Do You Challenge? With a Gun?

Capt Charlie wrote:

Law enforcement escalates force based on an established use of force continuum, and I think it's reasonable that non-LE should follow a similar course of action, i.e., use the minimum amount of force necessary to control the situation. Verbal commands fall within that continuum.
Click to expand...

Absolutely... However, properly trained law enforcement officers as well as prudent armed citizens should also know that it's well within the realm of possibility that an encounter can start out at deadly force on the continuum, and that there is no hard, fast rule (absent poorly written department policies and procedures or state/local laws) saying that any and/or all lower steps in the continuum must be exhausted prior to deploying deadly force if deadly force is immediately required. It is dangerous to think that one must start at the bottom of the scale and go one step at a time until deadly force is reached. Our department, and many others from what I understand, has gotten away from the old "step" or "ladder" force continuum and gone with more flexible, lateral use of force models for this very reason.

I live alone and only two other people in the world have "legal" access to my house. I would recognize either of them instantly upon seeing them and neither would allow anyone into my home without my knowing it up front. If I came home and someone other than those two people is inside my house, damned right I'm drawing. Whether I challenge verbally or not will depend on lots of things that can't all be addressed in a single post on an internet forum. Everything that happens past coming out of the holster with my carry piece of the day will be based on judgements made as the situation unfolds, just like at work.

Now, if I had a roommate, spouse, children, or any other person living with me I'd be a lot more careful about drawing down on someone just for being in my house when I came in. As has been mentioned, there is just too great a chance that someone else has invited them in to just go pointing guns at them. Short of them being visibly armed, or obviously an ill willed intruder (mask, bag of my **** in their hand, etc...) I think automatically taking them at gunpoint would be a bit extreme.

All told, there is no single "right" or "legal" answer to the scenario of finding someone inside your home. As with all types of armed encounters this is something that is going to require common sense (as already stated) and judgement. Pre-incident determination that you are automatically going to draw and take them at gunpoint, or more specifically that you are going to automatically shoot given an intruder is a recipe for trouble. May as well be premetidation as far as I'm concerned.

And on that note, I think an armed citizen should be held to the same standards as an armed officer. If you're going to carry you should go to the trouble of educating yourself on how to take someone at gunpoint. Saying, "I don't have the training a cop has so I don't feel obligated to do anything besides just shoot." is not acceptable in my book. If you want to carry, you have the responsibility to know how to do more than just shoot. As the old saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything will be treated as if it were a nail. If all you have in your mental toolbox is "shoot", then you are not prepared for an armed confrontation at all. If your only plan is to shoot without using any other means of force you're just as likely to end up being a murderer as you are a law abiding self protector. Even if you end up being "justified" in shooting, it will be due to luck or happenstance rather than your knowledge and skills. Luck or happenstance isn't the way I think deadly force justification should be judged.

I'm 100% for the use of deadly force when it is justified. I'm just as thoroughly against it when it's not justified.
 
Pre-incident determination that you are automatically going to draw, or more specifically that you are going to automatically shoot given an intruder is a recipe for trouble. May as well be premetidation as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

The recent Castle Doctrine laws premept these concerns by making the legal presumtion that someone in your house without a legal reason to be there is out to either kill you or cause you great bodily harm and you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself and your assigns and are furthermore indemnified against civil suits in the matter.



I think an armed citizen should be held to the same standards as an armed officer.
Click to expand...

That would certainly result in a lot more bloodshed. The bar is actually higher for civilians than it is for cops, who seem to have some type of built-in immunity to prosecution.
 
It is dangerous to think that one must start at the bottom of the scale and go one step at a time until deadly force is reached.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you brought that up Rainbow. To my shock and surprise, I've even found LEO's that believed that.

You're absolutely correct that you can, and should, enter the continuum at any point, although it should be at the lowest possible point where you still have assurance of being able to control the situation.

For those not familiar with a use of force continuum used by law enforcement, it generally goes like this, although it may vary slightly from dept. to dept.

1. Officer, or "command presence"
2. Verbal commands
3. OC spray/mace
4. Physical force (strikes, kicks, etc.)
5. Taser
6. Impact weapons (ASP, PR-24, etc.)
7. Point/aim of a firearm
8. Use of firearm or other deadly force

A continuum used by non-LE would probably have fewer steps in the ladder, but one thing remains the same: The point of valid and justifiable entry into the continuum will be based on training received. My belief is that defensive firearm instructors should at least discuss other options than a firearm, and the conditions under which those options should and can be safely deployed.

