Attacker gives up?

[Buck Snort]

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.

Ah, c'mon. If the option is to just plug the guy I'll opt for holding him at gunpoint untill the fuzz arrives on the scene.

 

[Losov]

Just curious. Was anyone here taught in their concealed carry course exactly how to take and hold a prisoner? I wasn't. I strongly suspect the reason for that is that I'm not supposed to do it.

 

[03Shadowbob]

I am not a mind reader so I have no idea if an intruder means to commit murder or not. All I know is that I will feel like my life is in danger and will act accordingly. It is not my job to ask questions to the bad guy. My job is to protect my family.
Circumstances do dictate everything you do and breaking into my home will dictate my actions quickly and accordingly.

 

[zollen]

Have you practice your scenario in your home? What make you think you can even perform under stress?

 

[kingcheese]

Just curious. Was anyone here taught in their concealed carry course exactly how to take and hold a prisoner? I wasn't. I strongly suspect the reason for that is that I'm not supposed to do it.

\where i live theese classes are not required, i didnt take them, im talking about in my house anyways, so why would i have a concealed weapon? side by side 12ga is my go to gun

It is not my job to ask questions to the bad guy.

nor is it mine

Have you practice your scenario in your home? What make you think you can even perform under stress

?
that isnt even remotely helpful, people seem to believe practice makes perfect, i do not, what am i suppose to do? hire someone to break into my house?
im not sure there is a way to "practice for this, as long as yoi know you are safe you are going to act less agressivaly

 

[Losov]

I don't necessarily think it's illegal as I believe it's a citizen's arrest. However, I only know how we took and held prisoners decades ago in the military. I know nothing about how it's done in the civilian world and have no training whatsoever in that arena. I'm certainly not going to make it up as I go along or proceed by what I've seen on TV. So if the threat from the BG is neutralized, he gets out of there and I give his description to the police.

 

[ccw_steve]

I think NavyLT just owned everyone on this thread

Seriously though, it is obvious your comments have been thought through a little more than the typical post. It is surprisingly refreshing...

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here's the deal in my house,

1. Someone breaks into my house. I draw my gun and they continue with whatever they were doing, they are getting shot at. I am THEN calling the police first and carpet cleaners second.

2. Someone breaks into my house. I draw my gun and they turn around and run out the door, I am letting them go. I am THEN calling the police.

3. Someone breaks into my house. I draw my gun and they throw their hands up in the air and says, "Whoa, dude, don't shoot, I give." I am proning them out on the floor face down and THEN calling the police explaining the situation. I may or may not put the pink fuzzy handcuffs on them. Then I am calling the carpet cleaners.

It all depends on how the situation develops.

 

[zollen]

that isnt even remotely helpful, people seem to believe practice makes perfect, i do not, what am i suppose to do? hire someone to break into my house?
im not sure there is a way to "practice for this, as long as yoi know you are safe you are going to act less agressivaly

Since when you practice tactical shooting in a specific environment by shooting real people? Have you practiced against an imaginary robbery in your home? Have you done any drills at home?

Yes. I firmly believe practice make perfect. No doubt about that.

What do you mean: you think you are safe and therefore you act less aggressively?

Are you saying even you have firearms, you would be hesitate to use it during robbery?

 

[coloradokevin]

"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".

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.

Yeah, there are always some variables that are tough to account for in these kinds of situations. Brain-dead dispatchers are certainly one of them, and they certainly exist, at least in my department. When push comes to shove, there may come a day when an armed citizen has a bad guy at gun point as the police arrive on a scene. This is a very scary situation, and the citizen had better be thinking about his actions carefully in those very critical moments. As a police officer myself, I worry about the possibility of receiving "friendly" fire if I ever take police actions while off-duty. The concern is valid, and a number of cops (and citizens) have been killed due to a mistaken identity during a critical incident.

...my biggest concern would not be avoiding arrest, it would be avoiding friendly fire from the responding officers.

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.

I didn't mean to imply that there were not more pressing concerns during a critical incident such as a home invasion. I merely meant to say that I'd be more worried about the responding officers accidentally shooting me than I would be about them accidentally arresting me. Handcuffs come off easily, whereas bullet wounds take a bit more work to remedy. I certainly recognize that there are more pressing tactical concerns during these incidents, but I was simply trying to respond to the OP's concerns about being arrested.

