Controlling a suspect

[Wildalaska]

If I see a bearded figure, stalking his way towards my bedroom, or across the hall towards my kids' rooms, I'm going to take immediate action on him. No doubt.

So yer the ba**ard that killed Santa Claus! I had my eyes on a new case trimmer and I have been good too.!!!!!

PS...here is NY law:

"A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary"

Here is Alaskas

A person in possession or control of any premises, or an express or implied agent of that person, may use

(1) nondeadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by the other of criminal trespass in any degree upon the premises;

(2) deadly force upon another when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to terminate what the person reasonably believes to be a burglary in any degree occurring in an occupied dwelling or building.

Technically, therefore, you could be justified in pulling the trigger on a person burgurgling your house even if he is begging for mercy and crying like a girl, since as BillCA points out, it is entirely reasonable to assume potential continued irrational/criminal behavior for some one irrational enough to burgurgle a home at night in the first place.

Youre under no obligation under those two statutes to give warning, say "freeze' or do anything other than ID the intruder as a burgurgler and blast him if you so chose. Your moral values may cause you to do different. Please consult an atty for further info

WildrealpolitikinthehomeAlaska TM

 

[JoeBlackSpade]

Escalation Of Force!!!!

Folks who clear own house/judged by 12 instead of carried by 6/drag 'em back inside and shoot 'em again from the front this time: I'll never counsel you to do otherwise. Bless your hearts, you're the reason armed homeowners have a deterrent effect on crime.

Drag 'em back in? Might throw my back out in the process.



Seriously, morals and ethics aside, I hope we all understand that shooting a man in the back, as he jumps out of your bedroom window like a Jamaican track star at the Olympic 200 meter Hurdles, is going to be REALLY difficult to explain as legitimate self defense. Especially when there are ballistic entry wounds on the person's back or sides. If you didn't get him while he was inside the house, your chance has pretty much passed.

So yer the ba**ard that killed Santa Claus! I had my eyes on a new case trimmer and I have been good too.!!!!!

I've got his bag, and 2 years' worth of frozen reindeer venison! Your case trimmer wasn't in the bag. I think you were on the list of coal recipients. I'm the only freak awake at 7 a.m. on Sunday in my house, and I laughed hard enough here to wake my wife. Thanks alot!!!

The Escalation of Force Pyramid
Force Continuum Pyramid
But use-of-force escalation pyramid model thingy works too.

One of the things that is absolutely mandatory for just about any professional organization that uses firearms is the establishment of a logical, functional Escalation of Force Pyramid, or Escalation of Force Matrix. Everyone, from the local Police to the US Marines in a Force Recon Direct Action platoon, to the men who guard the President of the USA, to retired and former Navy SEALS that work with Blackwater in Iraq, always have an exceptionally clear, "black and white", yes-or-no comprehension of when they can - and when they can not- pull the trigger. A good organization will drill and rehearse scenarios in order to determine whether or not a new recruit/trainee can distinguish between scenarios that do, and do not merit deadly force. Those who cannot make that determination end up in a job that involves counting gas masks, or licking stamps.

While this is sometimes referred to as "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) on the military side, or may come by other names, it always serves the purpose of when and how to engage a potential enemy / attacker. Obviously, a tanker behind the trigger of a 120mm cannon is going to have slightly different concerns than the sheriff of a quiet county, but the idea is still the same: Don't wait until you have an escalating situation to give this subject some thought. If you drive a car, you are responsible for knowing the rules of the road. Ignorance of the law does not constitute immunity from the law. Likewise if you wield the power to end a life, you are responsible for getting informed on the appropriate applications. If you value the combined experience of Law Enforcement, Special Forces, Soldiers, SWAT and other well-qualified individuals, then it probably makes good sense to do what they do: Get yourself a CLEAR PICTURE of when you can, and when you cannot shoot. Anything less than clarity on this matter makes you a complete amateur, no matter how many red stars you can shoot out of a carnival game, no matter how cool your Safariland 6274 Tactical Holster is.


Use of deadly force is not a feeling, or an inclination. When you use it, you know you had to, to save your life, or the life of someone around you. That's the standard.

 

[easyG]

Seriously, morals and ethics aside, I hope we all understand that shooting a man in the back, as he jumps out of your bedroom window like a Jamaican track star at the Olympic 200 meter Hurdles, is going to be REALLY difficult to explain as legitimate self defense. Especially when there are ballistic entry wounds on the person's back or sides. If you didn't get him while he was inside the house, your chance has pretty much passed.

I wonder what a jury would say if the unarmed man you shot in the back had just raped your daughter before you came upon the scene and compelled him to jump and flee?