As the old saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything will be treated as if it were a nail.
Click to expand...
And that sums it up pretty well.
 
The recent Castle Doctrine laws premept these concerns by making the legal presumtion that someone in your house without a legal reason to be there is out to either kill you or cause you great bodily harm and you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself and your assigns and are furthermore indemnified against civil suits in the matter.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between being "justified" and "necessary". Are you saying that it's ok to take someone's life unnecessarily as long as it is justified? I've had numerous armed confrontations as an LE in which I would have been perfectly justified to close someone out. Fortunately, in all cases so far I didn't deem it "necessary" to do so and have avoided having to use deadly force to control a situation. Basing your actions on Castle Doctrine and the protection it provides without concern for anything else is ignorance and an abuse of the law. It would be just as wrong as me closing someone out every time I was justified to do so on duty without regard as to whether or not my actions were necessary.

That would certainly result in a lot more bloodshed. The bar is actually higher for civilians than it is for cops, who seem to have some type of built-in immunity to prosecution.
Click to expand...

Not sure this even deserves a reply... :rolleyes:
 
RainbowSix,

You coice a valid concern many have about the Castle Doctrine.

The State of Florida took the Castle Doctrine one step further recenty in the form of it's new "Stand Your Ground" law which moved the policy into the streets. To a great extent, these can amount to a license to kill, without due process:

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200551001015

http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBU8E8H9JE.html?imw=Y



I can hear it now:

"He looked at me cockeyed, your honor, so I wasted his punk ass before he could mofo me."

"Not Guilty."
 
While discussion of hypotheticals is useful and consideration of the approaches and tactics used by well-trained and (at least in general) phyically-fit police officers fascinating, there are many of us for whom such considerations are academic.

I'm not fit. I don't yell well. I'm not young. But I can handle a firearm and I live in a state with a good "Castle Doctrine."

I live alone. I keep my house locked, all the time, even when I am home, inlcuding the first-floor windows. No one has keys to my house but me, period.

There are times when I have come home to find a light on, one I don't remember leaving on, My hand was on my gun while I checked out the outside of my house, and the weapon was in my hand when I unlocked the door and proceeded to check the place out, even though I was nearly certain no one was in the house. (If I'd been very suspicious, I would have called the police -- see above, in re training and physical condition).

YMMV. In my life as I live it:
  • The time to draw is before you're sure you're in trouble; a determined bad guy won't give you time later.
  • The time to challenge and aim is when you see an unknown.
  • The time to fire is if they neither comply nor run away.
That's pretty harsh, I know. But I am not an LEO and I am not a highly-trained warrior. I'm just a middle-aged -- okay, old -- lady who can hit what she aims at and understands the Four Rules. The plain or garden-variety Bad Guy is likely bigger and faster than me, so I need every advantage I can get.

Other people may have the luxury of considering the even-lower-probablity caveats and exceptions to the already low-probability happenstance of finding an unknown in your house; I do not. Others may live in such wise as to have a relatively constant influx of strangers, as the parents of socially-active children have reported here, and I think my approach would be a very poor one for them. --Of course, if you have a family under your roof, not only is there an increased risk, you've also got backup. Some of us don't, other than Mr. Colt, Mr. Glock, or Messers. Smith and Wesson.

My sidearm has cleared leather a lot of times without my having to shoot. That's normal procedure for self-defensive firearm use. But if ever I believe I need to shoot, I will, and without fretting a lot about it. For me, it really is better to live to possibly have regrets than die trying to avoid them.

"Internet bravado" isn't in it. It's about surviving. The brave and the strong, the bold and the quick all have their moment but in the long run, fortune favors those who are prepared.
 
Now that TFL staff has verified him as such, I'd also like to welcome Mr. Ayoob here. :)

I'm sure he'll be getting a lot of questions directed his way in the future.

BTW, I was Clint Smith, to make the point about online identities.
 
I usually don't do this in public but:

nbk2000-
Rule number 1 when you registered here clearly advises that registering under multiple names is prohibited. This is your one warning.

Denny
 
OC before USD?

That's what I've been taught. The main reason I carry OC is to make sure that I don't get into a situation that requires USD while armed.
Click to expand...
Besides which, the IACP looks at it from a liability standpoint. OC doesn't break bones ;) .
 
