunpoint and they should enter the house through door X and door Y. Where they will see you and what you are wearing.
YMMV

 

[FourteenMiles]

Holding someone is too risky physically and lawfully IMO. Tell them to get out, get a good description, and call the police.

What do you gain by holding them, what are you risking?

 

[Averageman]

What do you gain by holding them, what are you risking?
They can always come back when you aren't home and the Wife and Kids are there alone and asleep; or he can hit the elderly lady next door instead,..she wont put up much of a fight.
I think it is worth the risk.

 

[Remo223]

You are not allowed to hold anyone. That is imprisonment...highly illegal. If they want to give up, they must leave. You cannot keep them. If they want to wait for the cops, then can do so outside your house. IF they won't leave, then they havn't given up.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

?

That is imprisonment...highly illegal

maybe where you live

 

[NavyLCDR]

You are not allowed to hold anyone. That is imprisonment...highly illegal. If they want to give up, they must leave. You cannot keep them. If they want to wait for the cops, then can do so outside your house. IF they won't leave, then they havn't given up.

That is imprisonment...highly illegal

maybe where you live

Absolutely incorrect information. I know of no state that has a law prohibiting citizen's arrest.

From the AG in the State of Washington:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=10234

Since the crime of larceny has been committed, these questions involve the right of a citizen to make an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in his presence.

In connection with the general question, this office, in an opinion dated December 27, 1927, to the director of health (1927-28 AGO 427), stated that:

". . . If a crime is actually being committed in one's presence, a person, whether he be a peace officer or not, has the power to arrest without warrant. . . ."

Later, in an opinion dated July 31, 1928, to the chief of the highway patrol (1927-28 AGO 867), it was said that:

". . . every citizen has the right to arrest any person [[Orig. Op. Page 4]] whom he actually observes in the act of committing a misdemeanor. . . ."

In 4 Am.Jur., Arrest, § 35, it is said that:

"While the authority of a private person to arrest is more limited than that of an officer, in general it may be said that a private person may arrest an offender against criminal laws where the offense is committed in his presence; . . ."

And in § 38:

". . . a private person may arrest for an affray or breach of the peace committed in his presence, and while it is continuing, but not for a misdemeanor on suspicion, regardless of how well it is grounded. . . ."

The same authority exists for a private person to make an arrest as an officer for misdemeanor committed in his presence, under the common law. In this state, it has been held that the right of an officer to make an arrest without a warrant exists even though the misdemeanor committed in his presence be not a breach of the peace. (State v. Deitz, 136 Wash. 228.) Also, cf.State v. Olsen, 43 Wn. (2d) 726. A private person, if the arrest by him be lawful, is accorded the same right and privileges as officers in accomplishing the purpose. Smith v. Drew, 175 Wash. 11.

 

[Kleanbore]

I know of no state that has a law prohibiting citizen's arrest.

How about North Carolina? Yes, one may detain, but legally, as a citizen, one may not effect an arrest there.

On the criminal justice side, the primary differences among states pertain to the kinds of offenses for which a citizen may lawfully effect an arrest; there is considerable variation. There is also variation in the degree of force that one may employ to prevent escape.

The real problem lies in the realm of civil liability. Once an arrestee is in the custody of a citizen, that citizen bears complete responsibility for the well being of the arrestee. That is a liability that no reasonable person would ever want to assume.

The OP has mused about the possibility of being arrested by mistake. I think the greater risk is that of being shot by mistake, and greater than that is the risk of being shot by the intruder's accomplice.

All downside, no upside.

 

[farson135]

Navy- You are right for felonies, and the case the OP gave is one, but just for those who don't know the laws vary state by state for misdemeanor offenses.

My two cents are yes you can hold the person but when the police arrive you better not be holding that firearm or they might shoot you. THey shouldn't but I would rather not take the chance.

 

[bbuddtec]

Whoa, detain the suspect, call 911 and stay on with them til LEOs arrive.

there is no gray area. The LEOs will not shoot the armed guy who is on with 911...

that's crazy talk. You will follow their lead, from 911 to arrest. It's all on tape. JMO

 

[NavyLCDR]

How about North Carolina? Yes, one may detain, but legally, as a citizen, one may not effect an arrest there.