It's a retorical question.
My point being that there are many many factors involved in just about any shooting.
That's why we have a court system and trial.

If an intruder is in my home, I'll take my chances with a jury of my peers rather than try to subdue or "control" the guy.

And I maintain that anyone who will break in to another person's home does not value his own life or the life of the homeowner.

 

[Justme]

And I maintain that anyone who will break in to another person's home does not value his own life or the life of the homeowner.

Pure BS. People drive after a drink or two, they ride motorcycles without helmets, they don't fasten their seatbelts etc etc. Does that mean they don't value life?

Second hand smoke can cause premature death. By your logic anyone who smokes does not value his own life or the life of anyone else in the building.

It would be understandable that you would want to shoot and kill someone who has hurt a family member. Understandable and justifiable are not the same thing. I had a cousin that went to prison for shooting the man who raped his wife. He stalked the guy for three days until he got a clear shot, shot the guy then turned himself in to the police. The guy didn't die from the gunshot wound, or my cousin would still be in jail. The guy did die a few years later in a motorcycle accident. This was a fortunate accident, for my cousin, because I have no doubt that once my cousin got out of prison he would have found the guy and finished the job.

Don't assume that a jury of your "peers" will think the same way you do. Most people really don't understand how others think.

 

[easyG]

Pure BS. People drive after a drink or two, they ride motorcycles without helmets, they don't fasten their seatbelts etc etc. Does that mean they don't value life?

You're trying to equate someone who breaks in to another person's home with someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt???

It would be understandable that you would want to shoot and kill someone who has hurt a family member.

Soooo, if someone breaks in to your home, you would wait until after they harmed your family before you shot them?

If that's they way you feel then more power to you.
I prefer to PREVENT anyone from harming my family.

 

[Powderman]

G, what me and the other folks are telling you is this:

In order to use deadly force, the person you are using the force against MUST be active, in ALL of these categories:

MEANS: The person MUST have the means (weapon) to carry out a lethal threat.

MOMENT/OPPORTUNITY: The person MUST be in the act of carrying out the lethal threat, AT THE INSTANCE YOU USE DEADLY FORCE.

INTENT: The person MUST have shown--or demonstrated in such a manner that a "reasonable person" would believe that their IMMEDIATE intent is to carry out the threat AT THAT MOMENT.

What does this mean? IANAL--just your garden variety dumb cop--but here's a couple of scenarios:

1. You hear the thump in the night. You observe--from concealment and/or cover--an unknown male in the middle of your living room. No weapons are visible.

Shoot in this scenario, you're more than likely going to jail for Manslaughter.

2. Same scenario, but the person has a firearm in their hand.

In this scenario, you will more than likely be found justified. Depends on the jurisdiction, and how vigorously the prosecutor chases it.

3. Guy's in the house. He's downstairs, but starts coming up. You challenge him (tell him to stop). He turns and runs, wailing like a two year old with an earache. You shoot.

Here, you will be making an acquaintance with Bubba the Love Sponge, and will receive his Special attention.

4. Same scenario, but the guy keeps coming.

Here, you could probably articulate deadly force. Even if he is unarmed, he's coming toward you. YOU have a gun. If he gets to you, chances are he might attack you.

5. Thump in the night comes from child's room. You enter, and find the burglar there.

Pretty touchy on this one. I would challenge. If the person starts heading toward the window, post haste, I would probably let them go. Yes, I said it. LET THEM GO. You are NOT an avenging angel. Get a good description, a plate number, and call it in.

If you CAN detain them in this instance at gunpoint, then this is how you do it:

1. Prone them out--fast!
2. Arms spread, legs crossed, hands palm up.
3. State in a clear voice, "DO NOT MOVE. IF YOU MOVE, YOU WILL BE SHOT. DO NOT MOVE."

4. S/O in the home gets on the phone and calls 911. You hold the person at gunpoint, from a distance, until police arrive. When police get there, do NOT turn around with the gun in your hand. When you hear the officer, tell them that you will place the gun on the ground to your side. Do so if they request.

Like I said, TALK TO YOUR PROSECUTOR. They can give you the lowdown on what the rules of engagement are for your jurisdiction.

Your actions, if taken in the way you state, would fall under charges of various degrees of homicide. Consult the prosecutor--for your sake, and your family's sake.

 

[easyG]

In order to use deadly force, the person you are using the force against MUST be active, in ALL of these categories:

MEANS: The person MUST have the means (weapon) to carry out a lethal threat.

