Controlling a suspect
- Thread starter BillCA
- Start date
I'd tell him to leave, and he will leave regardless of whether he chooses to comply. It's just a matter of whether he walks out on his power or is carried out on a stretcher or inside a black plastic bag.
There's just no way I'd try to detain a stranger in my house at gunpoint. He'd be looking for every chance he can to turn the tables on me, because he won't want to go to jail... that's an extremely dangerous situation that I don't want to be in.
In which states is shooting someone , unknown to you and at night, who invaded your home considered murder?
Oddly enough I find this scenario more acceptable than the actual scenario where the guy shot someone through the door.
Of course if it's your daughter's new future husband whom you haven't met yet thanksgiving might be a bit tense this year.
Oddly enough I find this scenario more acceptable than the actual scenario where the guy shot someone through the door.
Of course if it's your daughter's new future husband whom you haven't met yet thanksgiving might be a bit tense this year.
rantingredneck
New member
In NC, if the individual is inside your home, but not a threat (i.e. hands in the air saying "don't shoot") then you better not shoot. If he's in the act of breaking into your house then you can use deadly force to stop him. Already inside and the rules change.
Well, after 7 pages and 165 replies, it's obvious that a lot of folks have NOT given much thought ...much less done any training... on what they would do if they actually caught an intruder already inside the home.
ATW525 makes a very valid point;
And I will admit that it might make a difference depending on where you stop him and the layout of the home. In some homes, you may be hard pressed to let him get to an exit without losing sight of him around a corner. In some split-level homes he might jump down a short flight of stairs into the garage...or your son's room.
Your particular circumstances will dictate if you can safely "direct" him out the door.
Justme recently posted
Mannlicher added
Certainly getting the guy out of your house has merit. But just what it is that you propose to do? Just tell him "Get out"... and leave the route he chooses and where he puts his hands up to him? I'm asking for some of the details because simply saying "I'd tell him to get out" doesn't give us much thought for maintaining control while he's getting out. (At least Justme said the guy had to keep his hands up on the way out. Add 1 point).
This may shock you, since I'm told by some that I have a penchant for sounding rational and reasonable on-line...but if I challenge and intruder and he suddenly bolts for cover, yes I'd shoot him in the back, side, front or top. Even if he jumps behind the sofa or heads towards the study, he's just become a lead magnet. If he's near the door and turns to exit, I may let him get away, but only if I can perceive that he's attempting to exit the premisis.
I have to agree with others, like JoeBlackSpade and even (to some extent) EasyG -- an intruder inside your home is a potentially serious threat. If you know the person doesn't belong there and command them to not move, but they make a sudden move you must make a decision in about 0.4 seconds.
But because someone is potentially a threat, doesn't mean the necessarily are a threat. That guy who pushed the screen out and slithered in the partially opened kitchen window -- who puts his hands up saying "don't shoot!" when you show up -- may have barely escaped a pair of thugs intent on doing him in.
Two more things to think about...
1. What do you do if the intruder is a woman? I'm not talking a woman who is dressed like a south-of-the-tracks trailer trash either. Miss/Mrs/Mz average looking woman.
2. When do you turn on the lights?
ATW525 makes a very valid point;
And I will admit that it might make a difference depending on where you stop him and the layout of the home. In some homes, you may be hard pressed to let him get to an exit without losing sight of him around a corner. In some split-level homes he might jump down a short flight of stairs into the garage...or your son's room.
Your particular circumstances will dictate if you can safely "direct" him out the door. Justme recently posted
Which I see as a flippant remark to saying he'd let the guy go.
Mannlicher added
Certainly getting the guy out of your house has merit. But just what it is that you propose to do? Just tell him "Get out"... and leave the route he chooses and where he puts his hands up to him? I'm asking for some of the details because simply saying "I'd tell him to get out" doesn't give us much thought for maintaining control while he's getting out. (At least Justme said the guy had to keep his hands up on the way out. Add 1 point).
.justme said:
This may shock you, since I'm told by some that I have a penchant for sounding rational and reasonable on-line...but if I challenge and intruder and he suddenly bolts for cover, yes I'd shoot him in the back, side, front or top. Even if he jumps behind the sofa or heads towards the study, he's just become a lead magnet. If he's near the door and turns to exit, I may let him get away, but only if I can perceive that he's attempting to exit the premisis.