And that's the key word, DETAIN. The OP is not "imprisioning" anyone, he is DETAINING a person who has committed a crime in his presence until the police arrive who will then further detain the subject until they obtain an arrest warrant based on the probable cause that the subject being detained committed a criminal offense.

The probable cause for the arrest warrant will be the testimony of the OP and the fact that the subject was found inside the house of the OP and, hopefully, there will be physical evidence of a forced entry.

I was the Officer in Charge for a military team responsible for moving items sensitive to national security on public highways. It was the EXACT same situation for us when we would stop and set up our perimiter on the public highways with our deadly force is authorized signs. If someone violated our perimeter and we came into the situation of detaining them under suspicion of their committing a crime of attempting to access sensitive information, we could use force to detain them, up to and including deadly force, until the proper LEO authorities would arrive. We couldn't arrest them, but we could forcibly detain them and then swear to testimony which would result in an arrest warrant. Never happened in real life, but that was our training, our open carry of our firearms deterred criminal actions .

 

[Remo223]

Even a security guard has no authority to detain without consent. What makes you think you, as a private citizen, can hold anyone against their will? If you think you are going to make a guy get on his knees and then call 911 and then shoot the guy for trying to flee, you will go to jail.


No question about it.

 

[Nushif]

Just in terms of comfort zone I wouldn't detain someone without back-up and the *authority* to search them.
I'd probably just tell them to get out and provide a good description.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Even a security guard has no authority to detain without consent. What makes you think you, as a private citizen, can hold anyone against their will? If you think you are going to make a guy get on his knees and then call 911 and then shoot the guy for trying to flee, you will go to jail.


No question about it.

Depends entirely upon state law; and in the absence of state law then common law.

 

[kingcheese]

Indiana has pretty relaxed laws, for example
an inmdividual may legally use "nessicary, but not lethal" force to stop a crime from takeing place, if the crime is dirrectly against you and threatens you, your family, you propperty, or the well being of any third person party, you have the right to use nessicary and lethal force, and are not required to stand down

the reason i would have some one at gunpoint would be if they a)broke into my house and b) gave up when they saw my gun

the idea isnt that im going to try to take him as a prisoneer so to speak, but i dont want to shoot a guy that has given up, and i dont want to let the punk go after breaking into my house

and for thoose of you who do not understand indiana law, dont answer, this scenario is very plainly legal and provisions are written in our law that allows an individual to do this, so no more of this, well its illegal bull crap, it might be illegal where you are, but indiana has certain "castle laws" to protect its citizens

for thoose of you who have been on toipic, thank you, and from what i have gathered i need to contact police as soon as possible(common sense), stay on the phone(i didnt even think about that), and tell them in detail which guy i am, and how to enter so they can see me without being threatened, that all sounds good, any other ideas on trhis?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Even a security guard has no authority to detain without consent. What makes you think you, as a private citizen, can hold anyone against their will? If you think you are going to make a guy get on his knees and then call 911 and then shoot the guy for trying to flee, you will go to jail.


No question about it.

I have shown you the WA State Attorney General's opinion which shows you that you are wrong, in regards to WA State. In addition you are wrong in regards to Texas:

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.

and

(b) A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direction) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

 

[NavyLCDR]

My personal take on it, if the home invasion happens in my house, the perpetrator is going to have about 2 seconds to give up between the time he sees my gun and a muzzle flash. I'm not going to ask them to surrender.

 

[Remo223]

well, go ahead and start detaining bad guys then. Buy yourself a pair of handcuffs. Let us know how it turns out for ya. Don't forget to read them their rights<snicker>

 

[NavyLCDR]

Remo223,

Have you ever been the victim of a home invasion. Maybe you should keep your sarcasm to yourself until you have.

When you leave at 5:00am to go to work and the thug(s) were watching your house for you to leave, and you have to come back because at 5:05 they kicked your front door in and now the police are trying to calm down your wife who was home alone whom the thug(s) surprised because she was in the living room at the time... maybe you will understand.

 

[Averageman]

LT you're wasting your time.
Thanks for your imformative posts, I appreciated them; but some folks just don't get it.

 

[NavyLCDR]

LT you're wasting your time.
Thanks for your imformative posts, I appreciated them; but some folks just don't get it.

It's very difficult to de-program someone who has been brainwashed.