MOMENT/OPPORTUNITY: The person MUST be in the act of carrying out the lethal threat, AT THE INSTANCE YOU USE DEADLY FORCE.

INTENT: The person MUST have shown--or demonstrated in such a manner that a "reasonable person" would believe that their IMMEDIATE intent is to carry out the threat AT THAT MOMENT.

Powderman, this might be true where you live, but not here in NC.
Here's a section from the NC dept. of justice....

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.



Yes, in NC, you can be legally killed while just trying to force your way into another person's home, even if you're unarmed, if the homeowner believes that you MIGHT inflict serious bodily harm OR if the homeowner believes that you INTEND to commit a felony (like burglary or rape for example).

 

[MyXD40]

This thread cracks me up. Honestly I'd throw fairy dust at them and tell them they're pretty. I'm sure they'd stand there confused, and brain dead for a second on what I just did/said. Long enough for cops to respond? probably not. However it would make for a great way to ease the situation

 

[Capt. Charlie]

Folks, once again, in this thread, the OP is asking how you'd control a surrendering suspect.

He is not asking whether or not to. Wanna go there? Start another thread.

He is not asking whether or not to shoot. Wanna go there? Start another thread.

Don't have any input on how to? Don't post in this thread.

If this doesn't get back on topic, well... the key is in the lock.

 

[ActivShootr]

I think the majority says order the intruer to the floor and wait for LE. The rest will shoot. A fund of honey-buns and cigarettes needs to be established for those that choose to shoot first.

 

[Justme]

easyG, you do not read well. You quote from the law and then make interpretations that are in direct conflict with what you just wrote.

I think your problem is that you do not understand what the term "Reasonable" means. A jury is not going to agree that a reasonable man who is armed with a gun felt threatened by the mere existance of a stranger.

 

[JoeBlackSpade]

Justme, I think easyG's got it right, and I fail to see where you'd disagree.

From his quote (assuming it's accurate) it appears that NC law pretty much has provided a net that protects the homeowner from prosecution (which it should), provided he reasonably felt that his life was threatened. If any man enters my home at night, uninvited, he's just entered a game of Blackjack, where the bet is on his life, and I've got all the Aces. My feelings are that the laws should always be written to protect the homeowner/tenant, who is paying a mortgage, taxes, rent, etc., and is a law abiding citizen, sleeping in his bed calmly at night. We might be taking things just a little too far in our interpretations on the application of deadly force, and in so doing, painting ourselves into a corner.

A jury is not going to agree that a reasonable man who is armed with a gun felt threatened by the mere existance of a stranger.

It's not the "existence of a stranger" that constitutes a threat, but rather it is the unlawful, univited, window-breaking or door-stomping entry into the defender's home that constitutes a threat. Sure, seeing a stranger on the curb is one thing, but waking up to the sound of a stranger slowly opening the doorknob to your bedroom entrance, at 3 a.m., is something totally different. The laws of NC appear to be pretty straightforward on that- as far as I can read into it.

Now, in keeping with the context of the thread, let's say this intruder notices you a split second before you notice him, and he surrenders, immediately presenting himself as your prisoner. What do you do? At this point, do you still shoot him? If you are like 99.999% of us, you won't shoot a quivering man, who is begging you for his life, hands-raised and attempting to surrender. Such a case appears to be a petty thief that got caught, saw your gun, and is now (rightfully) crapping his pants.

Of course, not everything is as it appears, and thus you have the dilemma:

a.) How do you ensure your continuuing safety, and the safety of your family?

b.) What sequence of actions/commands would you take on the intruder?

c.) How and in what sequence would you notify police?

d.) What would the law say, and how might a jury view the entire scenario?

 

[Tanzer]

A jury is not going to agree that a reasonable man who is armed with a gun felt threatened by the mere existance of a stranger.

Not meaning to be disagreeable here, Justme, But as a juror, I would understand that the homeowner would indeed feel threatened. I know I would. As I've said before through my exprience with "troubled youths", situations are downright explosive. As I look around my home, a respectable 2000 square feet, I wonder just where I would be able to order them into a prone position while keeping them away from something they could hurl at me.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far is the way in which one would hold their weapon. Would you stand tall and lean forward? Would such a position leave you vulnerable to falling forward if things went bad? Personally, I was thinking of being on one knee once the perp was prone, keeping the gun only partially extended rather than a full arm's length. Though I've not been trained in this situation, it seems that my options to "scramble" would be greater. Just throwing this out for debate.

