Cornered Intruder

[Nnobby45]

I don't remember the exact magazine I read all this in, nor do I remember the author, but it's sound advice and is almost exactly the same procedure that many LE agencies train and use for handcuffing a compliant subject.

Any yet you remember everything else in detail.

Sound advice? Like how it'd be kidknapping to hold an intruder in your home at gun pont? Like refuse to discuss what happened to the police. Just let them guess why the man was on the floor at gunpoint and let him go because you're waiting for your lawyer to arrive before you'll talk to them.

If they come in and see a guy holding a gun on another guy that's laying on his stomach, who looks like the BG?

Oh right, LOL, since it's so common for the home invader to hold the home owner at gun point until the police arrive, the police are sure to figure the guy on the ground is the victim.

Sounds like a very good article if you like satyrical humor ala John Conner's Gun Crank Diaries in Am. HG.

Thanks for the laughs.

Not sure where you live, but sometime last year someone on this board relayed a story of kidnapping charges under rather similar circumstances.

I think that's bunk.

Not if it was home owner holding intruder for the police.

I'm not talking about holding your ex girlfriend and her new boyfriend at gunpoint when they enter your home with her spare key as they come back to get what she thinks belongs to her while you thing it belongs to you type of inncident. Or any other domestic type incident where posters tend to not remember the facts with re: to something the "heard".

I mean an intruder in your home where virtually every state recognizes the danger to the home owner and where holding Bubba at gunpoint may necessary for your own survival.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[jgcoastie]

Any yet you remember everything else in detail.

Sound advice? Like how it'd be kidknapping to hold an intruder in your home at gun pont? Like refuse to discuss what happened to the police. Just let them guess why the man was on the floor at gunpoint and let him go because you're waiting for your lawyer to arrive before you'll talk to them.

I stated at the top that all of this is assuming it's legal to detain an intruder in your area.

I remember everything else in detail because I deemed the content more important than the guy who wrote it. Not to mention that it is almost exactly the same as the procedures for handcuffing a compliant subject, up until the actual handcuffing part.

Refuse to discuss what happened to police? I didn't say that. You've already told police what was going on via the 911 call. No need to screw up the articulation after the fact and wind up in court over it. I don't know what training/education you've received on talking to police, but I doubt it equals that of a trained defense lawyer.

Oh right, LOL, since it's so common for the home invader to hold the home owner at gun point until the police arrive, the police are sure to figure the guy on the ground is the victim.

So you're saying that you shouldn't identify yourself as the good guy to police? Maybe you should re-think that. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather err on the side of caution when police will enter my home with guns drawn and I'm the only other guy in the house with a gun.

 

[Hellbilly5000]

do look into the laws alot is determined by what you say
if you tell him to sit down and shut up he is under arrest
if you say "can you have a seat while we wait for the police to arrive"
the second statement is a question and you are asking him to sit so therefor you have not deprived him of his rights so therefor not under arrest

 

[EMB135Driver]

If it's just you and the criminal in a room, with no witnesses, my gut tells me that you could do whatever your conscience could handle if he wasn't compliant.....ability, intent, and opportunity to do you bodily harm or commit a forceable felony can all be inferred from his actions thus far.....I'd say if he fails to obey any commands, you would be reasonable to perceive he still intends to do you harm, and act accordingly.

 

[jgcoastie]

If it's just you and the criminal in a room, with no witnesses, my gut tells me that you could do whatever your conscience could handle if he wasn't compliant.....

Witnesses ain't everything... Forensic evidence, namely GSR patterns would play a huge role in a murder case.

 

[OldMarksman]

I stated at the top that all of this is assuming it's legal to detain an intruder in your area.

I understand that citizens' arrests are lawful everywhere except North Carolina, and that in North Carolina one may detain a suspect for the police under certain circumstances.

Permissible circumstances vary a great deal.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the fact of a forcible unlawful entry into one's domicile would probably justify a citizen's arrest. Lay opinion.

However, deadly force would not be justified to prevent escape, unless a particularly heinous crime had been committed--and even then, in only one or two jurisdictions in the country.

More importantly, a citizen's arrest can place the citizen at very great risk, both in terms of potential criminal charges and in regard to civil liability.

A sworn officer is indemnified by his community against civil liability. But a citizen who effects a citizen's arrest is not, and he is completely responsible for whatever harm should befall the intruder from the point of the arrest forward. Chest pains? Uh oh!

So the obvious question is, why would anyone in his right mind put himself and his fortune in jeopardy to try to prevent the escape of someone, when the departure of same would suffice in ending the immediate threat?

Someone might be tempted to muse about what the perp just might do later. Not relevant to justification of the use of deadly force anywhere, I'm afraid, and not something i'd put my life, liberty and personal fortune at stake for...particularly when the fellow might well walk a few hours later anyway.

I have used forearms to stop three home invasions, without firing a shot. All three intruders fled or chose to depart, and that reduced the level of danger immediately and significantly. I incurred no large legal expenses. Good outcome.

 

[troy_mclure]

A couple of questions come immediately to mind. This side of the story is so outrageous that there must be other factors involved.

Does the Sheriff have some kind of relationship with the three goat-rustlers? Or a beef with the Goatherd?

What are the laws in this jurisdiction about 1) firearms, 2) goat theft or property crimes in general and the use of deadly force in enforcing ownership rights?

Why were the three guys not charged with theft, since there was clearly a complainant present? Were they asserting some kind of ownership rights over the goats or did the old man refuse to file a charge? Is there a reason the Sheriff could not have arrested everyone, if there were uncertainties about the events or status?

The time he spend in jail, was that being held for trail, arraignment or something or was he found guilty of something and thus served a sentence?

Lost Sheep

he was charged with assult with a deadly weapon, and the charges were later dropped. he still hasent got his shot gun back either.

the goat theives were illegals from a farm a few miles down the road.

and the sherriff was big time anti gun, and thought to use the guy in his re-election campaign.

 

[JohnKSa]

legally you may be better off if "they came right at you" and you had to shoot them.

Suggesting that you kill someone when you don't need to in order to simplify legal matters is completely unacceptable at TFL.

You can not shoot criminals to make your life easier or to avoid prosecution, that is called MURDER.

If it's just you and the criminal in a room, with no witnesses, my gut tells me that you could do whatever your conscience could handle if he wasn't compliant...

Folks, deadly force laws do NOT give you the power of God over a criminal--you don't automatically get to shoot them because they don't obey you. The deadly force laws ONLY give you very limited rights to prevent certain carefully described crimes.

The only time it's legal to shoot someone for not obeying you is if they are committing or about to commit one of the very specific crimes that justifies deadly force and you command them to stop.

<<<After an PM exchange with Matt (EMB135Driver), I don't believe I accurately characterized his comment above. It was, rather, a case of miscommunication. He did not intend to imply that one should take advantage of the lack of witnesses in order to shoot a criminal solely for failing to comply.>>>

Just to make it very plain.

If you think that shooting people is a good solution in situations where deadly force is not legally justified then this is your warning to keep it to yourself on TFL. TFL was created for the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership. That does not include shooting people because they won't obey you or because it's legally risky to detain people.