Attacker gives up?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I totally agree with the 'stay on the phone' suggestion. I lived next to a bar and had to call on a drunk that was threatening one of my neighbors. When the cops showed up, the 1st responding officer was getting my description of the guy (he happened to have the same color outfit as me, but a MUCH different physical description). I heard over the cop's radio that other officers saw the suspect in front of the dwelling. The cop I was speaking with had to tell them they saw me not the perpetrator.

You don't want confused officers showing up with you holding a gun on someone. I can't imagine that going well for you.
 
I'm not a cop. I don't want to be a cop.

I'm not detaining anybody.

It's my job to defend myself and anyone else under my care or to whom I feel an obligation.

Once the threat has been neutralized, the last thing I want is to be responsible for somebody who only moments before, was trying to kill or maim me.

If you're my assailant, I want you to be in one of two conditions:
  1. Physically incapacitated and totally unable to present a further threat to me.
  2. Physically absent.
I don't care which.
 
In Kentucky law says this:

(6) A private person may make an arrest when a felony has been committed in fact and he has probable cause to believe that the person being arrested has committed it.
KRS 431.005

Been there, done that.
 
There was a case posted by a Lawyer, from TX I thought, that hollered at the burglar's to get out of his house, he was calling 911 etc. A .40 S&W round was the answer. Fearing for his life and the life of his wife and child, he finished the fight with an 870 Marine Magnum. He was hit once but didn't realize it until he was being interviewed by the responding officers. The VCA's were DRT. I had thought the account of the story was posted on this board but haven't been able to find it. BTW, between himself and his insurance it was about $30,000 to put the house and contents back in order. I rather they ran away too.:fire:
Best,
Rob
 
You know Navy, you really should be a lawyer, it would be nice to have another pro gun lawyer.
 
Originally posted by Remo223
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.

Remo....security guards are not paid to defend their homes, they are paid to defend businesses. No one will sue me for detaining a person while they were in the process of burglarizing my home and threatening the lives of my family and myself.

Unfortunately for a home invader, unless they give up in those first 2 seconds as NavyLT said, the chance of them walking out uninjured is very slim.
 
FWIW there is no jurisdiction in the united states that I can find where forced entry into an occupied residence for the purpose of burglary is NOT a felony.

Trespass is a misdemeanor, yes.

However, Battery requires (1) a volitional act that (2) results in a harmful or offensive contact with another person and (3) is committed for the purpose of causing a harmful or offensive contact or under circumstances that render such contact substantially certain to occur or with a reckless disregard as to whether such contact will result. Assault is an attempted battery or the act of intentionally placing a person in apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with his or her person.

A person is allowed to defend his life from threats to that nature, and to prevent with deadly force if necessary that felonious harm coming to him person or another.

If you placed him in a submissive position, and then neutralized....thats a much different ballgame. Holding him there for authorities is at the basic nature of citizens arrest.

Kudos for you for researching the humane and lawful way out.

After viewing this thread- consult your local statutes and authorities for confirmation, not the internet.
 
Simple - what to do in a specific situation is a corollary of general principles.

Someone is an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm = shoot to stop.
Somebody not an imminent threat = no shoot.

A home invader standing and facing me = imminent threat. A home invader with a gun in his hand, or something that I don't know what it is = imminent threat.

No detainment or arrest, just a continual threat assessment that might result in a threat getting shot. It is not my responsibility to get somebody to comply with verbal orders, or hands up or lay down or cross feet or anything else.

If I think somebody is about to make himself an imminent threat, I would verbally encourage him not to (if I could do so safely).

If I think somebody is about to make himself an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm and I could retreat in complete safety - absolutely I would retreat.
 
Posted by txhoghunter: Unfortunately for a home invader, unless they give up in those first 2 seconds as NavyLT said, the chance of them walking out uninjured is very slim.
You are apparently assuming that the possibility that he will choose to depart is "very slim"; that is precisely what happened in each of the three home invasions that I have repelled over the years. Surely you do not believe that you may lawfully shoot if he opts to leave. Surely you do not think it likely that earwitness testimony, the testimony of one or more of the perps, and/or forensic evidence will fail to indicate that something else happened.

More importantly, however, you are overlooking another very real possibility: that one or more than one home invader will walk out uninjured after one has shot you while your attention had been focussed on the one who had surrendered.

How many burglaries involve only one criminal?

Of those that involve two, what is the likelihood that the armed homeowner will happen to get the drop on both of them?

And should two surrender, what happens to you when the guy in the car decides to investigate?

You really do not want to shoot anyone, but of course you may have to.

You really, really do not want to be holding someone at gunpoint, unless you know that he has been acting alone, and unless you can manage to not have a gun in your hand (and to not be overcome by the perp at that point) when first responders arrive.

So, what do you do in the unhappy circumstance that a home invader should surrender to you? Well, perhaps you could tell your family to remain in a safe room, and you can find a place in which to be that would be relatively safe from ambush....

The thing is, these are not the days of Blackstone, during which a felon who had fled the scene was as good as gone; these are not the days of Bonnie and Clyde, in which fleeing crooks could drive to another state and operate there in anonymity; these are not the days of Adam 12, in which a description given over the radio was the only thing the police had to go on.

