Attacker gives up?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone mentioned some of these above and agree, "if" caught in a situation like that even if you are not in your own home alway's call 911 ASAP and keep the dispach on the phone tell them you are armed and defending yourself. Now once the police show up "DO WHAT THEY SAY", even if it is drop your weapon and put your hand's up. The criminal is still in front of you but you will only make a bad situation worse by not letting them get the situation under their terms.
 
Posted by kingcheese: 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.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of another reason.

The problem is, it really isn't a very good situation in which to be.

.. but i dont want to shoot a guy that has given up,...
Click to expand...
Good. That would be murder, if you did so knowingly and willfully. Do not read more into the castle doctrine laws than their real intent, which is to provide you with a presumption of a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. That presumption is rebuttable. Yeah, you may get by with it, but you may not.

...and i dont want to let the punk go after breaking into my house.
Click to expand...
That's very understandable.

But, (1) he may well be out on bail shortly anyway; (2) while you are holding him, you are vulnerable to ambush by any accomplices the "punk" may have; (3) there is the possibility that he may get the upper hand during the wait, should you be distracted; (4) there is the chance of a negligent discharge while you are waiting, and it would not be justified; (5) while you are detaining them, you are responsible for their well being, and unlike a policeman, you do not have the backing of the community to defray the liability; and (6) there is the OP's original concern about arriving police officers.

I rate (2), (3), and (4) as high risk; (5) and (6) as moderate to low risk; and (1) as an indication of low return.

I have stopped three home invasions by violent criminal actors by the mere production of a weapon and some industrial strength coaching. I detained none of them. I think it likely that, had I tried to hold them, they would have been on the street within hours anyway. I want them gone.
 
A citizen's arrest or detainment of someone that just committed a felony (and almost always a violent felony) is legal in most circumstances under most states' law. Even various levels of force are allowed to affect this arrest.
However as someone else pointed out it is dangerous in today's society because the individual assumes all liability for their well being at that point. You may protect yourself and follow the law but lose everything in the resulting civil suit.


The biggest concern is not what is technically legal, but what can be viewed in different ways by people who were not there.
People that were not there are not going to know what you know for a fact happened, and very tiny details can take things from self defense to illegal homicide.
You may have actually done everything lawfully, but if they believe otherwise that is what matters under the law and you can be convicted even after breaking no law.

The big issue is that if you have to shoot someone after previously gaining control, it is often claimed by a prosecutor that they were shot as punishment after surrender (which is the case in some incidents) rather than in self defense. That is illegal.
So if they surrender, and then attempt to overpower or move towards you and get shot at some point, you may have legally been justified, but still go to prison because only you know that.


Similarly people go to prison for trying to lawfully stop car thefts all the time.
In most of the United States it is entirely legal to go stop any theft and make a citizen's arrest, and to stop felonies in most of the US. It would certainly also be intuitive to bring a weapon just in case the thief has a weapon (and most likely does, at a minimum the tools used to break in.) So far that is all legal in most states.
It would then be legal to attempt to detain or arrest in most states. If they posed a lethal threat at some point during this attempt it would also be entirely legal to use lethal force in many states.
However if the criminal was to pose a lethal threat and be shot a prosecutor will paint a picture of someone angry about the crime being committed grabbing a gun and going out to punish the criminal. That is illegal.
Yet the evidence and facts for both look almost identical, it is the intent that clearly differentiates the two, and since nobody can read your mind, what may have been entirely legal results in prison time in many cases.
Because you put yourself in that situation unnecessarily they often won't give you the benefit of the doubt.



So following the law alone is not itself the only criteria, other people need to know you were following the law after the fact.
Self defense during a break in is a lot more clear after the fact than detainment, the details of what transpired during that detainment, and whether all those actions were done properly, and what type of motivation existed for lethal force if it was used after that detainment.
That is a big part of why most people recommend letting the criminal escape over detaining them. The more complicated the situation the more likely you will find yourself in a legal battle and possibly be convicted or lose civilly even if you do everything properly and to the letter of the law. You may follow the law perfectly, but the people in court may not take your word for it after the fact.
 