 

[kingcheese]

zollen, if you "practice" a situation like this you can not consider your self prepared, the fact is practice is not the real thing, its just not, there is no way you can even make it close to the same, imagining an oppent simply dont work, because you will be drawing of assumptions on how your opponent will act/react, so youd have to have a real person to make it a little more realistic, its not like you are planning on shooting them, that why you can have some twist thrown at you

now that i discussed why i need a real person to help practice, here is why it wont work, the guy you are practicing against knows you, and you know him, so if you are practicing you are going to be calmer, if your calmer you are not going to have adrenaline messing with your thought prosses, thus you will be less agressive in controlling your oppenent

practice does not make perfect, it will help a little, but real experience is always better, what you are describbing would be similar to someone claiming to be a karate expert, after watching a show on the discovery channel about karate

sounds like i might as well just tie up the person instead of using my gun to keep him in check, maybe a spray bottle too

 

[kingcheese]

navylt, i appreciate your post, but in this thread im only worried about the 3rd scenario, i know i could handle the first two fine

also, how much does a set of pink fuzzy handcuffs cost, it might be useful to keep around if this happens, or i could use some jumbo zip ties i guess

to everyone else, the situation would devolpe like this:
some one breaks into my house, i grab my gun as soon as i hear someone moving around
then i try to identify who it is, if it is someone that lives with me, then i dont shoot, if it is i raise my gun

if it is someone who shouldnt be there after i pull up my gun, they either run, attack, or give up

they run, its over
they attack, i shoot, then its over
they give up, now what?

i figure the best course of action is to imobolize them through the use of "pink fuzzy handcuffs" as described by navy, then to call the police, then to unload my weapon, leave the action open, and the gun a good ten-15 feet away from either of us, at the point, i would be very unhappy if the local police decided that i should be shot, and would probably cuss a bit upon them shooting at me/killing me

if they shot me i would be very tempted to shoot them with my much bigger gun, not really sure why they would need to shoot however, police are suppose to identifiy a threat then decide how to handle it, obviously if i do not have a weapon, i am in a very visable location, my lights our on, and my hands are visable/away from my body and open, they would have no reason to shoot me, maybe arrest me until further notice, but id imagine there are worse things then a minor inconvinince

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by kingcheese: I figure the best course of action is to imobolize them through the use of "pink fuzzy handcuffs" as described by navy,

Three problems with that:

1. Unless they simply choose to let you do it, or unless you are sufficiently superior in strengh and leverage and trained in restraining someone, that is not going to happen,
2. while you are so engaged, and afterward for that matter, you are vulnerable to ambush by one or more of his associates, and
3. should he suffer any ill effects while in the cuffs or while you are trying to put them on, you are liable.

I do not recommend creating those problems for yourself. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

 

[Cop Bob]

my take on a few things...

Geeze, leave for a few days... and suddenly we are comparing a home owning crime victim to a security guard and Rodney King....

A Commissioned Security Guard does the right to detain, however most security companies that employ those guards do not want the liability issue if their $8.00 an hour employee screws up... and given the chance they would, given their level of training and expertise.... Therefore they generally put policies in place against it.. it is why many businesses hire off duty police officers instead of security guards.. it shifts the responsibility from the business and onto the individual officer,and to the police department that employs them... You are talking about yourself and your home here... You and only you make the determination as to how far you are willing to go..

Rodney King, doesn't even apply, those were police officers that were repeatedly assaulting a man that was down, the use of force in his arrest may have been initially justified, but they carried it too far.. As police officers we were taught, You use force only when you HAVE too... when you do use it, mean it, anyone worth hitting is worth hitting as hard as you can... violence of action is a means in and of itself.. but bear in mind, people are watching, and "Brutality begins, where resistance ends..."

You as a property owner do have rights, and detaining someone who has broken into your home, or committed a crime against your person or property, you are perfectly within your rights in most jurisdictions to detain that individual.. You just can't beat the heck out of him because you feel like it..

Handcuffs, not many have them laying around, zip ties, if you have them, no problem in using them, just don't "Over Apply" them... there is no problem either with holding someone at gunpoint... Myself, there is no way I would "Just let them leave" But this is ME.. my background is different from many on this forum...

Use of force on a fleeing suspect, varies from state to state, check your states laws.. in NEVER looks good if the holes are in the back, for police officers, it is the kiss of death for your freedom and career. However citizens are judged by a different and looser standard in most jurisdictions.. for the answer to than one, check your own individual state laws.. and your own gut.

