Bump in the night belt

[Jeff White]

If one can articulate the continued threat, restrain.

There is the kicker. The intruder you shot is down. Unconscious or semi conscious. Where is the continued threat? Would a reasonable man think that the downed intruder still was a threat? If he's still a threat why not just shoot him again?

Please stop the lawsuit fear garbage...it makes good honest people hesitate when they should act.

Sorry but you know as well as I do that the plaintiffs bar is continually looking for cases that they can ring up big settlements on. It's one thing to act to save your or your loved ones from imminent death or great bodily harm, it's something totally different to do something after the justifiable use of deadly force that can be construed as going beyond what was necessary. Cuffing someone you just shot is not likely to be considered a justifiable use of force in a civilian home defense context.

Lawsuits are an unpleasant fact of life. That's one of the reasons we train, so that our actions in time of crisis are good enough to win the fight and the inevitable criminal and civil judicial review of your actions. Talking about these things before one has a deadly force encounter is preferable to finding out in criminal or civil court that your presumptions about what was the right actions were completely wrong.

You can't make me believe that your department never trains on the legal aspects of use of force encounters.

 

[Wichaka]

We can all do the right thing and lose our rights...many good citizens have.

I'll say it again, the fear of lawsuits should not dictate your actions...the law should...yes there is a difference.

The law is written, yet interpreted in various ways, depending on the interpreter...aka judge and sometimes the jury.

Civil lawsuits are very much more loose about things...hot coffee for one, and we all keep hearing about the frivolous suits going around.

The outrageous statement got your attention, but as has been said by many people before me.

Get with an attorney, know your local laws and move on...but stop the fear mongering.

As long as we do our legal part, we still have no control over the aftermath.

 

[Balrog]

As far as restraining a downed intruder, I would have more concern about approaching him closely enough to restrain him than I would about being sued. Wounded animals can be the most dangerous.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

We can all do the right thing and lose our rights...many good citizens have.

I'll say it again, the fear of lawsuits should not dictate your actions...the law should...yes there is a difference.

And you know what the difference is, of course. You are just not willing to explain it...
figures.

The law is written, yet interpreted in various ways, depending on the interpreter...aka judge and sometimes the jury.

Civil lawsuits are very much more loose about things...hot coffee for one, and we all keep hearing about the frivolous suits going around.

Gonna go out on a limb here and say you don't know the details of that case.

The outrageous statement got your attention, but as has been said by many people before me.

So you agree that the statement it is absolute tripe?

Seems like lots of .gov employees telling me to get rid of my firearms and become a victim these days.
You one of those, or no?

Get with an attorney, know your local laws and move on...but stop the fear mongering.
As long as we do our legal part, we still have no control over the aftermath.

To tell someone that an action is not advisable because of potential legal action is not "fear mongering".
It's wisdom. And lots of people (you excluded, of course) need to have these conversations before they wind up in trouble.

You don't invite trouble into your life.
When you have trouble, you don't make it worse because someone (who obviously enjoys special treatment) told you not to be afraid.

 

[Wichaka]

There is the kicker. The intruder you shot is down. Unconscious or semi conscious. Where is the continued threat? Would a reasonable man think that the downed intruder still was a threat? If he's still a threat why not just shoot him again?

The reasonable standard applies to both LEO and citizen alike in Washington...so act accordingly.





[/QUOTE="Jeff White, post: 10870742, member: 112"] Sorry but you know as well as I do that the plaintiffs bar is continually looking for cases that they can ring up big settlements on. It's one thing to act to save your or your loved ones from imminent death or great bodily harm, it's something totally different to do something after the justifiable use of deadly force that can be construed as going beyond what was necessary. Cuffing someone you just shot is not likely to be considered a justifiable use of force in a civilian home defense context.[/Quote]

Again, am not concerned with the plantiffs bar. Know your local laws and act accordingly.

Am you glad you said "likely". But not set in stone.