Last edited:
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?

Every state, except NC, has some provision for citizen's arrest. Security guards are usually told not to detain anyone without consent because if they make a mistake guess who's going to get sued the $8 an hour security guard or the security company.

The amount of force in making a citizen's arrest does vary widely throughout the states.
 
LT you're wasting your time.
Thanks for your imformative posts, I appreciated them; but some folks just don't get it.
Click to expand...

+1
Some folks just do not get it. Twice i've had shootouts with home invaders. Leaking home invaders were held at gun point after both incidents. Got kudos from the police for my work both times.
 
Grizz is correct. Many years ago, when I was a security guard, we were told exactly what constituted a citizen's arrest, to make sure we never ever did it. Get as many details as possible, do not confront or corner. Do not force anyone to make a decision that could turn violent.

If I confront an uninvited person in my house, I will shoot if necessary. If it is not necessary, I will demand that they leave. I suppose that irrational desperate people could possibly re-offend in the same house where they just walked away from a shotgun, but I think it is much more likely that they will get caught incident to my 911 call or in a future criminal event.

I might add that I have worked as an interpreter for Marines training foreign armies how to conduct checkpoints, and search and detain prisoners. I have been over this many times, I know the steps. It it is not something I want to try without backup.
 
Last edited:
Oh I get it. You guys don't. Like I said before...go ahead and detain a few people if you're so sure of yourselves. Hopefully you will come to your senses before you do though. I recommend you read post numbers 28 and 31 first.
 
When I had a home invasion, I displayed a decorative short sword and gained compliance of the man who'd broken into my home. This was before I owned a firearm, but a sword under his chin calmed him down. I appraised that the man was very drunk and apparently unarmed, so I shoved him back out of the door and secured the door before calling the police.

He continued to try to break in until the police arrived. My being armed was not a deterrent enough to send him away. Had he been armed and able to break the door back down, I would have lost my only advantage (that I had gained the drop on him in the first place).
 
Though let me tell another story;

When working at a pawn shop, a thief came in to pawn a stolen drill. As we were turning him down -- he had no batteries nor charger for the cheap black and decker drill -- the owner came in. The thief had apparently stolen this on the street moments before and walked in to pawn it, bold as day.

A fight ensued in which the thief was trying to escape the apparent owner's grasp. The owner was trying to kick the crap out of the thief. I broke up the fight and let the thief escape.

In that situation, I had two hostile parties. Even if I'd wanted to hold the thief, there was no way to do so without allowing the owner to throw sucker punches. The drill was worth, at best, $30 new. To us in the resale business it was completely without worth. So the thief would get away with a slap on the wrist regardless, and the violent means by which the owner sought detention would likely land him in more trouble than the little thief in the first place.

Even though I have a lot of the same rights to defend my place of business as I do my home, in my *home invasion* the bad guy was coming to do me wrong. He wasn't about to give up easily. In the *thief at a business* sense, the bad guy was looking for cash and an escape. I'm afraid that we're confusing the two in this thread, where they're very different things.
 
Honestly, I think surrender on the part of an intruder is more likely than a fight, just based on my experiences in dealing with violent and non-violent criminals professionally. Most of the remaining suspects will run. Only a small percentage will stand their ground against you. The decision to shoot (or not shoot) at an intruder is one that needs to be made on the part of the individual, in a split second or two. I'm not going to play the chest-thump game here, and say that any intruder will absolutely be shot. The situation and circumstances will determine what happens on that level.