Previous versions of the laws in Texas on the use of force were pretty loose, Authorized in many cases, Fleeing from a felony, an aggravated felony, arson, or theft or criminal mischief committed during the night time regardless of the aggregate amount of theft or damage created by the criminal mischief.. Now those laws have been changed, the criminal mischief during the the night time language removed, as well as a misdemeanor theft during the night time allowance, and the former language of "with no reasonable right to recover property by other means" has been removed.. But hey, they gave us the Castle Law... mixed feelings on that one, the old law was pretty lenient..

Liability for the use of handcuffs? Not really, they would have to prove intent, and that they were intentionally applied in a manner calculated to cause harm.. the only harm that I can see from a set of tight cuffs is temporary nerve aggravation to the wrists, and then only in a prolonged application, for HOURS very tight.. Heck if an officer doesn't take time to lock the cuff, suspects often mistakenly lean back against something and tighten them them selves.. and that nerve aggravation is generally temporary... never seen one permanent case of it in 30 years, heard prisoners bitch about it every day...

It is rare that any real physical harm comes from the use of handcuffs when they are properly applied and used as intended, as TEMPORARY restraints.. I saw red hands on a regular basis... happens daily, in hundreds of arrest in just about every jurisdiction in the world... apply them snug enough to hold and not be able to slip out of them,but not tight enough to cut circulation. After folks settle down, lock them.. besides, when the police arrive, they will swap them out with their own cuffs anyway... they don't want to explain the pink fuzzy ones to the jailer either.. But trust me, they will ask you, and hopefully keep a straight face..

Now as far as safety in applying handcuffs, toss them to the crook and have him handcuff himself.. it is amazing how compliant they can be when staring down the barrel of a hog leg.. I have done this myself when dealing with multiple suspects... Have them handcuff themselves to somehing solid and immobile... unless they set the house on fire, you should be OK..

Bottom line, check your own state laws, check your own gut.. do what your big enough to do... within those guidelines..

 

[tmknecht]

In Wisconsin a citizen can detain a suspect if he is eye-witness to OR has probable cause of a felony. In Wisconsin a citizen can detain a suspect for a misdemeanor only if he is eyewitness to the misdemeanor. Even then a citizen can only detain for a "reasonable amount of time" 10-20 minutes. So in WI, detain, call police and follow their instruction to avoid liability.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Cop Bob: there is no problem either with holding someone at gunpoint...

Actually, there are several problems:

1. While you are doing so, you are vulnerable to ambush;
2. there is some risk of a negligent discharge; and
3. the perp may well be aware that you cannot use the gun to hold him, which makes the idea reater pointless.

Liability for the use of handcuffs? Not really, they would have to prove intent, and that they were intentionally applied in a manner calculated to cause harm..

Do not think that intent is an essential element of civil liability.

 

[Crusader103]

Just curious. Was anyone here taught in their concealed carry course exactly how to take and hold a prisoner? I wasn't. I strongly suspect the reason for that is that I'm not supposed to do it.

As a matter of fact, many of my courses include "holding a suspect at gunpoint." I do not teach concealed carry courses however. With few exceptions, I focus on advanced firearms training.

Nonetheless, while I do not recommend holding someone at gunpoint, there are times that holding a suspect at gunpoint becomes a very real possibility.

You must understand that even if you shoot someone the likelihood of them falling down and dying immediately is very slim. Most people surivive their gunshot wounds. Therefore, let's say you shoot someone and they are stopped or incapacitated, but only momentarily. They may not be in a position to get up and run away, even if they wanted to. Nonetheless, they may still constitute a threat - just not one that calls for immediately shooting them again.

I could think of endless scenarios where you may be forced to hold a suspect at gunpoint, not by choice but because the situation demands it. The bottom line is that you need to have a plan.

But to answer your question, yes, if you seek out advanced training you can, and should, receive some level of training on holding a suspect at gunpoint. After proper instruction, I personally use a "red gun" and have students direct each other while "calling 911," whereas I play the dispatcher and then the responding officer. It's for the same reason that I teach room clearing techniques to individuals that I teach them how to interact with suspects..... I don't recommend doing it but there's an endless number of ways in which you may be forced to do it. You might as well know how.