[/Quote="Jeff White, post: 10870742, member: 112"] Lawsuits are an unpleasant fact of life. That's one of the reasons we train, so that our actions in time of crisis are good enough to win the fight and the inevitable criminal and civil judicial review of your actions. Talking about these things before one has a deadly force encounter is preferable to finding out in criminal or civil court that your presumptions about what was the right actions were completely wrong.

You can't make me believe that your department never trains on the legal aspects of use of force encounters.[/QUOTE]

I trained my department in use of force issues, also conducted Deadly Force and Officer Involved Shooting training to many officers in my state.

 

[Kleanbore]

If one can articulate the continued threat, restrain.

NO!

It is not the sworn duty of the resident to restrain, or tot take a suspect into custody.

Absent that duty, no one will pay for his defense, or reimburse him for damages awarded to an injured party.

You want him gone. If he is a "continued threat", doubly so.

Trying to restrain someone is a very good way to get hurt.

 

[Wichaka]

And you know what the difference is, of course. You are just not willing to explain it...
figures.


Gonna go out on a limb here and say you don't know the details of that case.


So you agree that the statement it is absolute tripe?

Seems like lots of .gov employees telling me to get rid of my firearms and become a victim these days.
You one of those, or no?


To tell someone that an action is not advisable because of potential legal action is not "fear mongering".
It's wisdom. And lots of people (you excluded, of course) need to have these conversations before they wind up in trouble.

You don't invite trouble into your life.
When you have trouble, you don't make it worse because someone (who obviously enjoys special treatment) told you not to be afraid.

You make many assumptions...one being special treatment, the other me possibly advocating giving up your firearms...Stay on track please. There are meds for that.

Folks reread my original post...everything I stated about restraining someone is based on articulating the facts of the incident, nothing more.

I still stand by the fear mongering of lawsuits. As I stated, know your state laws, get attorney advice...money well spent, and move on.

Once the incident is over, it's out of your hands. The best one can do is train, stay current on laws and be ready.

 

[Wichaka]

NO!

It is not the sworn duty of the resident to restrain, or tot take a suspect into custody.

Absent that duty, no one will pay for his defense, or reimburse him for damages awarded to an injured party.

You want him gone. If he is a "continued threat", doubly so.

Trying to restrain someone is a very good way to get hurt.

You're correct, it's not the sworn duty of a citizen.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

You make many assumptions...one being special treatment, the other me possibly advocating giving up your firearms...Stay on track please. There are meds for that.

If we're all concerned with possible lawsuits, please turn in your firearms and be a victim.

???

 

[Jeff White]

The reasonable standard applies to both LEO and citizen alike in Washington...so act accordingly.

So in your expert opinion an unconscious or semi conscious subject bleeding out on your kitchen floor is reasonably a threat? Is that what you're saying? I suppose the police and private citizens in Washington state are permitted anchoring shots to make sure the criminal stays down?

I know that you know better or you wouldn't be in the position that you are in. I also know that you are avoiding the issue of restraining a subject that you just shot. Don't hide behind, "don't worry about lawsuits" and address the issue that prompted me to bring it up. Under what circumstances are you justified in restraining an unconscious or semiconscious individual that you have just shot? That is the question here.

So let's hear your professional opinion on retraining a subject that you just shot.

Do you teach private citizens to restrain subjects they just shot in your classes? Cover speed cuffing in them?

 

[Wichaka]

Seems like lots of .gov employees telling me to get rid of my firearms and become a victim these days.
You one of those, or no?

No, and nothing what I said in that statement was stated that way.

Are you one of those that will turn in all your guns because the government tells you? And advocate others do the same?

 

[Wichaka]

So in your expert opinion an unconscious or semi conscious subject bleeding out on your kitchen floor is reasonably a threat? Is that what you're saying? I suppose the police and private citizens in Washington state are permitted anchoring shots to make sure the criminal stays down?