I have to agree with others, like JoeBlackSpade and even (to some extent) EasyG -- an intruder inside your home is a potentially serious threat. If you know the person doesn't belong there and command them to not move, but they make a sudden move you must make a decision in about 0.4 seconds.
But because someone is potentially a threat, doesn't mean the necessarily are a threat. That guy who pushed the screen out and slithered in the partially opened kitchen window -- who puts his hands up saying "don't shoot!" when you show up -- may have barely escaped a pair of thugs intent on doing him in.
Two more things to think about...
1. What do you do if the intruder is a woman? I'm not talking a woman who is dressed like a south-of-the-tracks trailer trash either. Miss/Mrs/Mz average looking woman.
2. When do you turn on the lights?
ActivShootr
New member
While civil law provides that one is entitled to use force to defend his property, that force must be reasonable in light of the circumstances. Deadly force is only allowed in situations where one has an immediate fear for his saftey or the saftey of others. If you can prove an intruder is armed, then you are justified in shooting him or her. If you shoot an unarmed person, chances are a jury of your peers will convict you of at least manslaughter. If you do happen to go free, a civil suit will most likely ensue. The safest bet is to order the intruder to the floor. If he/she is unarmed, they most likely will comply. If they are armed, make every shot count.
Not true. A jury more than likely would never get to hear the case since in most states you wouldn't be charged. Most states do not require that the intruder be armed for the shooting to be justified. Many states also shield you from civil suit if you are not crimimally charged. It's important to know your state's laws.
Mannlicher
New member
BillCA asks:
Bill, I don't care much about his method of egress. Watching his every move, of course, is a given. That sort of establishes some measure of control. If he leaves, I am satisfied. I have a smaller house, its not easy to leave.
Unlike so many, I have been in that position. I did not kill the guy, and he left. Police found him about a month later.
Next time my friend, I will try to call ya, and get a real expert's input. (if you get my drift)
Bill, I don't care much about his method of egress. Watching his every move, of course, is a given. That sort of establishes some measure of control. If he leaves, I am satisfied. I have a smaller house, its not easy to leave.
Unlike so many, I have been in that position. I did not kill the guy, and he left. Police found him about a month later.
Next time my friend, I will try to call ya, and get a real expert's input. (if you get my drift)
The problem with trying to maintain control over him while he leaves is that he might not be alone. It's very possible his initial, "Don't shoot me," reaction was intended to alert a companion. With that in mind, so long as he's making his way to an exit with haste and not heading in the direction of family members, then I'm happy. Any other reaction from him will likely end up in him getting shot the ground without hesitation.
If he does take off, I'd move into a position to protect any family members while waiting for the police to arrive.
ActivShootr
New member
I only posted after researching several law related web sites. If I am wrong then so be it. Wouldnt be the first time. I would rather be wrong and free than wrong and in jail. Plus I am not in TX so the laws of that state dont really apply to me.
Lurper is absolutely correct, and it's good that the law has evolved on this point. What I meant was, we are talking about killing someone here: There is a moral duty to be absolutely certain of the threat before firing. What if it's a family member or some other person who means you no harm, even though they're in your house at 4am?
Even if you are legally justified, don't shoot unless you need to. If I found someone in my house under those circumstances, I would still issue a verbal warning, probably. I feel that in the long run, the odds of me being able to gain compliance and not have to shoot outweigh the tactical disadvantage.
I would hate to have a "bad" shooting on my conscience, legal or not.
Mannlicher
Good call.
ATW525
ActivShootr
You bet I'm gonna shoot.
Rapidly and repeatedly.
Until the threat is neutralized or controlled.
If necessary, I will retreat to a safe point to prevent him from accessing my family or getting to me.
I hear ya big guy!
Good call. ATW525
Like Mannlicher, you get it too.
ActivShootr
I understand what you are trying to say and in your state that may be the case. Even if it is the case, the justification can be made for shooting an intruder whom you have stopped at gunpoint when they make a sudden move. To wit;
- Burglary, generally, is an felonious entry to commit a crime, usually theft.
- A burglar's motive, generally, is theft for profit.