 

[zollen]

zollen, if you "practice" a situation like this you can not consider your self prepared, the fact is practice is not the real thing, its just not, there is no way you can even make it close to the same, imagining an oppent simply dont work, because you will be drawing of assumptions on how your opponent will act/react, so youd have to have a real person to make it a little more realistic, its not like you are planning on shooting them, that why you can have some twist thrown at you

now that i discussed why i need a real person to help practice, here is why it wont work, the guy you are practicing against knows you, and you know him, so if you are practicing you are going to be calmer, if your calmer you are not going to have adrenaline messing with your thought prosses, thus you will be less agressive in controlling your oppenent

practice does not make perfect, it will help a little, but real experience is always better, what you are describbing would be similar to someone claiming to be a karate expert, after watching a show on the discovery channel about karate

sounds like i might as well just tie up the person instead of using my gun to keep him in check, maybe a spray bottle too

I respectfully disagree with your thinking mostly out of my concern of your safety. You do not seem to understand how dangerous situation like that could become. It is your life and your family lives are at stake here, you really could not afford not to practice and be prepare. A firearm is more dangerous to an untrained owner than any potential robbers.

You need regular simulation firearm training at home to discover the best defensive spots and how to take advantage of those locations. You would not think of such things until you conduct some serious drills at your home.

It would also helps immensely if you took some firearms defensive courses to further strengthen your abilities.

You have a baseball bat do not automatically makes you a baseball star. You need to work at it, practice, practice and more practice. This is the only approach to prepare yourself for defending your own home.

 

[kingcheese]

zollen, i guess we will just have to agree to disagre

i dont believe that your kinda practice will help me, and you believe it will

the time i use to practice goes into tracking targets, breathing, trigger control, and rapid reloading, i dont get my guns out unless i am going to shoot it

might be the reason that i dont htink practice like your saying will help is because my house is small and very open, there is in fact, no place to hide

 

[blarby]

I personally believe that singlehandedly trying to cuff, ziptie, restrain etc. Your intruder is more than likely going to become a bad situation for you.

Let's even go a step further and assume another trained housemate has a weapon, maybe yours as you exchanged the weapon for the cuffs......and a struggle ensues.

Do you want to be the one pulling the trigger on the melee? Would you feel any more comfortable having a loved one charged with adrenaline in a situation such as this one behind the trigger either?

I wouldn't choose to be in either set of shoes... I can see no good and valid reason to place yourself in this tactically jeopardizing position.


All things considered, if your attacker has the mindset to "give up" at gunpoint and become prone....not flee... you lucked out. I'd say let's not give him a chance to rethink his strategy by being able to overpower you physically. His judgement is obviously flawed by entering your home, let's not test his mental footpaths and roll those dice again unnecessarily when its not warranted.


Navy, klean : carry on ! Sorry to interrupt.

 

[matt_borror]

as someone not knowing the law on detaining someone in my state of maryland I'd feel more safe in the legal sense in shooting someone than in trying to detain them. maybe thats stupid and I should know the law, but in this liberal state I think the DA would try and misconstrue this.

 

[03Shadowbob]

I personally believe that singlehandedly trying to cuff, ziptie, restrain etc. Your intruder is more than likely going to become a bad situation for you.

Ask any LEO and 90% of them would tell you, one of their most vulnerable times on the job is when handcuffing someone. If these guys who do this day in and day out feel that way and they understand the risks and have seen the results of someone who decided they didn't want to be handcuffed after the first clickity clack on the first wrist, what makes you think you are trained to do it unless you are a LEO or trainer?
Telling someone to handcuff another person is a terrible idea and that person likely has no real world experience in doing so.
Like a previous poster said, toss them the cuffs and have them handcuff themselves if you feel you must do something like that.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...as someone not knowing the law on detaining someone in my state of maryland I'd feel more safe in the legal sense in shooting someone than in trying to detain them. maybe thats stupid and I should know the law,...

I'm sorry, but let's be clear. The BG has given up and you think you'd be legally better off to shoot him than to try to detain him because you don't know the law about detaining someone? Is that what you're suggesting?

If so, that's a very bad idea. One may be legally justified in using lethal force to prevent an immediate, potentially deadly attack, but not after a threat has ended (i. e., the BG gives up).

And yes, if you have guns, you should know the law.

 

[matt_borror]

i'm saying that personally I wouldn't take the chance of letting someone surrender. If they're in my house I'm going to shoot after I have a positive ID. I wouldn't TRY to get someone to surrender.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...i'm saying that personally I wouldn't take the chance of letting someone surrender. If they're in my house I'm going to shoot after I have a positive ID. I wouldn't TRY to get someone to surrender...

Interesting. So you'd shoot someone who clearly and in no way posed a threat to you? What if he has his back to you? What if he's on his way out? Are you going to ambush him? What if he sees you and immediately drops to his knees begging for his life? You're still going to shoot him?

It appears that some good training, including some education in the laws relating to the use of lethal force in self defense, is in order. An NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home class would do you some good.