The recent Castle Doctrine laws premept these concerns by making the legal presumtion that someone in your house without a legal reason to be there is out to either kill you or cause you great bodily harm and you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself and your assigns and are furthermore indemnified against civil suits in the matter.
Click to expand...

True. But legality doesn't always trump moral responsibility.

Let's use Springmom's example - I'm sure that if she fell under the Castle Doctrine that she would have been quite LEGAL in shooting one of her children's friends before they identified themselves. However, I doubt that everything else after the question of legality was answered would go as smoothly. And since most people who carry are far more concerned with civil litigation than criminal....

You may beat the rap, but you gonna take the ride.
 
True. But legality doesn't always trump moral responsibility.

Let's use Springmom's example - I'm sure that if she fell under the Castle Doctrine that she would have been quite LEGAL in shooting one of her children's friends before they identified themselves. However, I doubt that everything else after the question of legality was answered would go as smoothly. And since most people who carry are far more concerned with civil litigation than criminal....
Click to expand...

Georgia applies Castle Doctrine to use of force inside your home. They also just recently passed a "stand your ground" law which goes as far as protection from civil litigation resulting from use of deadly force that falls under the law... Even so, as big a headache as the civil litigation would be, it still concerns me less than living with the fact that I killed when it wasn't necessary, even if it was justified.

For me it's about right and wrong, not criminal or civil consequences. Having such laws and the protection they may provide is nice, but I'm still going to apply my "necessary" standard to my own actions both on duty and off.
 
Alright, after reading through this thread I have a few questions...

1. Say that there is an actual intruder in your home (not a neighbor, or friend, an actual "badguy"). Armed or not, where is the arm in drawing and giving commands? I'm not saying you have to shoot him if he doesn't follow them, but it should at least keep them at bay. As well, if they go for a weapon or attack you are then prepared.

2. Say there is an intruder in your house, but this is a neighbor or someone who is not an actual "badguy". If you are unaware of these circumstances, and draw and give commands (again, not actually shooting, that is obviously the last resort). What kind of trouble could you face if they felt hurt or emotional distraught because of the incident?

I guess I can't understand why you wouldn't draw and give commands as soon as you saw an intruder in your home. That extra few seconds of having to draw could be your or your families last. I've heard many say the quote "if you draw, you're intending to shoot", since when, and why? If I need to draw to deter or lower a perceived threat, where is the harm in that? Thanks.
 
For eons in the South, folks left their homes unlocked. I like to think somewhere secluded and pristine like this place once was, they still do that. Friends and family would drop by unexpectedly and make themselves at home until the owners got back. You could often tell someone was in your house by the aroma of fresh coffee or the smell of cornbread baking. In the fall and winter, by smoke coming the chimmney. Force continuum wasn't in the local vernacular. Your Castle Doctrine was written on the welcome mat. The only thing said in a command voice instructed youngbloods in no unceertain terms to eat everything on their plates, or skip the apple pie.

After seven generations, we lock the doors now. A new Castle Doctrine law is before the state legislature, and I hope it passes muster. I don't know who broke the trust first, the crackheads or the meth freaks. But it sure is different around the place lately.

Awhile back Mas Ayoob wrote in Backwoods Home Magazine about the .45 APC 1911 pistol as the ultimate in rural defense handguns. I wonder what he thinks about the new .45 GAP plastic coated autos in today's rural America.
 
For me it's about right and wrong, not criminal or civil consequences. Having such laws and the protection they may provide is nice, but I'm still going to apply my "necessary" standard to my own actions both on duty and off.
Click to expand...

Yup :)
I think we're saying the same thing.

True. But legality doesn't always trump moral responsibility.
Click to expand...
 
Just because the law says you're justified in doing something, doesn't mean you'll escape the consequences of your actions.

It's especially stupid to do something as irrevocable as shooting someone in the very place you live.

If they are criminals, what about their crew/gang?

If a 'civilian', what about their friends or family?

If some trigger-happy idiot killed my kid, who was visiting over at his friends house when said idiot shot him, that house and all it's occupants would be smouldering ashes that night.

BADAL!

If you draw down on someone, time can erase the harsh words and hard feelings, but take someones life and you can never give that back.

You want to be macho and blow away anything that moves, fine...just be ready to move at a moments notice and look over your shoulder the rest of your life, because someone might be hunting you.

Think John Walsh, only with gasoline, not a camera, with you as #1 on the list.

Those who exercise self-restraint and good judgement get to live in peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top