Rainbow Six
New member
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.
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.