Don't forget you may be controlling more than just the perp. Apartmment dwellers may find their nosy neighbors coming over to see what the ruckus is all about, or the guy who lives upstairs coming home from his second shift job. Don't forget the ansulary problems. You're handling all this while remembering Powderman's advice (hopefully) realizing that one mistake means those dreams of retirement are more likely to suffer fatality than the BG on your kitchen floor.

 

[JoeBlackSpade]

Here's my 2-cents:

If I sense that an intruder is in my home:

A.) Wife, get on the phone, call 911, stay on the line until the threat is clear. I hand her a Beretta with a mag full of Corbon and one in the chamber.


B.) I have a split-floor-plan so I'm grabbing my weapon (which, incidentally is a Mossberg 500 loaded with slugs) coming out at the ready, with the weapon off safe. I'm coming through the doorway fast, and moving into the main living area.

C.) My house is lit with small night lights. The result is that you can't really stand in too many places in my living room without being clearly silhouetted by those lights. A silhouette is enough for me to tell the difference between my 5-year old, and a 20-something who's broken in. With my shotgun at the ready, I'm confronting any intruder with a loud, powerful "HALT GET DOWN ON THE GROUND NOW". Any movement towards me, he gets a slug. A dash for the front door, he goes free. From there, I stay tactical, and enter my kids rooms. I tell them to get down under the bed and don't move a muscle. I stay with them until the police arrive. My wife is armed, hunkered down with the phone, and my kids are secure with me. Everyone is laying low until police arrive.




In 100% of cases where someone is kicking my door down, they're getting a slug. Granted, they'll hear "STOP, I'M GOING TO SHOOT!", just before they come through, however, if they manage to break through, they're done. No halt, no "freeze", nothing. The warning has been given, and they've just breeched my door. I have nothing to indicate that they were a lost camper, seeking directions. Those types use doorbells. I've seen other cases like this, and they've been justified.

 

[JoeBlackSpade]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far is the way in which one would hold their weapon.

I'll hold my weapon at the ready, just as if I was at a moving tactical range. I'll quickly acquire sight picture and alignment, and keep the weapon on center-of-mass.

 

[Lurper]

A jury is not going to agree that a reasonable man who is armed with a gun felt threatened by the mere existance of a stranger.

Sorry, I can't let these comments pass unchallenged. In just about any state with any form of the Castle Doctrine, this is just flat out not true. If someone breaks (or is breaking) into your house, you are justified in using deadly force. You have no legal requirement to warn them or try to control them. Even in many states without it, there is no requirement that the BG be armed. So, a jury would never hear the case because you wouldn't be charged.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far is the way in which one would hold their weapon. Would you stand tall and lean forward?

This is one reason why it is important to practice weak and strong hand only. The last time it happened, I had the cell phone in my weak hand (911 operator on the other end), pistol in my strong hand. It doesn't make a difference if you stand or kneel as long as you can see the BG (particularly his hands). I would suggest moving after he is prone to a position where he cannot readily see you like below his feet on the opposite side he is facing. If he turns his head, tell him if he moves again you will shoot. Also be aware of the rest of your environment. What is behind you? Can an unseen accomplice sneak up on you? Can the Police approach/enter without crossing your line of fire, etc. Remember, in your house you probably have very little cover - lots of concealment but no real cover, so hiding half your body behind the couch really isn't offering you much of a tactical advantage.

 

[easyG]

Folks, once again, in this thread, the OP is asking how you'd control a surrendering suspect.

Okay, if for whatever reason I decided to not shoot the intruder, this is how I would attempt to control the situation.

1) Upon discovering the intruder and leveling my pistol on him, give the command to "Stop! Don't move!".

If he does not obey those commands I would shoot him.
But if he does obey....

2) Command "Interlock your fingers on top of your head and turn around" (provided he was facing me to start with).

3) I would then try to slowly and carefully position myself so that my body was somewhat protected in case he made some form of attack....maybe partially behind a doorway or behind a counter-top, but always with my pistol on the subject.

4) Wait for the boys in blue to arrive.
I live about 10 minutes from the local city police station so, hopefully, it would not take them too long.

easyG, you do not read well. You quote from the law and then make interpretations that are in direct conflict with what you just wrote.

I think your problem is that you do not understand what the term "Reasonable" means. A jury is not going to agree that a reasonable man who is armed with a gun felt threatened by the mere existance of a stranger.

Justme, I think that I read just fine....but maybe you don't?
Did you understand this part:

"....or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence."

You see, in NC, the homeowner does not have to "feel threatened" by the mere existance of an intuder in order to use deadly force....he only must believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home (like burglery, or rape, or assault on a female, etc...).
And would it not be reasonable to believe that an intruder was in your home to commit a felony like burglary or rape or murder?