These are the days of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and all of the others of their ilk, and of all of their minions, in which your cell phone photos and security camera images can be sent almost instantly to the screens of every police officer for miles around.

You are much, much safer if they leave forthwith. They won't be going very far, and their detention and apprehension will not put you in the gravest danger.

I like Deanimator's philosophy:

I'm not a cop. I don't want to be a cop.

I'm not detaining anybody.

It's my job to defend myself and anyone else under my care or to whom I feel an obligation.

Once the threat has been neutralized, the last thing I want is to be responsible for somebody who only moments before, was trying to kill or maim me.

If you're my assailant, I want you to be in one of two conditions:

  1. Physically incapacitated and totally unable to present a further threat to me.
  2. Physically absent.

I don't care which.

...with one minor nuance: I much prefer physically absent.
 
if they don't beat feet when confronted by an armed man it changes the game for me. it stops being an invasion and looks like something personal and i'm the target. so i'm like cop bob from that point on. that if i get a safe chance to not have to shoot someone i will take it but i'm making the call on whether its safe
 
as to the mention of accidental discharge, if the attacker has surrendered, i would have them in a position where they couldnt see me(ie back towards me), at the point it would not longer be nesicary for me to have my gun "on them" anylonger, they wouldnt know the difference

once police show up i no longer have a use for my gun, i would unload it, and set the gun in a very visable place, and keep the ammunition with me

call 911, stay on the phone, make your descripition as clear as possible, and do what the police say, it all sounds good

thanks for the advice

and to remo, if you are so sure that i do not have a right to detain an attacker, in my home, i dare you to try to break into my house and we will see how that works out for you
my mind is dead set on not shooting unless i feel it is nesicary, and i will not shoot for any reason other then to protect my self and my family, the thing is, someone might see me and decide it is in their best intrest to give up on the spot(crazier things have happened)
 
Posted by kingcheese: if the attacker has surrendered, i would have them in a position where they couldnt see me(ie back towards me), at the point it would not longer be nesicary for me to have my gun "on them" anylonger, they wouldnt know the difference

Once police show up i no longer have a use for my gun,...
Do not think for a moment that one of the "uses" you have for your gun is to keep the perp from leaving. Your gun is to protect yourself and your family, not to enforce the law.

You may choose to detain, if you think it wise for some reason, and in most jurisdictions you may use force to prevent escape, but you may not use deadly force to do so.

Some criminals do not know that, but some are well aware of it.
 
if i where to be in a position where i had eaned somebody, the "use" for my gun would soley be if they changed their mind and decided to be hostil, if they got up an ran away, so be it, if they get up and try to attack me... well, you guys understand what would happen
 
If someone were to force their way into my home and it the situation played out where I had them on the floor while I stood back with my weapon drawn I would do all I could to stay on the line with 911 until a LEO arrived.

It would probably be viewed as excessive if one were to throw the invader into a well dug in their basement :)

With all that said, here in the empire state of NY I probably would be the one to end up in jail for violating the intruders human rights by drawing my weapon.:barf:
 
How about a home alarm system that plays Deguelo?
At some point if you decide my property is more valuable than your life and enter my home to remove that property.....
You made a really bad decison.
I would do my best to make sure you are given the opportunity to be arrested.
Beyond that it is about not making two bad decisons in one night.
 
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.

At least in SC, security guards can and often do make arrests that are 100% legal. They are granted the authority of a sheriff's deputy while on patrolled grounds. I imagine many states have something similar. Additionally, SC has a castle doctrine that extends to automobiles, homes, and places of business. Of course, you can't shoot a fleeing felon in this state (or any?) unless there is direct threat to life in doing so. But my motivation to detain would to be to neutralize a threat, not to bring a criminal to justice. I would be wary to detain someone concerning civil liability, but ultimately I would probably do so if I thought police would be long in responding or the situation required detainment to be safe. A few long, strong zip ties go a long way...

S.L.E.D. Licensed Security Officers
Authority to Arrest
SECTION 40-18-110.

A person who is registered or licensed under this chapter and who is hired or employed to provide security services on specific property is granted the authority and arrest power given to sheriff's deputies. The security officer may arrest a person violating or charged with violating a criminal statute of this State but possesses the powers of arrest only on the property on which he is employed.
 
I think the major point in contention here is not whether or not you can detain the bad guy, but HOW you detain him.

No one can legally shoot a suspect that is trying to escape. Not even the police. You can only shoot to protect yourself from eminent danger. If a suspect is running away, and you want to detain him, you will just have to restrain him in some way that does not exceed "reasonable force" (however your state defines that).

You are within your rights to rope him, sit on him, or lock him up in some way until police arrive to take charge, but you cannot shoot him if he has dropped his weapon and is trying to run away.
 
Posted by rhodco: If a suspect is running away, and you want to detain him, you will just have to restrain him in some way that does not exceed "reasonable force" (however your state defines that).
...or however your civil jury defines that, should you not find it wiser to reduce the risk of a very large judgment by making an out of court settlement.