- Burglars do not wish to be caught, injured or killed.
- A "rational" burglar avoids homes where people are present to avoid capture.
- Because most people are home overnight, burglars most often burgle homes in the daytime.
- It is common for a burglar to arm himself with a knife from the victim's kitchen and discard it before leaving.
- Most people are in their homes overnight.
- Burglarizing a house at night is, therefore, not a rational act.
- A nighttime burglar in an occupied home is either unafraid of capture or does not have theft as his main motivation.
- A nighttime burglar, when caught at gunpoint, who fails to heed warnings or commands is, by definition, uncontrollable.
You bet I'm gonna shoot.
Rapidly and repeatedly.
Until the threat is neutralized or controlled.
If necessary, I will retreat to a safe point to prevent him from accessing my family or getting to me.
sw_florida
Moderator
In an attempt to sound reasonable
I would first, firmly, call out 'freeze' in the dark of my house, and if that shadow didn't freeze like you never saw a man 'freeze' before, the hell with him.
I would first, firmly, call out 'freeze' in the dark of my house, and if that shadow didn't freeze like you never saw a man 'freeze' before, the hell with him.
I can sit here and pontificate all night long about this--and other--statements made in this post. I won't, though.
I believe that Lurper said it best a bit earlier: Know your State's laws concerning the use of deadly force.
And, what is the best way of doing that? Simple....
Contact your local Prosecuting Attorney.
After all, this is the man or woman you WILL be facing in Court after you pull that trigger.
Anyone can say what they will do here, in this safe and sterile forum--but I can tell you this: When you talk about shooting an unarmed assailant, you are venturing into some really cold and lonely territory.
When you state here that you WILL shoot, and the conditions under which you WILL shoot, and HOW you will shoot, it will be a wise man or woman indeed who takes sage counsel of the law, as stated in Miranda v. Arizona, and Escobedo v. Illinois: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a Court of law.
Remember while this discussion continues that everything you have--everything you have worked your entire life for, your freedom and your good name--will be riding on the tip of a sear.
Remember that when you sit in the Court room that the defense attorney has a job to do. It is NOT to win an acquittal for his or her client--but to simply form a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. And once that happens, you're toast.
Remember that in our society, the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" cuts BOTH ways--as it is supposed to. In other words, the person you shot is presumed to be INNOCENT, until it is proven that they were in your home for a sinister purpose.
And finally, remember this, and remember it well: Human beings do not suffer grave injury quietly and neatly.
For everyone who has declared that they will go to extreme lengths to protect their families, remember that it is this family who will see a human being, moaning and possibly screaming in agony, blood pouring out, maybe coughing up their lungs (yes, I meant that exactly!) as they die, horribly and gruesomely, in front of you AND YOUR FAMILY.
Do not think that your children will remember you only as the great Hero, who vanquished the unwashed thug from their midst. They will also remember the human being who died as you stood there with a hot gun in your hand.
Am I saying that you should quail from the use of force to protect those you love? No.
All I'm saying is this...Think about it. Think about it, long and hard, before you use force to take a human life.
To all: Stay safe.
Silentarmy
New member
Freeze! Its what you do to the Hollywood movie you learned to say that from while you go use the toilet!
gordo_gun_guy
New member
Control training I was force fed....
So much training, and so much not applicable:
The worst first--I've had a quite a bit of physical control training. Sure, I know a lot (including ikkyo, nikkyo, sankyo); in younger days I studied aikido for 8 years, teaching for the last three. I studied a lot of other Eastern bad-assery as well as good ol' American Scholastic Wrestling. Some of that time, I had an instructor whose LE day job included being the county tactics trainer. We played around a lot with arrest techniques. It was great fun, and it absolutely confirmed I want no part of that when it's for keeps. Would I use it? Maybe to restrain a mental patient, drunk friend, or out of control diabetic. In a street/home altercation, no! I'm not a cop, and what good is it to restrain someone only to have his buddy sneak up and bust a cap in my neck? If I end up executing a technique that flows into a lock/pin rather than a throw, I'll simply blow through said lock/pin with maximum force to break the joint/bone and escape.