I know that you know better or you wouldn't be in the position that you are in. I also know that you are avoiding the issue of restraining a subject that you just shot. Don't hide behind, "don't worry about lawsuits" and address the issue that prompted me to bring it up. Under what circumstances are you justified in restraining an unconscious or semiconscious individual that you have just shot? That is the question here.

So let's hear your professional opinion on retraining a subject that you just shot.

Do you teach private citizens to restrain subjects they just shot in your classes? Cover speed cuffing in them?

Jeff, you're making assumptions and reading more into something that is based on a statement of articulation...nothing more. It is an open statement left as an option.

As YOU should know, leave all options open. One can not train for a gunfight you'll be in, you have to fight thru what you've been dealt. If you're fighting fair, you're doing something wrong.

I have sat in on numerous AAR's, debriefs, viewed exclusive video...even personally interviewed both LE and citizen alike. Have yet to hear anyone say..."Steve, that was an advanced gunfight I was in." No, what I most often hear is "Steve, the firearms and tactics training I received (and too often, didn't receive) didn't prepare me for this."

To your question...no, I do not teach citizens to restrain or any type of cuffing in any of my classes. I do not teach any type of unarmed techniques. Check my website...but am guessing you have.

I teach firearms only, how to become efficient with them so they can concentrate what's going on around them, not what's in their hands. Too many people want to run around with their caboose on fire, yet when confronted with a stoppage, they hesitate or go to pieces altogether.

My philosophies of instructing are based on actual experience vs some of the useless things being taught.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

No, and nothing what I said in that statement was stated that way.

You might want to edit your post, then. Or at least re-read it.

Are one of those that will turn in all your guns because the government tells you? And advocate others do the same?

No.
I am one of those calling someone out for telling folks to "turn in their firearms makes and be a victim" if they are concerned with legal implications of their actions.

 

[Balrog]

Thanks for totally derailing the thread.

Moderators: just close this thread and I will ask my question on a different forum.

 

[Kleanbore]

Thanks for totally derailing the thread.

Moderators: just close this thread and I will ask my question on a different forum.

You asked your question in the proper forum, but you did not explain what your query was about in such a manner that it should be answered meaningfully.

Just what is it that you mean by "handling a bump in the night"?

 

[Wichaka]

My apologies. Am sorry I made an option making statement that expounded on someone's mention of using restraints.

I will refrain from such conversations in the future...and not think outside of the box.

My opinion on "Bump in night belt", but I think I mentioned above...somewhere...

Seconds count, and if throwing on belt takes seconds, it may be a game changer good or bad.

Pistol bullets are very inconsistent in their performance, which is why I advocate a rifle or shotgun for such duties...have a light and sling attached and train

 

[Kleanbore]

Seconds count, and if throwing on belt takes seconds, it may be a game changer good or bad.

Very true indeed.

Pistol bullets are very inconsistent in their performance, which is why I advocate a rifle or shotgun for such duties...have a light and sling attached and train

Great idea, provided that when that "bump" occurs, the defender can access the shotgun immediately.

But "in the night" could include times in which the resident has not yet gone to where that gun is.

Depending upon the home layout, he or she may be much better served by having a pistol on, or immediately within reach of, their person.

"All in one place" would then mean with the resident.

Flashlight? It is always a good idea to have one handy.

Don't forget the smart phone--one that can immediately access the security cameras and enable one to speak via intercom to whomever might be outside.

 

[Balrog]

You asked your question in the proper forum, but you did not explain what your query was about in such a manner that it should be answered meaningfully.

Just what is it that you mean by "handling a bump in the night"?

Its pretty simple really. You hear a noise at 3 am that wakes you up. You need to check it out. Rather than trying to gather up your gun, flashlight, and an extra mag and trying to hold all that while seeing what made the noise, seems like having it all in one place and easily able to be carried would be potentially a nice idea. I was wondering if anyone had ever put together a belt or kit for that kind of situation.

I am not trying to subdue anyone, but a threat might be one cause of the noise. Or maybe it was just the cat knocked over a vase.