However, that's just the legal side of the equation. The tactical side is equally important. One of our LEO members has opined that trying to restrain or cuff someone is one of the most dangerous tasks in law enforcement.

That may be why the police officers around here always wait for backup before doing so.
 
rhodco said:
No one can legally shoot a suspect that is trying to escape. Not even the police.

Once again, false information is posted. Do you even bother to look up your own laws in your state?

In Georgia:

O.C.G.A. § 17-4-20 (2011)

§ 17-4-20. Authorization of arrests with and without warrants generally; use of deadly force; adoption or promulgation of conflicting regulations, policies, ordinances, and resolutions; authority of nuclear power facility security officer

(b) Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to restrict such sheriffs or peace officers from the use of such reasonable nondeadly force as may be necessary to apprehend and arrest a suspected felon or misdemeanant.

Notice the requirements:

Suspected felon
Reasonably believes
Possesses a deadly weapon or object
Likely to result is serious bodily injury.

That's all that is required for a police officer to shoot a person escaping arrest.

For example. I call the police and say a guy wearing a black mask and a red shirt and carrying a gun broke into my house and he fled when I pointed my gun at him. Responding police see a guy wearing a black mask and a red shirt running down the street one block from my house and yell for him to stop. The guy keeps running. The police have absolutely every justification to shoot him.

Care to try again?
 
Remember Rodney King? Set aside the trials and the riots for a moment and think (or Bing) back to the initial arrest. Big strapping guy, mild retardation, had been drinking that night, car chase. When the cops tried to swarm him to cuff him, he tossed 4 cops off of him. He was tased twice and didn't drop. He was beaten with metal batons because, at the time, that was considered more humane than either shooting him or trying to choke him out. The cops beat him and injured him because they didn't have the training and experience to use their batons properly.

What non-shooting plan might work for one guy wanting to detain a Rodney King who wants to leave?

And remember that plenty of monsters have been shot and not gone down. It should terrify you to imagine shooting your full mag and backup mag of 45 (or 9, or 380, or whatever) at or into some monster, and not dropping him. If the monster wants to leave, be happy.
 
Gray_Mana said:
Remember Rodney King?

There is more evidence that exists that a person will be successful in detaining an intruder until police arrive than there is that a person won't.

You show us one case, Rodney King.

Post #39 contains 6 examples of success in only about 2 minutes of Google time.
 
Posted by NavyLT: For example. I call the police and say a guy wearing a black mask and a red shirt and carrying a gun broke into my house and he fled when I pointed my gun at him. Responding police see a guy wearing a black mask and a red shirt running down the street one block from my house and yell for him to stop. The guy keeps running. The police have absolutely every justification to shoot him.
Not so fast--too many assumptions here.

A citizen's report that a person has been reported to have committed a felony is most unlikely to provide an officer with a lawful basis for a reason to suspect that a person meeting the description of that person, even in the same time frame and vicinity, is a felon. Nor is a citizen's report that a person meeting that description had been carrying a gun likely to provide the officer with a lawful basis for a reasonable belief that the person possessed a deadly weapon, or that the person posed an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others. Nor would said report likely provide probable cause to believe that the person meeting that description has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

Should it ever be put to the test, the outcome would depend upon what a "reasonable officer" knowing the same information would have concluded at the time.

I believe it would hinge on three considerations. The first two are (1) the officer's ability to identify the fleeing person as a suspected felon with minimal chance of mistaken identity and (2) the officer's reason for believing that the suspect was in fact armed and dangerous. The third has to do with the question of whether it was reasonably possible to apprehend the fleeing suspect before he had endangered others, without using deadly force. That is a fundamental legal principle.

That third factor is applied in a climate of continuing technological evolution. The English Common Law was first set forth in a time in which the escape of a felon from the scene of a crime meant that he was as good as gone, and that had not changed by the time of Blackstone's Commentaries, or by the time of Thomas Jefferson, for that matter. Garner v. Tennessee involved a burglary that took place during the era of the Adam 12 police television series, at which time car radios and patrol cars were used. Forty plus years later, we are now in an era of GPS, untethered networked computers, smart phones, stabilized cameras on police helicopters, instantaneous remote fingerprinting, touch trace DNA analysis, and so on. Just as Garner v. Tennessee made mention of the evolution of technology that had taken place since the foundation of the common law, one can expect newer technology to enter into future rulings in terms of the determination of necessity.

None of the police officers and retired officers I know today would even consider firing at a fleeing person under such circumstances.

Of course, the original scenario had to do with the options available to a civilian in a burglary, and deadly force is not among them.
 
Point is there are a lot of people stating things as facts, when the actual statutes do not back those statements up.

Examples:

"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. 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?"

Proven to be incorrect.

"No one can shoot a fleeing suspect, not even the police."

Proven to be incorrect.
 
in IN, any force that is not considered lethal is legal for ANY person tryimg tp retard the effort of another person who is committing a crime, even if you are just a third party

im not here to discuss legality, if you still feel the need to tell me that what i am talking about is illegal, then you must not live in indiana

i found out a lor of usefull information so far, and that leaves me with one last step, talk to local law enforcement to see how they want the situation to be handled if it turns out i have a detained someone in this manner
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top