What else? In a crazy military career I've had occassional training on controlling folks at gun point/basic room clearing/challenging/etc including some lone actor training. All are flawed as applied to my home, because in my house I'm not an expendable cog in a layered defense. The one good piece of training was the standard cop use-of-force escalation pyramid model thingy. (BillCA, what's the right name for that?) Of course, our instructors pointed out that many things can cause you to enter the pyramid right at the top (lethal force); many of the home invasion scenarios described here would qualify as such.
Tunnel Vision: +1 to everyone who posted reminders to look for the OTHER threats/never assume he's alone. Auditory exclusion, tunnel vision, loss of fine motor control are all very real things you'll be dealing with.
Legal study: +1; you may feel forced to act in a way that exceeds the standards of your non-Castle doctrine commie blue state, but at least you'll know the "book answer".
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.
Not being a cop: Most everywhere I can think of, we non-LE citizens aren't held to the higher use of force standards of a cop. We DO need to abso-effin-lutely identify the threat as one for which lethal force is appropriate. We've got no obligation at all to make small talk (halt, freeze, drop your gun, etc.) if conditions for a good shoot are already met.
If you've noticed, in a very long post I never mentioned what I'd actually do...
So much training, and so much not applicable:
The worst first--I've had a quite a bit of physical control training. Sure, I know a lot (including ikkyo, nikkyo, sankyo); in younger days I studied aikido for 8 years, teaching for the last three. I studied a lot of other Eastern bad-assery as well as good ol' American Scholastic Wrestling.
Some of that time, I had an instructor whose LE day job included being the county tactics trainer. We played around a lot with arrest techniques. It was great fun, and it absolutely confirmed I want no part of that when it's for keeps. Would I use it? Maybe to restrain a mental patient, drunk friend, or out of control diabetic. In a street/home altercation, no! I'm not a cop, and what good is it to restrain someone only to have his buddy sneak up and bust a cap in my neck? If I end up executing a technique that flows into a lock/pin rather than a throw, I'll simply blow through said lock/pin with maximum force to break the joint/bone and escape. What else? In a crazy military career I've had occassional training on controlling folks at gun point/basic room clearing/challenging/etc including some lone actor training. All are flawed as applied to my home, because in my house I'm not an expendable cog in a layered defense.
The one good piece of training was the standard cop use-of-force escalation pyramid model thingy. (BillCA, what's the right name for that?) Of course, our instructors pointed out that many things can cause you to enter the pyramid right at the top (lethal force); many of the home invasion scenarios described here would qualify as such. Tunnel Vision: +1 to everyone who posted reminders to look for the OTHER threats/never assume he's alone. Auditory exclusion, tunnel vision, loss of fine motor control are all very real things you'll be dealing with.
Legal study: +1; you may feel forced to act in a way that exceeds the standards of your non-Castle doctrine commie blue state, but at least you'll know the "book answer".
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.
Not being a cop: Most everywhere I can think of, we non-LE citizens aren't held to the higher use of force standards of a cop. We DO need to abso-effin-lutely identify the threat as one for which lethal force is appropriate. We've got no obligation at all to make small talk (halt, freeze, drop your gun, etc.) if conditions for a good shoot are already met.
If you've noticed, in a very long post I never mentioned what I'd actually do...
Powderman - I think you and Lurper nailed it with
Different states use different "yardsticks" to measure justifications. Like many other states, California does have a "castle doctrine". And I have spoken to lawyers and prosecutors regarding unarmed intruders and in varying degrees their responses are that you show a logical justification that a threat existed. They want to know that you didn't fire "in bare fear", at a shadowy figure in the darkness or at someone fleeing out of the house.
Force Continuum Pyramid
But use-of-force escalation pyramid model thingy works too.
Again, the purpose of this thread is to get people to think in advance about what might happen.
Different states use different "yardsticks" to measure justifications. Like many other states, California does have a "castle doctrine". And I have spoken to lawyers and prosecutors regarding unarmed intruders and in varying degrees their responses are that you show a logical justification that a threat existed. They want to know that you didn't fire "in bare fear", at a shadowy figure in the darkness or at someone fleeing out of the house.
The Escalation of Force Pyramid
Force Continuum Pyramid
But use-of-force escalation pyramid model thingy works too.
Again, the purpose of this thread is to get people to think in advance about what might happen.