In the event of a surrendering bad guy:

To me, surrender would involve pretty much complete compliance. The suspect will be proned-out on the floor, just as I'd do with a subject in a high-risk contact at work. I'd call the police and provide them with the details the need to respond appropriately to the situation, and I'd try to stay on the phone with dispatch until they arrived:

"I'm the homeowner at 123 Main St. A person just broke into my house, and I have him proned-out at gun point in my living room. I need the police immediately. I'm wearing a red shirt and blue jeans. The suspect is wearing all black. Tell the officers that I'm armed, and I'll put my gun down and do what they need once they arrive".

In a situation such as you described, my biggest concern would not be avoiding arrest, it would be avoiding friendly fire from the responding officers. When the officers arrive on a call like this you need to be VERY careful about how you respond. LISTEN to their orders, and comply with them. Don't turn towards them, and don't point your gun at them. You'll probably have their guns pointed at you, at least until they sort things out. Keep a cool head, and move slowly and in a predictable manner when you're contacted by the police.
 
Got tired of reading for give me if it's been posted already. N a year or more back in Arizona I believe I guy had intruder detained in his house wife called 911. The police came saw him drawn down on bad guy and shot him dead.
Another thought you tell 911 he's given up and you are detaining him then the bad guy decides he's not going to jail and forces you to shoot him
Sure there is castle doctrine but you may see problems
 
Folks in OK detain burglars, home invaders and thieves every day. No civil lawsuit against a perps intended victim is going to happen. It will get tossed out of court. In OK i never heard of a perp who was detained by his intended victim suing the person who detained him/her.

OK prosecutors are elected. Most OK prosecutors care less how a perp is detained by his intended victim so long as he is not unduly injured after he surrenders.

Biggest problem is avoiding being shot by the responding cops.
 
http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2011/04/05/r_fnef384nrhioy5ks9e6dcq/index.xml

Forget about the perps surrendering.... chase them down as they are fleeing! :evil:

http://www.foxcarolina.com/news/24076266/detail.html

"The officers said they were glad I protected myself, but they said they were glad I didn't shoot him," Easler said. "I said, 'Why is that?' And they said, 'Because it would have been a whole lot more paperwork.'"
Click to expand...

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dallas-Man-Defends-Neighbors-House-102811664.html

Dallas police said they are grateful for Lennox's help but don't recommend it, saying they are glad he called 911 first.
Click to expand...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/specialpr...ctid=450&articleid=20110304_11_0_Tulsap300380

Tulsa police arrested a juvenile early Friday morning on allegations of burglary after the suspect broke into a home and the homeowner held him at gunpoint, police said.
Click to expand...

http://www.bradenton.com/2010/03/21/2146832/manatee-sheriff-homeowner-holds.html

As Tinyes walked towards the resident, he awoke, grabbed a gun and held Tinyes at gunpoint until deputies arrived.

Tinyes was arrested and was being held at the Manatee County jail on bonds totaling $10,240 on charges of burglary, theft and criminal mischief.
Click to expand...

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9004502
When the homeowner went to investigate, armed with a gun, he found a man going through items in his utility room. He held the burglar at gunpoint until officers arrived.

Jacob D. Brehm, 25, 314 Sonnett Court, was arraigned Wednesday on a charge of aggravated burglary and is scheduled to appear in Kingsport General Sessions Court Thursday. He remains in the Sullivan County Detention Center on $15,000 bond.

Police say Brehm entered the residence through a dog door.
Click to expand...

Notice any pattern here, Remo223? Shall I continue? Maybe work toward all 50 states?
 
Last edited:
IMO:

If the opportunity presents, I'll order an invader to surrender, get on the ground, etc. If he chooses to flee, unarmed AWAY FROM ME AND MY FAMILY, I will neither pursue nor fire.

My objective is to stop the attack, preserve the lives in my charge, and preserve my property* in that order. Chasing or firing upon an unarmed, fleeing felon does not contribute towards those goals.




*Not creating legal fees also counts as preserving property, you know.
 
...my biggest concern would not be avoiding arrest, it would be avoiding friendly fire from the responding officers.
Click to expand...