What was hard to understand? I don't understand how the question got turned into the merits of trying to restrain someone.

 

[Wichaka]

One problem I see with a belt system for fast response, is how to anchor / stabilize it fast. Just wrapping it around you provides no solid foundation. Unless your bed clothes have the other half of the velcro system to attached.

But overall it would be something to look at...like LEOs, all the equipment one place ready to go.

Ideas?

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

One problem I see with a belt system for fast response, is how to anchor / stabilize it fast. Just wrapping it around you provides no solid foundation. Unless your bed clothes have the other half of the velcro system to attached.

But overall it would be something to look at...like LEOs, all the equipment one place ready to go.

Ideas?

This, I agree with.

Without a pants belt, I need a leg strap or some other way to keep things like holsters and mag carriers from riding up.
My belly isn't big enough by itself to keep the belt in place.

I would think some kind of chest rig or plate carrier might be useful. But then you have the increased time it takes to get it on.

I see the merit behind a 'rig' of some kind, just not sure how to balance the time it takes to get on with stability and the immediate need to address a potential threat.

 

[Jeff White]

One problem I see with a belt system for fast response, is how to anchor / stabilize it fast. Just wrapping it around you provides no solid foundation. Unless your bed clothes have the other half of the velcro system to attached.

But overall it would be something to look at...like LEOs, all the equipment one place ready to go.

Ideas?

I don't know if this is even still available, but many years ago Second Chance marketed a fanny pack system that had a pull up armor panel. The idea was you carried your weapon in the outer pocket and if you had a reason to draw your weapon you could pull the armor panel up and slip the strap over your head. Only frontal protection and only level IIA but better then nothing. I dug mine out of storage and set it up for this photo.


This isn't my home defense rig, my old patrol rifle, Colt R6920 LE Carbine is within arms reach of the bed along with a Surefire. Even though my former duty, now re purposed for home defense weapons all have mounted lights, I always carry a handheld light. Your weapon is not a flashlight.

 

[Wichaka]

Wow, forgot about those. Never had or used one, but a viable option.

With the lightweight ballistic panels out now, wonder if the panel could be upgrade fitted with a IIIA?

 

[Jeff White]

With the lightweight ballistic panels out now, wonder if the panel could be upgrade fitted with a IIIA?

I’m betting someone could make a lighter and more compact rig like that now. A trooper friend of mine bought the one in the photo for off duty use and didn’t like it because it’s really too bulky with the armor panel folded up in it. He gave it to me. It’s sat in my chest full of gear ever since.

 

[RPZ]

My own preference being a rifle by the bedside an extra mag is not really needed. Arguably an extra might be prudent, but 20 or 30 rounds ought to be sufficient. 8 rounds of 12 gauge is probably enough too, and a shell holder on the stock is an option.

For pistol users for which a reliable extra capacity mag is available, why not go that way instead of carrying an extra mag? Saves possibly trying to insert a hand carried mag upside down or back to front. Otherwise it needs to be carried somewhere correctly orientated for a reload. Revolver users are faced with a similar need if they are going to be toting a speedloader or two.

Jeff White brought up something important I think is very often much sidelined, and that is the requirement for a separate handheld flashlight. This regardless of whether you live alone, have no kids sleeping in other rooms etc, or not.

For me, I can snap on a snugly adjusted synthetic duty type belt in less than 2 seconds that won't move around much at all without any additional stabilization. For those that need it, maybe some shoulder straps would work but it is going to take addition time to don without getting tangled up.

 

[sparkyv]

Has anyone ever considered putting together a belt that has the things you might need to handle a bump in the night, all in one place? For example, some type of duty belt with holster, pistol, flashlight, extra mags? Having it all in one place would be nice.

What would be useful components of such a system? I am not looking for something crazy tactical.

I have one. I do not expect to have time to fasten it around my waist during a bump in the night situation, but I can put my arm through it and maybe over my head like a bandolier. I have in it a knife, a loaded spare mag, and backup light. I pray to God I'll never need it.