Biggest problem is avoiding being shot by the responding cops.
Click to expand...
I do not want to understate that risk, but I'm not sure that is more of a concern than being ambushed by an accomplice or ending up with a negligent discharge.

a year or more back in Arizona I believe I guy had intruder detained in his house wife called 911. The police came saw him drawn down on bad guy and shot him dead.
Click to expand...
The citizen was shot several times and sustained serious injuries with some loss of function. This incident, to which NavyLT referred, illustrates that the risk is real.

Another thought you tell 911 he's given up and you are detaining him then the bad guy decides he's not going to jail and forces you to shoot him
Click to expand...
If you shoot someone whom you have been detaining, you will have to present evidence that he changed his mind and decided to attack someone who was holding a gun on him. Tough sell.

No civil lawsuit against a perps intended victim is going to happen. It will get tossed out of court. In OK i never heard of a perp who was detained by his intended victim suing the person who detained him/her.
Click to expand...
Well, in a home invasion, no intruder would have grounds to sue for damages associated with false arrest or unlawful detention. The risk arises in the event that he sustains an injury or medical emergency while you have him on the floor. The fact that he had been committing a crime does not deny him compensation for that.

When police officers affect an arrest, they must be very mindful of how much force they employ after the suspect has been taken into custody, how tightly they secure handcuffs, etc. And they are indemnified by the community.

I really don't see any reason to try to detain anyone. I want them gone. Yes, we do want them brought to justice, and yes, in the days of Blackstone a fleeing felon was unlikely to ever be apprehended, but things have changed in a big way. Pictures from a cell phone can be disseminated to police officers in minutes.
 
a year or more back in Arizona I believe I guy had intruder detained in his house wife called 911. The police came saw him drawn down on bad guy and shot him dead.
Click to expand...

Blue ice falls from the sky too, doesn't mean you shouldn't go for a walk.
 
"I'm the homeowner at 123 Main St. A person just broke into my house, and I have him proned-out at gun point in my living room. I need the police immediately. I'm wearing a red shirt and blue jeans. The suspect is wearing all black. Tell the officers that I'm armed, and I'll put my gun down and do what they need once they arrive".
Click to expand...

If you read some police transcripts - the dispatcher may tell the officers to go to your house as there is a man in a red shirt with a gun.

OOPS - something to think about. Don't trust the message to be clear. I would try to avoid being the guy pointed a gun at someone when the law arrives.

Recently a plain clothes officer was killed (IIRC) pointing a gun at a criminal. When the officers arrived, some idiot in the crowd yelled gun and one officer shot the plainclothes officer - in NYC, I think.
 
Originally Posted by NavyLT
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.
Click to expand...

This.

My question upon reading this was why haven't you fired yet (upon making sure it IS an intruder, that is)?
 
Just because it's an intruder, and just because you can probably get away with shooting them under Castle Doctrine, doesn't mean that you have to shoot them. Even if you are legally covered, it doesn't mean that you are in legitimate fear of your life and you have to shoot. Legal does not equal ethical and moral.

Remember, the goal here is not to get to shoot someone. The goal here is to NOT GET SHOT.
 
The idea is to stop the attack, If the guy breaks it off and leaves my job is done. If he doesn't, well, we all know what happens next. I do NOT have a responsibility to apprehend.
 
kingcheese said:
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
Click to expand...
Have you practice your scenario in your home? What make you think you can even perform under stress?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Self defense questions/new gun owner
2
Replies
27
Views
949
Kleanbore
K
J
  • Locked
Calling the police after intentionally brandishing? - Massad Ayoob says don't bother!
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
cgraham
C
StrikeFire83
  • Locked
Home invasion situation…where to aim?
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
Jeff White
J
M
  • Locked
long story, how I about got attacked
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
chuckusaret
C
G
  • Locked
Everyday preparedness
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Manedwolf
M
Back
Top